@@ -10,0 +11 @@
+<field>&food;</field>

gg5 daij
G n-grams:
 取り替える	185329
 取り換える	  8924
 取替える	  8170
 取りかえる	  6739
 取換える  	   327
 取換る  	No matches

reordering kanji forms
splitting senses

@@ -9,3 +8,0 @@
-<keb>取換える</keb>
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
@@ -16,0 +14,3 @@
+<keb>取りかえる</keb>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
@@ -20 +20 @@
-<keb>取りかえる</keb>
+<keb>取換える</keb>
@@ -35,0 +36,6 @@
+<gloss>to swap</gloss>
+<gloss>to barter</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&v1;</pos>
+<pos>&vt;</pos>
@@ -36,0 +43 @@
+<gloss>to substitute</gloss>

It's used in compounds as 取換.

for "取換る"
tokkyoj.com/data/tk2002-78509.shtml 
kamnavi.jp/itakiso/kunitaro3.htm
blogs.yahoo.co.jp/a2d93g06/956189.html
spysee.jp/佐藤剛史/1149527/
http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/das/jsp/ja/ContentViewM.jsp?METAID=10067252&TYPE=HTML_FILE&POS=1
link.s204.xrea.com/v10/html/10_03.html 
www.j-tokkyo.com/1996/B01J/JP08318150.shtml 
gold-jlink.com/search/10_03p3.html

and more. There are not that many hits but I think that it's enough to include it as a variant.

only 61 Ghits for 取換る, most of them from edict.

@@ -9,1 +9,1 @@
-<keb>取換る</keb>
+<keb>取換える</keb>
@@ -21,0 +21,4 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>取換る</keb>
+<ke_inf>&io;</ke_inf>

Clarify wording.

@@ -19,1 +19,2 @@
-<gloss>wound</gloss>
+<gloss>(the opening of) a wound</gloss>
+<gloss>a cut</gloss>

@@ -14,0 +15 @@
+<pos>&aux-v;</pos>

then add it, please

@@ -17,0 +18 @@
+<misc>&uk;</misc>

[uk] I'd say

meikyo

あまねく【▽普く・▽遍く(▽周く)】
[副] 広く全体に及ぶさま。広くすみずみまで。「文名は普く天下に輝き渡る」「陽光
は遍く大地を覆う」◇文語形容詞「あまねし」の連用形から。【表記】「普」は広く
全部に行き渡る意(普及)。「遍」はまんべんなく広がる意(遍在・遍照)。「周」は欠
け目なく行き届く意(周知・周到)。一般には「普」でまかなうことができる。

@@ -9,0 +9,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>周く</keb>

GG5, etc.

Seems to be tied to the あさって reading. 明鏡国語辞典 hints that it's from 明後日を向く.

@@ -21,0 +22 @@
+<stagr>あさって</stagr>

Goo dictionary (see meaning 2): https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/明後日_(あさって)/#jn-3470

@@ -20,0 +21,4 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
+<gloss>wrong (e.g. direction)</gloss>
+</sense>

Bulk update n-adv to n,adv
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -17 +17,2 @@
-<pos>&n-adv;</pos>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<pos>&adv;</pos>

Bulk update: Removal of n-t POS
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -18 +17,0 @@
-<pos>&n-t;</pos>

Daijr, GG5

Splitting senses as in refs.

@@ -12,1 +12,1 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1010080">はい</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1010080">はい・2</xref>
@@ -16,1 +16,17 @@
-<gloss>hello (on phone, replying to "hello")</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&int;</pos>
+<gloss>hey!</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<stagr>はいはい</stagr>
+<pos>&int;</pos>
+<gloss>hello (on phone, replying to "moshimoshi")</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<stagr>はいはい</stagr>
+<pos>&int;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="1010080">はい・3</xref>
+<gloss>giddy-up (to a horse)</gloss>
+<gloss>gee-up</gloss>
+<gloss>giddap</gloss>

daijr koj

* Also just *casual* (not insincere)
* “Sure”
* Reply to “hello” on phone v. common (given in daijr eg say)

@@ -14,1 +14,3 @@
-<gloss>yeah, yeah (used for half-hearted or insincere agreement)</gloss>
+<gloss>yeah, yeah (used for casual, half-hearted, or insincere agreement)</gloss>
+<gloss>sure</gloss>
+<gloss>hello (on phone, replying to "hello")</gloss>

Entry created

I think the 加 version can go - people will find it in the 加行 abbreviation if they are curious. It gets a minute number of Googits - all in academic papers.
Yes, "declension" is wrong. I tend to use "inflection" these days as it's more general, but "conjugation" is fine for verbs of course.

@@ -6,4 +5,0 @@
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
-<keb>加行変格活用</keb>
-<ke_inf>&ateji;</ke_inf>
@@ -16 +12 @@
-<gloss>irregular inflection of the verb "kuru"</gloss>
+<gloss>irregular conjugation of the verb "kuru"</gloss>

- I think either works, but isn't it enough to have these forms on the か行/ら行/わ行 entries? I don't think we need them here.
- I'd go with "conjugation" given that it specifically refers to verbs. Declension is simply wrong (verbs don't decline).

Two matters I'd like to raise with this type of entry:
- are with comfortable with the "ateji" tag on the 加行... form? I don't mind, but maybe "oK" might be better.
- I think it's cleaner just to say "inflection" rather than "conjugation (inflection, declension)". Less cluttered and just as accurate.

@@ -16 +16 @@
-<gloss>irregular conjugation (inflection, declension) of the verb "kuru"</gloss>
+<gloss>irregular inflection of the verb "kuru"</gloss>

https://www.google.com/search?q="加行変格活用"

@@ -5,0 +6,4 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>加行変格活用</keb>
+<ke_inf>&ateji;</ke_inf>

Entry created

Probably not.

@@ -13,3 +13,0 @@
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>

is it really two senses then?

Daijr, GG5

Making it a bit clearer. The point is that *all* する conjugations are technically irregular.

@@ -12,1 +12,5 @@
-<gloss>irregular conjugation (inflection, declension) of "suru" verbs</gloss>
+<gloss>irregular conjugation (inflection, declension) of s-stem verbs</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>conjugation of the verb "suru"</gloss>

Entry created

Aligning with サ行変格活用.

@@ -12,0 +12,2 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2146040">サ行変格活用・1</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="2146040">サ行変格活用</xref>
@@ -14,2 +16,0 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="2146040">サ行変格活用・1</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="2146040">サ行変格活用</xref>
@@ -18,3 +18,0 @@
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>

Daijr, GG5

Aligning with the edit on the full form.

@@ -15,1 +15,5 @@
-<gloss>irregular conjugation (inflection, declension) of "suru" verbs</gloss>
+<gloss>irregular conjugation (inflection, declension) of s-stem verbs</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>conjugation of the verb "suru"</gloss>

Entry created

Entry created

https://www.google.com/search?q="加変"+"動詞"

@@ -5,0 +6,4 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>加変</keb>
+<ke_inf>&ateji;</ke_inf>

Entry created

Entry created

@@ -7,0 +7,3 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ヒレグロベラ</reb>
+</r_ele>
@@ -9,1 +12,1 @@
-<gloss>black-banded hogfish (Bodianus macrourus)</gloss>
+<gloss>black-banded hogfish (Bodianus macrourus, was Bodianus hirsutus)</gloss>

What I forgot to mention was that if the things I suggested at the end of my reply have already been discussed sometime somewhere (e.g. in the mailing list), it would be nice if you could link them here/refer to them. Thanks

＊ https://web.archive.org/web/20021024101613/http://homepage3.nifty.com/taketoki/jodosiless.html
Rather long but very detailed.

＊ https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/助動詞_(言語学)
「国文法では、この助動詞を補助動詞と呼び[1]、「-た」や「-れる・-られる」などを「助動詞」と呼ぶ。言語学ではこれらは英語の -ing や -ed と同様に語尾や接尾辞と見なされる[2][3][4]。」

＊Nikkoku
助動詞：「日本語で付属語のうち、活用のあるもの。他の自立語（詞）、または自立語を含む連語に付属して、叙述の意義を補ったり、話手の判断の性質を表現したりする。助詞とともに、付属語、または辞と呼ばれる。動辞。」


.

The idea (or at least my idea) behind this entire string of edits was to have the singular form of 連用中止 ず have its separate sense. 
In that regard it could very well be thought of as a kind of 接続助詞 (though "conjunctive suffix" would fit better (I believe that a 接続助詞 tag would perhaps actually be usable here)) in my eyes. 
I have now realized that [aux-v] is problematic as well here, as they, by definition, inflect. Which this singled out 連用形 doesn't.


＞Someone on the mailing list requested that [aux-v] be removed from this entry, arguing that ず is not an auxiliary verb but an auxiliary suffix. I want to note here that the kokugos classify it as a 助動詞 (auxiliary verb), like ぬ.　Japanese auxiliary verbs are always 付属語 (dependent words).


I've also read that recent email exchange, and noticed that I actually took a different stance on the suffix aspect in my first edit here, but I have changed my mind since. 
I'm now very well aware that "auxiliary verb" is a rather problematic term for what are in essence inflectional suffixes. The overlap between "auxiliary verb" in indo-european languages and the term 助動詞 in 国語文法 is rather minimal. It would much rather be the 補助動詞 falling under that notion.
It's just that all of these "auxiliary verbs" are currently handled a bit different in jmdict it seems.

It is probably best to reduce this just to [aux] for the time being. And this is all I'm suggesting when it comes to changes, I have nothing to add on the other edits made to this entry.


I have been looking into part of speech categorization in Japanese quite a lot after your edit, and I can't say I've come to a conclusion yet (It just lead to some more confusion, which I'll have to resolve first).
But something that generally floated in my mind previously was the idea of (trying to) define what falls under these otherwise somewhat ominous jmdict tags of [suf], [aux], [aux-v], [aux-adj] (and maybe [cop]). I think that would benefit everyone involved. I'm not suggesting to do this here, but rather putting the general suggestion up for debate.

Another thing would maybe deciding on a standardized note format for the above tags.

I don't like the use of サ変 in the note and I'm not sure why there's a tilde between せ and ず. I've suggested a rewording of that part.
I don't think "negates verb and continues onto next sentence" is needed. We have "continuative form of ぬ" in the note.
I'm not comfortable with [conj] here. Although ず serves a conjunctive role, it's neither a 接続詞 nor a 接続助詞.
Someone on the mailing list requested that [aux-v] be removed from this entry, arguing that ず is not an auxiliary verb but an auxiliary suffix. I want to note here that the kokugos classify it as a 助動詞 (auxiliary verb), like ぬ.　Japanese auxiliary verbs are always 付属語 (dependent words).

@@ -9 +8,0 @@
-<pos>&conj;</pos>
@@ -12,6 +11,5 @@
-<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb and for サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ</s_inf>
-<gloss>(does) not... and...</gloss>
-<gloss>not doing...</gloss>
-<gloss>not... so...</gloss>
-<gloss>without doing</gloss>
-<gloss>negates verb and continues onto next sentence</gloss>
+<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb and as せず for する (all senses); continuative form of ぬ</s_inf>
+<gloss>(does) not ..., and</gloss>
+<gloss>(does) not ..., so</gloss>
+<gloss>not (doing)</gloss>
+<gloss>without (doing)</gloss>

I'm not quite sure why I added the [form], it's not really in the references I quoted and I don't think ず 中止法 is [form].
The closest would be that daijisen quote.

I don't think it was ever mentioned in the discussion in the first place, so I assume there's no opposition to removing it anyway.

@@ -12 +11,0 @@
-<misc>&form;</misc>

Seems to work.

＞ Actually, I think I like this style (used on 良い) more. It's both natural and easily machine readable.
   ＞ Currently there's no dominant form. There are exactly three entries with such a note, て, よい and this entry now. 
      I would prefer it the way it was before, at the start separated by a semicolon (though that obviously doesn't work now since I have left "continuative form of ぬ" in the note)
      However, honestly, I don't think it's THAT necessary in an entry with "only" two senses. It really only becomes annoying for entries precisely like よい and て.
      That said, I won't make a fuss over it, it's also fine this way. 
      

＞ 二段; I would not worry too much about them. Not only would that mean we still need to add in 四段、ナ変、ラ変 and the ancient 未然形 of adjectives [...]
   ＞ This is also what I was getting at in my previous comment. I suggested generalizing from "verb class A, B, C, and as X to サ変" to "verbs, and as X to サ変". 
      And I would still be in favour of doing so

As for nonさん's revision:

Having "negates verb and continues onto next sentence" in the glosses certainly helps. 
However, though rather minor, I would prefer for "continuative form of ぬ" to stay in the notes.

As for the last gloss using just "verbs" (instead of generalizing or having "adjectives and verbs"), I don't think it's very significant, but I checked anyway out of curiosity.
(Excluding the debate on whether 形容詞 should be analyzed as static verbs)
Since constructions like 〇からず、 are possible I searched in NINJAL's SHC (昭和・平成書き言葉) Corpus for instances of "｛から｝｛ず｝｛、｝". 
It returned "only" 15 results, of which the ず is analyzed as belonging to 文語助動詞　ず instead of ぬ for some of those meager 15.
Though I assume (correct me in case I spout rubbish) カリ活用 was already a bit out of fashion at that time.
In any case I'm just throwing this information out there, perhaps it's relevant perhaps it isn't. 


Another minor change is, as it's already pretty difficult to keep a general consistency with these notes, to have "after the X form of X" instead of "connects to X stem of X".
Purely based on the fact that there are as of now 195 (maybe a few false hits) entries with notes using "after the", compared to 3 using "connects to" (2 without this entry).
Unless there are objections of course.



In the meantime I will attempt to master the art of sitting down and only then walking in, wish me luck.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
+<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb and for サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ</s_inf>
@@ -15 +15 @@
-<gloss>not doing</gloss>
+<gloss>not doing...</gloss>
@@ -17,0 +18 @@
+<gloss>negates verb and continues onto next sentence</gloss>

Actually, I think I like this style (used on 良い) more. It's both natural and easily machine readable.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<s_inf>[all senses]: connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
+<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>

> I agree that the repeated note is unsightly, this is again the problem wherein we have no means to distinguish a sense-specific note from an entry-wide one.

This is similar to the fix Jim added to the て entry (2345109). The only thing I changed was adding brackets to make it more programmatically readable (e.g., via regex). Obviously the most appropriate answer would be to add a new element to denote entry-wide notes, however, this works for now, and keeps compatibility with existing tools.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
+<s_inf>[all senses]: connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
@@ -23 +22,0 @@
-<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず</s_inf>

In response to McBroom:
I agree that the repeated note is unsightly, this is again the problem wherein we have no means to distinguish a sense-specific note from an entry-wide one. 

二段; I would not worry too much about them. Not only would that mean we still need to add in 四段、ナ変、ラ変 and the ancient 未然形 of adjectives that is so old not even Old Japanese used it, but also the point of the note is more so to clarify to readers unfamiliar with ず that the connection to サ変 is せず and never しず, as would be otherwise implied by "-nai stem". 
In any case, I will leave an alternative entry without the repeating note at the bottom of this commentary.

In response to Sombrero:
The universality of the relations that can be expressed by a verbal coordinator (here ず) has less to do with the coordinator and more to do with the many possible relations between the propositions being joined, which are contextually inferred but may have downstream semantic and syntactical effects, such as the autonomously advancing reference time and subordinating-like set sentence order imposed on this example:
"John walked in and sat down"
In theory, if this is just a coordination, I should also be able to say "John sat down and walked in" to mean the same, but I cannot - we infer a sequence which that would violate.
And undeniably, few have ever mastered the art of sitting down and only then walking in.

And all this translates into: I do not think we should be too worried about listing every possible relation between the conjuncts since it is not ず providing them anyway. Just the basic coordination and maybe a few of the more common inferred relations such as 'without' are likely enough.

Lastly, yes - ず is hard to gloss. This is so because we have no 1:1 correspondent to it in English, even less so than normally.
ず negates and coordinates. We have things that negate and things that coordinate, but not both (actually we have 'nor', but it can only join two negatives whereas ず is not so picky).
This is perfectly illustrated by the translations you chose at the end, both of them contain at least one conjunctive and one negative that come from ず, but in both cases they need to be separated and put into different positions in the phrase, which gives the impression that ず is lost in translation but in reality it is being spliced.
Thence both you and I feel this need to leave an explanation somewhere, even the most literal translations such as 'not... and...' seem fuzzy as they do not clearly confer the underlying knowledge that 'not' stands for the negation of one clause and 'and' stands for conjunction with the following one.

Below is the attempt at a revision without the repeated notes:
[1][aux-v,conj][form]
  [note="all senses: connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず"]
  (does) not... and...; not... so...; without (doing); continuative form of ぬ, negates verb and continues onto next sentence
  [see=2441300・ぬ[1]]
  [see=2576210・ずに[1]]
[2][aux-v][arch]
   not
  [see=2257550・ない[1]]

＞ In short, it is the サ変 -nai stem problem again - I once again would like to address it, if nothing else.
   The note might seem overly long but ironically is shorter than other alternatives I have tried as the kanji save us a handful of characters.
   ＞I think it's fine to have a note for サ変, 未然形 せ is certainly not encountered early on by learners, better to have it listed

＞ Also, shouldn’t the archaic form be noted as connecting to archaic nidan verbs as well (e.g., 捨つ->捨てず)
   ＞ Perhaps it would be better to have the note like "after the -nai stem of a verb; for サ変 as せ～ず; etc. " ?
      I don't think we should go down the path of giving an exhaustive listing of the verb classes 
      

Sentence E: 懸命に頑張ったが、我々の抗議は認められ（ず）、得点も入らなかった。
   "Though we put all our might into it, our protests weren't noticed [, nor did we hit our goals/and we didn't hit our goals either]"

What about ず as a coordinating conjunction indicating consequence? Sentence E could also be interpreted this way, could it not?
"Though we put all our might into it, our protests weren't noticed, so we also didn't hit our goals."

Or here as a conjunction indicating reason.
Sentence F: 新しい政府がどのような方針で対処するかは予想もつかず、 不安な気持に陥ることも多い。
Since one can hardly anticipate by which principles a new government will act, it often leads to uneasiness.


I think I was also a bit biased towards "without doing" because, if I recall correctly, that was the situation in which I first encountered conjunctive ず.
I see now that ずに is limited to "without doing", but for plain ず that's just one possible interpretation. 
The general dominance of ず throughout all examples in the paper in itself speaks for the versatility.
Maybe it would be helpful to list a few different options as glosses, with the most "neutral" one first?

"not... and..."
"not doing..."
"not... so..."
("without doing")

I too find it difficult to gloss this, e.g. in these sentences there is hardly a gloss to give:
「連絡が取れず、心配した」Unable to make contact, I was worried.

「何も言わず、動きもしない」Not saying a word, nor moving an inch.

@@ -13,0 +14,3 @@
+<gloss>(does) not... and...</gloss>
+<gloss>not doing</gloss>
+<gloss>not... so...</gloss>

I think repetition in the notes detracts from the overall quality of the entry. Also, shouldn’t the archaic form be noted as connecting to archaic nidan verbs as well (e.g., 捨つ->捨てず)?

It brings a tear to the eye... 

Anyhow, there are another 2 paragraphs of argumentation under the rejected version of this entry not-so-briefly raising some points as to why this entry was a problem besides the one Sombrero just brought up - including the reason why I am now editing this recently approved entry (so sorry about that).
In short, it is the サ変 -nai stem problem again - I once again would like to address it, if nothing else.
The note might seem overly long but ironically is shorter than other alternatives I have tried as the kanji save us a handful of characters.

The above is why I edited the entry, now onto the reason why this is 2 paragraphs long...

ず is not properly represented by "without doing" as it is not quite identical to ずに - just as なくて and なく are not quite the same as ないで.
I will try to use only the paper and two sentences Sombrero has provided to make my point. 
However, of the paper, I will only be focusing on sentences c, e, f and g of diagram 1 on page 3 as those are the ones that deal with the bare negative auxiliaries without a verb pre-attached, and they are also the only ones wherein ず、ずに、なくて、なく and ないで are all present as options.

So, diagram 1. C, e, f and especially g.
Across these ず is chosen a total of 1840 times, 436(~23.69%) in c, 539(32.5%) in e, 531(~28.85%) in f and 275(~14.94%) in g.
ずに is chosen 233 times, 221(~94.84%) in g, and 12(<6%) times across all other options.
Notice how g concentrates almost all instances of ずに and is also the one in which ず sees the least amount of usage, as well as the sharpest decrease compared to the next value above it (c).
なく and なくて were chosen only 55 and 46 times respectively, but they were *never* chosen for g.
Meanwhile, ないで was *only* chosen for g.

Proportionally, なく and なくて have a distribution more similar to　ず, while ずに's is much more similar to ないで. 

So, where am I going with this?

The idea is that ず is more like your typical verbal coordinator that is sometimes reinterpreted as subordinating if the context supports it (like the 連用形, て or our English 'and') while ずに is almost exclusively used as a subordinator for the following clause - this is why ず still had some presence in g while ずに had almost none outside of it (and why ないで had actually none).
That is also why I had reluctantly suggested "not... and..." as the gloss and left an explanatory gloss below as I myself found the translation alone too awkward, but even so did not suggest copying the ずに entry - "without" is a subordinator and ず is not necessarily.

To close this off, the sentences.
「食べずに寝た」 cannot be made into 「寝ずに食べた」 without flipping the meaning of the sentence on its head, as it is subordinating: "I slept without eating" versus "I ate without sleeping".
Meanwhile, you can freely flip 「雨もふらず風もふかぬ」 into 「風もふかず雨もふらぬ」 and the meaning is unchanged: "Rain does not fall and wind does blow" versus "Wind does not blow and rain does not fall" 
If you think about it, I think you will agree that in the second sentence you usually do not see ずに replacing ず.

I am unsure as to whether all this rambling is actually a problem, or if the context will carry the reader to the right interpretation even in cases wherein the translation seems odd at first. 
All in all, I would like to change the gloss also, but am ultimately refraining from doing so. Perhaps someone else might have thoughts on this?

Also, [conj] tag to [1].

@@ -8,0 +9 @@
+<pos>&conj;</pos>
@@ -12 +13 @@
-<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
+<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
@@ -19 +20 @@
-<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb</s_inf>
+<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず</s_inf>

I still think the original brief form is sufficient, but I can live with this, I guess.

＊ Sankoku:
１：
   口語の否定の助動詞「ぬ」の連用形。
    「何も買わ━、帰った」
２：｟助動(特殊型)｠
  〔文〕〔否定の助動詞〕…ない。
    「山高きが故(ゆえ)に貴(たっと)から━」

＊ GendaiShinkoku:
１：｟助動詞・特殊型｠
   打消しの意味を表す助動詞「ぬ」の連用形。…ないで
２：［古語］
   打ち消しの意味を表す。…ない

＊ Meikyo:
〚打ち消しの助動詞「ぬ」の連用形〛
１：打ち消しの意を伴って、文を中止したり、副詞的修飾をしたりする。…ないで。
「連絡が取れ━、心配した」
「何も言わ━、動きもしない」
２： 打ち消した状態であるものやさまなどを表す。
「開(あ)か━の間(ま)」
「わから━屋」
「行方知れ━」
「怖いもの知ら━」

The references above perform a sense specific split in terms of which negation system they refer to
In sense one the paradigm in question is modern (formal or colloquial) ぬ as in （〇｜ず｜ぬ・ん｜ぬ・ん｜ね｜〇），hence them noting that it's the 連用形 of ぬ.
While in sense two the paradigm in question is archaic (or formal) ず as in（（ず）｜ず｜ず｜ぬ｜ね｜〇）(which itself represents a merger of two separate older systems).
This also leads to ず use outside of that conjunctive sense being mostly regarded as archaic (gendaiSK, daijr, shinsen, oukoku), with other refs like meikyo tagging 文語 which essentially means the same.


On ず中止法：
＊ https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q12179271617

＊ https://ja.hinative.com/questions/22362238

＊ daijisen: [...] なお、現代では、連用形「ず」は中止法として主に書き言葉で用いられ、終止形は「べからず」の形で禁止の意を表すのに用いられる。

＊ nikkoku: 「ず」は、終止形のほか、連用修飾法、中止法、また、助詞「て」「は」助動詞「き」「けむ」「けり」等につづく用法があり、連用形、終止形の二形と認められる。[...]

＊ Samuel E. Martin "A reference grammar of Japanese" p. 377:
"[...] and Tabezu ni neta 'I slept without eating = I went to bed hungry'. 
The ni is optionally omittable (cf. §9. 1 . 1 2, § 14.6); that is unusual for a precopular or an adjectival noun (though yoo and mitai are similar)
except for those that are also adverbs. In this use, the V-(a)zu forms are more often written than spoken;
speakers prefer the more relaxed V-(a)nai de or V-(a)nakute to carry the same meaning, that of a negative gerund. 

But in Kansai speech V-(a)zu is still used for V-(a)naku [te] =
V-(a)nai de as in: Ame mo hurazu kaze mo hukan[u] 'It does not rain, nor does the wind
blow' (= Ame mo huranai de kaze mo hukanai) ; Ame to kaze ga hidokute, kawara ni wa
dare mo izu, kawa wa are ni areta 'The rain and wind were so terrible there was no one
along the riverbed, and the river raged and raged' (SA 2663.48a). 

For such dialects, we will say that V-(a)zu is an alternant way of making the negative infinitive, the other way
being V-(a)naku, in these dialects usually rendered as V-(a)na'u = V-(a)noo. (And the use
of the infinitive for the gerund is more general; see p. 395.) 

In standard Japanese, too, the
V-(a)zu [nil form will sometimes be preferred to the more colloquial negative gerunds,
especially in stereotyped adverbial expressions such as osimazu [ni (kane o tukau)
'(spends money) unstintingly, generously' "

＊ https://ynu.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/8096/files/35-13.pdf
  A 1996 study investigating the emergence of なく・なくて・ないで forms to replace ず and ずに conducted on university students (only pages 2-4 are really relevant to this entry).
  This isn't supposed to be a main reference but more of a means of substantiating the first sense


.

I think nonさん was on the right track. 
While 中止法 in itself is nothing too out of the ordinary, it may be useful to have a separate sense indicating this here.
Furthermore, having precisely this sense is useful to the average user of this dictionary, because it's a more likely case for this auxiliary to be encountered.

Also I don't see how this has [suf], ず isn't a derivational morpheme, it's inflectional.
There also aren't any refs to substantiate this AFAICS

Perhaps sense one could have a [conj-prt] tag, but that may also be a bit dubious at the same time.

@@ -9 +8,0 @@
-<pos>&suf;</pos>
@@ -10,0 +10,9 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2576210">ずに</xref>
+<misc>&form;</misc>
+<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
+<gloss>without doing</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&aux-v;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="2257550">ない</xref>
+<misc>&arch;</misc>
@@ -12 +20 @@
-<gloss>not doing</gloss>
+<gloss>not</gloss>

I don't think the proposed revision is very useful to the typical user of this dictionary. There may be scope somewhere for detailed etymological and morphological information about these sorts of terms, but I don't think this is the place.
I'm reverting the entry to the 2016 original so that the comments remain visible. I'll reopen it for a while in case there is further discussion.

@@ -10 +9,0 @@
-<pos>&conj;</pos>
@@ -14,11 +13,2 @@
-<s_inf>連用形 of ～ぬ acting as a conjunction</s_inf>
-<gloss g_type="expl">used to negate a verb and continue onto next sentence</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&aux-v;</pos>
-<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ・1</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ</xref>
-<misc>&form;</misc>
-<s_inf>used at sentence end; old 終止形 of ～ぬ</s_inf>
-<gloss>not</gloss>
+<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb</s_inf>
+<gloss>not doing</gloss>

After some consideration, the translation on [1] should be changed as conjunctive ず is not properly represented by it: this ず conflates coordination and negation into a single morpheme, english has no such morpheme and thus lacks a direct translation. I have considered something such as "does/will not... and..." but that seemed confusing without an example sentence so I opted for an explanatory definition that is, hopefully, clear enough.

I realise I have forgotten to say why I have removed the notes on connection: I did so as I assume the notes will compel a reader to click the cross-reference to ぬ, leading them to learn that from there.

An additional idea that came to mind: this entry could be merged with ぬ by adding ず as a reading and adding this glossary to its, it would only need a few "as ～ず" or "as ～ぬ" to be added to the notes, the same could be done with ん. This practice could be applied to merge other entries that are variations of the same thing and with that trim down the number of individual entries with the benefit of consolidating currently scattered items under their corresponding set.

@@ -15 +15 @@
-<gloss>not</gloss>
+<gloss g_type="expl">used to negate a verb and continue onto next sentence</gloss>

The notes only do two things: tell you what it is and tell you what it does. Do you presuppose that a reader does not wish to know either or neither of these things?
Of course shoving 連用形 or "conjunction" in there will not automatically allow them to directly download information concerning those concepts unto their brain, I truly hope you did not think this to have been my intent. 
The terms are put there so that the reader may research them on their own, they can even be researched back with this dictionary if someone wishes to research through translation. Could you construct an argument against these points, so that we can have a productive discussion and make a better entry?
The information is not there to "cater to grammar nerds" as you so creatively put, it is there to teach the language: grammar plays an important part of second-language acquisition for many, especially adults, even more so when there is such a disparity between the structures of Japanese and several Indo-European languages. Did you learn Japanese without studying any form of grammar? I would doubt that unless you grew up using Japanese.

"連用形" etc. isn't helpful. 99% of users won't know what it's a reference to. If you really were as smart as you seem to think, you'd realize the goal here isn't to cater to the 1% elite grammer nerds

daijs, daijr

Entry was missing the information that ず can form a conjunction.
Added second sense as terminal ず can still be found in set phrases as well as certain media.
Opted for 連用形 and 終止形 over translations as the original Japanese can likely be researched with less potential of wrong results than something such as connective form or terminal form, they can also be looked up within the dictionary whereas translations cannot.

@@ -9,0 +10 @@
+<pos>&conj;</pos>
@@ -13,2 +14,11 @@
-<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb</s_inf>
-<gloss>not doing</gloss>
+<s_inf>連用形 of ～ぬ acting as a conjunction</s_inf>
+<gloss>not</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&aux-v;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ・1</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ</xref>
+<misc>&form;</misc>
+<s_inf>used at sentence end; old 終止形 of ～ぬ</s_inf>
+<gloss>not</gloss>

koj, etc.

"I don't like the use of サ変 in the note and I'm not sure why there's a tilde between せ and ず."
サ変 was chosen over suru-class or something of the sort as it is mildly shorter and refers to the conjugation class as a whole rather than する singularly.
While す・する and サ変 are largely synonymous since the former and its compounds very likely account for 99.9% of the conjugation class, there are very few verbs that occupy that 0.1% position wherein they have the suru-class paradigm, despite having no connection to the actual suru.
Off the top of my head I can recall 御座す(おはす), 坐す(います) and まらする；the former probably began as a either a 二段 or 四段 from 座す(わす) while the latter two were originally 四段 and 二段 respectively, and only later became サ変.

As for the tilde, it is there to separate the stem from the suffix, modelled after a handful of entries that have a tilde in front of an auxiliary, compound, set-phrase, etc. when it appears in a note.
Is it strictly necessary? Probably not.
But personal experience tells me that if something can be interpreted wrongly, it will. And so I reckon there will be at least one person who will read "after the -nai stem of a verb and as せず for する" as ず sprouting a せ in front of it and then attaching to する as しせず.
Cursed be the -nai stem...
All in all, I would rather keep it.

"I'm now very well aware that "auxiliary verb" is a rather problematic term for what are in essence inflectional suffixes. The overlap between "auxiliary verb" in indo-european languages and the term 助動詞 in 国語文法 is rather minimal. It would much rather be the 補助動詞 falling under that notion."
We are mixing terminology here;　"auxiliary verb" in the context of Japanese refers to either 助動詞 and/or both 補助動詞 and 助動詞, it has little to do with what the term may mean in other languages. 
Plus, it is important to distinguish between suffixes that inflect from inflectional suffixes: most 助詞 like the case-marking particles, the prohibitive な, etc. are also inflectional suffixes. 
助動詞 Are specifically inflectional suffixes that - like 動詞 - have their own inflectional paradigm, thence the name.
A 補助動詞 is functionally identical to a 助動詞, the difference being lexicography and etymology: 補助動詞 are bound morphemes considered to be a single lexeme with the unbound morpheme they derive from, a 助動詞 either has no known associated unbound morpheme (ぬ) or has one but has since evolved into its own lexeme (ます ultimately comes from 参る).

"It is probably best to reduce this just to [aux] for the time being."
The [aux] tag by itself is a tad nebulous, it is probably best reserved for such words that even standard Kokugos fail to classify or disagree as to the category.
With [aux-v] it is at least clear that it is an auxiliary that inflects.

What I forgot to mention was that if the things I suggested at the end of my reply have already been discussed sometime somewhere (e.g. in the mailing list), it would be nice if you could link them here/refer to them. Thanks

＊ https://web.archive.org/web/20021024101613/http://homepage3.nifty.com/taketoki/jodosiless.html
Rather long but very detailed.

＊ https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/助動詞_(言語学)
「国文法では、この助動詞を補助動詞と呼び[1]、「-た」や「-れる・-られる」などを「助動詞」と呼ぶ。言語学ではこれらは英語の -ing や -ed と同様に語尾や接尾辞と見なされる[2][3][4]。」

＊Nikkoku
助動詞：「日本語で付属語のうち、活用のあるもの。他の自立語（詞）、または自立語を含む連語に付属して、叙述の意義を補ったり、話手の判断の性質を表現したりする。助詞とともに、付属語、または辞と呼ばれる。動辞。」


.

The idea (or at least my idea) behind this entire string of edits was to have the singular form of 連用中止 ず have its separate sense. 
In that regard it could very well be thought of as a kind of 接続助詞 (though "conjunctive suffix" would fit better (I believe that a 接続助詞 tag would perhaps actually be usable here)) in my eyes. 
I have now realized that [aux-v] is problematic as well here, as they, by definition, inflect. Which this singled out 連用形 doesn't.


＞Someone on the mailing list requested that [aux-v] be removed from this entry, arguing that ず is not an auxiliary verb but an auxiliary suffix. I want to note here that the kokugos classify it as a 助動詞 (auxiliary verb), like ぬ.　Japanese auxiliary verbs are always 付属語 (dependent words).


I've also read that recent email exchange, and noticed that I actually took a different stance on the suffix aspect in my first edit here, but I have changed my mind since. 
I'm now very well aware that "auxiliary verb" is a rather problematic term for what are in essence inflectional suffixes. The overlap between "auxiliary verb" in indo-european languages and the term 助動詞 in 国語文法 is rather minimal. It would much rather be the 補助動詞 falling under that notion.
It's just that all of these "auxiliary verbs" are currently handled a bit different in jmdict it seems.

It is probably best to reduce this just to [aux] for the time being. And this is all I'm suggesting when it comes to changes, I have nothing to add on the other edits made to this entry.


I have been looking into part of speech categorization in Japanese quite a lot after your edit, and I can't say I've come to a conclusion yet (It just lead to some more confusion, which I'll have to resolve first).
But something that generally floated in my mind previously was the idea of (trying to) define what falls under these otherwise somewhat ominous jmdict tags of [suf], [aux], [aux-v], [aux-adj] (and maybe [cop]). I think that would benefit everyone involved. I'm not suggesting to do this here, but rather putting the general suggestion up for debate.

Another thing would maybe deciding on a standardized note format for the above tags.

I don't like the use of サ変 in the note and I'm not sure why there's a tilde between せ and ず. I've suggested a rewording of that part.
I don't think "negates verb and continues onto next sentence" is needed. We have "continuative form of ぬ" in the note.
I'm not comfortable with [conj] here. Although ず serves a conjunctive role, it's neither a 接続詞 nor a 接続助詞.
Someone on the mailing list requested that [aux-v] be removed from this entry, arguing that ず is not an auxiliary verb but an auxiliary suffix. I want to note here that the kokugos classify it as a 助動詞 (auxiliary verb), like ぬ.　Japanese auxiliary verbs are always 付属語 (dependent words).

@@ -9 +8,0 @@
-<pos>&conj;</pos>
@@ -12,6 +11,5 @@
-<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb and for サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ</s_inf>
-<gloss>(does) not... and...</gloss>
-<gloss>not doing...</gloss>
-<gloss>not... so...</gloss>
-<gloss>without doing</gloss>
-<gloss>negates verb and continues onto next sentence</gloss>
+<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb and as せず for する (all senses); continuative form of ぬ</s_inf>
+<gloss>(does) not ..., and</gloss>
+<gloss>(does) not ..., so</gloss>
+<gloss>not (doing)</gloss>
+<gloss>without (doing)</gloss>

I'm not quite sure why I added the [form], it's not really in the references I quoted and I don't think ず 中止法 is [form].
The closest would be that daijisen quote.

I don't think it was ever mentioned in the discussion in the first place, so I assume there's no opposition to removing it anyway.

@@ -12 +11,0 @@
-<misc>&form;</misc>

Seems to work.

＞ Actually, I think I like this style (used on 良い) more. It's both natural and easily machine readable.
   ＞ Currently there's no dominant form. There are exactly three entries with such a note, て, よい and this entry now. 
      I would prefer it the way it was before, at the start separated by a semicolon (though that obviously doesn't work now since I have left "continuative form of ぬ" in the note)
      However, honestly, I don't think it's THAT necessary in an entry with "only" two senses. It really only becomes annoying for entries precisely like よい and て.
      That said, I won't make a fuss over it, it's also fine this way. 
      

＞ 二段; I would not worry too much about them. Not only would that mean we still need to add in 四段、ナ変、ラ変 and the ancient 未然形 of adjectives [...]
   ＞ This is also what I was getting at in my previous comment. I suggested generalizing from "verb class A, B, C, and as X to サ変" to "verbs, and as X to サ変". 
      And I would still be in favour of doing so

As for nonさん's revision:

Having "negates verb and continues onto next sentence" in the glosses certainly helps. 
However, though rather minor, I would prefer for "continuative form of ぬ" to stay in the notes.

As for the last gloss using just "verbs" (instead of generalizing or having "adjectives and verbs"), I don't think it's very significant, but I checked anyway out of curiosity.
(Excluding the debate on whether 形容詞 should be analyzed as static verbs)
Since constructions like 〇からず、 are possible I searched in NINJAL's SHC (昭和・平成書き言葉) Corpus for instances of "｛から｝｛ず｝｛、｝". 
It returned "only" 15 results, of which the ず is analyzed as belonging to 文語助動詞　ず instead of ぬ for some of those meager 15.
Though I assume (correct me in case I spout rubbish) カリ活用 was already a bit out of fashion at that time.
In any case I'm just throwing this information out there, perhaps it's relevant perhaps it isn't. 


Another minor change is, as it's already pretty difficult to keep a general consistency with these notes, to have "after the X form of X" instead of "connects to X stem of X".
Purely based on the fact that there are as of now 195 (maybe a few false hits) entries with notes using "after the", compared to 3 using "connects to" (2 without this entry).
Unless there are objections of course.



In the meantime I will attempt to master the art of sitting down and only then walking in, wish me luck.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
+<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb and for サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ</s_inf>
@@ -15 +15 @@
-<gloss>not doing</gloss>
+<gloss>not doing...</gloss>
@@ -17,0 +18 @@
+<gloss>negates verb and continues onto next sentence</gloss>

Actually, I think I like this style (used on 良い) more. It's both natural and easily machine readable.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<s_inf>[all senses]: connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
+<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>

> I agree that the repeated note is unsightly, this is again the problem wherein we have no means to distinguish a sense-specific note from an entry-wide one.

This is similar to the fix Jim added to the て entry (2345109). The only thing I changed was adding brackets to make it more programmatically readable (e.g., via regex). Obviously the most appropriate answer would be to add a new element to denote entry-wide notes, however, this works for now, and keeps compatibility with existing tools.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
+<s_inf>[all senses]: connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
@@ -23 +22,0 @@
-<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず</s_inf>

In response to McBroom:
I agree that the repeated note is unsightly, this is again the problem wherein we have no means to distinguish a sense-specific note from an entry-wide one. 

二段; I would not worry too much about them. Not only would that mean we still need to add in 四段、ナ変、ラ変 and the ancient 未然形 of adjectives that is so old not even Old Japanese used it, but also the point of the note is more so to clarify to readers unfamiliar with ず that the connection to サ変 is せず and never しず, as would be otherwise implied by "-nai stem". 
In any case, I will leave an alternative entry without the repeating note at the bottom of this commentary.

In response to Sombrero:
The universality of the relations that can be expressed by a verbal coordinator (here ず) has less to do with the coordinator and more to do with the many possible relations between the propositions being joined, which are contextually inferred but may have downstream semantic and syntactical effects, such as the autonomously advancing reference time and subordinating-like set sentence order imposed on this example:
"John walked in and sat down"
In theory, if this is just a coordination, I should also be able to say "John sat down and walked in" to mean the same, but I cannot - we infer a sequence which that would violate.
And undeniably, few have ever mastered the art of sitting down and only then walking in.

And all this translates into: I do not think we should be too worried about listing every possible relation between the conjuncts since it is not ず providing them anyway. Just the basic coordination and maybe a few of the more common inferred relations such as 'without' are likely enough.

Lastly, yes - ず is hard to gloss. This is so because we have no 1:1 correspondent to it in English, even less so than normally.
ず negates and coordinates. We have things that negate and things that coordinate, but not both (actually we have 'nor', but it can only join two negatives whereas ず is not so picky).
This is perfectly illustrated by the translations you chose at the end, both of them contain at least one conjunctive and one negative that come from ず, but in both cases they need to be separated and put into different positions in the phrase, which gives the impression that ず is lost in translation but in reality it is being spliced.
Thence both you and I feel this need to leave an explanation somewhere, even the most literal translations such as 'not... and...' seem fuzzy as they do not clearly confer the underlying knowledge that 'not' stands for the negation of one clause and 'and' stands for conjunction with the following one.

Below is the attempt at a revision without the repeated notes:
[1][aux-v,conj][form]
  [note="all senses: connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず"]
  (does) not... and...; not... so...; without (doing); continuative form of ぬ, negates verb and continues onto next sentence
  [see=2441300・ぬ[1]]
  [see=2576210・ずに[1]]
[2][aux-v][arch]
   not
  [see=2257550・ない[1]]

＞ In short, it is the サ変 -nai stem problem again - I once again would like to address it, if nothing else.
   The note might seem overly long but ironically is shorter than other alternatives I have tried as the kanji save us a handful of characters.
   ＞I think it's fine to have a note for サ変, 未然形 せ is certainly not encountered early on by learners, better to have it listed

＞ Also, shouldn’t the archaic form be noted as connecting to archaic nidan verbs as well (e.g., 捨つ->捨てず)
   ＞ Perhaps it would be better to have the note like "after the -nai stem of a verb; for サ変 as せ～ず; etc. " ?
      I don't think we should go down the path of giving an exhaustive listing of the verb classes 
      

Sentence E: 懸命に頑張ったが、我々の抗議は認められ（ず）、得点も入らなかった。
   "Though we put all our might into it, our protests weren't noticed [, nor did we hit our goals/and we didn't hit our goals either]"

What about ず as a coordinating conjunction indicating consequence? Sentence E could also be interpreted this way, could it not?
"Though we put all our might into it, our protests weren't noticed, so we also didn't hit our goals."

Or here as a conjunction indicating reason.
Sentence F: 新しい政府がどのような方針で対処するかは予想もつかず、 不安な気持に陥ることも多い。
Since one can hardly anticipate by which principles a new government will act, it often leads to uneasiness.


I think I was also a bit biased towards "without doing" because, if I recall correctly, that was the situation in which I first encountered conjunctive ず.
I see now that ずに is limited to "without doing", but for plain ず that's just one possible interpretation. 
The general dominance of ず throughout all examples in the paper in itself speaks for the versatility.
Maybe it would be helpful to list a few different options as glosses, with the most "neutral" one first?

"not... and..."
"not doing..."
"not... so..."
("without doing")

I too find it difficult to gloss this, e.g. in these sentences there is hardly a gloss to give:
「連絡が取れず、心配した」Unable to make contact, I was worried.

「何も言わず、動きもしない」Not saying a word, nor moving an inch.

@@ -13,0 +14,3 @@
+<gloss>(does) not... and...</gloss>
+<gloss>not doing</gloss>
+<gloss>not... so...</gloss>

I think repetition in the notes detracts from the overall quality of the entry. Also, shouldn’t the archaic form be noted as connecting to archaic nidan verbs as well (e.g., 捨つ->捨てず)?

It brings a tear to the eye... 

Anyhow, there are another 2 paragraphs of argumentation under the rejected version of this entry not-so-briefly raising some points as to why this entry was a problem besides the one Sombrero just brought up - including the reason why I am now editing this recently approved entry (so sorry about that).
In short, it is the サ変 -nai stem problem again - I once again would like to address it, if nothing else.
The note might seem overly long but ironically is shorter than other alternatives I have tried as the kanji save us a handful of characters.

The above is why I edited the entry, now onto the reason why this is 2 paragraphs long...

ず is not properly represented by "without doing" as it is not quite identical to ずに - just as なくて and なく are not quite the same as ないで.
I will try to use only the paper and two sentences Sombrero has provided to make my point. 
However, of the paper, I will only be focusing on sentences c, e, f and g of diagram 1 on page 3 as those are the ones that deal with the bare negative auxiliaries without a verb pre-attached, and they are also the only ones wherein ず、ずに、なくて、なく and ないで are all present as options.

So, diagram 1. C, e, f and especially g.
Across these ず is chosen a total of 1840 times, 436(~23.69%) in c, 539(32.5%) in e, 531(~28.85%) in f and 275(~14.94%) in g.
ずに is chosen 233 times, 221(~94.84%) in g, and 12(<6%) times across all other options.
Notice how g concentrates almost all instances of ずに and is also the one in which ず sees the least amount of usage, as well as the sharpest decrease compared to the next value above it (c).
なく and なくて were chosen only 55 and 46 times respectively, but they were *never* chosen for g.
Meanwhile, ないで was *only* chosen for g.

Proportionally, なく and なくて have a distribution more similar to　ず, while ずに's is much more similar to ないで. 

So, where am I going with this?

The idea is that ず is more like your typical verbal coordinator that is sometimes reinterpreted as subordinating if the context supports it (like the 連用形, て or our English 'and') while ずに is almost exclusively used as a subordinator for the following clause - this is why ず still had some presence in g while ずに had almost none outside of it (and why ないで had actually none).
That is also why I had reluctantly suggested "not... and..." as the gloss and left an explanatory gloss below as I myself found the translation alone too awkward, but even so did not suggest copying the ずに entry - "without" is a subordinator and ず is not necessarily.

To close this off, the sentences.
「食べずに寝た」 cannot be made into 「寝ずに食べた」 without flipping the meaning of the sentence on its head, as it is subordinating: "I slept without eating" versus "I ate without sleeping".
Meanwhile, you can freely flip 「雨もふらず風もふかぬ」 into 「風もふかず雨もふらぬ」 and the meaning is unchanged: "Rain does not fall and wind does blow" versus "Wind does not blow and rain does not fall" 
If you think about it, I think you will agree that in the second sentence you usually do not see ずに replacing ず.

I am unsure as to whether all this rambling is actually a problem, or if the context will carry the reader to the right interpretation even in cases wherein the translation seems odd at first. 
All in all, I would like to change the gloss also, but am ultimately refraining from doing so. Perhaps someone else might have thoughts on this?

Also, [conj] tag to [1].

@@ -8,0 +9 @@
+<pos>&conj;</pos>
@@ -12 +13 @@
-<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
+<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
@@ -19 +20 @@
-<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb</s_inf>
+<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず</s_inf>

I still think the original brief form is sufficient, but I can live with this, I guess.

＊ Sankoku:
１：
   口語の否定の助動詞「ぬ」の連用形。
    「何も買わ━、帰った」
２：｟助動(特殊型)｠
  〔文〕〔否定の助動詞〕…ない。
    「山高きが故(ゆえ)に貴(たっと)から━」

＊ GendaiShinkoku:
１：｟助動詞・特殊型｠
   打消しの意味を表す助動詞「ぬ」の連用形。…ないで
２：［古語］
   打ち消しの意味を表す。…ない

＊ Meikyo:
〚打ち消しの助動詞「ぬ」の連用形〛
１：打ち消しの意を伴って、文を中止したり、副詞的修飾をしたりする。…ないで。
「連絡が取れ━、心配した」
「何も言わ━、動きもしない」
２： 打ち消した状態であるものやさまなどを表す。
「開(あ)か━の間(ま)」
「わから━屋」
「行方知れ━」
「怖いもの知ら━」

The references above perform a sense specific split in terms of which negation system they refer to
In sense one the paradigm in question is modern (formal or colloquial) ぬ as in （〇｜ず｜ぬ・ん｜ぬ・ん｜ね｜〇），hence them noting that it's the 連用形 of ぬ.
While in sense two the paradigm in question is archaic (or formal) ず as in（（ず）｜ず｜ず｜ぬ｜ね｜〇）(which itself represents a merger of two separate older systems).
This also leads to ず use outside of that conjunctive sense being mostly regarded as archaic (gendaiSK, daijr, shinsen, oukoku), with other refs like meikyo tagging 文語 which essentially means the same.


On ず中止法：
＊ https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q12179271617

＊ https://ja.hinative.com/questions/22362238

＊ daijisen: [...] なお、現代では、連用形「ず」は中止法として主に書き言葉で用いられ、終止形は「べからず」の形で禁止の意を表すのに用いられる。

＊ nikkoku: 「ず」は、終止形のほか、連用修飾法、中止法、また、助詞「て」「は」助動詞「き」「けむ」「けり」等につづく用法があり、連用形、終止形の二形と認められる。[...]

＊ Samuel E. Martin "A reference grammar of Japanese" p. 377:
"[...] and Tabezu ni neta 'I slept without eating = I went to bed hungry'. 
The ni is optionally omittable (cf. §9. 1 . 1 2, § 14.6); that is unusual for a precopular or an adjectival noun (though yoo and mitai are similar)
except for those that are also adverbs. In this use, the V-(a)zu forms are more often written than spoken;
speakers prefer the more relaxed V-(a)nai de or V-(a)nakute to carry the same meaning, that of a negative gerund. 

But in Kansai speech V-(a)zu is still used for V-(a)naku [te] =
V-(a)nai de as in: Ame mo hurazu kaze mo hukan[u] 'It does not rain, nor does the wind
blow' (= Ame mo huranai de kaze mo hukanai) ; Ame to kaze ga hidokute, kawara ni wa
dare mo izu, kawa wa are ni areta 'The rain and wind were so terrible there was no one
along the riverbed, and the river raged and raged' (SA 2663.48a). 

For such dialects, we will say that V-(a)zu is an alternant way of making the negative infinitive, the other way
being V-(a)naku, in these dialects usually rendered as V-(a)na'u = V-(a)noo. (And the use
of the infinitive for the gerund is more general; see p. 395.) 

In standard Japanese, too, the
V-(a)zu [nil form will sometimes be preferred to the more colloquial negative gerunds,
especially in stereotyped adverbial expressions such as osimazu [ni (kane o tukau)
'(spends money) unstintingly, generously' "

＊ https://ynu.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/8096/files/35-13.pdf
  A 1996 study investigating the emergence of なく・なくて・ないで forms to replace ず and ずに conducted on university students (only pages 2-4 are really relevant to this entry).
  This isn't supposed to be a main reference but more of a means of substantiating the first sense


.

I think nonさん was on the right track. 
While 中止法 in itself is nothing too out of the ordinary, it may be useful to have a separate sense indicating this here.
Furthermore, having precisely this sense is useful to the average user of this dictionary, because it's a more likely case for this auxiliary to be encountered.

Also I don't see how this has [suf], ず isn't a derivational morpheme, it's inflectional.
There also aren't any refs to substantiate this AFAICS

Perhaps sense one could have a [conj-prt] tag, but that may also be a bit dubious at the same time.

@@ -9 +8,0 @@
-<pos>&suf;</pos>
@@ -10,0 +10,9 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2576210">ずに</xref>
+<misc>&form;</misc>
+<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
+<gloss>without doing</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&aux-v;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="2257550">ない</xref>
+<misc>&arch;</misc>
@@ -12 +20 @@
-<gloss>not doing</gloss>
+<gloss>not</gloss>

I don't think the proposed revision is very useful to the typical user of this dictionary. There may be scope somewhere for detailed etymological and morphological information about these sorts of terms, but I don't think this is the place.
I'm reverting the entry to the 2016 original so that the comments remain visible. I'll reopen it for a while in case there is further discussion.

@@ -10 +9,0 @@
-<pos>&conj;</pos>
@@ -14,11 +13,2 @@
-<s_inf>連用形 of ～ぬ acting as a conjunction</s_inf>
-<gloss g_type="expl">used to negate a verb and continue onto next sentence</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&aux-v;</pos>
-<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ・1</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ</xref>
-<misc>&form;</misc>
-<s_inf>used at sentence end; old 終止形 of ～ぬ</s_inf>
-<gloss>not</gloss>
+<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb</s_inf>
+<gloss>not doing</gloss>

After some consideration, the translation on [1] should be changed as conjunctive ず is not properly represented by it: this ず conflates coordination and negation into a single morpheme, english has no such morpheme and thus lacks a direct translation. I have considered something such as "does/will not... and..." but that seemed confusing without an example sentence so I opted for an explanatory definition that is, hopefully, clear enough.

I realise I have forgotten to say why I have removed the notes on connection: I did so as I assume the notes will compel a reader to click the cross-reference to ぬ, leading them to learn that from there.

An additional idea that came to mind: this entry could be merged with ぬ by adding ず as a reading and adding this glossary to its, it would only need a few "as ～ず" or "as ～ぬ" to be added to the notes, the same could be done with ん. This practice could be applied to merge other entries that are variations of the same thing and with that trim down the number of individual entries with the benefit of consolidating currently scattered items under their corresponding set.

@@ -15 +15 @@
-<gloss>not</gloss>
+<gloss g_type="expl">used to negate a verb and continue onto next sentence</gloss>

The notes only do two things: tell you what it is and tell you what it does. Do you presuppose that a reader does not wish to know either or neither of these things?
Of course shoving 連用形 or "conjunction" in there will not automatically allow them to directly download information concerning those concepts unto their brain, I truly hope you did not think this to have been my intent. 
The terms are put there so that the reader may research them on their own, they can even be researched back with this dictionary if someone wishes to research through translation. Could you construct an argument against these points, so that we can have a productive discussion and make a better entry?
The information is not there to "cater to grammar nerds" as you so creatively put, it is there to teach the language: grammar plays an important part of second-language acquisition for many, especially adults, even more so when there is such a disparity between the structures of Japanese and several Indo-European languages. Did you learn Japanese without studying any form of grammar? I would doubt that unless you grew up using Japanese.

"連用形" etc. isn't helpful. 99% of users won't know what it's a reference to. If you really were as smart as you seem to think, you'd realize the goal here isn't to cater to the 1% elite grammer nerds

daijs, daijr

Entry was missing the information that ず can form a conjunction.
Added second sense as terminal ず can still be found in set phrases as well as certain media.
Opted for 連用形 and 終止形 over translations as the original Japanese can likely be researched with less potential of wrong results than something such as connective form or terminal form, they can also be looked up within the dictionary whereas translations cannot.

@@ -9,0 +10 @@
+<pos>&conj;</pos>
@@ -13,2 +14,11 @@
-<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb</s_inf>
-<gloss>not doing</gloss>
+<s_inf>連用形 of ～ぬ acting as a conjunction</s_inf>
+<gloss>not</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&aux-v;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ・1</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ</xref>
+<misc>&form;</misc>
+<s_inf>used at sentence end; old 終止形 of ～ぬ</s_inf>
+<gloss>not</gloss>

koj, etc.

Meikyo:
ず
［打ち消しの助動詞「ぬ」の連用形］
❶打ち消しの意を伴って、文を中止したり、副詞的修飾をしたりする。…ないで。
[second sense excluded here]

Sankoku:
ず
◇
口語の否定の助動詞「ぬ」の連用形。
「何も買わ━、帰った」
[second sense excluded here]

↑
Oukoku and Smk do the same

.

＞ Plus, it is important to distinguish between suffixes that inflect from inflectional suffixes: most 助詞 like the case-marking particles, the prohibitive な, etc. are also inflectional suffixes. 
That's true, I didn't phrase that clearly enough. I meant "suffixes that inflect".
ーーー

＞A 補助動詞 is functionally identical to a 助動詞, the difference being lexicography and etymology: [...]
This perhaps isn't very relevant to the ず discussion in particular, but I was under the assumption that there is syntactical difference between these two. Is there not?
ーーー

＞The [aux] tag by itself is a tad nebulous, it is probably best reserved for such words that even standard Kokugos fail to classify or disagree as to the category.
With [aux-v] it is at least clear that it is an auxiliary that inflects.

My idea was that sense one is not something that inflects, it's the 連用形 of ぬ *singled out* to have its separate sense. 
Thus it does not inflect, and is basically used as a 未然形-bound 接続助詞.
The kokugos that perform this same split do not assign a PoS tag to the 連用形 ず sense.
See the quoted references (I saw that daijr does have 〘助動〙, but I'm pretty sure that's because daijr doesn't use split PoS tags like this in the same entry? I may be wrong though)
That's why I suggested not using [aux-v] here, *if* we define [aux-v] as something that inflects.
ーーー

As for the discussion about the note format, I don't have any particular opinion on it.
However, the arguments brought forth by Non seem reasonable to me, after all we have a sufficiently explanatory entry for "サ変".
And I do remember seeing that style of note in another entry (it might have been Non there too, I don't quite recall)

"I don't like the use of サ変 in the note and I'm not sure why there's a tilde between せ and ず."
サ変 was chosen over suru-class or something of the sort as it is mildly shorter and refers to the conjugation class as a whole rather than する singularly.
While す・する and サ変 are largely synonymous since the former and its compounds very likely account for 99.9% of the conjugation class, there are very few verbs that occupy that 0.1% position wherein they have the suru-class paradigm, despite having no connection to the actual suru.
Off the top of my head I can recall 御座す(おはす), 坐す(います) and まらする；the former probably began as a either a 二段 or 四段 from 座す(わす) while the latter two were originally 四段 and 二段 respectively, and only later became サ変.

As for the tilde, it is there to separate the stem from the suffix, modelled after a handful of entries that have a tilde in front of an auxiliary, compound, set-phrase, etc. when it appears in a note.
Is it strictly necessary? Probably not.
But personal experience tells me that if something can be interpreted wrongly, it will. And so I reckon there will be at least one person who will read "after the -nai stem of a verb and as せず for する" as ず sprouting a せ in front of it and then attaching to する as しせず.
Cursed be the -nai stem...
All in all, I would rather keep it.

"I'm now very well aware that "auxiliary verb" is a rather problematic term for what are in essence inflectional suffixes. The overlap between "auxiliary verb" in indo-european languages and the term 助動詞 in 国語文法 is rather minimal. It would much rather be the 補助動詞 falling under that notion."
We are mixing terminology here;　"auxiliary verb" in the context of Japanese refers to either 助動詞 and/or both 補助動詞 and 助動詞, it has little to do with what the term may mean in other languages. 
Plus, it is important to distinguish between suffixes that inflect from inflectional suffixes: most 助詞 like the case-marking particles, the prohibitive な, etc. are also inflectional suffixes. 
助動詞 Are specifically inflectional suffixes that - like 動詞 - have their own inflectional paradigm, thence the name.
A 補助動詞 is functionally identical to a 助動詞, the difference being lexicography and etymology: 補助動詞 are bound morphemes considered to be a single lexeme with the unbound morpheme they derive from, a 助動詞 either has no known associated unbound morpheme (ぬ) or has one but has since evolved into its own lexeme (ます ultimately comes from 参る).

"It is probably best to reduce this just to [aux] for the time being."
The [aux] tag by itself is a tad nebulous, it is probably best reserved for such words that even standard Kokugos fail to classify or disagree as to the category.
With [aux-v] it is at least clear that it is an auxiliary that inflects.

What I forgot to mention was that if the things I suggested at the end of my reply have already been discussed sometime somewhere (e.g. in the mailing list), it would be nice if you could link them here/refer to them. Thanks

＊ https://web.archive.org/web/20021024101613/http://homepage3.nifty.com/taketoki/jodosiless.html
Rather long but very detailed.

＊ https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/助動詞_(言語学)
「国文法では、この助動詞を補助動詞と呼び[1]、「-た」や「-れる・-られる」などを「助動詞」と呼ぶ。言語学ではこれらは英語の -ing や -ed と同様に語尾や接尾辞と見なされる[2][3][4]。」

＊Nikkoku
助動詞：「日本語で付属語のうち、活用のあるもの。他の自立語（詞）、または自立語を含む連語に付属して、叙述の意義を補ったり、話手の判断の性質を表現したりする。助詞とともに、付属語、または辞と呼ばれる。動辞。」


.

The idea (or at least my idea) behind this entire string of edits was to have the singular form of 連用中止 ず have its separate sense. 
In that regard it could very well be thought of as a kind of 接続助詞 (though "conjunctive suffix" would fit better (I believe that a 接続助詞 tag would perhaps actually be usable here)) in my eyes. 
I have now realized that [aux-v] is problematic as well here, as they, by definition, inflect. Which this singled out 連用形 doesn't.


＞Someone on the mailing list requested that [aux-v] be removed from this entry, arguing that ず is not an auxiliary verb but an auxiliary suffix. I want to note here that the kokugos classify it as a 助動詞 (auxiliary verb), like ぬ.　Japanese auxiliary verbs are always 付属語 (dependent words).


I've also read that recent email exchange, and noticed that I actually took a different stance on the suffix aspect in my first edit here, but I have changed my mind since. 
I'm now very well aware that "auxiliary verb" is a rather problematic term for what are in essence inflectional suffixes. The overlap between "auxiliary verb" in indo-european languages and the term 助動詞 in 国語文法 is rather minimal. It would much rather be the 補助動詞 falling under that notion.
It's just that all of these "auxiliary verbs" are currently handled a bit different in jmdict it seems.

It is probably best to reduce this just to [aux] for the time being. And this is all I'm suggesting when it comes to changes, I have nothing to add on the other edits made to this entry.


I have been looking into part of speech categorization in Japanese quite a lot after your edit, and I can't say I've come to a conclusion yet (It just lead to some more confusion, which I'll have to resolve first).
But something that generally floated in my mind previously was the idea of (trying to) define what falls under these otherwise somewhat ominous jmdict tags of [suf], [aux], [aux-v], [aux-adj] (and maybe [cop]). I think that would benefit everyone involved. I'm not suggesting to do this here, but rather putting the general suggestion up for debate.

Another thing would maybe deciding on a standardized note format for the above tags.

I don't like the use of サ変 in the note and I'm not sure why there's a tilde between せ and ず. I've suggested a rewording of that part.
I don't think "negates verb and continues onto next sentence" is needed. We have "continuative form of ぬ" in the note.
I'm not comfortable with [conj] here. Although ず serves a conjunctive role, it's neither a 接続詞 nor a 接続助詞.
Someone on the mailing list requested that [aux-v] be removed from this entry, arguing that ず is not an auxiliary verb but an auxiliary suffix. I want to note here that the kokugos classify it as a 助動詞 (auxiliary verb), like ぬ.　Japanese auxiliary verbs are always 付属語 (dependent words).

@@ -9 +8,0 @@
-<pos>&conj;</pos>
@@ -12,6 +11,5 @@
-<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb and for サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ</s_inf>
-<gloss>(does) not... and...</gloss>
-<gloss>not doing...</gloss>
-<gloss>not... so...</gloss>
-<gloss>without doing</gloss>
-<gloss>negates verb and continues onto next sentence</gloss>
+<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb and as せず for する (all senses); continuative form of ぬ</s_inf>
+<gloss>(does) not ..., and</gloss>
+<gloss>(does) not ..., so</gloss>
+<gloss>not (doing)</gloss>
+<gloss>without (doing)</gloss>

I'm not quite sure why I added the [form], it's not really in the references I quoted and I don't think ず 中止法 is [form].
The closest would be that daijisen quote.

I don't think it was ever mentioned in the discussion in the first place, so I assume there's no opposition to removing it anyway.

@@ -12 +11,0 @@
-<misc>&form;</misc>

Seems to work.

＞ Actually, I think I like this style (used on 良い) more. It's both natural and easily machine readable.
   ＞ Currently there's no dominant form. There are exactly three entries with such a note, て, よい and this entry now. 
      I would prefer it the way it was before, at the start separated by a semicolon (though that obviously doesn't work now since I have left "continuative form of ぬ" in the note)
      However, honestly, I don't think it's THAT necessary in an entry with "only" two senses. It really only becomes annoying for entries precisely like よい and て.
      That said, I won't make a fuss over it, it's also fine this way. 
      

＞ 二段; I would not worry too much about them. Not only would that mean we still need to add in 四段、ナ変、ラ変 and the ancient 未然形 of adjectives [...]
   ＞ This is also what I was getting at in my previous comment. I suggested generalizing from "verb class A, B, C, and as X to サ変" to "verbs, and as X to サ変". 
      And I would still be in favour of doing so

As for nonさん's revision:

Having "negates verb and continues onto next sentence" in the glosses certainly helps. 
However, though rather minor, I would prefer for "continuative form of ぬ" to stay in the notes.

As for the last gloss using just "verbs" (instead of generalizing or having "adjectives and verbs"), I don't think it's very significant, but I checked anyway out of curiosity.
(Excluding the debate on whether 形容詞 should be analyzed as static verbs)
Since constructions like 〇からず、 are possible I searched in NINJAL's SHC (昭和・平成書き言葉) Corpus for instances of "｛から｝｛ず｝｛、｝". 
It returned "only" 15 results, of which the ず is analyzed as belonging to 文語助動詞　ず instead of ぬ for some of those meager 15.
Though I assume (correct me in case I spout rubbish) カリ活用 was already a bit out of fashion at that time.
In any case I'm just throwing this information out there, perhaps it's relevant perhaps it isn't. 


Another minor change is, as it's already pretty difficult to keep a general consistency with these notes, to have "after the X form of X" instead of "connects to X stem of X".
Purely based on the fact that there are as of now 195 (maybe a few false hits) entries with notes using "after the", compared to 3 using "connects to" (2 without this entry).
Unless there are objections of course.



In the meantime I will attempt to master the art of sitting down and only then walking in, wish me luck.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
+<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb and for サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ</s_inf>
@@ -15 +15 @@
-<gloss>not doing</gloss>
+<gloss>not doing...</gloss>
@@ -17,0 +18 @@
+<gloss>negates verb and continues onto next sentence</gloss>

Actually, I think I like this style (used on 良い) more. It's both natural and easily machine readable.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<s_inf>[all senses]: connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
+<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず (all senses); continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>

> I agree that the repeated note is unsightly, this is again the problem wherein we have no means to distinguish a sense-specific note from an entry-wide one.

This is similar to the fix Jim added to the て entry (2345109). The only thing I changed was adding brackets to make it more programmatically readable (e.g., via regex). Obviously the most appropriate answer would be to add a new element to denote entry-wide notes, however, this works for now, and keeps compatibility with existing tools.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
+<s_inf>[all senses]: connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
@@ -23 +22,0 @@
-<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず</s_inf>

In response to McBroom:
I agree that the repeated note is unsightly, this is again the problem wherein we have no means to distinguish a sense-specific note from an entry-wide one. 

二段; I would not worry too much about them. Not only would that mean we still need to add in 四段、ナ変、ラ変 and the ancient 未然形 of adjectives that is so old not even Old Japanese used it, but also the point of the note is more so to clarify to readers unfamiliar with ず that the connection to サ変 is せず and never しず, as would be otherwise implied by "-nai stem". 
In any case, I will leave an alternative entry without the repeating note at the bottom of this commentary.

In response to Sombrero:
The universality of the relations that can be expressed by a verbal coordinator (here ず) has less to do with the coordinator and more to do with the many possible relations between the propositions being joined, which are contextually inferred but may have downstream semantic and syntactical effects, such as the autonomously advancing reference time and subordinating-like set sentence order imposed on this example:
"John walked in and sat down"
In theory, if this is just a coordination, I should also be able to say "John sat down and walked in" to mean the same, but I cannot - we infer a sequence which that would violate.
And undeniably, few have ever mastered the art of sitting down and only then walking in.

And all this translates into: I do not think we should be too worried about listing every possible relation between the conjuncts since it is not ず providing them anyway. Just the basic coordination and maybe a few of the more common inferred relations such as 'without' are likely enough.

Lastly, yes - ず is hard to gloss. This is so because we have no 1:1 correspondent to it in English, even less so than normally.
ず negates and coordinates. We have things that negate and things that coordinate, but not both (actually we have 'nor', but it can only join two negatives whereas ず is not so picky).
This is perfectly illustrated by the translations you chose at the end, both of them contain at least one conjunctive and one negative that come from ず, but in both cases they need to be separated and put into different positions in the phrase, which gives the impression that ず is lost in translation but in reality it is being spliced.
Thence both you and I feel this need to leave an explanation somewhere, even the most literal translations such as 'not... and...' seem fuzzy as they do not clearly confer the underlying knowledge that 'not' stands for the negation of one clause and 'and' stands for conjunction with the following one.

Below is the attempt at a revision without the repeated notes:
[1][aux-v,conj][form]
  [note="all senses: connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず"]
  (does) not... and...; not... so...; without (doing); continuative form of ぬ, negates verb and continues onto next sentence
  [see=2441300・ぬ[1]]
  [see=2576210・ずに[1]]
[2][aux-v][arch]
   not
  [see=2257550・ない[1]]

＞ In short, it is the サ変 -nai stem problem again - I once again would like to address it, if nothing else.
   The note might seem overly long but ironically is shorter than other alternatives I have tried as the kanji save us a handful of characters.
   ＞I think it's fine to have a note for サ変, 未然形 せ is certainly not encountered early on by learners, better to have it listed

＞ Also, shouldn’t the archaic form be noted as connecting to archaic nidan verbs as well (e.g., 捨つ->捨てず)
   ＞ Perhaps it would be better to have the note like "after the -nai stem of a verb; for サ変 as せ～ず; etc. " ?
      I don't think we should go down the path of giving an exhaustive listing of the verb classes 
      

Sentence E: 懸命に頑張ったが、我々の抗議は認められ（ず）、得点も入らなかった。
   "Though we put all our might into it, our protests weren't noticed [, nor did we hit our goals/and we didn't hit our goals either]"

What about ず as a coordinating conjunction indicating consequence? Sentence E could also be interpreted this way, could it not?
"Though we put all our might into it, our protests weren't noticed, so we also didn't hit our goals."

Or here as a conjunction indicating reason.
Sentence F: 新しい政府がどのような方針で対処するかは予想もつかず、 不安な気持に陥ることも多い。
Since one can hardly anticipate by which principles a new government will act, it often leads to uneasiness.


I think I was also a bit biased towards "without doing" because, if I recall correctly, that was the situation in which I first encountered conjunctive ず.
I see now that ずに is limited to "without doing", but for plain ず that's just one possible interpretation. 
The general dominance of ず throughout all examples in the paper in itself speaks for the versatility.
Maybe it would be helpful to list a few different options as glosses, with the most "neutral" one first?

"not... and..."
"not doing..."
"not... so..."
("without doing")

I too find it difficult to gloss this, e.g. in these sentences there is hardly a gloss to give:
「連絡が取れず、心配した」Unable to make contact, I was worried.

「何も言わず、動きもしない」Not saying a word, nor moving an inch.

@@ -13,0 +14,3 @@
+<gloss>(does) not... and...</gloss>
+<gloss>not doing</gloss>
+<gloss>not... so...</gloss>

I think repetition in the notes detracts from the overall quality of the entry. Also, shouldn’t the archaic form be noted as connecting to archaic nidan verbs as well (e.g., 捨つ->捨てず)?

It brings a tear to the eye... 

Anyhow, there are another 2 paragraphs of argumentation under the rejected version of this entry not-so-briefly raising some points as to why this entry was a problem besides the one Sombrero just brought up - including the reason why I am now editing this recently approved entry (so sorry about that).
In short, it is the サ変 -nai stem problem again - I once again would like to address it, if nothing else.
The note might seem overly long but ironically is shorter than other alternatives I have tried as the kanji save us a handful of characters.

The above is why I edited the entry, now onto the reason why this is 2 paragraphs long...

ず is not properly represented by "without doing" as it is not quite identical to ずに - just as なくて and なく are not quite the same as ないで.
I will try to use only the paper and two sentences Sombrero has provided to make my point. 
However, of the paper, I will only be focusing on sentences c, e, f and g of diagram 1 on page 3 as those are the ones that deal with the bare negative auxiliaries without a verb pre-attached, and they are also the only ones wherein ず、ずに、なくて、なく and ないで are all present as options.

So, diagram 1. C, e, f and especially g.
Across these ず is chosen a total of 1840 times, 436(~23.69%) in c, 539(32.5%) in e, 531(~28.85%) in f and 275(~14.94%) in g.
ずに is chosen 233 times, 221(~94.84%) in g, and 12(<6%) times across all other options.
Notice how g concentrates almost all instances of ずに and is also the one in which ず sees the least amount of usage, as well as the sharpest decrease compared to the next value above it (c).
なく and なくて were chosen only 55 and 46 times respectively, but they were *never* chosen for g.
Meanwhile, ないで was *only* chosen for g.

Proportionally, なく and なくて have a distribution more similar to　ず, while ずに's is much more similar to ないで. 

So, where am I going with this?

The idea is that ず is more like your typical verbal coordinator that is sometimes reinterpreted as subordinating if the context supports it (like the 連用形, て or our English 'and') while ずに is almost exclusively used as a subordinator for the following clause - this is why ず still had some presence in g while ずに had almost none outside of it (and why ないで had actually none).
That is also why I had reluctantly suggested "not... and..." as the gloss and left an explanatory gloss below as I myself found the translation alone too awkward, but even so did not suggest copying the ずに entry - "without" is a subordinator and ず is not necessarily.

To close this off, the sentences.
「食べずに寝た」 cannot be made into 「寝ずに食べた」 without flipping the meaning of the sentence on its head, as it is subordinating: "I slept without eating" versus "I ate without sleeping".
Meanwhile, you can freely flip 「雨もふらず風もふかぬ」 into 「風もふかず雨もふらぬ」 and the meaning is unchanged: "Rain does not fall and wind does blow" versus "Wind does not blow and rain does not fall" 
If you think about it, I think you will agree that in the second sentence you usually do not see ずに replacing ず.

I am unsure as to whether all this rambling is actually a problem, or if the context will carry the reader to the right interpretation even in cases wherein the translation seems odd at first. 
All in all, I would like to change the gloss also, but am ultimately refraining from doing so. Perhaps someone else might have thoughts on this?

Also, [conj] tag to [1].

@@ -8,0 +9 @@
+<pos>&conj;</pos>
@@ -12 +13 @@
-<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
+<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
@@ -19 +20 @@
-<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb</s_inf>
+<s_inf>connects to -nai stem of 五段, 一段 and カ変 verbs and to サ変 as せ～ず</s_inf>

I still think the original brief form is sufficient, but I can live with this, I guess.

＊ Sankoku:
１：
   口語の否定の助動詞「ぬ」の連用形。
    「何も買わ━、帰った」
２：｟助動(特殊型)｠
  〔文〕〔否定の助動詞〕…ない。
    「山高きが故(ゆえ)に貴(たっと)から━」

＊ GendaiShinkoku:
１：｟助動詞・特殊型｠
   打消しの意味を表す助動詞「ぬ」の連用形。…ないで
２：［古語］
   打ち消しの意味を表す。…ない

＊ Meikyo:
〚打ち消しの助動詞「ぬ」の連用形〛
１：打ち消しの意を伴って、文を中止したり、副詞的修飾をしたりする。…ないで。
「連絡が取れ━、心配した」
「何も言わ━、動きもしない」
２： 打ち消した状態であるものやさまなどを表す。
「開(あ)か━の間(ま)」
「わから━屋」
「行方知れ━」
「怖いもの知ら━」

The references above perform a sense specific split in terms of which negation system they refer to
In sense one the paradigm in question is modern (formal or colloquial) ぬ as in （〇｜ず｜ぬ・ん｜ぬ・ん｜ね｜〇），hence them noting that it's the 連用形 of ぬ.
While in sense two the paradigm in question is archaic (or formal) ず as in（（ず）｜ず｜ず｜ぬ｜ね｜〇）(which itself represents a merger of two separate older systems).
This also leads to ず use outside of that conjunctive sense being mostly regarded as archaic (gendaiSK, daijr, shinsen, oukoku), with other refs like meikyo tagging 文語 which essentially means the same.


On ず中止法：
＊ https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q12179271617

＊ https://ja.hinative.com/questions/22362238

＊ daijisen: [...] なお、現代では、連用形「ず」は中止法として主に書き言葉で用いられ、終止形は「べからず」の形で禁止の意を表すのに用いられる。

＊ nikkoku: 「ず」は、終止形のほか、連用修飾法、中止法、また、助詞「て」「は」助動詞「き」「けむ」「けり」等につづく用法があり、連用形、終止形の二形と認められる。[...]

＊ Samuel E. Martin "A reference grammar of Japanese" p. 377:
"[...] and Tabezu ni neta 'I slept without eating = I went to bed hungry'. 
The ni is optionally omittable (cf. §9. 1 . 1 2, § 14.6); that is unusual for a precopular or an adjectival noun (though yoo and mitai are similar)
except for those that are also adverbs. In this use, the V-(a)zu forms are more often written than spoken;
speakers prefer the more relaxed V-(a)nai de or V-(a)nakute to carry the same meaning, that of a negative gerund. 

But in Kansai speech V-(a)zu is still used for V-(a)naku [te] =
V-(a)nai de as in: Ame mo hurazu kaze mo hukan[u] 'It does not rain, nor does the wind
blow' (= Ame mo huranai de kaze mo hukanai) ; Ame to kaze ga hidokute, kawara ni wa
dare mo izu, kawa wa are ni areta 'The rain and wind were so terrible there was no one
along the riverbed, and the river raged and raged' (SA 2663.48a). 

For such dialects, we will say that V-(a)zu is an alternant way of making the negative infinitive, the other way
being V-(a)naku, in these dialects usually rendered as V-(a)na'u = V-(a)noo. (And the use
of the infinitive for the gerund is more general; see p. 395.) 

In standard Japanese, too, the
V-(a)zu [nil form will sometimes be preferred to the more colloquial negative gerunds,
especially in stereotyped adverbial expressions such as osimazu [ni (kane o tukau)
'(spends money) unstintingly, generously' "

＊ https://ynu.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/8096/files/35-13.pdf
  A 1996 study investigating the emergence of なく・なくて・ないで forms to replace ず and ずに conducted on university students (only pages 2-4 are really relevant to this entry).
  This isn't supposed to be a main reference but more of a means of substantiating the first sense


.

I think nonさん was on the right track. 
While 中止法 in itself is nothing too out of the ordinary, it may be useful to have a separate sense indicating this here.
Furthermore, having precisely this sense is useful to the average user of this dictionary, because it's a more likely case for this auxiliary to be encountered.

Also I don't see how this has [suf], ず isn't a derivational morpheme, it's inflectional.
There also aren't any refs to substantiate this AFAICS

Perhaps sense one could have a [conj-prt] tag, but that may also be a bit dubious at the same time.

@@ -9 +8,0 @@
-<pos>&suf;</pos>
@@ -10,0 +10,9 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2576210">ずに</xref>
+<misc>&form;</misc>
+<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb; continuative form of ぬ acting as a negative conjunction</s_inf>
+<gloss>without doing</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&aux-v;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="2257550">ない</xref>
+<misc>&arch;</misc>
@@ -12 +20 @@
-<gloss>not doing</gloss>
+<gloss>not</gloss>

I don't think the proposed revision is very useful to the typical user of this dictionary. There may be scope somewhere for detailed etymological and morphological information about these sorts of terms, but I don't think this is the place.
I'm reverting the entry to the 2016 original so that the comments remain visible. I'll reopen it for a while in case there is further discussion.

@@ -10 +9,0 @@
-<pos>&conj;</pos>
@@ -14,11 +13,2 @@
-<s_inf>連用形 of ～ぬ acting as a conjunction</s_inf>
-<gloss g_type="expl">used to negate a verb and continue onto next sentence</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&aux-v;</pos>
-<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ・1</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ</xref>
-<misc>&form;</misc>
-<s_inf>used at sentence end; old 終止形 of ～ぬ</s_inf>
-<gloss>not</gloss>
+<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb</s_inf>
+<gloss>not doing</gloss>

After some consideration, the translation on [1] should be changed as conjunctive ず is not properly represented by it: this ず conflates coordination and negation into a single morpheme, english has no such morpheme and thus lacks a direct translation. I have considered something such as "does/will not... and..." but that seemed confusing without an example sentence so I opted for an explanatory definition that is, hopefully, clear enough.

I realise I have forgotten to say why I have removed the notes on connection: I did so as I assume the notes will compel a reader to click the cross-reference to ぬ, leading them to learn that from there.

An additional idea that came to mind: this entry could be merged with ぬ by adding ず as a reading and adding this glossary to its, it would only need a few "as ～ず" or "as ～ぬ" to be added to the notes, the same could be done with ん. This practice could be applied to merge other entries that are variations of the same thing and with that trim down the number of individual entries with the benefit of consolidating currently scattered items under their corresponding set.

@@ -15 +15 @@
-<gloss>not</gloss>
+<gloss g_type="expl">used to negate a verb and continue onto next sentence</gloss>

The notes only do two things: tell you what it is and tell you what it does. Do you presuppose that a reader does not wish to know either or neither of these things?
Of course shoving 連用形 or "conjunction" in there will not automatically allow them to directly download information concerning those concepts unto their brain, I truly hope you did not think this to have been my intent. 
The terms are put there so that the reader may research them on their own, they can even be researched back with this dictionary if someone wishes to research through translation. Could you construct an argument against these points, so that we can have a productive discussion and make a better entry?
The information is not there to "cater to grammar nerds" as you so creatively put, it is there to teach the language: grammar plays an important part of second-language acquisition for many, especially adults, even more so when there is such a disparity between the structures of Japanese and several Indo-European languages. Did you learn Japanese without studying any form of grammar? I would doubt that unless you grew up using Japanese.

"連用形" etc. isn't helpful. 99% of users won't know what it's a reference to. If you really were as smart as you seem to think, you'd realize the goal here isn't to cater to the 1% elite grammer nerds

daijs, daijr

Entry was missing the information that ず can form a conjunction.
Added second sense as terminal ず can still be found in set phrases as well as certain media.
Opted for 連用形 and 終止形 over translations as the original Japanese can likely be researched with less potential of wrong results than something such as connective form or terminal form, they can also be looked up within the dictionary whereas translations cannot.

@@ -9,0 +10 @@
+<pos>&conj;</pos>
@@ -13,2 +14,11 @@
-<s_inf>after the -nai stem of a verb</s_inf>
-<gloss>not doing</gloss>
+<s_inf>連用形 of ～ぬ acting as a conjunction</s_inf>
+<gloss>not</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&aux-v;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ・1</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="2441300">ぬ</xref>
+<misc>&form;</misc>
+<s_inf>used at sentence end; old 終止形 of ～ぬ</s_inf>
+<gloss>not</gloss>

koj, etc.