<entry id="2345577" stat="A" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict">
<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
<ent_seq>2829645</ent_seq>
<r_ele>
<reb>ず</reb>
</r_ele>
<sense>
<pos>&aux-v;</pos>
<pos>&conj;</pos>
<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ</xref>
<xref type="see" seq="2576210">ずに</xref>
<misc>&form;</misc>
<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb and for サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ</s_inf>
<gloss>(does) not... and...</gloss>
<gloss>not doing...</gloss>
<gloss>not... so...</gloss>
<gloss>without doing</gloss>
<gloss>negates verb and continues onto next sentence</gloss>
</sense>
<sense>
<pos>&aux-v;</pos>
<xref type="see" seq="2257550">ない</xref>
<misc>&arch;</misc>
<gloss>not</gloss>
</sense>
<info>
<audit time="2016-06-13 15:32:31" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>rene</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Rene Malenfant</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_refs>koj, etc.</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2016-06-13 23:31:02" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
</audit>
<audit time="2024-04-20 07:59:10" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Non</upd_name>
<upd_detl>Entry was missing the information that ず can form a conjunction.
Added second sense as terminal ず can still be found in set phrases as well as certain media.
Opted for 連用形 and 終止形 over translations as the original Japanese can likely be researched with less potential of wrong results than something such as connective form or terminal form, they can also be looked up within the dictionary whereas translations cannot.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>daijs, daijr</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -9,0 +10 @@
+&lt;pos&gt;&amp;conj;&lt;/pos&gt;
@@ -13,2 +14,11 @@
-&lt;s_inf&gt;after the -nai stem of a verb&lt;/s_inf&gt;
-&lt;gloss&gt;not doing&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;s_inf&gt;連用形 of ～ぬ acting as a conjunction&lt;/s_inf&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;not&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;/sense&gt;
+&lt;sense&gt;
+&lt;pos&gt;&amp;aux-v;&lt;/pos&gt;
+&lt;xref type="see" seq="2441300"&gt;ぬ・1&lt;/xref&gt;
+&lt;xref type="see" seq="2441300"&gt;ぬ&lt;/xref&gt;
+&lt;xref type="see" seq="2441300"&gt;ぬ&lt;/xref&gt;
+&lt;misc&gt;&amp;form;&lt;/misc&gt;
+&lt;s_inf&gt;used at sentence end; old 終止形 of ～ぬ&lt;/s_inf&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;not&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2024-04-20 10:51:20" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_detl>"連用形" etc. isn't helpful. 99% of users won't know what it's a reference to. If you really were as smart as you seem to think, you'd realize the goal here isn't to cater to the 1% elite grammer nerds</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2024-04-20 11:47:44" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Non</upd_name>
<upd_detl>The notes only do two things: tell you what it is and tell you what it does. Do you presuppose that a reader does not wish to know either or neither of these things?
Of course shoving 連用形 or "conjunction" in there will not automatically allow them to directly download information concerning those concepts unto their brain, I truly hope you did not think this to have been my intent. 
The terms are put there so that the reader may research them on their own, they can even be researched back with this dictionary if someone wishes to research through translation. Could you construct an argument against these points, so that we can have a productive discussion and make a better entry?
The information is not there to "cater to grammar nerds" as you so creatively put, it is there to teach the language: grammar plays an important part of second-language acquisition for many, especially adults, even more so when there is such a disparity between the structures of Japanese and several Indo-European languages. Did you learn Japanese without studying any form of grammar? I would doubt that unless you grew up using Japanese.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2024-04-22 08:35:28" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Non</upd_name>
<upd_detl>After some consideration, the translation on [1] should be changed as conjunctive ず is not properly represented by it: this ず conflates coordination and negation into a single morpheme, english has no such morpheme and thus lacks a direct translation. I have considered something such as "does/will not... and..." but that seemed confusing without an example sentence so I opted for an explanatory definition that is, hopefully, clear enough.

I realise I have forgotten to say why I have removed the notes on connection: I did so as I assume the notes will compel a reader to click the cross-reference to ぬ, leading them to learn that from there.

An additional idea that came to mind: this entry could be merged with ぬ by adding ず as a reading and adding this glossary to its, it would only need a few "as ～ず" or "as ～ぬ" to be added to the notes, the same could be done with ん. This practice could be applied to merge other entries that are variations of the same thing and with that trim down the number of individual entries with the benefit of consolidating currently scattered items under their corresponding set.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -15 +15 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;not&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss g_type="expl"&gt;used to negate a verb and continue onto next sentence&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2024-04-26 23:40:39" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I don't think the proposed revision is very useful to the typical user of this dictionary. There may be scope somewhere for detailed etymological and morphological information about these sorts of terms, but I don't think this is the place.
I'm reverting the entry to the 2016 original so that the comments remain visible. I'll reopen it for a while in case there is further discussion.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -10 +9,0 @@
-&lt;pos&gt;&amp;conj;&lt;/pos&gt;
@@ -14,11 +13,2 @@
-&lt;s_inf&gt;連用形 of ～ぬ acting as a conjunction&lt;/s_inf&gt;
-&lt;gloss g_type="expl"&gt;used to negate a verb and continue onto next sentence&lt;/gloss&gt;
-&lt;/sense&gt;
-&lt;sense&gt;
-&lt;pos&gt;&amp;aux-v;&lt;/pos&gt;
-&lt;xref type="see" seq="2441300"&gt;ぬ・1&lt;/xref&gt;
-&lt;xref type="see" seq="2441300"&gt;ぬ&lt;/xref&gt;
-&lt;xref type="see" seq="2441300"&gt;ぬ&lt;/xref&gt;
-&lt;misc&gt;&amp;form;&lt;/misc&gt;
-&lt;s_inf&gt;used at sentence end; old 終止形 of ～ぬ&lt;/s_inf&gt;
-&lt;gloss&gt;not&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;s_inf&gt;after the -nai stem of a verb&lt;/s_inf&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;not doing&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2025-07-23 14:17:30" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Sombrero1</upd_name>
<upd_detl>I think nonさん was on the right track. 
While 中止法 in itself is nothing too out of the ordinary, it may be useful to have a separate sense indicating this here.
Furthermore, having precisely this sense is useful to the average user of this dictionary, because it's a more likely case for this auxiliary to be encountered.

Also I don't see how this has [suf], ず isn't a derivational morpheme, it's inflectional.
There also aren't any refs to substantiate this AFAICS

Perhaps sense one could have a [conj-prt] tag, but that may also be a bit dubious at the same time.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>＊ Sankoku:
１：
   口語の否定の助動詞「ぬ」の連用形。
    「何も買わ━、帰った」
２：｟助動(特殊型)｠
  〔文〕〔否定の助動詞〕…ない。
    「山高きが故(ゆえ)に貴(たっと)から━」

＊ GendaiShinkoku:
１：｟助動詞・特殊型｠
   打消しの意味を表す助動詞「ぬ」の連用形。…ないで
２：［古語］
   打ち消しの意味を表す。…ない

＊ Meikyo:
〚打ち消しの助動詞「ぬ」の連用形〛
１：打ち消しの意を伴って、文を中止したり、副詞的修飾をしたりする。…ないで。
「連絡が取れ━、心配した」
「何も言わ━、動きもしない」
２： 打ち消した状態であるものやさまなどを表す。
「開(あ)か━の間(ま)」
「わから━屋」
「行方知れ━」
「怖いもの知ら━」

The references above perform a sense specific split in terms of which negation system they refer to
In sense one the paradigm in question is modern (formal or colloquial) ぬ as in （〇｜ず｜ぬ・ん｜ぬ・ん｜ね｜〇），hence them noting that it's the 連用形 of ぬ.
While in sense two the paradigm in question is archaic (or formal) ず as in（（ず）｜ず｜ず｜ぬ｜ね｜〇）(which itself represents a merger of two separate older systems).
This also leads to ず use outside of that conjunctive sense being mostly regarded as archaic (gendaiSK, daijr, shinsen, oukoku), with other refs like meikyo tagging 文語 which essentially means the same.


On ず中止法：
＊ https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q12179271617

＊ https://ja.hinative.com/questions/22362238

＊ daijisen: [...] なお、現代では、連用形「ず」は中止法として主に書き言葉で用いられ、終止形は「べからず」の形で禁止の意を表すのに用いられる。

＊ nikkoku: 「ず」は、終止形のほか、連用修飾法、中止法、また、助詞「て」「は」助動詞「き」「けむ」「けり」等につづく用法があり、連用形、終止形の二形と認められる。[...]

＊ Samuel E. Martin "A reference grammar of Japanese" p. 377:
"[...] and Tabezu ni neta 'I slept without eating = I went to bed hungry'. 
The ni is optionally omittable (cf. §9. 1 . 1 2, § 14.6); that is unusual for a precopular or an adjectival noun (though yoo and mitai are similar)
except for those that are also adverbs. In this use, the V-(a)zu forms are more often written than spoken;
speakers prefer the more relaxed V-(a)nai de or V-(a)nakute to carry the same meaning, that of a negative gerund. 

But in Kansai speech V-(a)zu is still used for V-(a)naku [te] =
V-(a)nai de as in: Ame mo hurazu kaze mo hukan[u] 'It does not rain, nor does the wind
blow' (= Ame mo huranai de kaze mo hukanai) ; Ame to kaze ga hidokute, kawara ni wa
dare mo izu, kawa wa are ni areta 'The rain and wind were so terrible there was no one
along the riverbed, and the river raged and raged' (SA 2663.48a). 

For such dialects, we will say that V-(a)zu is an alternant way of making the negative infinitive, the other way
being V-(a)naku, in these dialects usually rendered as V-(a)na'u = V-(a)noo. (And the use
of the infinitive for the gerund is more general; see p. 395.) 

In standard Japanese, too, the
V-(a)zu [nil form will sometimes be preferred to the more colloquial negative gerunds,
especially in stereotyped adverbial expressions such as osimazu [ni (kane o tukau)
'(spends money) unstintingly, generously' "

＊ https://ynu.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/8096/files/35-13.pdf
  A 1996 study investigating the emergence of なく・なくて・ないで forms to replace ず and ずに conducted on university students (only pages 2-4 are really relevant to this entry).
  This isn't supposed to be a main reference but more of a means of substantiating the first sense


.</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -9 +8,0 @@
-&lt;pos&gt;&amp;suf;&lt;/pos&gt;
@@ -10,0 +10,9 @@
+&lt;xref type="see" seq="2576210"&gt;ずに&lt;/xref&gt;
+&lt;misc&gt;&amp;form;&lt;/misc&gt;
+&lt;s_inf&gt;after the -nai stem of a verb; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction&lt;/s_inf&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;without doing&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;/sense&gt;
+&lt;sense&gt;
+&lt;pos&gt;&amp;aux-v;&lt;/pos&gt;
+&lt;xref type="see" seq="2257550"&gt;ない&lt;/xref&gt;
+&lt;misc&gt;&amp;arch;&lt;/misc&gt;
@@ -12 +20 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;not doing&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;not&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2025-07-26 07:34:40" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I still think the original brief form is sufficient, but I can live with this, I guess.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2025-07-27 07:30:42" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Non</upd_name>
<upd_detl>It brings a tear to the eye... 

Anyhow, there are another 2 paragraphs of argumentation under the rejected version of this entry not-so-briefly raising some points as to why this entry was a problem besides the one Sombrero just brought up - including the reason why I am now editing this recently approved entry (so sorry about that).
In short, it is the サ変 -nai stem problem again - I once again would like to address it, if nothing else.
The note might seem overly long but ironically is shorter than other alternatives I have tried as the kanji save us a handful of characters.

The above is why I edited the entry, now onto the reason why this is 2 paragraphs long...

ず is not properly represented by "without doing" as it is not quite identical to ずに - just as なくて and なく are not quite the same as ないで.
I will try to use only the paper and two sentences Sombrero has provided to make my point. 
However, of the paper, I will only be focusing on sentences c, e, f and g of diagram 1 on page 3 as those are the ones that deal with the bare negative auxiliaries without a verb pre-attached, and they are also the only ones wherein ず、ずに、なくて、なく and ないで are all present as options.

So, diagram 1. C, e, f and especially g.
Across these ず is chosen a total of 1840 times, 436(~23.69%) in c, 539(32.5%) in e, 531(~28.85%) in f and 275(~14.94%) in g.
ずに is chosen 233 times, 221(~94.84%) in g, and 12(&lt;6%) times across all other options.
Notice how g concentrates almost all instances of ずに and is also the one in which ず sees the least amount of usage, as well as the sharpest decrease compared to the next value above it (c).
なく and なくて were chosen only 55 and 46 times respectively, but they were *never* chosen for g.
Meanwhile, ないで was *only* chosen for g.

Proportionally, なく and なくて have a distribution more similar to　ず, while ずに's is much more similar to ないで. 

So, where am I going with this?

The idea is that ず is more like your typical verbal coordinator that is sometimes reinterpreted as subordinating if the context supports it (like the 連用形, て or our English 'and') while ずに is almost exclusively used as a subordinator for the following clause - this is why ず still had some presence in g while ずに had almost none outside of it (and why ないで had actually none).
That is also why I had reluctantly suggested "not... and..." as the gloss and left an explanatory gloss below as I myself found the translation alone too awkward, but even so did not suggest copying the ずに entry - "without" is a subordinator and ず is not necessarily.

To close this off, the sentences.
「食べずに寝た」 cannot be made into 「寝ずに食べた」 without flipping the meaning of the sentence on its head, as it is subordinating: "I slept without eating" versus "I ate without sleeping".
Meanwhile, you can freely flip 「雨もふらず風もふかぬ」 into 「風もふかず雨もふらぬ」 and the meaning is unchanged: "Rain does not fall and wind does blow" versus "Wind does not blow and rain does not fall" 
If you think about it, I think you will agree that in the second sentence you usually do not see ずに replacing ず.

I am unsure as to whether all this rambling is actually a problem, or if the context will carry the reader to the right interpretation even in cases wherein the translation seems odd at first. 
All in all, I would like to change the gloss also, but am ultimately refraining from doing so. Perhaps someone else might have thoughts on this?

Also, [conj] tag to [1].</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -8,0 +9 @@
+&lt;pos&gt;&amp;conj;&lt;/pos&gt;
@@ -12 +13 @@
-&lt;s_inf&gt;after the -nai stem of a verb; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction&lt;/s_inf&gt;
+&lt;s_inf&gt;connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction&lt;/s_inf&gt;
@@ -19 +20 @@
-&lt;s_inf&gt;after the -nai stem of a verb&lt;/s_inf&gt;
+&lt;s_inf&gt;connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず&lt;/s_inf&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2025-07-30 08:29:02" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Sean McBroom</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I think repetition in the notes detracts from the overall quality of the entry. Also, shouldn’t the archaic form be noted as connecting to archaic nidan verbs as well (e.g., 捨つ-&gt;捨てず)?</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2025-07-30 09:44:34" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Sombrero1</upd_name>
<upd_detl>＞ In short, it is the サ変 -nai stem problem again - I once again would like to address it, if nothing else.
   The note might seem overly long but ironically is shorter than other alternatives I have tried as the kanji save us a handful of characters.
   ＞I think it's fine to have a note for サ変, 未然形 せ is certainly not encountered early on by learners, better to have it listed

＞ Also, shouldn’t the archaic form be noted as connecting to archaic nidan verbs as well (e.g., 捨つ-&gt;捨てず)
   ＞ Perhaps it would be better to have the note like "after the -nai stem of a verb; for サ変 as せ～ず; etc. " ?
      I don't think we should go down the path of giving an exhaustive listing of the verb classes 
      

Sentence E: 懸命に頑張ったが、我々の抗議は認められ（ず）、得点も入らなかった。
   "Though we put all our might into it, our protests weren't noticed [, nor did we hit our goals/and we didn't hit our goals either]"

What about ず as a coordinating conjunction indicating consequence? Sentence E could also be interpreted this way, could it not?
"Though we put all our might into it, our protests weren't noticed, so we also didn't hit our goals."

Or here as a conjunction indicating reason.
Sentence F: 新しい政府がどのような方針で対処するかは予想もつかず、 不安な気持に陥ることも多い。
Since one can hardly anticipate by which principles a new government will act, it often leads to uneasiness.


I think I was also a bit biased towards "without doing" because, if I recall correctly, that was the situation in which I first encountered conjunctive ず.
I see now that ずに is limited to "without doing", but for plain ず that's just one possible interpretation. 
The general dominance of ず throughout all examples in the paper in itself speaks for the versatility.
Maybe it would be helpful to list a few different options as glosses, with the most "neutral" one first?

"not... and..."
"not doing..."
"not... so..."
("without doing")

I too find it difficult to gloss this, e.g. in these sentences there is hardly a gloss to give:
「連絡が取れず、心配した」Unable to make contact, I was worried.

「何も言わず、動きもしない」Not saying a word, nor moving an inch.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -13,0 +14,3 @@
+&lt;gloss&gt;(does) not... and...&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;not doing&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;not... so...&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2025-07-31 19:36:22" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Non</upd_name>
<upd_detl>In response to McBroom:
I agree that the repeated note is unsightly, this is again the problem wherein we have no means to distinguish a sense-specific note from an entry-wide one. 

二段; I would not worry too much about them. Not only would that mean we still need to add in 四段、ナ変、ラ変 and the ancient 未然形 of adjectives that is so old not even Old Japanese used it, but also the point of the note is more so to clarify to readers unfamiliar with ず that the connection to サ変 is せず and never しず, as would be otherwise implied by "-nai stem". 
In any case, I will leave an alternative entry without the repeating note at the bottom of this commentary.

In response to Sombrero:
The universality of the relations that can be expressed by a verbal coordinator (here ず) has less to do with the coordinator and more to do with the many possible relations between the propositions being joined, which are contextually inferred but may have downstream semantic and syntactical effects, such as the autonomously advancing reference time and subordinating-like set sentence order imposed on this example:
"John walked in and sat down"
In theory, if this is just a coordination, I should also be able to say "John sat down and walked in" to mean the same, but I cannot - we infer a sequence which that would violate.
And undeniably, few have ever mastered the art of sitting down and only then walking in.

And all this translates into: I do not think we should be too worried about listing every possible relation between the conjuncts since it is not ず providing them anyway. Just the basic coordination and maybe a few of the more common inferred relations such as 'without' are likely enough.

Lastly, yes - ず is hard to gloss. This is so because we have no 1:1 correspondent to it in English, even less so than normally.
ず negates and coordinates. We have things that negate and things that coordinate, but not both (actually we have 'nor', but it can only join two negatives whereas ず is not so picky).
This is perfectly illustrated by the translations you chose at the end, both of them contain at least one conjunctive and one negative that come from ず, but in both cases they need to be separated and put into different positions in the phrase, which gives the impression that ず is lost in translation but in reality it is being spliced.
Thence both you and I feel this need to leave an explanation somewhere, even the most literal translations such as 'not... and...' seem fuzzy as they do not clearly confer the underlying knowledge that 'not' stands for the negation of one clause and 'and' stands for conjunction with the following one.

Below is the attempt at a revision without the repeated notes:
[1][aux-v,conj][form]
  [note="all senses: connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず"]
  (does) not... and...; not... so...; without (doing); continuative form of ぬ, negates verb and continues onto next sentence
  [see=2441300・ぬ[1]]
  [see=2576210・ずに[1]]
[2][aux-v][arch]
   not
  [see=2257550・ない[1]]</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2025-07-31 20:51:37" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Sean McBroom</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>&gt; I agree that the repeated note is unsightly, this is again the problem wherein we have no means to distinguish a sense-specific note from an entry-wide one.

This is similar to the fix Jim added to the て entry (2345109). The only thing I changed was adding brackets to make it more programmatically readable (e.g., via regex). Obviously the most appropriate answer would be to add a new element to denote entry-wide notes, however, this works for now, and keeps compatibility with existing tools.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -13 +13 @@
-&lt;s_inf&gt;connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction&lt;/s_inf&gt;
+&lt;s_inf&gt;[all senses]: connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction&lt;/s_inf&gt;
@@ -23 +22,0 @@
-&lt;s_inf&gt;connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず&lt;/s_inf&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2025-07-31 21:38:45" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Sean McBroom</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Actually, I think I like this style (used on 良い) more. It's both natural and easily machine readable.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -13 +13 @@
-&lt;s_inf&gt;[all senses]: connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction&lt;/s_inf&gt;
+&lt;s_inf&gt;connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction&lt;/s_inf&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2025-08-01 16:37:31" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Sombrero1</upd_name>
<upd_detl>＞ Actually, I think I like this style (used on 良い) more. It's both natural and easily machine readable.
   ＞ Currently there's no dominant form. There are exactly three entries with such a note, て, よい and this entry now. 
      I would prefer it the way it was before, at the start separated by a semicolon (though that obviously doesn't work now since I have left "continuative form of ぬ" in the note)
      However, honestly, I don't think it's THAT necessary in an entry with "only" two senses. It really only becomes annoying for entries precisely like よい and て.
      That said, I won't make a fuss over it, it's also fine this way. 
      

＞ 二段; I would not worry too much about them. Not only would that mean we still need to add in 四段、ナ変、ラ変 and the ancient 未然形 of adjectives [...]
   ＞ This is also what I was getting at in my previous comment. I suggested generalizing from "verb class A, B, C, and as X to サ変" to "verbs, and as X to サ変". 
      And I would still be in favour of doing so

As for nonさん's revision:

Having "negates verb and continues onto next sentence" in the glosses certainly helps. 
However, though rather minor, I would prefer for "continuative form of ぬ" to stay in the notes.

As for the last gloss using just "verbs" (instead of generalizing or having "adjectives and verbs"), I don't think it's very significant, but I checked anyway out of curiosity.
(Excluding the debate on whether 形容詞 should be analyzed as static verbs)
Since constructions like 〇からず、 are possible I searched in NINJAL's SHC (昭和・平成書き言葉) Corpus for instances of "｛から｝｛ず｝｛、｝". 
It returned "only" 15 results, of which the ず is analyzed as belonging to 文語助動詞　ず instead of ぬ for some of those meager 15.
Though I assume (correct me in case I spout rubbish) カリ活用 was already a bit out of fashion at that time.
In any case I'm just throwing this information out there, perhaps it's relevant perhaps it isn't. 


Another minor change is, as it's already pretty difficult to keep a general consistency with these notes, to have "after the X form of X" instead of "connects to X stem of X".
Purely based on the fact that there are as of now 195 (maybe a few false hits) entries with notes using "after the", compared to 3 using "connects to" (2 without this entry).
Unless there are objections of course.



In the meantime I will attempt to master the art of sitting down and only then walking in, wish me luck.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -13 +13 @@
-&lt;s_inf&gt;connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction&lt;/s_inf&gt;
+&lt;s_inf&gt;after the -nai stem of a verb and for サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ&lt;/s_inf&gt;
@@ -15 +15 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;not doing&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;not doing...&lt;/gloss&gt;
@@ -17,0 +18 @@
+&lt;gloss&gt;negates verb and continues onto next sentence&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2025-08-02 00:45:09" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Seems to work.</upd_detl>
</audit>
</info>
</entry>