Based on these two evidences, ⿱艹妖 is a modern misinterpretation of 𡝩. Therefore the value to preserve such form might be questionable. Since ⿱艹妖 here is cognate with 𡝩, suggest to unify with 𡝩 (U+21769).
According to the original evidence 《［雍正］山東通志》, 朱慶⿰金⿱幺夊 is elected as 崇禎丙子科（1636）舉人 and he is a descendent of 魯荒王朱檀.
According to 《皇明祖訓》：「凡東宮、親王位下、各擬名二十字。日後生子及孫，即以上聞，付宗人府。所立雙名，每一世取一字以為上字；其下一字，臨時隨意選擇，以為雙名，編入玉牒……魯王位下：肇泰陽當健、觀頤壽以弘」, given that his last name is of the 金 radical and he was active in 17th century, his generation name should have been 壽, and therefore his full name should have been 朱壽⿰金⿱幺夊, instead of 朱慶⿰金⿱幺夊.
An IRG expert YUAN Zhiyu has generously provided me a copy of an half folio from a 雍正 era copy of《崇禎丙子科山東鄉試齒錄》, one of the Peking University rare books collection, which indeed gives his name as 朱壽⿰金⿱幺犮 (犮 + VS19).
▲ 《崇禎丙子科山東鄉試錄》（影抄北京大學藏雍正抄本）
Because this evidence predates 《［雍正］山東通志》 and sourced from a Ming dynasty document 《崇禎丙子科山東鄉試錄》, it should be more authoritative than the original evidence. It also makes much more sense than ⿰金⿱幺夊 because both ⿰金⿱幺友 and ⿰金⿱幺犮 are also attested in contemporary dictionaries:
Here is a list of ⿰金⿱幺友 in a loose chronological order.
Given that the ⿰金⿱幺友 evidences predates the ⿰金⿱幺犮 + VS19 ones, and there is only one stroke difference between ⿰金⿱幺夊 and ⿰金⿱幺友, I suggest we encode the ⿰金⿱幺友 shape with both ⿰金⿱幺夊 and ⿰金⿱幺犮 + VS19 being unifiable variant of ⿰金⿱幺友.
And here is 𨪵 from 《漢語大字典》p. 4567, which also quotes 《清史稿》:
𨪵：人名用字。《清史稿•世祖紀一》：「乙未，朱聿釗弟聿鐭僭號紹武，據廣州，佟養甲、李成棟率師討之，斬（朱）聿鐭及……鉅野王壽𨪵。」, apparently 朱壽𨪵 in the evidences above and 朱壽⿰金朐 in 《南明史》are the same person.
Since 《南明史》, published by 中華書局 in 2006, is compiled from 錢海岳's manuscript, and 目 is easily confusable with 月 in handwritten text. I think 錢海岳 was meant for U+28AB5 𨪵 but the editors recognized the handwritten shape as ⿰金朐. Therefore, I suspect this is an one-off error and suggest pending more evidences.
In the new evidence, there are ⿳艹冖⿺元⿱⺊又 in Mincho and ⿱艹冦 in Gothic, which are apparently variants of each other as they refer to the same place name. I believe the shape ⿱艹冦 is more convenient for the practise use. I suggest to encode the normalized form ⿱艹冦 instead and update the IDS and glyph.
The original evidence is missing one horizontal stroke in the 春 component. And the annotation gives ⿱夫月.
Other
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
I don't object the current glyph design & IDS. Like you said both ⿱夫日 and ⿱夫月 are variants of 春. My previous comment is to note the normalization involved here. I think the normalized form ⿰口⿱椿火 is preferred over the exact form ⿰口⿱⿰木⿱夫日火, one can always add an IVD of ⿰口⿱椿火 to present the desired ⿰口⿱⿰木⿱夫日火 shape in 正統道藏.
Aside: In this evidence, the last character in the same column of ⿰口⿱椿火, ⿰口⿱𰟐水 is written as ⿰口⿱⿰火㇯堇一:
The normalization may be inevitable when dealing with ancient text, because they might have different normalization rules: The text here is authored well before the 15th century. As we can see, the shape of 堇 component here is consistent with contemporary dictionary:
▲ 龍龕手鑑（臺北故宮藏宋刊本）卷1 folio 5a
I think we should encode the modern normalized form ⿰口⿱𰟐水 instead of the exact shape ⿰口⿱⿰火㇯堇一, because the standard is for modern audience.
Good catch. We believe the ⿺虎戊 is the desired form because 1) The evidence in 雍正廣西通志 predates the one in 道光潯州府志. 2) 《炎徼紀聞》, an earlier source gives 𧇭, 3) the semi-cursive script of 武 could be similar to 戊, and 4) The text is from 翁萬達《藤峽善後議》. In 《中州音韻》, 武 is 微母魚模合上聲, 戊 is 微母魚模合去聲, so the pronunciation of 武 is also very similar to 戊 in Ming Dynasty.
IRG Working Set 2024v3.0
Source: HUANG Junliang
Date: Generated on 2025-06-15
Unification
Showing 1 comments.
Good catch. I agree on the unification to 𭃧 (U+2D0E7).
Attributes
Showing 4 comments.
It should be safe to normalize the IDS to ⿱艹冦.
Evidence
Showing 17 comments.
▲ 裘錫圭《長沙馬王堆漢墓簡帛集成（四）》，中華書局，2014，ISBN 978-7-101-10168 p. 38
▲ 裘錫圭《長沙馬王堆漢墓簡帛集成（一）》，中華書局，2014，ISBN 978-7-101-10168 p. 144
▲ 裘錫圭:《長沙馬王堆漢墓簡帛集成（四）》，中華書局，2014，ISBN 978-7-101-10168 p. 21
▲ 裘錫圭:《長沙馬王堆漢墓簡帛集成（一）》，中華書局，2014，ISBN 978-7-101-10168 p. 96
▲ 武漢大學簡帛研究中心: 《楚地出土戰國簡冊合集（一）》, 北京: 文物出版社, 2011. 11 ISBN 978-7-5010-3344-7, pp. 11
▲ 武漢大學簡帛研究中心: 《楚地出土戰國簡冊合集（一）》, 北京: 文物出版社, 2011. 11 ISBN 978-7-5010-3344-7, pp. 9
▲ 《文字蒙求廣義》（清光緒江楚書局刊本）卷3 folio 11b
▲《通志》（元至大間福州路三山郡庠刊至治二年修補本）草木略卷2 folio 29a
▲ 《詩三家義集疏》（民國四年長沙王氏虛受堂刊本）卷1 folio 27
The second evidence is from《拜經樓詩集》, the original version also gives 𡝩:
▲ 《拜經樓詩集》（清嘉慶刊拜經樓叢書本）卷3 folio 20b
Based on these two evidences, ⿱艹妖 is a modern misinterpretation of 𡝩. Therefore the value to preserve such form might be questionable. Since ⿱艹妖 here is cognate with 𡝩, suggest to unify with 𡝩 (U+21769).
The first evidence is from 《漢語大字典》, which quotes 龍龕手鑑. 《龍龕手鑑》（南宋刊本）gives 𱧅, as is provided as the original evidence for WS2017-01992:
▲ 《龍龕手鑑》（南宋刊本）卷2 folio 12a 水部平聲
The second original evidence is from 《宋史·卷218》, 《宋史》（朝鮮刊本）gives 𱧅.
▲ 《宋史》（朝鮮刊本）卷218 folio 33b
The third original evidence is from 《宋史·卷239》, 《宋史》（朝鮮刊本）gives 𱧅
▲ 《宋史》（朝鮮刊本）卷239 folio 9a
[ {{WS2017-01992}} ]
▲《道法會元（宮內廳藏本）》卷112〈帝令寶珠五雷祈禱大法〉3a
▲《道法會元（宮內廳藏本）》卷112〈帝令寶珠五雷祈禱大法〉2b
▲《道法會元（宮內廳藏本）》卷170〈混天飛捉四聖伏魔大法〉3a
▲《道法會元（宮內廳藏本）》卷170〈混天飛捉四聖伏魔大法〉3a
▲ 《秋水軒倡和詞》（清康煕十年(1671)至十一年(1672)遥連堂刻本）folio 19b
The new evidence gives ⿱竹⿰金⿱⿰臣⿱𠂉丶土. I think it is unifiable with ⿱竹鏗 in other evidences.
▲ 《御定歷代賦彙》（清康熙刊本）卷8 folio 13a 張鳳翼〈喜雨賦〉 gives the ⿰土⿱𦬫⿰十十 shape.
▲ 《杜詩鏡銓》（清同治刊本）卷14 folio 21b 杜甫〈故著作郎貶台州司户滎陽鄭公䖍〉 gives the exact ⿰土莽 shape.
According to 《皇明祖訓》：「凡東宮、親王位下、各擬名二十字。日後生子及孫，即以上聞，付宗人府。所立雙名，每一世取一字以為上字；其下一字，臨時隨意選擇，以為雙名，編入玉牒……魯王位下：肇泰陽當健、觀頤壽以弘」, given that his last name is of the 金 radical and he was active in 17th century, his generation name should have been 壽, and therefore his full name should have been 朱壽⿰金⿱幺夊, instead of 朱慶⿰金⿱幺夊.
An IRG expert YUAN Zhiyu has generously provided me a copy of an half folio from a 雍正 era copy of《崇禎丙子科山東鄉試齒錄》, one of the Peking University rare books collection, which indeed gives his name as 朱壽⿰金⿱幺犮 (犮 + VS19).
▲ 《崇禎丙子科山東鄉試錄》（影抄北京大學藏雍正抄本）
Because this evidence predates 《［雍正］山東通志》 and sourced from a Ming dynasty document 《崇禎丙子科山東鄉試錄》, it should be more authoritative than the original evidence. It also makes much more sense than ⿰金⿱幺夊 because both ⿰金⿱幺友 and ⿰金⿱幺犮 are also attested in contemporary dictionaries:
Here is a list of ⿰金⿱幺友 in a loose chronological order.
▲ 《泰和五音新改併類聚四聲篇》（金崇慶荊國器刊元修補本）卷2 folio 4a (⿰金⿱⿰𠂈丶友、七𭭕切, this character is from 《搜真玉鏡》)
▲ 《泰和五音新改併類聚四聲篇》（元張仁刊本）卷2 folio 4a
▲ 《成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇》（明成化丁亥(三年)至庚寅(七年)金臺大隆福寺集貲刊本，故善012372-012376，國立故宮博物院）卷2 folio 4b (Note that from this version, the fanqie is modified from 七歡切 to 七勸切)
▲ 《新校經史海篇直音》（明萬曆刊本）卷1 folio 4a (Note that 音茜 is very likely to be derived from the fanqie 七勸切 in 《成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇》)
▲ 《刻太古遺踪海篇集韻大全》（明萬曆17年刊本）卷23 folio 4a
▲ 《重校全補海篇直音》（明萬曆23年刊本）卷1 folio 5a
▲ 《重校古本五音類聚四声切韻直音海篇大全》（明萬曆30年刊本）卷1 folio 5b
▲ 《翰林重攷字義韻律大板海篇》（明刊本）卷15 folio 16b
Here is a list of ⿰金⿱幺友 in a loose chronological order.
▲ 《翰林筆削字義韻律鰲頭海篇心鏡》（明萬曆10年序刊本）卷15 folio 16b
▲ 《翰林重攷字義韻律大板海篇心鏡》（明萬曆24年刊本）卷15 folio 18a
▲ 《遵古本正韻石齋海篇》（明崇禎刊本）卷14 folio 18a (a.k.a 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉)
▲ 《精刻海若湯先生校訂音釋五侯鯖字海》（明末刊本）卷1 folio 4b
Given that the ⿰金⿱幺友 evidences predates the ⿰金⿱幺犮 + VS19 ones, and there is only one stroke difference between ⿰金⿱幺夊 and ⿰金⿱幺友, I suggest we encode the ⿰金⿱幺友 shape with both ⿰金⿱幺夊 and ⿰金⿱幺犮 + VS19 being unifiable variant of ⿰金⿱幺友.
▲ 《清世祖實錄》juan 30 folio 24b gives ⿲金目勾, which can be considered as a variant of 𨪵
▲ 《八旗通志初集》（清乾隆刊本）juan 138 gives ⿲金目勽, corrupted form of ⿲金目勾.
▲ 《東華錄》（清光緒石印本）順治 juan 2 gives 𨪵
▲ 《清史稿（1927）》juan 4 folio 14b also gives 𨪵.
And here is 𨪵 from 《漢語大字典》p. 4567, which also quotes 《清史稿》:
𨪵：人名用字。《清史稿•世祖紀一》：「乙未，朱聿釗弟聿鐭僭號紹武，據廣州，佟養甲、李成棟率師討之，斬（朱）聿鐭及……鉅野王壽𨪵。」, apparently 朱壽𨪵 in the evidences above and 朱壽⿰金朐 in 《南明史》are the same person.
Since 《南明史》, published by 中華書局 in 2006, is compiled from 錢海岳's manuscript, and 目 is easily confusable with 月 in handwritten text. I think 錢海岳 was meant for U+28AB5 𨪵 but the editors recognized the handwritten shape as ⿰金朐. Therefore, I suspect this is an one-off error and suggest pending more evidences.
▲ 高豆⿱艹冦町報かわにし 2018年2月号（15ページ）pp. 29
In the new evidence, there are ⿳艹冖⿺元⿱⺊又 in Mincho and ⿱艹冦 in Gothic, which are apparently variants of each other as they refer to the same place name. I believe the shape ⿱艹冦 is more convenient for the practise use. I suggest to encode the normalized form ⿱艹冦 instead and update the IDS and glyph.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 2 comments.
Both ⿰氵𤉹 (F0377) and ⿰氵𤉨(F247B) are included in 中華書局宋體. Of course they are both variant of 㵄.
Since now we have more evidences of ⿰氵𤉨 than ⿰氵𤉹. Does china want to change the glyph to ⿰氵𤉨?
In evidence 1, the dot is very subtle and it may well be overlooked.
Editorial
Showing 2 comments.
Other
Showing 11 comments.
The IDS will be ⿹勹㚔, which is also a variant of 𠣮 according to MOE dictionary.
The IDS will be ⿱蓬灬, which is unfortunately not unifiable with ⿱蓬火 due to the NUCV #403.
The IDS will be ⿱雨⿻十⿱⿰二二人, presumably a variant of 𮦕.
The IDS will be ⿰穴辱, presumably a variant of 䢇.
The IDS will be ⿰𠂤崩, presumably a variant of 𨻱.
Aside: In this evidence, the last character in the same column of ⿰口⿱椿火, ⿰口⿱𰟐水 is written as ⿰口⿱⿰火㇯堇一:
The normalization may be inevitable when dealing with ancient text, because they might have different normalization rules: The text here is authored well before the 15th century. As we can see, the shape of 堇 component here is consistent with contemporary dictionary:
▲ 龍龕手鑑（臺北故宮藏宋刊本）卷1 folio 5a
I think we should encode the modern normalized form ⿰口⿱𰟐水 instead of the exact shape ⿰口⿱⿰火㇯堇一, because the standard is for modern audience.
Is this character a variant of 鸞?
▲ 《炎徼紀聞》（明嘉靖刊本）卷2 folio 16a.