That this should not be unified has already been agreed at IRG #63 but still shows up because comments #40 and #263 have not been marked as resolved. (FYI this comment will also be resolved)
That this should not be unified has already been agreed at IRG #63 but still shows up because comments #41 and #265 have not been marked as resolved. (FYI this comment will also be resolved)
That this should not be unified has already been agreed at IRG #63 but still shows up because comments #42 and #267 have not been marked as resolved. (FYI this comment will also be resolved)
That this should not be unified has already been agreed at IRG #63 but still shows up because comments #81 and #282 have not been marked as resolved. (FYI this comment will also be resolved)
That this should not be unified has already been agreed at IRG #63 but still shows up because comments #284 and #3078 have not been marked as resolved. (FYI this comment will also be resolved)
That this should not be unified has already been agreed at IRG #63 but still shows up because comments #519 and #836 have not been marked as resolved. (FYI this comment will also be resolved)
That this should not be unified has already been agreed at IRG #63 but still shows up because comment #2708 has not been marked as resolved. (FYI this comment will also be resolved)
That this should not be unified has already been agreed at IRG #63 but still shows up because comment #1727 has not been marked as resolved. (FYI this comment will also be resolved)
That this should not be unified has already been agreed at IRG #63 but still shows up because comment #2717 has not been marked as resolved. (FYI this comment will also be resolved)
That this should not be unified has already been agreed at IRG #63 but still shows up because comments #31 has not been marked as resolved. (FYI this comment will also be resolved)
That this should not be unified has already been agreed at IRG #63 but still shows up because comment #1325 has not been marked as resolved. (FYI this comment will also be resolved)
That this should not be unified has already been agreed at IRG #63 but still shows up because comments #161 and #1326 have not been marked as resolved. (FYI this comment will also be resolved)
That this should not be unified has already been agreed at IRG #63 but still shows up because comments #168 and #1327 have not been marked as resolved. (FYI this comment will also be resolved)
That this should not be unified has already been agreed at IRG #63 but still shows up because comment #170 has not been marked as resolved. (FYI this comment will also be resolved)
That this should not be unified has already been agreed at IRG #63 but still shows up because comments #206 and #1328 have not been marked as resolved. (FYI this comment will also be resolved)
Agree with comment #3325. The evidence 1 has 今 in the middle. Care needs to be taken when reading handwritten characters. The only question here is which of two already encoded Zhuang characters this is a poorly written form of.
There is , page 220 of 《古壮字字典》 , the only difference in reading from gyaemq being that of tone ~x (4th tone) versus ~q (5th tone). The traditional form would be ⿵門今 .
As well there is which is found on page 168 of 《古壮字字典》 .
Misidentified glyph
The fact that SJT-11239 aka 八辅 has U+2CB9E 𬮞 at 2390 strongly suggests that it is the normal rendering of evidence 1
Evidence
Thank you the index is clearly shows the inner component as 金. This additional evidence is much clearer than evidence 1 and so I remove my earlier objection.
The evidence provided for UK-30620, ⿰丫要, conforms to the requirements of the current PnP which permits a wider range of evidences than the PnP for earlier working sets, this was done specifically to allow consideration of a small number of characters not having more 'conventional' evidences, it is therefore not sufficient to argue that a character should be kept out of M-set simply because it does not have the type of evidences used in earlier working sets. According to current PnP 'the popularity of the material, cultural influences, and other factors' may warrant the acceptance of multimedia material as sufficient evidence for encoding. That the evidence for a character is that it is used by ordinary people for ordinary things is sufficient.
It should be noted that there are differences in the number and types of evidence for the 3 characters and therefore they should be considered on a case by case basis.
Whilst no additional evidence has been added it should be noted that the evidences both come from the same author was assessed to be a reliable source. The criteria for being considered reliable was high and most multimedia sources considered did not meet the criteria. To be classified as reliable there has to be sufficient material from the author of a consistently high standard and the author to be Zhuang. Some sources were classified as clearly unreliable and many were classified as reliability uncertain. The rate of errors by this author was lower than those found in some published articles/books containing Zhuang character texts. In short though the media is different to evidence in earlier working sets it's quality is sufficient for consideration.
To date support for this character has been expressed by a member body of the IRG and an individual but objections to this character have only come from one individual.
壮语歌曲《承诺》[Zhuang song "A Promise"] uploaded 2024-11-17 to https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1vZU6YKEjR/
Unclear evidence response
The evidence provided for UK-30621, ⿰久闹, conforms to the requirements of the current PnP which permits a wider range of evidences than the PnP for earlier working sets, this was done specifically to allow consideration of a small number of characters not having more 'conventional' evidences, it is therefore not sufficient to argue that a character should be kept out of M-set simply because it does not have the type of evidences used in earlier working sets. According to current PnP 'the popularity of the material, cultural influences, and other factors' may warrant the acceptance of multimedia material as sufficient evidence for encoding. That the evidence for a character is that it is used by ordinary people for ordinary things is sufficient.
It should be noted that there are differences in the number and types of evidence for the 3 characters and therefore they should be considered on a case by case basis.
The evidence for UK-30621 comes from multiple sources and from multiple authors. The evidence in #8709 comes from the same author as evidence 1 demonstrating that use in the earlier evidence was not made by mistake or out of ignorance. The other 2 evidences come from other people. All the evidences given are verifiable .
The character is culturally significant in that it is the only known character used exclusively for nauq [forever].
The evidence for ⿰久闹 is clear there is no doubt about the glyph shape, the character clearly preserves an ancient Zhuang word, nauq [forever], already lost in some places where it has been replaced by a loanword. The evidences show there is a need for us to encode the character.
Evidence
Thank you Tao Yang for your questions in comment #9321 here let me reply to points raised
Reply to 1.:
According to PnP 'original source' is one type of evidence that the IRG can accept but not the only type. There are 5 types of evidence that can be accepted: original source, multuple source, semantics, context and usage. The PnP says:-
'a character submission must be accompanied by evidence to satisfy at least one of the following
conditions:
a) Original Source ( 證 據 源 限 制 ): The source of evidence must be considered authoritative by IRG, as validated by past literature and IRG experts. IRG has the right to reject characters from questionable sources.
b) Multiple Sources ( 多 源 證 據 ): Supply character use evidence from multiple independence sources. IRG has the right to reject characters with evidence of use from only a single source, especially if the source is not considered authoritative by IRG.
c) Semantics (字理考證): Supply sufficient evidence on the meaning and phonetics. Supply of other information on its origin and evolution would be very helpful.
d) Context (上下文信息): Sufficient context in text to decipher the semantic meaning of the character. IRG has the right to reject characters that do not have sufficient evidence for IRG to decipher its semantics.
e) Usage (需求限制): The use of characters must be for justifiable public interest. Examples of public use include evidence of: governmental needs; scientific use; digitization projects for public use; and working systems of significance as accepted by IRG. IRG has the right to reject characters that do not have sufficient evidence for IRG of justifiable public interest.'
The evidences given are of the multiple source, semantics, context and usage type. Original source evidence is evidence for a character from a recognised authoritive source, a single source that is so important that we can say the character should be encoded because it is in that source. The evidence for this character is not of the 'original source' (an important authoritive source) type. However it is of three or four of the other types, it is: (1) from multiple sources (2) semantics as it clearly states the pronunciation and meaning (3) context sufficient for a native speaker of the language (4) usage - it is and can be used.
Reply to 2.
One change in the current PnP to previous versions is the permitting of a small number of characters with multimedia evidence. Literature is and will always be the main source of eidence for IRG but it does not need to be the only one. Multimedia evidence is new for the IRG and so there is need to talk about different different questions and build consensus.
Reply to 3
All the evidences given are verifiabled. Whilst there are many unreliable videos but this does not mean all videos are unreliable.
Reply to 4
Analysis of the sources used revealed that the characters used were neither arbitory nor designed by the creator. Also checked was that the character concerned was used by diffferent generations and dialects, and therefore can say is not small scale.
Reply to 5
This I think goes back to point one - the evidences are considered representative, or indicative. It is not suggested that the character is important because it is found in these evidences, but rather that because the character is impotant it is found hear.
Reply to 6
This character was even in the earlier 2006 version of the table.
An interesting question. In the past the "normalization" has several times not followed this convention as in GZ-2962204 (U+2D056) , and in some cases even gone the other way GZ-2962202 (U+2D095)
If 金 is phonetic then one possible explanation is that 'gyaem' comes from the Cantonese pronunciation of 金 which would be highly unusual in the Wuming are and perhaps explains the comment that the character is seldom seen. A borrowed pronunciation coming from Cantonese would not make it older but rather of different origin.
IRG Working Set 2024v2.0
Source: John Knightley
Date: Generated on 2026-09-05
Unification
Showing 15 comments.
Attributes
Showing 1 comments.
Evidence
Showing 8 comments.
There is
, page 220 of 《古壮字字典》
As well there is
which is found on page 168 of 《古壮字字典》
It should be noted that there are differences in the number and types of evidence for the 3 characters and therefore they should be considered on a case by case basis.
Whilst no additional evidence has been added it should be noted that the evidences both come from the same author was assessed to be a reliable source. The criteria for being considered reliable was high and most multimedia sources considered did not meet the criteria. To be classified as reliable there has to be sufficient material from the author of a consistently high standard and the author to be Zhuang. Some sources were classified as clearly unreliable and many were classified as reliability uncertain. The rate of errors by this author was lower than those found in some published articles/books containing Zhuang character texts. In short though the media is different to evidence in earlier working sets it's quality is sufficient for consideration.
To date support for this character has been expressed by a member body of the IRG and an individual but objections to this character have only come from one individual.
It should be noted that there are differences in the number and types of evidence for the 3 characters and therefore they should be considered on a case by case basis.
The evidence for UK-30621 comes from multiple sources and from multiple authors. The evidence in #8709 comes from the same author as evidence 1 demonstrating that use in the earlier evidence was not made by mistake or out of ignorance. The other 2 evidences come from other people. All the evidences given are verifiable .
The character is culturally significant in that it is the only known character used exclusively for nauq [forever].
The evidence for ⿰久闹 is clear there is no doubt about the glyph shape, the character clearly preserves an ancient Zhuang word, nauq [forever], already lost in some places where it has been replaced by a loanword. The evidences show there is a need for us to encode the character.
Reply to 1.:
According to PnP 'original source' is one type of evidence that the IRG can accept but not the only type. There are 5 types of evidence that can be accepted: original source, multuple source, semantics, context and usage. The PnP says:-
'a character submission must be accompanied by evidence to satisfy at least one of the following
conditions:
a) Original Source ( 證 據 源 限 制 ): The source of evidence must be considered authoritative by IRG, as validated by past literature and IRG experts. IRG has the right to reject characters from questionable sources.
b) Multiple Sources ( 多 源 證 據 ): Supply character use evidence from multiple independence sources. IRG has the right to reject characters with evidence of use from only a single source, especially if the source is not considered authoritative by IRG.
c) Semantics (字理考證): Supply sufficient evidence on the meaning and phonetics. Supply of other information on its origin and evolution would be very helpful.
d) Context (上下文信息): Sufficient context in text to decipher the semantic meaning of the character. IRG has the right to reject characters that do not have sufficient evidence for IRG to decipher its semantics.
e) Usage (需求限制): The use of characters must be for justifiable public interest. Examples of public use include evidence of: governmental needs; scientific use; digitization projects for public use; and working systems of significance as accepted by IRG. IRG has the right to reject characters that do not have sufficient evidence for IRG of justifiable public interest.'
The evidences given are of the multiple source, semantics, context and usage type. Original source evidence is evidence for a character from a recognised authoritive source, a single source that is so important that we can say the character should be encoded because it is in that source. The evidence for this character is not of the 'original source' (an important authoritive source) type. However it is of three or four of the other types, it is: (1) from multiple sources (2) semantics as it clearly states the pronunciation and meaning (3) context sufficient for a native speaker of the language (4) usage - it is and can be used.
Reply to 2.
One change in the current PnP to previous versions is the permitting of a small number of characters with multimedia evidence. Literature is and will always be the main source of eidence for IRG but it does not need to be the only one. Multimedia evidence is new for the IRG and so there is need to talk about different different questions and build consensus.
Reply to 3
All the evidences given are verifiabled. Whilst there are many unreliable videos but this does not mean all videos are unreliable.
Reply to 4
Analysis of the sources used revealed that the characters used were neither arbitory nor designed by the creator. Also checked was that the character concerned was used by diffferent generations and dialects, and therefore can say is not small scale.
Reply to 5
This I think goes back to point one - the evidences are considered representative, or indicative. It is not suggested that the character is important because it is found in these evidences, but rather that because the character is impotant it is found hear.
Reply to 6
This character was even in the earlier 2006 version of the table.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 2 comments.
and
Other
Showing 1 comments.