<entry id="2148115" stat="A" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict">
<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
<ent_seq>1388030</ent_seq>
<k_ele>
<keb>先祖</keb>
<ke_pri>ichi1</ke_pri>
<ke_pri>news1</ke_pri>
<ke_pri>nf12</ke_pri>
</k_ele>
<r_ele>
<reb>せんぞ</reb>
<re_pri>ichi1</re_pri>
<re_pri>news1</re_pri>
<re_pri>nf12</re_pri>
</r_ele>
<sense>
<pos>&n;</pos>
<gloss>ancestor</gloss>
<gloss>forefather</gloss>
<gloss>foremother</gloss>
</sense>
<info>
<audit time="2021-09-29 08:46:27" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>Marcus</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Marcus Richert</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I think 先祖の only means "of the ancestor(s)" and not "ancestral" in a general sense.
This makes the -の use obvious and I don't think we need to point it out.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -18 +17,0 @@
-&lt;pos&gt;&amp;adj-no;&lt;/pos&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-09-29 10:14:40" stat="A">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_refs>gg5</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -18,0 +19 @@
+&lt;gloss&gt;forefather&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-09-29 10:44:45" stat="A">
<upd_uid>Marcus</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Marcus Richert</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_refs>the word appears in both MW and Cambridge
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/foremother</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -19,0 +20 @@
+&lt;gloss&gt;foremother&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-09-29 12:47:03" 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 it's needed. This is the first time I've seen "foremother", and English dictionaries treat "forefather" as a synonym of "ancestor" (not male ancestors specifically).</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-09-29 14:58:40" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Marcus Richert</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I've never come across it either, only 
surmised it might exist and it turns out it 
does. I don't think having it detracts 
anything from the entry. I know that 
forefather is applied to ancestors of both 
genders but opposition to an obviously 
masculine gendered word covering everyone is 
why we now also have so many woman-specific or 
non-gendered words like "ombudswoman" and 
"ombudsperson", and this. I don't think 
throwing people who deeply care about these 
kind of things a bone is a bad thing, at least 
not when there's clear evidence the word is 
already accepted by other dictionaries.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>https://www.jstor.org/stable/23896397
(1976 mention of the word)
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?
content=forefather%2C+foremother%2C+foreparent
&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2019&amp;corpus=26&amp;smoot
hing=3&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2Cforefather%3B%2Cc0%3
B.t1%3B%2Cforemother%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cforepa
rent%3B%2Cc0
(google books English corpus ngrams results 
for forefather, foremother and foreparent)</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-09-29 21:33:30" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Sounds a bit odd and PC to me, I wouldn't block it.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>forefather 49048
foremother 3404</upd_refs>
</audit>
</info>
</entry>