Comprehending languages and knowing which languages they are

[delericho]

Well, whomever wrote it took the time to phonetically sound out words in one language using the alphabet of another, so is that not deliberately obfuscated?

By itself, I don't think so.

For example, a diplomat might have to learn a ritual greeting in a language he doesn't know, just to open a dialogue. In that case, his translator might well produce a phonetic transliteration in the diplomat's alphabet, rather than requiring the diplomat to either memorise it or work in the unfamiliar alphabet.

If that greeting were written down, then, comprehend languages should be able to translate it - it's somehow able to distinguish between text that is merely in an unfamiliar language and one that is intentionally coded.

(But here's a strange corner case - what about the use of, say, Navajo as in WWII? Assuming no other cipher is used, should comprenhend languages be able to translate it? After all, the message is entirely comprehensible to a native speaker. But on the other hand, it has been chosen for use precisely as a means to obscure that information.)

 

[the Jester]

(But here's a strange corner case - what about the use of, say, Navajo as in WWII? Assuming no other cipher is used, should comprenhend languages be able to translate it? After all, the message is entirely comprehensible to a native speaker. But on the other hand, it has been chosen for use precisely as a means to obscure that information.)

That's neither strange nor a corner case, IMHO, and is exactly what CL is for. I don't see how there is any dispute- Navajo is a a language, and there's no other encoding involved. Obviously, YMMV, but I think weird, unusual and rare tongues are exactly why CL exists.

I really don't think there's an "other hand" here; the fact is that there is no CL in the real world, and if there were, I would be willing to bet that the U.S. would have used other codes instead.

 

[delericho]

That's neither strange nor a corner case, IMHO, and is exactly what CL is for. I don't see how there is any dispute- Navajo is a a language, and there's no other encoding involved. Obviously, YMMV, but I think weird, unusual and rare tongues are exactly why CL exists.

I really don't think there's an "other hand" here; the fact is that there is no CL in the real world, and if there were, I would be willing to bet that the U.S. would have used other codes instead.

The "other hand" is that CL can somehow distinguish between text written to convey meaning versus text written to obscure it - otherwise, it would have no problem with the Caesar cipher or many other simple codes. And the use of Navajo in WWII was specifically to obscure the meaning.

 

[Storminator]

Just watched a Doctor Who episode, and one of the characters said "wait, they're speaking Russian? Wait, I'm speaking Russian?!" I think it's entirely reasonable that CL wouldn't tell you the language it's translating - and even that you wouldn't know it was translating if you had it up and came across something written down.

Sounds like an interesting effect. But will it be interesting to your players?

PS

 

[Umbran]

Well, whomever wrote it took the time to phonetically sound out words in one language using the alphabet of another, so is that not deliberately obfuscated?

No, it isn't. It is written specifically so someone who knows the alphabet can speak the words. A listener who knew the language would generally understand the words. That's not obfuscation, and more than putting something into Braille is obfuscation.

One of the tidbits to get here is the difference between a cipher and a code. In a cipher, text is mangled in a way unpredictable to the uninitiated, so that they cannot discern meaning. In a code, the definition of the word is changed in an agreed upon way, so that even a reader who knows the language will not understand the true intended meaning of the words. Ciphers work on the level of individual letters, codes work on the level of word meanings. So, ROT13 is a cipher (a really simple substitution cipher), but claiming someone is a "real Leeroy Jenkins" would be a code.

I'd normally say that CL breaks ciphers - mangle the letters however you like, that magic deals with that, but it misses codes, as it gives you the common literal meaning of the words.

Basically, CL would probably choke on Cockney rhyming slang.

 

[Alzrius]

No, it isn't. It is written specifically so someone who knows the alphabet can speak the words. A listener who knew the language would generally understand the words.

Well, that's a question of intent. It's written "specifically" for whatever reason someone wrote it that way. As [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] noted, there have been people using such efforts for the purposes of obfuscation.

 

[Umbran]

Well, that's a question of intent.

No, it is a question of efficacy, when up against magic. It is like a big man hiding behind a sapling - his intent is to hide, but it just isn't going to do the trick.

 

[Alzrius]

No, it is a question of efficacy, when up against magic.

You're moving the goalposts, here. You said that "it" (the text) is written "specifically so someone who knows the alphabet can speak the words," as your justification for why the spell would translate the writing. That's a statement of intent, not efficacy - the question of efficacy is entirely different (and rather difficult to debate, as it requires a fairly intricate dissection of a system of magic that is, I think, ill-defined for that level of analysis).

It is like a big man hiding behind a sapling - his intent is to hide, but it just isn't going to do the trick.

That's your opinion on how well such magic would work in such a circumstance, but it doesn't say anything as to why you think that's so, besides a simplistic analogy.

 

[Umbran]

You're moving the goalposts, here. You said that "it" (the text) is written "specifically so someone who knows the alphabet can speak the words," as your justification for why the spell would translate the writing

No. If I had said, "...it is written specifically for the purpose of..." that would imply intent. I was speaking of the final result - a text that cold be read and understood. Pardon me if my wording didn't reflect that.

That being said, the intent of the author is not mentioned in the spell description, so I personally take it to be irrelevant. The spell description says that it allows you to "read otherwise incomprehensible messages". The spell explicitly falls short of being able to deal with you changing the meaning of the words, but the manner of writing it down seems to be irrelevant in the spell description.

You can, of course, do whatever you want in your own game. I'm just going by the basic spell description.

 

[Alzrius]

No. If I had said, "...it is written specifically for the purpose of..." that would imply intent. I was speaking of the final result - a text that cold be read and understood. Pardon me if my wording didn't reflect that.

That being said, the intent of the author is not mentioned in the spell description, so I personally take it to be irrelevant.

Yes. You said it was written "specifically so" - the use of "so" there is understood to mean "for the purpose of"; changing the grammar used, in this particular regard, doesn't change the meaning of what you stated previously.

Now, if you want to abandon that particular line of reasoning, that's fine, but don't say that you weren't using it in the first place.

The spell description says that it allows you to "read otherwise incomprehensible messages". The spell explicitly falls short of being able to deal with you changing the meaning of the words, but the manner of writing it down seems to be irrelevant in the spell description.

You're stepping into a problematic area by saying "you changing the meaning of the words," since you're not specifying how you do that - indeed, the issue of assigning meaning to something you write can be based around nothing more than the intent of the author at the time of writing. As Humpty Dumpty observed:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

So the idea that the spell falls short by you "changing the meaning of the words" is clearly not true, since that gets back to the area of intent, which you've already said you weren't arguing to begin with.

Likewise, writing something down does matter to the spell description, since it says it can't break codes, so that's hardly irrelevant. Indeed, the spell description says that it does not reveal messages "concealed in otherwise normal text." It's entirely possible to understand that part as meaning that it wouldn't make a transliteration comprehensible, since using one alphabet could be considered "normal" text, and using it to sound out foreign words could be concealing their meaning (since they have no meaning in the language(s) that alphabet is normally used in).

You can, of course, do whatever you want in your own game. I'm just going by the basic spell description.

It's more correct to say that you're interpreting the spell description, and that your interpretation is no more or less correct than anyone else's. You should feel free to use that interpretation, though; you can, of course, do whatever you want in your own game.