<entry id="1145205" stat="R" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict">
<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
<ent_seq>2796780</ent_seq>
<k_ele>
<keb>弁</keb>
</k_ele>
<r_ele>
<reb>べん</reb>
</r_ele>
<sense>
<pos>&n;</pos>
<xref type="see" seq="1513060">弁当・べんとう</xref>
<xref type="see" seq="1513060">弁当・べんとう</xref>
<misc>&abbr;</misc>
<gloss>bento</gloss>
<gloss>Japanese box lunch</gloss>
</sense>
<info>
<audit time="2013-08-18 02:44:40" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I am putting this up for discussion. We have already:
弁(P);辯(oK) [べん] /(n) (1) speech/(n-suf) (2) dialect/
弁;辨(oK) [べん] /(n) (See 太政官,弁官) Oversight Department...
弁;瓣(oK) [べん] /(n) (1) petal/(2) valve/
They really can't be merged as in each case they derive from distinct kanji (辯, etc.) which have all simplified to 弁.
Do we want a 4th 弁/べん entry (this one doesn't really belong in any of the other 3), or do we do a messy merge, perhaps with those old kanji as comments?</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>See  2685630: "Kodansha says 弁: 弁当の略"</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2013-08-18 05:17:35" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>richwarm</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Richard Warmington</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_refs>Sorry ... it was Kojien, not Kodansha.</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2013-08-19 02:41:43" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>rene</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Rene Malenfant</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>2251160 is the べん in question for べんとう.  i've suggested a merge there</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>koj</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2013-08-19 23:10:16" stat="R">
<upd_uid>rene</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Rene Malenfant</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>relatively unambiguous merge.  rejecting here, leaving suggested amendment to 2251160 open</upd_detl>
</audit>
</info>
</entry>