Per Comment #13176 and document IRG N2878R2, GCW-00019 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FB69. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
Per Comment #13171 and document IRG N2878R2, GCW-00243 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FC0E, along with T- and H-source versions. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
Per Comment #13182 and document IRG N2878R2, GCW-00244 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FC0F, along with T- and H-source versions. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
We'd like to keep the character separately encoded because it is used in place name. And we think the difference is ⿰ an ⿱ rather than ⿱ and ⿸：
The character proposed:
⿱⿰未成母
𣚺 (U+236BA)
⿰未⿱成母
Per Comment #13178 and document IRG N2878R2, G5-3557 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FB79, along with a T-source version. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
Per Comment #13174 and document IRG N2878R2, GZHSJ-0024 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FB13, along with a T-source version. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
1) Add ⿰击頁~頓 as UCV pair as Lv. 1 and unify this one to 頓. This one has been included in the CAAPH backup repertoire. We can add it to CAAPH IVS collection in future.
2) Only encode ⿰击頁 separately, but add ⿰击頁~頓 as UCV pair as Lv. 1.
KR will unify this char, SN 03593/KC-10053, to 𧸕 (U+27E15) if IRG decides to allow KR to make a horizontal extension to U+27E15 with the glyph as submitted (the right upper portion of the KR-submitted glyph.is somewhat different from the one in the U+27E15).
Per Comment #13172 and document IRG N2878R2, KC-10175 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FABF, along with G- and T-source versions. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
Per Comment #13179 and document IRG N2878R2, SAT-10292 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FBC9, along with G- and T-source versions. This comment is being made so that all such ideographs in this working set are identified.
Per Comment #13175 and document IRG N2878R2, UK-30618 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FB18, along with G- and T-source versions. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
See then discussion in [WS2021-01719]: "no change. Add new UCV by HUANG Junliang in comment #6216, ⿰日𦻏 is also a taboo character of 曄, if we accept these evidences, please also consider UCV 𦻏/𡼙."
Per document IRG N2878R2, UTC-00792 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FC04, along with G- and T-source versions. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
Per Comment #13181 and document IRG N2878R2, UTC-03248 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FBED, along with G-, T-, and H-source versions. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
No more evidences to prove the glyph shape？ It seems unifiable to 黝 (U+9EDD) according to the pronunciation.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The analysis in the evidence says that the shape is composed of "hắc (黑)" and "ảo (幻)". As shown below, 幻 read as nôm "ảo" has one meaning of dark, obscure, etc. This is the semantic in this character.
xxx Is a different word, "u" with a similar meaning of "dark"
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
I didn't finish the above, but meant to say that 黝 (U+9EDD) is basically a different word "u", used in the compound "u hắc", whereas VN-F0188 is "ảo", having a wider range of meanings: "not current; obscure, ephemeral, etc." They should be kept separate.
Just a note that, it is very similar but totally different to 䲧 (U+4CA7). The difference is 士 and 土. Maybe we could record this pair in Unihan Database? In order to remind the font designers not to confuse users.
Per Comment #13173 and document IRG N2878R2, VN-F1F1F is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FADC, along with G- and T-source versions. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
Since this is has the semantics of a character, not a component, I think the suggestion in #5617, to move from the components, is a better idea.
Unification
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
To reply to #13583, some of the CJK components in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block can also be used as stand-alone ideographs, so I think that it is okay to keep this ideograph in that proposed block.
Also, if we want to target the two CJK components blocks proposed in document IRG N2878R2 for Unicode Version 19.0, the repertoires need to be stable.
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.
Add the secondary radical as 142.0 (虫), SC=8, FS=1
For the structure ⿲王X王, there are two situations for the radicals: 1) the radical of X, 2) 玉
Rad=the rad of X
U+6591 斑 (S=文, P=班省)
U+28325 𨌥 (S=車 and 珏/𤤴/玨/朋)
Rad=玉
U+73ED 班
U+2493B 𤤻 (var. of 班)
U+249A6 𤦦 (var. of 班)
U+2AEEE 𪻮
U+2DE5A 𭹚 (var. of 班)
U+2DE5E 𭹞 (var. of 斑)
U+30880 𰢀 (var. of 班)
U+30881 𰢁 (var. of 班)
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.
Add 飠/𩙿/食, FS=3, SC=9
Total Stroke Count
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
About Comment #13142, document IRG N2862R includes the sub-component as 6Db with 6 strokes, so by adding the two-stroke component on top, one would reason that 8 would be the more consistent value.
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.
The radical of its traditional form, U+2A0A7, is 196, which serves as a precedent for using 196.1 for this ideograph. For the URO examples in Comment #11967, the X component is itself a radical, so it makes sense to use it. However, selecting the radical of 宛 for this ideograph is not very intuitive. For such cases, I recommend using a secondary radical, and for this ideograph, I strongly prefer keeping 196.1 as the primary one.
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.
To respond to Comments #10021 and #10022, which I just saw because this is the first time for me to review this portion of the working set, we are not building a formal dictionary, but rather establishing incremental repertoires of Han ideographs that now include over 100,000 such characters. Given that Han ideographs are found in various regions, and that many are unique to a given region, when searching for Han ideograph, it is often unclear as to which component serves which function. This is why I would advocate that the most intuitive radical, regardless of whether it serves as the semantic component or not, should be the primary one. It is also important to add a secondary radical when doing so would aid in discoverability. Perhaps the best ways to search for an ideograph is by using the Radical-Stroke Index that the Unicode Consortium includes with each version of the Unicode Standard, as an interactive web page, as a PDF file that is for visual searching (RSIndex.pdf), and now as a plain-text data file that can be used to programmatically search (RSIndex.txt).
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.
It doesn't have to be an error form. It is reasonable that 䬙's left component changes to 票 in word 飘䬙.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
If this can be questionable, then all 类化字 can be questionable.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The 飘䬙 form of 飘飖 is very common in ancient books. It is reasonable to say that ⿰票䍃 is a Leihua character(类化字).
民國新纂雲南通志
嘉靖寧波府志
嘉靖徽縣志
嘉靖尉氏縣志
光緒增修甘泉縣志
佩文韻府，清康熙武英殿本
太平御覽，四庫全書本
文山集，四庫全書本
春在堂詩編，民國春在堂全書本
Japanese Military and Technical Terms
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AJapanese_Military_and_Technical_Terms_(PrU8AQAAIAAJ).pdf&page=375
Japanese Military and Technical Terms
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AJapanese_Military_and_Technical_Terms_(PrU8AQAAIAAJ).pdf&page=376
Japanese Military and Technical Terms
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AJapanese_Military_and_Technical_Terms_(PrU8AQAAIAAJ).pdf&page=378
(as the cursive variant of 賬)
Similar to Comment #11685, Chiang Chi-Ying (江祈瑩) observed that there is another similarity in the IVD, specifically for U+3DF1 in the Moji_Joho IVD collection, which shares the same IVSes and glyphic subset in the now-deprecated Hanyo-Denshi IVD collection for this particular ideograph:
Note that unifications found in the IVD are not binding, but can be considered, along with other evidence.
The evidence shows the person was 承文著作單 / 승문저작단 in 1786. And Comment #10841 shows 金驥燦 / 김기찬 was 承文副正字單 / 승문부정자단, 承文博士單 / 승문박사단 and so on in the same year.
The new evidence has been accepted, ROK could keep this character as-is.
But there is only one occurrence of 成彦⿰礻戢 in 『承政院日記』as is provided in the original evidence, which implies that KC-10019 ⿰礻戢 is not stable enough as 檝. Therefore I suggest pending more evidences.
The glyph in the evidence 1 looks like 𧸅(U+27E05)?
Unclear evidence
ROK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The right component is 㒼.
Unclear evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
I think Suzuki-san means U+27E15 𧸕 in Comment #3831, which is the variant of U+27E05 𧸅.
We need to understand what this character mean, and then to confirm if it is suitable to unify it with U+27E15 𧸕.
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The original glyph of U+27E15 𧸕 should be ⿰貝⿱⿻〢丷兩 with 八 in the middle: [金] 韓道昭撰,改併五音類聚四聲篇,15卷,明成化十年刻本 [清]黎庶昌撰, 宋本廣韻校札,1巻, 清古逸叢書本 [宋]陳彭年撰,玉篇/玉篇反紐圖/玉篇分毫字樣,37巻,四庫全書本
Kangxi Zidian and the followers used another glyph as: GKX GHZ
The more common variant of U+27E15 𧸕 is:
[明]陳士元撰,古俗字略/補/漢碑用字/俗用雜字,10巻, 明萬曆刻歸雲別集本
[明]陳藎謨撰[清]吳任臣補輯,元音統韻,86巻,清康熙五十三年范廷瑚刻本 [金] 韓道昭撰,改併五音類聚四聲篇,15卷,明成化十年刻本(with ⿰貝⿱⿻〢丷兩 on the same page)
Another variant is: (金) 韓道昭撰,改併五音類聚四聲篇,十五卷,明成化十年刻本
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The character which submitted by Korea as KC-10053 is the variant of 瞒 with the component 㒼 on the right hand:
It can be found in the following evidences: (唐) 歐陽詢 輯,藝文類聚,100卷,明嘉靖六年至七年[1527-1528]刻本,卷86,第6页 (清) 朱彝尊 輯,日下舊聞（補遺）,42卷,清康熙刻本,卷14,第3页
New evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
It's obvious that the character KC-10053 is the variant of U+779E 瞞, which is non-cognate with U+27E15 𧸕. The glyph of KC-10053 could be normalized to ⿱艹雨(which I prefer) or 㒼, and no need to be unified to U+27E15 𧸕.
In the meanwhile, there are 4 series of variant glyph for U+27E15 𧸕.
④ ⑤ are the glyphs which U+27E15 𧸕 origined from, ① ② ③ are the correct original glyphs for it.
⑥ ⑦ ⑧ may share the glyph with the variant of U+779E 瞞. ⑨ is another kind of variant glyph.
So the glyph of U+27E15 𧸕 doesn't need to be changed, and the other 3 kind of variant should be encoded separately in future.
Evidence
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Supplementary info to Tao Yang:
② is already encoded at 𧸅 U+27E05
① and ③ can be unified to it if they are submitted in the future.
The evidence shows the glyph is ⿱山⿰𫯝欠. ⿰𫯝欠 has not been encoded separately. But, ⿰𫯝欠 could be the variants of 款 and 疑. That means this character could be treated as ⿱山款 or U+5DB7 嶷 K1-6A47.
When we search 金命嶷, we can find the following results.
So, this character should not be identified as ⿱山款.
I suggest ROK confirm this issue.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The person was 所斤僉使/소근첨사 in 1790. The following picture shows 金命嶷/김명의 was 所斤僉使/소근첨사 in 1790.
Compared these two materials, two personal names are different, one pair is 權～/권～ vs 權裻/권독, the other pair is 權衮/권곤 vs 權襄/권양. When we search 權～ or 權裻, there are both only one piece of result. But, we can get three pieces of results of 權襄, and only one for 權衮. Maybe 權襄 is the proper form.
We also need to confirm if the submitted character is the variant of U+88FB 裻.
The middle part looks like U+2A72C 𪜬, but ROK has not shown the KR Norm. rule here.
The person mentioned in the evidence is related to a government post: 金海府使 (김해부사). In the Wikipedia entry of 李光軾/이광식, he also once held this government post, and the link of 김해 is related to current 김해시 (金海市) under 경상남도 (慶尙南道).
부사 (府使) Wikipedia entry
부사(府事)는 주로 조선 시대에 지역 및 지방 행정구역의 수장으로 무관(武官)들이 임명되는 관직이었다.부사는 수령과 달리 군사적 요충지에 해당하는 행정구역을 주로 담당하였다.
When we search “金海府使”, we can get 620 entries in 承政院日記/승정원일기, and there are three entries related to the man named 柳鎭琡 (유진숙).
When I searched the persons with the surname 辛/신 at that time, I found 辛泳/신영, 辛溵/신은 and 辛溆/신서, but 辛泳/신영 and 辛溵/신은 are also shown on Evidence 1 (1796), and 辛泳/신영 is also shown on Evidence 2 (1799). That means the person must not be 辛泳/신영 and 辛溵/신은.
辛溆/신서 is not shown on two pieces of submitted evidence, and 溆 reads 서 which is the same as 舒.
辛溆/신서 can be found 1795 - 1817, which matches the period.
Evidence 2 shows the glyph as the similar variant of U+28082 𨂂. (⿰𧾷𬉹)
Also see Entry B04945-003 in Dictionary of Chinese Character Variants.
We can find several similar words in the database below.
乖盭 괴려
蹠盭 척려
舛盭 천려
謬盭 유려
違盭 위려
And, 灸 reads 구, 炙 reads 적. It is easy to know the materials mean 蹠盭 척려 as the same as B04945-003 shows.
If we treat Evidence 2 does not match the submitted glyph, and I have provided one more piece evidence, so maybe we can accept it as the stable error. We need to listen to more experts’ comments.
Note: There is no any referenceable example among the encoded characters.
The 疏 (소) in the submitted evidence was written by 趙得永 (조득영) in 1801. There is one more material recorded the 疏 (소) written by the same person in the same year with the similar content.
It is almost certainly a variant of 𡴘. The phrase is 幸詳焉, which means "[the author] only hopes [someone] can elaborate" or "to be determined". The collocation 幸詳 appears ~15 time in Taisho Tripitaka, but only once (here) in 一切經音義.
The glyph on the company website doesn't match the glyph used by the business registration for the same glyph, can TCA confirm which one should be the correct one?
The glyph is clear, but is there any source preceding the book? One modern printing evidence is felt uncertain, given how 南明 personal name spellings have been unreliable.
The original evidence shows that 朱由⿰木欻, styled 仲梓, was a descendant of 趙王 (朱高燧), who had been enfeoffed in Zhangde Prefecture (彰德府). However, ⿰木欻 is not attested in the local historical gazetteers of Zhangde Prefecture. Instead, all surviving evidence records a different form: ⿲木⿱力力欠.
The character ⿲木⿱力力欠 was also attested in contemporary dictionaries, such as the 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇: Many characters from this dictionary were used for person names among the imperial descendants of Ming Dynasty.
The original evidence from 《南明史》 states that 阜平王朱由樽 is the son of 阜平王朱常⿰氵紋. However, this contradicts the following passage, also from 《南明史》:
▲ 《南明史》中華書局, 2006, ISBN 978-7-101-11665-6, p. 1028
Here the passage shows that 阜平王朱由樽 is the son of 阜平王朱常𰝎.
.
The character U+3074E was encoded based on the exact evidence above. If we examine earlier contemporary sources, when he was still alive and designated as 阜平長子, his name should have been 朱常𣸠.
Therefore, ⿰氵紋 is possibly a misinterpreted form of 𰝎, which itself is a variant of 𣸠. I suggest postponing the encoding of ⿰氵紋 until more evidence becomes available.
The new evidence still does not clarify the reading, and therefore cognateness with U+6907 椇 or U+6896 梖. The evidence in Comment #12948 is more informative. The content of footnote no. 68 in that image could be crucial.
The evidence in Comment #12948 suggests that its reading is つき (tsuki), but also that it is likely cognate with U+6896 梖. Given that this ideograph is in CNS 11643 per Comment #13878, TCA's feedback would be helpful.
Evidence
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
Comment on #12948:
As far as I know about Kagoshima dialect, unlike most of the dialects in Japan, words can END in plosives. In the evidence, it writes the pronunciation of 髙 as タッ, which is actually resulted in the loss of some information - Kagoshima dialect pronounce it as /tak/ (FYI, standard Japanese is /taka/), different to so-called 促音 in Japanese, the /k/ sound would NEVER change according to the subsequent consonant. It is just a *coincidence* that the next consonant in this place name is also /k/.
The evidence also shows that the proposed character is pronounced as クッ, but we do not know whether it is /kuk/, /kut/, /kus/ or any other possibilities. It would be better if we could get more information about the complete pronunciation, to judge what its semantic really is.
Multiple Sources ( 多 源 證 據 ): Supply character use evidence from multiple independence sources. IRG has the right to reject characters with evidence of use from only a single source, especially if the source is not considered authoritative by IRG.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
If it is the case as comment #11739 said, I think it's OK to encode it.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
This also appears in the Khó Chữ Hán Nôm Mã Hoá, the last published document with the status of a national standard.
As noted in the first evidence above, this is composed with a "nháy" reading mark. The problem is that Unicode does not allow variation of marks, so there is no way to encode this separate from another character VN-F0074 using IVS
I have a suspicion that it might be misprinted form of U+21CDB 𡳛. Is it known where this character originally appears?
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
We don't currently have an original source for this. It is possibly a misprint. "cứt" means "excrement", so an appropriate semantic would be 屎 (thỉ), as in U+21CDB 𡳛. The analysis shown in the entry above says VN-F0156 is composed of "thỉ cát" (cát is the phonetic). There are no known readings for ⿸尸示 in Vietnamese and it's unlikely that it ever appears in a Vietnamese context. The author of the "Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt" surely meant 屎 in his analysis.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
屎 reads thỉ in Vietnamese (HV), and 示 reads thị (HV), that means only the tones are different.
If we treat 𫵖 as the variant of 屎, 示 is the phonetic element of 𫵖 only for this usage.
I suspect that this is a misprint of U+2B8F0 or something similar. The phonetic component 爱 is not very convincing. Is there any image of the original material?
Given the pronunciation, I suspect this is misprint of ⿲木𦚏巳 or something like that. Is it possible to check the original material?
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
I agree that the reading suggests some other component, but the analysis in the entry clearly says "kí" (記). Unfortunately, we no longer have access to Father Anthony's notes.
Only one evidence just show that it's obviously the wrong glyph of 衢, please provide more evidences for this character to prove that this character truly exists and has encoding value.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
May be an one-off error, please verify the evidence.
越喃汉英四文对照新辞典
Unclear evidence response
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
TCA-CNS 11643 also includes this one as TE-3D64.
Unclear evidence response
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
This is also found in the Vietnamese standard: Kho chữ Hán Nôm mã hoá, as V+6056F, see image below
One thing to consider. Vietnamese uses both U+8862, in the original sense of road, intersection, with Sino-Viet reading "cù" and VN-F052A. Only VN-F052A is found with the reading "cò", meaning "stork" or "egret". The element feather, 羽, appears to distinguish the meaning.
Is there additional evidence for this ideograph? I ask, because the glyph in the evidence looks like 里 enclosed in Western-style single smart quotes.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
We don't have another example of this particular character on hand, but this simplified form is found in a number of characters. For example: U+529E 办 < 辦; U+32957 < 閒; U+31E33 𱸳 < 𧗱. Typically, it indicates that a surrounding component has been simplified. VN-F2040, is a dialect form of "lẽ", meaning "reason", ultimately from Chinese 理. In this case it's a simplification of 𨤧 U+28927 and the two strokes on either side of 里 represent the two strokes, 丿and 丶 on either side of the vertical in 尔. In retrospect, we could have normalized this to ⿻里八, as in other examples.
V need to add more evidences for this character. Only one evidence couldn't proof the value of it for encoding.
Suggest to modify the left part to 鳥.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The evidence is quite clear as to shape and meaning. As to the unusual shape, it's true that this is the only example we have found of 𫠓, used as a radical, so we could consider using the full form, 鳥.
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.
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
Is China planning to update the glyph per the comments above?
Glyph design
TAO Yang
China
Don't need to be changed before new evidences appear.
The right part 戢 doesn’t match K1-6E3B for U+6222 戢.
Glyph design
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
KR will change glyph as U+6222(戢).
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.
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.
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
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.
Glyph design
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
ROK agreed to change the K-source glyph, so the updated glyph needs to be provided for Version 5.0.
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.
Glyph design
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
ROK agreed to change the K-source glyph, so the updated glyph needs to be provided for Version 5.0.
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
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
ROK agreed to change the K-source glyph, so the updated glyph needs to be provided for Version 5.0.
Modify the bottom as 儿 to follow K0-543E glyph for U+79BF 禿.
There is no K-Source glyph under U+79C3 秃.
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 I checked the person in other materials, the real name is 崔夢嵒 / 최몽암, so this character is one 類化字. That means the top component is not 4-stroke 艹, which is the same as the top component of U+5922 夢.
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.
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.
Glyph design
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
ROK agreed to change the K-source glyph, so the updated glyph needs to be provided for Version 5.0.
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
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
ROK agreed to change the K-source glyph, so the updated glyph needs to be provided for Version 5.0.
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.
Glyph design
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
ROK agreed to change the K-source glyph, so the updated glyph needs to be provided for Version 5.0.
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
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
ROK agreed to change the K-source glyph, so the updated glyph needs to be provided for Version 5.0.
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
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
ROK agreed to change the K-source glyph, so the updated glyph needs to be provided for Version 5.0.
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
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
ROK agreed to change the K-source glyph, so the updated glyph needs to be provided for Version 5.0.
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
The glyph picture should be updated.
Glyph design
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
ROK agreed to change the K-source glyph, so the updated glyph needs to be provided for Version 5.0.
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.
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.
Disagree with comment #8487. Even in Evidence 1 the 厂 component partially covers 欠, and in Evidence 2 it fully covers 欠. Therefore no need to modify the UK glyph.
I see two different component structures in the two evidence images, neither of which match the component structure of the UK-source representative glyph.
Normalization
Eiso CHAN
Individual
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?
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
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.
The new evidences provided by Chiang Chi-Ying gives a different shape: ⿰扌⿱𠂉𰀁. They seems more reliable than the original handwritten evidences. I suggest we change the glyph design.
The analysis says it's composed of "thân" 抻 and "viên" 爰. "vươn" means "pull", so 抻 is an appropriate semantic. The problem is the phonetic. It's not a misprint of U+2B8F0, but the phonetic should be 爰 (U+7230), not 爱 (U+7231).
As you can see in this image from "Khó Chữ Hán Nôm Mã Hoá" p. 613, all other characters with the "vươn" phonetic show 爰:
Normalization
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
We propose to change the glyph to use 爰 (U+7230) as phonetic. New attributes will be: SC=14, TS=17. IDS will change to ⿰抻爰
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.
While not exact, Vietnamese Normalization Rule 3-4 in document IRG N2673R suggests that the upper-right component of the representative glyph (𠂊) should be changed to match the evidence (𫜵). If so, then SC = 16 and TS = 20.
Normalization
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
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
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
Glyph design
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
Per Comment #11702, Vietnam provided evidence for changing the V-source glyph, so the updated glyph needs to be provided for Version 5.0.
Oppose treating 𫠓 as a separate radical (196.2). Radicals should be used systematically within a particular region, which is not the case for 𫠓 (or 𫠉). There are no existing encoded ideographs with 𫠓, which suggests that VN-F20BC is an idiosyncratic usage. It would be better to normalize the character to ⿰鳥京 which is the description given in the definition for the character in the evidence.
This was normalized incorrectly. As can be seen here
The original structure was ⿰黑⿱⿰夕丰木. The word "kịt" means dark, dense. Based on the phonetic value, "kịt", this should have been normalized to ⿰黑桀, with 桀 as phonetic.
Normalization
Eiso CHAN
Individual
Based on Comment #10716, the glyph should be normalized to ⿰黑桀.
SC=10, FS=3, TS=22
Normalization
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
We have the updated glyph and can provide it at the next opportunity.
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?
Adding the U-source (UTC-03118) and glyph should be handled as a horizontal extension by the UTC after this working set has been standardized as a new CJK Unified Ideographs extension block.
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.
#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
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.
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 glyph of the character is too strange, more evidence is needed to prove its form and components. Meanwhile, the evidences couldn't show the meaning and original source.
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 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.
I am just curious about if the character does appear in ancient literatures. The 冫 part on the right side seems to be a little bit strange anyway. Maybe I need to broaden my horizons haha.
Other
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
According to the analysis in the dictionary, 冫 is a mark indicating that this character is to be read differently from its standard Sino-Vietnamese reading of "cặp".
Other
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The component 冫 looks more like the Vietnamese reading mark, but there is only once case.
Other
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
This comment is from individual expert Ma Shijie：
冫 is variant of lightning? It is best to refer to the handling method of lightning. Or U+16FF1 𖿱?
Other
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Is it possible to encode another reading mark in case more such situations being discovered later?
Both characters, U+23813 and VN-F0423 mean "a type of bamboo". The major sources, BTCN, ĐTĐCN, GĐNHV, KCHN, and Takeuchi, all show the form VN-F0423, with 竹, appropriately, as the radical. Since VN-F0423 appears to be the correct form, if we were to unify these, Vietnam would request changing the representative glyph for U+23813 to be that of VN-F0423.
IRG Working Set 2024v4.0
Unification
Showing 53 comments.
U+7388 玈 = ⿰玄衣 (unencoded)
U+7963 祣 = U+2B00A 𫀊
U+22B1C 𢬜 = U+6314 挔
U+3B5A 㭚 ≠ U+2343F 𣐿
U+21705 𡜅 ≠ U+36C4 㛄
U+4B89 䮉 vs WS2021-04501:UK-20091 ⿰馬衣 (unclear)
Per Comment #13176 and document IRG N2878R2, GCW-00019 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FB69. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
If this UCV is accepted, I suggest China update the corresponding glyph in GB 18030.
Per Comment #13171 and document IRG N2878R2, GCW-00243 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FC0E, along with T- and H-source versions. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
Per Comment #13182 and document IRG N2878R2, GCW-00244 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FC0F, along with T- and H-source versions. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
Add 倉 𫝉 and ⿱亽君/⿱亼君 to a new UCV.
Unifiable with 𣚺 (U+236BA) as per UCV #305.
The character proposed:
⿱⿰未成母
𣚺 (U+236BA)
⿰未⿱成母
Per Comment #13178 and document IRG N2878R2, G5-3557 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FB79, along with a T-source version. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
Per Comment #13174 and document IRG N2878R2, GZHSJ-0024 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FB13, along with a T-source version. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
1) Add ⿰击頁~頓 as UCV pair as Lv. 1 and unify this one to 頓. This one has been included in the CAAPH backup repertoire. We can add it to CAAPH IVS collection in future.
2) Only encode ⿰击頁 separately, but add ⿰击頁~頓 as UCV pair as Lv. 1.
KR will unify this char, SN 03593/KC-10053, to 𧸕 (U+27E15) if IRG decides to allow KR to make a horizontal extension to U+27E15 with the glyph as submitted (the right upper portion of the KR-submitted glyph.is somewhat different from the one in the U+27E15).
Per Comment #13172 and document IRG N2878R2, KC-10175 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FABF, along with G- and T-source versions. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
Unify to 甿 (U+753F) and add 亾兦 to UCV #143.
⿰⿱丵口刂 (ZHSJ:F130F and F8586) could be unified to this one; A01066-019 could be unified to 𡭊 (U+21B4A).
And I suggest China use ⿰⿱丵口刂 as the glyph for the horizontal extension.
Unify to 橽 as per UCV #354h.
See .
Unify to (U+32778)
[WS2021-01170]
See Comments #8, #4213, #4214, #4246.
Potential unification to 𣑭 (U+2346D).
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).
The same shape with 𡵂 (U+21D42) ?
Unify to 磔 (U+78D4); new UCV for ⿱𤘆木 and 桀.
Per Comment #13179 and document IRG N2878R2, SAT-10292 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FBC9, along with G- and T-source versions. This comment is being made so that all such ideographs in this working set are identified.
Unify to 穅?
We should add 康𥹺 as the new UCV (lv. 2).
On the other hand, 𥹺 is also the variant of 麋. ⿰禾麋 is included in ZHSJ PUA as F0290.
Unify to 𢿏 (U+22FCF)?
Add the new UCV for 攴 and 支 as lv. 2.
U+3A94 㪔 vs U+2DA98 𭪘
U+22F8A 𢾊 vs U+2D8D9 𭣙
U+22FE7 𢿧 vs U+2D8DC 𭣜
U+239CF 𣧏 vs U+2DB82 𭮂
U+2D8ED 𭣭 vs U+328EC
Unify to 𡪽 (U+21ABD)?
Possibly unifiable with 𣆜 (U+2319C).
Unify to 貾 (U+8CBE) per UCV #453
The final Extension J code point for UK-20742 is U+33248.
The final Extension J code point for UK-20781 is U+33259.
⿰⿱山王攵, ⿰⿱山壬攵, ⿰⿱山𡈼攵, ⿰⿱山主攵, ⿰⿳山一王攵, ⿰⿳山一壬攵, ⿰⿳山一𡈼攵, ⿰⿱山王攴, ⿰⿱山壬攴, ⿰⿱山𡈼攴, ⿰⿱山主攴, ⿰⿳山一王攴, ⿰⿳山一壬攴, ⿰⿳山一𡈼攴
Unifiable with 𭰼 (U+2DC3C).
Per Comment #13175 and document IRG N2878R2, UK-30618 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FB18, along with G- and T-source versions. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
Unify with (U+3294D)? Also add an UCV 𦻏/𡼙.
See then discussion in [WS2021-01719]: "no change. Add new UCV by HUANG Junliang in comment #6216, ⿰日𦻏 is also a taboo character of 曄, if we accept these evidences, please also consider UCV 𦻏/𡼙."
Potential unification to 鋑?
Not sure how widespread ⿱幺友 ~ 夋 is.
Per document IRG N2878R2, UTC-00792 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FC04, along with G- and T-source versions. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
Per Comment #13181 and document IRG N2878R2, UTC-03248 is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FBED, along with G-, T-, and H-source versions. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
Possibly unifiable with 潈 or 潨.
No more evidences to prove the glyph shape？ It seems unifiable to 黝 (U+9EDD) according to the pronunciation.
xxx Is a different word, "u" with a similar meaning of "dark"
Unifiable with 𣠱 as per UCV #213a.
If yes, I can add this pair to FS and SC guidelines.
#134+1 Add 戛/戞, FS=1, SC=11
Unify to 𣠓 (U+23813)?
See Comments #7099 and #7187.
We would like to hear the opinions of other IRG experts.
Per Comment #13173 and document IRG N2878R2, VN-F1F1F is included in the proposed CJK Unified Ideographs Components-B block at tentative code point U+2FADC, along with G- and T-source versions. So, this ideograph can be removed, either by withdrawing it or unifying with its tentative code point.
Also, if we want to target the two CJK components blocks proposed in document IRG N2878R2 for Unicode Version 19.0, the repertoires need to be stable.
Attributes
Showing 1304 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:
For the structure ⿱⿰未成X, there are two situations for the radicals: 1) the radical of X, 2) 戈.
Rad = the radical of X
U+81A5 膥
U+326EE
WS2024-02350 ⿱⿰未成牛
Rad = 戈
U+203B6 𠎶
#1, IRGN954AR
#17, IRGN2221
#36, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
#40, IRGN1105
#36, IRGN954AR
#24, IRGN954AR
The reading of this character is laeng, which means “back”.
▲ 《壮汉英词典》, pp. 690-680
It is easy to know the semantic element is 后.
For the structure ⿲王X王, there are two situations for the radicals: 1) the radical of X, 2) 玉
Rad=the rad of X
U+6591 斑 (S=文, P=班省)
U+28325 𨌥 (S=車 and 珏/𤤴/玨/朋)
Rad=玉
U+73ED 班
U+2493B 𤤻 (var. of 班)
U+249A6 𤦦 (var. of 班)
U+2AEEE 𪻮
U+2DE5A 𭹚 (var. of 班)
U+2DE5E 𭹞 (var. of 斑)
U+30880 𰢀 (var. of 班)
U+30881 𰢁 (var. of 班)
#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.
If Comment #7672 been accepted, IDS should be updated as well.
#76, IRGN954AR
不 in the submitted IDS is U+F967
See the radical
See Comment #12908.
#76, IRGN954AR
#25, IRGN2221
The radical of 釁 is 酉.
See Comment #13688. I suggest add the following rule to the SC and FS guidelines.
# Add ⿱丵口/⿳业𦍌口 , FS=2, SC=13
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.
For the structure ⿸𤕫X, there are three situations for the radicals: 1) 爿, 2) 疒, 3) the radical of component X.
Rad=爿
U+2457A 𤕺
U+32B48
Rad=疒
U+308F1 𰣱
U+30901 𰤁
U+30905 𰤅
U+3090A 𰤊
Rad=the rad of X
U+26896 𦢖
U+27B6D 𧭭
U+28FF3 𨿳
U+2A1FF 𪇿
U+2E34E 𮍎
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
It is not easy to confirm the semantic rationale, so two radicals will be better.
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
The reading is sī and the phonetic element is 思.
The current RS could also be kept.
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
IRGN945AR
#76, IRGN954AR
#26a, IRGN2221
#17, IRGN2221
U+30060 𰁠
U+31399 𱎙
U+32412
[WS2021-00124]
#12Za, IRGN2862R
#72, IRGN954AR
gào for Rad. 日 (<昔)
xí for Rad. 口 (<告)
#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.
For the structure ⿸麻X, there are three situations for the radicals: 1) the radical of X, 2) 麻, 3) 广.
Rad=the rad of X
U+587A 塺
U+6469 摩
U+7222 爢
U+7298 犘
U+78E8 磨
U+7A48 穈
U+7CDC 糜
U+7E3B 縻
U+9761 靡
U+9B54 魔
U+3984 㦄
U+3E0F 㸏
U+4706 䜆
U+4BE2 䯢
U+4CF8 䳸
U+207A7 𠞧
U+21849 𡡉
U+21EE4 𡻤
U+24528 𤔨
U+24BCC 𤯌
U+25093 𥂓
U+25275 𥉵
U+264E1 𦓡
U+265D5 𦗕
U+2812C 𨄬
U+2902A 𩀪
U+29781 𩞁
U+2A4F9 𪓹
U+2CF33 𬼳
U+3088D 𰢍
U+31308 𱌈
Rad=麻
U+9EBD 麽
U+9EBE 麾
U+9EBF 麿
U+9EC0 黀
U+9EC1 黁
U+9EC2 黂
U+4D49 䵉
U+2A391 𪎑
U+2A392 𪎒
U+2A394 𪎔
U+2A395 𪎕
U+2A396 𪎖
U+2A397 𪎗
U+2A399 𪎙
U+2A39B 𪎛
U+2A39C 𪎜
U+2A39D 𪎝
U+2A39E 𪎞
U+2A39F 𪎟
U+2A3A0 𪎠
U+2A3A2 𪎢
U+2A3A3 𪎣
U+2A3A6 𪎦
U+2A3A7 𪎧
U+2A3A9 𪎩
U+2A3AA 𪎪
U+2A3AB 𪎫
U+2A3AC 𪎬
U+2A3AE 𪎮
U+2A3AF 𪎯
U+2B716 𫜖
U+2EB89 𮮉
U+2EB8A 𮮊
U+2EB8B 𮮋
U+2EB8D 𮮍
U+2EB8E 𮮎
U+312F1 𱋱
U+32394 𲎔
Rad=广
U+222A0 𢊠
U+222A2 𢊢
U+222B6 𢊶
U+222CE 𢋎
U+222D9 𢋙
U+222DA 𢋚
U+222E4 𢋤
U+222F2 𢋲
U+22301 𢌁
U+22311 𢌑
U+2AAA4 𪪤
U+2D67D 𭙽
U+2D689 𭚉
U+2EB88 𮮈
Rad=X and 麻
U+2A3AD 𪎭
逯 is ⿺辶录
Add 飠/𩙿/食, FS=3, SC=9
#76, IRGN954AR
There are two situations of the structure ⿱殸X for the radical: 1) the radical of X, 2) 殳.
Rad = the rad of X
U+6480 撀
U+6F00 漀
U+78EC 磬
U+7F44 罄
U+8072 聲
U+8B26 謦
U+93E7 鏧
U+97FE 韾
U+99A8 馨
U+3BCF 㯏
U+3DEB 㷫
U+3FE6 㿦
U+417D 䅽
U+4870 䡰
U+21108 𡄈
U+21112 𡄒
U+22419 𢐙
U+23346 𣍆
U+24BD2 𤯒
U+250DF 𥃟
U+252A7 𥊧
U+255DA 𥗚
U+25F06 𥼆
U+27421 𧐡
U+27934 𧤴
U+27E77 𧹷
U+288A4 𨢤
U+293DC 𩏜
U+2A371 𪍱
U+2A415 𪐕
U+2A530 𪔰
U+2A6A3 𪚣
U+2A879 𪡹
U+2B324 𫌤
U+2BDB2 𫶲
U+2C18D 𬆍
U+2CE9D 𬺝
U+2DFE9 𭿩
U+2E090 𮂐
U+2E851 𮡑
U+2E85E 𮡞
U+2EB51 𮭑
U+30498 𰒘
U+30943 𰥃
U+30A69 𰩩
U+30D9F 𰶟
U+30DCE 𰷎
U+30E98 𰺘
U+3155E 𱕞
U+31C0E 𱰎
U+32E4F
Rad = 殳
U+6BCA 毊
U+3C86 㲆
U+3C87 㲇
U+3C88 㲈
U+23AA4 𣪤
U+23AC6 𣫆
U+23ACA 𣫊
U+23AD2 𣫒
U+23AD8 𣫘
U+23AD9 𣫙
U+23ADC 𣫜
U+23ADD 𣫝
U+23AE3 𣫣
U+23AE4 𣫤
U+23AE8 𣫨
U+246D7 𤛗
U+2AD51 𪵑
U+2DBBE 𭮾
U+2DBC3 𭯃
U+2DBC5 𭯅
#23, IRGN2221
Three pieces of evidence shows the left part is the semantic element. The radical of 采 is 165.
#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
This character reads as oăm (another form is U+2334D 𣍍), that means the phonetic element is 宛 uyển, and the semantic element is 曲.
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
See Comment #12820 under WS2024-03056.
Semantic element is 快, and phonetic element is 毛.
Note: S=電, P=察
务 should be counted as ⿱攵力 here per Kangxi conventions.
The radical of U+206A2 𠚢 is R17.0, and the semantic element is 出, the phonetic element is 罒<羅.
The current radical has matched the semantic rationale.
For the structure ⿺元X, there are two situations for the radical: 1) 儿, 2) the radical of the X.
Rad=儿
U+5158 兘
U+34AC 㒬
U+34AE 㒮
U+20489 𠒉
U+20493 𠒓
U+2049C 𠒜
U+204A2 𠒢
U+204BA 𠒺
U+204BB 𠒻
U+2B91E 𫤞
U+2D01E 𭀞
U+2D029 𭀩
U+2D02A 𭀪
U+2D02B 𭀫
U+300CF 𰃏
Rad=the rad of X
U+3774 㝴
U+2083A 𠠺
U+22487 𢒇
U+291D6 𩇖
U+29418 𩐘
U+2B163 𫅣
U+2E4F8 𮓸
U+30064 𰁤
U+30420 𰐠
IRG N2862R #7Dd shows the value should be 7.
Evidence
Showing 133 comments.
民國新纂雲南通志
嘉靖寧波府志
嘉靖徽縣志
嘉靖尉氏縣志
光緒增修甘泉縣志
佩文韻府，清康熙武英殿本
太平御覽，四庫全書本
文山集，四庫全書本
春在堂詩編，民國春在堂全書本
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AJapanese_Military_and_Technical_Terms_(PrU8AQAAIAAJ).pdf&page=375
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AJapanese_Military_and_Technical_Terms_(PrU8AQAAIAAJ).pdf&page=376
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AJapanese_Military_and_Technical_Terms_(PrU8AQAAIAAJ).pdf&page=378
(as the cursive variant of 賬)
吴方言词典（汉语大词典出版社，1995）
現代吳語的研究（商務印書館，2011）
Note that unifications found in the IVD are not binding, but can be considered, along with other evidence.
(清)阮元撰 《揅經室集 七卷》，《皇清經解 一百七十八種一千四百八卷》，廣東學海堂 清道光九年[1829]
{{ http://read.nlc.cn/OutOpenBook/OpenObjectBook?aid=016&bid=3688.0 }}
Evidence 5
［清］阮元 撰；鄧經元 點校：《揅經室集》，中華書局，1993年5月，第1版，第117頁。
Evidence 6
春在堂全書 / 俞樾 [編] 光緒8[1882]
https://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/i04/i04_00484/i04_00484_0024/i04_00484_0024_p0008.jpg
Evidence 7
［清］俞樾 著；顧大朋 等 點校：《第一樓叢書·之六 兒笘録·卷三·𠓆》，浙江古籍出版社，2017年12月，第1版，第220頁。
Evidence 8
徐世昌 等 編纂；沈芝盈、梁運華 點校：《清儒學案·卷一百六十九 巢經學案·鄭先生珍·説文逸字敍目》，中華書局，2008年10月，第1版，第6493頁。
Evidence 9
［清］陳鱣 著；李林 點校：《簡莊疏記·卷八 儀禮》，浙江古籍出版社，2018年12月，第471頁
Evidence 10
王力 著：《中國語言學史·第三章 文字、声韵、训诂全面发展的时期·第三节 古文字学·一、甲骨文的研究》，中華書局，2013年08月，第1版，第140頁。
Evidence 11
武善樹 編著：《陝西金石志·補遺上 金石補遺上》，三秦出版社，2016年09月，第1版，第9頁
From 後村先生大全集, vol. 76.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/SSID-12399548_%E5%BE%8C%E6%9D%91%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F%E5%A4%A7%E5%85%A8%E9%9B%86_19.pdf
The evidence shows the person was 承文著作單 / 승문저작단 in 1786. And Comment #10841 shows 金驥燦 / 김기찬 was 承文副正字單 / 승문부정자단, 承文博士單 / 승문박사단 and so on in the same year.
The new evidence has been accepted, ROK could keep this character as-is.
However, 正祖 9年 12月 27日記事 (only two days before 正祖 9年 12月 29日紀事 dated in the original evidence) gives 成彦檝（爲顯陵令）：
▲ 승정원일기 1592책 (탈초본 85책) 정조 9년 12월 27일
The time, role and the name similarity heavily suggest that both 成彦⿰礻戢 and 成彦檝 refer to the same person.
There are more than 100 occurrences of 成彦檝 in 『承政院日記』, spanned from 1762 to 1811. Here are some examples:
▲승정원일기 1202책 (탈초본 67책) 영조 38년 2월 10일
▲ 승정원일기 1284책 (탈초본 71책) 영조 44년 9월 2일
▲ 승정원일기 1992책 (탈초본 104책) 순조 11년 1월 5일
But there is only one occurrence of 成彦⿰礻戢 in 『承政院日記』as is provided in the original evidence, which implies that KC-10019 ⿰礻戢 is not stable enough as 檝. Therefore I suggest pending more evidences.
▲ 승정원일기 216책 (탈초본 11책) 현종 10년 8월 17일 정축 3/19 기사 1669년 康熙(淸/聖祖) 8년 朴世柱 등이 하직함
According to WS2024-03276:KC-10095, the geographic name is also 坡. It looks this one is the error form of U+323EC .
[WS2021-00064]
If there is no more evidence, this is the one-off error form, that is not better to encode.
We need to understand what this character mean, and then to confirm if it is suitable to unify it with U+27E15 𧸕.
Kangxi Zidian and the followers used another glyph as:
The more common variant of U+27E15 𧸕 is:
[明]陳士元撰,古俗字略/補/漢碑用字/俗用雜字,10巻, 明萬曆刻歸雲別集本
[明]陳藎謨撰[清]吳任臣補輯,元音統韻,86巻,清康熙五十三年范廷瑚刻本
Another variant is:
It can be found in the following evidences:
It's obvious that the character KC-10053 is the variant of U+779E 瞞, which is non-cognate with U+27E15 𧸕. The glyph of KC-10053 could be normalized to ⿱艹雨(which I prefer) or 㒼, and no need to be unified to U+27E15 𧸕.
In the meanwhile, there are 4 series of variant glyph for U+27E15 𧸕.
④ ⑤ are the glyphs which U+27E15 𧸕 origined from, ① ② ③ are the correct original glyphs for it.
⑥ ⑦ ⑧ may share the glyph with the variant of U+779E 瞞. ⑨ is another kind of variant glyph.
So the glyph of U+27E15 𧸕 doesn't need to be changed, and the other 3 kind of variant should be encoded separately in future.
② is already encoded at 𧸅 U+27E05
① and ③ can be unified to it if they are submitted in the future.
The evidence shows the person was 南學敎授 / 남학교수 in 1670, and I found 李英馧 was 南學敎授 / 남학교수 in 1980.
▲ 승정원일기 277책 (탈초본 14책) 숙종 6년 7월 13일 경자 4/21 기사 1680년 康熙(淸/聖祖) 19년 崔逸 등이 사은함
[WS2021-00064]
The evidence shows the official position of 李顯三 / 이현삼 is 舊～波知權管 / 구～파지권관 in 1783, and ～波 is one geographical name.
The other page shows 舊乫坡知權管 / 구갈파지권관 as the official position of 李顯三 / 이현삼 in 1782.
▲ 승정원일기 1523책 (탈초본 82책) 정조 6년 12월 29일 신묘 14/37 기사 1782년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 47년 兵批의 관원현황
The geographical name is written as 乫坡, 乫波, 坡, 波, 加乙坡, 茄乙坡, 茄乙波.
Note: U+323EC could be KC00032 and KC09925.
The other evidence shows the related information in the same year.
▲ 승정원일기 1115책 (탈초본 62책) 영조 31년 1월 13일 정해 22/22 기사 1755년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 20년
▲ 승정원일기 1117책 (탈초본 62책) 영조 31년 3월 19일 임진 5/13 기사 1755년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 20년 逆賊李濂 등을 各配所로 押送하겠다는 義禁府의 草記
▲ 승정원일기 1117책 (탈초본 62책) 영조 31년 3월 21일 갑오 7/10 기사 1755년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 20년
The name of the person is written as U+308CB 𰣋.
U+308CB 𰣋 is the variant of U+7A61 穡 or U+55C7 嗇. Both of them read 색.
When we search 金命嶷, we can find the following results.
So, this character should not be identified as ⿱山款.
I suggest ROK confirm this issue.
▲ 승정원일기 1684책 (탈초본 89책) 정조 14년 12월 21일 정묘 15/15 기사 1790년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 55년
所斤浦/소근포 is one geographic name.
The evidence shows the person 申～ was 副司直 / 부사직 in 1791 (7/20).
申馥 / 신복 was 副司直 in 1790.
▲ 승정원일기 1684책 (탈초본 89책) 정조 14년 12월 7일 계축 14/19 기사 1790년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 55년 兵批의 관원현황
申馥 / 신복 was 副司直 in 1791.
▲ 승정원일기 1694책 (탈초본 89책) 정조 15년 9월 9일 신사 29/39 기사 1791년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 56년 兵批의 관원현황
At the end of 1791, he was upgraded as 司成 / 사성.
But, other page shows different name (權裻/권독).
權覸/권간·權⿰冝見(𮗗)/권의·權裳/권상·權裻/권독·權襞/권벽·權⿱其衣/권기·權襄/권양
The following one is cited from Evidence 1 of WS2024-03464.
▲ 승정원일기 1704책 (탈초본 90책) 정조 16년 윤 4월 27일 을미 20/22 기사 1792년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 57년
Compared these two materials, two personal names are different, one pair is 權～/권～ vs 權裻/권독, the other pair is 權衮/권곤 vs 權襄/권양. When we search 權～ or 權裻, there are both only one piece of result. But, we can get three pieces of results of 權襄, and only one for 權衮. Maybe 權襄 is the proper form.
We also need to confirm if the submitted character is the variant of U+88FB 裻.
▲ 승정원일기 1704책 (탈초본 90책) 정조 16년 윤 4월 27일 을미 20/22 기사 1792년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 57년
See here.
The submitted evidence shows:
禹衡進·趙天民·李KC10128·金道轍·金應德·金應沇
The other evidence shows:
禹衡鎭·趙天民·李暎·全道轍·金應德·金應沇
All of them are from 慶尙道/경상도.
For the reading, 進=鎭=진. One shows 金道轍/김도철, the other shows 全道轍/전도철, but we can confirm they means the same person.
The above picture is cited from the evidence of WS2024-04230.
▲ 승정원일기 1705책 (탈초본 90책) 정조 16년 5월 7일 갑진 15/16 기사 1792년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 57년
The person mentioned in the evidence is related to a government post: 金海府使 (김해부사). In the Wikipedia entry of 李光軾/이광식, he also once held this government post, and the link of 김해 is related to current 김해시 (金海市) under 경상남도 (慶尙南道).
부사 (府使) Wikipedia entry
부사(府事)는 주로 조선 시대에 지역 및 지방 행정구역의 수장으로 무관(武官)들이 임명되는 관직이었다.부사는 수령과 달리 군사적 요충지에 해당하는 행정구역을 주로 담당하였다.
When we search “金海府使”, we can get 620 entries in 承政院日記/승정원일기, and there are three entries related to the man named 柳鎭琡 (유진숙).
1793년
1794년
1794년
Note: the evidence is related to 1793.
So, this is the one-off error form of U+7421 琡.
▲ 승정원일기 1720책 (탈초본 91책) 정조 17년 8월 11일 신미 22/22 기사 1793년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 58년
▲ 승정원일기 1725책 (탈초본 91책) 정조 18년 1월 17일 을사 17/54 기사 1794년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 59년
▲ 승정원일기 1726책 (탈초본 91책) 정조 18년 2월 20일 무인 47/51 기사 1794년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 59년
ROK should confirm which one is right.
▲ 승정원일기 1737책 (탈초본 92책) 정조 18년 10월 25일 기묘 14/19 기사 1794년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 59년
▲ 승정원일기 1807책 (탈초본 95책) 정조 23년 4월 13일 신축 16/19 기사 1799년 嘉慶(淸/仁宗) 4년
▲ 승정원일기 1748책 (탈초본 92책) 정조 19년 7월 1일 병술[경술] 32/36 기사 1795년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 60년
▲ 승정원일기 1749책 (탈초본 92책) 정조 19년 8월 8일 병술 26/29 기사 1795년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 60년
▲ 승정원일기 1744책 (탈초본 92책) 정조 19년 5월 1일 신해 22/26 기사 1795년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 60년
▲ 승정원일기 1746책 (탈초본 92책) 정조 19년 6월 18일 정유 23/24 기사 1795년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 60년
Other materials show the name as 任藗, such as the following.
▲ 승정원일기 1800책 (탈초본 95책) 정조 22년 11월 2일 신유 5/32 기사 1798년 嘉慶(淸/仁宗) 3년
And other different form (⿱艹⿺辶⿰𠦝攵), but I think this different form is one-off error.
▲ 승정원일기 1683책 (탈초본 89책) 정조 14년 11월 8일 을유[갑신] 48/51 기사 1790년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 55년
The submitted form (⿱艹遫) looks the most proper one at that time. The following one also match the submitted from.
▲ 증경찬의고(曾經贊儀考)
When I searched the persons with the surname 辛/신 at that time, I found 辛泳/신영, 辛溵/신은 and 辛溆/신서, but 辛泳/신영 and 辛溵/신은 are also shown on Evidence 1 (1796), and 辛泳/신영 is also shown on Evidence 2 (1799). That means the person must not be 辛泳/신영 and 辛溵/신은.
辛溆/신서 is not shown on two pieces of submitted evidence, and 溆 reads 서 which is the same as 舒.
辛溆/신서 can be found 1795 - 1817, which matches the period.
▲ 승정원일기 231책 (탈초본 12책) 현종 13년 11월 21일 임진 11/21 기사 1672년 康熙(淸/聖祖) 11년 身病 및 노모의 병환을 간호하기 위해 사직을 청하는 姜栢年의 상소
Also see Entry B04945-003 in Dictionary of Chinese Character Variants.
We can find several similar words in the database below.
乖盭 괴려
蹠盭 척려
舛盭 천려
謬盭 유려
違盭 위려
And, 灸 reads 구, 炙 reads 적. It is easy to know the materials mean 蹠盭 척려 as the same as B04945-003 shows.
If we treat Evidence 2 does not match the submitted glyph, and I have provided one more piece evidence, so maybe we can accept it as the stable error. We need to listen to more experts’ comments.
Note: There is no any referenceable example among the encoded characters.
The person was 館學儒生進士/관학유생진사 in 1800, and 柳𤎱/柳㷪/유전/유준 was also 館學儒生進士/관학유생진사 in 1806.
▲ 승정원일기 1909책 (탈초본 101책) 순조 6년 3월 5일 계축 24/26 기사 1806년 嘉慶(淸/仁宗) 11년
▲ 승정원일기 1841책 (탈초본 97책) 순조 1년 9월 3일 정축 33/35 기사 1801년 嘉慶(淸/仁宗) 6년
In the previous picture, the glyph shows ⿰⿱⿻王冖业⿱丷丁, which must be the variant of 虧, and it had been identified as 虧 in the modern digital text.
We need more evidence to prove it is not the one-off piece.
The evidence shows the person is related to 崔慶麟/최경린.
▲ 승정원일기 1867책 (탈초본 99책) 순조 3년 5월 6일 기해 22/29 기사 1803년 嘉慶(淸/仁宗) 8년 兵批의 관원현황
The new evidence has supported to encode, so we could keep it as-is.
羲 and 𦏁 is UCV #232g (Lv2).
▲ 승정원일기 1908책 (탈초본 101책) 순조 6년 2월 27일 을사 17/21 기사 1806년 嘉慶(淸/仁宗) 11년
▲ 승정원일기 1909책 (탈초본 101책) 순조 6년 3월 5일 계축 24/26 기사 1806년 嘉慶(淸/仁宗) 11년
After this time, 柳暕/유간 became 寧陵參奉/영릉참봉, 禁府都事/금부도사, 稷山縣監/직산현감 (under 忠清南道 now), 永平縣令/영평현령 (under 京畿道 now) and so on.
▲ 승정원일기 2709책 (탈초본 128책) 고종 3년 12월 16일 신축 16/16 기사 1866년 同治(淸/穆宗) 5년
▲ 승정원일기 2711책 (탈초본 128책) 고종 4년 2월 8일 임진 9/10 기사 1867년 同治(淸/穆宗) 6년
▲ 黄宗羲: 《宋元學案》, 道光刻本, 卷十五, folio 2B
瀬水避蟻
▲ 승정원일기 46책 (탈초본 3책) 인조 13년 1월 27일 무인 16/16 기사 1635년 崇禎(明/毅宗) 8년 田制紊亂의 혁파등 國政에 대해 건의하는 趙英汶의 상소
嗽水之避蚁
▲ 승정원일기 166책 (탈초본 9책) 현종 2년 1월 10일 경신 16/16 기사 1661년 順治(淸/世祖) 18년 講學과 立志 등을 아뢰는 金壽興의 상소
避儀之嗽
▲ 승정원일기 1214책 (탈초본 68책) 영조 39년 1월 22일 경진 14/15 기사 1763년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 28년
漱口避蟻
▲ 승정원일기 2358책 (탈초본 117책) 헌종 4년 8월 19일 무자 19/19 기사 1838년 道光(淸/宣宗) 18년
盥漱噴水避蟻
▲ 陳繼儒: 《讀書鏡》, 萬曆刻本, 卷之一, folio 8B
盥而避蟻
▲ 脱脱: 《宋史》, 同文書局石印本, 卷四百二十七, 列傳第一百八十六, folio 2B
▲ 승정원일기 2683책 (탈초본 127책) 고종 1년 11월 13일 경술 16/16 기사 1864년 同治(淸/穆宗) 3년
盥漱避蟲蟻
▲ 丰子恺 & 弘一法师 (李叔同)’s work, see here
Based on the above pictures, it is easy to know the submitted character is mixed by 漱 and 嗽, and 嗽 is also the 通假字 of 漱. Both read 수 in modern Korean.
▲ 승정원일기 1918책 (탈초본 101책) 순조 6년 10월 5일 무인 25/27 기사 1806년 嘉慶(淸/仁宗) 11년
邊圉/변어 is a stable word.
▲ CCAMC
This is not a personal name character.
See the following pictures.
▲ 승정원일기 2722책 (탈초본 128책) 고종 5년 1월 21일 경오 15/18 기사 1868년 同治(淸/穆宗) 7년
▲ 승정원일기 2747책 (탈초본 129책) 고종 7년 1월 19일 을유 6/10 기사 1870년 同治(淸/穆宗) 9년
The evidence shows the person was 禮曹正郞 / 예조정랑 in 1670. And I found 李英馧 / 이영온 just was 禮曹正郞 / 예조정랑 in 1670.
▲ 승정원일기 220책 (탈초본 11책) 현종 11년 7월 30일 갑신 5/18 기사 1670년 康熙(淸/聖祖) 9년 李英馧이 陳克一의 致祭로 橫城에 나감
▲ 승정원일기 219책 (탈초본 11책) 현종 11년 5월 19일 갑술 11/11 기사 1670년 康熙(淸/聖祖) 9년 李斗元 등에게 관직을 제수함
The 本貫 / 본관 of 李英馧 / 이영온 is 禮安 / 예안, now is under 경상북도 / 慶尙北道.
We can find 27 entries related to 裵尙珩 in 承政院日記/승정원일기.
1664 都事 都摠經歷
1665 訓鍊副正 武科參考官 伊川縣監
1667 都摠經歷
1668 德川郡守 三水郡守
1675 竹山府使
1676 江界府使
1677 江界府使 護軍
1678 長興縣監
1679 曹司衛將 德源府使
1681 副護軍
1686 副護軍
▲ 승정원일기 184책 (탈초본 10책) 현종 5년 윤 6월 25일 을유 4/18 기사 1664년 康熙(淸/聖祖) 3년 朴煥 등이 사은함
▲ 승정원일기 187책 (탈초본 10책) 현종 6년 2월 15일 임신 9/12 기사 1665년 康熙(淸/聖祖) 4년 金萬基 등이 사은함
▲ 승정원일기 190책 (탈초본 10책) 현종 6년 8월 16일 기사 3/14 기사 1665년 康熙(淸/聖祖) 4년 裵尙珩이 하직함
▲ 宋史/［元］脱脱 等 撰 /中華書局/1985年06月, p. 6692
▲ 승정원일기 332책 (탈초본 17책) 숙종 14년 11월 20일 기축 23/30 기사 1688년 康熙(淸/聖祖) 27년 李畬 등에게 속히 올라오도록 하유할 것을 청하는 朴世㷪 등의 계
▲ 朝鲜王朝实录（朝鲜实录）
Change the glyph to match the head character rather than the one in annotation.
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 萬曆戊寅本, 卷第三, folio 21B
Other and clearer edition of 《直音篇》 shows the glyph as ⿲彳魚卩. This character is the variant of 蓹, so the right part is 卩 which looks better.
TCA could consider how to handle.
▲ See here.
▲ See here.
▲ See here.
▲ See here.
https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objects/4564d6d7-c774-4af9-90f8-80b573436652/surfaces/ead18c78-af26-43e2-b26e-d988e6f80c49/
SAT-02066 (Ext. F1 03445) was actually meant to be this character.
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1xV411y7KJ/
This is lyun1 as in lo1 lyun1 "anxious, restless"
The evidence shows the original English word is “blanket” (/ˈblæŋkɪt/), which reads bou3 leng1 kit4.
領 reads ling5 (文) / leng5 (白) in Cantonese; 頜 reads hap6 in Cantonese. It is easy to know the phonetic should be 領 not 頜. 令 and 合 are also similar.
▲ 張嬉嬪의 追報와 雪冤을 청한 李三齡 등의 상소를 捧入하지 않고 大殿을 기만한 承政院 승지의 처벌, 李頤命 등의 伏刑을 청했던 李潛의 追奬, 任敞을 拿鞫하여 同黨을 캐낼 것 등을 청하는 李德標 등의 상소
▲ 승정원일기 1071책 (탈초본 59책) 영조 27년 7월 26일 경인 33/50 기사 1751년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 16년 同知中樞府事 崔昌基를 비롯한 6人의 改差를 청하는 兵批의 啓
▲ 승정원일기 1071책 (탈초본 59책) 영조 27년 7월 26일 경인 37/50 기사 1751년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 16년 李彦祥 등에게 관직을 제수함
万葉集 : 嘉暦伝承本 巻第11
活字無訓本 萬葉集卷11
校本萬葉集卷第十一
▲ [乾隆]《安陽縣志》（清乾隆3年刊本）卷9 folio 26a
▲ [乾隆]《彰德府志》（清乾隆5年刊本）卷17下 folio 64b
▲ [嘉慶]《安陽縣志》（民國鉛印本）卷19 folio 16a
The character ⿲木⿱力力欠 was also attested in contemporary dictionaries, such as the 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇: Many characters from this dictionary were used for person names among the imperial descendants of Ming Dynasty.
▲ 《成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇》（明成化刊本）卷7 木部 folio 53b 八畫, quoted from 川篇.
This character can be traced back to a Jin Dynasty dictionary:
▲ 《新修絫音引證群籍玉篇》（金刊本）卷12 木部 folio 31b
Based on the evidence above, I believe that ⿰木欻 is a modern error of ⿲木⿱力力欠. Therefore, I recommend encoding ⿲木⿱力力欠 instead.
▲ 《南明史》中華書局, 2006, ISBN 978-7-101-11665-6, p. 1028
Here the passage shows that 阜平王朱由樽 is the son of 阜平王朱常𰝎.
.
The character U+3074E was encoded based on the exact evidence above. If we examine earlier contemporary sources, when he was still alive and designated as 阜平長子, his name should have been 朱常𣸠.
▲ ［萬曆］《江西省大志》（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 15b
Therefore, ⿰氵紋 is possibly a misinterpreted form of 𰝎, which itself is a variant of 𣸠. I suggest postponing the encoding of ⿰氵紋 until more evidence becomes available.
▲ 塚田雅樹: 登記・供託オンライン申請システムに現れる地名を表すUnicode未符号化文字, 日本漢字學會報 第4号, p. 125
cf.
As far as I know about Kagoshima dialect, unlike most of the dialects in Japan, words can END in plosives. In the evidence, it writes the pronunciation of 髙 as タッ, which is actually resulted in the loss of some information - Kagoshima dialect pronounce it as /tak/ (FYI, standard Japanese is /taka/), different to so-called 促音 in Japanese, the /k/ sound would NEVER change according to the subsequent consonant. It is just a *coincidence* that the next consonant in this place name is also /k/.
The evidence also shows that the proposed character is pronounced as クッ, but we do not know whether it is /kuk/, /kut/, /kus/ or any other possibilities. It would be better if we could get more information about the complete pronunciation, to judge what its semantic really is.
As noted in the first evidence above, this is composed with a "nháy" reading mark. The problem is that Unicode does not allow variation of marks, so there is no way to encode this separate from another character VN-F0074 using IVS
If we treat 𫵖 as the variant of 屎, 示 is the phonetic element of 𫵖 only for this usage.
(Quoted from the MOE Dictionary entry for A01549)
Potentially this could be a UCV level 2 if there are a huge number of variants of 幼 from V source.
or something similar. The phonetic component 爱 is not very convincing. Is there any image of the original material?
Only one evidence just show that it's obviously the wrong glyph of 衢, please provide more evidences for this character to prove that this character truly exists and has encoding value.
越喃汉英四文对照新辞典
One thing to consider. Vietnamese uses both U+8862, in the original sense of road, intersection, with Sino-Viet reading "cù" and VN-F052A. Only VN-F052A is found with the reading "cò", meaning "stork" or "egret". The element feather, 羽, appears to distinguish the meaning.
If ZHSJ could provide the evidence to support ⿰日與, it will be OK to keep this simplified form here.
Suggest to modify the left part to 鳥.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 294 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).
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.
The above picture of TB-6B46 shows it is the variant of 來/来.
The 新借 and 老借 readings of Zhuang are both laiz, and other variants in the same entry all show the phonetic elements are 來.
So, the normalization is reasonable and acceptable.
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?
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.
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.
There is no K-Source glyph under U+79C3 秃.
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 following shows one page in the same year.
▲ 승정원일기 1725책 (탈초본 91책) 정조 18년 1월 1일 기축 24/46 기사 1794년 乾隆(淸/高宗) 59년 兵批의 관원현황
Under ROK conventions, the top is 3-stroke 艹, and under TCA and HK SAR conventions, the top is 卝.
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.
--> KR will update the glyph.
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.
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 glyph picture should be updated.
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.
The glyph should be updated.
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.
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.
Update IDS to ⿲木⿱力力欠, SC=8, FS=5, TS=12.
As you can see in this image from "Khó Chữ Hán Nôm Mã Hoá" p. 613, all other characters with the "vươn" phonetic show 爰:
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.
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
The original structure was ⿰黑⿱⿰夕丰木. The word "kịt" means dark, dense. Based on the phonetic value, "kịt", this should have been normalized to ⿰黑桀, with 桀 as phonetic.
SC=10, FS=3, TS=22
Editorial
Showing 43 comments.
This is a geographic name character.
[ {{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.
It is better to keep them separately.
Other
Showing 102 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.
(JMJ-003817, Unicode v16.0).
The G glyph quotes GHZ:
However, per the MOE dictionary, one version of the original source writes it as ⿰貝㒼
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]
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.
《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》(羣玉海篇)卷三
(《淮南子·說林訓》：土勝水，非一圤塞江。一作墣。)
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.
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.
冫 is variant of lightning? It is best to refer to the handling method of lightning. Or U+16FF1 𖿱?
We can not find more usage of the real ⿰木杳. The possible better way is to add it to IVD.
Similar to U+26EF7 𦻷
We also need to change #333a 禀稟 from NUCV to UCV (lv. 2)? See .
Data for Unihan
Showing 38 comments.
[WS2021-00457]
[WS2021-04511]
[WS2021-00584]
[WS2021-00630]
kFanqie 力龍
The current kCantonese property value for U+7021 瀡 is only seoi5, but the more common one is soe4.
Submitter Request
Showing 7 comments.