Since TCA will submit this character as a UNC (mentioned in L2/24-165), it should be unified to that codepoint (probably U+2B73C) as a horizontal extension.
Non-cognate with 𠮚 (U+20B9A), even the shape looks similar. The outer part of this character is 囗, but the outer part of U+20B9A is 口.
Oppose Unification
Unicode does not encode *glyphs* but *characters*.
Oppose Unification
The two 机s are non-cognate but they have the same *abstract shape* as ⿰{木}{几}. However, ⿴口丶 and ⿴囗丶 do not, even their *absolute shape* are not identical but just similar. Additionally, ⿴囗丶 also has the Q-like shape according to one of the evidences, you could not determine the character identity just from one of the possible absolute shape, which is the same issue as the relationship between {月(月)}, {月(肉)}, {月(舟)}, {月(丹)} and {月(冃)}.
Oppose Unification
Also agree with #3123 that the radical difference is enough to show they are two different *characters*.
I also agree to unify to 矑 (U+77D1). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
I also agree to unify to 躔 (U+8E94). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
I also agree to unify to 𪖌 (U+2A58C). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
Unify to 𫺱 (U+2BEB1).
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
Unification
The two structures have a strict correspondence, and we could treat them as only glyph variants. That is a very different situation from 馬/马, 金/钅, etc. See the colors below.
Unification
The question is, how to define “quite different”? They are both the simplified forms of the same character, not the simplified-traditional relationship. What is more, the correspondence works between strokes but not components; however, 馬 obviously has a lot more strokes than 马, you cannot simply establish such a correspondence.
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
Unify to 𪫢 (U+2AAE2).
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
Unification
See #4776. https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/?id=01489
The IDS says that the lower part is 提; however the evidence shows a strange structure neither 捉 nor 提. There was a similar case that ⿱上提(䶶) was disunified from ⿱上捉(𫠼), so I hope the V-source experts could double-check if this character is wrong in the dictionary. If it is right, then please change the IDS.
The 3rd stroke of the lower right part (隹) should be 丶 instead of 丿 according to G-source convention, even if the evidence shows like 丿 (because that is so-called 旧字形, which is different from the G-source convention nowadays).
After the CJK component block being encoded, what if someone find an encoded “component” is “the real Hanzi”? We need a solution on that before encoding the components.
After the CJK component block being encoded, what if someone find an encoded “component” is “the real Hanzi”? We need a solution on that before encoding the components.
I am just curious about if the character does appear in ancient literatures. The 冫 part on the right side seems to be a little bit strange anyway. Maybe I need to broaden my horizons haha.
IRG Working Set 2024v1.0
Source: SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Date: Generated on 2026-02-14
Labels
Showing 4 comments.
Unification
Showing 18 comments.
Since TCA will submit this character as a UNC (mentioned in L2/24-165), it should be unified to that codepoint (probably U+2B73C) as a horizontal extension.
Unify to 𢟨 (U+227E8).
After the horizontal extension by J-source, this would be an exact match.
I also agree to unify to 矑 (U+77D1). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
I also agree to unify to 躔 (U+8E94). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
I also agree to unify to 𪖌 (U+2A58C). As the co-author of the original proposal to add this character to UAX#45, when preparing the proposal, I have already told the first author that this character would most likely to be unified, and I suggest U-source just do an horizontal extension.
Unify to 𫺱 (U+2BEB1).
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
The two structures have a strict correspondence, and we could treat them as only glyph variants. That is a very different situation from 馬/马, 金/钅, etc. See the colors below.
For example, do you think that and look “quite different”?
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
Unify to 𪫢 (U+2AAE2).
Suggest to add ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𪟽 as UCV Lv.1 due to the cognition (both the simplified form of 疑, also see the small character in the parenthesis next to the character entry). It seems that the former one is preferred by the Jing nationality (京族) in China and the latter one is preferred by people in Vietnam. I do not think we need to encode both shapes separately.
Attributes
Showing 5 comments.
Evidence
Showing 3 comments.
Also KP1-8989. The evidence above is from IRGN1275.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 10 comments.
The last stroke of 啜 and are both ㇏ in the evidence, so suggest to keep the consistency.
Other
Showing 6 comments.