<entry id="2311024" stat="A" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict">
<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
<ent_seq>1622660</ent_seq>
<k_ele>
<keb>築港</keb>
</k_ele>
<r_ele>
<reb>ちっこう</reb>
</r_ele>
<r_ele>
<reb>ちくこう</reb>
</r_ele>
<sense>
<pos>&n;</pos>
<pos>&vs;</pos>
<pos>&vt;</pos>
<pos>&vi;</pos>
<gloss>harbor construction</gloss>
</sense>
<sense>
<pos>&n;</pos>
<gloss>man-made harbor</gloss>
</sense>
<info>
<audit time="2021-11-18 01:13:23" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Meikyo vt and vi additions to n,vs entries
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -12,0 +13,2 @@
+&lt;pos&gt;&amp;vt;&lt;/pos&gt;
+&lt;pos&gt;&amp;vi;&lt;/pos&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2024-08-31 06:22:30" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Hendrik</upd_name>
<upd_detl>In Otaru, a city in Hokkaido, there are several ports, one of which, quite apparently created by the (in Japan rather popular) coastal landfill method, is called 築港 (the adjacent railway station has the same name). I would like to suggest that 築港 does not only mean "harbour construction" (i.e., the process of building a port) but also "man-made port/harbour" or "constructed port/harbour" (i.e., the result of said process).</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>https://www.mapion.co.jp/m2/43.18092799890672,141.0278034013893,15
https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E7%AF%89%E6%B8%AF/</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -17,0 +18,4 @@
+&lt;sense&gt;
+&lt;pos&gt;&amp;n;&lt;/pos&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;man-made harbour&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;/sense&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2024-08-31 10:29:50" stat="A">
<upd_uid>razasyedh</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Syed Raza</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Yes. Probably okay to just have the BrEng spelling in the other sense.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>daijs: また、その港。

Additional reading: gg5; smk</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -9,0 +10,3 @@
+&lt;r_ele&gt;
+&lt;reb&gt;ちくこう&lt;/reb&gt;
+&lt;/r_ele&gt;
@@ -16 +18,0 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;harbour construction&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2024-08-31 13:02:17" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_detl>I get the intent of including both "harbor" and "harbour" but mixing spelling conventions like this will look like a mistake to the average user, so I think it should be avoided.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -22 +22 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;man-made harbour&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;man-made harbor&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2024-09-01 06:19:42" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I think we can stay with harbor. I used to be keen to include both types of spelling to enable reverse lookups. I now don't think it's sich a big issue.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>harbor 14117965
harbour 7744714</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2024-09-03 01:25:03" stat="A">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>We still do it when it's helpful for reverse lookups but that's not really the case here. One spelling is sufficient.</upd_detl>
</audit>
</info>
</entry>