一、⿰身戎 is also a non-standard variant of "職"in multiple editions of the Fangyan 《方言》 . This example is frequently discussed in various modern editions and research materials on the Fangyan《方言》.
（1）華學誠 匯證；王智群、謝榮娥、王彩琴 協編：《揚雄方言校釋匯證·第八》，中華書局，2006年9月，第1版，第559頁、第561頁
（2）more examples
二、⿰身戎 also can act as a non-standard variant of "賊" in Dunhuang manuscripts.
As a component "㕣" (yǎn) appears in different forms: "㕣" or "⿱𠘧口"or "⿱丷口" or "公". Therefore, there are cases where "㕣" and ⿱𠘧口 coexist and need to be analyzed for differentiation.
（1）https://zi.tools/zi/%E3%95%A3
（2）李學勤 撰：《字源·口部》，天津古籍，2012年12月，第1版，第98頁：
一、
1，⿱亠厶 is neither an erroneous form nor an accidental occurrence, but a legitimate and established character component in G-Source，e.g. 㐬育充棄夣𰮑。
2，During TANG dynasty，to circumvent naming taboos，"世" as component was usually replaced by this component，e.g. 枼→𣏋、喋→𠴬、構→𭫐→𣕛.
3, so 𠫓 (U+20AD3) cannot clearly illustrate the structural relationship between the component and derivative characters, hindering accurate philological explanations.
（1）張涌泉 主編； 審訂：《敦煌經部文獻合集·小學類訓詁之屬》，中華書局，2008年8月，第1版，第3615頁：
又甲卷、乙卷凡‘世’形構件多諱改作‘云’或‘’（參看校記〔一七五〕、〔三二五〕、〔四○○〕、〔六一七〕、〔六八三〕），又改作‘曳’（參看校記〔三七〕、〔四五九〕、〔五○五〕），幾無例外；甚至連與‘世’相近的偏旁也有諱改的（如男服部‘𦂌皮𦂌也。博講反’，注文‘講’字右上部甲卷作‘’形，即應係避唐諱改寫。
(2) 張涌泉 主編； 審訂：《敦煌經部文獻合集·小學類字書之屬·開蒙要訓 》，中華書局，2008年8月，第1版，第4086頁
二、
1，In literature, it's describedas "上作點" and contrasted with the character "云" (yún) or 𠫓 (U+20AD3)
（1）［民國］中華教育界社 編：《中華教育界 第二十二卷第十期·請教育部頒發漢字注音用及獨立用之注音符號兩種字模印刷體式辦法案·獨立用之注音符號印刷體式辦法》，中華書局，1935年4月，第1版，第102頁：
（2）湯可敬 譯注：《説文解字·卷二十八·528 𠫓》，中華書局，2018年06月，第1版，第3200頁
（3）湯可敬 譯注：《説文解字·卷二十八·528 𠫓》，中華書局，2018年06月，第1版，第3199頁
三、
Even if unification was adopted by J-source (Japanese) standards, it does not mean that G-source should adopt it. A more appropriate approach is to encode ⿱亠厶 separately, and unify 𠫓 (U+20AD3) in J-source to ⿱亠厶.
㴱 in the phrase 志殷而㴱 from Chapter 72, Volume 10 of the Da Dai Li Ji 大戴禮記·卷十·文王官人第七十二is always written as ⿰氵⿱穴文, with an old annotation stating: “⿰氵⿱穴文 蓋深字.” As shown below, the Yuan, Ming, Qing, and Japanese engraved editions of the Da Dai Li Ji all present this character as ⿰氵⿱穴文.（p1~p5）
Qing dynasty scholars who collated the Da Dai Li Ji observed and discussed this phenomenon. For instance, Lu Wenchao, in his 與王懷祖（念孫）庶常論校正大戴禮記書, specifically emphasized that upon consulting dictionaries, there is no such character as ⿰氵⿱穴文. He suggested that if the main text were to be changed to 㴱, then since 㴱 is equivalent to 深, this annotation would not be necessary. Sun Yirang cited another scholar’s textual criticism, arguing that ⿰氵⿱穴文was a corrupted form of the character 㴱, possibly related to taboo names during Tang dynasty. （p6~p7）
Additionally, regarding the phrase 浚窮而能達” in Chapter 10 of the Da Dai Li Ji, Sun Yirang believed that the character 浚, which was annotated as 深, originated from a transformation of the glyph ⿰氵⿱穴文. （p8）
Modern collated editions generally retain the glyph ⿰氵⿱穴文 in the main text of the sentence志殷而㴱, while citing various scholarly opinions in their annotations.（p9）
（1）大戴禮記，嘉興路儒學元至正14年[1354]，刻本，35/46，http://read.nlc.cn/OutOpenBook/OpenObjectBook?aid=892&bid=95954.0
P1
(2)大戴禮記， 袁氏嘉趣堂明嘉靖12年[1533]
http://read.nlc.cn/OutOpenBook/OpenObjectBook?aid=892&bid=120855.0
P2
http://read.nlc.cn/OutOpenBook/OpenObjectBook?aid=892&bid=71511.0
P3
(3)大戴禮記，盧見曾清乾隆23年[1758]，刻本，118/159，http://read.nlc.cn/OutOpenBook/OpenObjectBook?aid=892&bid=153321.0
P4
(4)大戴禮記，戴德撰;淺見安正點，押小路通(京師):萬屋喜兵衛,正德6[1716]，https://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ro12/ro12_02936/ro12_02936_0002/ro12_02936_0002_p0036.jpg
P5
It is undeniable that [⿴囗㕣] has long been used as a variant form of "囧," and therefore, there are inevitably scenarios where these two characters are strictly distinguished or even appear together, as seen in 《敦煌經部文獻合集》（P1）.
However, in the epitaphs of the Northern and Southern Dynasties, there are also instances where [⿴囗㕣] does not entirely equate to 囧.
For example,
in the phrase "端宿墜[⿴囗㕣]" of《元簡墓誌》(p2~p3) ,is recorded as 日 in 《彙編》 and 《補遺》 (Wei).
In the phrase 如彼皎[⿴囗㕣]，褰霧獨明 of 司馬悦墓誌(p4~p5), is recorded as 日 in 《新中國誌河南壹》 and 《南師2005-碩論》.
In the phrase 脩光墜景，[⿴囗㕣]月落暉 of 元廣墓誌(p6) , is likely to be 日.
In the phrase 遼西公[⿴囗㕣]之季女 of 元祐妃常季繁墓誌(p7~p8) , is recorded as 國 in 《法全》
P1
張涌泉 主編； 審訂：《敦煌經部文獻合集·小學類韻書之屬（一）》，中華書局，2008年8月，第1版，第2216頁
P2 元簡墓誌，中華石刻數據庫
P3《南北朝墓志集成》，上海人民出版社，202103，第58頁
P4《司馬悦墓誌》，中華石刻數據庫
P5,《南北朝墓志集成》，上海人民出版社，202103，第93頁
Under normal circumstances, ⿰目力 is a variant form of the character "助," as described in the 异体字典 (p1,https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=4126):
"Characters derived from the phonetic component 且 (qiě) typically follow a left-radical, right-phonetic structure, with rare exceptions of right-radical, left-phonetic arrangements. Consequently, in variant forms of 助, the component 且 is often miscopied as 目 (mù). This error is most frequently observed in the 敦煌俗字譜. 字鑑 and 正字通 both note it.This demonstrates that the use of 目 in vulgar forms was widespread, hence its inclusion here."
Evidence 3 is drawn precisely from Dunhuang manuscripts. This form appears extensively in origal books, such as the 文苑英華 and 説文通訓定聲, as shown in p2 ~p5. Another example is Evidence 2, which cites six instances in the 尚書注疏彙校 (Chief Editor Du Zexun杜澤遜, Zhonghua Book Company, 2018) where "助" is written as "⿰目力" in collation notes for the Song dynasty "Eight-Line Edition" (abbreviated "八") and the Song dynasty Wang Pengfu edition (abbreviated "王") of the 尚書注疏.
A notable exception is Evidence 1 from the 孫臏兵法校理, where the character ⿰目力 appears in the "Sun Bin's Art of War Bamboo Slips from the Yinqueshan Han Tombs.", as shown in the facsimile copy of the original bamboo slips(p6).
The 孫臏兵法校理 describes this character as "composed of 目 and 力." The author refutes the interpretation in (銀雀山漢墓竹簡) 孫臏兵法 (Cultural Relics Publishing House, 1975, CN 7068-339), which "suspected it should be read as 冒 (mào)," arguing instead that it is an abbreviated form of the character "瞗 (diāo)"(p7).
p1
(Zhonghua Book Company, 1966, facsimile edition based on Song dynasty fragments and Ming dynasty prints)
p2
p3
p4
p5
p6
Thanks for the correction! Although rare, ⿱艹妖 does exist, and I will submit new evidences. The character 妖 is a clerical-script abbreviation of 𡝩, yet in the modern writing system, 妖 has become the standard form, while 𡝩 has faded into obscurity. This unfamiliarity with 𡝩 may explain why it is occasionally written as ⿱艹妖.
薛瑞兆 編撰 ：《新編全金詩•卷五二•王澮•感遇四首》，中華書局，2021年05月，第1版，第1366頁。
its original version 谷音二卷，民國十八年（1929）上海商務印書館影印本
錢仲聯 主編 ：《清詩紀事》，鳳凰出版社，2004年04月，第1版，第3361頁。
In these two modern editions, the character ⿳内一八 should correspond to 㒷 (U+34B7) as variant of 興 in the original editions.
（1）崔建英 辑订,贾卫民、李晓亚 参订，《明别集版本志》，中华书局，2006 07月，p.172.
vs (明)張祥鳶撰，《華陽洞稿》，明萬曆戊子(16年,1588)金壇張氏家刊本
https://rbook.ncl.edu.tw/NCLSearch/Search/SearchDetail?item=5c13407daf2cde1ca85be38a1cd6d22dfDQ0OTI00.sCx7Lib9PDTjlooVpKp7zPanNlGOTR68KlNee0ZEoCs_&image=1&page=173&whereString=&sourceWhereString=&SourceID=
（2）傅增湘 撰，《藏園群書經眼録·卷九 子部三》，中華書局，2009年4月，第1版，第653頁
vs (宋)趙善璙撰，《自警編》，宋刊本
https://rbook.ncl.edu.tw/NCLSearch/Search/SearchDetail?item=7b5c54669a523926674b2cda0b599259fDczNzc40.tpbH5cFydau_iIQmZsMV0w_0ri0INK1SFI1C1by3G9o_&page=112&whereString=&sourceWhereString=&SourceID=1&HasImage=
IRG Working Set 2024v2.0
Source: SU Ruixin
Date: Generated on 2025-11-07
Unification
Showing 6 comments.
（1）華學誠 匯證；王智群、謝榮娥、王彩琴 協編：《揚雄方言校釋匯證·第八》，中華書局，2006年9月，第1版，第559頁、第561頁
（2）more examples
二、⿰身戎 also can act as a non-standard variant of "賊" in Dunhuang manuscripts.
（1）https://zi.tools/zi/%E3%95%A3
（2）李學勤 撰：《字源·口部》，天津古籍，2012年12月，第1版，第98頁：
1，⿱亠厶 is neither an erroneous form nor an accidental occurrence, but a legitimate and established character component in G-Source，e.g. 㐬育充棄夣𰮑。
2，During TANG dynasty，to circumvent naming taboos，"世" as component was usually replaced by this component，e.g. 枼→𣏋、喋→𠴬、構→𭫐→𣕛.
3, so 𠫓 (U+20AD3) cannot clearly illustrate the structural relationship between the component and derivative characters, hindering accurate philological explanations.
（1）張涌泉 主編； 審訂：《敦煌經部文獻合集·小學類訓詁之屬》，中華書局，2008年8月，第1版，第3615頁：
又甲卷、乙卷凡‘世’形構件多諱改作‘云’或‘’（參看校記〔一七五〕、〔三二五〕、〔四○○〕、〔六一七〕、〔六八三〕），又改作‘曳’（參看校記〔三七〕、〔四五九〕、〔五○五〕），幾無例外；甚至連與‘世’相近的偏旁也有諱改的（如男服部‘𦂌皮𦂌也。博講反’，注文‘講’字右上部甲卷作‘’形，即應係避唐諱改寫。
(2) 張涌泉 主編； 審訂：《敦煌經部文獻合集·小學類字書之屬·開蒙要訓 》，中華書局，2008年8月，第1版，第4086頁
二、
1，In literature, it's describedas "上作點" and contrasted with the character "云" (yún) or 𠫓 (U+20AD3)
（1）［民國］中華教育界社 編：《中華教育界 第二十二卷第十期·請教育部頒發漢字注音用及獨立用之注音符號兩種字模印刷體式辦法案·獨立用之注音符號印刷體式辦法》，中華書局，1935年4月，第1版，第102頁：
（2）湯可敬 譯注：《説文解字·卷二十八·528 𠫓》，中華書局，2018年06月，第1版，第3200頁
（3）湯可敬 譯注：《説文解字·卷二十八·528 𠫓》，中華書局，2018年06月，第1版，第3199頁
三、
Even if unification was adopted by J-source (Japanese) standards, it does not mean that G-source should adopt it. A more appropriate approach is to encode ⿱亠厶 separately, and unify 𠫓 (U+20AD3) in J-source to ⿱亠厶.
Qing dynasty scholars who collated the Da Dai Li Ji observed and discussed this phenomenon. For instance, Lu Wenchao, in his 與王懷祖（念孫）庶常論校正大戴禮記書, specifically emphasized that upon consulting dictionaries, there is no such character as ⿰氵⿱穴文. He suggested that if the main text were to be changed to 㴱, then since 㴱 is equivalent to 深, this annotation would not be necessary. Sun Yirang cited another scholar’s textual criticism, arguing that ⿰氵⿱穴文was a corrupted form of the character 㴱, possibly related to taboo names during Tang dynasty. （p6~p7）
Additionally, regarding the phrase 浚窮而能達” in Chapter 10 of the Da Dai Li Ji, Sun Yirang believed that the character 浚, which was annotated as 深, originated from a transformation of the glyph ⿰氵⿱穴文. （p8）
Modern collated editions generally retain the glyph ⿰氵⿱穴文 in the main text of the sentence志殷而㴱, while citing various scholarly opinions in their annotations.（p9）
（1）大戴禮記，嘉興路儒學元至正14年[1354]，刻本，35/46，http://read.nlc.cn/OutOpenBook/OpenObjectBook?aid=892&bid=95954.0
P1
(2)大戴禮記， 袁氏嘉趣堂明嘉靖12年[1533]
http://read.nlc.cn/OutOpenBook/OpenObjectBook?aid=892&bid=120855.0
P2
http://read.nlc.cn/OutOpenBook/OpenObjectBook?aid=892&bid=71511.0
P3
(3)大戴禮記，盧見曾清乾隆23年[1758]，刻本，118/159，http://read.nlc.cn/OutOpenBook/OpenObjectBook?aid=892&bid=153321.0
P4
(4)大戴禮記，戴德撰;淺見安正點，押小路通(京師):萬屋喜兵衛,正德6[1716]，https://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ro12/ro12_02936/ro12_02936_0002/ro12_02936_0002_p0036.jpg
P5
56/69， http://read.nlc.cn/OutOpenBook/OpenObjectBook?aid=016&bid=2939.0
P6
(6)大戴禮記斠補三卷，（清）孫詒讓撰，民國三年瑞安廣明印刷所石印本[1914]，24/82，29/82，https://db.wzlib.cn/digital_resource/web/viewer.html?file=/digital_document/file/wEEMfLQq4YP7o-oPhM5sKnDzk8FxQlfpiSWejlPICAnDoOPq_AfxG3Z0chjsc6eUsIGwkv8pJdf0WvxSAHHD8bXBRq20ELg-d1TFBJQxLhM%3D
P7
P8
P9
However, in the epitaphs of the Northern and Southern Dynasties, there are also instances where [⿴囗㕣] does not entirely equate to 囧.
For example,
in the phrase "端宿墜[⿴囗㕣]" of《元簡墓誌》(p2~p3) ,is recorded as 日 in 《彙編》 and 《補遺》 (Wei).
In the phrase 如彼皎[⿴囗㕣]，褰霧獨明 of 司馬悦墓誌(p4~p5), is recorded as 日 in 《新中國誌河南壹》 and 《南師2005-碩論》.
In the phrase 脩光墜景，[⿴囗㕣]月落暉 of 元廣墓誌(p6) , is likely to be 日.
In the phrase 遼西公[⿴囗㕣]之季女 of 元祐妃常季繁墓誌(p7~p8) , is recorded as 國 in 《法全》
P1
張涌泉 主編； 審訂：《敦煌經部文獻合集·小學類韻書之屬（一）》，中華書局，2008年8月，第1版，第2216頁
P2 元簡墓誌，中華石刻數據庫
P3《南北朝墓志集成》，上海人民出版社，202103，第58頁
P4《司馬悦墓誌》，中華石刻數據庫
P5,《南北朝墓志集成》，上海人民出版社，202103，第93頁
P6，《元廣墓誌》，中華石刻數據庫
P7，《元祐妃常季繁墓誌》，中華石刻數據庫
p8，《南北朝墓志集成》，上海人民出版社，202103，第208頁。
Evidence
Showing 3 comments.
"Characters derived from the phonetic component 且 (qiě) typically follow a left-radical, right-phonetic structure, with rare exceptions of right-radical, left-phonetic arrangements. Consequently, in variant forms of 助, the component 且 is often miscopied as 目 (mù). This error is most frequently observed in the 敦煌俗字譜. 字鑑 and 正字通 both note it.This demonstrates that the use of 目 in vulgar forms was widespread, hence its inclusion here."
Evidence 3 is drawn precisely from Dunhuang manuscripts. This form appears extensively in origal books, such as the 文苑英華 and 説文通訓定聲, as shown in p2 ~p5. Another example is Evidence 2, which cites six instances in the 尚書注疏彙校 (Chief Editor Du Zexun杜澤遜, Zhonghua Book Company, 2018) where "助" is written as "⿰目力" in collation notes for the Song dynasty "Eight-Line Edition" (abbreviated "八") and the Song dynasty Wang Pengfu edition (abbreviated "王") of the 尚書注疏.
A notable exception is Evidence 1 from the 孫臏兵法校理, where the character ⿰目力 appears in the "Sun Bin's Art of War Bamboo Slips from the Yinqueshan Han Tombs.", as shown in the facsimile copy of the original bamboo slips(p6).
The 孫臏兵法校理 describes this character as "composed of 目 and 力." The author refutes the interpretation in (銀雀山漢墓竹簡) 孫臏兵法 (Cultural Relics Publishing House, 1975, CN 7068-339), which "suspected it should be read as 冒 (mào)," arguing instead that it is an abbreviated form of the character "瞗 (diāo)"(p7).
p1
(Zhonghua Book Company, 1966, facsimile edition based on Song dynasty fragments and Ming dynasty prints)
p2
p3
p4
p5
p6
薛瑞兆 編撰 ：《新編全金詩•卷五二•王澮•感遇四首》，中華書局，2021年05月，第1版，第1366頁。
its original version 谷音二卷，民國十八年（1929）上海商務印書館影印本
錢仲聯 主編 ：《清詩紀事》，鳳凰出版社，2004年04月，第1版，第3361頁。
（1）崔建英 辑订,贾卫民、李晓亚 参订，《明别集版本志》，中华书局，2006 07月，p.172.
vs (明)張祥鳶撰，《華陽洞稿》，明萬曆戊子(16年,1588)金壇張氏家刊本
https://rbook.ncl.edu.tw/NCLSearch/Search/SearchDetail?item=5c13407daf2cde1ca85be38a1cd6d22dfDQ0OTI00.sCx7Lib9PDTjlooVpKp7zPanNlGOTR68KlNee0ZEoCs_&image=1&page=173&whereString=&sourceWhereString=&SourceID=
（2）傅增湘 撰，《藏園群書經眼録·卷九 子部三》，中華書局，2009年4月，第1版，第653頁
vs (宋)趙善璙撰，《自警編》，宋刊本
https://rbook.ncl.edu.tw/NCLSearch/Search/SearchDetail?item=7b5c54669a523926674b2cda0b599259fDczNzc40.tpbH5cFydau_iIQmZsMV0w_0ri0INK1SFI1C1by3G9o_&page=112&whereString=&sourceWhereString=&SourceID=1&HasImage=