Disagree that non-cognate, to prove non-cognate one needs to contrast the two glyphs however the new material from Eiso just shows the "square" glyph. If new UCV agreed then should unify.
The bottom part ⿱甘廾 has a similar shape to 其, they have same number of strokes, in fact the only difference in strokes is where the last two strokes connect. In short there have the same abstract shape. 康熙字典 only includes 𠴩 U+20D29 because it is an ancient variant of 箕. The 汉语大字典 also says the same.
Virtually identical contextual quote seems have been used for both SAT-08988 and SAT-06676, which strongly suggests only one one code point required. According to the zi.tools link give the quote the meaning U+30B80 aka SAT-08988 was "(大藏經)
字見於大正新脩大藏經外字系統《一切經音義》：説文從八從肉作血脉在肉中～&MT0", which seems essentially to be that of SAT-06676.
Consider if best considered as 卸 (U+5378). No encoded characters have 𬼉 U+2CF09 as their right hand component but 𦈢 is used, it is not unheard of for handwritten characters to have one small stroke missing by mistake.
Whilst of course 呆/𣎼 being unifiable would entail unification to 𧛙 U+276D9, it is sufficient in this case to discuss whether or not 𤔍 U+2450D and 𰠀 U+30800 are unifiable when used as a component.
Evidence 1 strongly suggests the character ⿰犭肴 is a misprint of 倄. The character 倄 appears 49 times on the page but ⿰犭肴 only once in a place where context suggests it should be the same as the 49 倄's. This suggests evidence 1 alone is insufficient evidence and that unless more evidence is available at this time should be moved to pending or withdrawn.
The right hand component of evidence 2 is definitely 木 not 扌.
Evidence
The new evidence does indeed have 扌for the radical, however the other part is ⿱𠕀直 not ⿱𠔿直 in both evidences 2 and 3. If we take evidence 1 as saying "➊ 㯰=SAT-03728" then the normalized form is ⿰扌置 and the glyphs in all 3 evidences can be managed by IVS of 㯰 and ⿰扌置 . If the character between ➊ and = is not 㯰, then what is it?
The evidence given is a footnote, it would be best to confirm the character by evidence from other sources since this is such an usual character. Other sources that talk about the original Wu Zetian character for 月 have a middle component much closer in shape to 出 than to 𣱵.
No response given so far to comment #4540 WS2021 v2.0.
Evidence
The 6th character after the highlighted in the print evidence (evidence 1) describes the bottom part as 肉 and in the same character in the handwritten evidences (evidences 2 and 3) describe the bottom part as ⿴囗仌. In short, the 3 evidences themselves prove that SAT-06676 and SAT-8988 are one and the same character.
The evidence presented, solely a chart with reading, is insufficient proof for such an unusual character. Suggest withdraw or moving to pending if further evidence is not available at this time.
Based on the evidence presented, the writer appears to be talking about a character written in another script or style. The shape is cursive rather than that usually of a Han character in regular script. In short the author does not call it a regular script Han character, nor does it look much like a regular script Han character. If no further evidence or relevant information available, suggest consider moving to pending or withdraw.
IRG Working Set 2021v4.0
Source: John Knightley
Date: Generated on 2025-12-05
Labels
Unification
Submitter in comment #8973 says radical is ⺏ which suggests that IVS of 𫵒 (U+2BD52) possible.
Unifiable to 𠴩 (U+20D29)
The bottom part ⿱甘廾 has a similar shape to 其, they have same number of strokes, in fact the only difference in strokes is where the last two strokes connect. In short there have the same abstract shape. 康熙字典 only includes 𠴩 U+20D29 because it is an ancient variant of 箕. The 汉语大字典 also says the same.
Virtually identical contextual quote seems have been used for both SAT-08988 and SAT-06676, which strongly suggests only one one code point required. According to the zi.tools link give the quote the meaning U+30B80 aka SAT-08988 was "(大藏經)
字見於大正新脩大藏經外字系統《一切經音義》：説文從八從肉作血脉在肉中～&MT0", which seems essentially to be that of SAT-06676.
This SAT example is not the only case of ⿺兒 meaning ghost/devil. zi.tools for U+2C3B8 𬎸 ⿺兒生 has '(喃) ranh 詞:ranh con 義:little devil'.
Consider if best considered as 卸 (U+5378). No encoded characters have 𬼉 U+2CF09 as their right hand component but 𦈢 is used, it is not unheard of for handwritten characters to have one small stroke missing by mistake.
Unify to 𧛙 U+276D9.
Whilst of course 呆/𣎼 being unifiable would entail unification to 𧛙 U+276D9, it is sufficient in this case to discuss whether or not 𤔍 U+2450D and 𰠀 U+30800 are unifiable when used as a component.
Attributes
Evidence
from http://www.nomfoundation.org/nom-tools/Taberd-Dictionary?p=radical&stroke=3&nom=%E5%8F%A3&strokes=3&view=784&uiLang=en
Other