What exactly IS wrong with the naming conventions of Kamigawa?
A name basically does three things:
1) It creates flavor
2) It conveys mechanical information (usually letting you know what card type it is)
3) It allows players to have a shared language to talk about the card.
The naming conventions of Kamigawa get in the way of all three goals.
1) The names were trying to have a unique feel and thus are parsed to have a lyrical quality. The problem was while they feel different from normal names, they feel too similar from one another. The names feel like Kamigawa names, but often lack a clear sense of how one stands apart from the others.
2) This leads into a functional problem. Normally when you hear a name you have clues as to what kind of a card it is. Counsel of the Soratami. Is that a creature? An enchantment? An instant or sorcery? Who knows? They all sound so similar.
3) This construction then creates another big problem. Because the names are different and don’t have an internal system to differentiate them, the brain has a hard time locking onto them. This makes them “unsticky” meaning players have a hard time recalling names. This criticism came up again and again. It’s hard to have a shared language when people can’t remember it.
That is what’s wrong with the naming conventions of Kamigawa.