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.
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.
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.
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 2026-10-04
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 1 comments.
Evidence
Showing 15 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
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
▲ 《［萬曆］荊州志》（明萬曆刊本）卷2 folio 26a
Although in this evidence the 艹 component is written as 卝, the intended component should be 艹 because of 葺.
Lineage: 松滋安惠王朱貴烆/豪塽/恩鉈/寵瀏/致⿰木葺
▲ 《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.
▲ 《重校全補海篇直音》（明萬曆書林鄭世豪刊本）卷1 folio 8a
The new evidence reveals that this variant can be dated back to the late Ming Dynasty.
▲ 《[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.
▲ 《澤州志》（武陟縣圖書館藏明萬曆刊本）卷17 folio 3b
The new evidence gives ⿰火𠩜.
▲ [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.
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)