𣣙 (U+238D9)
Both have the same reading, kuǎn; Perhaps extend, UCV i., Differences of extra or reduced stroke or dot, to 木 and 禾 where they are part of larger component, like ⿳士冖木 and ⿳士冖禾
As #5263 points out and supported by additional evidence in #1303, the readings are different (tì vs. zēn) so it's unlikely that these are cognate, and therefore they should not be unified.
The character 萑 can be read "huán" or "zhuī". 碓 is read "duì". Although there is some obvious phonetic overlap due to the shared phonetic 隹, the semantic spread would not normally allow unification of the 萑 and 碓 components, as is being proposed here. As students of Chinese historical phonology well know, the phonetic elements of characters are a valuable, though not perfect, guide to character meanings and cognate relationships. Even though TCA does not attach importance to character readings, the users of those characters do and have provided different readings for T9-7658 and TE-2622.
Moreover, due to it's shape and Vietnamese reading "hoàn", 萑 can be found as a simplification of the component 雚. For example, U+28B36 𨬶, "quán", meaning "tub". This is also a possibly unifiable variant of the component ⿱龷隹 found in U+2D13F 𭄿, U+2B790 𫞐, etc., which in Vietnamese are written with one less stroke as seen in the picture below. In general, it would be best to only unify characters with different structures when those differences do signal different readings.
We now believe that this character is identical to 𢂞 (U+2209E), Vietnamese "bố". Both have a semantic overlap meaning "father" and the source glyph for U+2209E seen in "Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt" shown below has the same semantic and phonetic, ⿱父布. We propose to unify, changing the glyph for U+2209E to this.
If we are going to not use the semantic element (中) to determine the radical, we should use consider a new radical variant of 212, since the left side, U+31DE5, is a simplification of 龍.
There is no clear semantic element in this character. The meaning is "back of the neck, nape". The phonetic is probably the final of 孛. 乙 may be a device to mark this for "nôm" usage. Whichever radical increases "discoverability" is fine as primary radical, so 乙 might be better.
Here's an image of the inscription on the sword found at the Inariyama tomb mentioned in #6206
Note that the name is almost always transcribed as 獲加多支鹵大王 (わかたけるだいおう or わかたけるのおおきみ) and thought to be the name of emperor Yūryaku.
As Taberd shows, this character is used in the compound, "tục tiũ", meaning "obscene". Note, in modern standard orthography, it is written "tĩu" with the tone mark over the nuclear vowel: “i”, not over the glide "u".
As I read the second image above, the printed text version, it looks like 01460 is a typo for the character 拏 in 本拏哩迦 (puṇḍarika). So, it would be more helpful to see the full text of the entry 牽我 to the left.
The evidence does not directly show a relationship between 毓 (U+6BD3) and WS2001-02259-SAT-06739. Rather, as I understand it, the text says that the ancient form of the second character in the term being glossed, 粥, written 鬻 (U+9B3B), is derived from WS2001-02259-SAT-06739 and 鬲 (U+9B32). It's plausible that these are variants: other sources relate 育 and 毓, and the text here says that WS2001-02259-SAT-06739 is has the sound 育. So they apparently share a reading. However, unless I'm missing something obvious here, it would be good to see other evidence that suggests the variant relationship.
The evidence in #1228 says this should be read as 玉, i.e. "yù". This doesn't match the reading given originally, "liú". Is there more evidence to support "liú"?
As #7860 points out, this is similar in shape to U+247AC 𤞬, which is also a personal name used in Taiwan. The given reading, "suàn" is no doubt derived from the right side of TD-7521, 𬙬, which is a variant of 算 (suàn). The reading for U+247AC 𤞬 could be "lòng" if it comes from the phonetic 弄, but we have no data. If so, they are likely different characters. It would be good to have more evidence for both characters to determine a possible relationship.
The evidence supplied in #1322 says this is equivalent to 黨 (U+9EE8) "dǎng". The reading given by TCA is "dāng". Is the latter just a guess based on 當 (U+7576) "dāng"?
Agree with #10595. When it comes to characters used for transliteration, we cannot assume any cognate relationship since characters are chosen to match the phonetics of the foreign term, the pronunciation of which may vary by time (e.g sanskrit vs. prakrit). Here are additional transliterations of "ghaṇṭā" 犍坻, 犍椎, 犍稚, 揵鎚.
This character is also included in the "Bảng Chữ Hán Nôm Chuẩn Thường Dùng" (List of Frequently Used Standard Hán-Nôm) <http://www.hannom-rcv.org/NS/bchnctd%20150123.pdf>. Here is shown an example of its usage in the word "lang ben" (vitiligo, leucoderma, etc.)
The original evidence is not available to me, but it was to the people who put together the KCHN, which when published had status equivalent to a national standard in Vietnam. I'm inclined to keep it.
The current glyph, ⿰草争, is an exception to the Vietnamese design which favors 爭. We propose to change this to ⿰草爭. The stroke count is already correct for 爭 so no other changes are required.
Since this a valid, documented character, which Vietnam would propose for the next working set, in the interest of saving time and effort it would be best to keep this in the current working set.
We need a consistent policy on counting strokes. My understanding is that for characters that can be written with or without a stroke, we are supposed base the stroke count on the # of strokes that the character has in Kangxi, in this case 9 for the component 者.
The term being defined, 般利伐羅句迦, is a transliteration of Sanskrit "Parivrājaka", which can also be written 簸利婆闍迦. Since the characters 般, 簸 and 01903 here are all being used for their sound only, there is not necessarily any semantic relationship, or even guarantee that the readings were equivalent when the term was transliterated.
This entry looks like a variant spelling of 拂懔 (Byzantium) as found in 大唐西域記, see https://baike.baidu.com/item/拂菻国/1334530. That would make 01482 a variant of 拂.
As suggested in above, this has a similar shape and the same reading "miǎo" as 渺 (U+6E3A), or possibly the variant 𣺌 (U+23E8C). If the source is handwritten, it's easy to imagine them being identical.
Re #6938 above. The reading given for WS2021-01661:TC-3C54 is "pàn", while this is "xī". If that information is reliable, then I don' think these are cognate. The relationship with KC-10920 is more believable, since the reading 힐 (hil) has the same initial ㅎ (h) as in the phonetic 兮 혜 (hyey).
The similar character, 㮵 (U+3BB5), is read "zhān". The reading "jiǎo" for 01833 does not match. If the left side of 01833, U+3ACB is the phonetic, 㫋 (zhān), I would expect a different reading.
Given reading "tǎn", this is possibly a simplification of 毯 (U+6BEF), with 卜 meant to replace 炎. Otherwise, 卜 (bǔ < MC: puwk < OC: *pˤok) as phonetic does not make sense.
The reading given is "yíng", but the reading for the similar character is 㡻 (U+387B) is given in Kangxi as 連條切，音聊 or 力救切，音溜, suggesting "liao2" or "liu2"; If "yíng" is correct, the 2 characters are probably not related. But, it would be good to have evidence for the reading "yíng".
It would be interesting to see the original source of this character, since I can easily imagine this as quickly written variant of 默 (U+9ED8), also read "mò".
This appears to be unifiable with the ⿱叛心 in CNS11643 noted in #2125. TCA might want to consider whether the CNS11643 form is more common, since it is unlikely that both would be encoded.
The reading given is "qì", but the evidence provided in #1584 gives this character as the reading for 𪚬 (U+2A6AC), which Kangxi gives as 古暗切音淦 = Mandarin "gàn". What is the evidence for the reading "qì"? Is this possibly a variant of 淦 "gàn" as given in Kangxi?
Agree with #8367 about 毛 as a signifier of vulgarity or offensiveness. Other examples found in the text with this 毛 radical include 𣬿 (U+23B3F) "cào" and 𣬼 (U+23B3C) "bī". Also, compare WS2021:UK-20403, ⿺毛别
According to https://www.ccli.gov.hk/doc/wgcliac2018-07.pdf, the proposed Cantonese reading for this character is "coi3", based on the phonetic 賽. Is that reasonable?
The kana よ on the map looks full size to me, though I would expect ょ. Is there any other data? I took a look on various map apps in the vicinity of 砺波市庄川町名け原, but couldn't find any finer resolution names that matched this.
Eiso is correct: is one way to write Lao, Laos, Laotian, etc. However, it's also used to write other words like "lào xào" (whisper, rustle). Note that the preferred modern form for Lào is 𠈭 (U+2022D) http://www.hannom-rcv.org/NS/bchnctd%20150123.pdf
亂 (U+4E82), 𤕍 (U+2454D), 𠧎 (U+209CE), 𠮗 (U+20B97)
Kangxi and other sources agree that the above are all variants, and the evidence states that SAT-05859 is also an ancient form of 亂 (U+4E82).
牝 (U+725D)
The word 玄 is defined as 玄SAT-06795. This is no doubt a reference to the well known passage from the Laozi, where SAT-06795 is more commonly written as 牝: 谷神不死，是謂玄牝。
煎 (U+714E), 𤎵 (U+243B5), 𤎴 (U+243B4)
According to https://zi.tools/zi/𤎵, etc. these are all variants of 煎, which is plausible in the context provided by the evidence.
𦫀 (U+26AC0), 騰 (U+9A30)
The modern versions of the Shijing have "百川沸騰" for the line cited in the evidence. But according to sources cited here https://zi.tools/zi/朕, including the eminent Qing philologist 戴震, the left hand side of 朕 was originally 舟, so 𦫀 (U+26AC0) is probably more correct. Anyway, it's clear that WS2021-02118 is a variant of 𦫀 (U+26AC0), and, hence, in modern usage 騰.
焦 (U+7126), 燋 (U+71CB)
Note: the evidence actually says that WS2021-02257-SAT-08330 is the form of 焦 (U+7126), the character being glossed, found in the sutra(s). 燋 (U+71CB) is related by inference since other sources such as Kangxi define it as a variant of 焦 (U+7126) and the shape is similar.
䜌 (U+470C)
The character being discussed in the first piece of evidence is 𤼙 (U+24F19). The evidence says that the element WS2021-02243-SAT-08382, presumably the same element as the 䜌 in 𤼙 (U+24F19), can also be written as 攣, resulting in 癴 (U+7674). Kangxi supports the two as variants, saying 攣 = 俗𤼙字. The second evidence actually uses the component WS2021-02243-SAT-08382 to write a variant of 𤼙 (U+24F19).
爨 (U+7228), 㸑 (U+3E11), 𠆡 (U+201A1)
Based on evidence of variant relationship to 爨 (U+7228) and its variants, all read meaning "cuàn" and "cooking stove, cook, etc." Note, reading given in the evidence, 倉亂反, is equivalent to that of U+7228 in GY, Kangxi, etc., 七亂切, since the GY gives the reading 七岡 for 倉.
The reading given is "xù", which is the same as 續, meaning continue. According to the Shuowen,
賡 (U+8CE1) is an old form of 續, given the shapes, it's likely that this a variant of 賡 (U+8CE1)
IRG Working Set 2021v4.0
Source: Lee COLLINS
Date: Generated on 2024-12-14
Unification
Same reading yǎn and difference of one stroke from 弇 (U+5F07).
𣣙 (U+238D9)
Both have the same reading, kuǎn; Perhaps extend, UCV i., Differences of extra or reduced stroke or dot, to 木 and 禾 where they are part of larger component, like ⿳士冖木 and ⿳士冖禾
Moreover, due to it's shape and Vietnamese reading "hoàn", 萑 can be found as a simplification of the component 雚. For example, U+28B36 𨬶, "quán", meaning "tub". This is also a possibly unifiable variant of the component ⿱龷隹 found in U+2D13F 𭄿, U+2B790 𫞐, etc., which in Vietnamese are written with one less stroke as seen in the picture below. In general, it would be best to only unify characters with different structures when those differences do signal different readings.
We now believe that this character is identical to 𢂞 (U+2209E), Vietnamese "bố". Both have a semantic overlap meaning "father" and the source glyph for U+2209E seen in "Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt" shown below has the same semantic and phonetic, ⿱父布. We propose to unify, changing the glyph for U+2209E to this.
Attributes
using 人 instead of 𠆢 would match the IDS for this element as it appears in other characters, such as 隂 (U+9682)
Evidence
Note that the name is almost always transcribed as 獲加多支鹵大王 (わかたけるだいおう or わかたけるのおおきみ) and thought to be the name of emperor Yūryaku.
Glyph Design & Normalization
The current design is correct.
Editorial
Other
https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?quote_code=QTAyMjc4LTAwNA
Based on #7930, agree we should consider changing WS20001-02088 glyph to ⿰氵罧
Data for Unihan
Found in Nôm Tày with the same meaning.
Based on Eiso's comment in #7061
Kangxi and other sources agree that the above are all variants, and the evidence states that SAT-05859 is also an ancient form of 亂 (U+4E82).
Based on equivalence in Shuowen
Based on other copies of Shuowen using 罌 in place of 01913
Based on structural equivalence, with 肉 in place of variant ⺼.
Based on the evidence.
The word 玄 is defined as 玄SAT-06795. This is no doubt a reference to the well known passage from the Laozi, where SAT-06795 is more commonly written as 牝: 谷神不死，是謂玄牝。
According to https://zi.tools/zi/𤎵, etc. these are all variants of 煎, which is plausible in the context provided by the evidence.
The modern versions of the Shijing have "百川沸騰" for the line cited in the evidence. But according to sources cited here https://zi.tools/zi/朕, including the eminent Qing philologist 戴震, the left hand side of 朕 was originally 舟, so 𦫀 (U+26AC0) is probably more correct. Anyway, it's clear that WS2021-02118 is a variant of 𦫀 (U+26AC0), and, hence, in modern usage 騰.
𤕫 (U+2456B) is the seal-script form of 疒.
Note: the evidence actually says that WS2021-02257-SAT-08330 is the form of 焦 (U+7126), the character being glossed, found in the sutra(s). 燋 (U+71CB) is related by inference since other sources such as Kangxi define it as a variant of 焦 (U+7126) and the shape is similar.
The character being discussed in the first piece of evidence is 𤼙 (U+24F19). The evidence says that the element WS2021-02243-SAT-08382, presumably the same element as the 䜌 in 𤼙 (U+24F19), can also be written as 攣, resulting in 癴 (U+7674). Kangxi supports the two as variants, saying 攣 = 俗𤼙字. The second evidence actually uses the component WS2021-02243-SAT-08382 to write a variant of 𤼙 (U+24F19).
The argument for similarity appears to be based on versions of the Shuowen that define 猗 as 犗犬也, with 犗 (jiè) in the place of SAT-08464.
Based on modern editions of the text quoted in the evidence, Quyuan's "Lisao", which have 寧濭死而以流亡兮
The text says that the meaning is the same as 奪 (take by force). U+2D8ED also has the same meaning and reading as 奪.
based on evidence given: meaning = "sink in water"; reading 寧=奴(丁) + 的=(都)歷 matches fanqie in Guangyun 奴歷.
Based on evidence of variant relationship to 爨 (U+7228) and its variants, all read meaning "cuàn" and "cooking stove, cook, etc." Note, reading given in the evidence, 倉亂反, is equivalent to that of U+7228 in GY, Kangxi, etc., 七亂切, since the GY gives the reading 七岡 for 倉.
Based on what the evidence says,
Based on structural similarity and reading, "nǎn"
Variant relationship is believable because of same reading (jué) and similar shape.
賡 (U+8CE1) is an old form of 續, given the shapes, it's likely that this a variant of 賡 (U+8CE1)
蕭槭 is a well-known alternative way of writing the word used in 老學後盦自訂詩 above.
equivalent way to write 瀲灧 liàn yàn (flooding, billowing), etc.
Reading "chōng" is identical and the shape is very similar.
based on evidence in #7216
Structurally U+862D is a possible variant, but we have not yet found examples in Vietnamese sources.
based on reading of U+23E5F 𣹟
matches reading of similar character U+718E 熎