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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
⿱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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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.
Unification
Eiso CHAN
Individual
U+2B73C in Unicode, 17.0.0 Alpha
The code point has been stable.
Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
Agree to unify. Suggest China to propose a horizontal extension for the character in the future.
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.
Unify to 𣶍 (U+23D8D) per UCV #363, but I don’t know if this UCV is useful.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
suggest to remove the UCV.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Simplified form should not be unified to traditional form.
UCV
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
UCV #363 is such a bad UCV because in China 丬 and 爿 are generally considered to be a simplified/traditional distinction. I strongly support removing this UCV.
Similar but not unfied to 𢿽 (U+22FFD) and U+22FE6 𢿦 because of non-cognates.
The top component is the phonetic element which is derived from 敝. The 新借 reading of 敝 is bi, but other characters with the 敝 phonetic element read similar to be. Note: The tone -z in 新借 is related to ancient 入声, this situation is also the same in Theater Mandarin of Naning Yongju Opera.
憋 bez
蹩 bez
鳖 bez
撇 bez
瞥 bez
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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.
Should we consider unifying it to 𣤃, for they have the same abstract shape and have the same source in 冷齋夜話, or should we encode it separately since this form is stable in many evidences (also appeared in Evidence 4 of
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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.
For 𱎚 (U+3139A), we have two sources for it. The first one is the evidence for WS2017-00092 which is the character used for Tày and the meaning is related to the Vietnamese word “người” (𠊛). The second one is for KC-04796 (KA-KC04796 in ExtF1 as 00225). The evidence shows below.
▲ 韓國經學資料集成 83冊 「詩經講義續集」 (The evidence is provided by Dr. Cho)
It is very clear that it is the variant of 仁 not 人. It is better to treat them as the non-cognates under the modern uses.
As Comment #768 shows, this character is used in Chairman Mao’s books, so it is necessary to use the original form in the digital text.
Suggest to add a new UCV ⿰亻X and ⿲亻丨X as level 2.
修(U+4FEE) and 俢(U+4FE2) cognate
偹(U+5079) and 俻(U+4FFB) cognate
倐(U+5010) and 𠊅(U+20285) cognate
⿰纟𪝉(seen in GB18030 v1) and (U+2ED83) cognate
㣠(U+38E0) and 𢓘(U+224D8) not completely cognate
候 and 侯 non-cognate
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.
芻 > ⿱丑丑 (see 經典文字辨證書) , ⿱彐彐 or even ⿱龴丑 or ⿱コ丑 (Consider how 刍 is formed from 芻. see 俗書刊誤). For example, 𠊣=㑳, 𨜉=𨜈=𨛃=鄒=⿰⿱龴コ十阝(see 干禄字書), 煼=𰞝=𤊛=𭴥=𭴶=⿰火函(see 說文解字大徐本), 搊=𢬟(see 廣韻)
There is no evidence of any semantic relation between this character and 𬌼 (U+2C33C). Also, the shapes are not identical. No unification without additional evidence establishing a relationship.
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.
Regarding comment #659, the glyph shown in 直音篇 has 卓 as its left bottom component, rather than 𠦝.
Since both characters are variants of 乾 and are derived from 直音篇, TCA agrees to unify and add a horizontal extension to 𰋮 (U+302EE).
The glyph source for U+2E39F is G-Source.
TCA is uncertain whether the bottom component of this character is [月] or not. If it is indeed [月], TCA agrees with this unification.
Unify to 冀 (U+5180). Clearly a corruption of 冀 that does not worth a codepoint. Consider a new UCV.
Oppose Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Disagree with the unification with 冀 (U+5180). The submitted character is an independent character, not a part of another character, and therefore should not be unified directly.
Apparent variant of : 𩦧 (U+299A7). This is not an exact match. We would need a new UCV to equate 曼 with ⿳日罒方and 㬅.
Oppose Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
TCA has no objection to the merger of UCV#278 and 465, but hopes to encode WS2024-04254: Regarding the right-hand part of the character form, 曼 is the standard character, while 㬅, 𭦗, and ⿳日罒万 are all vulgar forms of 曼. However, in this set of relationships, ⿰馬曼 is to be unified with ⿰馬㬅, which means the standard form is being unified with a variant form. Logically, the standard form should take precedence over variant forms.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Agree with comment #5493. For ideographs used in registered residence system of government, it's better to unify them not just based on the rationale from a very professional view. We should handle characters used in registered residence systems in a more practical way. I recommond member bodies agree with this point to submit a proposal together and add following principles in IRG PnP( a rough draft).
For ideographs used in Government Administration System, if
1. There are structual differences which can cause the change of radical;
2. The different structures are non-cognate with each other in modern times and have major stroke differences(in this case, it is 方 and 又);
The two unifiable ideograph can be disunified under the request of Regional or national member bodies.
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
As the simplified variant U+2EE4E (⿰马曼) already exists, it is useful to encode TE-4340. If TE-4340 is unified to 𩦧 (U+299A7) then U+2EE4E will remain an orphan simplified form as it cannot traditionalfy to U+299A7.
Oppose Unification
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Agree comment #5691 as simplified form already encoded then it makes sense to encode the traditional form.
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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.
Suggest to change NUCV #294 to a UCV. 曆~暦 is a very common variation, and there are a large number of unencoded characters with 暦 etc. that correspond to encoded characters with 曆 etc.
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
Unification to 𭏫 (U+2D3EB) seems reasonable. Suggest to withdraw UK-30590, and horizontally extend to U+2D3EB, but as all evidences show ⿰土⿱艹㚏 rather than ⿰土⿱艹𬌪, change UK glyph to ⿰土⿱艹㚏.
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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.
Oppose Unification
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
Per the details in document IRG N2785, the UTC formally withdraws the withdraw of this ideograph, and requests that it be added back to the M Set.
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The unification has been discussed in IRG meeting before and the decision was that it should be encoded seperately.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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.
UCV
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
If the IRG decides to unify, a new UCV should be added per Comment #305.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
I have pointed out clearly that the abstract shape of the two characters are the same in IRGN2634. Meanwhile, I have pointed out clearly that because both two characters have stable glyphs in long enough time, they should not be unified.
The suggestions in IRGN2634 have been discussed in detail in IRG meeting #61 and agreed by experts. It is not resonable at all that this two characters are unified later because of the same abstract shape.
Unification
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
All the editorial report in IRG61 said was that the characters could be submitted, it did not say that they could not be unified.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The editorial report clearly states that they are CJK unified characters. You can't just focus on the the second half of the sentence ignoring the first half.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The connection of 戈 is important for complex Hongmen characters. The origins of them are different. All complex Hongmen characters originate from the following thing:
Hongmen characters with 戈 conencted are directly transformed to Kai Form from the original shape.
Hongmen characters with 戈 unconencted are written in Kai form based on its abstract shape.
Hongmen characters with 戈 conencted or unconencted are prefered by different people in different regions with various meanings.
The UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 looks similar because we have normalized the glyphs of existing Hongmen characters:
Both UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 are one of the earliest forms of Hongmen characters to appear in books. This is also reasonable because the two kind of origins. The two glyphs are important for academical studies.
We are not interested in encoding them all. To avoid controversy, we normalized the glyphs, asked IRG for advice, and then submitted them.
It is not fair at all to deny my efforts on studying these characters without reading the related document. And procedurelly, they should not be unified with a reason I have already clearly stated a year ago. It is even acceptable to bring the discussion up again before the submission of IRG WS2024.
But after the submission, any objection should not be proved by IRG, let alone an objection based on clearly stated and discussed issues. It is just unacceptable.
{{IRG N2634 https://www.unicode.org/irg/docs/n2634-ComplexHongmenIdeographs.pdf}}
An article in Chinese introducing the Hongmen characters is attached as feedback. Experts can read it if you are interested.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The reason why UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 should be disunified was clearly stated in the document and was agreed by IRG:
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
I think there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of the text in the editorial report.
The editorial report only indicated that these Hongmen Characters are CJK Unified Ideographs, i.e. they are not symbols.
There is no mention in the editorial report that the classification system proposed in the IRGN2634 was accepted as-is.
There is no golden status conferred to characters which are first initiated through a proposal from an individual contributor and characters which are submitted by member bodiesl
As part of the discussion process, IRG always has the right to amend or overturn its previous decisions upon discussion if there is unanimous agreement, or shall the need arise, a vote.
For example, IRG revises its unification rules (i.e. UCV/NUCV) every meeting. The PnP itself has also been revised many times.
It is not possible to claim that since IRG agreed to accept them as CJK Unified Ideographs, then they must be encoded without unification and without further discussion.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
I don't think I misunderstand the text in the editorial report. The title of my proposal is "Suggestions on unifying complex Hongmen related ideographs". The decisions in editorial report should absolutely a response to the unification. There is no problem at all to say IRG accepted the unification rules based on the text in the editorial report.
And it is acceptable to make a "further discussion" for me, what is not acceptable is that the further discussion is brought out based on a clearly stated and discussed issue. You can't just say yes to a thing in the past but say no to the same thing without any new reasons. This will be not acceptable in the standardization work.
Unification
KWAN Ching Kit (Daniel)
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
I don’t think end users are going to distinguish different forms of this character in running text. They are only distinguished when they are symbols at the most. I suggest only encoding one traditional form and one simplified form of the character. And if you really find the distinction important, you can always either register for an IVD or submit a proposal to WG2/Unicode for encoding as CJK Symbols.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Although UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 have a very similar glyph, I suggest not to unify UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 based on the following three reasons:
1. The unconnected 戈 is a very important structure in the evolution of complex Hongmen Ideographs. An obvious unconnected 戈 component makes it possible that it can be replaced by other components such as 刂,丁,才,寸,etc.
The 刂 of 𰻞(U+30EDE) actually orginates from 戈 because the meanings of 戈 and 刂 are related to each other. If the 戈 was not written out, the 𰻞(U+30EDE) won't exist.
Meanwhile, no case of including 刂,丁,才,寸,etc as components is found when there is a connected 戈.
2. The UTC-03340 is the most common form of 贼 used in 四川(Sichuan) and shuar used in 北京(Beijing), but UTC-03342 is the first complex Hongmen Ideograph that is included in the publications. Both shapes are important.
3. According to IRG N2770R, the meanings of UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 are not overlapping with each other. In other similar cases, this always means disunification.
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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.
UCV
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
If the IRG decides to unify, a new UCV should be added per Comment #306.
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.
Unification
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
While I agree that the abstract shape is the same, there is a significant structural difference that requires discussion before unification can be considered.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
No unification rule. If related UCV is added, then acceptable.
The Japanese reading of this character is コウ, which is the same as 工.
Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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.
UCV
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
If the IRG unifies, UCV #408 needs to be updated.
Oppose Unification
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The person who submitted this ideograph to the UTC pointed out that U+2B7B9 in the Extension D block is a disunification example. My own checking found that U+2D5FB in the Extension F block, which appears to be cognate with 巠 (U+5DE0) according to the Moji Jōhō Kiban database, is another example.
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Unicode does not encode *glyphs* but *characters*.
Oppose Unification
L F CHENG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The radical is different, and the submitted evidence shows the dot written non-centered, in various alignments.
Oppose Unification
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Also agree with #3123 that the radical difference is enough to show they are two different *characters*.
Oppose Unification
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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.
Oppose Unification
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
If they are non-cognate, they should not be unified.
Unify to 矑 (U+77D1) which is the form that Evidence 2 seems to show.
Unification
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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.
Unification
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Agree with unification.
UCV
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
[WS2021-04782]
The proposed UCV 廛/𠪨 was also discussed in the link above. For reference here is Kushim's comment in that thread on the application rate of this UCV:
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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 挲 (U+6332)? The evidence shows the Vietnamese word “ma sa”, that means 摩挲. There is no V-Source under U+6332 挲, maybe it is OK to do the horizontal extension to U+6332 挲 if IRG agrees, or add it to IVD in future.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
As you can see both in the GĐNHV example above and in this image from KCHN, Vietnam uses both forms. Not sure it's a good idea to unify, even if there is semantic overlap
The evidence shows the variant is 潷 and the Putonghua/Mandarin reading is bì.
Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
The meaning is "drain dry", which is similar to 滗 (U+6ED7), “xế” is a native word, so this a case where a variant of 滗 was borrowed for its meaning. Unification should be appropriate.
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Likely an error form, but enshrined in a published standard: Kho chữ nôm mã hoá.
Taberd (p. 417): 𱢝, Rày, hoc tempore “[Latin] at this time”. 𱢝旦, đến rày, usque nunc “[Latin] until now”.
The phonetic symbol is 例>𡿪 (*RAT). And the semantic part is 旦.
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The point is not that we can derive correspondences, we can similarly derive correspondences from 馬 to 马, 鳥 to 鸟, etc. But, if we are going to say that because we can derive correspondences between glyphs that on the surface look quite different, then we should start using stronger unification that includes traditional and simplified. I don't think people want that, so the same treatment should be applied to simplified forms in languages other than Chinese used in the PRC.
Unification
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The question is, how to define “quite different”? They are both the simplified forms of the same character, not the simplified-traditional relationship. What is more, the correspondence works between strokes but not components; however, 馬 obviously has a lot more strokes than 马, you cannot simply establish such a correspondence.
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The shapes are too different to recognize as identical.
Unification
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
See #4776. https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/?id=01489
Both are the vulgar term for sexual intercourse, and the readings are both địt. Based on the current evidence, the phonetic element is 迭, and the semantic element is 气.
We can consider using this V glyph and RS, TS, IDS for U+28540 𨕀, but keep V2-7A3B as the V-Source reference if unified.
Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The original source reference for V2-7A3B is Vũ Văn Kính, "Tự Điển Chữ Nôm", p. 272, shown in the image below. As you can see, the phonetic is 迭 (điệt). So, the current shape of U+28540 is incorrect. Unification will be acceptable if we change the shape of U+28540 to VN-F2173.
Add the secondary radical as 196.1 (鸟), SC=6, FS=3.
Based on Evidence 2, the meaning is related to “hawk”, Evidence 1 looks the variant of 鹞.
Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
Change primary radical to 196.1 (鸟), SC=6, FS=3 (cf. additional evidence in comment #7314 where the character is under 鸟 radical). Add 121.0 缶 as secondary radical for compatibility with U+26253 𦉓.
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.
IDS
LI Yuan
SAT
Support HKSAR's comment, the glyph should be modified to ⿰言墮.
IRG Working Set 2024v2.0
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 旅 (U+65C5), and suggest to add a new UCV for the right hand side.
This variation seems to be fairly systematic.
Source: https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=67950
Source: https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=19394&q=1
Source: https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=82280
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.
U+2B73C in Unicode, 17.0.0 Alpha
The code point has been stable.
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.
𣲭口水 is the other name of 祁水 in Yongzhou, Hunan.
Unify to 𣶍 (U+23D8D) per UCV #363, but I don’t know if this UCV is useful.
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
The top component is the phonetic element which is derived from 敝. The 新借 reading of 敝 is bi, but other characters with the 敝 phonetic element read similar to be. Note: The tone -z in 新借 is related to ancient 入声, this situation is also the same in Theater Mandarin of Naning Yongju Opera.
憋 bez
蹩 bez
鳖 bez
撇 bez
瞥 bez
Unify to 𠽏 (U+20F4F)?
If yes, we could expand UCV #90.
U+57F3 埳 ⿰土臽 vs U+586A 塪 ⿰土舀
U+60C2 惂 ⿰忄臽 vs U+6146 慆 ⿰忄舀
U+6390 掐 ⿰扌臽 vs U+642F 搯 ⿰扌舀
U+6DCA 淊 ⿰氵臽 vs U+6ED4 滔 ⿰氵舀
U+7130 焰 ⿰火臽 vs U+7196 熖 ⿰火舀
U+8AC2 諂 ⿰言臽 vs U+8B1F 謟 ⿰言舀
U+8F21 輡 ⿰車臽 vs U+8F41 轁 ⿰車舀
U+9921 餡 ⿰飠臽 vs U+9940 饀 ⿰飠舀
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.
As a character, unified to 𠫓 (U+20AD3).
As a component, appear in component list collected by CESI, with examples 夣棄育.
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
Should we consider unifying it to 𣤃, for they have the same abstract shape and have the same source in 冷齋夜話, or should we encode it separately since this form is stable in many evidences (also appeared in Evidence 4 of , the same line as ⿱欸乃)?
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?|.
Unified to 㴱 U+3D31 or 𣵫 U+23D6B?
Based on the evidence, it is also the variant of 深.
See WS2017-02033.
[ {{WS2017-02033}} ]
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.
Unifiable with 鯈 (U+9BC8) as per UCV #305.
Unify to 𥢑 (U+25891) ?
Unify to 𤍫 (U+2436B) by #307b, with horizontal extension by China.
Unify to 助 (U+52A9)?
Same case as SAT-08616
Unify to 𡝩 (U+21769)?
Unifiable to 𱎚 (U+3139A)?
▲ 韓國經學資料集成 83冊 「詩經講義續集」 (The evidence is provided by Dr. Cho)
It is very clear that it is the variant of 仁 not 人. It is better to treat them as the non-cognates under the modern uses.
As Comment #768 shows, this character is used in Chairman Mao’s books, so it is necessary to use the original form in the digital text.
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 or normalize to 𪥎 (U+2A94E)?
They are both the variant of 奊, see here. If it is cited from the one-off evidence, it is better to use the encoded character directly.
Unify to 煚 (U+715A)
Unify to 𣕕 (U+23555) by UCV #89
Per #5369 and #5434, unify with 𣕕 (U+23555)?
1) Used personal name.
2) It is not necessary to unify Kaishu(楷書) with Guwen(古文).
Unify to 𦅣 (U+26163)
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 䏣 (U+43E3)?
Same case as GZHSJ-0143
Unify to 釁?
Evidence 1 supports error form of 㸑.
Evidences 2&3 supports variant of 釁.
Unify to 甿 (U+753F) and add 亾兦 to UCV #143.
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).
𮉼 is a variant of 冉:
There is another similar shape for 冉:
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.
修(U+4FEE) and 俢(U+4FE2) cognate
偹(U+5079) and 俻(U+4FFB) cognate
倐(U+5010) and 𠊅(U+20285) cognate
⿰纟𪝉(seen in GB18030 v1) and (U+2ED83) cognate
㣠(U+38E0) and 𢓘(U+224D8) not completely cognate
候 and 侯 non-cognate
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
澈:
撤:
See: https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=24895
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.
Potentially unifiable to 𨽹.
Per UCV #485:
We can make a similar set glyphs for a new UCV.
Unify to 𣯉.
▲ 廣韻 p.541
Unify to 倕.
▲ T2128_.54.0332b07
⿱乖一 probably comes by an improper analogy with 乗/乘 and can be seen in many printed books since Ming dynasty:
酌中志 道光二十五年潘氏刊海山仙館叢書本
蛾術堂集 道光十八年蕭山沈氏漢讀齋刊本
明清小说俗字典
四庫全書總目提要 武英殿刊本
⿱乖一 is encoded as 12-364B in CNS11643:
https://www.cns11643.gov.tw/wordView.jsp?ID=800331
⿱乖一 is listed as a BabelStone Han variant for 埀 (where Andrew West gives its source as 《国语辞典》 p. 589):
https://www.babelstone.co.uk/Fonts/BSH_IVS.html
Disunified examples (I cannot determine whether they are cognate):
U+226C9 𢛉 and U+22764 𢝤.
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|
May be unified to 𤌉.
芻 > ⿱丑丑 (see 經典文字辨證書) , ⿱彐彐 or even ⿱龴丑 or ⿱コ丑 (Consider how 刍 is formed from 芻. see 俗書刊誤). For example, 𠊣=㑳, 𨜉=𨜈=𨛃=鄒=⿰⿱龴コ十阝(see 干禄字書), 煼=𰞝=𤊛=𭴥=𭴶=⿰火函(see 說文解字大徐本), 搊=𢬟(see 廣韻)
Refer also to 草書禮部韻, 草韻辨體
草書禮部韻 中國書店影印
Unify to 倢.
Curve stroke > |凵|.
Support unification to 倢 U+5022, with new UCV 𤴗 and 疌.
𤴗 and 疌 are variants without a doubt, and the first glyph is simply a stricter transliteration of the Shuowen seal glyph:
See also:
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 𬌼(U+2C33C)?
Unify to 血.
Shuowen: [盇] (胡臘切) 覆也. 从血, 大.
段玉裁《說文解字注》5卷上
血 is written as ⿱一皿.
Unify to 血.
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 𡶬.
Expand UCV #238
|网|(网) = |𦉳|(网) = |⿵冂从|(网)
𦉺 = 𦉽
⿱⿵冂从矛 (B03509-002) = ⿱网矛
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)?
Unified to 演 (U+6F14) or 𤀋 (U+2400B), add the UCV for the right components 寅~𡩟 (K is ⿱宀臾)~⿱宀㬰.
The evidence shows the fanqie is 延典.
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.
Evidence 2 shows U+37A9 㞩 which is a variant form of 嵐. Evidence 1 also looks like a corrupt form of 㞩. Unify to 㞩 (U+37A9).
Unify to 旳.
Shuowen: [旳] (都歷切) 明也. 从日勺聲. 易曰: 爲旳顙.
Unify to 𰲕 (U+30C95)
When we check the submitted evidence of U+30C95 𰲕 SAT-06065 (aka WS2015-03675), the fanqie is also 鄧能反.
They are cognate, and I suggest adding UCV for 𣳾 and 𭜮 as Lv. 2.
Unify to 㱿 (U+3C7F)?
We need a new UCV for 𡉉 and 𠕓 like UCV #222a.
Semantic and shape similarity suggest unification with𧵍 (U+27D4D)
龍龕手鏡 used this form as 今體:
龍龕手鏡 高麗本 (via 異體字字典)
龍龕手鑑 四部叢刊續編景印江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本 (via 異體字字典)
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].
Potentially unifiable to 䟠.
There is already one case in Extension A: U+4B85
Unify to 趙 per UCV 423
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.
SAT-15802 is 㕚. It is the phonetic element of 蚤.
Unify to 蟲 (U+87F2) with new UCV for 虫~䖝?
Unify to 𥝸 (U+25778) by UCV #32a
Obviously the variant of SAT-09865. Both of them come from 臟.
Should we have a UCV rule for 亾/兦/亡 or not?
Disunified but cognate exampls:
𡚶-妄
𮎰-荒
Support unification to 蝱.
There are a huge number of variants involving 亡 and 亾, and the bulk of encoded ones are in Extension B:
㠩 U+3829 = 巟 U+5DDF
㡃 U+3843 = 㡆 U+3846
𧠬 U+2782C = 𧠰 U+27830
𮎰 U+2E3B0 = 荒 U+8352
𥞙 U+25799 = 𥡃 U+25843
𥿪 U+25FEA = 𥿼 U+25FFC
𩢯 U+298AF = 𩣇 U+298C7
There are some other unencoded examples:
Source: https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=14706
Source: https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=14701
Unify to 蚊 (U+868A) (which is the character actually given in Huainanzi)
Unify to 𦞲 (U+267B2) per UCV#275
Regarding comment #659, the glyph shown in 直音篇 has 卓 as its left bottom component, rather than 𠦝.
Since both characters are variants of 乾 and are derived from 直音篇, TCA agrees to unify and add a horizontal extension to 𰋮 (U+302EE).
Unify to 砭 (U+782D)
See WS2015-02828
Unify to 涤 as Comment #3121.
UCV #194 has been expanded at IRG #63, see Appendix B.18 of IRG N2703 Editorial Report for IRG Meeting #63.
Unify to 𮎟 (U+2E39F)
The glyph source for U+2E39F is G-Source.
TCA is uncertain whether the bottom component of this character is [月] or not. If it is indeed [月], TCA agrees with this unification.
Possibly unifiable with 𪂔 (U+2A094) if cognate.
The readings are the same, gǒu.
Unify to 𥹦 (U+25E66)?
cf. UCV #55
Unify to 𢟨 (U+227E8).
Agree to unify to u+227E8. And suggest adding a new UCV rule 莽/莾.
Unify to 冀 (U+5180). Clearly a corruption of 冀 that does not worth a codepoint. Consider a new UCV.
For ideographs used in Government Administration System, if
1. There are structual differences which can cause the change of radical;
2. The different structures are non-cognate with each other in modern times and have major stroke differences(in this case, it is 方 and 又);
The two unifiable ideograph can be disunified under the request of Regional or national member bodies.
The radical of 䑆 is 130, the TE-725E glyph shows the radical is 74 clearly under TCA convention.
These two characters have completely different radicals.
Unify to 𭃧 (U+2D0E7) with horizontal extension if cognate.
The example given at http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=75462} suggests that they are the same character: 朽狀勿問日▼((厶/八/夕)+刂)肉削而已先生二字用於不當.
Good catch. I agree on the unification to 𭃧 (U+2D0E7).
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
Is it appropriate to expand it and unify to 鼳 (U+9F33)?
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
Add ⿻王⿰丿乛, U+2D170 𭅰, U+2E4D7 𮓗, U+2D16F 𭅯, U+2CEC9 𬻉 to UCV #311 as lv. 1.
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.
UCV #490 莽莾
Unify to 𭏫 (U+2D3EB)?
Unification to 𭏫 (U+2D3EB) seems reasonable. Suggest to withdraw UK-30590, and horizontally extend to U+2D3EB, but as all evidences show ⿰土⿱艹㚏 rather than ⿰土⿱艹𬌪, change UK glyph to ⿰土⿱艹㚏.
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.
Agree to unify with 縠 (U+7E20).
Unify to 𬜮 (U+2C72E).
See GB 18030—2022, 0x9932BD36
Unify to 𬜮 (U+2C72E) as they are both variants of 蒭, with horizontal extension from UTC and/or China.
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.
The suggestions in IRGN2634 have been discussed in detail in IRG meeting #61 and agreed by experts. It is not resonable at all that this two characters are unified later because of the same abstract shape.
Hongmen characters with 戈 conencted are directly transformed to Kai Form from the original shape.
Hongmen characters with 戈 unconencted are written in Kai form based on its abstract shape.
Hongmen characters with 戈 conencted or unconencted are prefered by different people in different regions with various meanings.
The UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 looks similar because we have normalized the glyphs of existing Hongmen characters:
Both UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 are one of the earliest forms of Hongmen characters to appear in books. This is also reasonable because the two kind of origins. The two glyphs are important for academical studies.
We are not interested in encoding them all. To avoid controversy, we normalized the glyphs, asked IRG for advice, and then submitted them.
It is not fair at all to deny my efforts on studying these characters without reading the related document. And procedurelly, they should not be unified with a reason I have already clearly stated a year ago. It is even acceptable to bring the discussion up again before the submission of IRG WS2024.
But after the submission, any objection should not be proved by IRG, let alone an objection based on clearly stated and discussed issues. It is just unacceptable.
{{IRG N2634 https://www.unicode.org/irg/docs/n2634-ComplexHongmenIdeographs.pdf}}
An article in Chinese introducing the Hongmen characters is attached as feedback. Experts can read it if you are interested.
The editorial report only indicated that these Hongmen Characters are CJK Unified Ideographs, i.e. they are not symbols.
There is no mention in the editorial report that the classification system proposed in the IRGN2634 was accepted as-is.
There is no golden status conferred to characters which are first initiated through a proposal from an individual contributor and characters which are submitted by member bodiesl
As part of the discussion process, IRG always has the right to amend or overturn its previous decisions upon discussion if there is unanimous agreement, or shall the need arise, a vote.
For example, IRG revises its unification rules (i.e. UCV/NUCV) every meeting. The PnP itself has also been revised many times.
It is not possible to claim that since IRG agreed to accept them as CJK Unified Ideographs, then they must be encoded without unification and without further discussion.
And it is acceptable to make a "further discussion" for me, what is not acceptable is that the further discussion is brought out based on a clearly stated and discussed issue. You can't just say yes to a thing in the past but say no to the same thing without any new reasons. This will be not acceptable in the standardization work.
1. The unconnected 戈 is a very important structure in the evolution of complex Hongmen Ideographs. An obvious unconnected 戈 component makes it possible that it can be replaced by other components such as 刂,丁,才,寸,etc.
The 刂 of 𰻞(U+30EDE) actually orginates from 戈 because the meanings of 戈 and 刂 are related to each other. If the 戈 was not written out, the 𰻞(U+30EDE) won't exist.
Meanwhile, no case of including 刂,丁,才,寸,etc as components is found when there is a connected 戈.
2. The UTC-03340 is the most common form of 贼 used in 四川(Sichuan) and shuar used in 北京(Beijing), but UTC-03342 is the first complex Hongmen Ideograph that is included in the publications. Both shapes are important.
3. According to IRG N2770R, the meanings of UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 are not overlapping with each other. In other similar cases, this always means disunification.
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.
Suggest unification with 𬜻.
There is only one stroke difference between ⿳艹从干 and 𬜻 + VS17:
We can add a new IVD for 𬜻.
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 拜 (U+62DC).
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) ?
After the horizontal extension by J-source, this would be an exact match.
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.
The proposed UCV 廛/𠪨 was also discussed in the link above. For reference here is Kushim's comment in that thread on the application rate of this UCV:
<blockquote>
For 𠪨~廛:
𧓋 (C12501) ~ 𧔊 (C12501-001)
𧸪 (C13655-002) ~ 𧸳 (C13655)
𨞬 ~ 鄽 (GHZR: 4054.04)
⿰金𠪨 (C15168-002) ~ 𨮻 (C15168)
⿰𧾷𠪨 (B04971-005) ~ 躔 (B04971)
⿵門𠪨 (C15366-001) ~ 𨷠 (TB-2215) 𨷭 (TB-2219)
⿺走𠪨 (C13847-002) ~ 𧾡 (C13847)
So it's okay to add UCV 𠪨~廛.
</blockquote>
In IRG #61, there were different opinions about this UCV. It will be great if we can reach consensus this time.
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 𠲙 (U+20C99) and horizontally extend VN-F007E.
Unify to 挲 (U+6332)? The evidence shows the Vietnamese word “ma sa”, that means 摩挲. There is no V-Source under U+6332 挲, maybe it is OK to do the horizontal extension to U+6332 挲 if IRG agrees, or add it to IVD in future.
Unify to 𰜶 (U+30736). (UCV #307d)
This should have been unified with 𰜶 (U+30736) and withdrawn
Unify to WS2021-02721:VN-F1A6D per UCV #272.
Unify to 滗?
The evidence shows the variant is 潷 and the Putonghua/Mandarin reading is bì.
The meaning is "drain dry", which is similar to 滗 (U+6ED7), “xế” is a native word, so this a case where a variant of 滗 was borrowed for its meaning. Unification should be appropriate.
U+318FF 𱣿 reads as lác, this character reads as cách, non-cognates.
See WS2017-01736
[ {{WS2017-01736}} ]
蕈 (U+8548). Same semantic, very similar shape
Unify to 邦 (U+90A6).
The evidences show ⿰龵阝 which should be unifiable with 邦 (U+90A6) without a doubt.
See U+26C25 (Ext B):
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 𱢝 (U+3189D).
[ {{WS2017-01618}} ]
Taberd (p. 417): 𱢝, Rày, hoc tempore “[Latin] at this time”. 𱢝旦, đến rày, usque nunc “[Latin] until now”.
The phonetic symbol is 例>𡿪 (*RAT). And the semantic part is 旦.
中国京语词典 (p. 43): ⿱旦例, rai2, 今日, 今天 “[Chinese] today”.
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.
For example, do you think that and look “quite different”?
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.
consider unifying to 𨕀 (U+28540)
Both are the vulgar term for sexual intercourse, and the readings are both địt. Based on the current evidence, the phonetic element is 迭, and the semantic element is 气.
We can consider using this V glyph and RS, TS, IDS for U+28540 𨕀, but keep V2-7A3B as the V-Source reference if unified.
The original source reference for V2-7A3B is Vũ Văn Kính, "Tự Điển Chữ Nôm", p. 272, shown in the image below. As you can see, the phonetic is 迭 (điệt). So, the current shape of U+28540 is incorrect. Unification will be acceptable if we change the shape of U+28540 to VN-F2173.
Consider possible unification to 𡰱 (U+21C31) as both are variant forms of U+5C3C 尼
Attributes
If both of them are accepted for encoding, the IDS of this character should be updated to ⿰扌WS2024-03272.
#26b, IRGN2221
Based on Evidence 2, the meaning is related to “hawk”, Evidence 1 looks the variant of 鹞.
The evidence shows it is the variant of 荡/蕩, and the top component of 昜 is 日 not 曰, so 汨 is more suitable.
#40, IRGN1105
#40, IRGN1105
#27a, IRGN2221:
#17, IRGN2221
#36, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
#40, IRGN1105
#36, IRGN954AR
The Zhuang word “hoz” means “neck, throat”, that means the radical should be 130.
▲ Zhuang-Chinese-English Dictionary, p. 632
The Zhuang word “gen” means “arm”, so the radical should be 130.0.
▲ Zhuang-Chinese-English Dictionary, p. 477
#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.
#42, IRGN954AR
#1, IRGN954AR
夊 is not included in the glyph
Support HKSAR (Comment #3294).
Evidence 4 and the above evidence from 干祿字書 shows ⿰⿺乚丶丶.
Change FS=2
Change SC=12.
Change TS=17.
KR requests IRG to discuss.
If Comment #7672 been accepted, IDS should be updated as well.
#76, IRGN954AR
不 in the submitted IDS is U+F967
See the radical
⿱甫土 is not an encoded character, and there is no evidence to support it. U+25B89 𥮉 has been encoded, and the K-Source reference is K6-1118.
#25, IRGN2221
Agree with Conifer on Comment #2271. ROK could normalize the glyph.