▲ 范中义, 顿贺: 《明代海船图说》, 济南: 山东科学技术出版社, 2020.1, ISBN 978-7-5331-9965-4, p. 187

The following books use 舟远 as two characters.


▲ 《中国造船发展簡史》//中国造船工程学会; 翁竹书, 钟思, 卞燮昌, 王淮, 孙昌民: 《中国造船工程学会1962年年会論文集 第二分册 运輸船舶》, 北京: 国防工业出版社, 1964.10, 統一书号 N15034.783, p. 15


▲ 杨宗英, 黄根余: 《浅论郑和宝船——从史料和考古角度分析》//纪念伟大航海家郑和下西洋580周年筹备委员会, 中国航海史研究会: 《郑和下西洋论文集 第一集》, 北京: 人民交通出版社, 1985.6, 书号 11044·10002, p. 159

The following books use other characters, but it looks unreasonable. I just list them here.


▲ 蔣維錟, 鄭麗航: 《媽祖文獻史料彙編（第一辑） 散文卷》, 北京: 中國檔案出版社, 2007.10, ISBN 978-7-80166-895-0, p. 25
It uses U+4483 䒃, and shows why they change the character.


▲ 蔡国耀: 《开台妈祖——莆仙与台湾关系史》, 福州: 海风出版社, 2013.5, ISBN 978-7-5512-0101-8, p. 379
It also uses U+4483 䒃.


▲ 广东海上丝绸之路博物馆: 《阳江木船传统建造技术与风俗》, 广州: 广东科技出版社, 2018.12, ISBN 978-7-5359-7026-8, p. 118
It uses ⿰舟参 which should be unified to U+26A53 𦩓. ⿰舟參 is also not encoded.

Both of the previous three ones are not the characters in URO, that means the authors or editors have some comments on the corresponding words. The books all mentioned 福州 (even current 闽侯县 or 闽侯经济技术开发区), but we have no materials to prove it is the word used in Chinese Min-dong dialects.

《媽祖文獻史料彙編（第一辑） 散文卷》 mentioned the character should be modified to 䒃, and the editors mentioned the ancient book. The following books show the modern studies on 䒃 and its variant 艁. It is very clear that 艁 in 揚雄《方言》 means 浮桥 (pontoon bridge?), not the wood at the bottom of one boat (船之底木). So, it is not better to change the character to 艁 or 䒃.


▲ 殷寄明: 《〈说文解字〉精读》 (《原典精读系列》), 上海: 复旦大学出版社, 2007.4, ISBN 978-7-309-04816-2/I·341, p. 169
This one mentioned 艁 is the variant of U+3035F 𰍟.


▲ 華學誠: 《〈方言〉及其注本三論》 (《揚雄研究系列叢書》), 成都: 巴蜀书社, 2018.3, ISBN 978-7-5531-0947-3, p. 140


▲ 熊铁基: 《熊铁基文集 第五卷 秦汉军事制度史（附未刊稿）》, 武汉: 华中师范大学出版社, 2021.12, ISBN 978-7-5622-9467-2, p. 197

Also see WS2024-01974.

01974

木 75.14.1

UK-30454

TS 18 · IDS ⿰木遠

WS2024-01974:UK-30454 ⿰木遠

01974

木 75.14.1

UK-30454

TS 18 · IDS ⿰木遠

U+24FAE 𤾮