Agree with #263.

The evidence above suggest this is a unifiable variant of 䏻 (U+43FB), which is in turn a variant of 能

agree with #553. Also, Guangyun gives fanqie 防錽 for 笵, which appears to be more immediately equivalent to the character, ⿱竹汜, for which SAT-09407 is the in the fanqie given in the evidence.

麚 (U+9E9A)
Semantic identity implied by parallel definition in other texts of Shuowen. Add new UCV for equivalence of ⿰𡰥⿱コ又 and ⿰𡰥㕛 as components.

Semantic and shape similarity suggest unification with𧵍 (U+27D4D)

鼽 (U+9F3D)

U+3140D is a simplified form of 幽, so these are non-cognate.

Apparent variant of : 𩦧 (U+299A7). This is not an exact match. We would need a new UCV to equate 曼 with ⿳日罒方and 㬅.

Should probably not be unified with 𥐦 (U+25426) because the phonetic components, 己 (kỷ) and 已 (dĩ) are very different. UTC-03297 would be non-cognate with U+25426 in Vietnamese.

Agree with #83

The Vietnamese is clearly not cognate with 𠲙 (U+20C99) and the shapes are not identical. Better to keep separate.

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

Likely an error form, but enshrined in a published standard: Kho chữ nôm mã hoá.

Agree with unification 𮔔 (U+2E514) . We will withdraw this.

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.

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.

The shapes are too different to recognize as identical.

The shapes are too different to recognize as identical.

The original source reference for V2-7A3B is Vũ Văn Kính, "Tự Điển Chữ Nôm", p. 272, shown in the image below. As you can see, the phonetic is 迭 (điệt). So, the current shape of U+28540 is incorrect. Unification will be acceptable if we change the shape of U+28540 to VN-F2173.

FS=3

11

16

3

16

12

170

18

170

163

9

2

2

2

163

19

2

2

163

9

163

SC=11, TC = 15. The ORT Attributes predictor gives 7 strokes for 成. The unihan data is inconsistent. Personally I think 6 is more intuitive.

2

FS=2

4

FS=4

⿰外𬷨

10

19

⿳⿴𦥑同冖頁, 𦥑 produces the expected number of strokes.

14

27

1

11

19

15

10

170

15

18, based on IRGN2221 which suggests 12 strokes for 黃/黄

7

2 (based on IRGN 954AR)

FS=2

SC=11, TS=18

8

16

FS=5

SC=10, TS=17

2

5

22

2

22

FS = 3

4

1

FS=1

2

15

25

1

14

22

4

More compact IDS: ⿰氵𱣅

12

19

11

19

15

26

15

26

8

18

8

16

7

18

4

4

12

4

15

SC=9, TC=16 (IRGN2221)

8

17

21

29

FS=2

4

3

15

Unihan data, the ORT Attributes predictor, and most other candidates in WS2024 give 8. It would be better to be consistent.

1

SC=12, TS=19

14

Unihan data, the ORT Attributes predictor, and most other candidates in WS2024 give 8. It would be better to be consistent.

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.

FS=3

22

FS=2

SC=14, TC=20, based on Attributes Predictor, which counts the extra dot in 署

FS=4

4

102 is more intuitive, and should at least be a second radical

8

2

16

9

17

3

18

9

14

17

22

29

Agree with swap

Agree with #6756

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)

5

SC=12, TC=19

TS=19

163

21

ORT Attributes predictor gives FS=3, which is correct?

⿱⿻又丷馬

8

12

Agree with #6757

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

18 is correct. According to the Attributes Predictor and Unihan data, 羊 is 6, not 7. Both give 10 strokes for 羞.

Tự Điển Chữ Nôm Trích Dẫn, p. 1017, reading "phướn"

Evidence 3 suggests that this is interchangeable with 赼 (U+8D7C)

Vietnamese "lơn", "Tự Điện Chữ Nôm Trích Dẫn", p 721

The Kangxi dictionary cites a similar passage from "博雅" using what appears to be a variant of SAT-10655 : 鎢錥謂之銼𨰠(U+28C20)。U+28C20 uses 羸, with 羊 in place of 虫. Is there a clearer image?

"Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt", p. 704, Vietnamese reading is "rìu"

"Kho chữ Hán Nôm Mã Hoà", p. 54, shows this with reading "rích":

Taberd's "DICTIONARIUM ANAMITICO-LATINUM" p. 668 has this with the reading "máo", no definition given

Takeuchi's 字喃字典, p. 461, Vietnamese reading "rích".

Tự Điển Chữ Nôm Trích Dẫn, p. 859, reading "nom".

"Tự Điển Chữ Nôm Trích Dẫn", p. 559, reading "hứng"

"Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt", p. 297, Vietnamese reading "câu"

Takeuchi, 字喃字典, p. 245, reading is "khăng"

Evidence files #1 and #2 are not visible.

This is found in several versions of the Tale of Kieu, with the reading "nghiệt", here is v. 1866, p. 50a

This was standardized / normalized in the "Kho Chữ Nôm Mã Hoà" as V+60888

The evidence shown for the Thổ / Tày language of Lạng Sơn and Cao Bằng is actually a simplified form, ⿰身⿱𫩠彐. Is the implication that this is unifiable with the full form ⿰身當?

A similar character is found in the Tale of Kieu, v. 1871, p. 8 where it is considered to be a variant of 篆, read "triện".

The evidence is not showing up for me.

"Bảng tra chữ Nôm", p. 277, read "min"

What is the evidence for the relationship with 鏈 (U+93C8). The phonetic is typically very different.

This means "to be pregnant" Takeuchi, p. 358, asserts that it is composed of the semantic 妊 and phonetic 彦: "妊と彦の組合せ", hence 壬 on the left side.

Here is the correct image:

Evidence files were duplicated. Here is Takeuchi, p. 40

The analysis in the dictionary says that this character is composed of "tiêu" (髟) and "đề" (提). The evidence looks like 提 on the bottom. So we conclude that 提 is correct.

Kieu1866, p. 23b:

The glyph has been normalized based on the form in Kieu 1866:

The original evidence above is mislabeled. The correct source is "Lục Vân Tiên" (National Library of Vietnam, R.403), p. 3).

From "Đại tự điển chữ nôm", p. 1306

The correct form is ⿰昏及 VN-F221C. The character is used in compounds such as "mập mờ" = loose, vague, dim, ambiguous, etc. So, the semantic is 昏, not 昬. We can change the glyph or replace with VN-F221C.

Takeuchi, p. 314 also has this character, with 昏, noting that it is possibly an error for 𥄫. "昏と及の組合せ。又は、𥄫の誤字?"

The correct image from Takeuchi

Please consider normalizing the form 戹 to be more in keeping with the design found in other Japanese fonts.

The middle horizontal stroke in 电 is defective.

The top horizontal stroke in the 柬 element is defective.

Agree, It means "paper", hence the semantic 帋, so it should look more like 氏.

An alternative solution would be to change the glyph to 展. This is the only instance we have with this design. All other examples of this character used as a phonetic in the "Giúp Đọc" have 展.

All the other glyphs in Nom Na Tong use 展, which is clearly the phonetic, so we will modify the font. Note, the current stroke count is already that for 展, so no need to change.

A stroke in the component 罒 is defective. We will submit a new glyph.

There is a glitch in the design of 聿. We will fix the outline

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 best solution is 1, modify VN-F03D1 to use 𥝢.

Nom Na Tong and other Nôm fonts, such as Han-Nom Minh and Han-Nom Kai use 𥝢 for most of the characters shown above and some others:

Chars with 𥝢 in Nom Na Tong: 棃犂黎瓈𥗍𨛫㰀嚟𠠍𤂱𤑬



The only exceptions we can find are U+853E and VN-F03D1.

䄪 is not necessarily standard. Other dictionaries show 𥝢 for U+68C3 and U+853E, as in the entries below from Taberd.

Changing the glyphs of U+853E and VN-F03D1 will be the least disruptive and conform to Vietnamese usage. We can do the horizontal extension after we change U+853E.

We will add 𥝢 as a normalization rule for 䄪.

Entries from Taberd showing the use of 𥝢

P. 699


P. 260

The glyph has been normalized based on the given analysis for this entry: "xích hùng", i.e. 赤雄.

Current shape reflects normalization in the Kho chữ Hán-Nôm mã Hoá

We can consider changing, but the last published standard had already normalized to the current shape:

We will address this.

The 月 component needs to be updated to conform to Vietnamese normalization rules.

This is the same design found in similar glyphs in the Nom Na Tong font: 摊, 瘫, etc.

Re #998. Correct, the phonetic is 已 to match the reading, as in U+23C86 in the entry below VN-F203F.

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.

Should consider a new radical number for this ⿱田儿 variant of 194

The wrong glyph is marked in Evidence 1, but the correct one is next to it.

What is the justification for labeling this as similar to U+31FC3?

The above should be kSimplifiedVariant, but for some reason the OCR shows "TRAD_VARIANT"

Above should read "U+2E514", not U+2E514

second radical should have FS=4

Re #1148, Prof. Hồng uses U+3004 to indicate a sense that is different from the primary sense of the character being defined.

𪀚 (U+2A01A)

𫥫 (U+2B96B), used in Tày, read "óc" or "oóc"

U+27BAD 𧮭

萑 (U+8411)

U+29A4C

髦 (U+9AE6)

U+27B66 𧭦

U+56A6

U+89FF 觿
This is based on the passage from《古今圖書集成》shown in the evidence for WS2021:03752. Kangxi has 觜觿，大龜也.

猦 (U+7326)

遥 (U+9065)

砢 (U+7822)

U+27C73 𧱳

選 (U+9078)

kPinyin mào

kJapanese うるう

kJapanese hiku

Vietnam will request horizontal extension to UK-30683