The proposed "liding" rule has yet to be discussed during a meeting, let alone accepted. A central question to be debated is whether or not it is possible to have a rule that just applies to shouwen, and if that was the case does it not mean that the decision to unify is ad hoc and therefore should not result in a new UCV since if the a character of exactly the same shape but unconnected to shouwen was submitted then it would not be unified.
Oppose Unification
Disagree with unification. Unification in this case would be inconsistent with established unification rules, clearly a case of different components therefore abstract shape is different. The abstract shape of a character must be determined by it's regular, aka kaishu, shape it can be determined by the shape of a character in another script.
This character was moved to pending as there was no agreement at the time on whether or not to unify. There do not seem to be any UCS unification examples and, as noted above, there are at least 4 UCS disunification UCS examples. As it stands looks insufficient of a new UCV.
Disagree, should not unify. The current UCV 312d should be changed by removing the middle variant containing 殸 because it is not consistent with established UCS precedent to unify ⿱殸 and ⿱𣪊 as the examples below illustrate:
U+78EC 磬 ids ⿱殸石 vs U+2553C 𥔼 ids ⿱𣪊石
U+6480 撀 ids ⿱殸手 vs U+30515 𰔕 ids ⿱𣪊手
U+417D 䅽 ids ⿱殸禾 vs U+2585B 𥡛 ids ⿱𣪊禾
U+2A879 𪡹 ids ⿱殸口 vs U+23AA5 𣪥 ids ⿱𣪊口
U+2A371 𪍱 ids ⿱殸麥 vs U+2A360 𪍠 ids ⿱𣪊麥$(GT)
U+288A4 𨢤 ids ⿱殸酉 vs U+2888B 𨢋 ids ⿱𣪊酉
U+27421 𧐡 ids ⿱殸虫 vs U+879C 螜 ids ⿱𣪊虫
U+246D7 𤛗 ids ⿱殸牛 vs U+246BC 𤚼 ids ⿱𣪊牛
UCV
The two comments together list 22 disunification examples, comment #14276 8 examples and #14290 14 examples. Also that GHZR42524.09 was withdrawn. Withdrawing a character can be because the submitter does not agree to unification. The quote that says unifiable was not made by the submitter. The case for removing 殸 is very strong.
The disunification of 首 and is so deep routed in UCS there is even a main block example U+885C 衜 vs U+885F 衟 . If the "liding" rule entails that these be unified, then this is further proof that the "liding" rule should not be adopted.
Is this what is intended by UCV #305? (see below) I think not. Also the question of 火 vs 大 suggests this might be a misprint, and if so better be withdrawn and dealt with by IVD by the submitter, and not suitable to use as the basis of a UCV.
Agree to unification of SAT-06753 and U+2E571 𮕱 as the same abstract shape and cognate based on the evidence presented so far. Where is there evidence of standalone usage with a different meaning?
No response as yet form the submitter and the sources for the evidence not is clearly identified. Does this only appear in one printed edition or many? Conversely what examples are there where 牛 and 爿 have been mixed up, and have this been encoded separately?
Disagree with unification. It would be counter productive to have at UCV of 扌 and 牜. If there are texts that confuse 扌 and 牜 better simply to consider the text unreliable and look to other texts for confirmation or rejection of a character.
Agree to unification. The only UCS occurrence 𱣎 is 𱣎 itself, therefore unification as a component would not create a UCS inconsistency and since the graphical difference between 𱣎 and 桀 is so slight they have the same abstract shape. There are many characters that whilst suitable for separate encoding but are best unified when a component.
Everyone agrees with the unification (Comment #13326). To answer comment #14594:
No need for 瓜 and 爪 as a UCV. Would be sufficient just to add 㼌 and ⿰爪爪 as a UCV.
Note:
1) ⿰爪爪 is only found in two UCS characters U+24519 𤔙 ⿱爪⿰爪爪 and U+2D4F9 𭓹 ⿱宀⿰爪爪, SAT-06305 (cognate to 寙 U+5bd9?)
2) 㼌 is a component in 16 ucs characters 㺠, 㼌, 寙, 攨, 窳, 蓏, 𠆁, 𢸖, 𤂜, 𤣛, 𤬑, 𦋯, 𨰆, 𪴒, 𫾞, and 𮊏.
Disagree with unification. To use this different unification because it is a transposition from Shouwen is not consistent existent UCS precedent or Annex S.
Disagree with unification as multiple differences. It should also be noted the even if unified this would not be justification for the 9 part UCV suggested.
Disagree with unification because different abstract shapes. The bottom half of right hand component is 兆 which is totally different to 电 therefore they have different abstract shape by virtue of having a different component.
(Loan words are used for new ideas and things, but already a word for bird so not surprisingly, the Chinese word for bird can only rarely be found if ever in most Zhuang languages as an ancient loan, where of course the standard spelling is indeed ''niux". It should be noted the standard spelling for modern loans would be "niuj", however since the word "niuj (scar)" is not, according to various published sources, used in Wuming which the standard spelling is based on, so this is a conjecture. Not to mention that, in many places the actually pronunciation of loan words whilst reasonably predictable, differs from the standard spelling and the most common difference is of tone.)
As comment #14400 point 3 illustrates, if there was a 'liding' rule, or an IRGN2612 might be called, the result would be long debates about whether or a character was IRGN2612 enough to be applied to.
Reply #14398 Yes, here saying "different abstract components" would be clearer than "different components". In the sentence above, that the components are abstract is implied by context . In this case it seems we both agree the abstract shape of the upper part right hand components have different abstract shape and therefore that the two characters have different abstract shapes by usual Annex S and UCS usage of the words. The "liding" rule uses different criteria. We can say that by Annex S conventions the two characters have different abstract shape therefore by that convention should not be unifie, but that the "liding" rule to say they can be unified.
thank you for the clarification of your notation, because of your liberal use of ~ elsewhere, I was under the impression that by ~ you simply meant to indicate variant.
Note on English terminology. The word 'transliteration' can be used for alphabetical scripts to refer to the result of systematically replacing letters from one script with those of another. When talking about changing from one ideographic script to anther the word 'transposition' can be used to refer to the result the replacement of one character by another.
IRG Working Set 2021v5.0
Source: John Knightley
Date: Generated on 2026-01-14
Unification
Disagree, should not unify. The current UCV 312d should be changed by removing the middle variant containing 殸 because it is not consistent with established UCS precedent to unify ⿱殸 and ⿱𣪊 as the examples below illustrate:
U+78EC 磬 ids ⿱殸石 vs U+2553C 𥔼 ids ⿱𣪊石
U+6480 撀 ids ⿱殸手 vs U+30515 𰔕 ids ⿱𣪊手
U+417D 䅽 ids ⿱殸禾 vs U+2585B 𥡛 ids ⿱𣪊禾
U+2A879 𪡹 ids ⿱殸口 vs U+23AA5 𣪥 ids ⿱𣪊口
U+2A371 𪍱 ids ⿱殸麥 vs U+2A360 𪍠 ids ⿱𣪊麥$(GT)
U+288A4 𨢤 ids ⿱殸酉 vs U+2888B 𨢋 ids ⿱𣪊酉
U+27421 𧐡 ids ⿱殸虫 vs U+879C 螜 ids ⿱𣪊虫
U+246D7 𤛗 ids ⿱殸牛 vs U+246BC 𤚼 ids ⿱𣪊牛
Agree to unification of SAT-06753 and U+2E571 𮕱 as the same abstract shape and cognate based on the evidence presented so far. Where is there evidence of standalone usage with a different meaning?
No response as yet form the submitter and the sources for the evidence not is clearly identified. Does this only appear in one printed edition or many? Conversely what examples are there where 牛 and 爿 have been mixed up, and have this been encoded separately?
Agree to unification. The only UCS occurrence 𱣎 is 𱣎 itself, therefore unification as a component would not create a UCS inconsistency and since the graphical difference between 𱣎 and 桀 is so slight they have the same abstract shape. There are many characters that whilst suitable for separate encoding but are best unified when a component.
No need for 瓜 and 爪 as a UCV. Would be sufficient just to add 㼌 and ⿰爪爪 as a UCV.
Note:
1) ⿰爪爪 is only found in two UCS characters U+24519 𤔙 ⿱爪⿰爪爪 and U+2D4F9 𭓹 ⿱宀⿰爪爪, SAT-06305 (cognate to 寙 U+5bd9?)
2) 㼌 is a component in 16 ucs characters 㺠, 㼌, 寙, 攨, 窳, 蓏, 𠆁, 𢸖, 𤂜, 𤣛, 𤬑, 𦋯, 𨰆, 𪴒, 𫾞, and 𮊏.
Attributes
(Loan words are used for new ideas and things, but already a word for bird so not surprisingly, the Chinese word for bird can only rarely be found if ever in most Zhuang languages as an ancient loan, where of course the standard spelling is indeed ''niux". It should be noted the standard spelling for modern loans would be "niuj", however since the word "niuj (scar)" is not, according to various published sources, used in Wuming which the standard spelling is based on, so this is a conjecture. Not to mention that, in many places the actually pronunciation of loan words whilst reasonably predictable, differs from the standard spelling and the most common difference is of tone.)
Evidence
Glyph Design & Normalization
Other
thank you for the clarification of your notation, because of your liberal use of ~ elsewhere, I was under the impression that by ~ you simply meant to indicate variant.