<entry id="2144230" stat="A" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict">
<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
<ent_seq>1461990</ent_seq>
<k_ele>
<keb>二週間</keb>
</k_ele>
<k_ele>
<keb>２週間</keb>
</k_ele>
<r_ele>
<reb>にしゅうかん</reb>
</r_ele>
<sense>
<pos>&n;</pos>
<gloss>two weeks</gloss>
<gloss>fortnight</gloss>
</sense>
<info>
<audit time="2016-10-10 13:09:15" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>johan</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Johan Råde</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_diff>@@ -5,0 +6,3 @@
+&lt;/k_ele&gt;
+&lt;k_ele&gt;
+&lt;keb&gt;２週間&lt;/keb&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2016-10-16 04:57:31" stat="A">
<upd_uid>rene</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Rene Malenfant</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-08-11 03:48:18" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Opencooper</upd_name>
<upd_detl>"fortnight" is BrEng.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>gg5</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -14,0 +15 @@
+&lt;gloss&gt;two weeks&lt;/gloss&gt;
@@ -16 +16,0 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;two weeks&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-08-11 08:40:05" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>So the first gloss has to be the preferred AmE term? I would have thought having both would be enough.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-08-11 12:10:44" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_detl>The main reason fot having this as an entry in 
the first place is that "fortnight" isn't a 
straightforward translation, isn't it?</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-08-11 22:31:12" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Opencooper</upd_name>
<upd_detl>My intention was to place the more "universal" [0] gloss first. At least in my understanding, "two 
weeks" isn't strictly AmEng. This is also how gg5 has it (which doesn't mark "two weeks" as 米, but does 
mark "fortnight"). I think we can agree that the order of our glosses matters, even if we don't agree on 
the particular.

[0]: http://www.edrdg.org/wiki/index.php/Editorial_policy#Meanings: "make the translations as 
international as possible."</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-08-12 22:10:39" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I agree that "two weeks" should lead but is this entry even needed? I don't think it's necessary to have a Japanese translation for "fortnight". Anyone can work out that "two weeks" is "2週間".</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-08-13 00:25:27" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I'd keep it, if only because the JEs have it.
Yes, better to have the more internationally understood gloss first, but I don't think there's any need to go around re-ordering things on those grounds.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>GG5, 中辞典</upd_refs>
</audit>
</info>
</entry>