The original glyph of U+27E15 𧸕 should be ⿰貝⿱⿻〢丷兩 with 八 in the middle: [金] 韓道昭撰,改併五音類聚四聲篇,15卷,明成化十年刻本 [清]黎庶昌撰, 宋本廣韻校札,1巻, 清古逸叢書本 [宋]陳彭年撰,玉篇/玉篇反紐圖/玉篇分毫字樣,37巻,四庫全書本
Kangxi Zidian and the followers used another glyph as: GKX GHZ
The more common variant of U+27E15 𧸕 is:
[明]陳士元撰,古俗字略/補/漢碑用字/俗用雜字,10巻, 明萬曆刻歸雲別集本
[明]陳藎謨撰[清]吳任臣補輯,元音統韻,86巻,清康熙五十三年范廷瑚刻本 [金] 韓道昭撰,改併五音類聚四聲篇,15卷,明成化十年刻本(with ⿰貝⿱⿻〢丷兩 on the same page)
Another variant is: (金) 韓道昭撰,改併五音類聚四聲篇,十五卷,明成化十年刻本
New evidence
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The character which submitted by Korea as KC-10053 is the variant of 瞒 with the component 㒼 on the right hand:
It can be found in the following evidences: (唐) 歐陽詢 輯,藝文類聚,100卷,明嘉靖六年至七年[1527-1528]刻本,卷86,第6页 (清) 朱彝尊 輯,日下舊聞（補遺）,42卷,清康熙刻本,卷14,第3页
New evidence
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
It's obvious that the character KC-10053 is the variant of U+779E 瞞, which is non-cognate with U+27E15 𧸕. The glyph of KC-10053 could be normalized to ⿱艹雨(which I prefer) or 㒼, and no need to be unified to U+27E15 𧸕.
In the meanwhile, there are 4 series of variant glyph for U+27E15 𧸕.
④ ⑤ are the glyphs which U+27E15 𧸕 origined from, ① ② ③ are the correct original glyphs for it.
⑥ ⑦ ⑧ may share the glyph with the variant of U+779E 瞞. ⑨ is another kind of variant glyph.
So the glyph of U+27E15 𧸕 doesn't need to be changed, and the other 3 kind of variant should be encoded separately in future.
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.
Only one evidence just show that it's obviously the wrong glyph of 衢, please provide more evidences for this character to prove that this character truly exists and has encoding value.
As the variant of 舛, it's combined by 㐄 and L-R reversed 㐄.
Glyph design
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
The glyph should follow the evidence 2 and 3 in https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/?id=03261. The the glyph in the latest version was designed very strangely.
This is a component not a character, it shouldn't be encoded.
Other
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
This comment is from individual expert Ma Shijie：
Keep it. Come from shuowen small seal.
Refer to 00389 | ⿱吅冂 | WS2024v3.0. Component for 斝, but not ⿱吅冖.
Other
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
According to the evidences, I insist that this is a component rather than a character.
The paper shows it's a transcription of the ones appeared in oricle script. Indeed, it's the correct transcribed glyph what can support ⿱竹宀 to be encoded.
It is obvious that 03159 ⿱咸肉 is a variant of 03180 ⿱𮍏肉, and the annotation is completely consistent.
03180 ⿱𮍏肉：才浪反， 積蓄也，如庫藏也，人有五藏，謂肝肺脾心肾也，經文作~，非體也。
03159 ⿱咸肉：才浪反，《鄭註周禮》：積蓄也，如庫藏也， 經文作~，非體也。
It is obvious that phrase was written incorrectly in the annotation, this character should be withdrawn.
程先甲 辑，廣續方言 四卷，卷二，清光緒23年[1897]木活字本
(清) 桂馥 撰，說文解字義證 五十卷，卷十七，清道光30年至咸豐2年（1850-1852）刻本
(清) 段玉裁 撰，說文解字注 十五卷，卷第六上，清同治11年[1872]湖北崇文書局刻本
(清) 王筠 撰，說文解字句讀 三十卷，卷第六上，清道光至同治間[1821-1874]刻本
The glyph of the character is too strange, more evidence is needed to prove its form and components. Meanwhile, the evidences couldn't show the meaning and original source.
Postpone for further discussion, the issue about how to treat the hybrid characters has not reached a conclusion.
Other
[ Unresolved from v3.0 ]
Firstly, having already encoded similar characters does not necessarily mean that the same action can still be performed in the future.
Secondly, the encoded characters belong to the extended set E And F, The people involved in the coding work at that time may not have realized that these were script-hybrid characters.
Thirdly, the experts who raised the question had not yet participated in international encoding work at that time.
Fourthly, from the glyph of character form, the encoded characters cannot be distinguished from normal Hanzi through the proposed form, and it cannot be seen that their components are kana. The components fully conform to the writing and form of Hanzi components.
Fifthly and most importantly, after encoding such characters, their attribute annotation and component splitting methods will have an systematic impact on IRG PnP and Unihan database. The application of data carries too much risk.
I still recommend not placing such characters in CJK sets.
If a codechart is sufficient, other submission sources can also submit codechart without evidence, which will improve our review speed because there is no content that needs to be reviewed.
IRG Working Set 2024v4.0
Source: TAO Yang
Date: Generated on 2026-02-10
Unification
Showing 3 comments.
Similar to 00214 | ⿳内一八 | WS2024v3.0.
Add new UCV for 大 and as lv2?
No more evidences to prove the glyph shape？ It seems unifiable to 黝 (U+9EDD) according to the pronunciation.
Attributes
Showing 1 comments.
Evidence
Showing 14 comments.
Kangxi Zidian and the followers used another glyph as:
The more common variant of U+27E15 𧸕 is:
[明]陳士元撰,古俗字略/補/漢碑用字/俗用雜字,10巻, 明萬曆刻歸雲別集本
[明]陳藎謨撰[清]吳任臣補輯,元音統韻,86巻,清康熙五十三年范廷瑚刻本
Another variant is:
It can be found in the following evidences:
It's obvious that the character KC-10053 is the variant of U+779E 瞞, which is non-cognate with U+27E15 𧸕. The glyph of KC-10053 could be normalized to ⿱艹雨(which I prefer) or 㒼, and no need to be unified to U+27E15 𧸕.
In the meanwhile, there are 4 series of variant glyph for U+27E15 𧸕.
④ ⑤ are the glyphs which U+27E15 𧸕 origined from, ① ② ③ are the correct original glyphs for it.
⑥ ⑦ ⑧ may share the glyph with the variant of U+779E 瞞. ⑨ is another kind of variant glyph.
So the glyph of U+27E15 𧸕 doesn't need to be changed, and the other 3 kind of variant should be encoded separately in future.
[明] 张自烈 撰 正字通 十二集，卷首一卷，清康熙間[1662-1722]，火部，第1466页
Change the glyph to match the head character rather than the one in annotation.
Only one evidence just show that it's obviously the wrong glyph of 衢, please provide more evidences for this character to prove that this character truly exists and has encoding value.
Suggest to modify the left part to 鳥.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 22 comments.
⿰扌𥻔?
Normalize to ⿰氵𣉦?
Refer to 字形資訊 - [] 12-6546 - 全字庫 CNS11643 (2024).
The pronunciation is ying1 but ⿱雁鳥 or ⿸雁鳥 is yan4.
Refer to 字形資訊 - [] 9-7543 - 全字庫 CNS11643 (2024) and 字形資訊 - [] 11-5045 - 全字庫 CNS11643 (2024).
安?
Other
Showing 17 comments.
Keep it. Come from shuowen small seal.
Refer to 00389 | ⿱吅冂 | WS2024v3.0. Component for 斝, but not ⿱吅冖.
The paper shows it's a transcription of the ones appeared in oricle script. Indeed, it's the correct transcribed glyph what can support ⿱竹宀 to be encoded.
03180 ⿱𮍏肉：才浪反， 積蓄也，如庫藏也，人有五藏，謂肝肺脾心肾也，經文作~，非體也。
03159 ⿱咸肉：才浪反，《鄭註周禮》：積蓄也，如庫藏也， 經文作~，非體也。
程先甲 辑，廣續方言 四卷，卷二，清光緒23年[1897]木活字本
(清) 桂馥 撰，說文解字義證 五十卷，卷十七，清道光30年至咸豐2年（1850-1852）刻本
(清) 段玉裁 撰，說文解字注 十五卷，卷第六上，清同治11年[1872]湖北崇文書局刻本
(清) 王筠 撰，說文解字句讀 三十卷，卷第六上，清道光至同治間[1821-1874]刻本
Left component is small seal of 水
Some similar cases in 𱦻 and 𱧙.
Secondly, the encoded characters belong to the extended set E And F, The people involved in the coding work at that time may not have realized that these were script-hybrid characters.
Thirdly, the experts who raised the question had not yet participated in international encoding work at that time.
Fourthly, from the glyph of character form, the encoded characters cannot be distinguished from normal Hanzi through the proposed form, and it cannot be seen that their components are kana. The components fully conform to the writing and form of Hanzi components.
Fifthly and most importantly, after encoding such characters, their attribute annotation and component splitting methods will have an systematic impact on IRG PnP and Unihan database. The application of data carries too much risk.
I still recommend not placing such characters in CJK sets.
The radical does not conform to consistent principles.
𮹔 is also wrong.
冫 is variant of lightning? It is best to refer to the handling method of lightning. Or U+16FF1 𖿱?
If a codechart is sufficient, other submission sources can also submit codechart without evidence, which will improve our review speed because there is no content that needs to be reviewed.