MOE Variant Dictionary


Based on 干祿字書, [⿰言⿱大干] is a variant of 誇.
However, if adding a new UCV=[⿱大干]/𡗢/夸, I think it is a bit dangerous, such as U+29A43 𩩃 is a variant of U+5E79 幹 or U+9AAD 骭, but it has no meaningful relationship with 骻 (U+9ABB).

If add a new UCV 句~勾, TCA agree to unify.

If UCV (UCV# 54? )is added, TCA agree. Because 凢 is often used as the variant of 凡.

According to the new rules (same components, different structure), TCA agree to be a VS of U+2A777.

Not suitable for S.1.5.i, it is not a question of more or less stroke.

There is no UCV rule for these two lower components(开 and 廾).

Because of the common component(盁), TCA has agreed to change the proposed form to TC-7234. But EVIDENCE is unable to provide the Table produced by the Household System, and TCA can provide the BMP glyph and attributes printed by Tax Center(財稅中心) in 2004 as new evidence.

TCA suggest adding new UCV rule盈 / 盁 /⿱𠂊皿/ ⿱𠘧皿.

丂~亍 is not a common variant relationship. TCA agree with Kushim Jiang veiws, not unify.

Are we going to make a new UCV rule 田 and 日?

According to the new rules (same components, different structure), TCA agrees to be a VS of U+20E83.

If a new UCV rule is added, TCA agree.

If UCV (勇~⿱⺈男)is added, TCA agree to unify.

If UCV is added, TCA agree to unify.

According to UCV #307c, TCA agree to be a VS of U+2BB9D.

If UCV is added, TCA agree to unify.

Reading is a reference in the literature, but it is not suitable as a source of recognition in the use of names, as reading is a matter for the person concerned to decide.

According to new UCV #307c, TCA agrees to unify, and TCA wants to keep 02801(⿰石萑).

These two characters are a good case in which reading is based.

According to new UCV #307c, TCA agrees to unify, and TCA wants to keep 01856 (TE-2360, ⿰木⿱竹𭅗).

Is it possible to add a new UCV rule or modify #307c, when the same component, different structure could unify?
TCA found some examples as below:

WS2021-2097 ⿰氵蒿 VS 薃 U+8583


WS2021-01288 ⿰霖彡VS 霦 U+9726
WS2021-04325 ⿱雨倪 VS 𪝷 U+2A777


WS2021-02950 ⿱𥫗⿰木𭅗 VS WS2021-01856 ⿰木⿱𥫗𭅗

According to UCV #307c, TCA agree to be a VS of U+2700A.

According to UCV #307c, TCA agree to be a VS of U+6FF8.

According to UCV #307c, TCA agree to unify with 𱾨 (U+31FA8).

According to UCV #307c, TCA agree to be a VS of U+2706D.

According to UCV rule #457, TCA agree to be a VS of U+87F9.

According to the new rules (same components, different structure), TCA agrees to be a VS of U+255D6.

According to the new rules (same components, different structure), TCA agrees to unify, and TCA wants to keep 01601(⿰扌簷).

According to new UCV #307c, TCA agrees to unify to 𮑋 (U+2E44B).

Agree to change the Radical to 135.0(舌).

Agree to change the Radical to 155.0(赤).

To the comment #5442:
Prefer to use two IDSes (⿰子阝, ⿰孑阝) for this case.

Keep radical 9.0(人), and add the second radical as 8.0 (亠).

Agree to change the radical to 140.0艸.

Maybe we chould use two IDSes for this case, ⿰女硏 and ⿰妬幵?

Keep 〾⿰口署, it is easier to understand.

Agree to change the IDS. (remove 〾)

Agree to use 211.2 for 歯.

Agree to change the Radical to 53.0 (广).

畢沅，《山海經新校正》(清光緒3年[1877]，浙江書局)，卷八

MOE Variant Dictionary

The same book gives 阴” 骘” (the lower part is 马).


陳永正編,《中國方術大辭典》(廣東：中山大學出版社, 1991年)




p.369

The source name could be from《重訂直音篇》卷5金部.
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=18574&page=9#box(302,293,1,2)

重訂直音篇,卷5 金部

(明)蘇祐,(明)楊循吉纂修, 《吳邑志》(明嘉靖[1522-1566]) 卷十四 物產
The submitted character might be a misprint form of 鏃?

Thank you for evidence.

《謐齋金文拓本》
https://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/1b/b3/6d.html

Could you confirm the meaning of “(444, 548)” in evidence 1?

鄭子田著,《中國原始社會研究》(永祥印書館,1945年), P43.


According to the context, the author quoted "教熊羆『貔』貅貙虎" in 史記．五帝本紀 as an explanation, and it is very likely that "貔" is wrongly written as "豸鼠".

Suggest pending for additional evidences.

Agree with #6000 and #9680. Consider pending with additional evidences.

Agree with WANG Yifan.

正字通,吳源起清畏堂, 康熙24 [1685] 序].
the character at this position is also 註.

(明)李時珍撰, 《本草綱目》(清順治十五年（1658）張朝璘刻本) 卷四十八
本草綱目 gives as “䴊”.


Agree with the comment #6325, suggest pending for additional evidences.

Agree with the comment #10073. If the source of the submitted character is 揚雄《方言》, U+310A5 is enough.

Thank you for evidence.

Thank you for evidence.

Thank you for evidence.

Thank you for evidence.

(遼)釋行均撰，《龍龕手鑑》，食部第十八

TCA has found the handwritten form of this character.

Thank you for evidence.

Thank you for evidence.

TCA can provide the BMP glyph and attributes printed by Land System in 2006 as new evidence.

CMEX does not have the applicant's handwriting on the hand. However, we have found earlier BMP for the applicant. From the Changjie(倉頡) attribute provided, it was "日", not "月".

The pronunciation of " liú " was provided in the application for the code by the user unit (Landsystem). They have provided the original BMP and attributes.

The pronunciation of " dùn " was provided in the application for the code by the user unit (Landsystem). They have provided the original BMP and attributes.

TCA can provide the BMP glyph and attributes printed by Land System in 2006 as new evidence.

Because of the common structure, if IRG can accept our new evidence, TCA will agree to change the proposed form to TC-473B (NOT TC-3927).
Because evidence is unable to provide the Table produced by the Household System, and TCA can provide the BMP font printed by the MOI in 2004 as new evidence:

We do not have the applicant's handwriting on the hand. However, TCA can provide the BMP glyph printed by MOI in 2004 as new evidence.

We do not have the applicant's handwriting on the hand. However, TCA can provide the BMP glyph and attributes printed by Tax Center(財稅中心) in 2004 as new evidence.

Because of the common structure, TCA has agreed to change the proposed form to TE-4239, so EVIDENCE is unable to provide the Table produced by the Household System, and TCA can provide the BMP glyph printed by the MOI in 2004 as new evidence.

The reading was given by the user.

BMP font printed by MOI (2004):

The reading was given by the user. It is a phonetic script.
BMP font printed by MOI (2004):

Printed in 2007 by MOI including BMP:

The reading was given by the user.

Because of the common component, TCA has agreed to change the proposed form, so EVIDENCE is unable to provide the Table produced by the Household System, and TCA can only provide the BMP form used by the MOI in the early days as Evidence.

The whole page evidence as below:

These two characters belong to different places of residence (as can be seen from the evidence provided by TCA) and the BMP shapes are also different. (printed by MOI in 2004):

TCA can provide the BMP font printed by MOI in 2004 as new evidence.

TCA can provide the BMP font printed by MOI in 2004 as new evidence.

TCA can provide the BMP glyph and attributes printed by MOI in 2004 as new evidence.

TCA can provide the BMP font printed by MOI in 2007 as new evidence.

TCA can provide the BMP font printed by MOI in 2007 as new evidence.

User thought it’s a phonetic script. Please look at the evidence.

Depending on the context, it might be 𩣰?

The new evidence from 九家集注杜詩(#6539), it could be an error form of 魴.

《後漢書》(金陵书局清同治八年[1869]), 卷三十三 朱馮虞鄭周列傳第二十三

愛山書院。光緖癸未[1884]。重校刊。同治9-13年重修。
The other edition gives 竑弢.


Agree with the comment #5171.

《康熙字典》心部．12畫
(武英殿本：1920頁)
(同文書局本：402頁)

The glyph should be updated to ⿰魚天.

TCA will provide new TTF font.

TCA will pass your suggestion to MOE/ MOI.

Based on the comment #7974,this character should be withdrawn.

鷖, 鷗鳥也. The submitted character might be mixed with “鷖” and “鷗”.

Based on these evidences, the submitted character was originally from 化學指南(1873) by 畢利幹(Anatole Billequin). Could you provide the clear evidence of the original glyph in this book?

A variant of 覰?

From the pronunciation of 廣韻 and 集韻, "厥" is "居月切" (same with 孓).
Possibly, the reading given by 慧琳 was wrong.

The reading biān was provided by user.

These two characters are not related, and their origins are in the Land system(TB-5D3F) and the household system(TC-3C54) separately.

The reading provided by the user is "zhuī ". Look at the evidence.


Perhaps TCA could ask the experts to discuss the possibility of adding a reading (yǎ, because 𬚟 is a variant of 雅).

TCA agrees with your comment. However, the reading provided by the user is "jiǎo". Look at the evidence.

Perhaps TCA could ask the experts to discuss the possibility of adding a reading (zhān).

For the comment #12959:
Thank you for the new evidence.

TCA will not submit both two characters, we choose TD-7640 because this character used by more people.

Not unify, no UCV rule.

The reading not filled in by the household staff.

扈蹕→⿰𧾷扈蹕, it could be a phenomenon of "偏旁同化". Such as 展轉→輾轉.
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%81%8F%E6%97%81%E5%90%8C%E5%8C%96/683399

A variant of 髼(U+9AFC)?


元．龔瑨, 〈王會圖賦〉（《古今圖書集成本》）