Unifiable to 𧍂 (U+27342)?

U+27342 comes from Kangxi, with the given text: 【備考】【申集】【虫字部】 【五音篇海】音肴。又音豪。 which indicates they are the same character.

To add to Kushim's comment in #15443, here are the variants from MOE Dictionary:




Suggest China to update the glyph of 𧍂 (U+27342) to ⿰虫肴, unify GKJ-00436 to 𧍂 (U+27342).

Even if the various forms of 𧍂 (U+27342) are stably used in dictionaries, the fact that there were historically two forms considered more or less canonical does not mean we need to disunify them.

First and foremost these are different canonical shapes in different dictionaries, and there is no contrast in shapes in the same dictionary.

Second there is also no contrast in meaning in the same running text.

There are variants without a doubt and the abstract shape is the same which is more than sufficient for unification.

If some digitization projects wish to display one canonical form over the other, that is solely within the realm of Ideographic Variation Sequences. ISO 10646 is a character standard, not a glyph standard.

In previous IRG meetings, we already have historical precedence of unification to an existing Extension B character, then subsequently updating the Extension B character to take the canonical shape. Some of these characters even involved the GHZ single sourced characters, as-is this case. IRG should be consistent in its handling of these cases.

We must also take into account that different dictionaries in different ages have different standard for what is considered "canonical". We cannot simply encode another variant as a different character because some dictionaries at some historical period considered another form as canonical. Otherwise, all the characters containing "歩" instead of "步" need to be disunified as "歩" is considered the canonical form historically in Tang dynasty while "步" is considered the canonical form in China in modern day.

Another case in WS2021 where we have unified the canonical shape to the non-canonical shape found in some authoritative dictionaries:

Another case in WS2017, which involves a taboo character, however it was not found as a head character.

Unify to 𪄻

Level 2 UCV for 舂 and 春

Here are some examples from the MOE Dictionary:



The form using 春 instead of 舂 is particularly common in 《集韻》.

Unify to 惱.

This is a variant of 惱 without a doubt in the included evidences.

Potentially new UCV level 2 甾 & 𡿺.

Unify to 惱; and add level 2 UCV 甾 & 𡿺.

We have one existing disunification case in Extension B where U+254F2 is disunified from U+78AF. They are both variants of 瑙 U+7459.




We have another disunification case in Extension A where U+4409 is disunified from U+8166 because they are non-cognate.




Note, ROK has a normalization rule #190-1 in IRGN2573 which covers this exact case:



Therefore the variation should be systematic and pretty common in handwriting.

Unifiable with 淅?

𦎼 (U+263BC) / 𦎯 (U+263AF).

> 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.

Examples are from Extension B, which are not considered valid prior examples of disunification by IRG.

> The inclusion of ⿱殸⬚ in UCV 312d seems unreasonable as it is not an example of "differences in relative length of strokes" (j-2). UCV 312d should only cover ⿱𣪊⬚ and ⿹𣪊⬚, and ⿱殸⬚ should be removed from the rule.

UCV #312d should be moved away from the section J-2 and moved into section j-3 Unification of similar shapes.

The fact that 𣪊 is often miswritten as 殸 is not disupted. Sufficient evidence also exists for this particular charcter. For China's case they may prefer to withdraw a form which is malformed, but SAT does not assign "it is an error or not" determination to a character. To suggest to encode a character via IVS implies the characters are unifiable.

Suggest to unify and encode as IVS, and keep the UCV rule as-is.

Unify to 𤸻 (U+24E3B) or potentially withdrawn.

The given evidence from UK and the evidence from Tao Yang suggest that the phonetic component should be 拏, not 挐. Even though in some sources 挐 is considered a variant of 拏, they are considered separate characters by various versions of Shuowen.

Change Radical to 5.0 (乙), SC=3, FS=5 after the glyph change.

Radical 212.2, SC=4, FS=2

Based on the pronunciation, it is a potential misprint?

I suggest to postponed this character.

Per #11949, appears to be a misprint of 䳄. Are there more evidences for ⿰世鳥?

This looks like a valid phonetic component replacement so I suggest keeping the character.

Consider changing the source reference to the GZ one because the GZ one can be looked up directly.

Consider changing the source reference to the GZ one because the GZ one can be looked up directly.

This character was marked as "No Change" without any record of any reply from UK.

The evidence from Andrew and Eiso seem to be a non-cognate but identical shaped character, maybe horizontal extension can be done.

Consider changing the glyph to ⿺毛玍 based on comment #8367

Potentially normalize the shape on the right to 淫 because as in the dictionary entries, 淫 is also a common form when used as a component.

Fixed the status of this character on 2024-03-18.

I checked and have updated the total stroke count to 16. (Previously I marked it as 17). I miscounted the number of strokes for 臣 as 7. Correct value for 臣 is 6.

It is a known issue that when the source reference is changed the ORT stops being able to track the glyph of the previous source reference. Sorry for the inconvenience.