In the new evidence, ⿰扌𢉙 is used in contrast with 摭.
The NUCV #403 火/灬 also supports disunification between ⿰扌𢉙 and 摭, although we have UCV #365 for U+5EBB 庻/U+5EB6 庶, it does not cover U+5EB6 庶/ U+22259 𢉙. Should the new evidence be accepted, consider move it back to the M set.
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).
But there is only one occurrence of 金⿰糸冀燦 in 『承政院日記』as is provided in the original evidence, which implies that KC-10007 ⿰糸冀 is not stable enough as 驥. Therefore I suggest pending more evidences.
But there is only one occurrence of 成彦⿰礻戢 in 『承政院日記』as is provided in the original evidence, which implies that KC-10019 ⿰礻戢 is not stable enough as 檝. Therefore I suggest pending more evidences.
The new evidence shows the person’s name as 朱致⿰木新, which is a different individual than 朱睦⿰木新 in evidence 1-2, 朱由⿰木新 in evidence 3 and 朱慶⿰木新 in evidence 4-6.
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.
The original evidence shows that 朱由⿰木欻, styled 仲梓, was a descendant of 趙王 (朱高燧), who had been enfeoffed in Zhangde Prefecture (彰德府). However, ⿰木欻 is not attested in the local historical gazetteers of Zhangde Prefecture. Instead, all surviving evidence records a different form: ⿲木⿱力力欠.
The character ⿲木⿱力力欠 was also attested in contemporary dictionaries, such as the 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇: Many characters from this dictionary were used for person names among the imperial descendants of Ming Dynasty.
The original evidence from 《南明史》 states that 阜平王朱由樽 is the son of 阜平王朱常⿰氵紋. However, this contradicts the following passage, also from 《南明史》:
▲ 《南明史》中華書局, 2006, ISBN 978-7-101-11665-6, p. 1028
Here the passage shows that 阜平王朱由樽 is the son of 阜平王朱常𰝎.
.
The character U+3074E was encoded based on the exact evidence above. If we examine earlier contemporary sources, when he was still alive and designated as 阜平長子, his name should have been 朱常𣸠.
Therefore, ⿰氵紋 is possibly a misinterpreted form of 𰝎, which itself is a variant of 𣸠. I suggest postponing the encoding of ⿰氵紋 until more evidence becomes available.
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 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).
The new evidences provided by Chiang Chi-Ying gives a different shape: ⿰扌⿱𠂉𰀁. They seems more reliable than the original handwritten evidences. I suggest we change the glyph design.
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 2025-12-08
Unification
Showing 3 comments.
If we agree that ⿰土㫁 is unifiable with ⿰土斷, consider a new UCV for 㡭/⿺𠃊⿱𢆶兀.
The NUCV #403 火/灬 also supports disunification between ⿰扌𢉙 and 摭, although we have UCV #365 for U+5EBB 庻/U+5EB6 庶, it does not cover U+5EB6 庶/ U+22259 𢉙. Should the new evidence be accepted, consider move it back to the M set.
Here is 嚦 in 道法會元卷114, also used in talisman.
Attributes
Showing 4 comments.
It should be safe to normalize the IDS to ⿱艹冦.
Evidence
Showing 20 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
▲ 《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).
However, 正祖 10年 9月 25日記事 (less than half year after the date provided in the original evidence) gives 金驥燦（承文博士單）:
▲ {{https://sjw.history.go.kr/id/SJW-G10090250-00800
승정원일기 1611책 (탈초본 86책) 정조 10년 9월 25일 을미 8/26}}
The time, role and the name similarity suggest that both 金⿰糸冀燦 and 金驥燦 refer to the same person.
There are more than 200 occurrences of 金驥燦 in 『承政院日記』, spanned from 1777 to 1812. Here are some examples:
▲ 승정원일기 1408책 (탈초본 78책) 정조 1년 10월 21일 계축 11/20
▲ 승정원일기 1826책 (탈초본 96책) 순조 즉위년 8월 28일 무인 10/28
▲ 승정원일기 2011책 (탈초본 105책) 순조 12년 1월 20일 갑오 21/28
But there is only one occurrence of 金⿰糸冀燦 in 『承政院日記』as is provided in the original evidence, which implies that KC-10007 ⿰糸冀 is not stable enough as 驥. Therefore I suggest pending more evidences.
However, 正祖 9年 12月 27日記事 (only two days before 正祖 9年 12月 29日紀事 dated in the original evidence) gives 成彦檝（爲顯陵令）：
▲ 승정원일기 1592책 (탈초본 85책) 정조 9년 12월 27일
The time, role and the name similarity heavily suggest that both 成彦⿰礻戢 and 成彦檝 refer to the same person.
There are more than 100 occurrences of 成彦檝 in 『承政院日記』, spanned from 1762 to 1811. Here are some examples:
▲승정원일기 1202책 (탈초본 67책) 영조 38년 2월 10일
▲ 승정원일기 1284책 (탈초본 71책) 영조 44년 9월 2일
▲ 승정원일기 1992책 (탈초본 104책) 순조 11년 1월 5일
But there is only one occurrence of 成彦⿰礻戢 in 『承政院日記』as is provided in the original evidence, which implies that KC-10019 ⿰礻戢 is not stable enough as 檝. Therefore I suggest pending more evidences.
▲ 《說文解字》（宋刊元修大徐本）卷7上 folio 2a
「乾也耕㬥田曰～从日菫聲……从漢省乃得聲，呼旰切」
▲ 《康熙字典》（清康熙內府刊本）卯集中 手部 folio 92b
▲《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
▲ 《江西省大志》（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 29a
▲ 《盱眙朱氏八支宗譜》（1929）卷4 folio 241a
Lineage: 宜春懷簡王朱覲鐏/宸渶/拱栻/多⿰火室/謀⿰土聖.
▲ 《[萬曆]荊州志》（明萬曆刊本）卷2 folio 27a
The new evidence shows the person’s name as 朱致⿰木新, which is a different individual than 朱睦⿰木新 in evidence 1-2, 朱由⿰木新 in evidence 3 and 朱慶⿰木新 in evidence 4-6.
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.
▲ [乾隆]《安陽縣志》（清乾隆3年刊本）卷9 folio 26a
▲ [乾隆]《彰德府志》（清乾隆5年刊本）卷17下 folio 64b
▲ [嘉慶]《安陽縣志》（民國鉛印本）卷19 folio 16a
The character ⿲木⿱力力欠 was also attested in contemporary dictionaries, such as the 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇: Many characters from this dictionary were used for person names among the imperial descendants of Ming Dynasty.
▲ 《成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇》（明成化刊本）卷7 木部 folio 53b 八畫, quoted from 川篇.
This character can be traced back to a Jin Dynasty dictionary:
▲ 《新修絫音引證群籍玉篇》（金刊本）卷12 木部 folio 31b
Based on the evidence above, I believe that ⿰木欻 is a modern error of ⿲木⿱力力欠. Therefore, I recommend encoding ⿲木⿱力力欠 instead.
▲ 《南明史》中華書局, 2006, ISBN 978-7-101-11665-6, p. 1028
Here the passage shows that 阜平王朱由樽 is the son of 阜平王朱常𰝎.
.
The character U+3074E was encoded based on the exact evidence above. If we examine earlier contemporary sources, when he was still alive and designated as 阜平長子, his name should have been 朱常𣸠.
▲ ［萬曆］《江西省大志》（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 15b
Therefore, ⿰氵紋 is possibly a misinterpreted form of 𰝎, which itself is a variant of 𣸠. I suggest postponing the encoding of ⿰氵紋 until more evidence becomes available.
▲ 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 5 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?
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).
In evidence 1, the dot is very subtle and it may well be overlooked.
Update IDS to ⿲木⿱力力欠, SC=8, FS=5, TS=12.
Editorial
Showing 2 comments.
Other
Showing 13 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.
Both of them are combined by two components.
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.
Data for Unihan
Showing 7 comments.
The original text 「在低回下僚, 尙不克堪勝, 況復冒據長席, 將欲其表率有方, 則考績愼簡之政, 非但乖⿱⿰彖夂皿爲甚, 緣臣貪慕華顯, 厚招嗤點, 誠有累於熙朝也, 大矣。」implies that 乖⿱⿰彖夂皿 is a variant of 乖盭(unruly).
The original text 「二萬石軍糧之積⿸尸寺, 搢紳家火具之潛埋」implies that 積⿸尸寺 is a variant of 積庤 (store)