ただ is meant to be split out - the second one has a meaning only associated with that (rare) kanji. This is one of the weaknesses of the way that words (with differing kanji) are split up, compared to something like jisho
Looks like there’s a history there. I wonder what Breen means by gikun-ish. If he’s saying that using 亡う for senses 1, 2, or 4 is equivalent to gikun, that would argue against having it as an alternative spelling for 失う.
I feel like 亡う/うしなう doesn't really function as a normal alternative spelling of 失う in contemporary usage. It's, at most, a rare, mostly stylistic ateji meant to evoke the nuance of "losing someone" (3). I very much doubt any native speaker would consider using 亡う for senses 1, 2, or 4 as "normal".
「亡う」は、もともとは「亡(な)う」とも書かれ、現代の「亡くなる」に相当します。← this seems to be claiming that 亡う is an older/literary form related to 亡くなる
Anyway, would "Rarely written as:" be a better fit for it? Personally, I don't like how some dictionaries handle "Also written as:", since it provides zero context for a) how common the different forms are, and b) what nuance they might carry, or which senses they apply to.
I prefer when dictionaries include additional notes under specific senses, pointing out when an alternative spelling only applies there. I understand that that's not always possible.
PS: Not complaining, just something I've noticed.
Edit: Actually, don't mind the "Rarely written as:" comment, that doesn't work either.
I feel like 亡う/うしなう doesn't really function as a normal alternative spelling of 失う in contemporary usage.
I think we all agree on that. The question is what to do about it. Ideally, Michael and Jim would work something out, but neither one of them has a lot of bandwidth available for things like this.
An easy win might be to mark the 4-sense entry as hidden. If that’s not a good idea for some reason, then the status quo is probably the best least-bad option.
Hmm... well, Jisho (and a few other sources) doesn't have 亡う listed under 失う, I'm guessing that was a deliberate choice, since they should pull from the same source? They just have it (亡う) as a fully separate entry. That seems like a valid option.
By the way, why mark sense 4 as hidden? 失う is used for that one. E.g. in certain sports you say 点を失う. I don't think you can hide any of them, since 失う is used for all 4. Or did you mean something else?
I also thought both 亡う entries visible in the dictionary pointed to the same term, but it looks like that's not the case:
The top one, that's the one under 失う, doesn't make sense to me. It shouldn't have sense 1 and 2, imo. Maybe at least get rid of that one and link the bottom one to 失う? Or just have them fully separate like on Jisho?
