Very useful component, as in 沿, 鉛, 㔯 and 船, whose phonetic symbol are all 㕣 *LON.
㕣 is the liding form of Shuowen Seal, and appears in 兗-series and 袞-series, whose phonetic symbol are all 㕣 *LON.
Consider update the representative glyph to ⿱几口, since 兗 > 兖 and 袞 > 衮.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
⿱几口 can be useful as a special component. Many CJKUI have the shape. 㕣(U+3563) is coded at 17-21 in GB/T 7590-1987(China's national standard), which is different from ⿱几口.
Oppose Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
As Comment #278 shows, they are source code separation.
▲ GB/T 7590—1987, 17-21
On the other hand, 㕣 (U+3563) could be also used as the variant of 公.
Since TCA will submit this character as a UNC (mentioned in L2/24-165), it should be unified to that codepoint (probably U+2B73C) as a horizontal extension.
Unification
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
Per document IRG N2709, this particular ideograph is officially being proposed as a UNC by TCA, and if accepted during the IRG #63, it should be removed from this working set. As stated in Comments #1814, China can submit a horizontal proposal after Unicode Version 17.0 has been released (2025). If the ideograph is considered urgent for China, which I suspect it is not given that it is in an IRG working set, China can submit a UNC proposal.
As the note says:
The character is mainly used by Zhuang(壮族) people who lived in the area between Beiliu County(北流市) and Yulin City(玉林市), Guangxi(广西). From the aspect of shape and pronunciation, it is related to 䂖(石). However, because the pronunciation of 石(dan4) is similar to 氹(dang4) and 潭(tan2) in dialect, the character is actually used as 氹(pool) or 潭(pool) by local Zhuang(壮族) people and no exception found. Considering the shape is interesting, suggest to seperately encode it as a special Variantof 石（䂖）.
We suggest not to unify.
The original evidence of 𰀬 (GHZR-10061.01) shows it reads as 盈. This Zhuang character is also related to the Cantonese word noi6 (we often write it as 耐).
Oppose Unification
TAO Yang
China
U+3002C is a very stable glyph in the ancient books, while GZ-3452101 looks like the 正字 of it, both of them should be kept to be encoded.
Oppose Unification
John Knightley
China
The different pronunciations imply that these are non-cognate and therefore should not be unified. 𰀬 has the reading ying1. The pronunciation of GZ-3452101 comes from the top part, 乃, usually nai3 in Chinese.
Do not unify to WS2021-04550 SAT-08653 ⿺鬼攴 (Ext. J U+33334) as non-cognate and different structural composition.
Unification
Kushim JIANG
Individual
Unify to .
According to Eiso comment #8907, |⿺鬼攴| pronounced gwai2 in Cantonese, with phonetic symbol 甶 (鬼) *KUI.
All the evidence here (related to 畏 or 鬼) support the phonetic symbol 甶 *KUI or *ɁUI.
Unify to 兮 or 𠔃 based on Evidence 2 and the first piece of evidence in Comment #228?
The following pictures show this character is the variant of 兮.
▲ 《聚學軒叢書 第四集 隋唐石刻拾遺 上》, 揚州: 江蘇廣陵古籍刻印社, 1982.10, p. 29
▲ 黄永年: 《古代文献研究集林 第二集》, 西安: 陕西师范大学出版社, 1992.2, ISBN 7-5613-0401-3/K·32, p. 282
The first piece of evidence in Comment #228 show it is the variant of 𠔃.
The second piece of evidence in Comment #228 show the fanqie is 胡雞反.
It may be unifiable with 𰀾 (U+3003E). Henry's comment for 00083 in the ORT for IRG Working Set 2015 suggests that U+3003E is cognate with U+8FFA, which is claimed to be a synonym (aka cognate) of this ideograph.
agree with #553. Also, Guangyun gives fanqie 防錽 for 笵, which appears to be more immediately equivalent to the character, ⿱竹汜, for which SAT-09407 is the in the fanqie given in the evidence.
Unify to [ {{WS2021-01317}} ] ⿰忄史 (Ext. J U+327F6). Second evidence shows ⿰忄史 twice, and first evidence shows ⿰忄史 and ⿰忄⿻口人, but ⿰忄⿻口人 here is clearly a mistake for ⿰忄史.
Evidences 1 & 2 support unifying to 𬡢(襖). cf 诚斋集 (卷五十四).
Evidences 3 & 4 support error form of 煥(焕). cf 禅社首坛颂碑.
Oppose Unification
HUANG Junliang
Individual
While I agree on the variants relationship provided by Kushim in comment #150, I think the fact that there are two independent historical use cases for ⿰衤奐 (Evidence 1 and 3) and one modern annotations usage (Evidence 4) already supported a separate codepoint for ⿰衤奐.
If we encoded ⿰衤奐 as U+2C862 + VS17, then it would be very confusing when we digitalize evidence 3 by U+2C862 + VS17, because here ⿰衤奐 was never a variant for U+2C862 or 襖. On the other hand, as the radicals of 煥 is different to the one of ⿰衤奐, it is not better to encode ⿰衤奐 as an IVD for 煥, either.
If UK were to HE U+2C862, it raises the concern of over-unification because U+2C862 is not intended as an error form of 煥, they have different shape and pronunciations.
The component 奐 is very productive while the 𪥌 component is rarely used (only 𪶓 and 𬡢) in encoded characters. Encoding ⿰衤奐 will offer a better unification "anchor" for any future variants if they are discovered.
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
Agree with Huang Junliang. Unifying to either 𬡢 or 煥 would be unsatisfactory for one or more of the evidence examples, so it is best to encode it.
Evidence 5 and 6 give ⿰⿱𮫙革成, unifiable with ⿰鞷成. ⿰鞷成 is a variant form of U+29AE8 𩫨. 《元始天王大洞玉經》55a gives the alternative form ⿰⿳一品幸烕 (not submitted). Consider introduce new UCV 鬲/𮫙.
Evidence 3 shows ⿰氵𢑴, evidence 4 shows ⿰氵彛, evidence 5 and evidence 6 show ⿰氵𢑱; they are all potentially unifiable variants of ⿰氵彝 given by evidence 1 and 2
This is already the U-source form of U+6ECB 滋, so UTC should submit a disunification proposal if they believe that ⿰氵玆 was incorrectly unified to 滋 (U+6ECB) (personally, I think the unification is correct).
Oppose Unification
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
This ideograph is a disunification of U+6ECB 滋 that also affects U+FA99 滋. If accepted, the kIRG_KPSource property value of U+FA99, KP1-52B4, should be moved to the new code point, the kIRG_KPSource property value of U+FA99 should be changed to KPU-0FA99, and the kIRG_USource property value of U+6ECB, UTC-00777, should be removed.
Note that disunifications have been processed via previous IRG working sets, which is why the UTC decided to submit this ideograph. UTC-01159, UTC-01162, and UTC-02972 in IRG Working Set 2017 served as precedents.
Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
玆 and 茲 have often been used interchangeably in later periods. The following four pieces of evidence are provided for reference. Based on this, it is suggested to keep the unification with 滋 and ⿰氵玆.
As a character, they may be unifiable. May submit as a supplementary radical-component.
Oppose Unification
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
My personal opinion is that until someone—or a member body—prepares and submits a formal proposal to create a new CJK Components (or similar) block, we should continue to encode radical-like components as CJK Unified Ideographs.
In the fourth evidence, the fanqie 古旦反 suggests that it is a variant of 幹. The U+2D16A 𭅪 is also a variant of 幹. Suggest unify to 𭅪 as long as they are cognate.
As a character, they may be unifiable.
[書] = ⿱ [聿] [日(者)].
[畫] = ⿱ [聿?𬚪?] [画(田?周?)].
[晝] = ⿱ [聿] [日].
May submit as a supplementary radical-component.
Oppose Unification
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
My personal opinion is that until someone—or a member body—prepares and submits a formal proposal to create a new CJK Components (or similar) block, we should continue to encode radical-like components as CJK Unified Ideographs.
This ideograph is a disunification of U+7DF4 練 that also affects U+FAB0 練. If accepted, the kIRG_KPSource property value of U+FAB0, KP1-671B, should be moved to the new code point, and the kIRG_KPSource property value of U+FAB0 should be changed to KPU-0FAB0. As with the most recent disunification, Japan will not want to move the kIRG_JSource property value of U+7DF4, J0-4E7D, to the new code point due to compatibility concerns.
Note that disunifications have been processed via previous IRG working sets, which is why the UTC decided to submit this ideograph. UTC-01159, UTC-01162, and UTC-02972 in IRG Working Set 2017 served as precedents.
This ideograph is a disunification of U+233D5 𣏕 that also affects U+FAD1 𣏕. If accepted, the kIRG_KPSource property value of U+FAD1, KP1-4B26, should be moved to the new code point, and the kIRG_KPSource property value of U+FAD1 should be changed to KPU-0FAD1.
Note that disunifications have been processed via previous IRG working sets, which is why the UTC decided to submit this ideograph. UTC-01159, UTC-01162, and UTC-02972 in IRG Working Set 2017 served as precedents.
This ideograph is a disunification of U+5F50 彐 and U+2B739 𫜹.
Note that disunifications have been processed via previous IRG working sets, which is why the UTC decided to submit this ideograph. UTC-01159, UTC-01162, and UTC-02972 in IRG Working Set 2017 served as precedents.
To mirror Vietnam's comments in 02657, this ideograph should not be unified with 𠯇 (U+20BC7), because the phonetic components, 己 (kỷ) and 已 (dĩ), are very different. UTC-03296 would therefore be non-cognate with U+20BC7 in Vietnamese.
Should probably not be unified with 𥐦 (U+25426) because the phonetic components, 己 (kỷ) and 已 (dĩ) are very different. UTC-03297 would be non-cognate with U+25426 in Vietnamese.
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.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
The unification has been discussed in IRG meeting before and the decision was that it should be encoded seperately.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
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.
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.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
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.
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.
The Japanese reading of this character is コウ, which is the same as 工.
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
The single piece of evidence provided does not convince me that this character should be separately encoded. If, as suspected, this is a variant form of 工 then it would be most appropriate to deal with it using IVS. Note that the much more common variant of 工 with a zig-zag middle stroke was not considered suitable for separate encoding, and is registered in the IVD for the Adobe and Hanyo-Denshi collections.
Non-cognate with 𠮚 (U+20B9A), even the shape looks similar. The outer part of this character is 囗, but the outer part of U+20B9A is 口.
Oppose Unification
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
Unicode does not encode *glyphs* but *characters*.
Oppose Unification
L F CHENG
Individual
The radical is different, and the submitted evidence shows the dot written non-centered, in various alignments.
Oppose Unification
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
The two 机s are non-cognate but they have the same *abstract shape* as ⿰{木}{几}. However, ⿴口丶 and ⿴囗丶 do not, even their *absolute shape* are not identical but just similar. Additionally, ⿴囗丶 also has the Q-like shape according to one of the evidences, you could not determine the character identity just from one of the possible absolute shape, which is the same issue as the relationship between {月(月)}, {月(肉)}, {月(舟)}, {月(丹)} and {月(冃)}.
Oppose Unification
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
Also agree with #3123 that the radical difference is enough to show they are two different *characters*.
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
Wang Xieyang quoted the relevant sentence of the PnP in comment #3120: "Ideographs with different glyph shapes that are unrelated in historical derivation (non-cognate characters) are not unified no matter how similar their glyph shapes may be". In this case the outer box of UTC-03393 should be noticeably larger than the outer box of U+20B9A.
This my implementation of the two characters in my BabelStone Han and BabelStone Han PUA fonts, with the two characters clearly distinguished (although still easily confusable):
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Agree with the disunification.
In China, people often write 国 as 囗. ⿴囗丶 is just a version with another dot. The dot represents the compnent that is simplified. I think the position of the dot doesn't matter.
Evidence #1 supports variant of 蚩. Evidence #2 does not support variant of 蚩.
Fanqie data in evidence #2 shows 丑善翻.
Shuowen: [𧈪] (丑善切) 蟲曳行也. 从虫屮聲. 讀若騁. (phonetic symbol 屮)
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
蚩(U+86A9)，说文：从虫，𡳿（之, not 屮）聲. 蟲也。Reading chi1 nowadays, used mainly in a name 蚩尤.
𧈪(U+2722A)，说文：从虫，屮聲. 蟲申行也. Reading chan3 nowadays, used mainly in Wu dialect(吴语) meaning stretching.
In a nutshell, 蚩(U+86A9) and 𧈪(U+2722A) are non-cognate.
Evidence 1 shows that ⿱山虫 is a variant of 蚩. Evidence 2 shows that ⿱山虫 is a variant of 𧈪(U+2722A). In this circumstance, it will be reluctant to unify it neither to 蚩(U+86A9) nor 𧈪(U+2722A).
So my suggestion would be not to unify.
Unify to 矑 (U+77D1) which is the form that Evidence 2 seems to show.
Unification
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
I also agree to unify to 矑 (U+77D1). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
I also agree to unify to 躔 (U+8E94). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
Many other versions of 蒙古秘史 shows 䦍 instead of |⿵門兀| in 額䦍迭訥 (Mongolian e'üden-ü), with its phonetic symbol 乞. Here we believe that cognition reconstruction has occurred, where the phonetic symbol has been changed to 兀.
Unify to 𪖌 (U+2A58C) -- Evidence 2 seems to show ⿺鼠盧
Unification
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
I also agree to unify to 𪖌 (U+2A58C). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
Unify to 𡎢 (U+213A2). The reading ngồi suggests that this is an error form of 𡎢, and unless there is additional evidence that it is a stable error found in multiple sources I suggest that it is postponed.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Likely an error form, but enshrined in a published standard: Kho chữ nôm mã hoá.
Unify to 𫺱 (U+2BEB1).
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
The shapes are too different to recognize as identical. If we are going to arbitrarily equate simplified components based on interchangeability, then we should apply that across the board, including 馬/马, 金/钅, etc.
Unification
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
The two structures have a strict correspondence, and we could treat them as only glyph variants. That is a very different situation from 馬/马, 金/钅, etc. See the colors below.
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
The shapes are too different to recognize as identical.
Unify to 𪫢 (U+2AAE2).
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
The shapes are too different to recognize as identical.
Unification
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
See #4776. https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/?id=01489
If evidence 2 is indeed ⿰氵⿱𫂁马, suggest to change IDS and glyph to ⿰氵⿱𫂁马 so that it is the legit simplified variant of 𤅲 (U+24172), and then we can unify ⿰氵⿱𮅕马 to ⿰氵⿱𫂁马. Otherwise we will end up with the situation where 𤅲 is missing encoded simplified form and ⿰氵⿱𮅕马 is missing encoded traditional form, which may lead to two more encoded characters in the future.
Since 𬷨 is the phonetic and 外 is the meaning the IDS ⿰外𬷨 is clear to those who are familiar with 𬷨, however this does not align with the current radical.
The IDS should remain as it is because, strange as it may seem at first sight, the established convention is to use 出 (U+51FA) not 岀 (U+5C80) in such cases.
GZHSJ-0101 is not quite the same as the outside component of U+206A1 𠚡, which has one additional vertical stroke at the bottom middle. It is the same as the bottom outside component of the T and J forms of U+2700D 𧀍 (but the G form is the same as the outside of 𠚡).
Although I have no position about the glyph design, I support HKSAR's comment. If the glyph design looking like "⿰言墮" is not used differently, IDS "⿰言墮" would be more helpful.
I think 飠 is counted as 9 strokes, so total stroke count of 16 should be correct.
FS
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Unihan data, the ORT Attributes predictor, and most other candidates in WS2024 give 8. It would be better to be consistent.
Total Stroke Count
Andrew WEST
UK
Looking at the stroke counts given in the code charts, for characters with 飠 in the residual part, the calculated stroke count of 飠 is 9 for Exts. A and B: U+3533 㔳 (22.11), U+20343 𠍃 (9.11), U+20957 𠥗 (22.11), U+243FC 𤏼 (86.13), U+20FF0 𠿰 (30.13), U+20FEE 𠿮 (30.13), U+21468 𡑨 (32.13), U+21F3D 𡼽 (46.13), U+24014 𤀔 (85.13), U+25F41 𥽁 (119.13), etc.
Only in Exts. C and later does the calculated stroke count of 飠 change to 8: U+2AF97 𪾗 (108.12), U+2BA1C 𫨜 (27.12), U+325A3 (30.12).
9 strokes seems more consistent, especially when you consider the standard J and K form 𩙿 which is definitely 9 strokes.
I think 飠 is counted as 9 strokes, so total stroke count of 15 should be correct.
Total Stroke Count
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Unihan data, the ORT Attributes predictor, and most other candidates in WS2024 give 8. It would be better to be consistent.
Total Stroke Count
Andrew WEST
UK
Looking at the stroke counts given in the code charts, for characters with 飠 in the residual part, the calculated stroke count of 飠 is 9 for Exts. A and B: U+3533 㔳 (22.11), U+20343 𠍃 (9.11), U+20957 𠥗 (22.11), U+243FC 𤏼 (86.13), U+20FF0 𠿰 (30.13), U+20FEE 𠿮 (30.13), U+21468 𡑨 (32.13), U+21F3D 𡼽 (46.13), U+24014 𤀔 (85.13), U+25F41 𥽁 (119.13), etc.
Only in Exts. C and later does the calculated stroke count of 飠 change to 8: U+2AF97 𪾗 (108.12), U+2BA1C 𫨜 (27.12), U+325A3 (30.12).
9 strokes seems more consistent, especially when you consider the standard J and K form 𩙿 which is definitely 9 strokes.
Total Stroke Count
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Given the variations across geographies and font designs, and the fact that unification precludes most shape-based determination of attributes, CJKJRG / IRG originally chose to use the Kangxi values, the most common denominator in dictionaries used by the CJKV countries. This avoided a lot of fruitless debate. Kangxi is 9 strokes, but as you point out, that later changed. I'm fine with either 8 or 9, but we should be consistent moving forward and change the ORT tools to support our decision. Otherwise, maybe we should just stop using TS.
秩 is the phonetic and 刀 the semantic. I don't see how radical 93 is appropriate here. If anything the secondary radical, taken from 秩, should be 115 (禾)
The attributes predictor tool gives 8 for the stroke count. https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/attributes-predictor.php?ids=%E2%BF%B1亡目务&radical=109.0
The modern edition as below replaces this character as 湾, but it doesn’t mean it is the variant of 湾. 順鄉都 is not still used as the geographical names in 信宜. There is also Hakka people (客家人) in 信宜, and it is not easy to confirm if it is the character used for Chinese Yue-dialect or Chinese Hakka-dialect, so there is no the language tag at this step.
▲ 信宜县地方志编纂委员会: 《信宜县志》 (《广东省地方志丛书》), 广州: 广东人民出版社, 1993.12, ISBN 7-218-01230-0/K·270, p. 88
IRG Working Set 2024v1.0
Unification
Unify to 𠅏?
Shuowen: 𠅏, 古文克. 𠧹, 亦古文克.
Unify to 旅.
|⿰方衣| (A01763-007) = |旅| (A01763)
The lishu evidence is like 挔.
Unify to 𪀚.
Guangyun: [𪀚] (息弓切) 似鷹而小, 能捕雀也.
Unify to 䬲.
▲ 华阳洞天主人 (著), 孤往山人 (校注). 孤往山人评注西游记. 2022: p.514
All evidences support phonetic symbol 句 < 丩.
Unify to 𬲯.
See comment #2 in evidence #2.
Unify to 𩹡.
Consider 㹧𱮒, the phonetic symbol should be 昂 < 卬, instead of 昴 < 卯.
Update the representative glyph of 𩹡 to |⿰魚昂|.
Unify to 𬶘.
Consider 㹧𱮒, the phonetic symbol should be 昂 < 卬, instead of 昴 < 卯.
Update the representative glyph of 𬶘 to |⿰鱼昂|.
Unify to 𤴘.
▲ Guanyun, p.539
Consider phonetic symbol 入.
Unify to 㕣.
Very useful component, as in 沿, 鉛, 㔯 and 船, whose phonetic symbol are all 㕣 *LON.
㕣 is the liding form of Shuowen Seal, and appears in 兗-series and 袞-series, whose phonetic symbol are all 㕣 *LON.
Consider update the representative glyph to ⿱几口, since 兗 > 兖 and 袞 > 衮.
▲ GB/T 7590—1987, 17-21
On the other hand, 㕣 (U+3563) could be also used as the variant of 公.
Since TCA will submit this character as a UNC (mentioned in L2/24-165), it should be unified to that codepoint (probably U+2B73C) as a horizontal extension.
Unify to 䂖?
Undisguisable shapes.
Consider 潭 (Zhuang) daemz ~ 吞 (Zhuang) daen?
The character is mainly used by Zhuang(壮族) people who lived in the area between Beiliu County(北流市) and Yulin City(玉林市), Guangxi(广西). From the aspect of shape and pronunciation, it is related to 䂖(石). However, because the pronunciation of 石(dan4) is similar to 氹(dang4) and 潭(tan2) in dialect, the character is actually used as 氹(pool) or 潭(pool) by local Zhuang(壮族) people and no exception found. Considering the shape is interesting, suggest to seperately encode it as a special Variantof 石（䂖）.
We suggest not to unify.
Unify to [ {{WS2021-00778}} ]
GDM-00364 ⿴囗恋 (Ext. J U+32629)
Unify to 圹.
Shuowen: [广] 因广爲屋, 象對刺高屋之形... 讀若儼然之儼.
Guangyun: [广] (魚掩切) 因巗爲屋.
Unify to 𭎇 (U+2D387)
Unify to WS2021-00814 ⿰土辰 (Ext. J U+32649)
The readings are the same, gǒu.
Looks the variant of U+5CED 峭
This character is the variant of U+21DFF 𡷿.
U+2A9CE 𪧎 could be the variant of 定, based on the explanation of KC-11709.
Therefore, they are non-cognates.
Current cognate disunified examples:
U+2361B 𣘛 = U+6A77 橷
⿱艸⿵戊𮍌 (A03579-007) = 藏 (A03579)
⿱艸⿸厂⿱示一 (C11600-001) = 𦱯 (C11600)
⿱艸馬 (A03027-005) = 䔍 (A03027-001)
⿱艸⿻丨⿱𠈌二 (A03503-009) = 華 (A03503)
⿱艸㇯𦮙艹 (A03522-007) = 𦮙 (A03522-003)
⿱艸㙯 (A03586-007) = 藝 (A03586)
⿱艸㝛 (A03560-004) = 𰱵 (A03560-003)
⿱艸㠩 (漢字海) = 𮎰
⿱艸䦨 (A03600-003) = 蘭 (A03600)
⿱艸丁 (B03777-001) = 艼 (B03777)
⿱艸不 (B03797-002) = 芣 (B03797)
⿱艸丏 (漢字海) = ⿱艸丐 (C11408) = 𦬛 (C11408)
⿱艸之 (A03433-005) = 芝 (A03433)
⿱艸交 (B03834-003) = 茭 (B03834)
⿱艸介 (A03441-003) = 芥 (A03441)
⿱艸付 (A02994-003) = 苻 (A02994-001)
⿱艸侖 (B03925-001) = 菕 (B03925)
⿱艸倉 (漢字海) = 蒼
⿱艸⿰氵𠝣 (漢字海) = 𧁄
⿱艸⿰豕生 (漢字海) = 蕤
⿱艸⿰㚔匊 (漢字海) = 𧂲
⿱艸⿰長隶 (漢字海) = 𧀳
⿱艸㓹 (漢字海) = 𦺶
Unify to 𠽏 (U+20F4F)?
If yes, we could expand UCV #90.
Unify to 𰀬? UCV #428 久乆
The original evidence of 𰀬 (GHZR-10061.01) shows it reads as 盈. This Zhuang character is also related to the Cantonese word noi6 (we often write it as 耐).
U+22663 means "恶".
Unify to 㒷 (U+34B7). Both are vulgar forms of 興, and the crossing or not of the 人 component should be a unifiable difference.
The evidence above suggest this is a unifiable variant of 䏻 (U+43FB), which is in turn a variant of 能
⿰䏍長 in 异体字字典
Unify to
.
According to Eiso comment #8907, |⿺鬼攴| pronounced gwai2 in Cantonese, with phonetic symbol 甶 (鬼) *KUI.
All the evidence here (related to 畏 or 鬼) support the phonetic symbol 甶 *KUI or *ɁUI.
No examples for |⿰鬼？| ≠ |⿺鬼？|.
Unify to 兮 or 𠔃 based on Evidence 2 and the first piece of evidence in Comment #228?
The following pictures show this character is the variant of 兮.
▲ 《聚學軒叢書 第四集 隋唐石刻拾遺 上》, 揚州: 江蘇廣陵古籍刻印社, 1982.10, p. 29
▲ 黄永年: 《古代文献研究集林 第二集》, 西安: 陕西师范大学出版社, 1992.2, ISBN 7-5613-0401-3/K·32, p. 282
The first piece of evidence in Comment #228 show it is the variant of 𠔃.
The second piece of evidence in Comment #228 show the fanqie is 胡雞反.
Unify to 囧 (U+56E7)?
Same semantics and similar glyphs.
Unify to 𥢑 (U+25891) ?
Unify to 𤍫 (U+2436B) by #307b, with horizontal extension by China.
Unifiable to 𱎚 (U+3139A)?
Unify to 𱧅 (U+319C5). (UCV#123 巳㔾)
These two characters are variants of 滄.
It seems OK to unify to 𱧅 (U+319C5).
Unify to 煚 (U+715A)
Unify to 𣕕 (U+23555) by UCV #89
Unify to 𤣪 or 玉?
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 漢和藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第一
▲ 《汉语大字典》, version 2, p. 1177
Unify to 𥉕.
Shuowen (Duanzhu): [矇] (莫中切) 童蒙也. [此與周易童蒙異. 謂目童子如冡覆也. 毛公, 劉熙, 韋昭皆云: 有眸子而無見曰矇...]
Unify to 豁?
从谷害聲.
Unify to 𩍘?
Upper part |艹| of |𤰈| goes into |勹|.
Unify to 𰐏 (U+3040F)?
Both are ⿹ [戈] [甬].
Unify to 拆 with new UCV (lv2)?
⿰木𭤟 (B01667-008) = 柝 (B01667)
⿰言𭤟 (0xF7BE2) = 訴. 張涌泉 敦煌經部文獻合集 小學類字書之屬 韻部字義抄: ▲爲訴的訛俗字.
Unify to 𣽮.
▲ GHZR, p.1875
Both are ⿰氵婬.
Agree with Kushim. Add new UCV 婬 ~ ⿰女⿱爫𠙻.
⿰女⿱爫𠙻 is also not yet coded.
It is found in 《玉篇》 and 《類篇》.
(from MOE Variants Dictionary)
Unify to 㣇.
Shuowen: [彙] (于貴切) 蟲似豪豬者. 从㣇, 𦞅省聲.
See WS2021-01283
[ {{WS2021-01283}} ]
Unify to 䏣.
字林 千余反 (清開三魚平) shows status as 疽, phonetic symbol 且.
See WS2021-03225
Unify to 釁?
Evidence 1 supports error form of 㸑.
Evidences 2&3 supports variant of 釁.
Unify to 䊙?
▲ 玉篇 (元刊本)
Unify to 䈄.
⿶凵⿻了从 (A00327-005) = 函 (A00327)
⿰氵⿶凵⿻了从 (A02238-016-1) = 涵 (A02238)
Unify to 𢼒?
Shuowen: [𢼒] (苦候切) 擊也. 从攴句聲. 讀若扣.
Unify to 𠔂.
That is, unify to 灬.
cf.
Unify to 𡭊.
Shuowen: [𡭊] (都隊切) 譍無方也. 从丵从口从寸. [對] 𡭊或从士. 漢文帝以爲責𡭊而爲言, 多非誠𡭊, 故去其口以从士也.
Unify to 𡜞.
Consider 𡉵𡊥 disunify to 兆. 𡜞 may disunify to 姚.
Unify to 𧀓.
As shown in Evidences 2&3.
屢 with extra component 艹.
Unify to 𨚗.
摩那𭅤, मानप्य (mānāpya).
Unify to 摭.
征石反 (章開三清入) shows status as 摭, phonetic symbol 庶(石).
Unify to 淄.
滓師反 (莊開三之平) shows status as 菑, phonetic symbol 甾 *TSƏ.
Unify to 䅻.
恥知反 (徹開三支平) shows status as 摛, with phonetic symbol 离(離) *RAI.
Unified to 讟 (U+8B9F) in irg51.
See WS2017-04035
[ {{WS2017-04035}} ]
Unify to 戩.
Per UCV #388, which has been expanded in IRG #58.
[ {{WS2021-03400}} ]
⿰山𣈆 (C02879-001) = 𡺽 (C02879)
⿰氵𣈆 (C06323-001) = 溍 (C06323)
Unify to 𡍩.
Disunifiable variant of 坼.
I agree on the unification comment #258. There are only one 丿 stroke difference between ⿰土⿱亠屰 and 𡍩. In WS2017, we have already unified ⿰犭⿳⿱⺊乛七巾 to 𤟝.
[ {{WS2017-02527}} ]
Unify to 音.
律文作簞, 音丹, 笥也.
Unify to 韏?
▲ T2128_.54.0654c11
Unify to 𥆞.
Shuowen: [𥆞] (居倦切) 目圍也. 从䀠, 𠂆. 讀若書卷之卷. 古文以爲醜字.
Unify to 勖.
B00256-006 = 勖 (B00256)
Unify to 𤎟.
Shuowen: [𤏯] (烏前切) 火气也. 从火𡍯聲. [烟] 或从因. [𠖜] 古文. [𤎟] 籒文从宀.
Unify to 䖧.
▲ 類篇
Unify to 𠐨.
Variant of 愆.
It may be unifiable with 𰀾 (U+3003E). Henry's comment for 00083 in the ORT for IRG Working Set 2015 suggests that U+3003E is cognate with U+8FFA, which is claimed to be a synonym (aka cognate) of this ideograph.
Unify to 跟.
▲ T2128_.54.0546c08
▲ T2128_.54.0731c03
Unify to 諏.
Error form.
Shuowen: [諏] (子于切) 聚謀也. 从言取聲.
Unify to 蒭?
Shuowen: [芻] (叉愚切) 刈艸也. 象包束艸之形.
Consider adding extra component 艹 and converting to 八.
Unify to 齎.
|⿲丿二丨| > |口|
Unify to 徹 (U+5FB9) with new UCV?
Agree unify to 徹.
▲ T2128_.54.0668a18
▲ GHZR, p.903
Unify to 𲉗?
▲ T0101_.02.0493c17
All evidences mention 雜阿含經, while 雜阿含經 use 𨻗𫕈闍壯年婆羅門. Error form of 𨻗. Consider unifying to 𨻗 or 𲉗.
Unify to 㼌.
Shuowen: [㼌] (以主切) 本不勝末, 微弱也. 从二瓜. 讀若庾.
Unify to 劭.
▲ T2128_.54.0428c16
Unify to 𨽾.
Phonetic symbol 𫩀.
Unify to 𣯉.
▲ 廣韻 p.541
Unify to 倕.
▲ T2128_.54.0332b07
Unify to 𣁊.
丿 of 交 is 頓筆 of 文.
Unify to 鋄.
Shuowen (Duanzhu): [範] (防鋄切) 範軷也.
Unify to 㞜.
Variant of 𡲾, phonetic symbol 妥 *NUI.
Unify to 噏.
Phonetic symbol 翕>合.
Unify to 𱪸?
|勹| > |龴|
|屮| > |丑|
Unify to 倢.
Curve stroke > |凵|.
Unify to 𦮃.
Shuowen: [乖] (古懷切) 戾也. 从𠁥而𠔁. 𠔁, 古文別.
Unify to 𢸤.
Phonetic symbol 羲>我.
Unify to 獯.
Guangyun: [獯] (許云切) 北方胡名. 夏曰獯鬻, 周曰獫狁, 漢曰匈奴.
Unify to 血.
Shuowen: [盇] (胡臘切) 覆也. 从血, 大.
Unify to 荖.
Add UCV 𦒳~老. Lots of examples.
⿱𦒳勿 (C10672-004) = 𦒸 (C10672-002)
⿱𦒳占 (C10674-003) = 𦒾 (C10674-001)
⿱𦒳目 (A03254-013) = 𦒿 (A03254-003)
Unify to [ {{WS2021-01170}} ]
⿱山異 (Ext. J U+32778)
Unify to 𡶬.
Expand UCV #238
|网|(网) = |𦉳|(网) = |⿵冂从|(网)
𦉺 = 𦉽
⿱⿵冂从矛 (B03509-002) = ⿱网矛
Unify to 呦
The evidence shows ⿰口㓜⿰口㓜鹿鸣, that is 呦呦鹿鸣. It is better to add 力 and 刀 as UCV lv.2.
Unify to 肊? No UCV rule for ⿹XY and ⿰YX or ⿹㇈Y and ⿰Y乙 now.
This character is the variant of 臆, and 肊 is also the variant of 臆.
Unify to 𢧂 (U+229C2) (exact match)
Unification to 讂.
Add new UCV 夐 with right hand side of SAT-09648.
淮南子 gives 篅𥫱, so unify to 𥫱 (U+25AF1)?
Unify to 𡩟 (U+21A5F) (SAT glyph is the same as the K-source glyph for U+21A5F)
Unify to [ {{WS2021-01317}} ]
⿰忄史 (Ext. J U+327F6). Second evidence shows ⿰忄史 twice, and first evidence shows ⿰忄史 and ⿰忄⿻口人, but ⿰忄⿻口人 here is clearly a mistake for ⿰忄史.
Unify to 𤷖.
Evidence #2 力證反 (來開三蒸去) shows status as 𩜁, with phonetic symbol 夌 *RƏŊ.
麚 (U+9E9A)
Semantic identity implied by parallel definition in other texts of Shuowen. Add new UCV for equivalence of ⿰𡰥⿱コ又 and ⿰𡰥㕛 as components.
Unify to 麚 (U+9E9A) with new UCV for 叚~𫨻. See also GZ-2091203 where the evidence shows ⿱⿰虫𫨻共, but the font glyph is normalized to ⿱蝦共.
Unify to 𨂍 (U+2808D) with new UCV for 𧾷and 𤴔. Note that the following character in the evidence (⿰𤴔居 = 踞) is not encoded or proposed for encoding.
Unify to 蹰 (U+8E70) with new UCV for 𧾷and 𤴔.
Unify to 旳.
Shuowen: [旳] (都歷切) 明也. 从日勺聲. 易曰: 爲旳顙.
Semantic and shape similarity suggest unification with𧵍 (U+27D4D)
Unify to 䟠.
禹厥反 (云合三元入) shows status as 越, with phonetic symbol 戉 *WAT instead of 戊 *MU.
So the evidences support |戊| = [戉].
Unify to WS2021-03618 GKJ-00438 ⿱隊虫 (Evidence 2 shows this character form)
This is U+32FF7 in the DRAFT Extension J code chart.
Unify to 𮜨 (U+2E728) with new UCV for 𧾷and 𤴔.
Unify to 𦥓 (U+26953).
U+26953 𦥓 is the variant of 囟, see MJ045970.
▲ 廣漢和辭典, p. 332
▲ 大漢和辞典, p. 1046
𤆛 is also a variant of 与. In fact, the third evidence 一切経音義高麗版 clearly gives 𤆛.
Unify to 𬦷 (U+2C9B7)
鼽 (U+9F3D)
Unify to 冓 (U+5193). ⿱玨冉聲 indicates that ⿱玨冉 is the 聲旁 of 搆, which suggests that ⿱玨冉 and 冓 are interchangeable.
Isn’t it merely a common handwriting form of 必? It’s just that the hook of the slanted stroke is not that visible, perhaps related to printing.
Unify to 蟲 (U+87F2) with new UCV for 虫~䖝?
Unify to 𥝸 (U+25778) by UCV #32a
Unify to 蚊 (U+868A) (which is the character actually given in Huainanzi)
Unify to 𦞲 (U+267B2) per UCV#275
Unify to 𰋮 (U+302EE) (𰋮)? No UCV rule for 𠦝 and 卓 now.
The original evidence of U+302EE (𰋮) shows it is the variant of 乾 cited from 《直音篇》.
Unify to 砭 (U+782D)
See WS2015-02828
Unify to [ {{WS2021-04301}} ]
⿱雨仙 (Ext. J U+33249)
Add a horizontal extension to (U+33249) (WS2021-04301).
Unify to [ {{WS2021-04318}} ]
⿱雨炎 (Ext. J U+3325A)
Add a horizontal extension to (U+3325A) (WS2021-04318).
Unify to 𮎟 (U+2E39F)
The readings are the same, gǒu.
Unify to 𢟨 (U+227E8).
Unify to 冀 (U+5180). Clearly a corruption of 冀 that does not worth a codepoint. Consider a new UCV.
Evidences 1 & 2 support unifying to 𬡢(襖). cf 诚斋集 (卷五十四).
Evidences 3 & 4 support error form of 煥(焕). cf 禅社首坛颂碑.
If we encoded ⿰衤奐 as U+2C862 + VS17, then it would be very confusing when we digitalize evidence 3 by U+2C862 + VS17, because here ⿰衤奐 was never a variant for U+2C862 or 襖. On the other hand, as the radicals of 煥 is different to the one of ⿰衤奐, it is not better to encode ⿰衤奐 as an IVD for 煥, either.
If UK were to HE U+2C862, it raises the concern of over-unification because U+2C862 is not intended as an error form of 煥, they have different shape and pronunciations.
The component 奐 is very productive while the 𪥌 component is rarely used (only 𪶓 and 𬡢) in encoded characters. Encoding ⿰衤奐 will offer a better unification "anchor" for any future variants if they are discovered.
Unify to 鼳?
Consider cognition reconstruction?
▲ GHZR, p.5091
Unifiable to 製?
Copied from the submission note:
Evidence 5 and 6 give ⿰⿱𮫙革成, unifiable with ⿰鞷成. ⿰鞷成 is a variant form of U+29AE8 𩫨. 《元始天王大洞玉經》55a gives the alternative form ⿰⿳一品幸烕 (not submitted). Consider introduce new UCV 鬲/𮫙.
Copied from the submission note:
Evidence 3 shows ⿰氵𢑴, evidence 4 shows ⿰氵彛, evidence 5 and evidence 6 show ⿰氵𢑱; they are all potentially unifiable variants of ⿰氵彝 given by evidence 1 and 2
Unencoded cognate pairs:
U+26266 𦉦 = U+24AE1 𤫡 = ⿰王𦉍 B03502-006
Evidence 1 gives ⿰片𭺛; evidence 2 gives ⿰片𭺜, normalized to ⿰片瓦. Consider extending UCV #439 to include 𭺛 and 𭺜.
鼎/𣇓/𪔂/⿶㇯𪔂目日.
Cognate but currently disunified pairs:
U+85A1 薡 = U+26F4D 𦽍
There are no existing encoded characters with ⿱䀠瓦, although SJ/T 11239—2001 37-75 is ⿰石⿱䀠瓦 (but no corresponding encoded form ⿰石甖).
This is already the U-source form of U+6ECB 滋, so UTC should submit a disunification proposal if they believe that ⿰氵玆 was incorrectly unified to 滋 (U+6ECB) (personally, I think the unification is correct).
Note that disunifications have been processed via previous IRG working sets, which is why the UTC decided to submit this ideograph. UTC-01159, UTC-01162, and UTC-02972 in IRG Working Set 2017 served as precedents.
玆 and 茲 have often been used interchangeably in later periods. The following four pieces of evidence are provided for reference. Based on this, it is suggested to keep the unification with 滋 and ⿰氵玆.
(1)李守奎，〈古音研究中應當注意的幾個文字問題〉，《饒宗頤國學院院刊》第六期，2019年8月，p.178-181.
(2) 《漢語大字典》亠部「玆」, P316-317.
(3)《玉篇》(嘉慶19年重修本)卷之一 平聲．七之．津之切，”[⿰氵玆]……說文益也。…..”
(4) MOE Variant Dict. A02274-008
Unify to 车.
As a character, they may be unifiable. May submit as a supplementary radical-component.
In the fourth evidence, the fanqie 古旦反 suggests that it is a variant of 幹. The U+2D16A 𭅪 is also a variant of 幹. Suggest unify to 𭅪 as long as they are cognate.
Unify to 縠 (U+7E20), and change NUCV #264a to a UCV.
Unify to 聿.
As a character, they may be unifiable.
[書] = ⿱ [聿] [日(者)].
[畫] = ⿱ [聿?𬚪?] [画(田?周?)].
[晝] = ⿱ [聿] [日].
May submit as a supplementary radical-component.
Note that disunifications have been processed via previous IRG working sets, which is why the UTC decided to submit this ideograph. UTC-01159, UTC-01162, and UTC-02972 in IRG Working Set 2017 served as precedents.
Note that disunifications have been processed via previous IRG working sets, which is why the UTC decided to submit this ideograph. UTC-01159, UTC-01162, and UTC-02972 in IRG Working Set 2017 served as precedents.
Note that disunifications have been processed via previous IRG working sets, which is why the UTC decided to submit this ideograph. UTC-01159, UTC-01162, and UTC-02972 in IRG Working Set 2017 served as precedents.
Same abstract shape.
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.
Same abstract shape.
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.
Same abstract shape.
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.
The shape of the submitted character is almost exactly like 𢬧(U+22B27), so it's recommended to unify it with 𢬧 (U+22B27).
Unify to 𭡽 (U+2D87D) with new UCV ?
Unification to 狃 (U+72C3) with new UCV 丑 and 丒?
U+247C1 𤟁 (Extension B, TF-3076) = U+5CF1 峱
U+2B788 𫞈 (Extension D, JH-JTB2FC) = U+677B 杻
⿰糹丒 is currently not coded but can be found at https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=33170:
⿰金丒 is currently not coded but can be found at https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=47095:
Unify to 蔻 (U+853B) ?
unify to 工?
The Japanese reading of this character is コウ, which is the same as 工.
The single piece of evidence provided does not convince me that this character should be separately encoded. If, as suspected, this is a variant form of 工 then it would be most appropriate to deal with it using IVS. Note that the much more common variant of 工 with a zig-zag middle stroke was not considered suitable for separate encoding, and is registered in the IVD for the Adobe and Hanyo-Denshi collections.
This my implementation of the two characters in my BabelStone Han and BabelStone Han PUA fonts, with the two characters clearly distinguished (although still easily confusable):
In China, people often write 国 as 囗. ⿴囗丶 is just a version with another dot. The dot represents the compnent that is simplified. I think the position of the dot doesn't matter.
Unify to 𧈪.
Evidence #1 supports variant of 蚩. Evidence #2 does not support variant of 蚩.
Fanqie data in evidence #2 shows 丑善翻.
Shuowen: [𧈪] (丑善切) 蟲曳行也. 从虫屮聲. 讀若騁. (phonetic symbol 屮)
𧈪(U+2722A)，说文：从虫，屮聲. 蟲申行也. Reading chan3 nowadays, used mainly in Wu dialect(吴语) meaning stretching.
In a nutshell, 蚩(U+86A9) and 𧈪(U+2722A) are non-cognate.
Evidence 1 shows that ⿱山虫 is a variant of 蚩. Evidence 2 shows that ⿱山虫 is a variant of 𧈪(U+2722A). In this circumstance, it will be reluctant to unify it neither to 蚩(U+86A9) nor 𧈪(U+2722A).
So my suggestion would be not to unify.
Unify to 矑 (U+77D1) which is the form that Evidence 2 seems to show.
I also agree to unify to 矑 (U+77D1). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
Unify to 躔 (U+8E94) with new UCV?
I also agree to unify to 躔 (U+8E94). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
Many other versions of 蒙古秘史 shows 䦍 instead of |⿵門兀| in 額䦍迭訥 (Mongolian e'üden-ü), with its phonetic symbol 乞. Here we believe that cognition reconstruction has occurred, where the phonetic symbol has been changed to 兀.
Unify to 𪖌 (U+2A58C) -- Evidence 2 seems to show ⿺鼠盧
I also agree to unify to 𪖌 (U+2A58C). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
㒱 reads as 몽, which is the variant of 夢, non-cognate.
人 and 入 are not the UCV rule now, but we can add them to UCV as Lv. 2.
Unify to 𰜶 (U+30736). (UCV #307d)
U+318FF 𱣿 reads as lác, this character reads as cách, non-cognates.
See WS2017-01736
[ {{WS2017-01736}} ]
Unify to 𡎢 (U+213A2). The reading ngồi suggests that this is an error form of 𡎢, and unless there is additional evidence that it is a stable error found in multiple sources I suggest that it is postponed.
Agree. Unify to 𡅎 (U+2114E) by UCV #213a.
Unify to 𮔔 (U+2E514) by UCV #149
Agree with unification 𮔔 (U+2E514) . We will withdraw this.
Unify to 𫺱 (U+2BEB1).
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
The two structures have a strict correspondence, and we could treat them as only glyph variants. That is a very different situation from 馬/马, 金/钅, etc. See the colors below.
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
Unify to 𪫢 (U+2AAE2).
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
Attributes
If both of them are accepted for encoding, the IDS of this character should be updated to ⿰扌WS2024-03272.
#26b, IRGN2221
#40, IRGN1105
#40, IRGN1105
#27a, IRGN2221:
#36, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
#40, IRGN1105
#36, IRGN954AR
The evidence shows 國輝, 國耀, 國尡, 國⿰光全, 國⿰光宗, 國𤾗, 國𠒗 are brothers, so it is better to use the unique RS. (⿰光全 is also not encoded.)
#42, IRGN954AR
R2=170.0阜: SC(2)=9, TS=12
#42, IRGN954AR
Change Radical to 106.0 (白), SC=7, FS=2.
Consider retaining original radical as second radical.
Follow the radical of 个, the semantic element.
夊 is not included in the glyph
Evidence 4 and the above evidence from 干祿字書 shows ⿰⿺乚丶丶.
不 in the submitted IDS is U+F967
Agree with Conifer on Comment #2271. ROK could normalize the glyph.
Should the IDS be changed to ⿸鹿𫨻?
#76, IRGN954AR
FS=1
#25, IRGN954AR
It is also normalized the glyph to match IDS and Evidence 2 not 3.
#36, IRGN954AR
Phonetic element is 卜, semantic element is 要
The top part 丙 is the phonetic element.
#2, IRGN954AR
#76, IRGN954AR
#26a, IRGN2221
#76, IRGN954AR
#17, IRGN2221
Only in Exts. C and later does the calculated stroke count of 飠 change to 8: U+2AF97 𪾗 (108.12), U+2BA1C 𫨜 (27.12), U+325A3 (30.12).
9 strokes seems more consistent, especially when you consider the standard J and K form 𩙿 which is definitely 9 strokes.
Only in Exts. C and later does the calculated stroke count of 飠 change to 8: U+2AF97 𪾗 (108.12), U+2BA1C 𫨜 (27.12), U+325A3 (30.12).
9 strokes seems more consistent, especially when you consider the standard J and K form 𩙿 which is definitely 9 strokes.
#76, IRGN954AR
#23, IRGN2221
FS(2)=3
#40, IRGN1105
#76, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
粵=U+7CB5
#67, IRGN954AR
#32, IRGN2221:
#45, IRGN954AR
Evidence
▲ 詩樂和聲, vol.3
|䚿| ~ [歆].
▲ 陈刚: 《北京方言词典》, 北京: 商务印书馆, 1985.9, 统一书号 9017·1335, p. 29
▲ 異體字字典
▲ 中国艺术研究院音乐研究所: 《李纯一全集（全6卷）》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2024.4, ISBN 978-7-5039-7469-4, 第2卷 《中国上古出土乐器综论·下》, p. 8
▲ 陈刚: 《北京方言词典》, 北京: 商务印书馆, 1985.9, 统一书号 9017·1335, p. 193
Evidence provided by @純狐.
▲ 金臺集（毛氏汲古閣明末刊本）卷2 folio 3a
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 16-17
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 16-21
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 16-30
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 16-32
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 34-50
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 16-73
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 16-56
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 38-65
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 34-53
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 16-81
▲ 《光緒信宜縣志》, 清光緒刻本, 卷一, 輿地志九, folio 1A
The modern edition as below replaces this character as 湾, but it doesn’t mean it is the variant of 湾. 順鄉都 is not still used as the geographical names in 信宜. There is also Hakka people (客家人) in 信宜, and it is not easy to confirm if it is the character used for Chinese Yue-dialect or Chinese Hakka-dialect, so there is no the language tag at this step.
▲ 信宜县地方志编纂委员会: 《信宜县志》 (《广东省地方志丛书》), 广州: 广东人民出版社, 1993.12, ISBN 7-218-01230-0/K·270, p. 88
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 16-58
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 25-69
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 16-85
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 16-66
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 16-89
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 17-84
▲ 龍龕手鏡 (高麗本), 出部, p.537.
The character has two phonetic symbol, 叕 and 出.
▲ 《“教育部”“本土語言”成果參考字表總表》 in Taiwan Province
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 25-34
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 25-49
▲ 《汉语方言大词典》, p. 4092
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 25-61
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 25-94
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 26-12
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 26-15
▲ 大原望: 『和製漢字の辞典』
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 26-17
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 26-23
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 19-06
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 19-10
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 19-05
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 19-20
▲ 《汉字海》, p. 315
Not totally the same, but unifiable.
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 19-54
▲ 梅鼎祚: 《西晋文紀》, 文淵閣四庫全書, 卷八
The variant of 坰
▲ 左宗棠: 《左文襄公奏疏》, 清刻本, 左恪靖侯奏稿初編卷二十一
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 19-77
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 19-94
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 20-43
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 20-37
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 20-26
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 20-60
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 20-38
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 20-20
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 20-85
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 21-07
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 21-09
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 20-78
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 20-73
▲ 覃家道, 王定才: 《布依方块古文字》, 北京: 民族出版社, 2020.8, ISBN 978-7-105-16099-0, p. 119
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 20-81
▲ 陳夢根: 《徐仙翰藻》, 卷之三, 卿二, 《靈濟宫賦》
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 20-83
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 20-63
▲ Character code system used by the Supreme Court of South Korea
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 21-14
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 21-73
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 21-57
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 20-66
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 21-50
▲ 《精刻海若湯先生校訂音釋五侯鯖字海》, 日内閣文庫藏本, 卷之四
This one has been included in CNS 11643.
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 21-80
▲ 《明神宗顯皇帝實録》, 梁鴻志影本, 卷之五百二十七, folio 6B
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 21-34
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 21-91
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 21-78
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 22-23
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 22-29
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 22-31
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 22-27
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 22-25
▲ 邱云章, 姚谦: 《垦牧记事》//中国人民政治协商会议南通市崇川区委员会《崇川文史》编委会: 《崇川文史 第一辑》, 南通: 如皋印刷厂, 1992.10, 苏通城出准字92029号, p. 43
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 22-86
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 22-89
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 22-88
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 23-24
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 23-16
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 23-03
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 23-02
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 23-10
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 23-29
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 23-28
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 23-42
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 23-44
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 23-49
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 24-66
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 24-79
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 30-94
▲ 律西: 《含犀霏玉軒筆記》//《紅雜志》, 1922, V.1, Num.19, p. 18
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 26-52
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 26-65
▲ SJ/T 11239—2001, 26-63
转生成为了只有乙女游戏破灭Flag的邪恶大小姐 第二季 Chinese version
转生成为了只有乙女游戏破灭Flag的邪恶大小姐 第二季 Chine