⿱几口 can be useful as a special component. Many CJKUI have the shape. 㕣(U+3563) is coded at 17-21 in GB/T 7590-1987(China's national standard), which is different from ⿱几口.
As the note says:
The character is mainly used by Zhuang(壮族) people who lived in the area between Beiliu County(北流市) and Yulin City(玉林市), Guangxi(广西). From the aspect of shape and pronunciation, it is related to 䂖(石). However, because the pronunciation of 石(dan4) is similar to 氹(dang4) and 潭(tan2) in dialect, the character is actually used as 氹(pool) or 潭(pool) by local Zhuang(壮族) people and no exception found. Considering the shape is interesting, suggest to seperately encode it as a special Variantof 石（䂖）.
We suggest not to unify.
Suggest to add a new UCV ⿰亻X and ⿲亻丨X as level 2.
修(U+4FEE) and 俢(U+4FE2) cognate
偹(U+5079) and 俻(U+4FFB) cognate
倐(U+5010) and 𠊅(U+20285) cognate
⿰纟𪝉(seen in GB18030 v1) and 𮶃(U+2ED83) cognate
㣠(U+38E0) and 𢓘(U+224D8) not completely cognate
候 and 侯 non-cognate
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.
The unification has been discussed in IRG meeting before and the decision was that it should be encoded seperately.
Oppose Unification
IRGN2622 IRG61MiscEditorialReport, item 8:
Hongmen character unification (IRGN2634 Wang Xieyang)
The editors considered these CJK unified characters and thus they could be submitted to IRG for future extension.
To respect the procedure, this should be brought out al least before submission. If not, they should be treated as UNIFIED ideographs based on my comments in IRGN2634. The reasons why it should be seperately encoded was stated clearly and agreed by IRG.
Oppose Unification
I have pointed out clearly that the abstract shape of the two characters are the same in IRGN2634. Meanwhile, I have pointed out clearly that because both two characters have stable glyphs in long enough time, they should not be unified.
The suggestions in IRGN2634 have been discussed in detail in IRG meeting #61 and agreed by experts. It is not resonable at all that this two characters are unified later because of the same abstract shape.
Oppose Unification
The editorial report clearly states that they are CJK unified characters. You can't just focus on the the second half of the sentence ignoring the first half.
Oppose Unification
The connection of 戈 is important for complex Hongmen characters. The origins of them are different. All complex Hongmen characters originate from the following thing:
Hongmen characters with 戈 conencted are directly transformed to Kai Form from the original shape.
Hongmen characters with 戈 unconencted are written in Kai form based on its abstract shape.
Hongmen characters with 戈 conencted or unconencted are prefered by different people in different regions with various meanings.
The UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 looks similar because we have normalized the glyphs of existing Hongmen characters:
Both UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 are one of the earliest forms of Hongmen characters to appear in books. This is also reasonable because the two kind of origins. The two glyphs are important for academical studies.
We are not interested in encoding them all. To avoid controversy, we normalized the glyphs, asked IRG for advice, and then submitted them.
It is not fair at all to deny my efforts on studying these characters without reading the related document. And procedurelly, they should not be unified with a reason I have already clearly stated a year ago. It is even acceptable to bring the discussion up again before the submission of IRG WS2024.
But after the submission, any objection should not be proved by IRG, let alone an objection based on clearly stated and discussed issues. It is just unacceptable.
{{IRG N2634 https://www.unicode.org/irg/docs/n2634-ComplexHongmenIdeographs.pdf}}
An article in Chinese introducing the Hongmen characters is attached as feedback. Experts can read it if you are interested.
Oppose Unification
The reason why UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 should be disunified was clearly stated in the document and was agreed by IRG:
Oppose Unification
I don't think I misunderstand the text in the editorial report. The title of my proposal is "Suggestions on unifying complex Hongmen related ideographs". The decisions in editorial report should absolutely a response to the unification. There is no problem at all to say IRG accepted the unification rules based on the text in the editorial report.
And it is acceptable to make a "further discussion" for me, what is not acceptable is that the further discussion is brought out based on a clearly stated and discussed issue. You can't just say yes to a thing in the past but say no to the same thing without any new reasons. This will be not acceptable in the standardization work.
Oppose Unification
Although UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 have a very similar glyph, I suggest not to unify UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 based on the following three reasons:
1. The unconnected 戈 is a very important structure in the evolution of complex Hongmen Ideographs. An obvious unconnected 戈 component makes it possible that it can be replaced by other components such as 刂，丁，才，寸，etc.
The 刂 of 𰻞(U+30EDE) actually orginates from 戈 because the meanings of 戈 and 刂 are related to each other. If the 戈 was not written out, the 𰻞(U+30EDE) won't exist.
Meanwhile, no case of including 刂，丁，才，寸，etc as components is found when there is a connected 戈.
2. The UTC-03340 is the most common form of 贼 used in 四川(Sichuan) and shuar used in 北京(Beijing), but UTC-03342 is the first complex Hongmen Ideograph that is included in the publications. Both shapes are important.
3. According to IRG N2770R, the meanings of UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 are not overlapping with each other. In other similar cases, this always means disunification.
The unification has been discussed in IRG meeting before and the decision was that it should be encoded seperately.
IRGN2622 IRG61MiscEditorialReport, item 8:
Hongmen character unification (IRGN2634 Wang Xieyang)
The editors considered these CJK unified characters and thus they could be submitted to IRG for future extension.
To respect the procedure, this should be brought out al least before submission. If not, they should be treated as UNIFIED ideographs based on my comments in IRGN2634. The reasons why it should be seperately encoded was stated clearly and agreed by IRG.
The unification has been discussed in IRG meeting before and the decision was that it should be encoded seperately.
IRGN2622 IRG61MiscEditorialReport, item 8:
Hongmen character unification (IRGN2634 Wang Xieyang)
The editors considered these CJK unified characters and thus they could be submitted to IRG for future extension.
To respect the procedure, this should be brought out al least before submission. If not, they should be treated as UNIFIED ideographs based on my comments in IRGN2634. The reasons why it should be seperately encoded was stated clearly and agreed by IRG.
Oppose Unification
No unification rule. If related UCV is added, then acceptable.
Suggets to unify to 𠮚 (U+20B9A) because both two ideopraphs are CJK ideographs and their glyph should be the same in every country.
Unification
IRG PnP v17
The non-cognate rule does not apply to characters that have identical glyphs even if the characters are historically unrelated. For example ⿰ 木 几 (wooden table) and ⿰ 木 几 (c-simplified form of 機) shall not be separately coded because they have identical glyphs despite being unrelated in historical derivation.
Oppose Unification
Agree with the disunification.
In China, people often write 国 as 囗. ⿴囗丶 is just a version with another dot. The dot represents the compnent that is simplified. I think the position of the dot doesn't matter.
蚩(U+86A9)，说文：从虫，𡳿（之, not 屮）聲. 蟲也。Reading chi1 nowadays, used mainly in a name 蚩尤.
𧈪(U+2722A)，说文：从虫，屮聲. 蟲申行也. Reading chan3 nowadays, used mainly in Wu dialect(吴语) meaning stretching.
In a nutshell, 蚩(U+86A9) and 𧈪(U+2722A) are non-cognate.
Evidence 1 shows that ⿱山虫 is a variant of 蚩. Evidence 2 shows that ⿱山虫 is a variant of 𧈪(U+2722A). In this circumstance, it will be reluctant to unify it neither to 蚩(U+86A9) nor 𧈪(U+2722A).
So my suggestion would be not to unify.
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
If this can be questionable, then all 类化字 can be questionable.
Evidence
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
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
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.
We think the dot is not very significant according to the meaning. 𠫝 (U+20ADD) have a dot. What's more, we think it is also OK to encode it as a variant of 㐬 while it is unifiable to 㐬 when used as components.
高丽大藏经异体字字典，page2
evidence provided by @纯狐
This shows that it can also be used as variant of 並. But not unify to 𭀤 (U+2D024) because it is also a variant of 樊. People asking for ⿱並八 in Zhihu(知乎)
It is a part of Daoist talisman but not an ideograph based on provided evidence. Used with clearly unencodable Daoist signs. This "ideograph" should be rejected by IRG.
It is a part of Daoist talisman but not an ideograph based on provided evidence. Used with clearly unencodable Daoist signs. This "ideograph" should be rejected by IRG.
Another version of 正统道藏·道法会元
Unclear evidence
Comment #4937 says "The evidence is very clear, and the context shows that the character is obviously an ideograph". This is truly unbelievable.
The context clearly states that they are parts of axe tailismans(斧符) and should be drawn in the blank side of the drawings of axes(空邊入卦號). I really don't understand why it is obviously an ideograph based on this kind of context.
The context clearly proves that UK-30471 and all other seven ones(including the one in Ext.J draft) are just signs systematically created by adding 雨 and 鬼 to 八卦☰☱☲☳☴☵☶☷. They are created for the tailismans used in special cermonies to ask Gods' help(到處萬神奉行). They are not used in texts and have no semantics.
Unclear evidence
The UK-20710, which has not formally be encoded, is used in the same way, i.e. being drawn in the drawings of axes. This was also clearly stated in the book 《梵音斗科》. It is just that the whole image of the related context was not provided by the UK in IRG WS2021.
[WS2021-04313]
Whole image:
Evidence the UK provided in IRG WS2021:
It is a part of Daoist talisman but not an ideograph based on provided evidence. Used with clearly unencodable Daoist signs. This "ideograph" should be rejected by IRG.
Another version of 正统道藏·道法会元
It is a part of Daoist talisman but not an ideograph based on provided evidence. Used with clearly unencodable Daoist signs. This "ideograph" should be rejected by IRG.
Another version of 正统道藏·道法会元
It is a part of Daoist talisman but not an ideograph based on provided evidence. Used with clearly unencodable Daoist signs. This "ideograph" should be rejected by IRG.
Another version of 正统道藏·道法会元
It is a part of Daoist talisman but not an ideograph based on provided evidence. Used with clearly unencodable Daoist signs. This "ideograph" should be rejected by IRG.
Another version of 正统道藏·道法会元
It is a part of Daoist talisman but not an ideograph based on provided evidence. Used with clearly unencodable Daoist signs. This "ideograph" should be rejected by IRG.
Another version of 正统道藏·道法会元
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
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
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
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
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
The new evidence still shows no running text but only a screenshot of a computer font.
Unclear evidence
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
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
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
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.
Evidence
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.
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
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
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
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.
It is good to keep the current glyph. The stroke at the very top should be normalized to dot according to all other variants. Moreover, the thing between the two 纟 should absolutely be 言.
If the second 纟 is with a slanting up final stroke, the space in the lower right corner will become too large, causing the glyph to look less beautiful than it is now.
《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：
The glyph of GDM-00507 and GDM-00508 are reasonable. "GDM-00507 GDM-00508" is a common writing of "甶孑", which refers to 甶孑大帝. 甶孑大帝 is the underworld Dharma body of The Taiyi God(太乙救苦天尊) who saved sufferings . 甶孑大帝 is the King of all ghosts. 甶 means the head of the ghost and 孑 means solitude, so 甶孑 indicates that 甶孑大帝 is the only King of the ghost.
Both "GDM-00507" and "GDM-00508" orignate from 甶. "GDM-00507" is 甶 with the middle bar out of the 囗, the glyph indicates that 甶孑大帝 is the King of the ghosts who are still wandering in the human world; "GDM-00508" is 甶 with a tail under 囗, the glyph indicates that 甶孑大帝 is the King of the ghosts who has settled in the underworld.
The glyph of GDM-00507 and GDM-00508 are reasonable. "GDM-00507 GDM-00508" is a common writing of "甶孑", which refers to 甶孑大帝. 甶孑大帝 is the underworld Dharma body of The Taiyi God(太乙救苦天尊) who saved sufferings . 甶孑大帝 is the King of all ghosts. 甶 means the head of the ghost and 孑 means solitude, so 甶孑 indicates that 甶孑大帝 is the only King of the ghost.
Both "GDM-00507" and "GDM-00508" orignate from 甶. "GDM-00507" is 甶 with the middle bar out of the 囗, the glyph indicates that 甶孑大帝 is the King of the ghosts who are still wandering in the human world; "GDM-00508" is 甶 with a tail under 囗, the glyph indicates that 甶孑大帝 is the King of the ghosts who has settled in the underworld.
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.
Thanks for that. I will check my books these days, too.
Comment
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.
Could please someone check the following article in a Japanese library?
週刊ポスト 3(21)(91) 1971.05
https://web.archive.org/web/20230119071958/http://webcatplus.nii.ac.jp/webcatplus/details/book/25053420.html
〓・〓・〓を読めない人は時代おくれ--【現代フィーリング研究】横文字はもう古い!ビジネスを発展させる漢字活用 / / 38～41
〓 Seems to be the unencoded characters.
Comment
It seems that printed form of this character can be found in the article.
It is my fault that I didn't notice the position of the bar is not the same. And I'd like to apologize for the mistake. The variant of 廿 will be submitted to IRG in the future and thank you for pointing that out.
The suggested semantic variant in my comment #5695 was wrong because the glyph was not exactly the same.
The proposed character with the bar(一) in the middle but the variant of 廿 have a bar on the top. So they are non-cognate indeed.
IRG Working Set 2024v1.0
Source: Xieyang WANG
Date: Generated on 2026-08-19
Labels
Showing 6 comments.
Unification
Showing 46 comments.
The character is mainly used by Zhuang(壮族) people who lived in the area between Beiliu County(北流市) and Yulin City(玉林市), Guangxi(广西). From the aspect of shape and pronunciation, it is related to 䂖(石). However, because the pronunciation of 石(dan4) is similar to 氹(dang4) and 潭(tan2) in dialect, the character is actually used as 氹(pool) or 潭(pool) by local Zhuang(壮族) people and no exception found. Considering the shape is interesting, suggest to seperately encode it as a special Variantof 石（䂖）.
We suggest not to unify.
⿰䏍長 in 异体字字典
It seems OK to unify to 𱧅 (U+319C5).
修(U+4FEE) and 俢(U+4FE2) cognate
偹(U+5079) and 俻(U+4FFB) cognate
倐(U+5010) and 𠊅(U+20285) cognate
⿰纟𪝉(seen in GB18030 v1) and 𮶃(U+2ED83) cognate
㣠(U+38E0) and 𢓘(U+224D8) not completely cognate
候 and 侯 non-cognate
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.
Hongmen character unification (IRGN2634 Wang Xieyang)
The editors considered these CJK unified characters and thus they could be submitted to IRG for future extension.
To respect the procedure, this should be brought out al least before submission. If not, they should be treated as UNIFIED ideographs based on my comments in IRGN2634. The reasons why it should be seperately encoded was stated clearly and agreed by IRG.
The suggestions in IRGN2634 have been discussed in detail in IRG meeting #61 and agreed by experts. It is not resonable at all that this two characters are unified later because of the same abstract shape.
Hongmen characters with 戈 conencted are directly transformed to Kai Form from the original shape.
Hongmen characters with 戈 unconencted are written in Kai form based on its abstract shape.
Hongmen characters with 戈 conencted or unconencted are prefered by different people in different regions with various meanings.
The UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 looks similar because we have normalized the glyphs of existing Hongmen characters:
Both UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 are one of the earliest forms of Hongmen characters to appear in books. This is also reasonable because the two kind of origins. The two glyphs are important for academical studies.
We are not interested in encoding them all. To avoid controversy, we normalized the glyphs, asked IRG for advice, and then submitted them.
It is not fair at all to deny my efforts on studying these characters without reading the related document. And procedurelly, they should not be unified with a reason I have already clearly stated a year ago. It is even acceptable to bring the discussion up again before the submission of IRG WS2024.
But after the submission, any objection should not be proved by IRG, let alone an objection based on clearly stated and discussed issues. It is just unacceptable.
{{IRG N2634 https://www.unicode.org/irg/docs/n2634-ComplexHongmenIdeographs.pdf}}
An article in Chinese introducing the Hongmen characters is attached as feedback. Experts can read it if you are interested.
And it is acceptable to make a "further discussion" for me, what is not acceptable is that the further discussion is brought out based on a clearly stated and discussed issue. You can't just say yes to a thing in the past but say no to the same thing without any new reasons. This will be not acceptable in the standardization work.
1. The unconnected 戈 is a very important structure in the evolution of complex Hongmen Ideographs. An obvious unconnected 戈 component makes it possible that it can be replaced by other components such as 刂，丁，才，寸，etc.
The 刂 of 𰻞(U+30EDE) actually orginates from 戈 because the meanings of 戈 and 刂 are related to each other. If the 戈 was not written out, the 𰻞(U+30EDE) won't exist.
Meanwhile, no case of including 刂，丁，才，寸，etc as components is found when there is a connected 戈.
2. The UTC-03340 is the most common form of 贼 used in 四川(Sichuan) and shuar used in 北京(Beijing), but UTC-03342 is the first complex Hongmen Ideograph that is included in the publications. Both shapes are important.
3. According to IRG N2770R, the meanings of UTC-03340 and UTC-03342 are not overlapping with each other. In other similar cases, this always means disunification.
IRGN2622 IRG61MiscEditorialReport, item 8:
Hongmen character unification (IRGN2634 Wang Xieyang)
The editors considered these CJK unified characters and thus they could be submitted to IRG for future extension.
To respect the procedure, this should be brought out al least before submission. If not, they should be treated as UNIFIED ideographs based on my comments in IRGN2634. The reasons why it should be seperately encoded was stated clearly and agreed by IRG.
IRGN2622 IRG61MiscEditorialReport, item 8:
Hongmen character unification (IRGN2634 Wang Xieyang)
The editors considered these CJK unified characters and thus they could be submitted to IRG for future extension.
To respect the procedure, this should be brought out al least before submission. If not, they should be treated as UNIFIED ideographs based on my comments in IRGN2634. The reasons why it should be seperately encoded was stated clearly and agreed by IRG.
Suggets to unify to 𠮚 (U+20B9A) because both two ideopraphs are CJK ideographs and their glyph should be the same in every country.
The non-cognate rule does not apply to characters that have identical glyphs even if the characters are historically unrelated. For example ⿰ 木 几 (wooden table) and ⿰ 木 几 (c-simplified form of 機) shall not be separately coded because they have identical glyphs despite being unrelated in historical derivation.
In China, people often write 国 as 囗. ⿴囗丶 is just a version with another dot. The dot represents the compnent that is simplified. I think the position of the dot doesn't matter.
𧈪(U+2722A)，说文：从虫，屮聲. 蟲申行也. Reading chan3 nowadays, used mainly in Wu dialect(吴语) meaning stretching.
In a nutshell, 蚩(U+86A9) and 𧈪(U+2722A) are non-cognate.
Evidence 1 shows that ⿱山虫 is a variant of 蚩. Evidence 2 shows that ⿱山虫 is a variant of 𧈪(U+2722A). In this circumstance, it will be reluctant to unify it neither to 蚩(U+86A9) nor 𧈪(U+2722A).
So my suggestion would be not to unify.
Attributes
Showing 6 comments.
Evidence
Showing 83 comments.
Evidence provided by @純狐.
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
《汉语大字典》第二版 for 𤴘(U+24D18)
《汉字海》 page 173
《汉字海》 page 164-165
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
evidence provided by @纯狐
This shows that it can also be used as variant of 並. But not unify to 𭀤 (U+2D024) because it is also a variant of 樊.
People asking for ⿱並八 in Zhihu(知乎)
Evidence provided by @蛋其.
Evidence provided by @純狐.
Evidence provided by @純狐
郑贤章.汉文佛典疑难俗字札考[J].古汉语研究,2011,(02):24-31+95.
Evidence provided by @純狐.
佛教难字字典
世德堂本西游记
文渊阁四库全书本《十国春秋》，卷九十一，page10
Another version of 正统道藏·道法会元
The context clearly states that they are parts of axe tailismans(斧符) and should be drawn in the blank side of the drawings of axes(空邊入卦號). I really don't understand why it is obviously an ideograph based on this kind of context.
The context clearly proves that UK-30471 and all other seven ones(including the one in Ext.J draft) are just signs systematically created by adding 雨 and 鬼 to 八卦☰☱☲☳☴☵☶☷. They are created for the tailismans used in special cermonies to ask Gods' help(到處萬神奉行). They are not used in texts and have no semantics.
[WS2021-04313]
Whole image:
Evidence the UK provided in IRG WS2021:
Another version of 正统道藏·道法会元
Another version of 正统道藏·道法会元
Another version of 正统道藏·道法会元
Another version of 正统道藏·道法会元
Another version of 正统道藏·道法会元
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 provided by @純狐.
通雅，光绪刻本
両親が70年代に作ったミニコミで大盛りあがり……
新集藏經音義隨函錄（高麗藏）
明清小说俗字典
光绪《淳安县志》
As variant of 𧈪(U+2722A):
《说文释例》（芋园丛书）:
《说文义证》（同治九年同文书局本）:
《说文通训定声》（临啸阁） gives 𧈪(U+2722A):
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 11 comments.
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》.
If the second 纟 is with a slanting up final stroke, the space in the lower right corner will become too large, causing the glyph to look less beautiful than it is now.
Other
Showing 31 comments.
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
Both "GDM-00507" and "GDM-00508" orignate from 甶. "GDM-00507" is 甶 with the middle bar out of the 囗, the glyph indicates that 甶孑大帝 is the King of the ghosts who are still wandering in the human world; "GDM-00508" is 甶 with a tail under 囗, the glyph indicates that 甶孑大帝 is the King of the ghosts who has settled in the underworld.
Both "GDM-00507" and "GDM-00508" orignate from 甶. "GDM-00507" is 甶 with the middle bar out of the 囗, the glyph indicates that 甶孑大帝 is the King of the ghosts who are still wandering in the human world; "GDM-00508" is 甶 with a tail under 囗, the glyph indicates that 甶孑大帝 is the King of the ghosts who has settled in the underworld.
Evidence NO.2 is 同治（1862-1875）《潯州府志》, the glyph in it is ⿺虎戊.
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.
週刊ポスト 3(21)(91) 1971.05
https://web.archive.org/web/20230119071958/http://webcatplus.nii.ac.jp/webcatplus/details/book/25053420.html
〓・〓・〓を読めない人は時代おくれ--【現代フィーリング研究】横文字はもう古い!ビジネスを発展させる漢字活用 / / 38～41
〓 Seems to be the unencoded characters.
Data for Unihan
Showing 7 comments.
The proposed character with the bar(一) in the middle but the variant of 廿 have a bar on the top. So they are non-cognate indeed.