Intuitively I'd guess it doesn't work, but after the borborygmos incident I'm not so sure.

At competitive REL Player A casts gitaxian probe and sees a french ponder (contemplation).
If that player then casts meddling mage naming:
1)Contemplation, trying to mimic the french pronounce or in correct french.
2)Contemplation, but in english, somehow believing that that is the correct translation.
or 3) Writes contemplation on a piece of paper.

Player B can't write contemplation on a piece of paper ask him if he named that and then claim that he named contemplation(click, don't hover), thus still being able to cast ponder, right?

If player A tells the judge he named Contemplation because he saw a card named Contemplation in player B's hand, any sane judge is going to rule that player A named Ponder.

Because judges use their judgment

Yeah, but after that thing with borborygmos I was not completely sure about it.

Can you link to or paraphrase that incident? Some of us have no idea what you're referring to.

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles ... pectation/

The second section, happened in the top 4 of a SCG tournament

Here's what one of the two players said: My opponent named "Borborygmos" with his Pithing Needle when he meant to name "Borborygmos Enraged." I chose to have a judge enforce the choice he made rather than proceeding with the game without calling a judge and assuming Borborygmos Enraged had been named. The judge enforced the rules without making an exception, and my opponent was not allowed to name the card he wanted. I don’t feel great about winning that way, but I don’t feel that bad either. I see it as functionally similar to getting a game loss for a deck reg. error if somebody just puts "Borborygmos" instead of "Borborygmos Enraged." To me, he made a "verbal misplay" rather than a "strategic misplay" and I capitalized on it. Of course, perhaps I should have just let it slide.