The glyph (⿰丰丰) appears as a component in the transmitted regular script forms of characters such as "𠁳", "𣍈", "𧯮", "𧯽", "𫪙", and "彗". While scholars generally agree that it consists of two "丰" elements arranged side by side, there are divergent views regarding the origin and meaning of this "丰"-shaped component. Some interpret it as derived from "𡴀 (丰)", "𤯓 (生)", "丯 (jie)", or "玉 (jade)". Its function is variously understood as phonetic or semantic, and no scholarly consensus has been reached. Due to the extensive discussions surrounding this component, (⿰丰丰) frequently co-occurs with 𫵮 (U+2BD6E) and 甡 (U+7521) in ancient texts.
基于以上情况，提出以下建议：
Based on the above, the following suggestions are proposed:
(1) Regarding Encoding #10773
Given the complex relationships among (⿰丰丰), 𫵮, and 甡 in terms of glyph form, meaning, and actual usage, they are not identical. Directly unifying (⿰丰丰) with either 𫵮 or 甡 would not reflect the current state of scholarly discussion and would hinder precise processing in the digitization of ancient texts. It is recommended that (⿰丰丰) be encoded as a separate character.
(2) Regarding Variant Relationship #10634
(⿰丰丰) has a broad variant relationship with 𫵮 (U+2BD6E) and 甡 (U+7521), with a particularly close relationship to 𫵮. When it appears independently, it is often used as a variant of 𫵮 (as shown in evidence 5), which may serve as a reference.
(3) Suggestions for Glyph Design #4005
It is recommended to refer to the regular script forms of characters that use (⿰丰丰) as a component, such as "𠁳", "𣍈", "𧯮", "𧯽", "𫪙", and "彗". To maintain component consistency and adhere to the logical structure of the character, (⿰丰丰) should be designed with equal width on both sides, and the vertical strokes should not be curved.
(4) Regarding the SAT Data and Evidence 9 #10773
The SAT database cites the 一切經音義: "從又持~商，~音瑟臻反，古文作曹." This may contain an erroneous insertion of the character "啇". A corresponding screenshot from the *中華大藏經* has been provided as supporting evidence. Although Evidence 9 references this passage and may contain typographical or punctuation errors, this does not substantially affect the conclusions above.
𤉨 IS original. The shift from '𤉨' to '𤉹', from the ⿹AB to the ⿱AB, reflects a glyph normalization practice in modern Chinese printing. In my opinion, both glyph forms are acceptable in character encoding.
Agree with 10639E。Evidence 1 does contain both (⿱蓬火) and (⿱蓬灬). These two glyph forms appear frequently in transcriptions of Han dynasty wooden slips, but they rarely occur together in the same context. Our review of the relevant database shows that nearly all instances can be interpreted as the character “烽”. Screenshots of the database search results are attached for your reference.
针对 #10640 HUANG Junliang 的评论，经查阅内部资料，这可能源于古籍中常见的异文现象，如“蘧蘧”有异文作“遽遽”、“匆遽”有异文作“匆蘧”。我们的编辑在处理相关异体字时，可能因此将“蘧”字收入备考。需要说明的是，这并不构成“⿺辶處”为“蘧”异体字的直接证据。附上部分异文资料截图，供参考。而与“⿺辶處”构成直接语义关系的应该是“遽”，详见 Evidence 5。
感谢您的指正。
In response to comment #10640 from HUANG Junliang, our internal review suggests that this may stem from common textual variants found in ancient texts, such as “蘧蘧” appearing as “遽遽” in some versions, and “匆遽” appearing as “匆蘧”. Our editors may have included “蘧” in their records of potential variants during compilation for this reason. It should be noted, however, that this does not constitute direct evidence that “⿺辶處” is a variant of “蘧”. Screenshots of some relevant textual variants are attached for your reference. The character that has a direct semantic relationship with “⿺辶處” should be “遽”, as detailed in Evidence 5.
Thank you for your correction.
IRG Working Set 2024v4.0
Source: SU Ruixin
Date: Generated on 2026-04-18
Unification
Showing 1 comments.
The glyph (⿰丰丰) appears as a component in the transmitted regular script forms of characters such as "𠁳", "𣍈", "𧯮", "𧯽", "𫪙", and "彗". While scholars generally agree that it consists of two "丰" elements arranged side by side, there are divergent views regarding the origin and meaning of this "丰"-shaped component. Some interpret it as derived from "𡴀 (丰)", "𤯓 (生)", "丯 (jie)", or "玉 (jade)". Its function is variously understood as phonetic or semantic, and no scholarly consensus has been reached. Due to the extensive discussions surrounding this component, (⿰丰丰) frequently co-occurs with 𫵮 (U+2BD6E) and 甡 (U+7521) in ancient texts.
基于以上情况，提出以下建议：
Based on the above, the following suggestions are proposed:
（一）关于编码处理 #10773
鉴于（⿰丰丰）与𫵮、甡在字形、字义及实际使用中存在复杂关联，但并非全同关系，直接将其认同为𫵮或甡既不符合学术讨论现状，亦不利于古籍数字化的精确处理。建议对（⿰丰丰）予以单独编码。
(1) Regarding Encoding #10773
Given the complex relationships among (⿰丰丰), 𫵮, and 甡 in terms of glyph form, meaning, and actual usage, they are not identical. Directly unifying (⿰丰丰) with either 𫵮 or 甡 would not reflect the current state of scholarly discussion and would hinder precise processing in the digitization of ancient texts. It is recommended that (⿰丰丰) be encoded as a separate character.
（二）关于异体关系界定 #10634
（⿰丰丰）与𫵮 (U+2BD6E)、甡 (U+7521)存在广义上的异体字关系，尤以与𫵮的关系更为密切。在其独立出现时，多用作“𫵮”之异体（如evidence 5所示），可作为参考。
(2) Regarding Variant Relationship #10634
(⿰丰丰) has a broad variant relationship with 𫵮 (U+2BD6E) and 甡 (U+7521), with a particularly close relationship to 𫵮. When it appears independently, it is often used as a variant of 𫵮 (as shown in evidence 5), which may serve as a reference.
（三）关于字形设计建议 #4005
建议参考以（⿰丰丰）为构件的“𠁳”“𣍈”“𧯮”“𧯽”“𫪙”“彗”等字的楷书形态。为保持部件形态统一、符合字理逻辑，（⿰丰丰）宜采用左右等宽结构，竖笔不弯曲。
(3) Suggestions for Glyph Design #4005
It is recommended to refer to the regular script forms of characters that use (⿰丰丰) as a component, such as "𠁳", "𣍈", "𧯮", "𧯽", "𫪙", and "彗". To maintain component consistency and adhere to the logical structure of the character, (⿰丰丰) should be designed with equal width on both sides, and the vertical strokes should not be curved.
（四）关于SAT数据及evidence 9的说明 #10773
SAT数据库引《一切经音义》文句“從又持~商，~音瑟臻反，古文作曹”，可能存在“啇”字衍文之误。已提供《中华大藏经》相应截图作为佐证。evidence 9引用此条文献，虽存在排版或标点瑕疵，但对上述结论无实质影响。
(4) Regarding the SAT Data and Evidence 9 #10773
The SAT database cites the 一切經音義: "從又持~商，~音瑟臻反，古文作曹." This may contain an erroneous insertion of the character "啇". A corresponding screenshot from the *中華大藏經* has been provided as supporting evidence. Although Evidence 9 references this passage and may contain typographical or punctuation errors, this does not substantially affect the conclusions above.
Evidence
Showing 9 comments.
［清］陸增祥 撰：《八瓊室元金石偶存·八瓊室元金石偶存》，吴興劉氏，1925年，第16頁。
𤉨 IS original. The shift from '𤉨' to '𤉹', from the ⿹AB to the ⿱AB, reflects a glyph normalization practice in modern Chinese printing. In my opinion, both glyph forms are acceptable in character encoding.
(清)阮元撰 《揅經室集 七卷》，《皇清經解 一百七十八種一千四百八卷》，廣東學海堂 清道光九年[1829]
{{ http://read.nlc.cn/OutOpenBook/OpenObjectBook?aid=016&bid=3688.0 }}
Evidence 5
［清］阮元 撰；鄧經元 點校：《揅經室集》，中華書局，1993年5月，第1版，第117頁。
Evidence 6
春在堂全書 / 俞樾 [編] 光緒8[1882]
https://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/i04/i04_00484/i04_00484_0024/i04_00484_0024_p0008.jpg
Evidence 7
［清］俞樾 著；顧大朋 等 點校：《第一樓叢書·之六 兒笘録·卷三·𠓆》，浙江古籍出版社，2017年12月，第1版，第220頁。
Evidence 8
徐世昌 等 編纂；沈芝盈、梁運華 點校：《清儒學案·卷一百六十九 巢經學案·鄭先生珍·説文逸字敍目》，中華書局，2008年10月，第1版，第6493頁。
Evidence 9
［清］陳鱣 著；李林 點校：《簡莊疏記·卷八 儀禮》，浙江古籍出版社，2018年12月，第471頁
Evidence 10
王力 著：《中國語言學史·第三章 文字、声韵、训诂全面发展的时期·第三节 古文字学·一、甲骨文的研究》，中華書局，2013年08月，第1版，第140頁。
Evidence 11
武善樹 編著：《陝西金石志·補遺上 金石補遺上》，三秦出版社，2016年09月，第1版，第9頁
［唐］慧琳 撰 ：《一切經音義》卷第六十二，《中華大藏經（漢文部分）》，中華書局，1993年02月，第1版，第704頁。
張涌泉 主編：敦煌經部文獻合集，中華書局，2008年8月，第1版，第3223頁。
Evidence 4
［清］朱駿聲 撰：《説文通訓定聲》，中華書局，2016年11月，第2版，第1024頁。
Evidence 5
廣益會玉篇三十卷》，清同治至光緒間（1862-1908）鍾謙鈞據清康熙四十三年（1704）張士俊澤存堂本重刻
Evidence 6
《大宋重修廣韻五卷》，元泰定二年（1325）圓沙書院刻本
Evidence 7
［金］邢準 編，《新修絫音引證群籍玉篇三十卷》，金刻本
Evidence 8
［元］周伯琦 撰, 《六書正訛五卷》, 明崇禎七年（1634）海陽胡正言十竹齋刻本
Evidence 9
［明］趙欽湯、［明］李登 編著，《重刊詳校篇海五卷》，明萬曆三十六年（1608）趙新盤刻本
Evidence 10
［明］陳士元 撰,《古俗字略七卷》, 明萬曆中刊本
Evidence 11
［清］李京 撰, 《字學正本五卷》, 清康熙八年（1669）刻本
Evidence 12
《康熙字典十二集三十六卷》，清光緒元年（1875）湖北崇文書局石印本
［元］普度 編 ：《廬山蓮宗寶鑑》，《中華大藏經（漢文部分）》，中華書局，1994年05月，第1版，第106頁。
Evidence 5
真大成 著：《中古史書校證·《南史》校證第九·何處》，中華書局，2013年07月，第1版，第332頁。
董其昌 撰，青浮山人輯：《董華亭書畫録》，靈鶼閣叢書本（光緒刻）
https://lbezone.hkust.edu.hk/bib/b940273
南炳文、吴彥玲 輯校：《輯校萬曆起居注·萬曆十六年·三月》，天津古籍出版社，2010年1月，第1版，第688頁。
南炳文、吴彥玲 輯校：《輯校萬曆起居注·萬曆十七年》，天津古籍出版社，2010年1月，第1版，第768頁。
《万历起居注》，明末清初抄本，识典古籍
[1883]
［清］馬壽齡 撰；李曉春 校點：《説文段注撰要·卷三 通用字》，黄山書社，2024年02月，第1版，第263頁。
劉宋范曄撰 唐李賢注 （志）晉司馬彪撰 梁劉昭注《後漢書·卷八十四》，宋白鷺洲書院刻本
［南朝宋］范曄 撰；［唐］李賢 等 注；中華書局編輯部 點校：《後漢書·卷八十四 列女傳第七十四·董祀妻》，中華書局，1965年5月，第1版，第2803頁。
元和郡縣圖志，金陵書局，清光緒8年[1882]刻本，
http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=12&showType=1&indexName=data_403&fid=312001056832
Evidence 5
徐应秋《玉芝堂谈荟》，《明代筆記日記繪畫史料彙編》，上海書畫出版社，2019年02月，第1版，第542頁。
Evidence 6，original edition of Evidence 5
徐應秋，玉芝堂談薈 卷二十八，文淵閣四庫全書本
Evidence 7
［清］易鏡清 輯，［清］易本烺 補，《字孳補二卷》，清同治九年（1870）京山易氏家刻本
https://etymology.ancientbooks.cn/newViewDetail2.jspx?contentId=3563580&highlight=%F0%AA%8C%AD
(清)方以智撰，《通雅》，姚氏浮山此藏軒清康熙5年[1666]
{{http://read.nlc.cn/OutOpenBook/OpenObjectBook?aid=892&bid=150692.0 }}
Other
Showing 2 comments.
是的，甚至Evidence 1 中同时出现了（⿱蓬火）和（⿱蓬灬）。这两个字形在汉简释文中均有大量用例，但极少在同一处同时出现。我们核查了相关数据库，几乎所有用例均可释读为“烽”字。附上数据库检索结果截图，供您参考。
Agree with 10639E。Evidence 1 does contain both (⿱蓬火) and (⿱蓬灬). These two glyph forms appear frequently in transcriptions of Han dynasty wooden slips, but they rarely occur together in the same context. Our review of the relevant database shows that nearly all instances can be interpreted as the character “烽”. Screenshots of the database search results are attached for your reference.
感谢您的指正。
In response to comment #10640 from HUANG Junliang, our internal review suggests that this may stem from common textual variants found in ancient texts, such as “蘧蘧” appearing as “遽遽” in some versions, and “匆遽” appearing as “匆蘧”. Our editors may have included “蘧” in their records of potential variants during compilation for this reason. It should be noted, however, that this does not constitute direct evidence that “⿺辶處” is a variant of “蘧”. Screenshots of some relevant textual variants are attached for your reference. The character that has a direct semantic relationship with “⿺辶處” should be “遽”, as detailed in Evidence 5.
Thank you for your correction.