Based on comment #519 from Kushim, I suggest the UCV to be kept and not changed to NUCV.
艸 at the top instead of 艹 as a strict transliteration form is commonly found in many dictionaries as a more "canonical" shape, but they are nearly universally variants.
In IRG past decisions, if a more common form is desired, the glyph shape is simply modified in place instead of encoding the form at another code point. They are variants without a doubt. The argument that both forms are preferred in different contexts, so they should be separately coded, is not a valid reason for disunification. The IVD exists exactly for this use case.
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Not unified to 𦬟 (U+26B1F).
In the meeting it was suggested by Andrew West to do an ad-hoc disunification for this character.
In that case, UCV #404 can be kept as a UCV.
I agree with his suggestion on the basis that we only do ad-hoc disunifications involving characters which are present in the Kangxi Dictionary, as there are only a limited amount of characters in the Kangxi Dictionary with 艸 at the top instead of 艹, and the majority of them already have encoded counterparts.
The provided evidence shows that the phonetic is 陷 (臽) without a doubt. The writing of 𠂊 as 爫 is fairly common and a number of other UCVs exist (e.g. 争 / 爭). Suggest to add a new UCV level 2 臽 and 舀.
The examples given in the URO are not all variants. For example, 諂 and 謟 are non-cognate.
This is a quite frequently used character in ancient literatures, which appears 144 times in ZHZK data and 85 times in ZHSJ data. Considering the value and frequency of the character, the demand for encoding should be responsed.
Should we consider unifying it to 𣤃, for they have the same abstract shape and have the same source in 冷齋夜話, or should we encode it separately since this form is stable in many evidences (also appeared in Evidence 4 of
It is undeniable that [⿴囗㕣] has long been used as a variant form of "囧," and therefore, there are inevitably scenarios where these two characters are strictly distinguished or even appear together, as seen in 《敦煌經部文獻合集》（P1）.
However, in the epitaphs of the Northern and Southern Dynasties, there are also instances where [⿴囗㕣] does not entirely equate to 囧.
For example,
in the phrase "端宿墜[⿴囗㕣]" of《元簡墓誌》(p2~p3) ,is recorded as 日 in 《彙編》 and 《補遺》 (Wei).
In the phrase 如彼皎[⿴囗㕣]，褰霧獨明 of 司馬悦墓誌(p4~p5), is recorded as 日 in 《新中國誌河南壹》 and 《南師2005-碩論》.
In the phrase 脩光墜景，[⿴囗㕣]月落暉 of 元廣墓誌(p6) , is likely to be 日.
In the phrase 遼西公[⿴囗㕣]之季女 of 元祐妃常季繁墓誌(p7~p8) , is recorded as 國 in 《法全》
P1
張涌泉 主編； 審訂：《敦煌經部文獻合集·小學類韻書之屬（一）》，中華書局，2008年8月，第1版，第2216頁
P2 元簡墓誌，中華石刻數據庫
P3《南北朝墓志集成》，上海人民出版社，202103，第58頁
P4《司馬悦墓誌》，中華石刻數據庫
P5,《南北朝墓志集成》，上海人民出版社，202103，第93頁
堆+火 and 土+焦 are totally different visual cognition results, most of the people would not to recognize them as the same character, #307b should be removed.
Heterogeneous characters with non-congnate components should be encoded seperatly, most of them exist in literatures for handred years with sufficient cultural foundation, and it's difficult for the common people to connect them together.
The structural changes of characters make it difficult for readers to associate the characters they see with the original ones, which is a type of variation second only to heterogeneous characters and far more valuable for preservation than variant characters with stroke variations. Variant characters with structural changes should be preserved as much as possible.
[Mr. Ma Shijie provided the comments, but what he wrote is not clear enough. Eiso rewrites after studying.]
The submitted character related to one word 醇～ on the evidence, which should be the variant form of the word 淳龐, that means the local people are honest and warm-hearted or the local customs are simple and homely. This is a stable word.
U+5390 厐 is the variant of 龐 or 龎. The only barrier is that we don’t have the UCV or any rule to support the unification.
There is no evidence of any semantic relation between this character and 𬌼 (U+2C33C). Also, the shapes are not identical. No unification without additional evidence establishing a relationship.
Although the pronunciation is "biǎn", the relationship between these two characters as variant and standard forms remains unclear. The variant relationship between 乏 and 之 is uncommon, TCA suggests continuing encoding WS24-03574.
TCA has no objection to the merger of UCV#278 and 465, but hopes to encode WS2024-04254: Regarding the right-hand part of the character form, 曼 is the standard character, while 㬅, 𭦗, and ⿳日罒万 are all vulgar forms of 曼. However, in this set of relationships, ⿰馬曼 is to be unified with ⿰馬㬅, which means the standard form is being unified with a variant form. Logically, the standard form should take precedence over variant forms.
Oppose Unification
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Agree with comment #5493. For ideographs used in registered residence system of government, it's better to unify them not just based on the rationale from a very professional view. We should handle characters used in registered residence systems in a more practical way. I recommond member bodies agree with this point to submit a proposal together and add following principles in IRG PnP( a rough draft).
For ideographs used in Government Administration System, if
1. There are structual differences which can cause the change of radical;
2. The different structures are non-cognate with each other in modern times and have major stroke differences(in this case, it is 方 and 又);
The two unifiable ideograph can be disunified under the request of Regional or national member bodies.
Oppose Unification
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Thank you all. Need to be added back to the M set.
Suggest to change NUCV #294 to a UCV. 曆~暦 is a very common variation, and there are a large number of unencoded characters with 暦 etc. that correspond to encoded characters with 曆 etc.
Support lv. 2 UCV for 弓 and 𠔃. Note that Evidence 2 transcribes ⿰車𠔃 as ⿰車兮, but 𠔃 here is a variant form of 弓 as proved by Evidence 4 which shows ⿰車弓 for the same text transcribed as ⿰車兮 in Evidence 2.
:
Given the usage 法華 in the evidence, I would suggest going ahead with the unification with despite being part of the place name.
Unification
Henry CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Given that there is other evidence of use, I suggest that this character doesn't need to be withdrawn. However, unification should still be on the table as I believe they (UTC-03353, U+83EF and U+2C73B) are variants.
I also agree to unify to 矑 (U+77D1). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
I also agree to unify to 躔 (U+8E94). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
Many other versions of 蒙古秘史 shows 䦍 instead of |⿵門兀| in 額䦍迭訥 (Mongolian e'üden-ü), with its phonetic symbol 乞. Here we believe that cognition reconstruction has occurred, where the phonetic symbol has been changed to 兀.
I also agree to unify to 𪖌 (U+2A58C). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
Unify to 挲 (U+6332)? The evidence shows the Vietnamese word “ma sa”, that means 摩挲. There is no V-Source under U+6332 挲, maybe it is OK to do the horizontal extension to U+6332 挲 if IRG agrees, or add it to IVD in future.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
As you can see both in the GĐNHV example above and in this image from KCHN, Vietnam uses both forms. Not sure it's a good idea to unify, even if there is semantic overlap
The evidence shows the variant is 潷 and the Putonghua/Mandarin reading is bì.
Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The meaning is "drain dry", which is similar to 滗 (U+6ED7), “xế” is a native word, so this a case where a variant of 滗 was borrowed for its meaning. Unification should be appropriate.
Unify to 𫺱 (U+2BEB1).
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The shapes are too different to recognize as identical. If we are going to arbitrarily equate simplified components based on interchangeability, then we should apply that across the board, including 馬/马, 金/钅, etc.
Unification
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The two structures have a strict correspondence, and we could treat them as only glyph variants. That is a very different situation from 馬/马, 金/钅, etc. See the colors below.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The point is not that we can derive correspondences, we can similarly derive correspondences from 馬 to 马, 鳥 to 鸟, etc. But, if we are going to say that because we can derive correspondences between glyphs that on the surface look quite different, then we should start using stronger unification that includes traditional and simplified. I don't think people want that, so the same treatment should be applied to simplified forms in languages other than Chinese used in the PRC.
Unification
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The question is, how to define “quite different”? They are both the simplified forms of the same character, not the simplified-traditional relationship. What is more, the correspondence works between strokes but not components; however, 馬 obviously has a lot more strokes than 马, you cannot simply establish such a correspondence.
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The shapes are too different to recognize as identical.
Unify to 𪫢 (U+2AAE2).
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
Oppose Unification
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The shapes are too different to recognize as identical.
Unification
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
See #4776. https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/?id=01489
Add the secondary radical as 196.1 (鸟), SC=6, FS=3.
Based on Evidence 2, the meaning is related to “hawk”, Evidence 1 looks the variant of 鹞.
Radical
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Change primary radical to 196.1 (鸟), SC=6, FS=3 (cf. additional evidence in comment #7314 where the character is under 鸟 radical). Add 121.0 缶 as secondary radical for compatibility with U+26253 𦉓.
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 122.0 (网), SC=13, FS=1
For this character, the semantic element is 罙 (<深, the corresponding Bouyei word is lag [lak⁸] ⿰氵㓁), the phonetic element is 革 (<勒 laeg. This is 老借, and the corresponding 新借 is lwz).
For U+23F37 𣼷, SE=氵/水, PE=勒/laeg.
For U+3072F 𰜯, SE=深/水, PE=力/lig.
Since 𬷨 is the phonetic and 外 is the meaning the IDS ⿰外𬷨 is clear to those who are familiar with 𬷨, however this does not align with the current radical.
The IDS should remain as it is because, strange as it may seem at first sight, the established convention is to use 出 (U+51FA) not 岀 (U+5C80) in such cases.
GZHSJ-0101 is not quite the same as the outside component of U+206A1 𠚡, which has one additional vertical stroke at the bottom middle. It is the same as the bottom outside component of the T and J forms of U+2700D 𧀍 (but the G form is the same as the outside of 𠚡).
Although I have no position about the glyph design, I support HKSAR's comment. If the glyph design looking like "⿰言墮" is not used differently, IDS "⿰言墮" would be more helpful.
IDS
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Support HKSAR's comment, the glyph should be modified to ⿰言墮.
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.
If we accept kanji-kana hybrids for encoding then allow hiragana and katakana in IDS, but only when the component really is a kana letter (not just when a component looks like a kana letter, e.g. do not allow リ for lhs of 师). In that case, ⿸尸ソ would be a better IDS for this character.
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.
Swapping is fine. But maybe we should consider 196 鳥, since it means 'crow'. We chose 86 based on Kangxi and Unihan, but if there is no need to follow those, 'bird' is the best semantic.
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
For this case, the semantic rationale is that the semantic element is 烏 based on the corresponding Chinese word of “crow” 烏鴉, the phonetic element is 戈 (qua). The current only radical of 烏 is R86.0, so we use R86.0 firstly.
If we add the secondary RS for U+70CF 烏 as 196.-1, the secondary RS for U+4E4C 乌 as 196'.-1, we can consider using R196 as the preliminary radical, and SC=3 (-1+4), FS=1.
The RS for the following variants of 烏/乌 should be considered to be updated correspondingly.
U+200B6 𠂶 196.-1?
U+2CEC6 𬻆 196.-4 (-1-3)? cf. U+2B813 𫠓
U+2DD1A 𭴚 196.-1?
There are other characters related the components 烏/乌.
U+3137C 𱍼 196'.2 (-1+3)?
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.
秩 is the phonetic and 刀 the semantic. I don't see how radical 93 is appropriate here. If anything the secondary radical, taken from 秩, should be 115 (禾)
Change Radical to 108.0 (皿) or add it as the secondary one, SC=15, FS=3
The semantic element is 盘, and the phonetic element is 音. 音 reads as ʔɤm¹ and ʔom¹
Radical
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The IRG needs to have an intelligble policy on assignment of radicals. We originally based it on semantic, then the policy seems to have switched to "most intuitive". 180 is "intuitive"; 108 is semantic. Which is it to be?
Radical
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
For Comment #10021, understand Lee’s comment. In IRG N2412R, the authors pointed out this issue, and IRG discussed it during IRG #53 in Shenzhen. The following is the recommendation IRG M53.6.
In the subsequent actual operation in our review works, we include two kinds of radicals. We may have the following possibilities, and we can choose one of them.
(1) The intuitive radical is the primary one, the semantic radical is the secondary one.
(2) The semantic radical is the primary one, the intuitive radical is the secondary one.
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.
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
The glyph is very reasonable and the glyph is not misidentified.
⿱丶冂 is a variant of 门
The glyph in the index:
More cases in the book:
闼，U+95FC
𮤬，U+2E92C
𮤸，U+2E938
Evidence
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Thank you the index is clearly shows the inner component as 金. This additional evidence is much clearer than evidence 1 and so I remove my earlier objection.
We think the first evidence is enough for encoding ⿰氵⿱𮅕马 since the traditional form is encoded and ⿰氵⿱𫂁马 and ⿰氵⿱𮅕马 are obvious variants.
The evidence is clear.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Though I don't understand why it has to be unclear or an error because ⿰氵⿱𫂁马 and ⿰氵⿱𮅕马 are obvious variants and it is very normal that variants replace each other in texts, I'd like to add a new evidence for the ideograph.
The evidence is from 2008年第3版，2012年月第39次印刷(3rd edition, 39th printing), page694. This proves that ⿰氵⿱𫂁馬 has been changed to ⿰氵⿱𮅕马.
Academically, 𮅕(算) is the phonetic component of this ideograph. So it is clear that 𮅕 is better than 𫂁.
《集韵》 from 异体字字典.
The Zhuang reading of U+316B9 𱚹 is sux*. For the standard reading, the tone mark -x/-ч corresponds to 阳上 (John said this reading is used in Longzhou Zhuang), but the tone of 昼 should be 阴去 (-q/-ƽ). On the other hand, the middle Chinese finals (韵母) of 手 and 昼 are the same, and one 老借 reading of 手 I collected is suj; that 知母 reads as [s-]/[θ-] is very common. For common 腔词结合 rule in Cantonese Yueju Opera, Cantonese Yuequ Show and Cantonese pop songs, 阳上 (Tone 5) and 阴去 (Tone 3) could mean to the same musical scale, such as 上 (Gongche) for 平喉.
The semantic rationale of U+316B9 𱚹 in Zhuang and Tày is still NOT obvious. If it is the way like 臼 and 旧, 幺 and 么 to distinguish the meanings, the submitted glyph is acceptable; if we can not confirm this, it is better to change the glyph to match the evidence.
Misidentified glyph
John Knightley
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Further investigation confirmed the glyph in the evidences is correct and therefore the submitted glyph and IDS should be change to match the evidences.
Re comments #2119 and #2220: the bottom right should be "且" or, in other words, the right hand part should be U+316B9 𱚹.
Re comment #5928: both ⿰氵𱚹 suz (a hole) and U+316B9 𱚹 sux (to know) are Longzhou Zhuang words. They follow the an established pattern for common and uncommon words.The character used for a common words can not be broken down and is memorised by rote. The character for less a common word consists of a memorised by rote character used as a phonetic combined with a semantic radical and that the tone of the phonetic part is ignored, just the sound is used.
Of cource, ⿱䒑亅and ⿱䒑丨 should be distinguished from each other for they’re totally different characters.
In this case, China should keep ⿱䒑亅 in WS2024 rather than unify it to 兮. ⿱䒑亅 is quite normally used glyph which is usually exist in same texts with 兮. 干祿字書 清光緒中常熟鮑氏刊本 干祿字書箋證 說文字原集注 字典校錄
The provided evidence is all from modern reprints. Are there images of original books that can show the glyph is not misprinted?
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
We think the current evidences are enough for encoding. But we also welcome other experts to add additional evidence for them.
New evidence
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Regarding Comment #8643, PnP 2.2.5b (5) states: "Characters found in quotations from classical or pre-20th-century texts in a modern typeset edition should also provide an image of an original edition of the text in order to be sure that the character form given in the modern edition is not an error form".
I do not think that other experts should be doing the submitter's homework for them, but I did randomly check one 1714 edition of 《隋書》卷25 for the quotation shown in Evidence 3, and it actually shows U+2A32D 𪌭. It might be that 𪌭 in this edition is an error for ⿺麥員, or it might be that ⿺麥員 is an error for 𪌭, but I think it should be the submitter's responsibility to determine this. And it should be the submitter's responsibility to provide evidence from the original woodblock editions to support the encoding.
New evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
It is not rare in old books, I'd like to provide two pieces of evidence here:
弇州四部稿，卷一百七十，说部，宛委余编十五，日本早稻田大学图书馆藏，page24
北山酒经，文渊阁四库全书本，page3
Under normal circumstances, ⿰目力 is a variant form of the character "助," as described in the 异体字典 (p1,https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=4126):
"Characters derived from the phonetic component 且 (qiě) typically follow a left-radical, right-phonetic structure, with rare exceptions of right-radical, left-phonetic arrangements. Consequently, in variant forms of 助, the component 且 is often miscopied as 目 (mù). This error is most frequently observed in the 敦煌俗字譜. 字鑑 and 正字通 both note it.This demonstrates that the use of 目 in vulgar forms was widespread, hence its inclusion here."
Evidence 3 is drawn precisely from Dunhuang manuscripts. This form appears extensively in origal books, such as the 文苑英華 and 説文通訓定聲, as shown in p2 ~p5. Another example is Evidence 2, which cites six instances in the 尚書注疏彙校 (Chief Editor Du Zexun杜澤遜, Zhonghua Book Company, 2018) where "助" is written as "⿰目力" in collation notes for the Song dynasty "Eight-Line Edition" (abbreviated "八") and the Song dynasty Wang Pengfu edition (abbreviated "王") of the 尚書注疏.
A notable exception is Evidence 1 from the 孫臏兵法校理, where the character ⿰目力 appears in the "Sun Bin's Art of War Bamboo Slips from the Yinqueshan Han Tombs.", as shown in the facsimile copy of the original bamboo slips(p6).
The 孫臏兵法校理 describes this character as "composed of 目 and 力." The author refutes the interpretation in (銀雀山漢墓竹簡) 孫臏兵法 (Cultural Relics Publishing House, 1975, CN 7068-339), which "suspected it should be read as 冒 (mào)," arguing instead that it is an abbreviated form of the character "瞗 (diāo)"(p7).
p1
(Zhonghua Book Company, 1966, facsimile edition based on Song dynasty fragments and Ming dynasty prints)
p2
p3
p4
p5
p6
The evidence is suspected of typographical error. Especially in Evidence 2, the description repeatedly states that the original character had been mis-decomposed into 楊鳥, which strongly suggests that the glyph in question is U+9E09 鸉.
Based on these two evidences, ⿱艹妖 is a modern misinterpretation of 𡝩. Therefore the value to preserve such form might be questionable. Since ⿱艹妖 here is cognate with 𡝩, suggest to unify with 𡝩 (U+21769).
New evidence
SU Ruixin
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Thanks for the correction! Although rare, ⿱艹妖 does exist, and I will submit new evidences. The character 妖 is a clerical-script abbreviation of 𡝩, yet in the modern writing system, 妖 has become the standard form, while 𡝩 has faded into obscurity. This unfamiliarity with 𡝩 may explain why it is occasionally written as ⿱艹妖.
薛瑞兆 編撰 ：《新編全金詩•卷五二•王澮•感遇四首》，中華書局，2021年05月，第1版，第1366頁。
its original version 谷音二卷，民國十八年（1929）上海商務印書館影印本
錢仲聯 主編 ：《清詩紀事》，鳳凰出版社，2004年04月，第1版，第3361頁。
The submitted character is a 韻脚, and the previous one 差 is 차 (Mand: cī, Cant: ci1), the next one 姿 is 자 (Mand: zī, Cant: zi1), so the final (중성+종성) must be ㅏ. 頿 also reads as 자, and the meaning matches the poem.
The evidence shows “按遼薊三千餘里，冠蓋所往來，舟車所要衝。統浿～四十二州，川蜀之殷富，蘇杭之佳麗。” 遼薊 means 遼地 (current 辽宁) and 薊地 (current 河北, 北京, 天津), 川蜀 means current 四川 and 重庆, 蘇杭 means 蘇州 (苏州) and 杭州, so 浿～ must be one or two places. 《舊唐書·卷三十九·志第十九》 shows “高麗本五部，一百七十六城，户六十九萬七千。其年十二月，分高麗地為九都督府，四十二州，一百縣，置安東都護府於平壤城以統之。” The year (其年) means 總章元年 (aka 668 A.D.), so that 四十二州 means Koryo (高麗/고려). 浿水 means current Taedong River in current Phyeongyang and other cities and provinces of DPRK/North Korea, so ～ may be the other river in Koryo, but I can’t find which one is.
It looks a very important geographical term in Korean. We should take it more carefully.
Evidence
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Thanks for Huang Junliang’s help, the river should be 薩水 in the Chinese ancient books, which is current Ch'ongch'on River (淸川江/청천강) in DPRK/North Korea. 《北史·列傳·卷七十九》 shows “東濟薩水，去平壤城三十里”. 《朝鮮王朝實錄》 shows “平安道有急, 則將長山串以西兵船, 載於阿郞浦, 則平壤 浿江、安州 薩水漕可通也。” 安州 is under Phyeongannamto (平安南道/평안남도) now.
Error form occur one time. Cannot be found in 須摩提女經.
Unclear evidence response
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
It is hard to trace this character from the currently available versions of 須摩提女經. The most likely location we think where this phrase originated is:
「爾時阿那邠池。先與女造十二種寶車。先以赤蓮華𮆕内摩尼覆外。黄金重布白銀羅絡。琥珀揚班珊瑚琉璃車𤦲。合雜馬瑙交間水精。鱗暉琉璃采飾。復以紫磨徘徊懸灑疊起。」 (T0128, 宋/元 version)
Anyways, the character is stable in 一切經音義, although with slightly different glyphs.
Evidence
LI Yuan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
In comment #5660, should the context of the mentioned "⿰車𫟛" evidence be provided?
Additionally, are 佛説須摩提女經 and 須摩提女經 the same scripture?
It's a wrong hand-written shape of 栅.
As the annotation refers to the entry in Volume II, we can see that the character is 栅 actually. 一切經音義 102巻 [唐]釋慧琳[遼]釋希麟撰 影印日本元文三年至延亨三年獅谷蓮社刻本
The glyphs in 3 evidences are slightly different, although they can be unified. Is there any rationale to choose the glyph in the evidence 1? If the glyph is taken from 慧琳一切經音義, the glyph in 高麗藏本 was same with the proposed glyph?
Unclear evidence response
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Whenever in doubt, we basically takes the representative glyph from Taisho unless there seems to be a clear deficit.
The 高麗藏 glyph looks as below:
Misidentified glyph
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
[SAT-09752]恌 is not a commonly used phrase that we can't find it in the other books, and the glyph of [SAT-09752] is quite unstable, we need more evidences to confirm its glyph shape.
Evidence
WANG Yifan
SAT
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The character is probably related to 謟, as a headword 謟恌 is seen in 可洪音義:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CADAL02019424_%E6%96%B0%E9%9B%86%E8%97%8F%E7%B6%93%E9%9F%B3%E7%BE%A9%E9%9A%A8%E5%87%BD%E9%8C%84%EF%BC%88%E4%BA%94%EF%BC%89.djvu&page=79
The uploaded evidence includes two glyph variants of "𤴗"—one with a short horizontal line and one with a dot. Should a UCV be added for these two glyph variants?
《新編台灣閩南語用字彙編》(吳昭新 ed., 2013, p. 253, https://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/download/WSL_TPS_Huibian.htm)
New evidence
LEUNG Justin Richard
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
English and Chinese Dictionary of the Amoy Dialect (Rev. J. Macgowan, 1883, Amoy, China: A.A. Marcal, p. 111, https://archive.org/details/cu31924023550878/page/111)
New evidence
LEUNG Justin Richard
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
台字田「kóng 廣」 https://ji.taioan.org/gisu/?n=1200
New evidence
LEUNG Justin Richard
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
八音定訣全集 (1924, 厦門會文書局, p. 60b, https://taiwanebook.ncl.edu.tw/zh-tw/book/NTUL-9900007213/reader)
In the evidence, the right-side component of the glyph only appears similar to "互" but is not actually "互"; it is a variant form of "氐". I have some doubts about whether it is appropriate to encode this glyph directly as "互". The data shown below for "低" in HNG could serve as a reference.
https://search.hng-data.org/search/%E4%BD%8E
Evidence
Conifer TSENG
TCA
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
互 is a variant of 氐.
The right part of this glyph is "互". 《干祿字書．平聲》:「互、氐，上通下正，諸從氐者，並準此。」
Is there any clearer evidence? The structure is ambiguous (e.g. 星?) in the current image and there is no explanation why the representative glyph is correct.
In these two modern editions, the character ⿳内一八 should correspond to 㒷 (U+34B7) as variant of 興 in the original editions.
（1）崔建英 辑订,贾卫民、李晓亚 参订，《明别集版本志》，中华书局，2006 07月，p.172.
vs (明)張祥鳶撰，《華陽洞稿》，明萬曆戊子(16年,1588)金壇張氏家刊本
https://rbook.ncl.edu.tw/NCLSearch/Search/SearchDetail?item=5c13407daf2cde1ca85be38a1cd6d22dfDQ0OTI00.sCx7Lib9PDTjlooVpKp7zPanNlGOTR68KlNee0ZEoCs_&image=1&page=173&whereString=&sourceWhereString=&SourceID=
（2）傅增湘 撰，《藏園群書經眼録·卷九 子部三》，中華書局，2009年4月，第1版，第653頁
vs (宋)趙善璙撰，《自警編》，宋刊本
https://rbook.ncl.edu.tw/NCLSearch/Search/SearchDetail?item=7b5c54669a523926674b2cda0b599259fDczNzc40.tpbH5cFydau_iIQmZsMV0w_0ri0INK1SFI1C1by3G9o_&page=112&whereString=&sourceWhereString=&SourceID=1&HasImage=
The evidence 1 and 2 have slightly different glyphs (王 vs 𡈼). The proposed glyph using 𡈼 is preferred? In current UCS codechart, most TCA glyphs including "呈" are using 𡈼.
Used in the logo of Chungta Production, hence often seen in the TV show 康熙來了. Noticed by 即里羽元.
康熙來了 2007.05.07 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhQfJvlZVpw
New evidence
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
Provided by Lin Anning (林安玲): 生活營造：民字集, 亮光文化, 2024.3
Following the decision of UK-20710, the symbols conbined with bagua should be removed from WS-2024.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
Following the decision of UK-20710, the symbols conbined with bagua should be removed from WS-2024.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
Following the decision of UK-20710, the symbols conbined with bagua should be removed from WS-2024.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
Following the decision of UK-20710, the symbols conbined with bagua should be removed from WS-2024.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
Following the decision of UK-20710, the symbols conbined with bagua should be removed from WS-2024.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
Following the decision of UK-20710, the symbols conbined with bagua should be removed from WS-2024.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
Following the decision of UK-20710, the symbols conbined with bagua should be removed from WS-2024.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
Is it possible to identify the meaning or pronunciation of this character? Although its strokes are looking like Hanzi, there might be a possibility that the proposed character was a symbol. The annotation at the right side is slightly unclear.
Is it possible to identify the meaning or pronunciation of this character? Although its strokes are looking like Hanzi, there might be a possibility that the proposed character was a symbol. The annotation at the right side is slightly unclear.
I think that IRG experts had agreed that captions couldn't be the only source of the evidences for submitted ideographs in IRG meeting #62. So unless other evidences can be provided, the ideograph should be postponed.
The decision about using captions as evidences was clearly stated in the meeting so this kind of situation should not have happened.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
We think that this ideograph should be postponed if no more qualified evidence can be provided. For more comments, please go to:
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/?find=UK-30621
Unclear evidence response
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The latest IRG PnP (version 17) explicitly allows for multimedia evidences and submissions to this working set include among other things internet evidences from Instagram, Twitter and Bilibili. It is inconsistent to object to evidences from Bilibili just because they are from Bilibili, but not to object to evidences from Instagram just because they are from Instagram, nor object to to evidences from Twitter just because they are from Twitter.
The UK still has not been able to provide evidence from historical document or other high-quality sources for this character. On the contrary, the UK has been providing evidence of the use of this character by one or two users on unstable carriers, and such evidence is not sufficient to support the encoding of this character. We have made it very clear that the evidence of this type provided by the UK is not sufficient to support the encoding of this character. However, the experts from the UK seem unable to understand what we mean and they are still insisting on providing evidence of the same type with insufficient quality, and also insisting on saying things that are obviously inconsistent with the facts. This kind of behavior is of no benefit to the review work and cannot make these characters be removed to the M-set.
At the last meeting, we have already suggested that if the experts from the UK believe that this character is not a newly self-created character and has the value for encoding, they can simply publish a paper that includes this character and vouch for these characters with their own reputation. Let me be more straightforward. It should not be a difficult task for the experts from the UK to publish a paper. If the experts from the UK are not willing to risk their own reputation, they should not insist on using evidence that obviously does not meet the requirements to request the encoding of this character in the IRG.
The evidence provided for UK-30620, ⿰丫要, conforms to the requirements of the current PnP which permits a wider range of evidences than the PnP for earlier working sets, this was done specifically to allow consideration of a small number of characters not having more 'conventional' evidences, it is therefore not sufficient to argue that a character should be kept out of M-set simply because it does not have the type of evidences used in earlier working sets. According to current PnP 'the popularity of the material, cultural influences, and other factors' may warrant the acceptance of multimedia material as sufficient evidence for encoding. That the evidence for a character is that it is used by ordinary people for ordinary things is sufficient.
It should be noted that there are differences in the number and types of evidence for the 3 characters and therefore they should be considered on a case by case basis.
Whilst no additional evidence has been added it should be noted that the evidences both come from the same author was assessed to be a reliable source. The criteria for being considered reliable was high and most multimedia sources considered did not meet the criteria. To be classified as reliable there has to be sufficient material from the author of a consistently high standard and the author to be Zhuang. Some sources were classified as clearly unreliable and many were classified as reliability uncertain. The rate of errors by this author was lower than those found in some published articles/books containing Zhuang character texts. In short though the media is different to evidence in earlier working sets it's quality is sufficient for consideration.
To date support for this character has been expressed by a member body of the IRG and an individual but objections to this character have only come from one individual.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
China thinks the evidence is still not sufficient and the character should be kept in D-set until better evidednce is provided.
I think that IRG experts had agreed that captions couldn't be the only source of the evidences for submitted ideographs in IRG meeting #62. So unless other evidences can be provided, the ideograph should be postponed.
The decision about using captions as evidences was clearly stated in the meeting so this kind of situation should not have happened.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
It is not the matter of the defination of caption or lyrics. It is the matter of the quality of the evidences. It is ridiculous to dicuss the defination of caption here but focus on the quality of the evidences.
Evidence of GDM-00507 and GDM-00508 are from at least two different buildings, which stands in the real world. The buildings are not something easy to change or vanish. What's more, the two ideographs are used by many local people so they can be used in the plaques of the temples, which are sacred.
However, the evidence of this ideograph is from a vedio created by someone on the Internet and the vedio can be edited or deleted by the uploader at anytime he wants. The vedio, which is too weak for encoding, is not even from a published material.
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Ki4y127Cm/
If this can be accepted as evidence, then we may be going to submit all this to IRG, there are even pronounciations and definations:
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV198411s7Ft/
Moreover, I don't think IRG have to write every this kind of unstable thing, for example, captions, lyrics, articles, instructions, notes... in PnP, which is unnecessary and endless.
Unclear evidence response
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The two characters in comment #629 are nonce characters and as such not suitable for encoding based on such evidence. The character UK-30621 is not a nonce character and so the evidences are suitable for submissions. In the same way that the existent of some nonce characters in printed materials does not prove that all printed evidences are unreliable, the existent of some nonce characters in non-printed materials does not prove that all non-printed evidences are unreliable.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
I think nonce or not should be proved by undoubted evidences. I'd like to help the submitter to find evidences meet IRG requirements but the current evidence can not prove that ⿰久闹 is differernt from ⿱因八 or ⿱中分 in "nonce or not".
It should be noted that our center proposed a document "Application for encoding some ideographs used in Chinese geographical names(IRGN2649)" to IRG before, which was pointed out by an expert that it is not suitable as the only evidence for encoding. Our center is a formal institution established by Sichuan International Studies University, which is belonging to The People's Government of Chongqing Municipality(重庆市人民政府). It will be very offensive and so unacceptable if videos on the internet are considered more trustable or suitable for encoding than an application with our seal on it.
Unclear evidence response
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
I will post next week evidence that ⿰久闹 is not a nonce character, however it should be noted that even without more those familiar with both Chinese and Zhuang can see a difference. Requesting evidence to show that this character is not a nonce character is not a problem.
New evidence
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
From 《基于 W indowsIME 古壮文输入法编辑器的设计与实现》published June 2013 《现代计算机》
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The new evidence still shows no running text but only a screenshot of a computer font.
Unclear evidence response
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
What the new evidence shows is that the character is not a nonce character. The first evidence is from 2022 and the second from 2013. The question is not what does each evidence show on their own but rather what they show together.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Screenshots of computer fonts and vedios from the internet are absolutely not qualified evidence for IRG. If no other evidence can be provided, then this ideograph should be postponed.
Unclear evidence response
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The latest IRG PnP (version 17) explicitly allows for multimedia evidences and submissions to this working set include among other things internet evidences from Instagram, Twitter and Bilibili. It is inconsistent to object to evidences from Bilibili just because they are from Bilibili, but not to object to evidences from Instagram just because they are from Instagram, nor object to to evidences from Twitter just because they are from Twitter.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
IRG PnP Version 17, page 11-12
Currently, IRG mainly accepts evidence from printed material if they are accepted as IRG sources.
In general, IRG DOES NOT accept multimedia material as IRG sources.
Note: the acceptance of the multimedia material, the popularity of the material, cultural influences, and other factors that warrants its acceptance.
We can't find a sentence in IRG PnP states that being posted on Instagram, Twitter or Bilibili once by any uploader will warrant the evidence's acceptance.
Furthermore, the screenshots of computer fonts prove nothing but the font producer has made the font. This cannot prove the shape is actually used in texts or even exists. As far as we know, the uploader of the vedio use ⿰久闹 just because he saw the font in a friend's computer without knowing the pronounciation or meaning.
I'd like to point out that using these as evidences is against UK's general requirements for the quality of evidences. I really don't think other experts will accept these two images as qualified evidences even if I were persuaded. So please find qualified evidences for the ideograph or postpone it.
Unclear evidence response
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
You have made a mistake reading and quoting PnP v17 that changes the meaning. You have combined the start of footnote 13 at the end of page 11 with the second part of section 2.2.5b(7) at the start of page 12. Being a footnote the second part of footnote 13 is to be found at the bottom of page 12 not the top. Footnote 13 reads, "Currently, IRG mainly accepts evidence from printed material if they are accepted as IRG sources. In general, IRG does not accept multimedia material as IRG sources. Note: the acceptance of evidence from captions and subtitles may warrant the acceptance of some multimedial materials as IRG source in the future."
Footnote 13 when read correctly clearly says that the IRG may accept some multimedia sources, hence whether Bilibili evidence from the UK or Instagram and Twitter evidence from the UTC these conform to current PnP and may be accepted by the IRG. It is therefore incorrect to say that video evidence is not acceptable to the IRG.
A key to understanding evidence is to look at it carefully. In evidence 1 the information is in an interlinear format, the line below each character gives the pronunciation and the line below that gives the meaning in Chinese. Also it is colour code so the lyrics are in red and the pronunciation and meaning in black. Therefore it is clear that the uploader understands the meaning and pronunciation.
It should of course go almost without mention that the evidence conforms to the requirements of the UK.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Thank John for pointing that out and I am sorry that I made the mistake. But I still can't find a sentence in IRG PnP states that being posted on Instagram, Twitter or Bilibili once by any uploader will warrant the evidence's acceptance of IRG.
Comment #2304 says:"Also it is colour code so the lyrics are in red and the pronunciation and meaning in black. Therefore it is clear that the uploader understands the meaning and pronunciation."
I think it is obviously wrong. Logically, I can use 鹿 with pronunciation mǎ and meaning 马 in my vedio. It will be very ridiculous to say that 鹿 pronounciates mǎ and means 马 just based on my vedio. The paired pronunciation and meaning in the vedio proves nothing but only the uploader used ⿰久闹 with that pronunciation and meaning in the vedio. This fact warrants nothing.
I'd like to say that I am kind of sure that the uploader didn't know the pronunciation or meaning before using it. So please find qualified evidences for the ideograph or postpone it as experts will suggest in IRG meeings.
Comment #2304 also says:"It should of course go almost without mention that the evidence conforms to the requirements of the UK."
Comparing the evidences for this ideograph with the evidences for most of other ideographs, we still think that the evidences for this ideograph is against UK's general requirements for the quality of evidences. It would be very worrying if the quality of them were the same.
Unclear evidence response
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
IRG PnP clearly states that they may accept some multimedia sources there is no need for the PnP to mention specific names. such as Instagram, Twitter or Bilibili nor would it be productive to do so. It is in many respects the content not the format that determines the significance of certain evidences.
When a person says what they think is the pronunciation and meaning of a character it gives information about much the person understands about a character. If a video had 鹿 is pronounced mǎ and means 马 it would not be suitable to use as evidence because either the producer of the video does not understand the character 鹿, or had mistyped the wrong character by mistake or was making a joke. By comparison saying the character ⿰久闹 has the pronunciation naus aka nauq and means 永远 shows the writer understands the character in the same way that saying 妈 has the pronunciation ma1 aka mā and means mother would show the writer understands the character 妈.
Evidence 1 has many strengths:
- it is a primary source of evidence
- it shows the character is used in running text
- it shows clearly the shape of the character
- it accurately gives the pronunciation and meaning of the character
The second evidence:
- confirms the shape of the character
- shows the pre existence of the character
- shows that multiple fonts contain the character (the font used for the video is not that shown in the computing article)
Furthermore since the up-loader of the video in 2022 was around 20 together they show the character is stable, that the character has already passed on to the newest generation, which is significant.
It should be noted that many more multimedia items where considered and that only those of good quality were used.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
In comment #2798, it says "Furthermore since the up-loader of the video in 2022 was around 20 together". I think the submitter should provide the screenshot of them all to prove that this is true but not provide comments in texts only. Still, it is so clear that the quality of internet video uploaded by random uploaders is too weak for encoding.
Comment #2798 says:
Evidence 1 has many strengths:
- it is a primary source of evidence
- it shows the character is used in running text
- it shows clearly the shape of the character
- it accurately gives the pronunciation and meaning of the character
The second evidence:
- confirms the shape of the character
- shows the pre existence of the character
- shows that multiple fonts contain the character (the font used for the video is not that shown in the computing article)
However, even evidence 1 itself is suspicious, how can we assure the information in it is correct?
The second evidence is also too weak for encoding. In the process of making fonts for ideographs used in books, many errors can be found. Since both of the evidences are not qualified for encoding, these two evidences cannot be used to prove anything else.
Unclear evidence response
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
As requested screenshots to confirm the video was posted in 2022 and at that time the poster was around 20.
Screenshot 1 showing the date of posting of the video as 19th February 2022
Screenshot 2 of video posted by the same person on their 21st birthday on 2nd June 2022 (face deleted) 【壮语】情感语录—致我第21个破蛋纪念日 https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV13Y4y1576E/?spm_id_from=333.999.0.0
The 41 second video with sound track in Zhuang and including Chinese subtitles for those who don't know Zhuang includes a number of photos of the poster as they grow up including photos from their 16th and 21st birthdays.
Here the question is what to do about ⿰久闹 and ws2024.
One way to confirm the ⿰久闹 character is by noting the sound comes from 闹 and the meaning from 久. These are obvious to anyone who knows the language.
The sum of the parts can be greater than the whole, the question is not what the evidences show separately but what they show together.
Unclear evidence response
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
When you say, "evidence 1 itself is suspicious" I think you may well be in a minority of one, and that the vast majority of people would say the video is genuine.
Evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Sorry about the request. I thought that there are 20 people who use ⿰久闹. If 20 is the video that the uploader uploaded, then it cannot prove ⿰久闹 is valid to any extend.
Anyway, it will be too ridiculous for me to believe that vast majority of IRG experts will support encoding ⿰久闹 in the current situation.
Although I am not angry about the personal attack in Comment #2880 at all, but I still hope that there won't be any more.
Unclear evidence response
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
20 was the age in years of the person when they posted the video used for evidence 1.
To say that the video is genuine is to say that the video is what it purports to be.
Comment #2880 was not intended as a personal attack. I will endeavour to avoid making comments that could be viewed as a personal attack.
Unclear evidence response
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Clarifications:
In comment #2304 'the evidence' in the sentence "It should of course go almost without mention that the evidence conforms to the requirements of the UK" refers to Evidence 1 from 2022 bilibili video 【壮语歌曲】《如礼金万》uploaded submitted by the UK.
The second evidence was provided by an individual expert, a page from a 2013 article of the computing journal《现代计算机》about a Zhuang character IME. That the page contains a screenshot from the PUA part of a font should not be taken to imply that the individual expert thinks that characters only found in such fonts should be encoded.
New evidence
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
From the Zhuang part of a multilingual version of "Only My Railgun"
1:25 minutes
1:31 minutes
(whilst the video https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1ut421a7Eb/ has 60k views it is strictly for fans of the anime television series 'A Certain Scientific Railgun')
New evidence
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
壮语歌曲《承诺》[Zhuang song "A Promise"] uploaded 2024-11-17 to https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1vZU6YKEjR/
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Same kind of evidence like before. The uploader is also the same as the existing evidence. More convincing evidence needed.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The UK still has not been able to provide evidence from historical document or other high-quality sources for this character. On the contrary, the UK has been providing evidence of the use of this character by one or two users on unstable carriers, and such evidence is not sufficient to support the encoding of this character. We have made it very clear that the evidence of this type provided by the UK is not sufficient to support the encoding of this character. However, the experts from the UK seem unable to understand what we mean and they are still insisting on providing evidence of the same type with insufficient quality, and also insisting on saying things that are obviously inconsistent with the facts. This kind of behavior is of no benefit to the review work and cannot make these characters be removed to the M-set.
At the last meeting, we have already suggested that if the experts from the UK believe that this character is not a newly self-created character and has the value for encoding, they can simply publish a paper that includes this character and vouch for these characters with their own reputation. Let me be more straightforward. It should not be a difficult task for the experts from the UK to publish a paper. If the experts from the UK are not willing to risk their own reputation, they should not insist on using evidence that obviously does not meet the requirements to request the encoding of this character in the IRG.
The evidence provided for UK-30621, ⿰久闹, conforms to the requirements of the current PnP which permits a wider range of evidences than the PnP for earlier working sets, this was done specifically to allow consideration of a small number of characters not having more 'conventional' evidences, it is therefore not sufficient to argue that a character should be kept out of M-set simply because it does not have the type of evidences used in earlier working sets. According to current PnP 'the popularity of the material, cultural influences, and other factors' may warrant the acceptance of multimedia material as sufficient evidence for encoding. That the evidence for a character is that it is used by ordinary people for ordinary things is sufficient.
It should be noted that there are differences in the number and types of evidence for the 3 characters and therefore they should be considered on a case by case basis.
The evidence for UK-30621 comes from multiple sources and from multiple authors. The evidence in #8709 comes from the same author as evidence 1 demonstrating that use in the earlier evidence was not made by mistake or out of ignorance. The other 2 evidences come from other people. All the evidences given are verifiable .
The character is culturally significant in that it is the only known character used exclusively for nauq [forever].
The evidence for ⿰久闹 is clear there is no doubt about the glyph shape, the character clearly preserves an ancient Zhuang word, nauq [forever], already lost in some places where it has been replaced by a loanword. The evidences show there is a need for us to encode the character.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
China thinks the evidence is still not sufficient and the character should be kept in D-set until better evidednce is provided.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
There are still a few issues that need to be discussed:
1.According to PnP regulations, when a character is submitted for encoding, it must first comply with the authority of evidence: "Original Source: The source of evidence must be considered authoritative by IRG, as validated by past literature and IRG experts. IRG has the right to reject characters from questionable sources”.
2. Obviously, so far, IRG has always believed that literature evidence is the most authoritative source of character encoding. If there is no original literature, important geographical indications, identity documents, etc. should be considered authoritative evidences.
3.Although the submitted evidence includes photos/images/pictures, the authority clearly varies greatly. The photos taken for historical buildings, whose plaque names have been place names for hundreds of years, inevitably have the authority of place name characters. However, screenshots of online videos cannot verify the historical heritage of their text, nor can they prove the actual source of their text, and do not have convincing authority.
4. The subtitles in the video can be added arbitrarily, and the glyph can be designed by the creator. How can we prove that the glyph is not a personal or small-scale design?
5. PnP claims that "the font used for encoding submissions should provide multiple sources of evidence as much as possible." Of course, multimedia evidence will not be rejected, but it cannot be considered that the authority of the evidence can be abandoned, and multimedia evidence that has not been widely disseminated and recognized should not be considered as evidence that meets the authoritative requirements.
6.This character has already coded in 《古壮字的字符码位表》in 2013, that means the documentary evidences do exist. It's better to submit some pictures of books to prove the actual usage in paper document.
Evidence
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Thank you Tao Yang for your questions in comment #9321 here let me reply to points raised
Reply to 1.:
According to PnP 'original source' is one type of evidence that the IRG can accept but not the only type. There are 5 types of evidence that can be accepted: original source, multuple source, semantics, context and usage. The PnP says:-
'a character submission must be accompanied by evidence to satisfy at least one of the following
conditions:
a) Original Source ( 證 據 源 限 制 ): The source of evidence must be considered authoritative by IRG, as validated by past literature and IRG experts. IRG has the right to reject characters from questionable sources.
b) 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.
c) Semantics (字理考證): Supply sufficient evidence on the meaning and phonetics. Supply of other information on its origin and evolution would be very helpful.
d) Context (上下文信息): Sufficient context in text to decipher the semantic meaning of the character. IRG has the right to reject characters that do not have sufficient evidence for IRG to decipher its semantics.
e) Usage (需求限制): The use of characters must be for justifiable public interest. Examples of public use include evidence of: governmental needs; scientific use; digitization projects for public use; and working systems of significance as accepted by IRG. IRG has the right to reject characters that do not have sufficient evidence for IRG of justifiable public interest.'
The evidences given are of the multiple source, semantics, context and usage type. Original source evidence is evidence for a character from a recognised authoritive source, a single source that is so important that we can say the character should be encoded because it is in that source. The evidence for this character is not of the 'original source' (an important authoritive source) type. However it is of three or four of the other types, it is: (1) from multiple sources (2) semantics as it clearly states the pronunciation and meaning (3) context sufficient for a native speaker of the language (4) usage - it is and can be used.
Reply to 2.
One change in the current PnP to previous versions is the permitting of a small number of characters with multimedia evidence. Literature is and will always be the main source of eidence for IRG but it does not need to be the only one. Multimedia evidence is new for the IRG and so there is need to talk about different different questions and build consensus.
Reply to 3
All the evidences given are verifiabled. Whilst there are many unreliable videos but this does not mean all videos are unreliable.
Reply to 4
Analysis of the sources used revealed that the characters used were neither arbitory nor designed by the creator. Also checked was that the character concerned was used by diffferent generations and dialects, and therefore can say is not small scale.
Reply to 5
This I think goes back to point one - the evidences are considered representative, or indicative. It is not suggested that the character is important because it is found in these evidences, but rather that because the character is impotant it is found hear.
Reply to 6
This character was even in the earlier 2006 version of the table.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Thank you John, very appreciate to your analysis.
We made overly complicated statements, but in reality, the problem is only about one dangerous point:
Submitting only video clip evidence will invalidate IRG's review and PnP.
If certain characters cannot be accepted by IRG, the submitter can create several videos and upload them online as new evidence to IRG, which is equivalent to using a very basic method to bypass our complex review mechanism.
I believe these characters must exist in the literature, but we cannot ignore the possibility of bypassing the review process. This is a very noteworthy issue.
Because it is too easy to use self-made combination characters in videos, it is difficult to prove their existence in literature or their widespread use in daily life through a few videos. There are indeed actual cases of use in the video, but we cannot prove that these characters propagated through the video have become characters that everyone can accept and encode.
The previous multimedia evidence submitted by Eiso Chan, came from authoritative institutions such as Shanghai Animation Studio and Xi'an Film Studio, which have been reviewed by the National Film Administration, so we can use it as evidence. However, such subtitles were produced and uploaded by individuals, and the authority of the multimedia evidence we received last time cannot be compared.
I think that IRG experts had agreed that captions couldn't be the only source of the evidences for submitted ideographs in IRG meeting #62. So unless other evidences can be provided, the ideograph should be postponed.
The decision about using captions as evidences was clearly stated in the meeting so this kind of situation should not have happened.
Unclear evidence
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
We think that this ideograph should be postponed if no more qualified evidence can be provided. For more comments, please go to:
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/?find=UK-30621
Unclear evidence response
John Knightley
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The latest IRG PnP (version 17) explicitly allows for multimedia evidences and submissions to this working set include among other things internet evidences from Instagram, Twitter and Bilibili. It is inconsistent to object to evidences from Bilibili just because they are from Bilibili, but not to object to evidences from Instagram just because they are from Instagram, nor object to to evidences from Twitter just because they are from Twitter.
The UK still has not been able to provide evidence from historical document or other high-quality sources for this character. On the contrary, the UK has been providing evidence of the use of this character by one or two users on unstable carriers, and such evidence is not sufficient to support the encoding of this character. We have made it very clear that the evidence of this type provided by the UK is not sufficient to support the encoding of this character. However, the experts from the UK seem unable to understand what we mean and they are still insisting on providing evidence of the same type with insufficient quality, and also insisting on saying things that are obviously inconsistent with the facts. This kind of behavior is of no benefit to the review work and cannot make these characters be removed to the M-set.
At the last meeting, we have already suggested that if the experts from the UK believe that this character is not a newly self-created character and has the value for encoding, they can simply publish a paper that includes this character and vouch for these characters with their own reputation. Let me be more straightforward. It should not be a difficult task for the experts from the UK to publish a paper. If the experts from the UK are not willing to risk their own reputation, they should not insist on using evidence that obviously does not meet the requirements to request the encoding of this character in the IRG.
According to the original evidence 《［雍正］山東通志》, 朱慶⿰金⿱幺夊 is elected as 崇禎丙子科（1636）舉人 and he is a descendent of 魯荒王朱檀.
According to 《皇明祖訓》：「凡東宮、親王位下、各擬名二十字。日後生子及孫，即以上聞，付宗人府。所立雙名，每一世取一字以為上字；其下一字，臨時隨意選擇，以為雙名，編入玉牒……魯王位下：肇泰陽當健、觀頤壽以弘」, given that his last name is of the 金 radical and he was active in 17th century, his generation name should have been 壽, and therefore his full name should have been 朱壽⿰金⿱幺夊, instead of 朱慶⿰金⿱幺夊.
An IRG expert YUAN Zhiyu has generously provided me a copy of an half folio from a 雍正 era copy of《崇禎丙子科山東鄉試齒錄》, one of the Peking University rare books collection, which indeed gives his name as 朱壽⿰金⿱幺犮 (犮 + VS19).
▲ 《崇禎丙子科山東鄉試錄》（影抄北京大學藏雍正抄本）
Because this evidence predates 《［雍正］山東通志》 and sourced from a Ming dynasty document 《崇禎丙子科山東鄉試錄》, it should be more authoritative than the original evidence. It also makes much more sense than ⿰金⿱幺夊 because both ⿰金⿱幺友 and ⿰金⿱幺犮 are also attested in contemporary dictionaries:
Here is a list of ⿰金⿱幺友 in a loose chronological order.
Given that the ⿰金⿱幺友 evidences predates the ⿰金⿱幺犮 + VS19 ones, and there is only one stroke difference between ⿰金⿱幺夊 and ⿰金⿱幺友, I suggest we encode the ⿰金⿱幺友 shape with both ⿰金⿱幺夊 and ⿰金⿱幺犮 + VS19 being unifiable variant of ⿰金⿱幺友.
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Having only one isolated evidence is not easy to refute the irrationality of the former two pieces of evidence.
And here is 𨪵 from 《漢語大字典》p. 4567, which also quotes 《清史稿》:
𨪵：人名用字。《清史稿•世祖紀一》：「乙未，朱聿釗弟聿鐭僭號紹武，據廣州，佟養甲、李成棟率師討之，斬（朱）聿鐭及……鉅野王壽𨪵。」, apparently 朱壽𨪵 in the evidences above and 朱壽⿰金朐 in 《南明史》are the same person.
Since 《南明史》, published by 中華書局 in 2006, is compiled from 錢海岳's manuscript, and 目 is easily confusable with 月 in handwritten text. I think 錢海岳 was meant for U+28AB5 𨪵 but the editors recognized the handwritten shape as ⿰金朐. Therefore, I suspect this is an one-off error and suggest pending more evidences.
Would you please provide a more detailed name for the literature used as evidence?
Evidence
TAO Yang
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
There is only one evidence that we can't confirm the glyph style.
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This is the fifth ideograph in document L2/21-101, and the following appears on page 6:
5) The character “c” with the IDS ⿱雨𪫕.
It occurs in 3.429:
嶺霏ｃmine ni tanabiku ‘floats among the peaks’
As 霏霺 is a well-attested word, and, in fact, such manuscripts as [矢] Ōya-bon 大矢本 (complete, late Muromachi) and [京] Kyoto University 京大本 (complete, early Edo) versions contain 霏霺, it is clear that ⿱雨𪫕 is a version of 霺. However, it is non-unifiable.
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
I have also requested that the author of document L2/21-101 provide additional evidence.
New evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Evidence from a printed version of the same Manyōshū poem in an edition edited by Tsuru Hisashi and Moriyama Takashi showing emendation of UTC-03243 found in the Nishi Honganji manuscript to 霺 based on Ōya and Kyoto University manuscripts.
This shows ⿸尸𬋕 which should be a unifiable form of ⿸尸醮 given in the modern editions.
New evidence
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The UTC added both forms, ⿸尸醮 and ⿸尸𬋕, to UAX #45 as UTC-03337 and UTC-03338, respectively, but submitted only the former for IRG Working Set 2024 due to the fact that the latter is unifiable with the former. See document L2/23-110.
UTC-03359 may be a misidentification of the cursive form of U+62DC 拜 shown in #5557. Yes, the the shapes are too different for unification, but the shapes are only too different because someone misidentified the cursive form of 拜 and invented a new character. Therefore suggest to postpone for additional evidence.
In the new evidence, there are ⿳艹冖⿺元⿱⺊又 in Mincho and ⿱艹冦 in Gothic, which are apparently variants of each other as they refer to the same place name. I believe the shape ⿱艹冦 is more convenient for the practise use. I suggest to encode the normalized form ⿱艹冦 instead and update the IDS and glyph.
Please provide more evidences to prove the rationality of the glyph. We have emphasized the importance of multiple pieces of evidence in encoding work for multiple times.
I completely understand not accepting script-hybrid Han ideographs that include Latin or Hiragana components at this time, but there are already CJK Unified Ideographs that include Katakana components, and even one whose components are all Katakana. In such cases, and as in the proposed ideograph, the Katakana components are manifested as Han components. Katakana are derived from Han components.
Script-hybrid Katakana + Han:
U+2B9A4: Reading = カイチ (ka + ichi); Components = カ (K) + 一 (Han); See MJ057059
U+2B9AB: Reading = カタナ (ka + ta + na); Components = カ (K) + 田 (Han) + ナ (K); See MJ057066
I completely understand not accepting script-hybrid Han ideographs that include Latin or Hiragana components at this time, but there are already CJK Unified Ideographs that include Katakana components, and even one whose components are all Katakana. In such cases, and as in the proposed ideograph, the Katakana components are manifested as Han components. Katakana are derived from Han components.
Script-hybrid Katakana + Han:
U+2B9A4: Reading = カイチ (ka + ichi); Components = カ (K) + 一 (Han); See MJ057059
U+2B9AB: Reading = カタナ (ka + ta + na); Components = カ (K) + 田 (Han) + ナ (K); See MJ057066
I completely understand not accepting script-hybrid Han ideographs that include Latin or Hiragana components at this time, but there are already CJK Unified Ideographs that include Katakana components, and even one whose components are all Katakana. In such cases, and as in the proposed ideograph, the Katakana components are manifested as Han components. Katakana are derived from Han components.
Script-hybrid Katakana + Han:
U+2B9A4: Reading = カイチ (ka + ichi); Components = カ (K) + 一 (Han); See MJ057059
U+2B9AB: Reading = カタナ (ka + ta + na); Components = カ (K) + 田 (Han) + ナ (K); See MJ057066
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is not clear whether the one on the left is the first evidence or second evidence, but it is clear that the one on the right is the third evidence. Therefore, an evidence image appears to be missing.
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the third evidence and the one on the right is the second evidence. The first evidence image therefore seems to be missing.
Evidence 2 image is incorrect (duplicate of Evidence 1)
Evidence
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the first evidence and the one on the right is the second evidence.
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the first evidence and the one on the right is the second evidence.
Is there any other evidence to prove the glyph shape? The right part might be 挂 according to the pronunciation.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
"Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt" is currently the only evidence we have. But based on the analysis given in that dictionary, "Hv tâm quải", which means that it's composed of the Hán Việt characters 忄 and 挂, the glyph should be ⿰忄 挂.
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the second evidence and the one on the right is the first evidence.
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the first evidence and the one on the right is the second evidence.
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the first evidence and the one on the right is the second evidence.
If the glyph is changed to ⿰龵阝, then it is what 干祿字書 regards as a vulgar variant of 邦(We can see from the two evidences that its usage in Vietnam is dervied from 邦):
干祿字書 明夷門廣牘本
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the first evidence and the one on the right is the second evidence.
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the first evidence and the one on the right is the second evidence.
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the second evidence and the one on the right is the first evidence.
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the first evidence and the one on the right is the second evidence.
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the first evidence and the one on the right is the second evidence.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Agree with #7850. Will submit separate images in future.
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the second evidence and the one on the right is the first evidence.
Please provide more evidence to confirm whether the lower right component needs normalizition.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
This is currently the only example we have of this character. The component ⿻沈丶 is thought to derive from a simplified form of 㴷 (đắm: shipwrecked, see TĐCNTD p. 341), where 耽 has been reduced to the form V+60779 shown below:
The more common form is V+607C5 in the above, also shown here from the same source as VN-F2002:
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the first evidence and the one on the right is the second evidence.
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the second evidence and the one on the right is the first evidence.
Is there any other evidences for it？ The phonetic component ⿺夂阝 doesn't make sense while it pronounces like mao.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
I agree that the phonetic doesn't make sense. We would expect 卯 (mão), making this equivalent to U+24D60. TĐCNT is currently the only source we have, but will try to find more.
The evidence image does not include its reading and meaning.
Evidence
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The reading is shown in the transliteration that on the page that follows (in green). The note explains that the original text is in Vietnamese, so no translation is given. "phượng" is the legendary bird typically translated as "phoenix". It is more commonly written: 鳯.
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the second evidence and the one on the right is the first evidence.
When two separate evidence images are combined into a single image, it would be better to supply them as separate evidence images. In this case it is clear that the one on the left is the first evidence and the one on the right is the second evidence.
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).
The evidence shows the Zhuang reading is gyəmƽ (aka gyaemq) and the meaning is 紫色 (purple).
▲ 《壮汉英词典》, p. 569
The component 门 is often used to the meanings of colours, that means the semantic element is 门 (related to colour) and the phonetic element is 金 (currently 老借 is gim, but I trust gyaem is more ancient form). Therefore, there is no need to change anything.
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.
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 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
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
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
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 four horizontal strokes of the 雨 component do not adhere to ROK regional standards.
Normalization
ROK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
KR will change the glyph as suggested.
Glyph design
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
There is no K-Source under 戬, but K1-6B79 is under 戩.
Normalization
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Normalize to ⿰木戩 per #5468?
Glyph design
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
KR will change glyph as U+6229(戩).
Glyph design
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
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
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
Suggest to remove the redundant hook from 糸 according to K-source convention.
Glyph design
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
I am confused whether the component between 彳 and 亍 is 氵 or 冫.
Glyph design
ROK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
KR will change the glyph as suggested.
Glyph design
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
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 four horizontal strokes of the 雨 component do not adhere to ROK regional standards.
Normalization
ROK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
KR will change the glyph as suggested.
Glyph design
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
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 four horizontal strokes of the 雨 component do not adhere to ROK regional standards.
Normalization
ROK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
KR will change the glyph as suggested.
Glyph design
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
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
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
See #6054
Glyph design
ROK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
KR will change the glyph as suggested.
Glyph design
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
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 four horizontal strokes of the 雨 component do not adhere to ROK regional standards.
Normalization
ROK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
KR will change the glyph as suggested.
Glyph design
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The representative glyph was not updated per #1613 and #5429
Glyph design
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
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 four horizontal strokes of the 雨 component do not adhere to ROK regional standards.
Normalization
ROK
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
KR will change the glyph as suggested.
Glyph design
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
When KR replies as "KR will change the glyph as ..." to the comment of the glyph change request on the ORT, it means as follows:
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
Based on the evidence shown in #5660 (all showing an extra stroke, and 3rd evidence showing two extra strokes), I think that the rhs should be U+2E5C6 𮗆 (variant of 覃). Cf. rhs of U+2DB1E 𭬞 (⿰木⿱覀卑). Therefore I suggest to change glyph and IDS to ⿰車⿱覀卑.
None of the evidence images appear to include the ninth stroke. I am not sure how to interpret the note: Normalized from ⿰日㇯𣋓丿
Glyph design
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
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.
According to the hand-written and earlier typical versions, there are 2 kind of glyph design for the lower part, ⿷尤彡 and ⿷尢彡, which one should be the accurate glyph？
Otherwise, the last stroke of 彡 doesn't cross over 乚 in the earlier versions.
Glyph design
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
I consider Evidence 3 to be the most authoritative source as it uses the type prepared by the Commercial Press for the lost 1932 edition of the book (destroyed when the Commercial Press building was bombed during the Japanese bombardment of Shanghai in 1932). This evidence shows a dot at the top right as expected for the character 尨. The last stroke of 彡 does not cross over 乚 in the early evidence, but we have normalized the glyph to follow the form of 尨 used in PRC.
Proposed glyph matches with the Evidence 1, but the digital font in the Evidence 2 looks much different. Is there any discussion which glyph is better? I guess UK is not going to encode them separately.
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 think that the highlighted horizontal stroke should be removed.
Glyph design
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
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.
The evidence shows the left component as 永, but the representative glyph and IDS do not match it.
Glyph design
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence is contradictory. The glyph has 永, but the structural analysis shows "băng giá", which in chữ Hán is 氷這. The character means "frost", so it has been corrected to use "ice" instead of "eternal".
are both ㇏ in the evidence, so suggest to keep the consistency.
Glyph design
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
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.
The pronunciation match the original and the added evidences but the glyph doesn't.
Glyph design
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Unfortunately a large number of the characters with element 戎 (U+620E, nhung) are designed this was in the reference font. This includes 戎 itself. We'll have to consider how to migrate these.
The right component of the character looks like 邦 instead of ⿰龵阝 in the evidence. Should the glyph and the IDS be modified to ⿰𧾷邦 to match the evidence?
The lower horizontal stroke of the proposed glyph might have strange kink at the middle, I'm afraid that printing it at the small font size might cause misunderstanding of the glyph.
There is a discrepancy between the evidence and the representative glyph. The former uses 東 as a component, but the latter uses 柬 as a component.
Glyph design
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
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
About the comment #8629. I assume that the suggestion is to change the 亅 in the top 可 to 丨. That's a reasonable suggestion, but there are at least 6 other V-source characters already encoded (𣘁 U+24819, etc.) that use the current design. Since that's a majority, the lesser impact solution would be to normalize the remaining characters 哥 U+54E5, 歌 U+6B4C, U+2BC04, and VN-F176E (in WS2021) to use 亅.
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
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.
The source reference for this ideograph, GDM-00377, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B80B 𫠋 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The evidence for this character and WS2021-03520 don’t show the usage for the geographic names, but the G-Source for this character is GDM. Could we need to know how to use this one for the geographic names?
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00434, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B74B 𫝋 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00435, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B767 𫝧 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00436, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B768 𫝨 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00437, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B76A 𫝪 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00438, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B785 𫞅 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00439, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B7A2 𫞢 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00440, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B7A7 𫞧 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00441, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B7B7 𫞷 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00442, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B7D1 𫟑 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00443, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B7E0 𫟠 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00444, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B7E2 𫟢 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00445, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B7E5 𫟥 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00446, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B7EB 𫟫 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00447, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B7EC 𫟬 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00449, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B7F5 𫟵 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00450, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B7F6 𫟶 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00451, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B7F8 𫟸 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00452, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B801 𫠁 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00453, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B802 𫠂 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
The source reference for this ideograph, GXM-00454, conflicts with the new source reference for U+2B805 𫠅 in Unicode Version 16.0 per document IRG N2679.
Is the traditional character for this character is ⿰火積？
Other
Andrew WEST
UK
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Yes, papers published in Taiwan use 火積:
It would be so useful if we could fast track encoding of traditional forms of proposed simplified Chinese characters. Perhaps TCA could propose ⿰火積 as an UNC?
If we decide to unify this one to U+29E61 𩹡, and update the G glyph. I suggest using GCCPP-00034 for U+29E61.
Comment
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
《汉语大字典》 is a very famous dictionary and many schoolars have been studying it. As a head character of 《汉语大字典》, even it is an error, it can be used in many publications.
Personally, I suggest to seperately encode ⿰魚昴 and ⿰魚昂. The case of ⿰鱼昴 and ⿰鱼昂 is more complex. Personally, I think it is better to encode them seperately. But I think it may also be a choice if the glyph of 𬶘(U+2CD98) will be changed to the original correct one and we won't submit ⿰鱼昴 to IRG in the future.
Evidence for 𩹡(U+29E61) and 𬶘(U+2CD98):
𩹡(U+29E61)
王宏源：康熙字典（增订版），page2010
中华字海，page1711：
If we decide to unify this one to U+2CD98 𬶘, and update the G glyph. I suggest using GCCPP-00035 for U+2CD98. The submitted evidence of GJZ-00265 shows it is a typo.
The other unencoded draft simplified characters listed in "Long Story of Short Forms" p. 30 shown in Comment #10575 are: ⿱𰆖心, ⿰虫入 (this is the 2nd stage part 2 simplified form of U+8815 蠕, not 蝶 as given here), and ⿱占一. These can be considered for the next working set.
We need to discuss attributes for the abbreviated component 𫇦 U+2B1E6. For most characters that use this, the radical is 140 with TC = 6 strokes. It would be good to follow that convention, with rad. 151 as secondary. Following that scheme, even with RS=151 as primary, SC=6, TC = 13, and FS = 2.
Other
Ken LUNDE
Convenor
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Strongly agree with Comment #1509. This appears to be the only instance of this component in this working set. Radical #151 still serves as the best primary radical, but Radical #140 should be its secondary radical. The previous working set also had a single instance of this component, #03392, which specifies 140 as its radical, though in the current draft of the Extension J block, U+332B0, it serves as the secondary radical. For all previous blocks, I queued up feedback for making similar adjustments that will be targeted for Unicode Version 17.0 (2025), which was submitted today. This particular feedback prompted me to submit the feedback for previous blocks. In other words, Radical #140 will be set as either the primary or secondary radical when this component appears in an ideograph..
If 金 is phonetic then one possible explanation is that 'gyaem' comes from the Cantonese pronunciation of 金 which would be highly unusual in the Wuming are and perhaps explains the comment that the character is seldom seen. A borrowed pronunciation coming from Cantonese would not make it older but rather of different origin.
Comment
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
To John's comment #10593:
Yes, very likely.
I have scanned the book again recently and the quality is better. Thank you for bringing the issue out.
After the CJK component block being encoded, what if someone find an encoded “component” is “the real Hanzi”? We need a solution on that before encoding the components.
The same as Z2-3 mentioned in IRG N2733R, but it is the real Hanzi. It is better to remove it from the CJK component.
Comment
Eiso CHAN
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Comment
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
After the CJK component block being encoded, what if someone find an encoded “component” is “the real Hanzi”? We need a solution on that before encoding the components.
I suggest keeping this character in the M-set, and updating U+24172 to use 目 instead of 日. Kangxi Dictionary quotes from 《集韵》 and 《玉篇》 for this character, but the glyphs in those books use 目 instead:
The error in Kangxi seems to stem from 《字彙》 and 《正字通》.
I remember that the 丬爿 disunification problem has been discussed once during the WS2017 age, where it was rejected with opposition by nearly all people except Chinese experts.
Given that 壮, 状... originated in 不可用作简化偏旁的简化字 in 《简化字总表》, newly assigning NUCV to those particular components seems a more modest way to me if we want them separated, rather than making UCV #363 disunified altogether.
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.
Note that the Japanese word しゃぐま = 赤熊 (in kanji spelling) ≠ Ursus arctos. It is the name of a type of crest, among which, the red colored variant, typically on the top of samurai helms. I don't think this fact either favor or disfavor cognateness.
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.
No government can make all window staff understand the source of Chinese characters and the corresponding relationships between various shapes like IRG experts. However, the window staff are one of the main groups who will use the characters after the characters are encoded.
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.
Thanks for that. I will check my books these days, too.
Comment
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
As far as we are concerned, actual evidences are more credible than expert's experiences. Expert's experiences are very helpful when qualified evidences are provided. But the experiences can also be harmful if they are over relied. Thus although we have many excellent experts here, qualified evidences are still needed for this character(UK-30621), ⿰大老(UK-30639) and ⿰丫要(UK-30620).
If there are other subbmitted ideographs whose evidences are only from online video, we think that they should be postponed too if no more qualified evidence can be provided.
Comment
Xieyang WANG
China
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
China, as a member body of WG2, disagreed to let the character go back to M-set because the current evidence is not sufficient. It is astonishing that this should be neglected so easily in the last day's meeting.
It is also astonishing that the three characters were added back to the M-set even if the evidence shows that the characters (especially the other two, ⿰丫要 and ⿰大老) are used only by one or two ordinary people in unstable internet vedios, and no one have seen the characters were used in historical document. Are these vedios have been considered authoritative evidence by IRG? Is this the way to ensure the quality of the standard is great? I really cannot understand it.
I just want to say that if the three characters (i.e. ⿰久闹, ⿰丫要 and ⿰大老) are added back to M-set based on the current evidence, our center will draft official documents to the Guangxi University(广西大学) to verify the origin of ⿰久闹 in the font and if its experts' comments were right. What's more, we will also draft official documents to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People's Republic of China(中华人民共和国工信部) stating the situation here.
ORT reports 3 for FS, but I believe that wrong since the traditional phonetic for 吞 is 天, the first stroke of which is 1. This does not appear to be structured with the variant 呑 (U+5451), whose first stroke is 3.
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 same as Z2-6 mentioned in IRG N2733R, but it is the real Hanzi/Kanji. It is better to remove it from the CJK component. It will be a helpful one for IDS. We can add it to UCV with 工 as the components but encode this one separately.
Postpone for further discussion, the issue about how to treat the hybrid characters has not reached a conclusion.
Other
Lee COLLINS
Vietnam
#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.
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.
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.
The evidence shows that VN-F048E has the Sino-Vietnamese reading "sừ". That is the same Sino-Vietnamese reading as 耡 (U+8021). The "Đại Tự Điển Chữ Nôm", p. 1233, shows that "sờ", the word written by VN-F048E, can be written using 耡 (U+8021).
It's possible that VN-F048E is simply an error for 耡 (U+8021). The only other evidence we currently have for this character is in the standard document "Kho Chữ Hán Nôm Mã Hoá":
IRG Working Set 2024v3.0
Unification
Showing 159 comments.
unify to 𡄙 (U+21119) based on UCV #411?
𡄙 (U+21119) is the variant of 嘖.
▲ 吴承恩, 葛饰北斋: 《浮世绘插图版中国古典名著 西游记 中》, 长春: 吉林出版集团有限责任公司, 2012.4, ISBN 978-7-5463-8099-5, p. 546
▲ 杨义: 《民国通俗小说大系 三编 第74册》 (《北京师范大学图书馆藏民国通俗小说专辑》), 北京: 北京燕山出版社, 2022.12, ISBN 978-7-5402-6721-6, p. 28 (《新儿女英雄传》)
They are cognates.
U+2B73C in Unicode, 17.0.0 Alpha
The code point has been stable.
艸 at the top instead of 艹 as a strict transliteration form is commonly found in many dictionaries as a more "canonical" shape, but they are nearly universally variants.
In IRG past decisions, if a more common form is desired, the glyph shape is simply modified in place instead of encoding the form at another code point. They are variants without a doubt. The argument that both forms are preferred in different contexts, so they should be separately coded, is not a valid reason for disunification. The IVD exists exactly for this use case.
Not unified to 𦬟 (U+26B1F).
In the meeting it was suggested by Andrew West to do an ad-hoc disunification for this character.
In that case, UCV #404 can be kept as a UCV.
I agree with his suggestion on the basis that we only do ad-hoc disunifications involving characters which are present in the Kangxi Dictionary, as there are only a limited amount of characters in the Kangxi Dictionary with 艸 at the top instead of 艹, and the majority of them already have encoded counterparts.
GZ-1901501 shows the dialectal Zhuang reading is gi, and the 新借 reading of 吉 is giz (maybe the 老借 is gaet).
For U+25B45 𥭅, 全字庫 shows the reading is jí, but maybe it is also the variant of U+7B76 筶. TCA should confirm this issue.
Unify to 𠽏 U+20F4F.
The provided evidence shows that the phonetic is 陷 (臽) without a doubt. The writing of 𠂊 as 爫 is fairly common and a number of other UCVs exist (e.g. 争 / 爭). Suggest to add a new UCV level 2 臽 and 舀.
The examples given in the URO are not all variants. For example, 諂 and 謟 are non-cognate.
unify to 芮 (U+82AE)?
The evidence Lee mentioned in Comment #10784 is shown below.
▲ Từ Điển Chữ Nôm Tày, p. 452
The Vietnamese meaning of this entry is “nhà” (家/茹) that means “home”, “house”.
U+5179 兹 🆚 U+8332 茲 (also UCV #153)
U+5914 夔 🆚 U+270F0 𧃰
U+5B73 孳 🆚 U+5B76 孶
U+5C70 屰 🆚 U+26B0F 𦬏 (possible)
U+20147 𠅇 🆚 U+8292 芒
U+20C25 𠰥 🆚 U+82E5 若
U+6148 慈 and U+2F8A6 慈
Should we consider unifying it to 𣤃, for they have the same abstract shape and have the same source in 冷齋夜話, or should we encode it separately since this form is stable in many evidences (also appeared in Evidence 4 of , the same line as ⿱欸乃)?
However, in the epitaphs of the Northern and Southern Dynasties, there are also instances where [⿴囗㕣] does not entirely equate to 囧.
For example,
in the phrase "端宿墜[⿴囗㕣]" of《元簡墓誌》(p2~p3) ,is recorded as 日 in 《彙編》 and 《補遺》 (Wei).
In the phrase 如彼皎[⿴囗㕣]，褰霧獨明 of 司馬悦墓誌(p4~p5), is recorded as 日 in 《新中國誌河南壹》 and 《南師2005-碩論》.
In the phrase 脩光墜景，[⿴囗㕣]月落暉 of 元廣墓誌(p6) , is likely to be 日.
In the phrase 遼西公[⿴囗㕣]之季女 of 元祐妃常季繁墓誌(p7~p8) , is recorded as 國 in 《法全》
P1
張涌泉 主編； 審訂：《敦煌經部文獻合集·小學類韻書之屬（一）》，中華書局，2008年8月，第1版，第2216頁
P2 元簡墓誌，中華石刻數據庫
P3《南北朝墓志集成》，上海人民出版社，202103，第58頁
P4《司馬悦墓誌》，中華石刻數據庫
P5,《南北朝墓志集成》，上海人民出版社，202103，第93頁
P6，《元廣墓誌》，中華石刻數據庫
P7，《元祐妃常季繁墓誌》，中華石刻數據庫
p8，《南北朝墓志集成》，上海人民出版社，202103，第208頁。
Unify to WS2021-01240:SAT-06176 ⿱丶平?
These two characters are non-cognates based on the evidences, but they are too similar. We need to consider how to handle them.
Unify to 助 (U+52A9)?
Same case as SAT-08616
Unify to 𡝩 (U+21769)?
unify to 厐 (U+5390)?
[Mr. Ma Shijie provided the comments, but what he wrote is not clear enough. Eiso rewrites after studying.]
The submitted character related to one word 醇～ on the evidence, which should be the variant form of the word 淳龐, that means the local people are honest and warm-hearted or the local customs are simple and homely. This is a stable word.
U+5390 厐 is the variant of 龐 or 龎. The only barrier is that we don’t have the UCV or any rule to support the unification.
Unify or normalize to 𪥎 (U+2A94E)?
They are both the variant of 奊, see here. If it is cited from the one-off evidence, it is better to use the encoded character directly.
KR will unify to 𪥎 (U+2A94E).
Per #5369 and #5434, unify with 𣕕 (U+23555)?
Used as a personal name.
1) Used personal name.
2) It is not necessary to unify Kaishu(楷書) with Guwen(古文).
Unify to 𦅣 (U+26163)
Agree with Kushim. Add new UCV 婬 ~ ⿰女⿱爫𠙻.
⿰女⿱爫𠙻 is also not yet coded.
It is found in 《玉篇》 and 《類篇》.
(from MOE Variants Dictionary)
See WS2021-01283
[WS2021-01283]
Unify to 㒓 (U+3493) and add new UCV of 達 and 𨔶.
See also 01960 which is a variant of 橽 (U+6A7D):
Per Kushim's comment, there are two variants which are disunified, but are in Extension B:
𣿔 ~ 澾
𩍠 ~ 韃
Unify to 甿 (U+753F) and add 亾兦 to UCV #143.
Unify to 淄 and add a new UCV of 甾 and ⿱巛⿶凵士.
Unify to 䅻 with new UCV of 离 and 𮂬 level 2.
Unified to 讟 (U+8B9F) in irg51.
See WS2017-04035
[ {{WS2017-04035}} ]
①Add new UCV for ⿱亠⿲[刀尸⿼㇇丶][了丫𬼸亻][𱍸氏⿺乀𰀪㇯𠂢𠂆⿱丿𡿨](RegEx).
U+20197 🆚 U+2018B
U+21141 🆚 U+21153
U+9F4A 🆚 U+2CE71 🆚 U+2EBBA
②Add new UCV for [⿵⿱]齊？(RegEx).
Different sources for U+9F4D
③Add new UCV for 齊 and ⿳亠⿲刀丫𱍸口.
The IVSes for this UCV pair (刀 vs 力) has been requested in IRG N2796.
There is no ⿰召刀 used in CAAPH data now. We will check this one later.
⿱乖一 probably comes by an improper analogy with 乗/乘 and can be seen in many printed books since Ming dynasty:
酌中志 道光二十五年潘氏刊海山仙館叢書本
蛾術堂集 道光十八年蕭山沈氏漢讀齋刊本
明清小说俗字典
四庫全書總目提要 武英殿刊本
⿱乖一 is encoded as 12-364B in CNS11643:
https://www.cns11643.gov.tw/wordView.jsp?ID=800331
⿱乖一 is listed as a BabelStone Han variant for 埀 (where Andrew West gives its source as 《国语辞典》 p. 589):
https://www.babelstone.co.uk/Fonts/BSH_IVS.html
Disunified examples (I cannot determine whether they are cognate):
U+226C9 𢛉 and U+22764 𢝤.
Unified to 演 (U+6F14) or 𤀋 (U+2400B), add the UCV for the right components 寅~𡩟 (K is ⿱宀臾)~⿱宀㬰.
The evidence shows the fanqie is 延典.
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 𰲕 (U+30C95)
When we check the submitted evidence of U+30C95 𰲕 SAT-06065 (aka WS2015-03675), the fanqie is also 鄧能反.
They are cognate, and I suggest adding UCV for 𣳾 and 𭜮 as Lv. 2.
Unify to 㱿 (U+3C7F)?
We need a new UCV for 𡉉 and 𠕓 like UCV #222a.
龍龕手鏡 used this form as 今體:
龍龕手鏡 高麗本 (via 異體字字典)
龍龕手鑑 四部叢刊續編景印江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本 (via 異體字字典)
Unify to 遝 (U+905D)
⿺辶⿱罒⿻亻𠔁 is very similar to 遝 and they are cognates.
Add new UCV for ⿳亠⿰？？大 and ⿻夫⿰？？.
SAT-15802 is 㕚. It is the phonetic element of 蚤.
Obviously the variant of SAT-09865. Both of them come from 臟.
Should we have a UCV rule for 亾/兦/亡 or not?
Disunified but cognate exampls:
𡚶-妄
𮎰-荒
Support unification to 蝱.
There are a huge number of variants involving 亡 and 亾, and the bulk of encoded ones are in Extension B:
㠩 U+3829 = 巟 U+5DDF
㡃 U+3843 = 㡆 U+3846
𧠬 U+2782C = 𧠰 U+27830
𮎰 U+2E3B0 = 荒 U+8352
𥞙 U+25799 = 𥡃 U+25843
𥿪 U+25FEA = 𥿼 U+25FFC
𩢯 U+298AF = 𩣇 U+298C7
There are some other unencoded examples:
Source: https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=14706
Source: https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=14701
unify to 𭊞 (U+2D29E)?
U+2D136 𭄶 is the variant of U+52D9 務.
Same sources.
Agree to unify to WS2024-03701, and support Lv. 2 UCV for 弓 and 𠔃.
unify to 𲊋 (U+3228B)
add the new UCV for U+9054 達 and U+9039 逹
U+58B6 墶 🆚 U+2143F 𡐿
U+297D0 𩟐 🆚 U+297B1 𩞱
Unify to 涤 as Comment #3121.
UCV #194 has been expanded at IRG #63, see Appendix B.18 of IRG N2703 Editorial Report for IRG Meeting #63.
unify to 貶 (U+8CB6)
The reading shows biǎn, the same as 貶. Also see WS2024-02659:T13-2F44 ⿰石之
Possibly unifiable with 𪂔 (U+2A094) if cognate.
unify to 𫃛 (U+2B0DB)?
全字庫 shows the reading of U+2B0DB 𫃛 is also yìn.
Unify to 𥹦 (U+25E66)?
cf. UCV #55
Both these characters are personal name. Based on UCV#55, TCA agree to unify to 𥹦 (U+25E66).
For ideographs used in Government Administration System, if
1. There are structual differences which can cause the change of radical;
2. The different structures are non-cognate with each other in modern times and have major stroke differences(in this case, it is 方 and 又);
The two unifiable ideograph can be disunified under the request of Regional or national member bodies.
unify to 𬟤 (U+2C7E4)?
TCA should confirm the meaning of 𬟤 (U+2C7E4).
Good catch. I agree on the unification to 𭃧 (U+2D0E7).
Same sources.
Add ⿻王⿰丿乛, U+2D170 𭅰, U+2E4D7 𮓗, U+2D16F 𭅯, U+2CEC9 𬻉 to UCV #311 as lv. 1.
UCV #490 莽莾
Unify to 𭏫 (U+2D3EB)？
Unify to 𦅒, per a similar UCV rule to ws2024 03361.
Unify to 𬜮 (U+2C72E).
See GB 18030—2022, 0x9932BD36
IRG N2770R
IRG N2770R
Given the usage 法華 in the evidence, I would suggest going ahead with the unification with
despite being part of the place name.
Given that there is other evidence of use, I suggest that this character doesn't need to be withdrawn. However, unification should still be on the table as I believe they (UTC-03353, U+83EF and U+2C73B) are variants.
The shape of the submitted character is almost exactly like 𢬧(U+22B27), so it's recommended to unify it with 𢬧 (U+22B27).
Unify to 拜 (U+62DC).
Unification to 狃 (U+72C3) with new UCV 丑 and 丒?
U+247C1 𤟁 (Extension B, TF-3076) = U+5CF1 峱
U+2B788 𫞈 (Extension D, JH-JTB2FC) = U+677B 杻
⿰糹丒 is currently not coded but can be found at https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=33170:
⿰金丒 is currently not coded but can be found at https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=47095:
unify to 工?
The Japanese reading of this character is コウ, which is the same as 工.
I also agree to unify to 矑 (U+77D1). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
I also agree to unify to 躔 (U+8E94). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
This one has not been unified to 躔 (U+8E94) yet.
Many other versions of 蒙古秘史 shows 䦍 instead of |⿵門兀| in 額䦍迭訥 (Mongolian e'üden-ü), with its phonetic symbol 乞. Here we believe that cognition reconstruction has occurred, where the phonetic symbol has been changed to 兀.
I also agree to unify to 𪖌 (U+2A58C). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
Unify to 挲 (U+6332)? The evidence shows the Vietnamese word “ma sa”, that means 摩挲. There is no V-Source under U+6332 挲, maybe it is OK to do the horizontal extension to U+6332 挲 if IRG agrees, or add it to IVD in future.
Unify to 𰜶 (U+30736). (UCV #307d)
This should have been unified with 𰜶 (U+30736) and withdrawn
Unify to WS2021-02721:VN-F1A6D per UCV #272.
Unify to 滗?
The evidence shows the variant is 潷 and the Putonghua/Mandarin reading is bì.
The meaning is "drain dry", which is similar to 滗 (U+6ED7), “xế” is a native word, so this a case where a variant of 滗 was borrowed for its meaning. Unification should be appropriate.
蕈 (U+8548). Same semantic, very similar shape
unify to 𨨫 (U+28A2B) per UCV #336.
The evidence shows the reading is hái, and the semantic element is 金, the phonetic element is 采. The evidence shows they are unifiable variants.
Agree with unification. 釆 (biện) is often used for the phonetic 'thai', 'hai', more properly written 采 (thái)
Unify to 邦 (U+90A6).
The evidences show ⿰龵阝 which should be unifiable with 邦 (U+90A6) without a doubt.
See U+26C25 (Ext B):
Unify to 𫺱 (U+2BEB1).
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
The two structures have a strict correspondence, and we could treat them as only glyph variants. That is a very different situation from 馬/马, 金/钅, etc. See the colors below.
For example, do you think that and look “quite different”?
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
Unify to 𪫢 (U+2AAE2).
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
Consider possible unification to 𡰱 (U+21C31) as both are variant forms of U+5C3C 尼
We also found unencoded ⿰土⿸尸土 (坭) and ⿰氵⿸尸土 (泥).
Attributes
Showing 1108 comments.
#26b, IRGN2221
Based on Evidence 2, the meaning is related to “hawk”, Evidence 1 looks the variant of 鹞.
The evidence shows it is the variant of 荡/蕩, and the top component of 昜 is 日 not 曰, so 汨 is more suitable.
#40, IRGN1105
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:
#17, IRGN2221
#36, IRGN954AR
#36, IRGN954AR
#40, IRGN1105
#36, IRGN954AR
This Zhuang word “guk” means “tiger”.
▲ 《壮汉英词典》, p. 533
《古壮字字典》 shows ⿺虎骨.
[WS2021-03500]
#42, IRGN954AR
Based on Evidence 1, this is used for one geographic name, so 163.0 is more suitable. The traditional form 䣕 (U+48D5) also shows 163.0.
The secondary radical could be consider to be removed.
R2=170.0阜: SC(2)=9, TS=12
#42, IRGN954AR
The primary radical could be consider to be removed.
贫 looks the phonetic element.
Yes, 贫 is the phonetic component and 成 the semantic.
Change Radical to 106.0 (白), SC=7, FS=2.
Consider retaining original radical as second radical.
#42, IRGN954AR
#1, IRGN954AR
For this character, the semantic element is 罙 (<深, the corresponding Bouyei word is lag [lak⁸] ⿰氵㓁), the phonetic element is 革 (<勒 laeg. This is 老借, and the corresponding 新借 is lwz).
For U+23F37 𣼷, SE=氵/水, PE=勒/laeg.
For U+3072F 𰜯, SE=深/水, PE=力/lig.
夊 is not included in the glyph
Support HKSAR (Comment #3294).
Change FS=2
Change SC=12.
Change TS=17.
KR requests IRG to discuss.
If Comment #7672 been accepted, IDS should be updated as well.
#76, IRGN954AR
不 in the submitted IDS is U+F967
See the radical
KR will change glyph as IDS=⿰氵宷.
#25, IRGN2221
Agree with Conifer on Comment #2271. ROK could normalize the glyph.
The variant of 褻 (U+893B)
Move 140.0 as the secondary radical.
Should the IDS be changed to ⿸鹿𫨻?
#76, IRGN954AR
FS=1
#25, IRGN954AR
It is also normalized the glyph to match IDS and Evidence 2 not 3.
#36, IRGN954AR
This character is used a very common Chinese Min nan word, 美 is the semantic element, 水 is the phonetic element.
The reading is ㄍㄧㆬ, that means 金 is the phonetic element, and 光 is the semantic element. The radical of 光 is 儿 in KX.
or normalize the glyph to match current IDS.
TCA didn’t provide the reading, but 全字庫 shows yīn.
Maybe this character is also the variant of 韻 or 𩐳 in some usages. So, the phonetic element could be 音.
#2, IRGN954AR
IRGN945AR
#76, IRGN954AR
#26a, IRGN2221
#76, IRGN954AR
#17, IRGN2221
逯 is ⿺辶录
#76, IRGN954AR
#23, IRGN2221
FS(2)=3
#40, IRGN1105
It should be safe to normalize the IDS to ⿱艹冦.
#76, IRGN954AR
Move R142.0 虫 to the secondary one, SC=5, FS=3.
#36, IRGN954AR
If we add the secondary RS for U+70CF 烏 as 196.-1, the secondary RS for U+4E4C 乌 as 196'.-1, we can consider using R196 as the preliminary radical, and SC=3 (-1+4), FS=1.
The RS for the following variants of 烏/乌 should be considered to be updated correspondingly.
U+200B6 𠂶 196.-1?
U+2CEC6 𬻆 196.-4 (-1-3)? cf. U+2B813 𫠓
U+2DD1A 𭴚 196.-1?
There are other characters related the components 烏/乌.
U+3137C 𱍼 196'.2 (-1+3)?
U+31AF3 𱫳 196.3 (-1+4)?
WS2021-01355 ⿰乌恶 196'.9 (-1+10)?
[WS2021-01355]
粵=U+7CB5
句 (hook) is the semantic element.
#15, IRGN2221
[WS2021-02254]
#67, IRGN954AR
#32, IRGN2221:
#11, IRGN2221
For R2=12.0八, SC2=11
⿰&Z5-01;免
See WS2021-01904:VN-F1BDD
[WS2021-01904]
The semantic element is 盘, and the phonetic element is 音. 音 reads as ʔɤm¹ and ʔom¹
In the subsequent actual operation in our review works, we include two kinds of radicals. We may have the following possibilities, and we can choose one of them.
(1) The intuitive radical is the primary one, the semantic radical is the secondary one.
(2) The semantic radical is the primary one, the intuitive radical is the secondary one.
务 should be counted as ⿱攵力 here per Kangxi conventions.
Evidence
Showing 362 comments.
龍龕手鏡 高麗本
新修絫音引证群籍玉篇 金刊本
改併五音類聚四聲篇 明成化丁亥隆福寺重刊本
The rime book which 直音篇 is based on, 併音連聲韻學集成, used ⿰女人.
併音連聲韻學集成 明成化十七年刊遞修本
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
01 张炳然: 《军用汉字拼写大慧——解放战争中的弹药箱识别》, 《兵器知识》2014年9期, p. 45
02 张炳然: 《军用汉字拼写大慧——解放战争中的弹药箱识别》, 《兵器知识》2014年9期, p. 47
03 高欣宝, 高廷如: 《战争遗留旧杂式弹药标志识别》, 河北科学技术出版社, 2009.3, p. 6
汉字正字小字汇（初稿）1966 (1973印)
双喜“下乡上山”通知书
河北省建设积极分子徽章
天津老井盖
Long story of short forms, p. 30
⿱丶冂 is a variant of 门
The glyph in the index:
More cases in the book:
闼，U+95FC
𮤬，U+2E92C
𮤸，U+2E938
The evidence is clear.
The evidence is from 2008年第3版，2012年月第39次印刷(3rd edition, 39th printing), page694. This proves that ⿰氵⿱𫂁馬 has been changed to ⿰氵⿱𮅕马.
Academically, 𮅕(算) is the phonetic component of this ideograph. So it is clear that 𮅕 is better than 𫂁.
《集韵》 from 异体字字典.
云南省楚雄市地名志(1983), page188
中华人民共和国水利部: 《中国河流泥沙公报—2023》, 中国水利水电出版社, 2024.4.1, p. 25
中华人民共和国水利部: 《中国河流泥沙公报—2023》, 中国水利水电出版社, 2024.4.1, p. 27
⿰卵鸟是什么字？—王谢杨的回答
p. 145
p. 146
龍龕手鏡 高麗本
Reading: "chéo"
The Zhuang reading of U+316B9 𱚹 is sux*. For the standard reading, the tone mark -x/-ч corresponds to 阳上 (John said this reading is used in Longzhou Zhuang), but the tone of 昼 should be 阴去 (-q/-ƽ). On the other hand, the middle Chinese finals (韵母) of 手 and 昼 are the same, and one 老借 reading of 手 I collected is suj; that 知母 reads as [s-]/[θ-] is very common. For common 腔词结合 rule in Cantonese Yueju Opera, Cantonese Yuequ Show and Cantonese pop songs, 阳上 (Tone 5) and 阴去 (Tone 3) could mean to the same musical scale, such as 上 (Gongche) for 平喉.
The semantic rationale of U+316B9 𱚹 in Zhuang and Tày is still NOT obvious. If it is the way like 臼 and 旧, 幺 and 么 to distinguish the meanings, the submitted glyph is acceptable; if we can not confirm this, it is better to change the glyph to match the evidence.
Re comments #2119 and #2220: the bottom right should be "且" or, in other words, the right hand part should be U+316B9 𱚹.
Re comment #5928: both ⿰氵𱚹 suz (a hole) and U+316B9 𱚹 sux (to know) are Longzhou Zhuang words. They follow the an established pattern for common and uncommon words.The character used for a common words can not be broken down and is memorised by rote. The character for less a common word consists of a memorised by rote character used as a phonetic combined with a semantic radical and that the tone of the phonetic part is ignored, just the sound is used.
援鶉堂筆記 道光中姚瑩刊本
(Noticed by 孫守真 at https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=en&chapter=389081&searchu=%E7%BA%BB)
Evidence provided by @純狐.
▲ В. М. Алексеев; 阎国栋, 马静: 《中国民间年画及其研究前景》//冯骥才; 向云驹: 《年画研究·2024 冬》, 北京: 文化艺术出版社, 2025.1, ISBN 978-7-5039-7787-9, p. 4
『按「菩薩」本作「扶⿱艹⿰阝𨐌」，一變為「⿱艹⿰阝⿱立龶」，再變為「薩」，然六朝、唐人尚無作「薩」者……』
八瓊室金石袪僞 淸 陸增祥 撰 民國十四年劉氏希古樓刊本
In 廣韻, 宋本玉篇 and 集韻, 薩 was printed as ⿱艹⿰阝⿱立龶:
廣韻 南宋寧宗時期杭州國子監刊本
集韻 南宋明州刊本
宋本玉篇 宋浙刻十行本
As a frequently used character in Buddhist literature, plenty of examples can be found in 大藏經, such as 趙城金藏.
冷齋夜話 殷禮在斯堂叢書 民國十七年東方學會排印本
西江詩話 清康熙裘氏妙貫堂刊本
古今圖書集成 清雍正內府銅活字本
七修類藁 明刊本
The 𣤃 in 康熙字典 is the same character, which quotes 冷齋夜話：
康熙字典 清武英殿刊本
In 通雅 it became ⿱款乃:
通雅 清文淵閣四庫全書鈔本
通雅 日本文化二年立敎舘刊本
In this case, China should keep ⿱䒑亅 in WS2024 rather than unify it to 兮. ⿱䒑亅 is quite normally used glyph which is usually exist in same texts with 兮.
龍龕手鏡 高麗本
四書考異 清無不宜齋刊本
It is also a BabelStone Han PUA, see
https://www.babelstone.co.uk/Fonts/PUA.html,
where 海康方言志 is cited.
桊
字彙補 清康熙五年彙賢齋刊本
I do not think that other experts should be doing the submitter's homework for them, but I did randomly check one 1714 edition of 《隋書》卷25 for the quotation shown in Evidence 3, and it actually shows U+2A32D 𪌭. It might be that 𪌭 in this edition is an error for ⿺麥員, or it might be that ⿺麥員 is an error for 𪌭, but I think it should be the submitter's responsibility to determine this. And it should be the submitter's responsibility to provide evidence from the original woodblock editions to support the encoding.
弇州四部稿，卷一百七十，说部，宛委余编十五，日本早稻田大学图书馆藏，page24
北山酒经，文渊阁四库全书本，page3
雲村集 文淵閣四庫全書本
秋崖集 文淵閣四庫全書本
職官分紀 文淵閣四庫全書本
These examples, together with Evidence 2, all used ⿱賏心 as 愳(懼).
See also 弇州山人題跋 上海書畫出版社2020年版 p54 校勘記
There are also many examples of ⿳䀠八心, i. e.one 八 is omitted.
魯齊集 文淵閣四庫全書本
太平廣記 文淵閣四庫全書本
松鄉集 文淵閣四庫全書本
文憲集 文淵閣四庫全書本
歷代名臣奏議 明永樂內府刊本
胡子衡齊 明萬曆曾鳯儀刊本
"Characters derived from the phonetic component 且 (qiě) typically follow a left-radical, right-phonetic structure, with rare exceptions of right-radical, left-phonetic arrangements. Consequently, in variant forms of 助, the component 且 is often miscopied as 目 (mù). This error is most frequently observed in the 敦煌俗字譜. 字鑑 and 正字通 both note it.This demonstrates that the use of 目 in vulgar forms was widespread, hence its inclusion here."
Evidence 3 is drawn precisely from Dunhuang manuscripts. This form appears extensively in origal books, such as the 文苑英華 and 説文通訓定聲, as shown in p2 ~p5. Another example is Evidence 2, which cites six instances in the 尚書注疏彙校 (Chief Editor Du Zexun杜澤遜, Zhonghua Book Company, 2018) where "助" is written as "⿰目力" in collation notes for the Song dynasty "Eight-Line Edition" (abbreviated "八") and the Song dynasty Wang Pengfu edition (abbreviated "王") of the 尚書注疏.
A notable exception is Evidence 1 from the 孫臏兵法校理, where the character ⿰目力 appears in the "Sun Bin's Art of War Bamboo Slips from the Yinqueshan Han Tombs.", as shown in the facsimile copy of the original bamboo slips(p6).
The 孫臏兵法校理 describes this character as "composed of 目 and 力." The author refutes the interpretation in (銀雀山漢墓竹簡) 孫臏兵法 (Cultural Relics Publishing House, 1975, CN 7068-339), which "suspected it should be read as 冒 (mào)," arguing instead that it is an abbreviated form of the character "瞗 (diāo)"(p7).
p1
(Zhonghua Book Company, 1966, facsimile edition based on Song dynasty fragments and Ming dynasty prints)
p2
p3
p4
p5
p6
▲ 《文字蒙求廣義》（清光緒江楚書局刊本）卷3 folio 11b
▲《通志》（元至大間福州路三山郡庠刊至治二年修補本）草木略卷2 folio 29a
西魏巨始光等造像記
▲ 《詩三家義集疏》（民國四年長沙王氏虛受堂刊本）卷1 folio 27
The second evidence is from《拜經樓詩集》, the original version also gives 𡝩:
▲ 《拜經樓詩集》（清嘉慶刊拜經樓叢書本）卷3 folio 20b
Based on these two evidences, ⿱艹妖 is a modern misinterpretation of 𡝩. Therefore the value to preserve such form might be questionable. Since ⿱艹妖 here is cognate with 𡝩, suggest to unify with 𡝩 (U+21769).
薛瑞兆 編撰 ：《新編全金詩•卷五二•王澮•感遇四首》，中華書局，2021年05月，第1版，第1366頁。
its original version 谷音二卷，民國十八年（1929）上海商務印書館影印本
錢仲聯 主編 ：《清詩紀事》，鳳凰出版社，2004年04月，第1版，第3361頁。
中國書法異體字大字典（附考辨） 西泠印社出版社
The first evidence is from 《漢語大字典》, which quotes 龍龕手鑑. 《龍龕手鑑》（南宋刊本）gives 𱧅, as is provided as the original evidence for WS2017-01992:
▲ 《龍龕手鑑》（南宋刊本）卷2 folio 12a 水部平聲
The second original evidence is from 《宋史·卷218》, 《宋史》（朝鮮刊本）gives 𱧅.
▲ 《宋史》（朝鮮刊本）卷218 folio 33b
The third original evidence is from 《宋史·卷239》, 《宋史》（朝鮮刊本）gives 𱧅
▲ 《宋史》（朝鮮刊本）卷239 folio 9a
[ {{WS2017-01992}} ]
01 张为: 《汉字专字问题初探》, 2019, 海峡文艺出版社, p. 176
02 张为: 《汉字专字问题初探》, 2019, 海峡文艺出版社, p. 234
03 张为: 《汉字专字问题初探》, 2019, 海峡文艺出版社, p. 242
The glyph on the evidence looked like U+6A3A 樺 K0-7B7C.
There is only one case related to KC-10030 in 국사편찬위원회.
But, there are 8 cases related to 白樺皮.
[Note from Eiso]
I can’t find more evidence for this character. Maybe ROK needs to find more to prove it isn’t the a one-off case?
清乾隆四十九年/朝鲜正祖八年/日本天明四年/后黎景興四十五年/阮泰德七年/甲辰龍年冬月初二 means 1784-12-13.
We need to understand what this character mean, and then to confirm if it is suitable to unify it with U+27E15 𧸕.
The evidence shows the sentences should be a poem “二十韻排律”. I show some parts and the corresponding 平仄 as below.
隙月腰間渾意氣 仄仄平平平仄仄
團花身上不參差 平平平仄仄平平
拘原武力來生面 平平仄仄平平仄
敵愾雄圖聳赤～ 仄仄平平仄仄平
功烈爭稱曾戰鬪 平仄平平平仄仄
丹靑莫狀舊容姿 平平仄仄仄平平
The submitted character is a 韻脚, and the previous one 差 is 차 (Mand: cī, Cant: ci1), the next one 姿 is 자 (Mand: zī, Cant: zi1), so the final (중성+종성) must be ㅏ. 頿 also reads as 자, and the meaning matches the poem.
I suggest ROK withdraw this character.
The evidence looks more like ⿰氵宷.
It looks a very important geographical term in Korean. We should take it more carefully.
But the glyph is different. KR wants to keep SN00393.
「鷄鴨⿰月遂頭」 (Cantonese)
https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:官話講義_J8IxAQAAMAAJ.pdf/85
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A官話講義_J8IxAQAAMAAJ.pdf&page=85
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A官話講義_tlc4AQAAMAAJ.pdf&page=281
The character in the first two websites seems an misreading.
The evidence shows one geographic name used in the Korean Peninsula, ～洞. However, 嗭洞 could be found in 국사편찬위원회.
Are there any more evidences for this character to prove it is not a one-off case?
「爾時阿那邠池。先與女造十二種寶車。先以赤蓮華𮆕内摩尼覆外。黄金重布白銀羅絡。琥珀揚班珊瑚琉璃車𤦲。合雜馬瑙交間水精。鱗暉琉璃采飾。復以紫磨徘徊懸灑疊起。」 (T0128, 宋/元 version)
Anyways, the character is stable in 一切經音義, although with slightly different glyphs.
Additionally, are 佛説須摩提女經 and 須摩提女經 the same scripture?
As the annotation refers to the entry in Volume II, we can see that the character is 栅 actually.
The 高麗藏 glyph looks as below:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CADAL02019424_%E6%96%B0%E9%9B%86%E8%97%8F%E7%B6%93%E9%9F%B3%E7%BE%A9%E9%9A%A8%E5%87%BD%E9%8C%84%EF%BC%88%E4%BA%94%EF%BC%89.djvu&page=79
一切經音義 26巻 [唐]釋玄應撰 清道光二十五年海山仙館叢書本
一切經音義 102巻 [唐]釋慧琳[遼]釋希麟撰 影印日本元文三年至延亨三年獅谷蓮社刻本
Change the glyph to match the head character rather than the one in annotation.
p. 795
p. 796
集韻 宋明州本
I'd like to point out that there is already a similar CJKUI in Ext B, 𢺥.
《臺日大辭典(上卷)》 (1931, 小川尚義 ed., 臺灣總督府, p. 134, https://thak.taigi.info/1931TaijitToaSutian1/chheh/?page=146)
https://search.hng-data.org/search/%E4%BD%8E
The right part of this glyph is "互". 《干祿字書．平聲》:「互、氐，上通下正，諸從氐者，並準此。」
p. 693
p. 1345
▲《道法會元（宮內廳藏本）》卷112〈帝令寶珠五雷祈禱大法〉3a
▲《道法會元（宮內廳藏本）》卷112〈帝令寶珠五雷祈禱大法〉2b
▲《道法會元（宮內廳藏本）》卷170〈混天飛捉四聖伏魔大法〉3a
▲《道法會元（宮內廳藏本）》卷170〈混天飛捉四聖伏魔大法〉3a
▲ GB/T 7589—1987, 81-73
▲ 蒲松龄; 蒲松龄纪念馆: 《聊斋杂著》, 济南: 齐鲁书社, 2020.1, ISBN 978-7-5333-4245-6, p. 148
▲ 蒲松龄; 李国庆: 《杂字 俗读》 (《古代幼学启蒙经典6》), 济南: 齐鲁书社, 1998.12, ISBN 7-5333-0669-4/I·217, p. 91
（1）崔建英 辑订,贾卫民、李晓亚 参订，《明别集版本志》，中华书局，2006 07月，p.172.
vs (明)張祥鳶撰，《華陽洞稿》，明萬曆戊子(16年,1588)金壇張氏家刊本
https://rbook.ncl.edu.tw/NCLSearch/Search/SearchDetail?item=5c13407daf2cde1ca85be38a1cd6d22dfDQ0OTI00.sCx7Lib9PDTjlooVpKp7zPanNlGOTR68KlNee0ZEoCs_&image=1&page=173&whereString=&sourceWhereString=&SourceID=
（2）傅增湘 撰，《藏園群書經眼録·卷九 子部三》，中華書局，2009年4月，第1版，第653頁
vs (宋)趙善璙撰，《自警編》，宋刊本
https://rbook.ncl.edu.tw/NCLSearch/Search/SearchDetail?item=7b5c54669a523926674b2cda0b599259fDczNzc40.tpbH5cFydau_iIQmZsMV0w_0ri0INK1SFI1C1by3G9o_&page=112&whereString=&sourceWhereString=&SourceID=1&HasImage=
集韻 宋潭州本
集韻 宋金州軍本
Notice that it also appeared in the annotation of 悙. So it may be a corrupted form of 悙.
▲ 《秋水軒倡和詞》（清康煕十年(1671)至十一年(1672)遥連堂刻本）folio 19b
The new evidence gives ⿱竹⿰金⿱⿰臣⿱𠂉丶土. I think it is unifiable with ⿱竹鏗 in other evidences.
康熙來了 2007.05.07 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhQfJvlZVpw
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
▲ 《御定歷代賦彙》（清康熙刊本）卷8 folio 13a 張鳳翼〈喜雨賦〉 gives the ⿰土⿱𦬫⿰十十 shape.
▲ 《杜詩鏡銓》（清同治刊本）卷14 folio 21b 杜甫〈故著作郎貶台州司户滎陽鄭公䖍〉 gives the exact ⿰土莽 shape.
The decision about using captions as evidences was clearly stated in the meeting so this kind of situation should not have happened.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/?find=UK-30621
Evidence 1: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1rB4y1u7fL
Evidence 2: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV18m4116716
At the last meeting, we have already suggested that if the experts from the UK believe that this character is not a newly self-created character and has the value for encoding, they can simply publish a paper that includes this character and vouch for these characters with their own reputation. Let me be more straightforward. It should not be a difficult task for the experts from the UK to publish a paper. If the experts from the UK are not willing to risk their own reputation, they should not insist on using evidence that obviously does not meet the requirements to request the encoding of this character in the IRG.
英国（UK）至今仍未能提供这个字的历史文献证据或其他高质量来源，相反，英国一直在提供由一两个使用者在不稳定的载体上使用该字的证据，这些证据并不足以支持对该字进行编码。我们已经说得很清楚，英国提供的这种类型的证据不足以支持编码该字，但英国的专家似乎无法理解我们表达的意思，仍在坚持提供相同类型、效力不足的证据，坚持说一些明显与事实不符的话。这种行为对审核工作没有任何益处，也无法让这些字从 D-set 返回 M-set。
在上次会议上，我们已经建议：如果英国专家认为这个字并非个人新造，且有编码的价值，完全可以自己发表一篇包含此字的论文，以自己的声誉给这些字作担保。让我把话说的再直接一点：发表一篇论文对英国专家来说应该不是什么难事，如果英国专家不愿意拿自己的声誉冒险，就不应该坚持在 IRG 以明显不符合要求的证据来要求对该字进行编码。
It should be noted that there are differences in the number and types of evidence for the 3 characters and therefore they should be considered on a case by case basis.
Whilst no additional evidence has been added it should be noted that the evidences both come from the same author was assessed to be a reliable source. The criteria for being considered reliable was high and most multimedia sources considered did not meet the criteria. To be classified as reliable there has to be sufficient material from the author of a consistently high standard and the author to be Zhuang. Some sources were classified as clearly unreliable and many were classified as reliability uncertain. The rate of errors by this author was lower than those found in some published articles/books containing Zhuang character texts. In short though the media is different to evidence in earlier working sets it's quality is sufficient for consideration.
To date support for this character has been expressed by a member body of the IRG and an individual but objections to this character have only come from one individual.
The decision about using captions as evidences was clearly stated in the meeting so this kind of situation should not have happened.
Evidence of GDM-00507 and GDM-00508 are from at least two different buildings, which stands in the real world. The buildings are not something easy to change or vanish. What's more, the two ideographs are used by many local people so they can be used in the plaques of the temples, which are sacred.
However, the evidence of this ideograph is from a vedio created by someone on the Internet and the vedio can be edited or deleted by the uploader at anytime he wants. The vedio, which is too weak for encoding, is not even from a published material.
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Ki4y127Cm/
If this can be accepted as evidence, then we may be going to submit all this to IRG, there are even pronounciations and definations:
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV198411s7Ft/
Moreover, I don't think IRG have to write every this kind of unstable thing, for example, captions, lyrics, articles, instructions, notes... in PnP, which is unnecessary and endless.
It should be noted that our center proposed a document "Application for encoding some ideographs used in Chinese geographical names(IRGN2649)" to IRG before, which was pointed out by an expert that it is not suitable as the only evidence for encoding. Our center is a formal institution established by Sichuan International Studies University, which is belonging to The People's Government of Chongqing Municipality(重庆市人民政府). It will be very offensive and so unacceptable if videos on the internet are considered more trustable or suitable for encoding than an application with our seal on it.
Currently, IRG mainly accepts evidence from printed material if they are accepted as IRG sources.
In general, IRG DOES NOT accept multimedia material as IRG sources.
Note: the acceptance of the multimedia material, the popularity of the material, cultural influences, and other factors that warrants its acceptance.
We can't find a sentence in IRG PnP states that being posted on Instagram, Twitter or Bilibili once by any uploader will warrant the evidence's acceptance.
Furthermore, the screenshots of computer fonts prove nothing but the font producer has made the font. This cannot prove the shape is actually used in texts or even exists. As far as we know, the uploader of the vedio use ⿰久闹 just because he saw the font in a friend's computer without knowing the pronounciation or meaning.
I'd like to point out that using these as evidences is against UK's general requirements for the quality of evidences. I really don't think other experts will accept these two images as qualified evidences even if I were persuaded. So please find qualified evidences for the ideograph or postpone it.
Footnote 13 when read correctly clearly says that the IRG may accept some multimedia sources, hence whether Bilibili evidence from the UK or Instagram and Twitter evidence from the UTC these conform to current PnP and may be accepted by the IRG. It is therefore incorrect to say that video evidence is not acceptable to the IRG.
A key to understanding evidence is to look at it carefully. In evidence 1 the information is in an interlinear format, the line below each character gives the pronunciation and the line below that gives the meaning in Chinese. Also it is colour code so the lyrics are in red and the pronunciation and meaning in black. Therefore it is clear that the uploader understands the meaning and pronunciation.
It should of course go almost without mention that the evidence conforms to the requirements of the UK.
Comment #2304 says:"Also it is colour code so the lyrics are in red and the pronunciation and meaning in black. Therefore it is clear that the uploader understands the meaning and pronunciation."
I think it is obviously wrong. Logically, I can use 鹿 with pronunciation mǎ and meaning 马 in my vedio. It will be very ridiculous to say that 鹿 pronounciates mǎ and means 马 just based on my vedio. The paired pronunciation and meaning in the vedio proves nothing but only the uploader used ⿰久闹 with that pronunciation and meaning in the vedio. This fact warrants nothing.
I'd like to say that I am kind of sure that the uploader didn't know the pronunciation or meaning before using it. So please find qualified evidences for the ideograph or postpone it as experts will suggest in IRG meeings.
Comment #2304 also says:"It should of course go almost without mention that the evidence conforms to the requirements of the UK."
Comparing the evidences for this ideograph with the evidences for most of other ideographs, we still think that the evidences for this ideograph is against UK's general requirements for the quality of evidences. It would be very worrying if the quality of them were the same.
When a person says what they think is the pronunciation and meaning of a character it gives information about much the person understands about a character. If a video had 鹿 is pronounced mǎ and means 马 it would not be suitable to use as evidence because either the producer of the video does not understand the character 鹿, or had mistyped the wrong character by mistake or was making a joke. By comparison saying the character ⿰久闹 has the pronunciation naus aka nauq and means 永远 shows the writer understands the character in the same way that saying 妈 has the pronunciation ma1 aka mā and means mother would show the writer understands the character 妈.
Evidence 1 has many strengths:
- it is a primary source of evidence
- it shows the character is used in running text
- it shows clearly the shape of the character
- it accurately gives the pronunciation and meaning of the character
The second evidence:
- confirms the shape of the character
- shows the pre existence of the character
- shows that multiple fonts contain the character (the font used for the video is not that shown in the computing article)
Furthermore since the up-loader of the video in 2022 was around 20 together they show the character is stable, that the character has already passed on to the newest generation, which is significant.
It should be noted that many more multimedia items where considered and that only those of good quality were used.
Search result of 172画 huang in Bilibili
Should we encode huang? The number of the uploaders of huang is far bigger than 20.
Comment #2798 says:
Evidence 1 has many strengths:
- it is a primary source of evidence
- it shows the character is used in running text
- it shows clearly the shape of the character
- it accurately gives the pronunciation and meaning of the character
The second evidence:
- confirms the shape of the character
- shows the pre existence of the character
- shows that multiple fonts contain the character (the font used for the video is not that shown in the computing article)
However, even evidence 1 itself is suspicious, how can we assure the information in it is correct?
The second evidence is also too weak for encoding. In the process of making fonts for ideographs used in books, many errors can be found. Since both of the evidences are not qualified for encoding, these two evidences cannot be used to prove anything else.
Screenshot 1 showing the date of posting of the video as 19th February 2022
Screenshot 2 of video posted by the same person on their 21st birthday on 2nd June 2022 (face deleted) 【壮语】情感语录—致我第21个破蛋纪念日 https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV13Y4y1576E/?spm_id_from=333.999.0.0
The 41 second video with sound track in Zhuang and including Chinese subtitles for those who don't know Zhuang includes a number of photos of the poster as they grow up including photos from their 16th and 21st birthdays.
Here the question is what to do about ⿰久闹 and ws2024.
One way to confirm the ⿰久闹 character is by noting the sound comes from 闹 and the meaning from 久. These are obvious to anyone who knows the language.
The sum of the parts can be greater than the whole, the question is not what the evidences show separately but what they show together.
Anyway, it will be too ridiculous for me to believe that vast majority of IRG experts will support encoding ⿰久闹 in the current situation.
Although I am not angry about the personal attack in Comment #2880 at all, but I still hope that there won't be any more.
To say that the video is genuine is to say that the video is what it purports to be.
Comment #2880 was not intended as a personal attack. I will endeavour to avoid making comments that could be viewed as a personal attack.
In comment #2304 'the evidence' in the sentence "It should of course go almost without mention that the evidence conforms to the requirements of the UK" refers to Evidence 1 from 2022 bilibili video 【壮语歌曲】《如礼金万》uploaded submitted by the UK.
The second evidence was provided by an individual expert, a page from a 2013 article of the computing journal《现代计算机》about a Zhuang character IME. That the page contains a screenshot from the PUA part of a font should not be taken to imply that the individual expert thinks that characters only found in such fonts should be encoded.
1:25 minutes
1:31 minutes
(whilst the video https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1ut421a7Eb/ has 60k views it is strictly for fans of the anime television series 'A Certain Scientific Railgun')
At the last meeting, we have already suggested that if the experts from the UK believe that this character is not a newly self-created character and has the value for encoding, they can simply publish a paper that includes this character and vouch for these characters with their own reputation. Let me be more straightforward. It should not be a difficult task for the experts from the UK to publish a paper. If the experts from the UK are not willing to risk their own reputation, they should not insist on using evidence that obviously does not meet the requirements to request the encoding of this character in the IRG.
英国（UK）至今仍未能提供这个字的历史文献证据或其他高质量来源，相反，英国一直在提供由一两个使用者在不稳定的载体上使用该字的证据，这些证据并不足以支持对该字进行编码。我们已经说得很清楚，英国提供的这种类型的证据不足以支持编码该字，但英国的专家似乎无法理解我们表达的意思，仍在坚持提供相同类型、效力不足的证据，坚持说一些明显与事实不符的话。这种行为对审核工作没有任何益处，也无法让这些字从 D-set 返回 M-set。
在上次会议上，我们已经建议：如果英国专家认为这个字并非个人新造，且有编码的价值，完全可以自己发表一篇包含此字的论文，以自己的声誉给这些字作担保。让我把话说的再直接一点：发表一篇论文对英国专家来说应该不是什么难事，如果英国专家不愿意拿自己的声誉冒险，就不应该坚持在 IRG 以明显不符合要求的证据来要求对该字进行编码。
It should be noted that there are differences in the number and types of evidence for the 3 characters and therefore they should be considered on a case by case basis.
The evidence for UK-30621 comes from multiple sources and from multiple authors. The evidence in #8709 comes from the same author as evidence 1 demonstrating that use in the earlier evidence was not made by mistake or out of ignorance. The other 2 evidences come from other people. All the evidences given are verifiable .
The character is culturally significant in that it is the only known character used exclusively for nauq [forever].
The evidence for ⿰久闹 is clear there is no doubt about the glyph shape, the character clearly preserves an ancient Zhuang word, nauq [forever], already lost in some places where it has been replaced by a loanword. The evidences show there is a need for us to encode the character.
1.According to PnP regulations, when a character is submitted for encoding, it must first comply with the authority of evidence: "Original Source: The source of evidence must be considered authoritative by IRG, as validated by past literature and IRG experts. IRG has the right to reject characters from questionable sources”.
2. Obviously, so far, IRG has always believed that literature evidence is the most authoritative source of character encoding. If there is no original literature, important geographical indications, identity documents, etc. should be considered authoritative evidences.
3.Although the submitted evidence includes photos/images/pictures, the authority clearly varies greatly. The photos taken for historical buildings, whose plaque names have been place names for hundreds of years, inevitably have the authority of place name characters. However, screenshots of online videos cannot verify the historical heritage of their text, nor can they prove the actual source of their text, and do not have convincing authority.
4. The subtitles in the video can be added arbitrarily, and the glyph can be designed by the creator. How can we prove that the glyph is not a personal or small-scale design?
5. PnP claims that "the font used for encoding submissions should provide multiple sources of evidence as much as possible." Of course, multimedia evidence will not be rejected, but it cannot be considered that the authority of the evidence can be abandoned, and multimedia evidence that has not been widely disseminated and recognized should not be considered as evidence that meets the authoritative requirements.
6.This character has already coded in 《古壮字的字符码位表》in 2013, that means the documentary evidences do exist. It's better to submit some pictures of books to prove the actual usage in paper document.
Reply to 1.:
According to PnP 'original source' is one type of evidence that the IRG can accept but not the only type. There are 5 types of evidence that can be accepted: original source, multuple source, semantics, context and usage. The PnP says:-
'a character submission must be accompanied by evidence to satisfy at least one of the following
conditions:
a) Original Source ( 證 據 源 限 制 ): The source of evidence must be considered authoritative by IRG, as validated by past literature and IRG experts. IRG has the right to reject characters from questionable sources.
b) 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.
c) Semantics (字理考證): Supply sufficient evidence on the meaning and phonetics. Supply of other information on its origin and evolution would be very helpful.
d) Context (上下文信息): Sufficient context in text to decipher the semantic meaning of the character. IRG has the right to reject characters that do not have sufficient evidence for IRG to decipher its semantics.
e) Usage (需求限制): The use of characters must be for justifiable public interest. Examples of public use include evidence of: governmental needs; scientific use; digitization projects for public use; and working systems of significance as accepted by IRG. IRG has the right to reject characters that do not have sufficient evidence for IRG of justifiable public interest.'
The evidences given are of the multiple source, semantics, context and usage type. Original source evidence is evidence for a character from a recognised authoritive source, a single source that is so important that we can say the character should be encoded because it is in that source. The evidence for this character is not of the 'original source' (an important authoritive source) type. However it is of three or four of the other types, it is: (1) from multiple sources (2) semantics as it clearly states the pronunciation and meaning (3) context sufficient for a native speaker of the language (4) usage - it is and can be used.
Reply to 2.
One change in the current PnP to previous versions is the permitting of a small number of characters with multimedia evidence. Literature is and will always be the main source of eidence for IRG but it does not need to be the only one. Multimedia evidence is new for the IRG and so there is need to talk about different different questions and build consensus.
Reply to 3
All the evidences given are verifiabled. Whilst there are many unreliable videos but this does not mean all videos are unreliable.
Reply to 4
Analysis of the sources used revealed that the characters used were neither arbitory nor designed by the creator. Also checked was that the character concerned was used by diffferent generations and dialects, and therefore can say is not small scale.
Reply to 5
This I think goes back to point one - the evidences are considered representative, or indicative. It is not suggested that the character is important because it is found in these evidences, but rather that because the character is impotant it is found hear.
Reply to 6
This character was even in the earlier 2006 version of the table.
We made overly complicated statements, but in reality, the problem is only about one dangerous point:
Submitting only video clip evidence will invalidate IRG's review and PnP.
If certain characters cannot be accepted by IRG, the submitter can create several videos and upload them online as new evidence to IRG, which is equivalent to using a very basic method to bypass our complex review mechanism.
I believe these characters must exist in the literature, but we cannot ignore the possibility of bypassing the review process. This is a very noteworthy issue.
Because it is too easy to use self-made combination characters in videos, it is difficult to prove their existence in literature or their widespread use in daily life through a few videos. There are indeed actual cases of use in the video, but we cannot prove that these characters propagated through the video have become characters that everyone can accept and encode.
The previous multimedia evidence submitted by Eiso Chan, came from authoritative institutions such as Shanghai Animation Studio and Xi'an Film Studio, which have been reviewed by the National Film Administration, so we can use it as evidence. However, such subtitles were produced and uploaded by individuals, and the authority of the multimedia evidence we received last time cannot be compared.
The decision about using captions as evidences was clearly stated in the meeting so this kind of situation should not have happened.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/?find=UK-30621
evidence 1: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV16o4y1m7E7
evidence 2: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1AL411A7W5
At the last meeting, we have already suggested that if the experts from the UK believe that this character is not a newly self-created character and has the value for encoding, they can simply publish a paper that includes this character and vouch for these characters with their own reputation. Let me be more straightforward. It should not be a difficult task for the experts from the UK to publish a paper. If the experts from the UK are not willing to risk their own reputation, they should not insist on using evidence that obviously does not meet the requirements to request the encoding of this character in the IRG.
英国（UK）至今仍未能提供这个字的历史文献证据或其他高质量来源，相反，英国一直在提供由一两个使用者在不稳定的载体上使用该字的证据，这些证据并不足以支持对该字进行编码。我们已经说得很清楚，英国提供的这种类型的证据不足以支持编码该字，但英国的专家似乎无法理解我们表达的意思，仍在坚持提供相同类型、效力不足的证据，坚持说一些明显与事实不符的话。这种行为对审核工作没有任何益处，也无法让这些字从 D-set 返回 M-set。
在上次会议上，我们已经建议：如果英国专家认为这个字并非个人新造，且有编码的价值，完全可以自己发表一篇包含此字的论文，以自己的声誉给这些字作担保。让我把话说的再直接一点：发表一篇论文对英国专家来说应该不是什么难事，如果英国专家不愿意拿自己的声誉冒险，就不应该坚持在 IRG 以明显不符合要求的证据来要求对该字进行编码。
籀䯧述林 民國五年刊本
(Found by 孫守真)
地球説略和解 甘泉堂 1874. Evidence found by 小隹.
From the cursive script of 義.
松江本急就章 啓功藏 The line is 去俗歸義來附（親）
According to 《皇明祖訓》：「凡東宮、親王位下、各擬名二十字。日後生子及孫，即以上聞，付宗人府。所立雙名，每一世取一字以為上字；其下一字，臨時隨意選擇，以為雙名，編入玉牒……魯王位下：肇泰陽當健、觀頤壽以弘」, given that his last name is of the 金 radical and he was active in 17th century, his generation name should have been 壽, and therefore his full name should have been 朱壽⿰金⿱幺夊, instead of 朱慶⿰金⿱幺夊.
An IRG expert YUAN Zhiyu has generously provided me a copy of an half folio from a 雍正 era copy of《崇禎丙子科山東鄉試齒錄》, one of the Peking University rare books collection, which indeed gives his name as 朱壽⿰金⿱幺犮 (犮 + VS19).
▲ 《崇禎丙子科山東鄉試錄》（影抄北京大學藏雍正抄本）
Because this evidence predates 《［雍正］山東通志》 and sourced from a Ming dynasty document 《崇禎丙子科山東鄉試錄》, it should be more authoritative than the original evidence. It also makes much more sense than ⿰金⿱幺夊 because both ⿰金⿱幺友 and ⿰金⿱幺犮 are also attested in contemporary dictionaries:
Here is a list of ⿰金⿱幺友 in a loose chronological order.
▲ 《泰和五音新改併類聚四聲篇》（金崇慶荊國器刊元修補本）卷2 folio 4a (⿰金⿱⿰𠂈丶友、七𭭕切, this character is from 《搜真玉鏡》)
▲ 《泰和五音新改併類聚四聲篇》（元張仁刊本）卷2 folio 4a
▲ 《成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇》（明成化丁亥(三年)至庚寅(七年)金臺大隆福寺集貲刊本，故善012372-012376，國立故宮博物院）卷2 folio 4b (Note that from this version, the fanqie is modified from 七歡切 to 七勸切)
▲ 《新校經史海篇直音》（明萬曆刊本）卷1 folio 4a (Note that 音茜 is very likely to be derived from the fanqie 七勸切 in 《成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇》)
▲ 《刻太古遺踪海篇集韻大全》（明萬曆17年刊本）卷23 folio 4a
▲ 《重校全補海篇直音》（明萬曆23年刊本）卷1 folio 5a
▲ 《重校古本五音類聚四声切韻直音海篇大全》（明萬曆30年刊本）卷1 folio 5b
▲ 《翰林重攷字義韻律大板海篇》（明刊本）卷15 folio 16b
Here is a list of ⿰金⿱幺友 in a loose chronological order.
▲ 《翰林筆削字義韻律鰲頭海篇心鏡》（明萬曆10年序刊本）卷15 folio 16b
▲ 《翰林重攷字義韻律大板海篇心鏡》（明萬曆24年刊本）卷15 folio 18a
▲ 《遵古本正韻石齋海篇》（明崇禎刊本）卷14 folio 18a (a.k.a 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉)
▲ 《精刻海若湯先生校訂音釋五侯鯖字海》（明末刊本）卷1 folio 4b
Given that the ⿰金⿱幺友 evidences predates the ⿰金⿱幺犮 + VS19 ones, and there is only one stroke difference between ⿰金⿱幺夊 and ⿰金⿱幺友, I suggest we encode the ⿰金⿱幺友 shape with both ⿰金⿱幺夊 and ⿰金⿱幺犮 + VS19 being unifiable variant of ⿰金⿱幺友.
弇州四部稿 文淵閣四庫全書鈔本
續文獻通考（王圻纂） 明萬曆三十一年松江府刊本
▲ 《清世祖實錄》juan 30 folio 24b gives ⿲金目勾, which can be considered as a variant of 𨪵
▲ 《八旗通志初集》（清乾隆刊本）juan 138 gives ⿲金目勽, corrupted form of ⿲金目勾.
▲ 《東華錄》（清光緒石印本）順治 juan 2 gives 𨪵
▲ 《清史稿（1927）》juan 4 folio 14b also gives 𨪵.
And here is 𨪵 from 《漢語大字典》p. 4567, which also quotes 《清史稿》:
𨪵：人名用字。《清史稿•世祖紀一》：「乙未，朱聿釗弟聿鐭僭號紹武，據廣州，佟養甲、李成棟率師討之，斬（朱）聿鐭及……鉅野王壽𨪵。」, apparently 朱壽𨪵 in the evidences above and 朱壽⿰金朐 in 《南明史》are the same person.
Since 《南明史》, published by 中華書局 in 2006, is compiled from 錢海岳's manuscript, and 目 is easily confusable with 月 in handwritten text. I think 錢海岳 was meant for U+28AB5 𨪵 but the editors recognized the handwritten shape as ⿰金朐. Therefore, I suspect this is an one-off error and suggest pending more evidences.
5) The character “c” with the IDS ⿱雨𪫕.
It occurs in 3.429:
嶺霏ｃmine ni tanabiku ‘floats among the peaks’
As 霏霺 is a well-attested word, and, in fact, such manuscripts as [矢] Ōya-bon 大矢本 (complete, late Muromachi) and [京] Kyoto University 京大本 (complete, early Edo) versions contain 霏霺, it is clear that ⿱雨𪫕 is a version of 霺. However, it is non-unifiable.
This shows ⿸尸𬋕 which should be a unifiable form of ⿸尸醮 given in the modern editions.
▲ 高豆⿱艹冦町報かわにし 2018年2月号（15ページ）pp. 29
In the new evidence, there are ⿳艹冖⿺元⿱⺊又 in Mincho and ⿱艹冦 in Gothic, which are apparently variants of each other as they refer to the same place name. I believe the shape ⿱艹冦 is more convenient for the practise use. I suggest to encode the normalized form ⿱艹冦 instead and update the IDS and glyph.
龍龕手鑑 南宋浙刊本
Script-hybrid Katakana + Han:
U+2B9A4: Reading = カイチ (ka + ichi); Components = カ (K) + 一 (Han); See MJ057059
U+2B9AB: Reading = カタナ (ka + ta + na); Components = カ (K) + 田 (Han) + ナ (K); See MJ057066
All Katakana:
U+2BCCD: Reading = ウツホ (u + tsu + ho); Components = ウ (K) + ツ (K) + ホ (K); See MJ057333
As an aside, the following ideograph in Extension F is a Hiragana ligature:
U+2CF00: Reading = して (shi + te); Components = し (H) + て (H); See MJ056854
At 神岡鉱山資料館
Script-hybrid Katakana + Han:
U+2B9A4: Reading = カイチ (ka + ichi); Components = カ (K) + 一 (Han); See MJ057059
U+2B9AB: Reading = カタナ (ka + ta + na); Components = カ (K) + 田 (Han) + ナ (K); See MJ057066
All Katakana:
U+2BCCD: Reading = ウツホ (u + tsu + ho); Components = ウ (K) + ツ (K) + ホ (K); See MJ057333
As an aside, the following ideograph in Extension F is a Hiragana ligature:
U+2CF00: Reading = して (shi + te); Components = し (H) + て (H); See MJ056854
Script-hybrid Katakana + Han:
U+2B9A4: Reading = カイチ (ka + ichi); Components = カ (K) + 一 (Han); See MJ057059
U+2B9AB: Reading = カタナ (ka + ta + na); Components = カ (K) + 田 (Han) + ナ (K); See MJ057066
All Katakana:
U+2BCCD: Reading = ウツホ (u + tsu + ho); Components = ウ (K) + ツ (K) + ホ (K); See MJ057333
As an aside, the following ideograph in Extension F is a Hiragana ligature:
U+2CF00: Reading = して (shi + te); Components = し (H) + て (H); See MJ056854
郑辉 事物异名分类词典, 2002.1, 第一版, p. 206
郑辉 事物异名分类词典, 2002.1, 第一版, p. 207
There is a ⿰口尻 in 四聲篇：
泰和五音新改併類聚四聲篇
In https://kirara0048.blogspot.com/2016/11/5_8.html is guessed that 苦托切 is may be 苦㧌切 or 苦挑切.
It became 𠲙 in (some versions of) 字彙補 and 康熙字典：
字彙補 彙賢齋刊本
續字彙補 和刊本
康熙字典 武英殿刊本
元音統韻本字彙補 is correct:
字彙補 慎思堂刊本《元音統韻》所附
The evidence shows the glyph is U+31637 𱘷. We need more evidences.
諧聲品字箋 清康熙十六年陸頎、陸顥刊二十三年虞嗣集增刊本
(It was in fact written as ⿵門⿱丷𤰞)
干祿字書 明夷門廣牘本
The more common form is V+607C5 in the above, also shown here from the same source as VN-F2002:
An appropriate normalization would be V+607C5.
V4-407A is currently encoded as 𫢠 U+2B8A0. One solution would be to move V4-407A to WS2024:00144 and change kIRG_VSource for U+2B8A0 to VN-2B8A0.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 215 comments.
▲ 《壮汉英词典》, p. 569
The component 门 is often used to the meanings of colours, that means the semantic element is 门 (related to colour) and the phonetic element is 金 (currently 老借 is gim, but I trust gyaem is more ancient form). Therefore, there is no need to change anything.
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》.
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).
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.
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.
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
When and if IRG "accepts" the glyph change at the IRG meeting, mark the comment of the glyph change request as "resolved", and mark KR's comment to change the glyph as "resolved", then KR will prepare a new font reflecting the glyph change and submit the new font according to the font submission schedule of the relevant IRG recommendation.
--> 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.
Please confirm whether the right component should be 火 or 大
.
By the way, can anybody show some evidences for 𬌼(U+2C33C) to make sure what it is?
"⿰㘴刂" is a variant of "剉". The glyph in Evidence 2 & 3 should better match the 剉斬 description.
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.
https://cbetaonline.dila.edu.tw/search/?q=古盲反&lang=zh
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.
Otherwise, the last stroke of 彡 doesn't cross over 乚 in the earlier versions.
The last stroke of 啜 and are both ㇏ in the evidence, so suggest to keep the consistency.
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.
There are no V-Source reference for U+6E7C 湼 and U+23D40 𣵀.
Vietnam could do the normalization for this case, so I think the current glyph is acceptable.
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.
Editorial
Showing 51 comments.
[WS2021-00762]
[ {{WS2017-03140}} ]
KR wants to keep SN02793.
[WS2021-01439]
It is better to keep them separately.
Other
Showing 153 comments.
It would be so useful if we could fast track encoding of traditional forms of proposed simplified Chinese characters. Perhaps TCA could propose ⿰火積 as an UNC?
Personally, I suggest to seperately encode ⿰魚昴 and ⿰魚昂. The case of ⿰鱼昴 and ⿰鱼昂 is more complex. Personally, I think it is better to encode them seperately. But I think it may also be a choice if the glyph of 𬶘(U+2CD98) will be changed to the original correct one and we won't submit ⿰鱼昴 to IRG in the future.
Evidence for 𩹡(U+29E61) and 𬶘(U+2CD98):
𩹡(U+29E61)
王宏源：康熙字典（增订版），page2010
中华字海，page1711：
𬶘(U+2CD98)
张叶芦：编余存疑录，浙江师范学院学报，1983年第1期，page85-88
吴承恩：西游记 上，长春：长春出版社，2022年6月，page492
But, the current draft of the new version of GB/T 22321.1 shows the glyph like the code chart.
It is better to encode them separately to make everyone more easily.
▲ p. 7 of IRG N2119
▲ p. 2 of IRG N2747
If China’s request to change the G glyph for U+2CD98 𬶘 back to the previous one, this character should be withdrawn by China in future.
Yes, very likely.
I have scanned the book again recently and the quality is better. Thank you for bringing the issue out.
The error in Kangxi seems to stem from 《字彙》 and 《正字通》.
Given that 壮, 状... originated in 不可用作简化偏旁的简化字 in 《简化字总表》, newly assigning NUCV to those particular components seems a more modest way to me if we want them separated, rather than making UCV #363 disunified altogether.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/index.php?id=+04760
If we can’t clarify the right part, it is better to keep current radical without more radicals.
The IDS will be ⿰穴辱, presumably a variant of 䢇.
Used the personal name.
[WS2021-00765]
KC-07234.
Another form of this character is ⿰睪毛.
Similar to 𮊐(U+2E290).
Similar to 踕(U+8E15).
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.
VN-F17B2 could be unified here in future.
Similar to 𦍚(U+2635A).
Maybe it is the variant of 美.
Similar to 莽(U+83BD).
Similar to 𢖷(U+225B7).
This character is also the variant of U+9867 顧.
Is this character a variant of 鸞?
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]
If there are other subbmitted ideographs whose evidences are only from online video, we think that they should be postponed too if no more qualified evidence can be provided.
It is also astonishing that the three characters were added back to the M-set even if the evidence shows that the characters (especially the other two, ⿰丫要 and ⿰大老) are used only by one or two ordinary people in unstable internet vedios, and no one have seen the characters were used in historical document. Are these vedios have been considered authoritative evidence by IRG? Is this the way to ensure the quality of the standard is great? I really cannot understand it.
I just want to say that if the three characters (i.e. ⿰久闹, ⿰丫要 and ⿰大老) are added back to M-set based on the current evidence, our center will draft official documents to the Guangxi University(广西大学) to verify the origin of ⿰久闹 in the font and if its experts' comments were right. What's more, we will also draft official documents to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People's Republic of China(中华人民共和国工信部) stating the situation here.
▲ 章黼: 《直音篇》, 漢和藏萬曆戊寅本, 卷第一
⿰土蒦 is also KC-10600.
Similar to 𮂺(U+2E0BA).
It's possible that VN-F048E is simply an error for 耡 (U+8021). The only other evidence we currently have for this character is in the standard document "Kho Chữ Hán Nôm Mã Hoá":
https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=70902#58
Zhonghua Zihai (中華字海), p. 1150
Data for Unihan
Showing 1 comments.