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

▲ 《龍龕手鑑》（宋高宗浙刊本）卷4 folio 27b 日部 平聲

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

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.

The vertical stroke in the component U+20336 𠌶 should be stretched so that it touches both the upper 丿 stroke and the lower horizontal stroke,



according to the G convention as is shown below.

Within the rightmost components, the component 止 and 龰 should be separated according to the G convention.

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」.

The glyph does not follow the G convention, specifically, the second last stroke of the 尗 component should be 丨 rather than 亅.



For reference, see the G glyph for





This issue also affects the UK glyph for

The vertical stroke in the component U+20336 𠌶 should be stretched so that it touches both the upper 丿 stroke and the lower horizontal stroke,



according to the G convention as is shown below.

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.

kFanqie 巨容