Talk:プートンファ

プートンホワ
Google Books and Google Scholar hits suggest that it is a mere transcription of Mandarin putonghua into the Katakana script, and is not used *in Japanese* to *mean* Mandarin. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 06:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe http://www.kouiki-kansai.jp/material/files/group/3/1489641496.pdf
 * http://st.japantimes.co.jp/english_news/essay/2007/ey20070427/ey20070427main.htm
 * http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/life/worlds-sexiest-accents-415924/
 * http://www.interq.or.jp/white/ishiyama/news201603.html


 * With the possible exception of the PDF (and maybe even there too), those are all cases where the term is being used as a distinctly foreign term that Japanese readers are not expected to know -- they all include glosses immediately afterwards, a clear indication that the authors do not consider this to be a Japanese term understood by their readers. It's as if I described this situation as a clear instance of Wörterzusammenplatzierungsmissverständniss (a confusion of formatting and term use, erroneously viewed as evidence of lexicality [made up just now for purposes of illustration] ).  Without the gloss, the readership would not be expected to know the term, and even with the gloss, the term is not necessarily viewed as a lexical term belonging to the main language of the text.
 * Iff (if and only if) we can find at least three instances of in use in running Japanese text, without glosses, and clearly used to mean Mandarin Chinese, this term does not meet our criteria for inclusion.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RFV failed. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)