As is agreed the right hand part of UK-30947 is clearly 沫 not 沬 so only if U+2D223 𭈣 is changed could they be unified, whilst SAT-04843 is the given source they may be other users of U+2D223 𭈣 dependent on the right hand part being 沬 and so changing would cause problems. A better alternative might be to encode UK-30947separately and then correct th SAT-04843 glyph and then move it as a second source to the new codepoint and the orphaned U+2D223 given UCS source or similar.
All writers agree that 力 is the phonetic and 算 is a semantic component, so it makes sense to keep the second radical. As to the Zhuang word for iron, here it is 'lik' which is the word for iron in Longzhou and other places rather than the standard 'diet'. The character is a variant of for which the source is:
Agreed the second radical 81.0 比 with SC2=5, FS2=1. This is the radical which the new dictionary which is arranged by radical 《古壮字大字典》puts ⿰去比 under on.
Radical
Should include the same radical as 𭆛 . Under the convention followed in earlier working sets this would be radical to 28.0 (厶) as it is the semantic is 去. Having 81.0 (比) as a radical is also useful and is the radical that the 2024 dictionary uses. Therefore having two radicals makes sense, the question then becomes which radical should be the primary radical.
This is an interesting piece of evidence that suggests that the possibility of a new UCV of 堅 vs ⿱⿰臣⿱𠂉丶土 vs ⿱⿰臣⿱𠂉一土 TD-0382 ⿱⿰臣⿱𠂉丿土 KC-11683 be investigated.
It is of course correct that a font file is not evidence of usage of a character in running text and comment #1173 that contains the screenshot of the font was not the reason that 00061 ⿰久闹 was returned to M-set but 03487 ⿰丫要 and 03096 ⿰大老 where not. The reason that it was returned to M-set was because other evidences, comment #4574 and #8709, where presented for 00061 ⿰久闹 but no further evidences for 03487 ⿰丫要 and 03096 ⿰大老 where presented. The additional evidences for 00061 ⿰久闹 resulted in the cumulative evidences for it being significantly different to those for 03487 ⿰丫要 and 03096 ⿰大老. The difference being that for 03487 ⿰丫要 and 03096 ⿰大老 all the evidences came for the works of the person, but the the evidences for 00061 ⿰久闹 even without the screenshot evidence can from more than one person.
Evidence
Thank you Tao Yang for your comments.
First let me say that we all agree that it would be wrong to say that the IRG should say that simply if someoe uploaded a certain number of videos this would be grounds for acceptance. At the same time it would also be wrong to treat every video as irrelevant, to do so would be to throw out the baby with the bath water. Accepting this character would not mean that the IRG would be forced to accept other characters just because someone puts them in videos.
The ISO10646 is about what is needed for information exchange, therefore the expansion of the evidence criteria to include evidence from different media in PnP 17.0 in a positive step designed to help the IRG respond to the needs of the 21st century. Internet evidence was included from Bilibili, Instagram, Twitter, etc . As to be expected users from different areas used different platform each of which have there own format so to discriminate against a particular format would be to discriminate against a region, therefore what is important is the content not the format.
The evidence for 00061 ⿰久闹 comes from multiple independent sources and therefore is in keeping with the requirement of PnP as one of 5 types of evidence '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.' This makes it different from 03487 ⿰丫要 and 03096 ⿰大老 where all the evidence is from one source, that is from one author.
Obviously if a character were to appear out of nowhere on the internet there would be need for further verification. This is not the case here, ⿰久闹 is not random but included in the intial collection of Zhuang characters assigned PUA codepoints in 2006 from which some 90% of Zhuang characters encoded from Ext F onwards have come and over half of the unencoded characters have already been encoded. As such it is available in fonts and IMEs from both Guangxi University and Guangxi Minzu University, the two top universities for Zhuang research. A character set included both in 2013 《古壮字的字符码位表》 and the 2017 国家社科基金项目“基于开放式数据库的古壮字字符与文献的搜集整理与研究”（批准号：11BYY103）.
⿰久闹 has been noted as being used in different locations, dialects and by different generations. This spread makes it stand out from many other characters, including ⿰丫要 and ⿰大老, making it more urgent to encode.
In short the arguements for ⿰久闹 are stronger than for ⿰丫要 and ⿰大老, and the evidence sufficient.
Thank you for the new evidence for the yet to be submitted ⿰口虾, further evidences would be welcome. (FYI as new evidence for something other the proposed character, strictly speaking this should be placed under "Other" not "New Evidence".)
The automated screenshot of 𬫂 U+2CAC2 is an earlier version of the charts and does not show the source GZ-2862301 already added by horizontal extension.
Ignoring the exact position and orientation of the dot (丶) all 3 distinct glyphs, ⿷兀丶, ⿸㇇⿺乚丶 and ⿸厂⿺乚丶 of the right hand component 𭀖 occur in published literature, however ⿷兀丶 is by far the most common form used and found in at least 3 dictionaries, two of which where the sources of the character.
As stated in the submission note the evidences show the cursive form ⿸㇇⿺乚丶 which is generally only seen in hand written documents. A non-handwritten exception showing ⿸㇇⿺乚丶, and perhaps the only non-handwritten case showing ⿸㇇⿺乚丶is 壮语简志 p. 97
and the accompanying footnote says that the exact form of the glyph can vary from place to place.
There is potential for a level 2 ucv of ⿷兀丶, ⿸㇇⿺乚丶 and ⿸厂⿺乚丶.
IRG Working Set 2024v3.0
Source: John Knightley
Date: Generated on 2025-12-11
Unification
Showing 4 comments.
As is agreed the right hand part of UK-30947 is clearly 沫 not 沬 so only if U+2D223 𭈣 is changed could they be unified, whilst SAT-04843 is the given source they may be other users of U+2D223 𭈣 dependent on the right hand part being 沬 and so changing would cause problems. A better alternative might be to encode UK-30947separately and then correct th SAT-04843 glyph and then move it as a second source to the new codepoint and the orphaned U+2D223 given UCS source or similar.
Attributes
Showing 11 comments.
for which the source is:
. Under the convention followed in earlier working sets this would be radical to 28.0 (厶) as it is the semantic is 去. Having 81.0 (比) as a radical is also useful and is the radical that the 2024 dictionary uses. Therefore having two radicals makes sense, the question then becomes which radical should be the primary radical.
Evidence
Showing 17 comments.
It is of course correct that a font file is not evidence of usage of a character in running text and comment #1173 that contains the screenshot of the font was not the reason that 00061 ⿰久闹 was returned to M-set but 03487 ⿰丫要 and 03096 ⿰大老 where not. The reason that it was returned to M-set was because other evidences, comment #4574 and #8709, where presented for 00061 ⿰久闹 but no further evidences for 03487 ⿰丫要 and 03096 ⿰大老 where presented. The additional evidences for 00061 ⿰久闹 resulted in the cumulative evidences for it being significantly different to those for 03487 ⿰丫要 and 03096 ⿰大老. The difference being that for 03487 ⿰丫要 and 03096 ⿰大老 all the evidences came for the works of the person, but the the evidences for 00061 ⿰久闹 even without the screenshot evidence can from more than one person.
First let me say that we all agree that it would be wrong to say that the IRG should say that simply if someoe uploaded a certain number of videos this would be grounds for acceptance. At the same time it would also be wrong to treat every video as irrelevant, to do so would be to throw out the baby with the bath water. Accepting this character would not mean that the IRG would be forced to accept other characters just because someone puts them in videos.
The ISO10646 is about what is needed for information exchange, therefore the expansion of the evidence criteria to include evidence from different media in PnP 17.0 in a positive step designed to help the IRG respond to the needs of the 21st century. Internet evidence was included from Bilibili, Instagram, Twitter, etc . As to be expected users from different areas used different platform each of which have there own format so to discriminate against a particular format would be to discriminate against a region, therefore what is important is the content not the format.
The evidence for 00061 ⿰久闹 comes from multiple independent sources and therefore is in keeping with the requirement of PnP as one of 5 types of evidence '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.' This makes it different from 03487 ⿰丫要 and 03096 ⿰大老 where all the evidence is from one source, that is from one author.
Obviously if a character were to appear out of nowhere on the internet there would be need for further verification. This is not the case here, ⿰久闹 is not random but included in the intial collection of Zhuang characters assigned PUA codepoints in 2006 from which some 90% of Zhuang characters encoded from Ext F onwards have come and over half of the unencoded characters have already been encoded. As such it is available in fonts and IMEs from both Guangxi University and Guangxi Minzu University, the two top universities for Zhuang research. A character set included both in 2013 《古壮字的字符码位表》 and the 2017 国家社科基金项目“基于开放式数据库的古壮字字符与文献的搜集整理与研究”（批准号：11BYY103）.
⿰久闹 has been noted as being used in different locations, dialects and by different generations. This spread makes it stand out from many other characters, including ⿰丫要 and ⿰大老, making it more urgent to encode.
In short the arguements for ⿰久闹 are stronger than for ⿰丫要 and ⿰大老, and the evidence sufficient.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 1 comments.
Other
Showing 2 comments.
𭀖 occur in published literature, however ⿷兀丶 is by far the most common form used and found in at least 3 dictionaries, two of which where the sources of the character.
As stated in the submission note the evidences show the cursive form ⿸㇇⿺乚丶 which is generally only seen in hand written documents. A non-handwritten exception showing ⿸㇇⿺乚丶, and perhaps the only non-handwritten case showing ⿸㇇⿺乚丶is 壮语简志 p. 97
and the accompanying footnote says that the exact form of the glyph can vary from place to place.
There is potential for a level 2 ucv of ⿷兀丶, ⿸㇇⿺乚丶 and ⿸厂⿺乚丶.
Data for Unihan
Showing 1 comments.