I've seen "unicodé" or "uniencodé" used informally in various French articles or discussions (but not in dictionnaries). But after all Apple is also a trademark, this does not restrict people using it for the fruit. Trademarks often reserve common words for use with specific products or company names in some country in some registered activities, this doesnot mean they take rights on everything or even in every place where they were also legally registered (possibly in the same domain of activity).
"Unicoding" (and related verb forms without the necessary leading capital) can legitimately be found to just refer to the UCS or the ISO 10646 standard, not just the "Unicode Consortium" and its standard(s), activities or domain name/web site, or any derived application based on the UCS. There's some freedom here, even if one cannot use it freely to refer to another organization anyway the term "Unicode" is now wellknown in lots of languages. It's also natural that people want ot rewrite it in their native script. I just wonder why the Consortium did not document at least some correct orthography for use in other script than Latin, even if these alternate names are not registered. However there's no need to document variant orthographies such as "Unikod" which may be used in some other Latin-written language. There should be such listed terms in other scripts with at least Cyrillic, Greek, Georgian, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Hangul, Kanas and possibly Bopomofo (I wonder if there's any way to write it with Han sinograms by composing a radical and phonetic strokes). Even if these terms are not "standardized" and really supported, it would be convenient to find some external references (even if they are not fully conforming or criticizing some existing problems), just to know what other people are doing with the standard and how open it is really, even for fancy uses. As this standard wants to be universal, people will naturally challenge this openness and will want to reappropriate it partly. This is not a defect but a consequence of the fact that this standard is vivid, productful and can even accept some innovations and remain evolutive and attractive. 2017-04-10 18:01 GMT+02:00 Aleksey Tulinov <[email protected]>: > On 04/10/2017 12:54 PM, Janusz S. Bień wrote: > > > Grammatical Dictionary of Polish contains only "unicode": > > > > http://sgjp.pl/leksemy/#73537/unicode > > > > I'm deeply impressed that dictionary contains grammar for registered > trademarks. Google and Microsoft are also there, but not Oracle. I'm not > confident i understand how that works. > > To compare to Cambridge Dictionary: > > http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/google?fa > llbackFrom=british-grammar > > Apparently "google" is a verb as in "to google", and this is why it's in > the dictionary, but "Microsoft" and "Unicode" are missing. > > > This is probably the reason why, to my surprise, the word was > > introduced also in some other Slavonic languages, e.g. > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Unikod. > > > > I believe "Юникод" in Russian is just a foreign word adopted by language, > and it's a russism, it's a way of saying "Unicode" in Russian (phonetically > the same). So apparently word "юникод" was adopted as a noun, similarly to > how "google" was adopted in English as a verb. > >
