I believe that the correct action here for the discussion record is to withdraw this character. See the discussion record for IRG Working Set 2021 #03519, which was withdrawn, because it was included in the Extension I block at code point U+2EDBD (Unicode Version 15.1). China can horizontally-extend U+2B73C after Unicode Version 17.0 is released in September, meaning that the IRG can entertain such a horizontal extension proposal as early as IRG Meeting #65 in October.
With regard to the proposed disunification of J4-2359 (JIS X 0213 Level 4) at U+20AD3, Japan has historically rejected proposals that involve moving sources that correspond to their primary standards, specifically JIS X 0208 and JIS X 0213. Even if Japan were to accept the proposal, they would not take any action until this IRG working set is standardized as a new CJK Unified Ideographs extension block, which is at least three years from now.
In addition, both forms are present in the Moji_Joho IVD collection, meaning Japan is treating these as a unifiable pair:
This ideograph is a disunification of U+6ECB 滋 that also affects U+FA99 滋. If accepted, the kIRG_KPSource property value of U+FA99, KP1-52B4, should be moved to the new code point, the kIRG_KPSource property value of U+FA99 should be changed to KPU-0FA99, and the kIRG_USource property value of U+6ECB, UTC-00777, should be removed.
Note that disunifications have been processed via previous IRG working sets, which is why the UTC decided to submit this ideograph. UTC-01159, UTC-01162, and UTC-02972 in IRG Working Set 2017 served as precedents.
Oppose Unification
Per the details in document IRG N2785, the UTC formally withdraws the withdraw of this ideograph, and requests that it be added back to the M Set.
This ideograph is a disunification of U+7DF4 練 that also affects U+FAB0 練. If accepted, the kIRG_KPSource property value of U+FAB0, KP1-671B, should be moved to the new code point, and the kIRG_KPSource property value of U+FAB0 should be changed to KPU-0FAB0. As with the most recent disunification, Japan will not want to move the kIRG_JSource property value of U+7DF4, J0-4E7D, to the new code point due to compatibility concerns.
Note that disunifications have been processed via previous IRG working sets, which is why the UTC decided to submit this ideograph. UTC-01159, UTC-01162, and UTC-02972 in IRG Working Set 2017 served as precedents.
Oppose Unification
Per the details in document IRG N2785, the UTC formally withdraws the withdraw of this ideograph, and requests that it be added back to the M Set.
The person who submitted this ideograph to the UTC pointed out that U+2B7B9 in the Extension D block is a disunification example. My own checking found that U+2D5FB in the Extension F block, which appears to be cognate with 巠 (U+5DE0) according to the Moji Jōhō Kiban database, is another example.
Agree with Comment #8229 in principle, but it is worth pointing out that this ideograph is categorized under Radical #142 in GB/T 7590 per Comment #8228.
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
I have also requested that the author of document L2/21-101 provide additional evidence.
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.
This is the 29th ideograph in document L2/23-130, and I requested that the document author provide more evidence.
New evidence
『誤字俗字・正字一覧』, edited by 戸籍実務研究会, 日本加除出版, 2010, ISBN-13 978-4-8178-3897-1, page 32
New evidence
閉鎖登記簿 (Land registration record, which was used until computerization in 2007.)
Related to the above: 旧表題部 (Former title section. It seems that this was the title section until about 1960.)
旧土地台帳 (Land registration record, which was used from the Meiji era to 1960s. In the second one, "工" and "空" have been corrected to write characters similar to "ユ." It seems the name of this place was also written as "万空内.")
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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 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.
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..
IRG Working Set 2024v2.0
Source: Ken LUNDE
Date: Generated on 2025-04-22
Unification
Showing 32 comments.
I believe that the correct action here for the discussion record is to withdraw this character. See the discussion record for IRG Working Set 2021 #03519, which was withdrawn, because it was included in the Extension I block at code point U+2EDBD (Unicode Version 15.1). China can horizontally-extend U+2B73C after Unicode Version 17.0 is released in September, meaning that the IRG can entertain such a horizontal extension proposal as early as IRG Meeting #65 in October.
In addition, both forms are present in the Moji_Joho IVD collection, meaning Japan is treating these as a unifiable pair:
Per #5369 and #5434, unify with 𣕕 (U+23555)?
Note that disunifications have been processed via previous IRG working sets, which is why the UTC decided to submit this ideograph. UTC-01159, UTC-01162, and UTC-02972 in IRG Working Set 2017 served as precedents.
The UTC agrees to unify this character with 𬜮 (U+2C72E).
Note that disunifications have been processed via previous IRG working sets, which is why the UTC decided to submit this ideograph. UTC-01159, UTC-01162, and UTC-02972 in IRG Working Set 2017 served as precedents.
Per #5668, unify with 抜 (U+629C)?
Attributes
Showing 387 comments.
Evidence
Showing 46 comments.
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
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.
Related to the above: 旧表題部 (Former title section. It seems that this was the title section until about 1960.)
旧土地台帳 (Land registration record, which was used from the Meiji era to 1960s. In the second one, "工" and "空" have been corrected to write characters similar to "ユ." It seems the name of this place was also written as "万空内.")
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
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 23 comments.
Editorial
Showing 21 comments.
Other
Showing 2 comments.
[WS2021-00765]
Data for Unihan
Showing 21 comments.