2012/12/20 Jukka K. Korpela <[email protected]> > So I think this would be the real challenge: to define names for such > Unicode characters that are relevant and for which suitable common names > are available or can be formed. But as such, lists of names have little > impact unless they become known and accepted and used. This is why it would > be much more important to name, say, 50 commonly used characters that have > no well-established name in a language than to spend time in naming 5,000 > characters. >
I also agree : for the examplar characters used to write a language, if they have names, these names will be used. For the rest, the other names will more or less be a facsimile of known characters. And some terminology used in Unicode is perfectly translatable, even if they are not complely unique once translated. Some Unicode names were also mere transliterations of names used n another language, though imprecise : the source language is probably more precise and less approximative. Given the form of these names in the UCD, most of them could be translated automatically using a common dictionnary and resolving some terminologies that are approximative in Unicode. But translated names should not be capitalized and not restricted to plain ASCII (including in US English, that is not really the human language used in standard names of the UCD but names in a computer language like in the default "C" locale).
