Talk:ピチャンチャチャラ語

ピチャンチャチャラ語
The old entry was deleted, but this one seems almost as tenuous. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What is BGC? And I don’t understand your request this time. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * books.google.com, Google Books. The abbreviation confused me, too, when I first saw it many months ago. - -sche (discuss) 02:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, Google Books. The hit count doesn’t matter, because ピチャンチャチャラ語 is the name used in Gengogaku Daijiten: . I said it’s well attested. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That dictionary is entirely unhelpful, as far as I can tell with my lack of Japanese knowledge (I keep seeing 语 and thinking yǔ, then realizing that I need to switch to my almost nonexistent knowledge of Japanese. go, I believe.). If you do not know what citing an entry entails, please read WT:ATTEST. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It sais: “Attested” means verified through: […] 2. use in a well-known work, […]. Well, Gengogaku Daijiten is a well-known encyclopedia on linguistics you can easily find at local libraries in Japan. That should be enough. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, that's really stretching "well-known work". That's meant for Shakespeare and the like. Secondly, does Gengogaku Daijiten even use the word, as opposed to mentioning it? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No citations in the entry used the term, and I share MK's doubts about counting a reference work as a "well-known work". It seems that by that argument, any word the OED used in a definiens could be included... :/
 * I have tentatively deleted the entry. - -sche (discuss) 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A bit late at this point, but I could find one Google Books use (not just mention):
 * That's only one cite out of three needed, but it's a start. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)