«
01579
01580
01581
»
01580
64.0 手
〾⿰扌年
SC=6, FS=3, TS=9

UTC-03359
Not unified to 𢬧 U+22B27, IRG 63.
Similar To: 拝 (U+62DD), 𢬧 (U+22B27)
U+22B27U+22B27
U+62DDU+62DD
Attributes:

Review Comments

Type
Description
Submitter
Evidence
EVIDENCE
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]
Given the unusual glyph form, the current evidence is insufficient for encoding. Need additional evidence to determine whether the character is a unifiable variant of an existing character or whether it should be separately encoded.
Andrew WEST
UK
2024-08-19 09:37:47 UTC
#17
Unification
UNIFICATION
WS2024 v1.0
[ Unresolved ]
U+22B27
The shape of the submitted character is almost exactly like 𢬧(U+22B27), so it's recommended to unify it with 𢬧 (U+22B27).
Conifer TSENG
TCA
2024-08-27 03:53:02 UTC
#1235
Unification
NO_UNIFICATION
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]
It may be difficult to prove that these two ideographs are cognate.
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
2024-10-16 19:22:51 UTC
#5442
Evidence
EVIDENCE
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]
In the original proposal L2/23-130, the submitter Tsukada Masaki also noted that it is probably a variant of 拝 and might be unified with 𢬧:



It would be great if there are multiple land registration record evidences. One evidence seems not enough to back this character with unusual shape.
HUANG Junliang
Individual
2024-10-16 21:07:17 UTC
#5458
Evidence
NEW_EVIDENCE
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]
The person who submitted this ideograph to the UTC provided this evidence image, which is from the Meiji era. It shows that it is a variant of U+62DC, which in turn is a variant of U+62DD.

U+62DC

U+62DD


Ken LUNDE
Convenor
2024-10-19 20:42:18 UTC
#5557
Unification
UNIFICATION
WS2024 v2.0
[ Unresolved ]
U+62DC
Unify to 拜 (U+62DC).
TAO Yang
China
2025-02-19 05:53:34 UTC
#8625
Unification
NO_UNIFICATION
WS2024 v2.0
[ Unresolved ]
With regard to Comment #8625, the shapes are too different, and therefore there is no UCV.
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
2025-03-06 17:32:33 UTC
#8773
Evidence
MISIDENTIFIED_GLYPH
WS2024 v2.0
[ Unresolved ]
UTC-03359 may be a misidentification of the cursive form of U+62DC 拜 shown in #5557. Yes, the the shapes are too different for unification, but the shapes are only too different because someone misidentified the cursive form of 拜 and invented a new character. Therefore suggest to postpone for additional evidence.
Andrew WEST
UK
2025-03-19 12:26:59 UTC
#9370

Meeting Minutes

DateDescription
IRG #64
2025-03-19 (Wed)
10:29 am +0800
Recorded by CHEN Zhuang
not unified to 𢬧 (U+22B27), non cognate.
IRG #64
2025-03-19 (Wed)
10:35 am +0800
Recorded by CHEN Zhuang
postponed for more investigation, may be wrongly recognized.
IRG #63
2024-10-23 (Wed)
11:36 am +0900
Recorded by CHEN Zhuang
Not unified to 𢬧 U+22B27, add kSpoofing to unihan

Attribute Changes

VersionDescription
2.0
For 01580, add Discussion Record "Not unified to 𢬧 U+22B27, IRG 63."

Glyph Changes

Source ReferenceGlyph
UTC-03359
1.0
Raw Info
Character ReferenceUTC-03359
CodepointF51E
Radical64
Stroke Count6
First Stroke3
Total Stroke9
IDS〾⿰扌年
VariantsU+62DD, U+22B27
Pronunciationハイ (J)
Total No. of Evidences1
NotesN/A

Source Code released at https://github.com/irgonline/ws2024 (available to members of the IRG only). For access, please contact the ORG Manager.