オニキス	155910	96.3%
オニックス	6015	3.7%

@@ -8,0 +9 @@
+<re_inf>&sk;</re_inf>

三省堂国語辞典　第七版

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<field>&min;</field>

研究社　新和英大辞典　第５版

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<field>&min;</field>

The JEs only have one sense.

Shinsen, Meikyo, sankoku, etc. all have [vt]

Only saito has [vi], and kojien has both. Perhaps [vi] is dated usage

Sankoku and iwakoku point out [form]

Meikyo:
「過つ」は本来、自動詞「誤る」の他動詞形。今では、①②③ともにほぼ他動詞「誤る」で置き換えられるが、「過つ」の方が古風で文章語的。「過つ」は犯罪的・道義的な意が強く、「誤る」は単なる失敗を言う趣が強い。語形が重なる「過って／誤って」の場合も同様。

Also meikyo:
常用漢字表では「誤」に「あやまち・あやまつ」の訓を認めず、「誤ち」 「誤つ」と書くのは一般に誤り。

@@ -14,0 +15 @@
+<pos>&vt;</pos>
@@ -15,0 +17,5 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1271300">誤る・1</xref>
+<misc>&form;</misc>
+<gloss>to make a mistake (in)</gloss>
+<gloss>to commit an error</gloss>
+<gloss>to do incorrectly</gloss>
@@ -16,0 +23,21 @@
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&v5t;</pos>
+<pos>&vt;</pos>
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="1271300">誤る・3</xref>
+<misc>&form;</misc>
+<gloss>to mislead</gloss>
+<gloss>to misguide</gloss>
+<gloss>to lead astray</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&v5t;</pos>
+<pos>&vt;</pos>
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="1857140">誤って</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1857140">誤って</xref>
+<s_inf>used adverbially as 過って</s_inf>
+<gloss>to do accidentally</gloss>
+<gloss>to do by mistake</gloss>
+<gloss>to do in error</gloss>

koj, daijs

@@ -6,0 +6,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>誤つ</keb>

@@ -13,0 +14 @@
+<gloss>talcum</gloss>

研究社　新和英大辞典　第５版

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<field>&min;</field>

@@ -12 +11,0 @@
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>

Nothing to be done

@@ -5 +5 @@
-<keb>edj幹事</keb>
+<keb>幹事</keb>

@@ -5,4 +5 @@
-<keb>幹事</keb>
-<ke_pri>ichi1</ke_pri>
-<ke_pri>news1</ke_pri>
-<ke_pri>nf01</ke_pri>
+<keb>edj幹事</keb>

研究社　新和英大辞典　第５版

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<field>&min;</field>

研究社　新和英大辞典　第５版

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<field>&min;</field>

It's a messy one. I think it's best just to leave it as it is for now.

＊ Oxford dictionary of linguistics:
"‘theta roles’ Term in *Government and Binding Theory for semantic
roles such as *agent or *patient: cf. case roles. Also written ‘θ-roles’: the
theta stands for earlier ‘thematic’, itself derived from *theme (3) for no
principled reason."

So they are just semantic roles?
Theta-roles are new to me, that's why I ask.


＊ Oxford dictionary of linguistics:
"transitive (Construction) in which a verb is related to at least two
nouns or their equivalent, whose semantic roles are characteristically
those of an *agent and a *patient: e.g. that of She (agent) carried him
(patient). A transitive verb is one which takes or can take such a
construction: thus carry, or carry in its basic sense."


.

Before I give my take, note that I have not come into contact with government and binding theory or actual syntactical theory beyond the basics, prior to this. So I'm learning as I type.
This means I don't really mean to harp on this too much, I'm more so trying to gain a better unterstanding here.

＞ The English translation reflects this lack of object relation: "I apologize for the rudeness," not "I apologize the rudeness."
This cannot be regarded as an argument. 
If I were to take German, there "to apologize" is in fact transitively used, and the translation from Japanese would possess that feature. 
Yet that is not evidence for the Japanese construction involving a transitive verb.


＞ (a) Burzio's generalization "All and only the verbs that can assign a theta-role to the subject can assign Accusative Case to an object." (Burzio, 1986).
＞ A transitive verb assigns a theta-role to its object, which typically undergoes or is affected by the action (a).
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I get what this intends to prove here.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are various theta roles, right? Agent, theme, goal, etc. , and they specify the relation established by the predicate to its arguments.

So let me grab one of the examples and attempt to visualize my understanding.
1 [彼女(agent)]は[先生(experiencer)]に[遅刻したこと(theme)]を謝った.
Here 謝る assigns the theta role "agent" to the logical subject of the clause, 先生 is assigned "experiencer" and  is a dative (indirect) object, whilst 遅刻したこと is assigned "theme" and is an accusative (direct) object.
So in this sentence 謝る acts as a ditransitive verb to me, and should fulfill the generalization you've brought forth.

Yet a sentence like this is also perfectly fine (taken from massif):
2 [僕(agent)]は[君(goal)]に謝らなければならない。
In this sentence 謝る acts as an unergative (intransitive verb assigning an agent that acts with intention) verb.


Or am I missing something?


＞ - 謝る is syntactically intransitive because the subject's action does not affect or act upon another entity.
Would that not refer to semantics? Also in sentences like 1 the "excusing" definitely affects another entity, namely the "先生".
Another important criterion to transitivity in semantics is volition, which is present with 謝る (unlike with 驚く), which convinces me that there is an agent-patient dynamic with the former, but not with the latter, where it would be stimulus-experiencer.


Furthermore, transitivity is not really black-and-white, as thompson and hopper have pointed out in their 1980 paper on transitivity:
https://romanistik.uni-freiburg.de/raible/Lehre/2006/Materialien/Hopper_Thompson.pdf



I would again propose that having both tags is probably the best, or shall I say "least complicated" course of action.
Transitivity tags should be given out in reference to the usage in the target language, so a Japanese verb and its transitivity must be analyzed in a Japanese framework.
Hence the tags should mirror the status quo of 国語学, which it most likely wouldn't if we just tagged it as a 自動詞.

(a) Burzio's generalization "All and only the verbs that can assign a theta-role to the subject can assign Accusative Case to an object." (Burzio, 1986).

Finding formal papers that discuss the abstract or thematic use of を, where it introduces non-affected, conceptual objects can be difficult. Most of the linguistic resources I've found aren't public and don't really touch on the topic heavily, so I'll provide my own reasoning.

A transitive verb assigns a theta-role to its object, which typically undergoes or is affected by the action (a). In Japanese, however, transitivity doesn't work in exactly the same way. 他動詞 can be thought of as any verb that can take an object marked by を, but not all を are equal. For example, verbs like 焦る, 謝る, 心配する, and 驚く can take a を-marked phrase, but the "object" in these cases doesn't undergo or receive the action in the usual sense.

I think that's where the confusion happens.

- 謝る is syntactically intransitive because the subject's action does not affect or act upon another entity.
- The を phrase (e.g., 失礼を謝る) can mark the cause, reason, stimulus, or domain of the action, not an affected object.
- The English translation reflects this lack of object relation: "I apologize for the rudeness," not "I apologize the rudeness."
- Therefore, even though を appears, it marks the trigger of the action rather than an object, so the verb remains intransitive in both structure and meaning.

＞ 謝る is intransitive and never takes a true direct object.
＞ In this sentence, the を is not marking a direct object; instead, it indicates what the apology is about and can be understood roughly as "about" or "for" in English.

Do you have references for this? I was unable to retrieve this sense from dictionaries. It seems very english-derived.
To my knowledge only "移動や時間の経過を表す自動詞" (Meikyo) and intransitive verbs in a starting point construction (e.g. 家を出る) can take を (and still be intransitive). 
Also, the english translation being an intransitive construction is not a criterion.
While DOJG also has also a fourth usage for を, "A particle that marks the cause of some human emotion.", 謝る doesn't really fall into that category in my eyes.
The examples DOJG gives contain verbs of emotion that are frequently tagged as transitive or bitransitive by references (e.g. 喜ぶ, 恐れる, etc.).


＊ Data
Massif:
｛を謝る｝＝ 524
｛に謝る｝＝ 3899 (false hits possible)

BCCWJ:
｛を；謝る｝＝ 11
｛に〈格助詞〉；謝る｝＝ 36

References that have 自動詞 ＝ Nikkoku
References that have 他動詞 ＝ Sankoku, SankokuGendaiGairai, Oukoku, Smk, Meikyo, Shinsen
References that have 自他動詞 ＝ Kojien, Gakken Kokugodaijiten, Iwakoku

Smk: 〈だれニ（なにヲ）謝る〉

To me the following examples, taken from various references, look perfectly transitive:
「うそを言ったことを謝る」
「人に罪を謝る」
「弟の不始末を姉が謝る」
「彼女は先生に遅刻したことを謝った」(e.g. replacing を with に here seems weird/ungrammatical to me)



Interestingly my 古語 references have 謝る is intransitive.
It seems 謝る came from 誤る, which was originally the intransitive pair to 過つ, which appears to have fallen out of use.
(Wiktionary, Nikkoku, Koj)

ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
Another problem is that the english concepts of transitive/intransitive may not perfectly map onto 他動詞 and 自動詞, as pointed out be the following usage note on wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/他動詞

"The terms transitive and intransitive are somewhat misleading in reference to Japanese. The English terms are generally used to refer to the syntax or structure of a sentence, and whether the verb in the sentence is followed by an object. The Japanese terms refer to the semantics or meaning of the verb, and whether the action of that verb is happening to or upon something else. The Japanese term 自動詞 (jidōshi) literally means “self-acting word”, and 他動詞 (tadōshi) literally means “other-acting word”, in reference to this semantic consideration.

For instance, in English, the verb ate in the simple sentence “I ate” would be considered an intransitive verb, because it is not followed by an object.

However, in the corresponding Japanese, the verb 食べた (tabeta, “ate”) in the simple sentence 私は食べた。 (“Watashi wa tabeta.”) would not be considered a 自動詞 (jidōshi), but would instead be considered a 他動詞 (tadōshi, literally “other-acting word”), as the underlying semantics or meaning of the verb 食べる (taberu, “to eat”) conceptually require an object: when one eats, one eats something, even if left unstated.

This semantic focus is the underlying mechanism by which verbs in sentences like 私は食べた。 (Watashi wa tabeta. - “I ate.”) are still considered 他動詞 (tadōshi, glossed as “transitive”) even when there is no stated object (because the fundamental meaning of the verb implies action by the subject upon something else), and verbs in sentences like 道を歩く。 (Michi o aruku. - “[I] walk the street.”) are still considered 自動詞 (jidōshi, glossed as “intransitive”) even when there is an explicit object marked with the object or accusative particle を (o) (because the fundamental meaning of the verb only implies action by the subject itself in a way that does not affect the noun marked by を)."
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー

＞ for example, tagging 焦る as transitive [...]
Here I see multiple references having a 自他動詞 tag, with meikyo splitting out a transitive sense.
But that's an issue for another time.




.

When I saw this submission I was away from home, but I wanted to look into this a bit.

Based purely on references there are insufficient grounds for tagging this as just intransitive.
Perhaps a linguist could perform tests for transitivity here, but I sadly can't.
Our best bet is most likely having this as [vt,vi].

@@ -18,0 +19 @@
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
@@ -23,0 +25 @@
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
@@ -34,0 +37 @@
+<gloss>to be stumped (by)</gloss>

若年　　　 746,848  99.6% 
弱年　　　   1,124   0.1% -rK (daijs)
じゃくねん   2,001   0.3%

@@ -10,0 +11 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>

Those terms at the ends of definitions in kokugos are not readings. They are forms of synonyms.

Nikkoku has the ほそふで reading, but limited to the first sense as I suspected.

https://de.youglish.com/pronounce/細筆/japanese
Surprisingly the first 5 examples all say ほそふで, doesn't seem to be rare.

Daijr, daijs, 学研国語大辞典
①こまかい字を書くための穂先の細いふで。
②こまかい字を書くこと。細書。
③こまごまと書き記すこと。

gakken for the third sense: 《他動詞。「する」と結合してサ変動詞としても用いる》
Nikkoku specifies [vs] for the second and third sense.



.

Kokugos sometimes add "extra readings" at the end of the definition for a given sense, in this case it also seems to be appropriate.
Perhaps they didn't use a とも note because the ほそふで only seems to apply to one of the senses? Not sure

Anyhow, I found a usage example in the CEJC where it's indeed "ほそふで", but that's the only one out of the ~30 total hits in all the NINJAL corpora.
I think this can stay.

But references should be provided by the submitter.

@@ -14,0 +15,6 @@
+<gloss>fine brush or pencil</gloss>
+<gloss>writing brush with a fine point</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<stagr>さいひつ</stagr>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -16,2 +22,12 @@
-<gloss>fine brush or pencil</gloss>
-<gloss>small or fine handwriting</gloss>
+<pos>&vt;</pos>
+<gloss>(artistically) detailed writing</gloss>
+<gloss>fine writing</gloss>
+<gloss>writing minutely</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<stagr>さいひつ</stagr>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<pos>&vs;</pos>
+<pos>&vt;</pos>
+<gloss>writing down in detail (of information)</gloss>
+<gloss>minutely recording</gloss>

???

Several references give ほそふで as a meaning for 細筆 but I can't find any for it as the reading.

@@ -9,0 +10,3 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ほそふで</reb>
+</r_ele>

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーーー─┬─────────┬───────╮
│ 誤って　　 │ 886,422 │ 91.9% │
│ 過って　　 │  20,471 │  2.1% │[rK]
│ あやまって │  57,167 │  5.9% │
╰─ーーーーー─┴─────────┴───────╯
Sankoku, Meikyo

I think "accidentally" should lead

@@ -10,0 +11 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
@@ -18,0 +20,2 @@
+<pos>&adv;</pos>
+<gloss>accidentally</gloss>
@@ -22 +24,0 @@
-<gloss>accidentally</gloss>

@@ -21,0 +22 @@
+<gloss>accidentally</gloss>

あな being spelled as 孔:

明鏡国語辞典　第二版
 あな【穴（孔・坑）】
〘名〙
❶ 物の表面が深くえぐりとられてできたくぼみ。
「ごみを━に埋める」
「━を掘る」
「━があくほど見る（＝じっと見つめる・凝視する）」
❷ 物の中を反対側まで突き抜けた空間。
「壁に━をあける」
「糸を針の━に通す」
...
⑴ ②は「孔」と書く慣用があり、特に「針［障子・靴下］の孔」など、小さく突き抜けたあなの意では「孔」が好まれる。

孔(こう) being noted as a 造 reading:

明鏡国語辞典　第二版
こう【孔】
（造）
❶ あな。
「気━・瞳━(どうこう)・鼻━」
...
❷ 孔子(こうし)。
「━孟・━門」

孔 being annotated as あな:

新明解国語辞典　第八版
【穿孔】
㊀━する（自他サ）孔(アナ)△をあける（があく）こと。

The reading こう for 孔 is only used in compounds. Otherwise, it is あな. Compare 孔が開く.

@@ -8 +8 @@
-<reb>こうをうがつ</reb>
+<reb>あなをうがつ</reb>

Added additional PoS via batch update.Added additional PoS via batch update.
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -12,0 +12,1 @@
+<pos>&v5t;</pos>

???

Does this add anything?

@@ -13 +12,0 @@
-<gloss>lodging tax</gloss>
@@ -15,0 +15 @@
+<gloss>lodging tax</gloss>

@@ -12,0 +13 @@
+<gloss>lodging tax</gloss>

ＫＯＤ追加語彙

nipp
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/宿泊税
http://www.tax.metro.tokyo.jp/kazei/shuk.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_occupancy_tax

KOD
https://kotobank.jp/word/wlb-562416