Thank you the index is clearly shows the inner component as 金. This additional evidence is much clearer than evidence 1 and so I remove my earlier objection.
The latest IRG PnP (version 17) explicitly allows for multimedia evidences and submissions to this working set include among other things internet evidences from Instagram, Twitter and Bilibili. It is inconsistent to object to evidences from Bilibili just because they are from Bilibili, but not to object to evidences from Instagram just because they are from Instagram, nor object to to evidences from Twitter just because they are from Twitter.
The evidence provided for UK-30620, ⿰丫要, conforms to the requirements of the current PnP which permits a wider range of evidences than the PnP for earlier working sets, this was done specifically to allow consideration of a small number of characters not having more 'conventional' evidences, it is therefore not sufficient to argue that a character should be kept out of M-set simply because it does not have the type of evidences used in earlier working sets. According to current PnP 'the popularity of the material, cultural influences, and other factors' may warrant the acceptance of multimedia material as sufficient evidence for encoding. That the evidence for a character is that it is used by ordinary people for ordinary things is sufficient.
It should be noted that there are differences in the number and types of evidence for the 3 characters and therefore they should be considered on a case by case basis.
Whilst no additional evidence has been added it should be noted that the evidences both come from the same author was assessed to be a reliable source. The criteria for being considered reliable was high and most multimedia sources considered did not meet the criteria. To be classified as reliable there has to be sufficient material from the author of a consistently high standard and the author to be Zhuang. Some sources were classified as clearly unreliable and many were classified as reliability uncertain. The rate of errors by this author was lower than those found in some published articles/books containing Zhuang character texts. In short though the media is different to evidence in earlier working sets it's quality is sufficient for consideration.
To date support for this character has been expressed by a member body of the IRG and an individual but objections to this character have only come from one individual.
The two characters in comment #629 are nonce characters and as such not suitable for encoding based on such evidence. The character UK-30621 is not a nonce character and so the evidences are suitable for submissions. In the same way that the existent of some nonce characters in printed materials does not prove that all printed evidences are unreliable, the existent of some nonce characters in non-printed materials does not prove that all non-printed evidences are unreliable.
Unclear evidence response
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
I will post next week evidence that ⿰久闹 is not a nonce character, however it should be noted that even without more those familiar with both Chinese and Zhuang can see a difference. Requesting evidence to show that this character is not a nonce character is not a problem.
New evidence
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
From 《基于 W indowsIME 古壮文输入法编辑器的设计与实现》published June 2013 《现代计算机》
Unclear evidence response
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
What the new evidence shows is that the character is not a nonce character. The first evidence is from 2022 and the second from 2013. The question is not what does each evidence show on their own but rather what they show together.
Unclear evidence response
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
The latest IRG PnP (version 17) explicitly allows for multimedia evidences and submissions to this working set include among other things internet evidences from Instagram, Twitter and Bilibili. It is inconsistent to object to evidences from Bilibili just because they are from Bilibili, but not to object to evidences from Instagram just because they are from Instagram, nor object to to evidences from Twitter just because they are from Twitter.
Unclear evidence response
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
You have made a mistake reading and quoting PnP v17 that changes the meaning. You have combined the start of footnote 13 at the end of page 11 with the second part of section 2.2.5b(7) at the start of page 12. Being a footnote the second part of footnote 13 is to be found at the bottom of page 12 not the top. Footnote 13 reads, "Currently, IRG mainly accepts evidence from printed material if they are accepted as IRG sources. In general, IRG does not accept multimedia material as IRG sources. Note: the acceptance of evidence from captions and subtitles may warrant the acceptance of some multimedial materials as IRG source in the future."
Footnote 13 when read correctly clearly says that the IRG may accept some multimedia sources, hence whether Bilibili evidence from the UK or Instagram and Twitter evidence from the UTC these conform to current PnP and may be accepted by the IRG. It is therefore incorrect to say that video evidence is not acceptable to the IRG.
A key to understanding evidence is to look at it carefully. In evidence 1 the information is in an interlinear format, the line below each character gives the pronunciation and the line below that gives the meaning in Chinese. Also it is colour code so the lyrics are in red and the pronunciation and meaning in black. Therefore it is clear that the uploader understands the meaning and pronunciation.
It should of course go almost without mention that the evidence conforms to the requirements of the UK.
Unclear evidence response
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
IRG PnP clearly states that they may accept some multimedia sources there is no need for the PnP to mention specific names. such as Instagram, Twitter or Bilibili nor would it be productive to do so. It is in many respects the content not the format that determines the significance of certain evidences.
When a person says what they think is the pronunciation and meaning of a character it gives information about much the person understands about a character. If a video had 鹿 is pronounced mǎ and means 马 it would not be suitable to use as evidence because either the producer of the video does not understand the character 鹿, or had mistyped the wrong character by mistake or was making a joke. By comparison saying the character ⿰久闹 has the pronunciation naus aka nauq and means 永远 shows the writer understands the character in the same way that saying 妈 has the pronunciation ma1 aka mā and means mother would show the writer understands the character 妈.
Evidence 1 has many strengths:
- it is a primary source of evidence
- it shows the character is used in running text
- it shows clearly the shape of the character
- it accurately gives the pronunciation and meaning of the character
The second evidence:
- confirms the shape of the character
- shows the pre existence of the character
- shows that multiple fonts contain the character (the font used for the video is not that shown in the computing article)
Furthermore since the up-loader of the video in 2022 was around 20 together they show the character is stable, that the character has already passed on to the newest generation, which is significant.
It should be noted that many more multimedia items where considered and that only those of good quality were used.
Unclear evidence response
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
As requested screenshots to confirm the video was posted in 2022 and at that time the poster was around 20.
Screenshot 1 showing the date of posting of the video as 19th February 2022
Screenshot 2 of video posted by the same person on their 21st birthday on 2nd June 2022 (face deleted) 【壮语】情感语录—致我第21个破蛋纪念日 https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV13Y4y1576E/?spm_id_from=333.999.0.0
The 41 second video with sound track in Zhuang and including Chinese subtitles for those who don't know Zhuang includes a number of photos of the poster as they grow up including photos from their 16th and 21st birthdays.
Here the question is what to do about ⿰久闹 and ws2024.
One way to confirm the ⿰久闹 character is by noting the sound comes from 闹 and the meaning from 久. These are obvious to anyone who knows the language.
The sum of the parts can be greater than the whole, the question is not what the evidences show separately but what they show together.
Unclear evidence response
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
When you say, "evidence 1 itself is suspicious" I think you may well be in a minority of one, and that the vast majority of people would say the video is genuine.
Unclear evidence response
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
20 was the age in years of the person when they posted the video used for evidence 1.
To say that the video is genuine is to say that the video is what it purports to be.
Comment #2880 was not intended as a personal attack. I will endeavour to avoid making comments that could be viewed as a personal attack.
Unclear evidence response
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
Clarifications:
In comment #2304 'the evidence' in the sentence "It should of course go almost without mention that the evidence conforms to the requirements of the UK" refers to Evidence 1 from 2022 bilibili video 【壮语歌曲】《如礼金万》uploaded submitted by the UK.
The second evidence was provided by an individual expert, a page from a 2013 article of the computing journal《现代计算机》about a Zhuang character IME. That the page contains a screenshot from the PUA part of a font should not be taken to imply that the individual expert thinks that characters only found in such fonts should be encoded.
New evidence
[ Unresolved from v1.0 ]
From the Zhuang part of a multilingual version of "Only My Railgun"
1:25 minutes
1:31 minutes
(whilst the video https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1ut421a7Eb/ has 60k views it is strictly for fans of the anime television series 'A Certain Scientific Railgun')
New evidence
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
壮语歌曲《承诺》[Zhuang song "A Promise"] uploaded 2024-11-17 to https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1vZU6YKEjR/
Unclear evidence response
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
The evidence provided for UK-30621, ⿰久闹, conforms to the requirements of the current PnP which permits a wider range of evidences than the PnP for earlier working sets, this was done specifically to allow consideration of a small number of characters not having more 'conventional' evidences, it is therefore not sufficient to argue that a character should be kept out of M-set simply because it does not have the type of evidences used in earlier working sets. According to current PnP 'the popularity of the material, cultural influences, and other factors' may warrant the acceptance of multimedia material as sufficient evidence for encoding. That the evidence for a character is that it is used by ordinary people for ordinary things is sufficient.
It should be noted that there are differences in the number and types of evidence for the 3 characters and therefore they should be considered on a case by case basis.
The evidence for UK-30621 comes from multiple sources and from multiple authors. The evidence in #8709 comes from the same author as evidence 1 demonstrating that use in the earlier evidence was not made by mistake or out of ignorance. The other 2 evidences come from other people. All the evidences given are verifiable .
The character is culturally significant in that it is the only known character used exclusively for nauq [forever].
The evidence for ⿰久闹 is clear there is no doubt about the glyph shape, the character clearly preserves an ancient Zhuang word, nauq [forever], already lost in some places where it has been replaced by a loanword. The evidences show there is a need for us to encode the character.
Evidence
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Thank you Tao Yang for your questions in comment #9321 here let me reply to points raised
Reply to 1.:
According to PnP 'original source' is one type of evidence that the IRG can accept but not the only type. There are 5 types of evidence that can be accepted: original source, multuple source, semantics, context and usage. The PnP says:-
'a character submission must be accompanied by evidence to satisfy at least one of the following
conditions:
a) Original Source ( 證 據 源 限 制 ): The source of evidence must be considered authoritative by IRG, as validated by past literature and IRG experts. IRG has the right to reject characters from questionable sources.
b) Multiple Sources ( 多 源 證 據 ): Supply character use evidence from multiple independence sources. IRG has the right to reject characters with evidence of use from only a single source, especially if the source is not considered authoritative by IRG.
c) Semantics (字理考證): Supply sufficient evidence on the meaning and phonetics. Supply of other information on its origin and evolution would be very helpful.
d) Context (上下文信息): Sufficient context in text to decipher the semantic meaning of the character. IRG has the right to reject characters that do not have sufficient evidence for IRG to decipher its semantics.
e) Usage (需求限制): The use of characters must be for justifiable public interest. Examples of public use include evidence of: governmental needs; scientific use; digitization projects for public use; and working systems of significance as accepted by IRG. IRG has the right to reject characters that do not have sufficient evidence for IRG of justifiable public interest.'
The evidences given are of the multiple source, semantics, context and usage type. Original source evidence is evidence for a character from a recognised authoritive source, a single source that is so important that we can say the character should be encoded because it is in that source. The evidence for this character is not of the 'original source' (an important authoritive source) type. However it is of three or four of the other types, it is: (1) from multiple sources (2) semantics as it clearly states the pronunciation and meaning (3) context sufficient for a native speaker of the language (4) usage - it is and can be used.
Reply to 2.
One change in the current PnP to previous versions is the permitting of a small number of characters with multimedia evidence. Literature is and will always be the main source of eidence for IRG but it does not need to be the only one. Multimedia evidence is new for the IRG and so there is need to talk about different different questions and build consensus.
Reply to 3
All the evidences given are verifiabled. Whilst there are many unreliable videos but this does not mean all videos are unreliable.
Reply to 4
Analysis of the sources used revealed that the characters used were neither arbitory nor designed by the creator. Also checked was that the character concerned was used by diffferent generations and dialects, and therefore can say is not small scale.
Reply to 5
This I think goes back to point one - the evidences are considered representative, or indicative. It is not suggested that the character is important because it is found in these evidences, but rather that because the character is impotant it is found hear.
Reply to 6
This character was even in the earlier 2006 version of the table.
The latest IRG PnP (version 17) explicitly allows for multimedia evidences and submissions to this working set include among other things internet evidences from Instagram, Twitter and Bilibili. It is inconsistent to object to evidences from Bilibili just because they are from Bilibili, but not to object to evidences from Instagram just because they are from Instagram, nor object to to evidences from Twitter just because they are from Twitter.
An interesting question. In the past the "normalization" has several times not followed this convention as in GZ-2962204 (U+2D056) , and in some cases even gone the other way GZ-2962202 (U+2D095)
If 金 is phonetic then one possible explanation is that 'gyaem' comes from the Cantonese pronunciation of 金 which would be highly unusual in the Wuming are and perhaps explains the comment that the character is seldom seen. A borrowed pronunciation coming from Cantonese would not make it older but rather of different origin.
IRG Working Set 2024v3.0
Source: John Knightley
Date: Generated on 2025-06-20
Attributes
Showing 1 comments.
Evidence
Showing 22 comments.
Evidence 1: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1rB4y1u7fL
Evidence 2: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV18m4116716
It should be noted that there are differences in the number and types of evidence for the 3 characters and therefore they should be considered on a case by case basis.
Whilst no additional evidence has been added it should be noted that the evidences both come from the same author was assessed to be a reliable source. The criteria for being considered reliable was high and most multimedia sources considered did not meet the criteria. To be classified as reliable there has to be sufficient material from the author of a consistently high standard and the author to be Zhuang. Some sources were classified as clearly unreliable and many were classified as reliability uncertain. The rate of errors by this author was lower than those found in some published articles/books containing Zhuang character texts. In short though the media is different to evidence in earlier working sets it's quality is sufficient for consideration.
To date support for this character has been expressed by a member body of the IRG and an individual but objections to this character have only come from one individual.
Footnote 13 when read correctly clearly says that the IRG may accept some multimedia sources, hence whether Bilibili evidence from the UK or Instagram and Twitter evidence from the UTC these conform to current PnP and may be accepted by the IRG. It is therefore incorrect to say that video evidence is not acceptable to the IRG.
A key to understanding evidence is to look at it carefully. In evidence 1 the information is in an interlinear format, the line below each character gives the pronunciation and the line below that gives the meaning in Chinese. Also it is colour code so the lyrics are in red and the pronunciation and meaning in black. Therefore it is clear that the uploader understands the meaning and pronunciation.
It should of course go almost without mention that the evidence conforms to the requirements of the UK.
When a person says what they think is the pronunciation and meaning of a character it gives information about much the person understands about a character. If a video had 鹿 is pronounced mǎ and means 马 it would not be suitable to use as evidence because either the producer of the video does not understand the character 鹿, or had mistyped the wrong character by mistake or was making a joke. By comparison saying the character ⿰久闹 has the pronunciation naus aka nauq and means 永远 shows the writer understands the character in the same way that saying 妈 has the pronunciation ma1 aka mā and means mother would show the writer understands the character 妈.
Evidence 1 has many strengths:
- it is a primary source of evidence
- it shows the character is used in running text
- it shows clearly the shape of the character
- it accurately gives the pronunciation and meaning of the character
The second evidence:
- confirms the shape of the character
- shows the pre existence of the character
- shows that multiple fonts contain the character (the font used for the video is not that shown in the computing article)
Furthermore since the up-loader of the video in 2022 was around 20 together they show the character is stable, that the character has already passed on to the newest generation, which is significant.
It should be noted that many more multimedia items where considered and that only those of good quality were used.
Screenshot 1 showing the date of posting of the video as 19th February 2022
Screenshot 2 of video posted by the same person on their 21st birthday on 2nd June 2022 (face deleted) 【壮语】情感语录—致我第21个破蛋纪念日 https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV13Y4y1576E/?spm_id_from=333.999.0.0
The 41 second video with sound track in Zhuang and including Chinese subtitles for those who don't know Zhuang includes a number of photos of the poster as they grow up including photos from their 16th and 21st birthdays.
Here the question is what to do about ⿰久闹 and ws2024.
One way to confirm the ⿰久闹 character is by noting the sound comes from 闹 and the meaning from 久. These are obvious to anyone who knows the language.
The sum of the parts can be greater than the whole, the question is not what the evidences show separately but what they show together.
To say that the video is genuine is to say that the video is what it purports to be.
Comment #2880 was not intended as a personal attack. I will endeavour to avoid making comments that could be viewed as a personal attack.
In comment #2304 'the evidence' in the sentence "It should of course go almost without mention that the evidence conforms to the requirements of the UK" refers to Evidence 1 from 2022 bilibili video 【壮语歌曲】《如礼金万》uploaded submitted by the UK.
The second evidence was provided by an individual expert, a page from a 2013 article of the computing journal《现代计算机》about a Zhuang character IME. That the page contains a screenshot from the PUA part of a font should not be taken to imply that the individual expert thinks that characters only found in such fonts should be encoded.
1:25 minutes
1:31 minutes
(whilst the video https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1ut421a7Eb/ has 60k views it is strictly for fans of the anime television series 'A Certain Scientific Railgun')
It should be noted that there are differences in the number and types of evidence for the 3 characters and therefore they should be considered on a case by case basis.
The evidence for UK-30621 comes from multiple sources and from multiple authors. The evidence in #8709 comes from the same author as evidence 1 demonstrating that use in the earlier evidence was not made by mistake or out of ignorance. The other 2 evidences come from other people. All the evidences given are verifiable .
The character is culturally significant in that it is the only known character used exclusively for nauq [forever].
The evidence for ⿰久闹 is clear there is no doubt about the glyph shape, the character clearly preserves an ancient Zhuang word, nauq [forever], already lost in some places where it has been replaced by a loanword. The evidences show there is a need for us to encode the character.
Reply to 1.:
According to PnP 'original source' is one type of evidence that the IRG can accept but not the only type. There are 5 types of evidence that can be accepted: original source, multuple source, semantics, context and usage. The PnP says:-
'a character submission must be accompanied by evidence to satisfy at least one of the following
conditions:
a) Original Source ( 證 據 源 限 制 ): The source of evidence must be considered authoritative by IRG, as validated by past literature and IRG experts. IRG has the right to reject characters from questionable sources.
b) Multiple Sources ( 多 源 證 據 ): Supply character use evidence from multiple independence sources. IRG has the right to reject characters with evidence of use from only a single source, especially if the source is not considered authoritative by IRG.
c) Semantics (字理考證): Supply sufficient evidence on the meaning and phonetics. Supply of other information on its origin and evolution would be very helpful.
d) Context (上下文信息): Sufficient context in text to decipher the semantic meaning of the character. IRG has the right to reject characters that do not have sufficient evidence for IRG to decipher its semantics.
e) Usage (需求限制): The use of characters must be for justifiable public interest. Examples of public use include evidence of: governmental needs; scientific use; digitization projects for public use; and working systems of significance as accepted by IRG. IRG has the right to reject characters that do not have sufficient evidence for IRG of justifiable public interest.'
The evidences given are of the multiple source, semantics, context and usage type. Original source evidence is evidence for a character from a recognised authoritive source, a single source that is so important that we can say the character should be encoded because it is in that source. The evidence for this character is not of the 'original source' (an important authoritive source) type. However it is of three or four of the other types, it is: (1) from multiple sources (2) semantics as it clearly states the pronunciation and meaning (3) context sufficient for a native speaker of the language (4) usage - it is and can be used.
Reply to 2.
One change in the current PnP to previous versions is the permitting of a small number of characters with multimedia evidence. Literature is and will always be the main source of eidence for IRG but it does not need to be the only one. Multimedia evidence is new for the IRG and so there is need to talk about different different questions and build consensus.
Reply to 3
All the evidences given are verifiabled. Whilst there are many unreliable videos but this does not mean all videos are unreliable.
Reply to 4
Analysis of the sources used revealed that the characters used were neither arbitory nor designed by the creator. Also checked was that the character concerned was used by diffferent generations and dialects, and therefore can say is not small scale.
Reply to 5
This I think goes back to point one - the evidences are considered representative, or indicative. It is not suggested that the character is important because it is found in these evidences, but rather that because the character is impotant it is found hear.
Reply to 6
This character was even in the earlier 2006 version of the table.
evidence 1: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV16o4y1m7E7
evidence 2: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1AL411A7W5
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 2 comments.
and
Other
Showing 1 comments.