<entry id="2051939" stat="A" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict">
<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
<ent_seq>2029010</ent_seq>
<r_ele>
<reb>を</reb>
<re_pri>spec1</re_pri>
</r_ele>
<sense>
<pos>&prt;</pos>
<gloss>indicates direct object of action</gloss>
</sense>
<sense>
<pos>&prt;</pos>
<gloss>indicates subject of causative expression</gloss>
</sense>
<sense>
<pos>&prt;</pos>
<gloss>indicates an area traversed</gloss>
</sense>
<sense>
<pos>&prt;</pos>
<gloss>indicates time (period) over which action takes place</gloss>
</sense>
<sense>
<pos>&prt;</pos>
<gloss>indicates point of departure or separation of action</gloss>
</sense>
<sense>
<pos>&prt;</pos>
<xref type="see" seq="2028930">が・1</xref>
<gloss>indicates object of desire, like, hate, etc.</gloss>
</sense>
<info>
<audit time="2005-03-05 00:00:00" stat="A">
<upd_detl>Entry created</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2018-10-21 09:45:43" stat="A">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_diff>@@ -31,2 +30,0 @@
-&lt;xref type="see" seq="2028930"&gt;が・2&lt;/xref&gt;
-&lt;xref type="see" seq="2028930"&gt;が・3&lt;/xref&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2019-05-29 10:21:49" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Nicolas Maia</upd_name>
<upd_detl>Should these glosses be tagged with [expl]? Since they're not actual meanings, merely explanations of grammar functions.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2019-05-29 23:40:55" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>This question has been raised before and I don't believe a consensus was reached.
My view is that [expl] should be reserved for true explanatory glosses (that explain the meaning of a word rather than the usage).
It has been proposed that the dictionary be modified to allow senses to have just usage notes (without glosses) precisely for cases like this.
I like that idea, but until it's implemented I'm not in favour of using the expl tag as a sort of stopgap measure.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2019-05-30 06:20:54" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Many, and probably most, of the entries for particles have these sorts of explanatory "translations". We may get to some more usage-note system eventually.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2019-11-14 02:24:53" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Anon</upd_name>
<upd_detl>Should this have a note, similar to notes for the particles は and へ, that it is pronounced お in modern Japanese?</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2019-11-14 02:42:55" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Yes, to be consistent.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -9,0 +10 @@
+&lt;s_inf&gt;pronounced お in modern Japanese&lt;/s_inf&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2019-11-15 22:21:39" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I don't think this is necessary. Unlike へ　and は, を's pronunciation doesn't change depending on usage. Also, を is still pronounced "wo" in some dialects.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2019-11-16 00:34:48" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Fair point. I'll drop it.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -10 +9,0 @@
-&lt;s_inf&gt;pronounced お in modern Japanese&lt;/s_inf&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
</info>
</entry>