Unify to 𮭘 (U+2EB58) after normalization?

[ WS2017-03912 ]
Unify to WS2017-03912 (KC-07866).

From the entry for 脨 in the Kangxi Dictionary (copied from zi.tools):
【未集下】【肉字部】 【集韻】趨玉切，音促。本作𦠁。弗𦠁。炙筯。或从肉。　又秦昔切，音籍。瘦也。 集韻(1039)

It appears that the shape for 朿 affects the pronunication and the meaning, so ⿰月朿 and 脨 (⿰月束) should be considered non-cognate.

Further sources from Jiyun are required.

They are two separate head characters, with the first head character in the same series as 促戚趨趣誎 (from phonetic 束) and the second head character in the same series as 籍耤藉莋葃膌 and also 刺洓 (from phonetic 朿).

Unify to 腳; change NUCV-343 to UCV-343.

Despite there being a NUCV-343 [卻, 郤], historically ⿰木郤 and ⿰木卻 have been unified at U+3B9D, until Unicode 12.0 where the G glyph was corrected from ⿰木卻 to ⿰木郤.

It is suggested to change NUCV-343 to a UCV rule, as it appears such variation is not rare. The non-cognate rule can be invoked to separately code characters with 郤 and 卻 when actually required.

According to the MOE Dictionary, this kind of variation is also seen in other characters:


We can add a new UCV "bottom part of 雋 to be extended at bottom" and "bottom part of 雋 on bottom right"

Suggest to add the following UCV instead:

To be unified to 珽 (U+73FD) after applying new UCV rule 廷 and 𢌜 in IRG 57.

Unifiable to 技 (U+6280)?

In WS2015 𰆰 (00511, USAT09010, semantic variant of 支) was added, while in WS2017 ⿰虫𰆰 (03847, USAT07003, semantic variant of 蚑) was added. Are there more examples of characters using 𰆰 instead of 支, and if it is systematic, is it better to unify them as a new UCV?

Unify to 膠 (U+81A0); add new UCV ⿱羽尒 and 翏.

Unifiable with 餮 (U+992E)?

This looks like a strict transcripted form; it may be better to add a UCV 歹/歺.

Unify to 缾 (U+7F3E); add new UCV 𰏤 = 并

Suggest to code 14-2725 (⿰糹虖) instead of 9-763C.

It's highly likely that 14-2725 would be unified with 9-763C. There is also 15-5721 which also has the same variant relationship with 2-5E4E. Inevitably TCA will need to register an IVD to support both person's name. TCA should preferably code the character which uses more common components.

Suggest to add 弯, ⿳亠业弓 and ⿱並弓 to UCV.

Additional characters encoded in CNS11643 but unencoded in UCS:
⿱並弓 is encoded by CNS11643 as 11-6924
⿰氵⿱並弓 is encoded by CNS11643 as 11-6064
⿰口⿱並弓 is encoded by CNS11643 as 13-4935
⿰氵⿳亠业弓 is encoded by CNS11643 as 11-7032

Per Ng Hou Man's comment, 䰪 (U+4C2A) is printed in the Kangxi Dictionary as follows:



Another version gives this, where the dots are slightly more clearly separated:



Note this is filed under 10 strokes, so the character definitely has 脊 on the left.

The pronunciation of T9-7B7C in the CNS11643 website is also mèi, which matches the pronunciation of 䰪 (U+4C2A).

Possibly Unifiable to 殛 (U+6B9B)

The given pronunciation is tì, which would make it non-cognate with 㻸 (U+3EF8). The pronunciation is also plausible as a personal name character.

Unify to 鄹 (U+9139).

Excerpt from Hanyu Dazidian shows that 鄹 (U+9139) can also be read as jù when used as a place name:


There is also a similar case in the UCV, with a single stroke difference:

Unify to 𥊑 (U+25291); consider new UCV 𭦟 = 曼.

SC=9, TS=14, FS=2

IDS=⿸鹿留

Kangxi gives a different form:


Which one is correct?

Which character is it equal to? (In Evidence 2).

It should be determined if it should be ⿱竹⿰魚詹, or ⿰魚簷.

Misprint of 骘? What is the main entry for 陰～ in this source?

I also suspect this is a typographical error for 啗. It's not uncommon for handwritten form of 臼 to be written in a form similar to 血; further corruption to 皿 is definitely plausible. I suggest UTC to withdraw this unless there is other evidence of such use.

Consider updating glyph and IDS to ⿰魚卯.

夘 and 卯 are unifiable per WS2021-04910:

04910

鼠 208.5.3

GKJ-00747

TS 18 · IDS ⿰鼠夘

IRGN2516WS2021v2.0Unified&Withdrawn
Unified to 𪕋 U+2A54B, add a new UCV rule of 夘 and 卯, IRG 57.

The glyph ⿰魚卯 is attested in 《重訂直音篇》 as a variant of 鰡 with pronunication 留, which is also consistent with the provided evidence:

The right hand side should be updated to have a hook in the middle stroke to follow modern PRC conventions:

It is suggested to encode TE-7465 ⿰禾巽 instead, and T9-7C5F be encoded via the IVD.

Entry for TE-7465 in CNS11643 website:

I believe the original glyph was OK as it's a reasonable normalization.

The editorial error has been corrected.

The editorial issue has been corrected directly by the ORT manager.

The editorial error has been corrected.

The Status field was left unchanged in error; the issue has been corrected.

The editorial issue has been corrected.

The editorial issue has been fixed.

I think we should try and see if the correct form is ⿱山𤲞 or ⿱山畬 (⿱山畲).

Based on the replacement character for the place names, it seems the pronunciation of the place name should be similar to 畬(畲).

To clarify the meeting minutes, in IRG #58, it was mentioned by Wang Yifan that U+9B06 鴆 and U+2B6B2 𫚲 are separately coded.

This was not discussed in IRG 58, but I believe the disunification of U+9B06 鴆 and U+2B6B2 𫚲 is not sufficient to prevent unification between GKJ-00351 and U+2EB2E, because U+2B6B2 𫚲 is in Extension C and it is a single source character with TD-6727, which has a pronunciation identical with U+9B06 鴆.

The pronunciation given in the Kangxi Dictionary is 辛律切, so the phonetic 戌 is the correct form.

In the meeting, Tao Yang said that he will try to find further evidence for the original submitted glyph ⿰信金, or withdraw otherwise.

頓 and ⿰击頁 are variants based on the MOE Dictionary:


But I couldn't find the scan nor other characters.

A similar case for 竟 can be found on the MOE Dictionary:

A point which I mentioned in the meeting:
For IVD registration purposes, it might be better to use U+8CAC as the base character instead of U+27D69, because U+27D69 is sufficiently rare and is also a transliterated form of 責.

Here are some Unification candidates:

According to the CNS11643, this character now has two readings: sǎn and chuí. That means this character is likely to be both a variant of 傘 and 垂.

The reading suggests the right hand side should have been 属 instead of ⿸尸禺. Could there be confirmation on the correct shape based on the romanization of the person's name?

As someone mentioned about evidence, here are some stone inscriptions where some 余 is written as ⿱人未 (due to time constraint they have not been circled):

Regarding the correct G shape, please refer to 汉语俗字丛考（修订本） (Source from Huang Junliang)

The character U+29C93 ⿺鬼夭 is also used by Zhuang, where the correct form is indeed 夭:


So it may be better to keep ⿺鬼天 and ⿺鬼夭 separate.

𧎾

賜

U+7164 煤

U+2C9C4 𬧄