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.
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.
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:
Evidence
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
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.
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.
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.
IRG Working Set 2024v2.0
Source: WANG Yifan
Date: Generated on 2026-10-04
Unification
Showing 7 comments.
Unifiable with 鯈 (U+9BC8) as per UCV #305.
Possibly unifiable with 𪂔 (U+2A094) if cognate.
Is it appropriate to expand it and unify to 鼳 (U+9F33)?
Attributes
Showing 5 comments.
Evidence
Showing 14 comments.
「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.
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
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 4 comments.
Other
Showing 5 comments.
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.
Data for Unihan
Showing 7 comments.