Should be discussed in conjunction with

00215

八 12.6.3

TC-2E68

TS 8 · IDS ⿱血八

.

Unifiable to 𱎚 (U+3139A)?

Unify to 冓 (U+5193). ⿱玨冉聲 indicates that ⿱玨冉 is the 聲旁 of 搆, which suggests that ⿱玨冉 and 冓 are interchangeable.

Isn’t it merely a common handwriting form of 必? It’s just that the hook of the slanted stroke is not that visible, perhaps related to printing.

Unify to 冀 (U+5180). Clearly a corruption of 冀 that does not worth a codepoint. Consider a new UCV.

Unifiable to 製?

I don’t think end users are going to distinguish different forms of this character in running text. They are only distinguished when they are symbols at the most. I suggest only encoding one traditional form and one simplified form of the character. And if you really find the distinction important, you can always either register for an IVD or submit a proposal to WG2/Unicode for encoding as CJK Symbols.

Consider ⿻白丨 or ⿱丿甴.

⿰岀屋

⿻𠀇多?

Evidence 1 shows ⿺乚丷.
Evidence 4 and the above evidence from 干祿字書 shows ⿰⿺乚丶丶.

Normalize IDS to ⿹⺄月 (instead of ㇈)?

⿵几青

If

00033

丨 2.3.2

UK-30601

TS 4 · IDS ㇯由一

is encoded, the IDS may be modified to ⿱一

00033

丨 2.3.2

UK-30601

TS 4 · IDS ㇯由一

.

Change Radical to 61.0 (心), SC=55, FS=4

Change Radical to 61.0 (心), SC=27, FS=4

⿴八重?

Although cognate, it should be noted that Evidence 5 clearly shows ⿰亻翌 instead of ⿰亻𰙩. Evidence 4 also appears as ⿰亻⿱⿰𫜹𫜹止 (= ⿰亻⿱羽止).

I don’t think it was intentional for the first stroke to be in contact with the bottom component.

Consider either unifying the width of both sides or bending the vertical stroke.

The provided glyph looks like ⿻壬丷, with the second stroke longer, instead of ⿻王丷 as in all pieces of evidence above.

It seems like the glyph design is different from the evidences and IDS?

Per UCV Rule 411 and the glyph difference between sources, I think the character should be normalized to ⿰⿱䒑⿻从土刂.

The character was once mentioned in Eiso’s comment in [WS2021-00113].

Isn’t the pronunciation altered from 잉 (ING) to 일 (IL) since the bottom part is 乙?

Looks like a corrupted form of ⿰亻讎, but anyway it’s also unencoded.

Note should be WS2021 instead of WS2024.
[WS2021-00315]

⿰口们 should be separated encoded.

Normalize to 龻?

The above is the stroke count of the character in the second red box in Evidence 1 with ⿱二口 substituted to 言.

All the evidence appears to use 言 rather than ⿱二口 as part of the character.

Neither piece of evidence shows the character has been used in running text. Given Evidence 25, I support the proposal in L2/22-207R to encode this character in the Musical Symbols block and withdraw it from the working set.
Per Henry’s feedback on IRGN2540, it would be advisable for Eiso to consider including an additional character for the non-abbreviated form 散 in the proposal document to WG2.

U+6FD5 濕

U+8511 蔑

U+207E2

U+34A6 㒦

U+30147

U+2334B 𣍋 should be a traditional instead of a simplified variant.

kMandarin jī
kCantonese zik1

kMandarin guāng

kMandarin kòng

kMandarin zōng

kMandarin yuān

kMandarin chǒu

kZhuang baez

kZhuang faex

kZhuang laeu

kZhuang rih

kZhuang beu

kMandarin zhuī

kMandarin yī

kMandarin gē
kCantonese go1

kKorean HOL

kKorean CHEL

kKorean PWUN

kKorean KAL

kMandarin chú

kMandarin kān

kMandarin guā

kMandarin hǔ

kMandarin fù

kMandarin shuò

kMandarin yú

kMandarin xiān

kMandarin míng

kMandarin cuì

kMandarin jiǎn
kCantonese zin2

kCantonese ham6

kCantonese mak6

kMandarin chǔ

kCantonese fo1

kMandarin jù
kCantonese kek6
kJapaneseOn GEKI KEKI GYAKU
kKorean KUK

kKorean `KWUMI MI`