We already have UCV #232h covering 戊 and 戉.

I agree on the glyph normalization suggested in comment #12178. Should it be accepted, consider change IDS to ⿰口⿰革𠤎.

▲ 《寶慶府志》（清道光刊本）卷32 folio 5a

Lineage: 南安王朱彥泥/譽栐/定𤌏/幹𦝪/企⿰金𤽊

▲ 《文苑英華》（明隆慶刊本，傅增湘校） juan 734 folio 11b

The text is from 李華's 《卧病舟中相里范二侍御先行贈别序》. In this evidence, 傅增湘 notes the character 劓 alongside with WS2024-00293 ⿰墨刂, indicating that an earlier edition of 文苑英華 uses 劓.

▲ 《鳳臺縣志》（續修四庫全書影印浙江圖書館藏清嘉慶刊本）卷8 folio 34b

▲ 《坐隱先生訂譜全集》（明萬曆刊本）竹部 folio 37a

The new evidence gives ⿰土⿸倝𦏲, potentially unifiable with ⿰土翰 because 𦏲 is a variant of 羽, and 謀⿰土⿸倝𦏲 refers to the same person as 謀⿰土翰 in the new evidence provided in comment #9874

▲ 《兩浙名賢錄》（明天啓刊本）外錄卷3 folio 40a


▲ 《台州府志》（清康熙刊本）卷2 folio 59a

The following evidences give very similar shape to the proposed character ⿺辶眘:


▲ 智永真草千文（Pelliot Chiniois 3561, 唐貞觀鈔本） (⿺辶⿺眘丶)


▲ 龍龕手鑑（南宋刊本）卷4 folio 48a 辵部平聲 (⿺辶昚)


▲ 《寧海縣志》（清康熙刊本）卷8 folio 23a (⿺辶昚)

Based on the evidences above, it is likely that both ⿺辶眘 with the eye component and ⿺辶昚 with sun component are vulgar variants of 遼. But given that 眘 is very different from 尞 and the proposed character ⿺辶眘 is used in different sources, it is not better to unify ⿺辶眘 to 遼.

The last evidence actually gives ⿰口闪, a simplified variant of ⿰口閃 shown in evidence 1 to 4.

▲ 《青鎖高議》（清末虞山周大輔抄本）別集卷5 folio 8b

An earlier edition gives ⿰⿱口䒑矣:


▲ 《青鎖高議》（明抄本）別集卷5 folio 8b

▲ 《明史》（清雍正抄本）卷141

The original evidence is from 《南明史》 p. 6, however, 《南明史》p. 845 gives U+25133 𥄳:


▲ 《南明史》 （钱海岳: 中華書局, 2006, [ISBN 9787101044294]）, p. 845

Earlier historical evidence also give 𥄳:


▲ 史語所藏鈔本崇禎長編（抄本）卷10 p. 27


▲ 1934）清世祖實錄卷30 folio 24b


▲ {{《明史》（清乾隆刊本）卷100 folio 31a}}

It is likely that ⿰氵⿱罒永 is derived from ⿱罒永 as is shown in 《東南紀事》provided in comment #8620. ⿱罒永 itself is a misinterpreted form of 𥄳, which already contains the water radical required by the generation name 肅. I suggest pending more independent evidence.

▲ 《南明史》 （钱海岳: 中華書局, 2006, [ISBN 9787101044294]）, p. 1472

The evidence 2 and the new evidence in #14416 are still questionable because earlier historical evidence give 濁:


▲ 《陸菊隠先生文集》（清鈔本）卷15

The time, location and plot all match the description in 《南明史》, so 朱統濁 and 朱統⿰氵⿱罒永 both refer to the same person.

The original evidence shows a Table of Contents entry 「永安王華⿰土耍……1441」. If we turn to page 1441 of 《南明史》, the text gives the shape 堧:


▲ 《南明史》（中華書局，2006）p. 1441

堧 is also attested in earlier materials such as 清實錄:


▲ 《大清歷朝實錄》清世祖章皇帝實錄卷100 folio 3b

Therefore, ⿰土耍 is a one-off modern editorial error of 堧. I suggest pending more evidences.

▲ 《廉州府志》（清道光刊本）卷5 folio 17a


▲ 《廉州府志》（清道光刊本）卷21 folio 38b

The original evidence shows that 朱議⿱雨濩 is 桂陽知縣, a county in the Hunan province. However, this character is not attested in local gazetteer. All of the following evidences give 𩆀 or a unifiable form.






▲ folio 50a


▲ 《桂陽縣志》（清同治刊本）卷11 folio 19a


▲ 《桂陽縣志》（清同治刊本）卷12 folio 4b

While it is not unusual that 隻 and 蒦 sometimes can interchange, it would be better if this character can supported by more evidences.

The new evidence provided in comment #14401 also gives U+29180 𩆀.

The new evidence provided in #14384 shows that 「𣟴」was originally written as 「⿰木⿸户衣」in 《清平山堂話本・簡帖和尚》 . However, this claim is not true because 《清平山堂話本・簡帖和尚》 gives 𢲙:


▲ 《清平山堂刊小說十五種》（明嘉靖刊本）卷1 folio 6a

This shape is also observed by the GHZ:


▲ 漢語大字典 pp. 2052

So the ⿰木⿸户衣 provided in the new evidence is a modern error of 𢲙, since a proofreading record should have faithfully reproduced the exact shape in the original evidence.

Here is an earlier historical record dated 順治元年8月30日, a copy of the letter written by the person mentioned in the original evidence:


▲ 朱充⿰革⿱亠㸑、朱廷𥳕《原大同代府宗室鎮國中尉臣朱充⿰革⿱亠㸑同男臣朱廷𥳕等謹啟為新恩沛及絶國等事》（內閣大庫檔案 Grand Secretariat Archives 185045-035）page 1

The character ⿰革⿱亠㸑 is also attested in contemporary dictionary 《題韻直音篇》:


▲ 《題韻直音篇》（明天順序刊本）卷7 folio 13b

Based on the evidences above, it is likely that ⿰革⿳亠⿱⿴𦥑同冖灭 is a variant of ⿰革⿱亠㸑, which, according to 《題韻直音篇》, is a variant of 𩍴/𩎑.

If the new evidences are accepted, I suggest updating the glyph to ⿰革⿱亠㸑 to align with one of the earliest record of this person and the shape in the contemporary dictionary.

Evidence 1 gives ⿰氵𤉹, evidence 2 and 3 give ⿰氵𤉨.

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?

The evidence gives ⿰舟兹(U+5179), I think the glyph should be changed from ⿰舟茲(U+8332) to ⿰舟兹(U+5179), to match the original evidence.

The IDS ⿰舟玆(U+7386) matches neither the evidence nor the current glyph, so the IDS is not accurate, we should correct the IDS to ⿰舟兹(U+5179) and change the glyph to ⿰舟兹(U+5179).

I think the IDS is correct. The current glyph is missing a dot in the right component. Currently the glyph gives ⿰扌⿱穴友, while it should have been ⿰扌𥥛.


In evidence 1, the dot is very subtle and it may well be overlooked.

Good question. The original evidence does not provide pronunciation. Based on the evidence 2 which gives ⿰木匄 and which is also one of the earliest historical evidences, my educated guess is that the modern pronunciation could be 匄 gai4.

Note that we normalize ⿰木匄 to ⿰木匃 per UCV #143.

The glyph is set to ⿰木匃 because there are already encoded characters where 匃 is the right component: 𦍨𩢛𭠝𮌍𮠤, while no encoded characters features 匄 as the right component.

A very minor issue: The width of the vertical strokes in the 言 component are unbalanced, the right stroke is wider than the left stroke:

Good catch. I agree with comment #10992, there should have been a normalization note such as: 「Evidence 4 gives ⿰亻⿱㕡工, normalize to ⿰亻壑 as ⿱㕡工 is a corrupted form of 壑」.

There should have been a normalization note: "Evidence 1 and 2 have ⿰石⿱雨𡭽, normalize to ⿰石⿱雨𡭴 as is shown in evidence 3 by UCV #284".

We chose 𡭴 as the current bottom-right component because 1) 𡭴 has the shuowen form while 𡭽 does not and 2) 隙 is the modern 正字 while 𨻶 is not.

Personally I don't agree with the normalization suggested in comment #14033, because

1) 虲 and 虾 are too different as both 卜 and 下 are frequently used characters and we have to look up the dictionary to learn the relationship between 虲 and 虾.

2) Usage of 虲 long predates usage of 虾. The former is attested in 《正統道藏》 (v.164 line 2 character 3) published almost 600 years ago, while the latter is a PRC simplified form of U+8766 蝦 established in the last century. Because the original evidence is published before 虾 was created, the text produces the current form ⿰口虲.

3) Both 蝦 and 虾 are not very productive:

which means if we indeed normalize ⿰口虲 to ⿰口虾, we can potentially only save a few code points.

Remove U+F671A as the similar character.

The original evidence is missing one horizontal stroke in the 春 component. And the annotation gives ⿱夫月.

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.


▲ 《炎徼紀聞》（明嘉靖刊本）卷2 folio 16a.

All three original evidence files give similar text: 「臺衡之業，翹足可⿰𧾷矣，遽以勞隕京邸，可勝惜哉！」. The new evidence provided in comment #14438 give another usage example：「工⿰𧾷矣發其穴，而竟能害工」. Both example match the meaning of 竢 (to wait, to seek for an opportunity). The second evidence in comment #14438 gives ⿰⿱口䒑矣, which could be considered an intermediate form between ⿰𧾷矣 and 竢.

Therefore, ⿰𧾷矣 is a semantic variant of 竢.