<entry id="2295268" stat="A" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict">
<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
<ent_seq>1942380</ent_seq>
<k_ele>
<keb>痴呆症</keb>
</k_ele>
<r_ele>
<reb>ちほうしょう</reb>
</r_ele>
<sense>
<pos>&n;</pos>
<xref type="see" seq="2083580">認知症</xref>
<field>&med;</field>
<misc>&obs;</misc>
<gloss>dementia</gloss>
</sense>
<info>
<audit time="2018-04-06 16:06:46" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Is [obs] appropriate here?</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>jwiki: "日本ではかつては痴呆（ちほう）と呼ばれていた概念であるが、2004年に厚生労働省の用語検討会によって「認知症」への言い換えを求める報告がまとめられ、まず行政分野および高齢者介護分野において「痴呆」の語が廃止され「認知症」に置き換えられた。"</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -15,0 +16,2 @@
+&lt;xref type="see" seq="2083580"&gt;認知症&lt;/xref&gt;
+&lt;misc&gt;&amp;obs;&lt;/misc&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2018-04-06 17:21:12" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>johan</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Johan Råde</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I don't think a word is obsolete just because 厚生労働省 declares it obsolete</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -17 +16,0 @@
-&lt;misc&gt;&amp;obs;&lt;/misc&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2018-04-07 21:09:10" stat="A">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Fair enough. It does still seem to be fairly common.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2018-09-23 00:48:24" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I'd like to remake the case for tagging this [obs].
I retract my previous statement that it "still seems to be fairly common". 痴呆 is still used, but the medical term 痴呆症 appears to have been completely replaced by 認知症 in all contexts.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2018-09-23 05:20:33" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Would a comment like "now deprecated" work?</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>痴呆	623625
痴呆症	116301
認知症	971836</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2018-09-23 13:46:50" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>The n-grams are from 2007, only 3 years after the 厚生労働省　made the change official and already 認知症 outnumbers 痴呆症 9:1.
From what I can tell, the new term is used exclusively now.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2018-09-23 16:58:18" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Marcus Richert</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>We still don't really have clear policy on when to use obs - is it for "officially" deprecated terms or archaic terms that have seen more 
recent use in post-Meiji times, or both? I think I've tried taking this up on the mailing list previously, with little response. I think we 
need to define exactly what the tag actually means before adding it/removing it from more entries.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2018-09-23 18:30:20" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>rene</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Rene Malenfant</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>i think when a term is a technical term, it should be okay to mark it as [obs] when it's deprecated.  that is one definition of "obsolete" (though i guess not linguistic).  i'm positive that [obs] has not been applied consistently in the past, and has in fact been used to mean "deprecated" or "historical".

the other option is [sens]</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>https://www.dictionary.com/browse/obsolete?r=75&amp;src=ref&amp;ch=dic</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2018-09-24 22:17:51" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>OK, let's make it "obs". I agree we need clearer guidelines for the tag.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -16,0 +17 @@
+&lt;misc&gt;&amp;obs;&lt;/misc&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2022-09-11 21:34:08" stat="A">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_diff>@@ -16,0 +17 @@
+&lt;field&gt;&amp;med;&lt;/field&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2024-03-21 17:08:44" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Probably shouldn't have freq tags on an obs-tagged term.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -6,2 +5,0 @@
-&lt;ke_pri&gt;news2&lt;/ke_pri&gt;
-&lt;ke_pri&gt;nf37&lt;/ke_pri&gt;
@@ -11,2 +8,0 @@
-&lt;re_pri&gt;news2&lt;/re_pri&gt;
-&lt;re_pri&gt;nf37&lt;/re_pri&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2024-03-21 17:15:19" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>stephen</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Stephen Kraus</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Just going by the date ranges assigned to [arch] and [obs], I would have tagged this entry as [dated] rather than [obs].</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>Sankoku and daijirin say that 認知症 was proposed as a replacement for 痴呆症 in 2004.

https://www.edrdg.org/wiki/index.php/Editorial_policy
&gt;&gt; "obs" (obsolete). This is typically used for terms that were in use in the Meiji and early Showa periods, but are no longer in general use, e.g. they have been supplanted by another term.</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2024-03-21 17:22:54" stat="A">
<upd_uid>stephen</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Stephen Kraus</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I completely missed that there was a long discussion below. If everyone settled on [obs], then there's probably no reason to relitigate.</upd_detl>
</audit>
</info>
</entry>