jmdict
1583270
Active
(id:
2223413)
<entry id="2223413" stat="A" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict">
<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
<ent_seq>1583270</ent_seq>
<k_ele>
<keb>飛沫</keb>
</k_ele>
<k_ele>
<keb>繁吹き</keb>
<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
</k_ele>
<k_ele>
<keb>繁吹</keb>
<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
</k_ele>
<r_ele>
<reb>しぶき</reb>
</r_ele>
<sense>
<pos>&n;</pos>
<xref type="see" seq="2768740">飛沫・ひまつ・1</xref>
<misc>&uk;</misc>
<gloss>spray</gloss>
<gloss>splash</gloss>
</sense>
<info>
<audit time="2010-06-14 12:17:26" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Clément DAUMAIL</upd_name>
<upd_refs>交ぜ書き</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -8,0 +8,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>飛まつ</keb>
@@ -17,0 +20,3 @@
+<re_restr>飛沫</re_restr>
+<re_restr>繁吹き</re_restr>
+<re_restr>繁吹</re_restr>
@@ -23,0 +29,1 @@
+<re_restr>飛まつ</re_restr></upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2013-02-05 15:13:30" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Nils Roland Barth</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Problem with entry (due to JMdict format) – ひまつ is usually
written as kanji 飛沫 while しぶき is usually written in kana.
(As per GG5 entries and own experience.)
Unfortunately, the [uk] applies to both.
I don’t think we can solve this in one entry with current
format, since can’t apply [uk] to just one reading.
The easiest way to fix this would be to split into two
entries, with a link between them.
The relevant rule, as I understand it, would be to not join
on [uk], just as we don’t join on irregular kanji/kana.
Thus these share a meaning (1) and a kanji that is generally
not used by one of them (飛沫), so 1.5 shared, not 2.
How does this sound?</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>GG5</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2013-02-06 11:12:52" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Hits: 飛沫 (2.3M), しぶき (2.6M), ひまつ (51k).
Could either be split, as Nils suggests, or a note like "only しぶき is `uk'" added. I could go either way - I agree the uk issue gets in the way of a clean merge. Any other views?</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2013-02-08 09:39:32" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>Marcus</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Marcus Richert</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I'd like a split, but then again I'm a splittist.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2013-02-08 21:54:37" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>pupchurch</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Paul Upchurch</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I'm also in favor of a split.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2013-02-09 01:34:46" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>OK, splitting.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -8,3 +8,0 @@
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
-<keb>飛まつ</keb>
@@ -20,10 +17,0 @@
-<re_restr>飛沫</re_restr>
-<re_restr>繁吹き</re_restr>
-<re_restr>繁吹</re_restr>
-<re_pri>news2</re_pri>
-<re_pri>nf44</re_pri>
-</r_ele>
-<r_ele>
-<reb>ひまつ</reb>
-<re_restr>飛沫</re_restr>
-<re_restr>飛まつ</re_restr>
@@ -33,0 +20,2 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2768740">飛沫・ひまつ</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="2768740">飛沫,飛まつ・ひまつ</xref></upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2016-11-09 06:24:06" stat="A">
<upd_uid>johan</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Johan Råde</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_diff>@@ -16,0 +17,2 @@
+<re_pri>news2</re_pri>
+<re_pri>nf44</re_pri></upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2020-01-26 07:01:22" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Two things:
(a) I think that the 飛沫 kanji form should move to the back of the list. 飛沫 is almost invariably read ひまつ, and this entry can give the wrong impression. しぶき is very much a gikun reading of 飛沫, when it's a reading at all
(b) I think the priority tags should be on the 飛沫/ひまつ entry, so I've added them there.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>飛沫 148587
繁吹き 83
繁吹 55
しぶき 174310
ひまつ 2106</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -4,5 +3,0 @@
-<k_ele>
-<keb>飛沫</keb>
-<ke_pri>news2</ke_pri>
-<ke_pri>nf44</ke_pri>
-</k_ele>
@@ -14,0 +10,3 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>飛沫</keb>
+</k_ele>
@@ -17,2 +14,0 @@
-<re_pri>news2</re_pri>
-<re_pri>nf44</re_pri></upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2020-01-31 05:45:11" stat="A">
<upd_uid>rene</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Rene Malenfant</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>or 飛沫 could be dropped and しぶき added as gikun to the ひまつ entry</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>koj, gg5: no kanji
daijs, nikk: しぶき【繁吹き,飛沫】
daijr: しぶき【繁吹き,飛沫,繁吹】
shinmeikai, meikyo: しぶき【飛沫】</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2023-03-01 23:30:37" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I think 飛沫 should lead. It’s not that uncommon as a form for しぶき whereas 繁吹(き) is exceedingly rare.
Jim, is there a way to tell from the wordfreq file whether しぶき should have priority tags? When ひまつ was split off into a separate entry, the priority tags were dropped from here, but しぶき is at least as common as ひまつ(飛沫) according to the n-grams.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>水しぶき 168,697 90.3%
水飛沫 18,182 9.7% - always みずしぶき
繁吹き 83
繁吹 55</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -4,0 +5,3 @@
+<keb>飛沫</keb>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
@@ -5,0 +9 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
@@ -9,3 +13 @@
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
-<keb>飛沫</keb>
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
@@ -19,0 +22 @@
+<gloss>spray</gloss>
@@ -21 +23,0 @@
-<gloss>spray</gloss></upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2023-03-02 02:52:39" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I agree that 飛沫 should lead.
No, that old newspaper-based frequency list didn't include kana-only tokens. しぶき is very "uk" and I don't think the n-gram count is high enough to tag it.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>しぶき 174310</upd_refs>
</audit>
</info>
</entry>