<entry id="2166208" stat="A" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict">
<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
<ent_seq>1828740</ent_seq>
<k_ele>
<keb>愚策</keb>
</k_ele>
<r_ele>
<reb>ぐさく</reb>
</r_ele>
<sense>
<pos>&n;</pos>
<gloss>stupid plan</gloss>
<gloss>inane way of doing something</gloss>
</sense>
<sense>
<pos>&n;</pos>
<misc>&hum;</misc>
<gloss>(one's own) plan</gloss>
<gloss>project</gloss>
</sense>
<info>
<audit time="2014-05-08 06:58:10" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>Marcus</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Marcus Richert</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_refs>daij</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -12 +12,8 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;inane plan&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;stupid plan&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;inane way of doing something&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;/sense&gt;
+&lt;sense&gt;
+&lt;pos&gt;&amp;n;&lt;/pos&gt;
+&lt;misc&gt;&amp;hum;&lt;/misc&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;plan&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;project&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2014-05-09 06:10:54" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_refs>GG5</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2017-02-05 00:31:33" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Mark</upd_name>
<upd_detl>Not everyone notices the tags.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>daijs</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -18,2 +18 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;plan&lt;/gloss&gt;
-&lt;gloss&gt;project&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;(one's own) plan or project&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2017-02-05 18:41:26" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Mislav Blažević</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Plenty of entries are ambiguous if the tag is ignored, even some [hum] entries. For example, look at 母. Gloss is simply "mother" even though it only ever refers to one's own mother. But on the other hand there are entries like 家内 in which the gloss explicitly states "(my) wife".

I think that either approach (tag + qualification or tag only) is fine when it comes to [hum] entries but I think that jmdict should be more consistent not only in this case but also in general.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2017-02-06 01:15:54" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Mark</upd_name>
<upd_detl>I'm all for consistency which is why I'd support having glosses like this for all [hum] entries.

For people unfamiliar with honorific speech, the tag on its own may may not be that helpful in many cases.

By the way, I think 母 is wrongly tagged. It doesn't always refer to own's one mother, even even when it does, it's not really "humble".</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2017-02-07 04:24:44" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>OK. I wouldn't want to clutter things to cater for apps that ignore metadata, but I think this sort of addition is fine.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-11-27 01:54:15" stat="A">
<upd_uid>Marcus</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Marcus Richert</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_diff>@@ -18 +18,2 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;(one's own) plan or project&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;(one's own) plan&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;project&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
</info>
</entry>