They do look similar, but our material only has occurrences in "螭" meaning, while evidence in #8872 all mean "laugh". We need to be cautious on the cognacy.
This is from another unknown version of 正字通, where the character at this position is 註 and looks reasonable.
http://codh.rois.ac.jp/pmjt/book/200020612/
Could you check if the text in the original evidence is authentic?
What does it mean here? The character only appears once in this page unlike other terms, so need to confirm that this character is not an incidental mistype.
This word is also written as 𡯥尵. Considering both characters have variants with ⺏ radical, we don't believe that this formation is totally unreasonable.
I think the evidence 2 is clearest on the left component. You can see a slit in the middle of 臼, compared with 白 on the same page.
For the structure, we tried to represent Taisho's glyph as much as possible, and grouped 叒 together because of its cognacy with e.g. 𡂜, but the Tripitaka Koreana (evidence 3) glyph is also acceptable.
I am concerning that the quoted text is quite divergent from the original, that some errors might be mixed in. Below is the transcription of a rubbing of Ming dynasty calligraphy, and the character at the position is 靶.
In all previous books the head character looks like ⿰𠕎干, so the head character of Taisho is an apparent error.
In some books the specific character in the highlighted position looks identical to the head character, while other just like 肝.
Given this situation, we believe that the highlighted glyph represents the true shape of this character in Taisho (which is our primary target of encoding). But there would be also an alternative option to use ⿰𠕎干.
This character is probably not built upon the normal CJK strokes basis. We are intending to unify all occurrences of this character in our documents to the waseda glyph.
See a current surviving edition 小徐本 (說文解字繫傳) of 說文解字:
https://rmda.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/item/rb00031845
We see an annotation by 徐鍇 that he believes 孑戉 contain the questioned right hook character, which corresponds to the Regular script 𠄌 (U+2010C), so that we believe there was an established recognition (at least) in the Song period that 孑 uses 𠄌 as a component.
Some may have suspicion that how a character could have phonetic components when it belongs to 象形, but it is not uncommon even in the current versions of 說文解字 to show alternative analyses, as in the description of 孒 in the image above, or following examples:
The pronunciation given for 𠄌 in 說文解字繫傳 is 倶越反 = 厥.
Thus we believe that there is no contradiction and many circumstantial supports to think the one-straight-stroke glyph in our evidence is meant to be a variant of 𠄌, only deformed to match the Regular script shape of 孑, either because 慧琳 saw fit, or the version of text he quoted already looked like that.
Other
Regarding the comment #9364, the suggested punctuation:
「說文，無右臂。從了，象形。㇀ ，聲也。㇀音厥。」
is not likely considering the convention (體例) seen in quotations of 說文解字 by 慧琳音義. Recent critical edition 《一切經音義三種校本合刊》 also reads as:
「說文：無右臂。從了，〔乚〕象形。㇀ 聲也。㇀音厥。」 (p. 1582)
which means that this proposed character is the phonetic component of 孑. Generally, it is not prohibited that X聲 directly follows the 象形 declaration in 慧琳音義. It could be 慧琳's preference or a common style shared by texts at that time. Examples include:
Especially the 說文解字注 comment in the last example, contrary to the speculation that 「厂聲」 in 小徐本 might have been 徐鍇's invention, suggests the possible existence of such convention that predates the Song dynasty.
Other
I suspect that comment #9396 still wrongfully believe that we are "pushing something which is a stroke's character-ification into CJKUI". Indeed two kinds of arguments were made in support of encoding of this character in the Oct 19 discussion concurrently, which might have led to the confusion.
(1) This is a character which only has one stroke, thus is a CJKUI (maintained by me, etc.)
(2) Even if this is not strictly a character, it is useful to encode it for completeness and good evidence support (maintained by Henry, etc.)
I reiterate that our stance has been (1), and our point is already covered in the comment #9373. But let me recap the whole reasoning with full English translation for those who are not familiar with Middle Chinese.
a) text in our Evidence 1 & 2:
……說文：無右臂。從了，象形。㇀ 聲也。㇀音厥。
"Shuowen Jiezi: 'having no right arm. Pictographic character based on 了. Sound of ㇀.' ㇀ reads as 厥."
b) entries in 說文解字繫傳, vol. 24 (1st picture of comment #9373)
亅：鉤逆者謂之亅。象形。凡亅之屬皆從亅。讀若橜。臣鍇曰：鉤喙之曲𦬆[芒]。今曰逆須。孒[in seal script]從此。瞿月反。
"亅: barb of hook is called 亅. Pictographic. All characters under the radical 亅 are based on 亅. Read as 橜. Xu Kai's note: the bent tip at the end of a hook. Today we call it 逆須 (turned beard). 孒 is based on the character. Alliterates with 瞿, rhymes with 月."
𠄌：鉤識也。從反亅。讀若罬。臣鍇曰：鉤柄之表識。孑[in seal script]、戉從此。俱越反。
"𠄌: hook mark. Based on reversed 亅. Read as 罬. Xu Kai's note: symbol looking like a hook's stem (= checkmark). 孑 and 戉 are based on the character. Alliterates with 俱, rhymes with 越."
c) entries in 說文解字繫傳, vol. 28 (2nd picture of comment #9373)
孑：無右臂也。从了，㇄。象形。經節反。
"孑: having no right arm. Based on 了 and ㇄. Pictographic. Alliterates with 經, rhymes with 節."
孒：無左臂。象形。从了，㇓聲。俱越反。
"孒: having no left arm. Pictographic. Based on 了 and sound of ㇓. Alliterates with 俱, rhymes with 越."
With a) and c), we know the ㇀ -shaped glyph is meant to be the ㇄-shaped glyph in 說文解字繫傳 (which is effectively 小徐本 of 說文解字), but since 說文解字 list all head-characters in Seal script while description in Regular script, we still don't know what the identity of this glyph is. However, b) proves that this character is actually 𠄌 in the same book, which is a character that represents a word "hook mark".
The pronunciation of the proposed character is given as 厥 according to our evidence, which is in MC notation 臻合三入月見, or reconstructed by Wang Li as *kĭwɐt. The pronunciation of 𠄌 according to 說文解字繫傳 is 俱越反, which also indicates 臻合三入月見, or Wang Li *kĭwɐt. This perfectly supports that our ㇀ is a variant of 𠄌.
-----
Comment #9396 further states: " I would also like to point out that any character can have a reading (or name), including the strokes in the CJK Strokes block. We simply cannot document them in the Unihan database. Appendix F of the Core Specification, "Documentation of CJK Strokes," provides names for the strokes."
According to Appendix F, the stroke U+31C0 ㇀ has a name 提 (tí). Pronunciation of this word in MC is 止開三平支常, or Wang Li *ʑǐe, which is totally different from what is discussed here (not to mention U+31D9 ㇙ a.k.a. 竪提). This is parallel to the situation that a single horizontal line, U+31D0 ㇐, has a name 橫 (MC 梗合二平庚匣; Wang Li *ɣwɐŋ) but a character that only consists of this stroke exists as U+4E00 一 (MC 臻開三入質(A)影; Wang Li *ǐět) and means "one". Unless the comment intends that U+4E00 一 should have not been encoded because "yī" is merely a "name" of this stroke, we don't think the logic applies to this case.
IRG Working Set 2021v3.0
Source: WANG Yifan
Date: Generated on 2026-01-15
Unification
U+2E8C3
Though G glyph is apparently more correct.
?
《獨斷・卷上》「天子璽以玉螭虎紐。古者尊卑共之。」
《説文解字》「孑：無右臂也。从了，乚象形。」
Thus we believe that character is just a reflection of 乚 based on the regular script shape, and not a mere stroke.
We need discussion about whether 史/㕜 should be unified, and the UCV level.
We need discussion whether 罒/冈 are unifiable.
We need discussion whether 𭁄/屰 are unifiable.
We need discussion because it involves radical and structure differences with 㓹.
Needs discussion whether unifiable with 𠵢.
Attributes
But the glyph has undergone normalization. May need discussion about this case.
Change Radical to 31.0 (囗), SC=13, FS=1
Maybe Change Radical to 4.0 (丿), SC=8, FS=1 ?
supposed from the pronunciation.
Evidence
《蜀都賦》：「藏鏹巨萬，䤨摫兼呈。」
Could you check if the original evidence is correct?
https://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/bunko19/bunko19_f0021/bunko19_f0021_0001/bunko19_f0021_0001_p0081.jpg
《史記》「軒轅乃修德振兵，治五氣，藝五種，撫萬民，度四方，教熊羆貔貅貙虎」
http://codh.rois.ac.jp/pmjt/book/200020612/
Could you check if the text in the original evidence is authentic?
For the structure, we tried to represent Taisho's glyph as much as possible, and grouped 叒 together because of its cognacy with e.g. 𡂜, but the Tripitaka Koreana (evidence 3) glyph is also acceptable.
責: 責 (majority) vs 𧵩 (5 occurrences) vs ⿱𠆴貝 [[WS2021-03816]] (1) vs ⿳宀大貝 SAT-06862 (1) vs SAT-08945 (1)
賾: 賾 (majority) vs ⿰𦣞𧵩 SAT-09172 (4 occurrences)
漬: 漬 (majority) vs 𣿙 (5 occurrences) vs ⿰氵⿱束貝 SAT-06457 (2)
績: 績 (majority) vs ⿰糸𧵩 [[WS2017-03449]] (1 occurrence) vs ⿰糸⿱𠆴貝 [[WS2021-02885]] (1)
積: 積 (majority) vs ⿰禾⿱𠆴貝 [[WS2021-02885]] (1 occurrence)
磧: 磧 (majority) vs ⿰石⿱束貝 [[WS2021-02808]] (1 occurrence)
勣: 勣 (6 occurrences) vs ⿰⿱𠆴貝力 SAT-08806 (1)
賾: 賾 (majority) vs ⿰𦣞𧵩 SAT-09172 (4 occurrences)
漬: 漬 (majority) vs 𣿙 (5 occurrences) vs ⿰氵⿱束貝 SAT-06457 (2)
績: 績 (majority) vs ⿰糸𧵩 [ {{WS2017-03449}} ]
(1 occurrence) vs ⿰糸⿱𠆴貝 (1)
積: 積 (majority) vs ⿰禾⿱𠆴貝 (1 occurrence)
磧: 磧 (majority) vs ⿰石⿱束貝 (1 occurrence)
勣: 勣 (6 occurrences) vs ⿰⿱𠆴貝力 SAT-08806 (1)
Is this not a mistranscription from the left side of 艷 + the right side of 體?
https://kotenseki.nijl.ac.jp/biblio/200021269
《聖主得賢臣頌》：「庸人之御駑馬亦傷吻弊策而不進於行……及至駕齧𦡀𩥵乗旦王良執靶韓哀附輿縦騁馳騖忽如影靡過都越國蹶如歴塊追奔電逐遺風周流八極萬里一息何其𨖚哉人馬相得也」
Glyph Design & Normalization
In some books the specific character in the highlighted position looks identical to the head character, while other just like 肝.
Given this situation, we believe that the highlighted glyph represents the true shape of this character in Taisho (which is our primary target of encoding). But there would be also an alternative option to use ⿰𠕎干.
Other
https://rmda.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/item/rb00031845
We see an annotation by 徐鍇 that he believes 孑戉 contain the questioned right hook character, which corresponds to the Regular script 𠄌 (U+2010C), so that we believe there was an established recognition (at least) in the Song period that 孑 uses 𠄌 as a component.
Some may have suspicion that how a character could have phonetic components when it belongs to 象形, but it is not uncommon even in the current versions of 說文解字 to show alternative analyses, as in the description of 孒 in the image above, or following examples:
主：鐙中火主也。从■（⿱凵土），象形。从丶，丶亦聲。
履：足所依也。从尸从彳从夊，舟象履形。一曰尸聲。
The pronunciation given for 𠄌 in 說文解字繫傳 is 倶越反 = 厥.
Thus we believe that there is no contradiction and many circumstantial supports to think the one-straight-stroke glyph in our evidence is meant to be a variant of 𠄌, only deformed to match the Regular script shape of 孑, either because 慧琳 saw fit, or the version of text he quoted already looked like that.
「說文，無右臂。從了，象形。㇀ ，聲也。㇀音厥。」
is not likely considering the convention (體例) seen in quotations of 說文解字 by 慧琳音義. Recent critical edition 《一切經音義三種校本合刊》 also reads as:
「說文：無右臂。從了，〔乚〕象形。㇀ 聲也。㇀音厥。」 (p. 1582)
which means that this proposed character is the phonetic component of 孑. Generally, it is not prohibited that X聲 directly follows the 象形 declaration in 慧琳音義. It could be 慧琳's preference or a common style shared by texts at that time. Examples include:
「説文鐙中火主也象形從丶聲」（卷三十一）
cf. 大徐本「主：鐙中火主也。从■（⿱凵土），象形。从丶，丶亦聲。」
「説文從尸彳久[夊]舟象形尸聲」（卷三十二）
cf. 大徐本「履：足所依也。从尸从彳从夊，舟象履形。一曰尸聲。」
「盾所以扞身蔽目也以自蔽從十目象形厂聲」（卷六十七）
cf. 大徐本「盾：瞂也。所以扞身蔽目。象形。」
cf. 《說文解字注》「从目。（各本少二字。今依玄應補。）象形。（鍇曰：𣂑象盾形。按今鍇本或妄增厂聲二字。）」
Especially the 說文解字注 comment in the last example, contrary to the speculation that 「厂聲」 in 小徐本 might have been 徐鍇's invention, suggests the possible existence of such convention that predates the Song dynasty.
(1) This is a character which only has one stroke, thus is a CJKUI (maintained by me, etc.)
(2) Even if this is not strictly a character, it is useful to encode it for completeness and good evidence support (maintained by Henry, etc.)
I reiterate that our stance has been (1), and our point is already covered in the comment #9373. But let me recap the whole reasoning with full English translation for those who are not familiar with Middle Chinese.
a) text in our Evidence 1 & 2:
……說文：無右臂。從了，象形。㇀ 聲也。㇀音厥。
"Shuowen Jiezi: 'having no right arm. Pictographic character based on 了. Sound of ㇀.' ㇀ reads as 厥."
b) entries in 說文解字繫傳, vol. 24 (1st picture of comment #9373)
亅：鉤逆者謂之亅。象形。凡亅之屬皆從亅。讀若橜。臣鍇曰：鉤喙之曲𦬆[芒]。今曰逆須。孒[in seal script]從此。瞿月反。
"亅: barb of hook is called 亅. Pictographic. All characters under the radical 亅 are based on 亅. Read as 橜. Xu Kai's note: the bent tip at the end of a hook. Today we call it 逆須 (turned beard). 孒 is based on the character. Alliterates with 瞿, rhymes with 月."
𠄌：鉤識也。從反亅。讀若罬。臣鍇曰：鉤柄之表識。孑[in seal script]、戉從此。俱越反。
"𠄌: hook mark. Based on reversed 亅. Read as 罬. Xu Kai's note: symbol looking like a hook's stem (= checkmark). 孑 and 戉 are based on the character. Alliterates with 俱, rhymes with 越."
c) entries in 說文解字繫傳, vol. 28 (2nd picture of comment #9373)
孑：無右臂也。从了，㇄。象形。經節反。
"孑: having no right arm. Based on 了 and ㇄. Pictographic. Alliterates with 經, rhymes with 節."
孒：無左臂。象形。从了，㇓聲。俱越反。
"孒: having no left arm. Pictographic. Based on 了 and sound of ㇓. Alliterates with 俱, rhymes with 越."
With a) and c), we know the ㇀ -shaped glyph is meant to be the ㇄-shaped glyph in 說文解字繫傳 (which is effectively 小徐本 of 說文解字), but since 說文解字 list all head-characters in Seal script while description in Regular script, we still don't know what the identity of this glyph is. However, b) proves that this character is actually 𠄌 in the same book, which is a character that represents a word "hook mark".
The pronunciation of the proposed character is given as 厥 according to our evidence, which is in MC notation 臻合三入月見, or reconstructed by Wang Li as *kĭwɐt. The pronunciation of 𠄌 according to 說文解字繫傳 is 俱越反, which also indicates 臻合三入月見, or Wang Li *kĭwɐt. This perfectly supports that our ㇀ is a variant of 𠄌.
-----
Comment #9396 further states: " I would also like to point out that any character can have a reading (or name), including the strokes in the CJK Strokes block. We simply cannot document them in the Unihan database. Appendix F of the Core Specification, "Documentation of CJK Strokes," provides names for the strokes."
According to Appendix F, the stroke U+31C0 ㇀ has a name 提 (tí). Pronunciation of this word in MC is 止開三平支常, or Wang Li *ʑǐe, which is totally different from what is discussed here (not to mention U+31D9 ㇙ a.k.a. 竪提). This is parallel to the situation that a single horizontal line, U+31D0 ㇐, has a name 橫 (MC 梗合二平庚匣; Wang Li *ɣwɐŋ) but a character that only consists of this stroke exists as U+4E00 一 (MC 臻開三入質(A)影; Wang Li *ǐět) and means "one". Unless the comment intends that U+4E00 一 should have not been encoded because "yī" is merely a "name" of this stroke, we don't think the logic applies to this case.
Data for Unihan