Based on the additional evidence, I agree that the ideograph can be considered a variant of U+7E3F, but creating a UCV for 𭆤 and 參 seems like too much of a stretch. Also, the Moji Jōhō Kiban database confirms the variant relationship between 𭆤 and 參, and by extension to 参. Based on this, the ideograph should no longer be pending, and should not be unified with an existing ideograph.
The Geospatial Information Authority of Japan published a document in 2024 stating that they will (among other replacements) use 杻 as a substitute for 𫞈 moving forward.
Oppose Unification
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Comment #14449 neglected to indicate that the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan's decision to substitute U+2B788 with 杻 (U+677B) is merely due to their own implementation limitations that favor characters in JIS X 0213 over characters outside of its scope. As a result, this comment should not be considered as a basis for unification.
Oppose Unification
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
To follow up on Comments #14449 and #14450, per this page that was published on 2026-07-02, the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan changed its policy, meaning that U+2B788 𫞈 should not be substituted with 杻 (U+677B).
Based on three pieces of evidence (2 submitted and 1 new), the glyph should be ⿵门⿱𰁜大 not ⿵门奕. Evidence 1 shows the Putonghua reading is luán, that means the top of the inside part is 𰁜, the variant of 䜌 not 亦.
In PRC conventions, 𰁜 and 亦 are not the same. So, the theoretical traditional form should be ⿵門⿱䜌大 not ⿵門奕.
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
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Support HKSAR's comment, the glyph should be modified to ⿰言墮.
For the structure ⿱玨X, there are two situations for the radicals: 1) 玉, 2) the radical of component X
Rad=玉
U+73E1 珡 (variant of 琴)
U+7434 琴 (musical instrument)
U+7435 琵 (musical instrument)
U+7436 琶 (musical instrument)
U+7439 琹 (variant of 琴)
U+745F 瑟 (musical instrument)
U+24996 𤦖
U+24997 𤦗
U+249C2 𤧂 (variant of 琴)
U+249C6 𤧆 (variant of 琴)
U+24A0D 𤨍
U+24A58 𤩘
U+24A5F 𤩟 (variant of 琴)
U+2AEF4 𪻴 (variant of 琴 and 珍)
U+2B73B (musical instrument)
U+2DE65 𭹥 (musical instrument + variant of 筑)
U+2DE78 𭹸 (musical instrument + variant of 箜)
U+2DE92 𭺒
U+2DE95 𭺕
U+30877 𰡷 (variant of 琴)
U+30886 𰢆 (variant of 琴)
U+30887 𰢇 (variant of 琴)
U+3088C 𰢌 (variant of 琴)
U+31BD0 𱯐 (variant of 柬)
U+32BDE (variant of 拜)
Rad=the rad of X
U+22708 𢜈 (variant of 琴 and 慧)
U+235DC 𣗜 (variant of 琴)
U+28A16 𨨖 (variant of 琴)
U+2ABE5 𪯥 (variant of 斑 and 瑟)
U+2D310 𭌐
U+2D481 𭒁 (variant of 瑟)
U+2D8D1 𭣑
U+327D7 (variant of 弄)
Unihan data, the ORT Attributes predictor, and most other candidates in WS2024 give 8. It would be better to be consistent.
Total Stroke Count
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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.
Total Stroke Count
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Based on the above discussion, I will add one more entry to the Consolidated SC and FS guidelines for IWDS.
For this case, the semantic element is 做, the phonetic element is 乞 (老借 haet, Cantonese is hat1; 新借 giz), so the radical 人 is from the right part 做, that means FS=3 is better to match the first stroke of 乞.
For this case, the semantic element is 作, the phonetic element is 乞 (老借 haet, Cantonese is hat1; 新借 giz), so the radical 人 is from the right part 作, that means FS=3 is better to match the first stroke of 乞.
Change Radical to 48.0 (工), SC=4, FS=5 and move 19.0 力 as the secondary one.
The top component is 巨, and the initial consonant (声母, phụ âm đầu/輔音頭) is l- (related to 來母 in middle Chinese), and the initial consonant of this one is s-, that means its previous form is consonant cluster. Based on the Vietnamese RS conventions, the most proper radical should be 工 (the radical of 巨).
*kl- → s-
U+22028 𢀨 V0-3D45 48.12
cự 巨 & lang 郎 = *klang → sang
The IRG Attributes Predictor counts 巨 as 5 strokes, Unihan has 4. We should discuss and document the stroke count we are going to use and fix the ORT if we decide it's 4. Otherwise keep TC=18.
The IDS proposed above seems confusing. 㓁 is a variant of rad. 122 and always appears above. If we merely want to reduce the # of strokes, U+5197 would be better since it can have the shape ⿱冖儿.
Change Radical to 212.2 (竜), SC=3, FS=3 to align with the radical assignment of U+2A693.
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
The assignment of the radical for U+2A693 is based on the old model, using the semantic. With the new model, radical #94 is more intuitive. If anything, we should change U+2A693
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
Residual Stroke Count
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
SC=9, TS=14.
务 should be counted as ⿱攵力 here per Kangxi conventions.
18 is correct. According to the Attributes Predictor and Unihan data, 羊 is 6, not 7. Both give 10 strokes for 羞.
Total Stroke Count
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Re Comment #1475
IRG N2862R #7Dd shows the value should be 7.
Total Stroke Count
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The current Unihan data shows varying counts for the sheep radical in this position, although 7 does seem more common. It seems somewhat more intuitive to use 6, since the base character is 6 and the design of many glyphs use the base ⺶, not the ⿱𦍌丿. Either way, we need to update the unihan data and tools.
Residual Stroke Count
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
Per Rule #7Dd in IRG N2951: SC = 13; FS = 3; TS = 19
Residual Stroke Count
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
#14526 illustrates why Rule #7Dd separating ⿱𦍌 and 丿is problematic. Intuitively, and following the 說文 and other analysis, many would consider ⿱𦍌丿 a variation of 羊, so the 丿 should count as part of the radical, not in the SC. #7Dd should only change the TC here.
𤉨 IS original. The shift from '𤉨' to '𤉹', from the ⿹AB to the ⿱AB, reflects a glyph normalization practice in modern Chinese printing. In my opinion, both glyph forms are acceptable in character encoding.
The submitted evidence shows one 疏 (소) related to 洪淳穆 (홍순목, 1816 - 1884) in 1866. I also found one more piece related to 洪淳穆. He used the word as 乖盭 (괴려).
The evidence shows several person names as 柳楳～ (유매～), 李審 (이심), 蘇受益 (소수익), 禹有錫 (우유석), 王枝明 (왕지명), 朴斗萬 (박두만), 金乭山 (김돌산). And I found other one page shows several person names as 柳楳, 李⿱⿻十𠈌回, 李審, 蘇受益, 禹有錫, 王枝明, 朴斗萬, 金乭山, but I can’t find the original picture.
If 柳楳 is one person, the following character in the submitted evidence should mean the other person 李𤲷 or 李嗇 (이색). The following picture shows the the time.
▲ https://sjw.history.go.kr/id/SJW-F05040300-03900
If yes, it is not better to normalize the glyph to ⿱爽田, and the current reading is incorrect.
Has this character another appearance? According to the transcription table in volume 1, this syllable should be transcribed as . 筴 does not seem to make sense as phonetic.
It is likely that ⿰氵⿱罒永 is derived from ⿱罒永 as is shown in 《東南紀事》provided in comment #8620. ⿱罒永 itself is a misinterpreted form of 𥄳, which already contains the water radical required by the generation name 肅. I suggest pending more independent evidence.
New evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
▲ 《南明史》 （钱海岳: 中華書局, 2006, [ISBN 9787101044294]）, p. 1472
Evidence
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
The evidence 2 and the new evidence in #14416 are still questionable because earlier historical evidence give 濁:
Considering Japan’s successful rebuttal of the proposed unification of what became U+2B788 in Extension D and U+677B in document IRG N1495 whose excerpt is shown below, the UTC therefore argues that the unification with U+72C3 should be nullified, and that 丒 should be removed from the scope of UCV #103. Document IRG N1495 set a precedent that cannot easily ignored.
In addition, the disunification of U+247C1 and U+5CF1 as cited in Comment #154 seems to be out of scope.
Suggest to normalize the glyph to ⿺尾童 instead of changing the IDS.
Glyph design
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
No evidence for ⿺尾童, and G-source characters do not show an obvious preference for ⿺尾X over ⿰尾X, so changing the glyph to ⿺尾童 cannot really be considered as normalization. I suggest to keep the current glyph, and simply update IDS to ⿰尾童.
The 3rd stroke of the lower right part (隹) should be 丶 instead of 丿 according to G-source convention, even if the evidence shows like 丿 (because that is so-called 旧字形, which is different from the G-source convention nowadays).
Glyph design
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Comment #1821 has not been resolved yet.
Glyph design
L F CHENG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Unless I am mistaken, 廿 also appears to be missing serifs on the bottom (currently, it is completely flat).
Change glyph to use the ⿱冃目 form of 冒 following China conventions. I did a quick check, and it seems that every single G-source character with 冒 (up to and including GKJ-00319 in Extension J) is written with the ⿱冃目 form.
The phonetic symbol of 𧸩 is the same as 濬 (璿, 䜜), is 睿 < 叡 < 㕡 *WEN.
Glyph design
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
We'd like to keep the current glyph.
Mr. 朱永⿰贝睿 write his name like current glyph.
Source: https://www.mmcs.org.cn/kxjfc/kxjfc/zybr/bd/art/2023/art_310b238dedb6424298d5e31ac79134ae.html
What's more, 《康熙字典》 has 丿 as the third stroke of the 睿 part. Currently, this ideograph is mainly used as person name and people are more likely to use the glyph in 《康熙字典》.
Glyph design
Kushim JIANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Evidence #1 also shows a written form of |⿰贝睿|.
Glyph design
Toshiya SUZUKI
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
I feel same thing with Kushim's first comment, but I hope if China keeps current proposed glyph. The typographic shape in the evidence 1 & 2 are proposed by UTC as #03614. Unify them at same codepoint would be helpful to show this character has an ambiguity.
Glyph design
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
We'd like to keep the current glyph. It agrees with the glyph used on Chinese ID cards. Personally, I recommend UTC to keep its current glyph, too.
Not suitable for normalization. The difference is too large this is not one of the normalization conventions.
Note on 新借 tones, this is a written convention not a spoken one, the actual spoken tone for modern loans (新借) varies from dialect to dialect. Since entering tones become second tones in south-western mandarin then they are written as second tones ~z. However, in a particular dialect the actual tone used would be whichever is closest to the second tone in south-western mandarin
The lower-right stroke of "本" is different from the evidence, and most G-column glyphs in the code chart.
Glyph design
John Knightley
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Agree the lower-right stroke of "本" should be changed.
Glyph design
L F CHENG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Is it not a 一字不兩捺 rule? Searching for characters including the components "辶木" in https://zi.tools/zi/?secondary=search regularly shows 丶 in the G-glyph.
Glyph design
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree the lower-right stroke of "本" should be changed.
An interesting question. In the past the "normalization" has several times not followed this convention as in GZ-2962204 (U+2D056) , and in some cases even gone the other way GZ-2962202 (U+2D095)
The second horizontal stroke (横) of the bottom left component 牛 should not be 避让 to become 提. The glyph shown on the evidence has been matched PRC conventions.
According to evidence 1, the glyph is written as [⿺尼常].
Glyph design
John Knightley
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Agreed update glyph to ⿺尼常.
Glyph design
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The glyph has not been updated yet to ⿺尼常.
Glyph design
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Change the glyph.
Glyph design
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
See the glyphs which have been encoded, 8 ⿰尼X & 2 ⿺尼X:
⿰尼X
U+4CBF
U+2389E
U+23670
U+2B8A9
U+2D557
U+2DDB5
U+2D571
U+2E97B
⿺尼X
U+3037C
U+3165C
I prefer not to change the glyph of 01159 temporarily.
Glyph design
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Reply to Comment #14420.
The submitted character is a Zhuang character. In Comment #14420, U+3037C 𰍼 and U+3165C 𱙜 are also Zhuang characters.
For U+3165C 𱙜 (reads as ndi*), the semantic element is 好, and the phonetic element is 尼 (新借niz).
For U+3037C 𰍼 and the submitted character, we need to know an unencoded character first.
⿺尼冷 reads nit, and the semantic element is 冷, the phonetic element is 尼.
▲ 《古壮字字典》, p. 383
Therefore, the rationale of U+3037C 𰍼 (reads as dot) and the submitted character (reads as ciengz*) are that the semantic elements are both the omitted form of ⿺尼冷, and the phonetic elements are 夺 (新借doz, 老接dued) and 常 (新借cangz, 老借ciengz).
That means the structures for these characters are stable, and match the rationale. Therefore, the glyph must be updated to match the submitted evidence. Other characters (⿰尼X) are not related to this type.
Normalization
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Per email discussion, the G-source representative glyph is not to be updated (it currently follows China’s regional conventions), but those of U+3037C and U+3165C are to be updated from ⿺尼X to ⿰尼X at some point in the future to follow China’s regional conventions.
The Zhuang reading is gemq. The Zhuang reading of 剑 is giemq (老借), gen (新借). It is close to gemq.
莶 is not a very common character, and reads cim1 in Cantonese, so the closest Zhuang reading should be ciem (老借, the same as 签), which is not similar to gemq.
The Zhuang word coenggemq means Chinese chives (韭菜), and previous character is 萗 with Radical #140.0.
The most proper form should be ⿱艹剑.
Normalization
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Support normalization to ⿱艹剑 as the traditional form 𧁴 ⿱艹劍 is coded as U+27074.
Glyph design
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Is China planning to update the glyph per the comments above?
Glyph design
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Don't need to be changed before new evidences appear.
Normalize the glyph to match the current IDS as ⿱爽田.
U+21641 𡙁 is the unifiable variant of U+723D 爽 per UCV #108, but there is no K-Source reference for U+21641 𡙁 now.
It is better to use ⿱爽田 to match ROK conventions. The Korean reading provided by the submitter is 상, which is the same as 爽.
Glyph design
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
KR will change glyph as IDS=⿱爽田.
Glyph design
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
Normalization
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
There appears to be an open question as to whether the upper component is 𡙁 or 爽. If it is the former, the IDS needs to be changed to ⿱𡙁田. If it is the latter, the glyph needs to be changed to ⿱爽田.
IDS is ⿰舟玆, font glyph is ⿰舟茲, and evidence shows ⿰舟兹. Please either change glyph to match IDS, or change IDS to match glyph. If IDS is changed, then first stroke also needs to be changed.
Glyph design
ROK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
KR will change the glyph as ⿰舟玆.
Glyph design
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Glyph has not been changed yet.
Glyph design
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
Glyph design
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The evidence gives ⿰舟兹(U+5179), I think the glyph should be changed from ⿰舟茲(U+8332) to ⿰舟兹(U+5179), to match the original evidence.
The IDS ⿰舟玆(U+7386) matches neither the evidence nor the current glyph, so the IDS is not accurate, we should correct the IDS to ⿰舟兹(U+5179) and change the glyph to ⿰舟兹(U+5179).
Glyph design
ROK
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
KR will modify the glyph as suggested.
Glyph design
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Per comments #10842 and #12081, change the glyph and IDS of KC-10045 to ⿰舟兹.
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
There is no K-Source under 戬, but K1-6B79 is under 戩.
Glyph design
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
KR will change glyph as U+6229(戩).
Glyph design
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
KR will change font.
(Glyphs of SN 02246 and SN 02272 need be swapped in the font)
Glyph design
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
Suggest to remove the redundant hook from 糸 according to K-source convention.
Glyph design
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
I am confused whether the component between 彳 and 亍 is 氵 or 冫.
Glyph design
ROK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
KR will change the glyph as suggested.
Glyph design
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
Glyph design
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
⿰糹𧗠?
Glyph design
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
ROK updated the glyph, but indicated that it was not updated correctly, hence Comment #14491 above.
The evidence shows ⿰禾逹 or ⿰木逹. The submitter should show the normalization rule.
On the evidence, the previous sub-sentence shows “山稻種於乾田” (n./plant v. prep. n./place), so this sub-sentence shows “泉～種於寒水”, that means “泉～” is also a kind of plant. It is not easy to know what it is.
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
Glyph design
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
ROK updated the glyph, but indicated that the design of the last four strokes of the 雨 component may be further refined.
The current glyph (outside part of the right part of the right bottom part) has not followed ROK conventions as K0-5F31 shows.
Glyph design
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
KR will change the glyph as suggested.
Glyph design
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
KR will change font.
(Glyphs of SN 02246 and SN 02272 need be swapped in the font)
Glyph design
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
Glyph design
Conifer TSENG
TCA
The right part of the current glyph erroneously shows ⿸启土. It should be corrected to 垕 to match the evidence (IDS: ⿰火垕).
The glyph should be redesigned such that there are 4 horizontal strokes instead of 2, as shown in the evidence and recorded in the IDS.
Glyph design
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The glyph is actually designed to have 4 horizontal strokes but we might redesign to make it clear if requested.
Glyph design
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
We need to resolve the issue of design
Glyph design
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
As the variant of 舛, it's combined by 㐄 and L-R reversed 㐄.
Glyph design
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The glyph should follow the evidence 2 and 3 in https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/?id=03261. The the glyph in the latest version was designed very strangely.
Is the top component 𠫓 (U+20AD3) or 云 (U+4E91)? The former, I think, from a semantic point of view. If so, shouldn't the top component be drawn like that of the J-source representative glyph of U+342C 㐬?
If TCA wants to normalize the glyph to ⿰口爓, that will be OK; if not, the current glyph could be kept. When other sources do the horizontal extension, ⿰口爓 could be unified here.
Per TCA conventions, the 11-stroke 黒 component might be the 12-stroke 黑 component. See 04128 and 04129 in this working set for how the UK applied normalization to their representative glyphs and use 黑, while all of the evidence showed 黒.
What's the pronunciation of this character？ 匄 gai4 or 匈 xiong1？
Glyph design
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Good question. The original evidence does not provide pronunciation. Based on the evidence 2 which gives ⿰木匄 and which is also one of the earliest historical evidences, my educated guess is that the modern pronunciation could be 匄 gai4.
Note that we normalize ⿰木匄 to ⿰木匃 per UCV #143.
The glyph is set to ⿰木匃 because there are already encoded characters where 匃 is the right component: 𦍨𩢛𭠝𮌍𮠤, while no encoded characters features 匄 as the right component.
Yes, the note is confusing. I think that the original intention was to normalize the actual glyph forms ⿰目⿳日⿻𠈌丨丂 (Evidence 1) or ⿰日⿳日⿻𠈌丨亐 (Evidences 2 and 3) which are not used in any encoded character to 𣋓 which is used in the cognate character U+244AB 𤒫. Therefore keep current glyph and IDS.
Glyph design
HUANG Junliang
Individual
The vertical stroke in the component U+20336 𠌶 should be stretched so that it touches both the upper 丿 stroke and the lower horizontal stroke,
Good catch. I agree with comment #10992, there should have been a normalization note such as: 「Evidence 4 gives ⿰亻⿱㕡工, normalize to ⿰亻壑 as ⿱㕡工 is a corrupted form of 壑」.
Respond to Comment #11166, which is a good question.
Evidence 1 shows ⿰口⿱垖十, and Evidence 2 shows ⿱⿰口垖十.
Evidence 1 shows the reading is 火刀切, that means f-(-o2) + (d-)-ou1 = fou1;
Evidence 2 shows the reading is 科高切, that means f-(-o1) + (g-)-ou1 = fou1.
Evidence 2 shows the English phrase is “suffocation by drowning”, and the corresponding Cantonese load word is “沙～鷄𠱸 拜 地簍𡨴”. The English word “suffocation” reads /ˌsʌfəˈkeɪʃən/, and “沙～鷄𠱸” reads saa1 fou1 gai1 seon2, which the corresponding Chinese meaning is “窒息”.
埠 reads fau6 and bou6 in Cantonese, fouh in Zhuang (老借).
Is 卜 a frequent variant of 下? 卟(ヤ) seems to appear frequently in the Japanese-Chinese music book 月琴楽譜, which makes more sense if 卟 were a form of 吓. 虲=蝦 seems to be known, appearing in 汉语大字典. Would it be reasonable to normalize ⿰口虲 to ⿰口虾?
Normalization
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Personally I don't agree with the normalization suggested in comment #14033, because
1) 虲 and 虾 are too different as both 卜 and 下 are frequently used characters and we have to look up the dictionary to learn the relationship between 虲 and 虾.
2) Usage of 虲 long predates usage of 虾. The former is attested in 《正統道藏》 (v.164 line 2 character 3) published almost 600 years ago, while the latter is a PRC simplified form of U+8766 蝦 established in the last century. Because the original evidence is published before 虾 was created, the text produces the current form ⿰口虲.
3) Both 蝦 and 虾 are not very productive:
which means if we indeed normalize ⿰口虲 to ⿰口虾, we can potentially only save a few code points.
Then normalize the right part from 匕 to 𠤎 in order to match the convention (UK usually obeys the G-source convention).
Normalization
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Three pieces of evidence shows the corresponding English word is “heavy” (/ˈhevi/), and Evidence 3 shows the corresponding Katakana form is ヘヷ, so the word reads he1 wi4 in Cantonese.
㗾 reads hoe1 or hoe4 in Cantonese as Comment #11715 shows. 靴 reads like he1 in other sub-dialects of Chinese Yue-dialects.
Therefore, Comment #12178 is reasonable.
Glyph design
John Knightley
UK
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
Agree to update glyph per comments #12178 and #13811.
This is the only example in Vietnamese of 類 as a component. The preferred form is 類 (V1-6C22), so it would be better to normalize the glyph to reflect that.
The right part of the current V glyph has matched the common design of the 豸 component. cf. U+8C79 U+8C7A
Glyph design
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
There are more than 40 glyphs using the same design in the NomNaTong font. It would be a significant effort to change them all. We would need to better understand the rationale for this design before making such a change.
Glyph design
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
I still support to keep current form as the Vietnamese conventions.
There are 21 Vietnamese characters with 叕 as an immediate constituent. The distribution of the stroke shape in question is about half and half. We will investigate the issues with normalization.
Note that the horizontal extension will are working on will include U+6447 摇, U+9065 遥, and U+7476 瑶, as well as U+7AB0 窰, the right side of VN-F04BE. U+7AB0 currently has the shape shown below.
VN-F04BE and U+7AB0 both already have the suggested general structure, ⿱爫缶. Is the desire here to move the 爫 one or two pixels up and to the left so it is the same as U+55C2, etc?
Agree with #8394 to normalize the glyph. As we can confirm that this character is a variant of 繭, it would be better to change the structure more like 繭.
Rule 3-4 is meant to apply specifically to the entire component, 爭, since 𠂊 is not universally a simplification of 𫜵. The analysis in the evidence suggests that VN-F05B0 is composed of radical 162, "xích", and the character read "quýnh" in Sino-Vietnamese. Most Vietnamese sources show "quýnh" as 敻 (U+657B) or 夐 (U+5910), so we have decided to normalize to that shape. This is the same logic applied in the case of (U+32F78).
The phonetic, "dan" argues for U+67EC. Here is another analysis (Vũ Văn Kính, "Tự điễn chứ Nôm" p. 225) showing that the traditional and simplified forms both contain U+67EC, read "lan", as phonetic.
Glyph should follow the one in the evidence, and please show more evidences to determine the character shape.
Glyph design
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The element on the right is a simplification of the characters 沒 / 没, read "một", through these steps 没 > 𠬛 > 𠬠 or 𱥺 > 𠬠. There are 2 basic forms, 𠬠 and 𰰝. This is documented in the character definition shown in the image below from TĐCNTD p. 802
Below is an example of VN-F0CBC from "Lục Vân Tiên" showing a form somewhat between 𠬠 and 𰰝
Historically, there are many examples of 𰰝, but the current trend is to standardize on 𠬠, as shown in this the "BẢNG CHỮ HÁN NÔM CHUẨN THƯỜNG DÙNG" http://www.hannom-rcv.org/NS/bchnctd%20300623.pdf
This is not a significant difference. Most of the glyphs in NomNaTong with the 鬼 component retain the 厶. Over time, we will normalize to that shape. We can update the normalization guidelines
It is better to consider to normalize the right part as 禿 as V1-6130 shows.
There is no V-source reference under U+79C3 秃 now.
Glyph design
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Both variants are found in Vietnamese, TĐCNDG entry shown below has U+79C3 秃. In the NomNaTong font there are 5 glyphs composed with U+79C3 秃 and 5 composed with U+79BF 禿. Of the characters with V-Source references, if we normalize to 禿, we would also want to change 𥟉 U+257C9 / V3-3531 and 𥟹 U+257F9 / V2-7F31. If we normalize to 秃, we would only change U+22B33 / VN-22B33
Based on Vietnamese normalization rule 2-3 in IRGN2673, we propose changing the design to ⿰貝𮥷, with ⿰文隹 on the right half. This would require a new UCV, similar to 298j for 对/対.
A reviewer, Luu Quang Truong, points out that closer inspection of the original font reveals the top element to be 主. See image below. This makes sense as a phonetic, and there are other examples: "gio": 𠰍 (giỏ), 𬚶 (giỏ), etc. We propose changing the glyph and attributes to reflect that.
SC=5, FS=4, TS=9
The evidence for this character and WS2021-03520 don’t show the usage for the geographic names, but the G-Source for this character is GDM. Could we need to know how to use this one for the geographic names?
The Traditional Variant needs to be checked as the Traditional Variant is currently under radical moon instead of expected meat.
Other
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
To follow up on Comment #1837, it would be helpful if ROK were to confirm the radical of U+2DA53, which is Radical 74. This affects whether this ideograph, which is assigned Radical 130, can be considered its simplified form.
The phonetic element must be 韋 (viz? The 老借 form of 位 is vih, and the 新借 form of 韦 is veiz, and 位 is vei), but it is not easy to understand the semantic rationale of the right part 迷. 《古壮字字典》 shows two relative entries, one is used for the Zhuang word “maex” (wife), the other one is used for the Zhuang word “mwh” (period, time). On the other hand, the 老借 form of 迷 is maez, the 新借 form is miz.
If we can’t clarify the right part, it is better to keep current radical without more radicals.
Agree with 10639E。Evidence 1 does contain both (⿱蓬火) and (⿱蓬灬). These two glyph forms appear frequently in transcriptions of Han dynasty wooden slips, but they rarely occur together in the same context. Our review of the relevant database shows that nearly all instances can be interpreted as the character “烽”. Screenshots of the database search results are attached for your reference.
Other
Conifer TSENG
TCA
In Evidence 2, it is mentioned:王國維先生云(見《流沙墜簡·考釋》釋二，十五頁): “說文…[⿱蓬火]燧候表也……”
However, a textual check of the original book reveals that it is actually written as "㷭".
#12759: If ⿰禾達 is a plant, with semantic 禾 and phonetic 達, ⿰禾達 might represent 달, a type of grass or reed.
- Naver: https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/ff504b5b260a4ecfbd8bf81d19d13341
- Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/달#Etymology_2
Other
L F CHENG
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
#12759, #12779: Echo Heo also points out 샘다리, a variety of rice plant. 샘 translates to "spring" (泉), and the coordinate 山稻 also refers to rice plants.
- Naver: https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/6e0923926e4146d2ade89cc93c2fcb75
Other
ROK
[ Unresolved from v4.0 ]
“山稻” and “山⿰禾達” represent types of rice, so the character “禾” is correct. This is considered unrelated to normalization rules.
This is a component not a character, it shouldn't be encoded.
Other
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
This comment is from individual expert Ma Shijie：
Keep it. Come from shuowen small seal.
Refer to 00389 | ⿱吅冂 | WS2024v3.0. Component for 斝, but not ⿱吅冖.
Other
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
According to the evidences, I insist that this is a component rather than a character.
The paper shows it's a transcription of the ones appeared in oricle script. Indeed, it's the correct transcribed glyph what can support ⿱竹宀 to be encoded.
Other
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
Given that we are about to standardize the CJK Unified Ideographs Components-A and CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B blocks, this ideograph should be withdrawn then submitted as a candidate for the next block of CJK components.
It is obvious that 03159 ⿱咸肉 is a variant of 03180 ⿱𮍏肉, and the annotation is completely consistent.
03180 ⿱𮍏肉：才浪反， 積蓄也，如庫藏也，人有五藏，謂肝肺脾心肾也，經文作~，非體也。
03159 ⿱咸肉：才浪反，《鄭註周禮》：積蓄也，如庫藏也， 經文作~，非體也。
It is obvious that phrase was written incorrectly in the annotation, this character should be withdrawn.
程先甲 辑，廣續方言 四卷，卷二，清光緒23年[1897]木活字本
(清) 桂馥 撰，說文解字義證 五十卷，卷十七，清道光30年至咸豐2年（1850-1852）刻本
(清) 段玉裁 撰，說文解字注 十五卷，卷第六上，清同治11年[1872]湖北崇文書局刻本
(清) 王筠 撰，說文解字句讀 三十卷，卷第六上，清道光至同治間[1821-1874]刻本
The original evidence is missing one horizontal stroke in the 春 component. And the annotation gives ⿱夫月.
Other
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
I don't object the current glyph design & IDS. Like you said both ⿱夫日 and ⿱夫月 are variants of 春. My previous comment is to note the normalization involved here. I think the normalized form ⿰口⿱椿火 is preferred over the exact form ⿰口⿱⿰木⿱夫日火, one can always add an IVD of ⿰口⿱椿火 to present the desired ⿰口⿱⿰木⿱夫日火 shape in 正統道藏.
Aside: In this evidence, the last character in the same column of ⿰口⿱椿火, ⿰口⿱𰟐水 is written as ⿰口⿱⿰火㇯堇一:
The normalization may be inevitable when dealing with ancient text, because they might have different normalization rules: The text here is authored well before the 15th century. As we can see, the shape of 堇 component here is consistent with contemporary dictionary:
▲ 龍龕手鑑（臺北故宮藏宋刊本）卷1 folio 5a
I think we should encode the modern normalized form ⿰口⿱𰟐水 instead of the exact shape ⿰口⿱⿰火㇯堇一, because the standard is for modern audience.
The corresponding IDS(es) is/are shown as ⿰山⿳𠂉一乙 and ⿰山气 in BabelStone, but only ⿰山气 in zi.tools.
However, ⿰山⿳𠂉一乙 is the the variant of 屹, and the right part is also the variant of 乞. The final consonant (辅音韵尾) is -t. ⿳𠂉一乙 has not been encoded separately.
There is also one ⿰山气 in SJ/T 11239—2001 as 26-64.
The corresponding glyph of U+2AA26 𪨦 is also shown as ⿰山气 in GB 18030—2022 (0x9836CA34).
On the other hand, TC-2A6B looks related to A01101-004, but the glyph of A01101-004 shows ⿰山气, and the source shows ⿰山⿳𠂉一乙 cited from 《正字通》.
UK-30010 looks related to ⿰山气, and the usage of UK-30010 supports ⿰山气.
Evidence No.3 is from 道光(1821-1850) 《潯州府志》, the glyph in it is ⿺虎戌.
Evidence NO.2 is 同治（1862-1875）《潯州府志》, the glyph in it is ⿺虎戊.
Other
HUANG Junliang
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Good catch. We believe the ⿺虎戊 is the desired form because 1) The evidence in 雍正廣西通志 predates the one in 道光潯州府志. 2) 《炎徼紀聞》, an earlier source gives 𧇭, 3) the semi-cursive script of 武 could be similar to 戊, and 4) The text is from 翁萬達《藤峽善後議》. In 《中州音韻》, 武 is 微母魚模合上聲, 戊 is 微母魚模合去聲, so the pronunciation of 武 is also very similar to 戊 in Ming Dynasty.
The last evidence (《管城碩記》(清康熙刊本) 卷21 folio 5a) also has two unencoded and unproposed characters:
⿰齒貞 (included in PUA in the 中華書局宋體15平面 font as U+F20A8)
⿵門⿳止冖⿱工几 (included in PUA in the 中華書局宋體15平面 font as U+F20AA)
The note mentions contrastive / non-cognate usage in evidence 1 (an index for a Foochow dictionary), where is â̤ and ⿰亻𩋘 is nò̤, but I must wonder if it is an error in compiling the index, where ⿰亻𩋘 was to be combined with but was misrecognized as 儺. (I have suspected similar errors in an index for a Teochew dictionary.)
𩋘 is a variant of 鞋, is already only known from Foochow usage, and evidence 2 shows ⿰亻𩋘 being used as a variant of .
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/植松練磨
https://x.com/Kaochi817/status/2015702416780636375
Uematsu Tōma was a Japanese admiral and politician. https://www.weblio.jp/content/練磨 as an existing word means /renma/ "training", but his name is /tōma/, possibly ⿰糹東 with a phonetic 東.
What is the justification for labeling this as similar to U+31FC3?
Other
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Evidence # 3 for UTC-03292, which has 逃入清化 (he fled into Thanh Hoá), parallels the phrase 奔清⿱花一 above and suggests that this character is a variant of 化 (U+5316, read hoá). Thanh Hoá is more commonly written 清化.
The submitted piece of evidence only shows a half of the explanation that justifies the glyph construction. The full context is given in IRG N2634 Feedback as below.
#9327 shows that we are already living with script-hybrid characters without any problem. Since the nature and attributes of these characters are not fundamentally different from CJK Ideographs, I see no need to postpone.
Other
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Firstly, having already encoded similar characters does not necessarily mean that the same action can still be performed in the future.
Secondly, the encoded characters belong to the extended set E And F, The people involved in the coding work at that time may not have realized that these were script-hybrid characters.
Thirdly, the experts who raised the question had not yet participated in international encoding work at that time.
Fourthly, from the glyph of character form, the encoded characters cannot be distinguished from normal Hanzi through the proposed form, and it cannot be seen that their components are kana. The components fully conform to the writing and form of Hanzi components.
Fifthly and most importantly, after encoding such characters, their attribute annotation and component splitting methods will have an systematic impact on IRG PnP and Unihan database. The application of data carries too much risk.
I still recommend not placing such characters in CJK sets.
The Ryakuji (略字, abbreviated form) of "藤" can be seen as "⿱艹卜 (U+2B1E5) " or "⿱艹𦘱". The component "卜" is likely derived from the Katakana "ト".
See comment #11545 in #01144.
Evidence 1 is probably related to 历 rather than 厉.
Other
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Evidence 1 gives the pinyin reading "lì". This indicates that the character is equally used in Chinese. This is no doubt a variant of a another candidate with similar shape and reading: https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/index.php?id=04451
IRG Working Set 2024v5.0
Unification
Showing 9 comments.
Unification to 齎 (U+9F4E)?
If we consider ⿳亠⿲刀了𱍸口 to be unifiable to 齊 (with new UCV added), then this would be a unification between ⿱齊貝 and ⿵齊貝 (also new UCV can be added).
Unify to 疼 (U+75BC); add a new UCV of 疒 and 𤕫 level 2.
Seems to be extremely common variation of 𤕫 and 疒.
In existing encoded characters, 5 are variants of not "疒":
U+26896 𦢖 = 膺 (NOT 疒)
U+27B6D 𧭭 = 譍 (NOT 疒)
U+28FF3 𨿳 = 䧹 (NOT 疒)
U+2A1FF 𪇿 = 鷹 (NOT 疒)
U+2E34E 𮍎 = 臧 (NOT 疒)
Meanwhile all other characters are "疒":
U+2457A 𤕺 = 疾
U+308F1 𰣱 = 痱
U+30901 𰤁 = 癅
U+30905 𰤅 = 癘
U+3090A 𰤊 = 癬
U+32B48 = 痬
02316 = 疼
02318 = 痠
02321 = 𤸃
02322 = 瘠
02323 = 瘻
The Geospatial Information Authority of Japan published a document in 2024 stating that they will (among other replacements) use 杻 as a substitute for 𫞈 moving forward.
Unify to
? (UCV 322)
(response to #3534) Or unify to 𱗬 (U+315EC), adding a new UCV rule?
Attributes
Showing 1279 comments.
#26b, IRGN2221
#36, IRGN954AR
IRG N2862R #6Hc
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.
Based on three pieces of evidence (2 submitted and 1 new), the glyph should be ⿵门⿱𰁜大 not ⿵门奕. Evidence 1 shows the Putonghua reading is luán, that means the top of the inside part is 𰁜, the variant of 䜌 not 亦.
In PRC conventions, 𰁜 and 亦 are not the same. So, the theoretical traditional form should be ⿵門⿱䜌大 not ⿵門奕.
We can find 峦塘 and 栾塘 in 永福县.
#27a, IRGN2221:
未 TS = 5
成 TS = 7
母 SC = 1
5 + 7 + 1 = 13
#1, IRGN954AR
#17, IRGN2221
#36, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
#40, IRGN1105
#36, IRGN954AR
#24, IRGN954AR
#26b, IRGN2221
Based on the evidence, Component ⺄ is the variant of Component 雨 (⻗), and 支 is the phonetic element (老借 ci, cei, 新借 cih).
cf.
U+2B86E 𫡮
U+31380 𱎀
U+31388 𱎈
#1, IRGN954AR
The semantic element is 氵(<水), the phonetic element is 𫯓 (S=多, P=來).
If the submitter hopes to keep the current IDS, it is also OK.
#36, IRGN954AR
#42, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
Rad=石
WS2024-02723 ⿰磨木 (L:S, R:P)
WS2024-02724 ⿰磨古 (L:S, R:P)
WS2024-02727 ⿰磨告 (L:S, R:P)
Rad=麻
WS2024-02724 ⿰磨古 (L:S, R:P)
Rad=rad of X
WS2024-02723 ⿰磨木 (L:S, R:P)
U+287D6 𨟖 (L:P, R:S)
U+31426 𱐦 (L:P, R:S)
U+32389 𲎉 (L:P, R:S)
#42, IRGN954AR
U+30060 𰁠
U+31399 𱎙
U+32412
[WS2021-00124]
亮 reads liengh (老借) and lieng (新借); 展 reads cienj (老借) and canj (新借).
#5Hf, IRGN2862R
Change FS=2
#36, IRGN954AR
Change SC=12.
Change TS=17.
KR requests IRG to discuss.
#76, IRGN954AR
不 in the submitted IDS is U+F967
See the radical
#76, IRGN954AR
#25, IRGN2221
The radical of 釁 is 酉.
It is the variant of 𢼶 and 𣁊.
This rule has been added to IRG N2862.
SC=7, FS=2, TS=10
If IRG agrees, I will add the following rule.
Add 肙/䏍, FS=2, SC=7
See Comment #12601 under WS2024-02316.
See Comment #12601 under WS2024-02316.
See Comment #12601 under WS2024-02316.
See Comment #12601 under WS2024-02316.
#76, IRGN954AR
GKX-0305.11: ⿱屮母
T4-262D, JMJ-034444: ⿱䶹母
On the other hand, SAT-10062 is ⿱山母, which is the same as TC-313C, and SAT-10062 and TC-313C are both related to 每.
If SAT has plan to unify SAT-10062 (⿱山母) to U+21D0B 𡴋 per UCV #96 (lv. 2), it is OK to keep current IDS.
FS=1
It is also normalized the glyph to match IDS and Evidence 2 not 3.
IDS is also needed to updated.
#71, IRGN0954AR
The component at the bottom is unclear.
口 is not here after updating the glyph.
#7Pc, IRGN2862R
or normalize the glyph to match current IDS.
Count the value for ⿱雨勳.
#65, IRGN954AR
#19, IRGN1105
#19, IRGN1105
#2, IRGN954AR
The reading is also the same as 斗.
For the structure ⿺尾X, we have three situations for the radicals: 1) 尸, 2) 毛, 3) the radical of X.
Rad.=尸
U+5C57 屗
U+21C6D 𡱭
U+21C88 𡲈
U+21C89 𡲉
U+21C8A 𡲊
U+21C8B 𡲋
U+21CA4 𡲤
U+21CA5 𡲥
U+21CA7 𡲧
U+21CA8 𡲨
U+21CAA 𡲪
U+21CAB 𡲫
U+21CB8 𡲸
U+21CBC 𡲼
U+21CC0 𡳀
U+21CC3 𡳃
U+21CCA 𡳊
U+21CD3 𡳓
U+21CD4 𡳔
U+21CD5 𡳕
U+21CD6 𡳖
U+21CD7 𡳗
U+21CDD 𡳝
U+21CE6 𡳦
U+21CEA 𡳪
U+21CF1 𡳱
U+21CF2 𡳲
U+21CF3 𡳳
U+2AA15 𪨕
U+2AA19 𪨙
U+2AA1D 𪨝
U+2AA1F 𪨟
U+2BD5E 𫵞
U+2BD63 𫵣
U+2D567 𭕧
U+2D568 𭕨
U+3037A 𰍺
U+30384 𰎄
U+30385 𰎅
U+316C1 𱛁
U+316C2 𱛂
Rad.=毛
U+2DBE2 𭯢
Rad.=the rad. of X
U+20868 𠡨
U+209EE 𠧮
U+219A5 𡦥
U+22F59 𢽙
U+23341 𣍁
U+25591 𥖑
U+25700 𥜀
U+28914 𨤔
U+2A450 𪑐
U+2BBE8 𫯨
U+2BC35 𫰵
U+2CA0A 𬨊
U+319C7 𱧇
U+32A0E
U+33339
Rad.=尸 & the rad. of X
U+5C58 屘
U+3273A
For the structure ⿱𦥯X, there are two situations for the radicals: 1) the radical of X, 2) 臼
Rad=rad of X
U+56B3 嚳
U+58C6 壆
U+5B78 學
U+5DA8 嶨
U+6FA9 澩
U+71E2 燢
U+7910 礐
U+89BA 覺
U+89F7 觷
U+96E4 雤
U+9C5F 鱟
U+9DFD 鷽
U+9ECC 黌
U+3F47 㽇
U+4077 䁷
U+4441 䑁
U+4BB8 䮸
U+20539 𠔹
U+20FDF 𠿟
U+216A3 𡚣
U+23C53 𣱓
U+246F1 𤛱
U+25023 𥀣
U+2574A 𥝊
U+263D7 𦏗
U+2C2E1 𬋡
U+2C830 𬠰
U+2E0AE 𮂮
U+325E2
U+326C9
U+328FC
U+32C06
Rad=臼
U+244DF 𤓟
U+2698E 𦦎
U+26991 𦦑
U+26997 𦦗
U+2699B 𦦛
U+269A0 𦦠
U+269AF 𦦯
U+269B5 𦦵
U+269C0 𦧀
U+2C6FD 𬛽
U+2E373 𮍳
#76, IRGN954AR
Looks the variant of 魁, and the radical of 魁 is the outside component 鬼.
For the structure ⿺免X, there are two situations for the radicals: 1) 儿, 2) the radical of X.
Rad.=儿
U+204BE 𠒾
U+204C4 𠓄
U+204CD 𠓍
U+2A782 𪞂
Rad.=the rad of X
U+52C9 勉
U+2188E 𡢎
U+231B6 𣆶
U+251C5 𥇅
U+2831C 𨌜
U+28F7A 𨽺
U+2BC32 𫰲
U+2CDD6 𬷖
U+2ECEA 𮳪
IRG N1105 shows below.
Maybe we need to follow the later one?
#76, IRGN954AR
For the structure ⿱玨X, there are two situations for the radicals: 1) 玉, 2) the radical of component X
Rad=玉
U+73E1 珡 (variant of 琴)
U+7434 琴 (musical instrument)
U+7435 琵 (musical instrument)
U+7436 琶 (musical instrument)
U+7439 琹 (variant of 琴)
U+745F 瑟 (musical instrument)
U+24996 𤦖
U+24997 𤦗
U+249C2 𤧂 (variant of 琴)
U+249C6 𤧆 (variant of 琴)
U+24A0D 𤨍
U+24A58 𤩘
U+24A5F 𤩟 (variant of 琴)
U+2AEF4 𪻴 (variant of 琴 and 珍)
U+2B73B (musical instrument)
U+2DE65 𭹥 (musical instrument + variant of 筑)
U+2DE78 𭹸 (musical instrument + variant of 箜)
U+2DE92 𭺒
U+2DE95 𭺕
U+30877 𰡷 (variant of 琴)
U+30886 𰢆 (variant of 琴)
U+30887 𰢇 (variant of 琴)
U+3088C 𰢌 (variant of 琴)
U+31BD0 𱯐 (variant of 柬)
U+32BDE (variant of 拜)
Rad=the rad of X
U+22708 𢜈 (variant of 琴 and 慧)
U+235DC 𣗜 (variant of 琴)
U+28A16 𨨖 (variant of 琴)
U+2ABE5 𪯥 (variant of 斑 and 瑟)
U+2D310 𭌐
U+2D481 𭒁 (variant of 瑟)
U+2D8D1 𭣑
U+327D7 (variant of 弄)
Rad=玉=the rad of X
U+32BEC
#26a, IRGN2221
#17, IRGN2221
U+30060 𰁠
U+31399 𱎙
U+32412
[WS2021-00124]
#12Za, IRGN2862R
#72, IRGN954AR
#76, IRGN954AR
Add the secondary radical as 9.0 (人), SC=21, FS=5
For the structure ⿱䜌X, there are three situations for the radicals: 1) the radical of X, 2) 言, 3) 糸
Rad=rad of X
U+535B 卛
U+5971 奱
U+5B4C 孌
U+5B7F 孿
U+5DD2 巒
U+5F4E 彎
U+6200 戀
U+6523 攣
U+66EB 曫
U+6B12 欒
U+7053 灓
U+77D5 矕
U+81E0 臠
U+883B 蠻
U+947E 鑾
U+9E1E 鸞
U+3618 㘘
U+3748 㝈
U+3869 㡩
U+3ABB 㪻
U+3F4B 㽋
U+20673 𠙳
U+2082A 𠠪
U+20A2B 𠨫
U+20B93 𠮓
U+20B96 𠮖
U+22376 𢍶
U+23035 𣀵
U+239B1 𣦱
U+244D6 𤓖
U+24ADC 𤫜
U+2503A 𥀺
U+268CF 𦣏
U+269BD 𦦽
U+26AF2 𦫲
U+277CF 𧟏
U+2829F 𨊟
U+283F6 𨏶
U+293F9 𩏹
U+2965F 𩙟
U+29ABE 𩪾
U+2A23D 𪈽
U+2AB57 𪭗
U+2D4DD 𭓝
U+2DBEE 𭯮
U+2E382 𮎂
U+2E72D 𮜭
Rad=言
U+8B8A 變
U+27B8C 𧮌
Rad=糸
U+261E5 𦇥
U+261F7 𦇷
U+30AF9 𰫹
The radicals of U+9FBB 龻 and U+470C 䜌 are both 言, so the radicals 糸 are not better.
Note that the top component is the phonetic element in this character.
#17, IRGN2221
See similar question in WS2024-04416.
逯 is ⿺辶录
Add 飠/𩙿/食, FS=3, SC=9
#76, IRGN954AR
#23, IRGN2221
#42, IRGN954AR
#17, IRGN2221
FS(2)=3
#67, IRGN954AR
#40, IRGN1105
#36, IRGN954AR
#76, IRGN954AR
Rad=X
U+51EB 凫
U+5C9B 岛
U+67AD 枭
U+8885 袅
U+32C39
Rad=鸟
U+2EE54 𮹔
#36, IRGN954AR
吿 V1-4E5F
No need to update the glyph.
The top component is 巨, and the initial consonant (声母, phụ âm đầu/輔音頭) is l- (related to 來母 in middle Chinese), and the initial consonant of this one is s-, that means its previous form is consonant cluster. Based on the Vietnamese RS conventions, the most proper radical should be 工 (the radical of 巨).
*kl- → s-
U+22028 𢀨 V0-3D45 48.12
cự 巨 & lang 郎 = *klang → sang
U+2AA64 𪩤 V4-4723 48.8
cự 巨 & liệt 列 (>lít) = *klít → sít
U+2AA6A 𪩪 V4-4734 48.19
cự 巨 & liễm 歛 (>lượm) = *klớm → sớm
U+31719 𱜙 VN-F016C 48.10
cự 巨 & luân 侖 (>lỏn) = *klon → son
* the variant of U+22027 𢀧
粵=U+7CB5
#27a, IRGN2221
#67, IRGN954AR
#32, IRGN2221:
雨 = 8
田 = 5
奚 = 10 (爫=4+幺=3+大=3)
SC=23
⿰&Z5-01;免
务 should be counted as ⿱攵力 here per Kangxi conventions.
IRG N2862R #7Dd shows the value should be 7.
Evidence
Showing 51 comments.
吴川历史文化丛书编委会; 钟德: 《吴川方言》 (《吴川历史文化丛书》), 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2021.10, ISBN 978-7-218-14901-1, p. 524
This evidence support current glyph, so it is OK to keep it as-is as Comment #12037.
▲ 吴川历史文化丛书编委会; 钟德: 《吴川方言》 (《吴川历史文化丛书》), 广州: 广东人民出版社, 2021.10, ISBN 978-7-218-14901-1, p. 527
[清] 王梓材、冯云濠辑，宋元学案补遗，卷七十四，第八十三頁，杜洲门人
Change the glyph from ⿰氵𤉹 to ⿰氵𤉨.
［清］陸增祥 撰：《八瓊室元金石偶存·八瓊室元金石偶存》，吴興劉氏，1925年，第16頁。
𤉨 IS original. The shift from '𤉨' to '𤉹', from the ⿹AB to the ⿱AB, reflects a glyph normalization practice in modern Chinese printing. In my opinion, both glyph forms are acceptable in character encoding.
［元］普度 編 ：《廬山蓮宗寶鑑》，《中華大藏經（漢文部分）》，中華書局，1994年05月，第1版，第106頁。
Evidence 5
真大成 著：《中古史書校證·《南史》校證第九·何處》，中華書局，2013年07月，第1版，第332頁。
[1883]
［清］馬壽齡 撰；李曉春 校點：《説文段注撰要·卷三 通用字》，黄山書社，2024年02月，第1版，第263頁。
劉宋范曄撰 唐李賢注 （志）晉司馬彪撰 梁劉昭注《後漢書·卷八十四》，宋白鷺洲書院刻本
［南朝宋］范曄 撰；［唐］李賢 等 注；中華書局編輯部 點校：《後漢書·卷八十四 列女傳第七十四·董祀妻》，中華書局，1965年5月，第1版，第2803頁。
▲ 승정원일기 2478책 (탈초본 121책) 헌종 14년 10월 26일 병인 21/24 기사 1848년 道光(淸/宣宗) 28년
If 柳楳 is one person, the following character in the submitted evidence should mean the other person 李𤲷 or 李嗇 (이색). The following picture shows the the time.
▲ https://sjw.history.go.kr/id/SJW-F05040300-03900
If yes, it is not better to normalize the glyph to ⿱爽田, and the current reading is incorrect.
▲ 董锡玖; 中国艺术研究院舞蹈研究所: 《中国舞蹈史（宋、辽、金、西夏、元部分）》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 1984.6, 书号 8228·054, p. 75
We could update the G-Source reference value for *U+2FBC9 as GCA-Jxxxx if needed.
Note: ⿱斤可 in this piece of evidence has not been encoded, and we can submit it in future. Also TC-7933, and F9A62 in 中华书局宋.
The above is the original evidence of UTC-00488, aka kMeyerWempe 3385b (p. 717).
▲ 《南明史》 （钱海岳: 中華書局, 2006, [ISBN 9787101044294]）, p. 845
Earlier historical evidence also give 𥄳:
▲ 史語所藏鈔本崇禎長編（抄本）卷10 p. 27
▲ 1934）清世祖實錄卷30 folio 24b
▲ {{《明史》（清乾隆刊本）卷100 folio 31a}}
It is likely that ⿰氵⿱罒永 is derived from ⿱罒永 as is shown in 《東南紀事》provided in comment #8620. ⿱罒永 itself is a misinterpreted form of 𥄳, which already contains the water radical required by the generation name 肅. I suggest pending more independent evidence.
▲ 《南明史》 （钱海岳: 中華書局, 2006, [ISBN 9787101044294]）, p. 1472
▲ 《陸菊隠先生文集》（清鈔本）卷15
The time, location and plot all match the description in 《南明史》, so 朱統濁 and 朱統⿰氵⿱罒永 both refer to the same person.
▼朱充"⿰革⿱亠㸑"
In addition, the disunification of U+247C1 and U+5CF1 as cited in Comment #154 seems to be out of scope.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 276 comments.
See below.
The phonetic symbol of 𧸩 is the same as 濬 (璿, 䜜), is 睿 < 叡 < 㕡 *WEN.
Mr. 朱永⿰贝睿 write his name like current glyph.
Source: https://www.mmcs.org.cn/kxjfc/kxjfc/zybr/bd/art/2023/art_310b238dedb6424298d5e31ac79134ae.html
What's more, 《康熙字典》 has 丿 as the third stroke of the 睿 part. Currently, this ideograph is mainly used as person name and people are more likely to use the glyph in 《康熙字典》.
Note on 新借 tones, this is a written convention not a spoken one, the actual spoken tone for modern loans (新借) varies from dialect to dialect. Since entering tones become second tones in south-western mandarin then they are written as second tones ~z. However, in a particular dialect the actual tone used would be whichever is closest to the second tone in south-western mandarin
and
The semantic element is 食/飠 (<養, bottom), and the phonetic element is 丈 (老借 form is ciengh, 新借 form is cang).
should also be normalised.
⿰尼X
U+4CBF
U+2389E
U+23670
U+2B8A9
U+2D557
U+2DDB5
U+2D571
U+2E97B
⿺尼X
U+3037C
U+3165C
I prefer not to change the glyph of 01159 temporarily.
The submitted character is a Zhuang character. In Comment #14420, U+3037C 𰍼 and U+3165C 𱙜 are also Zhuang characters.
For U+3165C 𱙜 (reads as ndi*), the semantic element is 好, and the phonetic element is 尼 (新借niz).
For U+3037C 𰍼 and the submitted character, we need to know an unencoded character first.
⿺尼冷 reads nit, and the semantic element is 冷, the phonetic element is 尼.
▲ 《古壮字字典》, p. 383
Therefore, the rationale of U+3037C 𰍼 (reads as dot) and the submitted character (reads as ciengz*) are that the semantic elements are both the omitted form of ⿺尼冷, and the phonetic elements are 夺 (新借doz, 老接dued) and 常 (新借cangz, 老借ciengz).
That means the structures for these characters are stable, and match the rationale. Therefore, the glyph must be updated to match the submitted evidence. Other characters (⿰尼X) are not related to this type.
The Zhuang reading is gemq. The Zhuang reading of 剑 is giemq (老借), gen (新借). It is close to gemq.
莶 is not a very common character, and reads cim1 in Cantonese, so the closest Zhuang reading should be ciem (老借, the same as 签), which is not similar to gemq.
The Zhuang word coenggemq means Chinese chives (韭菜), and previous character is 萗 with Radical #140.0.
The most proper form should be ⿱艹剑.
If yes, the IDS should be updated correspondingly, but the SC and TS should be kept.
Both ⿰氵𤉹 (F0377) and ⿰氵𤉨(F247B) are included in 中華書局宋體. Of course they are both variant of 㵄.
Since now we have more evidences of ⿰氵𤉨 than ⿰氵𤉹. Does china want to change the glyph to ⿰氵𤉨?
And, IDS should be ⿰麥員.
U+21641 𡙁 is the unifiable variant of U+723D 爽 per UCV #108, but there is no K-Source reference for U+21641 𡙁 now.
It is better to use ⿱爽田 to match ROK conventions. The Korean reading provided by the submitter is 상, which is the same as 爽.
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
The IDS ⿰舟玆(U+7386) matches neither the evidence nor the current glyph, so the IDS is not accurate, we should correct the IDS to ⿰舟兹(U+5179) and change the glyph to ⿰舟兹(U+5179).
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
There is no K-Source under 戬, but K1-6B79 is under 戩.
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
(Glyphs of SN 02246 and SN 02272 need be swapped in the font)
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
The K-Source for U+9ED8 默 is K0-5979, but U+9ED9 黙 is K6-1021.
Suggest normalizing the K glyph to ⿱艹默.
KR will add new normalization rule.
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
On the evidence, the previous sub-sentence shows “山稻種於乾田” (n./plant v. prep. n./place), so this sub-sentence shows “泉～種於寒水”, that means “泉～” is also a kind of plant. It is not easy to know what it is.
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
(Glyphs of SN 02246 and SN 02272 need be swapped in the font)
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
Please confirm whether the right component should be 火 or 大
.
"⿰㘴刂" is a variant of "剉". The glyph in Evidence 2 & 3 should better match the 剉斬 description.
⿰扌𥻔?
The new evidence on Comment #9875, the right part of this character follows 戹 like 阸, 𩚬, 㧖, 呝.
In evidence 1, the dot is very subtle and it may well be overlooked.
Also, the IDS should also be changed: ⿱𠫓小
Normalize to ⿰氵𣉦?
Refer to 字形資訊 - [] 12-6546 - 全字庫 CNS11643 (2024).
The pronunciation is ying1 but ⿱雁鳥 or ⿸雁鳥 is yan4.
Refer to 字形資訊 - [] 9-7543 - 全字庫 CNS11643 (2024) and 字形資訊 - [] 11-5045 - 全字庫 CNS11643 (2024).
Does TCA plan to normalize the glyph if possible?
See U+8794 螔, U+892B 褫, U+8B15 謕, U+29E9B 𩺛 and so on.
Evidence 2 shows the right part is the new component *U+2FAE6 (TCP-00136) in IRG N2878R2 ⺄ (related to 飞).
Also see U+57F6 埶, U+57F7 執, U+5B70 孰 and so on.
Note that we normalize ⿰木匄 to ⿰木匃 per UCV #143.
The glyph is set to ⿰木匃 because there are already encoded characters where 匃 is the right component: 𦍨𩢛𭠝𮌍𮠤, while no encoded characters features 匄 as the right component.
according to the G convention as is shown below.
The glyph should be updated.
according to the G convention as is shown below.
Two pieces of evidence show the semantic element is 刀 (knife). The meaning of this character is also “knife”.
刀 and 力 is also UCV pair. UCV #141b supports this choice.
That means ⿰刀也 is the best choice.
We chose 𡭴 as the current bottom-right component because 1) 𡭴 has the shuowen form while 𡭽 does not and 2) 隙 is the modern 正字 while 𨻶 is not.
Evidence 1 shows ⿰口⿱垖十, and Evidence 2 shows ⿱⿰口垖十.
Evidence 1 shows the reading is 火刀切, that means f-(-o2) + (d-)-ou1 = fou1;
Evidence 2 shows the reading is 科高切, that means f-(-o1) + (g-)-ou1 = fou1.
Evidence 2 shows the English phrase is “suffocation by drowning”, and the corresponding Cantonese load word is “沙～鷄𠱸 拜 地簍𡨴”. The English word “suffocation” reads /ˌsʌfəˈkeɪʃən/, and “沙～鷄𠱸” reads saa1 fou1 gai1 seon2, which the corresponding Chinese meaning is “窒息”.
埠 reads fau6 and bou6 in Cantonese, fouh in Zhuang (老借).
Therefore, the normalization is acceptable.
1) 虲 and 虾 are too different as both 卜 and 下 are frequently used characters and we have to look up the dictionary to learn the relationship between 虲 and 虾.
2) Usage of 虲 long predates usage of 虾. The former is attested in 《正統道藏》 (v.164 line 2 character 3) published almost 600 years ago, while the latter is a PRC simplified form of U+8766 蝦 established in the last century. Because the original evidence is published before 虾 was created, the text produces the current form ⿰口虲.
3) Both 蝦 and 虾 are not very productive:
which means if we indeed normalize ⿰口虲 to ⿰口虾, we can potentially only save a few code points.
㗾 reads hoe1 or hoe4 in Cantonese as Comment #11715 shows. 靴 reads like he1 in other sub-dialects of Chinese Yue-dialects.
Therefore, Comment #12178 is reasonable.
For Component 穴, see V1-614C for U+7A7A 空 and V1-614D for U+7A7F 穿.
For Component 䍃, there are ⿱𱼀缶 and ⿱爫缶.
⿱𱼀缶
U+6416 搖 V1-5756 (no U+6447 摇)
U+9059 遙 V1-6956 (no U+9065 遥)
⿱爫缶
U+55C2 嗂 V2-8A79
U+7464 瑤 V1-5F35 (no U+7476 瑶)
U+8B20 謠 V1-6757 (no U+8B21 謡)
U+9DC2 鷂 V0-484E
U+4058 䁘 V3-3479
U+213DF 𡏟 V2-7331
U+24053 𤁓 V0-3B72
U+24060 𤁠 V2-7B22
U+31924 𱤤 VN-F02AD
U+31A4B 𱩋 VN-F0822
U+32947 VN-F191D
U+32AB7 VN-F19CB
U+33450 VN-F1C3B
VN-F04BE and U+7AB0 both already have the suggested general structure, ⿱爫缶. Is the desire here to move the 爫 one or two pixels up and to the left so it is the same as U+55C2, etc?
Below is an example of VN-F0CBC from "Lục Vân Tiên" showing a form somewhat between 𠬠 and 𰰝
Historically, there are many examples of 𰰝, but the current trend is to standardize on 𠬠, as shown in this the "BẢNG CHỮ HÁN NÔM CHUẨN THƯỜNG DÙNG" http://www.hannom-rcv.org/NS/bchnctd%20300623.pdf
The evidence shows the reading of the right part is diện, which must be 面.
The new metadata should be SC=16, TS=18
There is no V-source reference under U+79C3 秃 now.
Remove the hook of the end of the left part to follow Vietnamese conventions. See the left part of the following characters.
U+5F11 V1-5447
U+6BBA V1-5B46
U+2ACBD V4-4B33
Remove the hook of the end of the left part to follow Vietnamese conventions. See the left part of the following characters.
U+5F11 V1-5447
U+6BBA V1-5B46
U+2ACBD V4-4B33
SC=5, FS=4, TS=9
Editorial
Showing 31 comments.
[ {{WS2017-03140}} ]
KR wants to keep SN02793.
But, now KC05501 is used under U+2E086 𮂆.
KC10116 is also ⿰禾厚.
Maybe the better reference for U+2E086 𮂆 is KC08090.
[WS2021-01439]
U+22DA7 𢶧 is a TF-Source character, so we don’t know how to confirm its usage.
Other
Showing 85 comments.
"⿰虫覔" is a variant of 𧐎.
異典
《正字通》申集中·虫部
https://www.yaan.gov.cn/zhangzhe/show/cad71410f46e6d69420d687ae814c945.html
Based on UCV #336, TCA could do the horizontal extension in future.
If we can’t clarify the right part, it is better to keep current radical without more radicals.
是的，甚至Evidence 1 中同时出现了（⿱蓬火）和（⿱蓬灬）。这两个字形在汉简释文中均有大量用例，但极少在同一处同时出现。我们核查了相关数据库，几乎所有用例均可释读为“烽”字。附上数据库检索结果截图，供您参考。
Agree with 10639E。Evidence 1 does contain both (⿱蓬火) and (⿱蓬灬). These two glyph forms appear frequently in transcriptions of Han dynasty wooden slips, but they rarely occur together in the same context. Our review of the relevant database shows that nearly all instances can be interpreted as the character “烽”. Screenshots of the database search results are attached for your reference.
However, a textual check of the original book reveals that it is actually written as "㷭".
羅振玉輯 ; 羅振玉, 王國維同考釋，《流沙墜簡 》三卷, 考釋三卷, 補遺一卷, 補遺考釋一卷
There is a person named 姜馞 / 강발 there, but I can’t confirm if they are the same person.
When I searched 姜馞, I found one page, but I still not get more useful information now.
- Naver: https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/ff504b5b260a4ecfbd8bf81d19d13341
- Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/달#Etymology_2
- Naver: https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/6e0923926e4146d2ade89cc93c2fcb75
Another form of this character is ⿰睪毛.
Keep it. Come from shuowen small seal.
Refer to 00389 | ⿱吅冂 | WS2024v3.0. Component for 斝, but not ⿱吅冖.
The paper shows it's a transcription of the ones appeared in oricle script. Indeed, it's the correct transcribed glyph what can support ⿱竹宀 to be encoded.
03180 ⿱𮍏肉：才浪反， 積蓄也，如庫藏也，人有五藏，謂肝肺脾心肾也，經文作~，非體也。
03159 ⿱咸肉：才浪反，《鄭註周禮》：積蓄也，如庫藏也， 經文作~，非體也。
程先甲 辑，廣續方言 四卷，卷二，清光緒23年[1897]木活字本
(清) 桂馥 撰，說文解字義證 五十卷，卷十七，清道光30年至咸豐2年（1850-1852）刻本
(清) 段玉裁 撰，說文解字注 十五卷，卷第六上，清同治11年[1872]湖北崇文書局刻本
(清) 王筠 撰，說文解字句讀 三十卷，卷第六上，清道光至同治間[1821-1874]刻本
The glyph SAT-10016 is thought to have evolved from "⿹&H6-03; ⿲中丶丶".
Left component is small seal of 水
Some similar cases in 𱦻 and 𱧙.
Similar to U+2157F 𡕿
Aside: In this evidence, the last character in the same column of ⿰口⿱椿火, ⿰口⿱𰟐水 is written as ⿰口⿱⿰火㇯堇一:
The normalization may be inevitable when dealing with ancient text, because they might have different normalization rules: The text here is authored well before the 15th century. As we can see, the shape of 堇 component here is consistent with contemporary dictionary:
▲ 龍龕手鑑（臺北故宮藏宋刊本）卷1 folio 5a
I think we should encode the modern normalized form ⿰口⿱𰟐水 instead of the exact shape ⿰口⿱⿰火㇯堇一, because the standard is for modern audience.
cf. 渕//𰔂 vs 淵
The corresponding IDS(es) is/are shown as ⿰山⿳𠂉一乙 and ⿰山气 in BabelStone, but only ⿰山气 in zi.tools.
However, ⿰山⿳𠂉一乙 is the the variant of 屹, and the right part is also the variant of 乞. The final consonant (辅音韵尾) is -t. ⿳𠂉一乙 has not been encoded separately.
There is also one ⿰山气 in SJ/T 11239—2001 as 26-64.
The corresponding glyph of U+2AA26 𪨦 is also shown as ⿰山气 in GB 18030—2022 (0x9836CA34).
On the other hand, TC-2A6B looks related to A01101-004, but the glyph of A01101-004 shows ⿰山气, and the source shows ⿰山⿳𠂉一乙 cited from 《正字通》.
UK-30010 looks related to ⿰山气, and the usage of UK-30010 supports ⿰山气.
We need to consider how to handle them later.
Evidence NO.2 is 同治（1862-1875）《潯州府志》, the glyph in it is ⿺虎戊.
▲ 《炎徼紀聞》（明嘉靖刊本）卷2 folio 16a.
[WS2021-00651]
⿰齒貞 (included in PUA in the 中華書局宋體15平面 font as U+F20A8)
⿵門⿳止冖⿱工几 (included in PUA in the 中華書局宋體15平面 font as U+F20AA)
𩋘 is a variant of 鞋, is already only known from Foochow usage, and evidence 2 shows ⿰亻𩋘 being used as a variant of .
However, this mapping is wrong.
▲ Row 43 in GB/T 7590—1987
The above picture shows 43-67 is U+304C6 𰓆. RS values for 扻𰓆抅 are all 64.4.
▲ Row 43 in GB/T 13132 (provided by Xieyang Wang)
So, G5-4B63 should be U+6440 摀.
The G-Source reference for U+3A36 㨶 could be changed to GKX.
In evidence 2 of WS2024-01821, it stated as 李” ⿰日𣋓”然，臨汾人，知縣
https://x.com/Kaochi817/status/2015702416780636375
Uematsu Tōma was a Japanese admiral and politician. https://www.weblio.jp/content/練磨 as an existing word means /renma/ "training", but his name is /tōma/, possibly ⿰糹東 with a phonetic 東.
丁福保編：《說文解字詁林》(中華書局影印版)
Secondly, the encoded characters belong to the extended set E And F, The people involved in the coding work at that time may not have realized that these were script-hybrid characters.
Thirdly, the experts who raised the question had not yet participated in international encoding work at that time.
Fourthly, from the glyph of character form, the encoded characters cannot be distinguished from normal Hanzi through the proposed form, and it cannot be seen that their components are kana. The components fully conform to the writing and form of Hanzi components.
Fifthly and most importantly, after encoding such characters, their attribute annotation and component splitting methods will have an systematic impact on IRG PnP and Unihan database. The application of data carries too much risk.
I still recommend not placing such characters in CJK sets.
The Ryakuji (略字, abbreviated form) of "藤" can be seen as "⿱艹卜 (U+2B1E5) " or "⿱艹𦘱". The component "卜" is likely derived from the Katakana "ト".
See comment #11545 in #01144.
The radical does not conform to consistent principles.
𮹔 is also wrong.
Similar to U+26EF7 𦻷
Data for Unihan
Showing 12 comments.
kMandarin jiē
kDefinition pimple, boil
Submitter Request
Showing 1 comments.