Unify to

01862

月 74.53.4

UTC-03342

TS 57 · IDS ⿲月⿳亠⿲糹⿱二口糹⿱⿲長馬長心戈

Same abstract shape.

Support unification. The difference between the two forms of this character is the same as the difference between the regional forms of e.g. U+6220 戠 and U+6222 戢 (G forms extend the horizontal stroke of the left component into the 戈, but T forms have separate components). We should add a UCV for this variation.

The unification has been discussed in IRG meeting before and the decision was that it should be encoded seperately.

IRGN2622 IRG61MiscEditorialReport, item 8:
Hongmen character unification (IRGN2634 Wang Xieyang)
The editors considered these CJK unified characters and thus they could be submitted to IRG for future extension.

To respect the procedure, this should be brought out al least before submission. If not, they should be treated as UNIFIED ideographs based on my comments in IRGN2634. The reasons why it should be seperately encoded was stated clearly and agreed by IRG.

kStrange S:56

If the IRG decides to unify, a new UCV should be added per Comment #305.

I have pointed out clearly that the abstract shape of the two characters are the same in IRGN2634. Meanwhile, I have pointed out clearly that because both two characters have stable glyphs in long enough time, they should not be unified.
The suggestions in IRGN2634 have been discussed in detail in IRG meeting #61 and agreed by experts. It is not resonable at all that this two characters are unified later because of the same abstract shape.

All the editorial report in IRG61 said was that the characters could be submitted, it did not say that they could not be unified.

The editorial report clearly states that they are CJK unified characters. You can't just focus on the the second half of the sentence ignoring the first half.

The connection of 戈 is important for complex Hongmen characters. The origins of them are different. All complex Hongmen characters originate from the following thing:

Hongmen characters with 戈 conencted are directly transformed to Kai Form from the original shape.
Hongmen characters with 戈 unconencted are written in Kai form based on its abstract shape.
Hongmen characters with 戈 conencted or unconencted are prefered by different people in different regions with various meanings.
The UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 looks similar because we have normalized the glyphs of existing Hongmen characters:

Both UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 are one of the earliest forms of Hongmen characters to appear in books. This is also reasonable because the two kind of origins. The two glyphs are important for academical studies.
We are not interested in encoding them all. To avoid controversy, we normalized the glyphs, asked IRG for advice, and then submitted them.
It is not fair at all to deny my efforts on studying these characters without reading the related document. And procedurelly, they should not be unified with a reason I have already clearly stated a year ago. It is even acceptable to bring the discussion up again before the submission of IRG WS2024.
But after the submission, any objection should not be proved by IRG, let alone an objection based on clearly stated and discussed issues. It is just unacceptable.

{{IRG N2634 https://www.unicode.org/irg/docs/n2634-ComplexHongmenIdeographs.pdf}}
An article in Chinese introducing the Hongmen characters is attached as feedback. Experts can read it if you are interested.

The reason why UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 should be disunified was clearly stated in the document and was agreed by IRG:

I think there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of the text in the editorial report.

The editorial report only indicated that these Hongmen Characters are CJK Unified Ideographs, i.e. they are not symbols.

There is no mention in the editorial report that the classification system proposed in the IRGN2634 was accepted as-is.

There is no golden status conferred to characters which are first initiated through a proposal from an individual contributor and characters which are submitted by member bodiesl

As part of the discussion process, IRG always has the right to amend or overturn its previous decisions upon discussion if there is unanimous agreement, or shall the need arise, a vote.

For example, IRG revises its unification rules (i.e. UCV/NUCV) every meeting. The PnP itself has also been revised many times.

It is not possible to claim that since IRG agreed to accept them as CJK Unified Ideographs, then they must be encoded without unification and without further discussion.

I don't think I misunderstand the text in the editorial report. The title of my proposal is "Suggestions on unifying complex Hongmen related ideographs". The decisions in editorial report should absolutely a response to the unification. There is no problem at all to say IRG accepted the unification rules based on the text in the editorial report.
And it is acceptable to make a "further discussion" for me, what is not acceptable is that the further discussion is brought out based on a clearly stated and discussed issue. You can't just say yes to a thing in the past but say no to the same thing without any new reasons. This will be not acceptable in the standardization work.

I don’t think end users are going to distinguish different forms of this character in running text. They are only distinguished when they are symbols at the most. I suggest only encoding one traditional form and one simplified form of the character. And if you really find the distinction important, you can always either register for an IVD or submit a proposal to WG2/Unicode for encoding as CJK Symbols.

Thanks for the suggestion.

If UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 are decided to be unified, suggest to keep UTC-03340 and postpone UTC-03342. Using IVD is not proper for this case.

Although UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 have a very similar glyph, I suggest not to unify UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 based on the following three reasons:
1. The unconnected 戈 is a very important structure in the evolution of complex Hongmen Ideographs. An obvious unconnected 戈 component makes it possible that it can be replaced by other components such as 刂，丁，才，寸，etc.

The 刂 of 𰻞(U+30EDE) actually orginates from 戈 because the meanings of 戈 and 刂 are related to each other. If the 戈 was not written out, the 𰻞(U+30EDE) won't exist.
Meanwhile, no case of including 刂，丁，才，寸，etc as components is found when there is a connected 戈.
2. The UTC-03340 is the most common form of 贼 used in 四川(Sichuan) and shuar used in 北京(Beijing), but UTC-03342 is the first complex Hongmen Ideograph that is included in the publications. Both shapes are important.
3. According to IRG N2770R, the meanings of UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 are not overlapping with each other. In other similar cases, this always means disunification.