Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Obryn" data-source="post: 4948048" data-attributes="member: 11821">Yep, it's a tough question!&nbsp; And one I've thought about way, way too much with my recent obsession with encrypted radio transmissions from the Cold War.&nbsp; (The Conet Project - look it up!)Part of it is, &quot;What does this spell actually do?&quot;&nbsp; If it is magically able to extract the writer's meaning from the ether, then it goes one way.&nbsp; If it's a very capable magical translator that knows lots of languages (an arcane Babelfish, if you will), it goes another way.I lean towards the Babelfish-style definition.&nbsp; I think that extracting something as ephemeral as &quot;meaning&quot; from a written sentence is a stretch.&nbsp; You also would get weird results for obscured messages this way - you know, classic cloak &amp; dagger spy talk.Let's say a spy is reporting to his superior that his informant has produced a sizable document that works in their favor.&nbsp; He might say something like, &quot;Our goose has laid an egg.&nbsp; The sun is shining brightly.&quot;&nbsp; His words talk about geese and sunshine, but his meaning does not.If the spell is meaning based, it would translate to, &quot;Our informant has given us something.&nbsp; It's good!&quot;&nbsp; If the spell is an arcane Babelfish, it would translate to the stuff about the goose.&nbsp; Basically, if it extracts meaning, the spell is giving you more information than speaking the language would give you.&nbsp; I don't think that's very fair or reasonable. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />You also have varying levels of encryption, from the dirt-simple substitution ciphers to the unbreakable one-time-pads.&nbsp; I think you could make a case for something like a simple letter substitution (though I wouldn't), but letting a low-level spell translate a one-time-pad-encoded message is basically reading an unknown person's mind at a distance and at a certain point in time; the document has no meaning without its key.&nbsp; In none of these cases, though, would a native speaker of a language know enough to give you the real meaning behind the message.And that's kind of what I think of when interpreting these spells.&nbsp; I think of it as getting the assistance of a native speaker.&nbsp; If a native speaker of the language could easily translate a message, then it's translated in the most obvious way possible.&nbsp; If it's encoded, that goes a bit too far.-O</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Obryn, post: 4948048, member: 11821"] Yep, it's a tough question! And one I've thought about way, way too much with my recent obsession with encrypted radio transmissions from the Cold War. (The Conet Project - look it up!) Part of it is, "What does this spell actually do?" If it is magically able to extract the writer's meaning from the ether, then it goes one way. If it's a very capable magical translator that knows lots of languages (an arcane Babelfish, if you will), it goes another way. I lean towards the Babelfish-style definition. I think that extracting something as ephemeral as "meaning" from a written sentence is a stretch. You also would get weird results for obscured messages this way - you know, classic cloak & dagger spy talk. Let's say a spy is reporting to his superior that his informant has produced a sizable document that works in their favor. He might say something like, "Our goose has laid an egg. The sun is shining brightly." His words talk about geese and sunshine, but his meaning does not. If the spell is meaning based, it would translate to, "Our informant has given us something. It's good!" If the spell is an arcane Babelfish, it would translate to the stuff about the goose. Basically, if it extracts meaning, the spell is giving you [I]more[/I] information than speaking the language would give you. I don't think that's very fair or reasonable. :) You also have varying levels of encryption, from the dirt-simple substitution ciphers to the unbreakable one-time-pads. I think you [I]could [/I]make a case for something like a simple letter substitution (though I wouldn't), but letting a low-level spell translate a one-time-pad-encoded message is basically reading an unknown person's mind at a distance and at a certain point in time; the document has no meaning without its key. In none of these cases, though, would a native speaker of a language know enough to give you the real meaning behind the message. And that's kind of what I think of when interpreting these spells. I think of it as getting the assistance of a native speaker. If a native speaker of the language could easily translate a message, then it's translated in the most obvious way possible. If it's encoded, that goes a bit too far. -O [/QUOTE]

Verification