Entries

<entry eid="2226823" stat="A" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict"> <ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp> <ent_seq>1594200</ent_seq> <k_ele> <keb>刺激剤</keb> </k_ele> <k_ele> <keb>刺戟剤</keb> <ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf> </k_ele> <r_ele> <reb>しげきざい</reb> </r_ele> <sense> <pos>&n;</pos> <gloss>stimulant</gloss> <gloss>excitant</gloss> <gloss>irritant</gloss> </sense> <sense> <pos>&n;</pos> <gloss>motivator</gloss> <gloss>stimulus</gloss> <gloss>spur</gloss> </sense> <history> <audit time="2023-03-25 08:16:17" stat="A" unap="true"> <upd_name>Brian Krznarich</upd_name> <upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email> <upd_detl>Fixed kanji. Added the xref in place of trying to clarify somehow. there are lots of "stimulant" entries that have similar (and robust) n-gram counts. This one is notable in that the dictionary specifically uses it in a non-chemical context ("failure is a good motivator"). daijs: その失敗がよい―になった」. It's also notable for *not* being listed as a "stimulant" term on wikipedia's chemical stimulants page as a synonym. Weblio has a large collection of good glosses from other sources if you'd like to choose some... https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E5%88%BA%E6%BF%80%E5%89%A4 I am extremely suspicious of glossing this entry as "irritant" (even though you'll find this on weblio, and on other "stimulant" entries). If it's in the context of "non-刺激剤" or "low-刺激剤", then perhaps low-irritant or non-irritant/anti-irritant makes sense. But I don't think it would be used as "irritant" in a non-negated context... Look at this terrible gloss/translation, for example: 呼吸刺激剤 respiratory irritant《医》〔睡眠時無呼吸症候群などの治療に用いられる〕 The example sentence says 呼吸刺激剤 would be used to *treat* sleep apnea. It's a respiratory stimulant, not an irritant.... https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E5%88%BA%E6%BF%80%E5%89%A4</upd_detl> <upd_refs>刺激剤 13305 50.2% 刺激薬 13120 49.5% 刺戟剤 100 0.4% 刺戟薬 0 0.0% https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E5%88%BA%E6%BF%80%E5%89%A4 日本語WordNet(英和)での「刺激剤」の英訳 刺激剤 incentive, motivator, inducement 積極的な動機づけの効果をもたらすもの (a positive motivational influence) EDR日英対訳辞書での「刺激剤」の英訳 刺激剤 読み方 シゲキザイ encouragement</upd_refs> <upd_diff>@@ -5 +5 @@ -&lt;keb&gt;刺戟剤&lt;/keb&gt; +&lt;keb&gt;刺激剤&lt;/keb&gt; @@ -8 +8,2 @@ -&lt;keb&gt;刺激剤&lt;/keb&gt; +&lt;keb&gt;刺戟剤&lt;/keb&gt; +&lt;ke_inf&gt;&amp;sK;&lt;/ke_inf&gt; @@ -15 +16,9 @@ -&lt;gloss&gt;stimulant&lt;/gloss&gt; +&lt;xref type="see" seq="1594190"&gt;刺激・しげき・1&lt;/xref&gt; +&lt;gloss&gt;stimulant (drug)&lt;/gloss&gt; +&lt;gloss&gt;stimulation&lt;/gloss&gt; +&lt;gloss&gt;stimulus&lt;/gloss&gt; +&lt;/sense&gt; +&lt;sense&gt; +&lt;pos&gt;&amp;n;&lt;/pos&gt; +&lt;xref type="see" seq="1594190"&gt;刺激・しげき・2&lt;/xref&gt; +&lt;gloss&gt;motivator&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff> </audit> <audit time="2023-03-28 22:03:37" stat="A"> <upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid> <upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name> <upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email> <upd_detl>Given the overall set of glosses, I think the "(drug)" qualifier is not needed or appropriate. I have no problem with including "irritant". It's fine in the context.</upd_detl> <upd_refs>GG5: a stimulant; an excitant; a stimulative; an irritant. 中辞典: a stimulant; an irritant; an excitant</upd_refs> <upd_diff>@@ -17 +17,3 @@ -&lt;gloss&gt;stimulant (drug)&lt;/gloss&gt; +&lt;gloss&gt;stimulant&lt;/gloss&gt; +&lt;gloss&gt;excitant&lt;/gloss&gt; +&lt;gloss&gt;irritant&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff> </audit> <audit time="2023-03-29 20:50:12" stat="A"> <upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid> <upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name> <upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email> <upd_detl>I don't think the x-refs are needed. "stimulus" is sense 2.</upd_detl> <upd_diff>@@ -16 +15,0 @@ -&lt;xref type="see" seq="1594190"&gt;刺激・しげき・1&lt;/xref&gt; @@ -20,2 +18,0 @@ -&lt;gloss&gt;stimulation&lt;/gloss&gt; -&lt;gloss&gt;stimulus&lt;/gloss&gt; @@ -25 +21,0 @@ -&lt;xref type="see" seq="1594190"&gt;刺激・しげき・2&lt;/xref&gt; @@ -26,0 +23,2 @@ +&lt;gloss&gt;stimulus&lt;/gloss&gt; +&lt;gloss&gt;spur&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff> </audit> </history> </entry>