Lens of Deciphering?

[Shadekeep]

I'm curious, can a Lens of Translation be taught a cipher? So that it could be used basically as a magic "secret decoder ring" kind of gizmo?

I ask because a cipher is technically distinct from a language. For example, the color "black" is "noir" in French. So a Lens that knows English and French would translate those two back and forth. But in a cipher, "black" might be "cmbdl" from a simple rot-1 alphabetic substitution. This isn't actually a word in another language, it's the same word but enciphered. Should a Lens still work when a word is enciphered by a standard rule, or does it operate solely on the principle of a lexicon, where it knows the equivalent words between two languages based on their meaning?

On a tangent from this, I pretty much assume that when a word exists in one language with no equivalent in the other, a Lens renders it phonetically in the target language. Like how in Star Trek some words in Klingon or Vulcan don't have Terran equivalents, so they use the original word in the native language.

[FireHorse]

I would consider a Code or Cipher to be a written language. Teaching one to a Lens of Translation is functionally no different from teaching it a language with a different writing system than your own — say, Runes instead of Roman letters.

Originally Posted by Shadekeep

On a tangent from this, I pretty much assume that when a word exists in one language with no equivalent in the other, a Lens renders it phonetically in the target language. Like how in Star Trek some words in Klingon or Vulcan don't have Terran equivalents, so they use the original word in the native language.

Imagine a slightly different scenario: the foreign Word has a direct corollary in your language, but there's a slightly different underlying concept, so the intended Meaning is not quite the same. (Bushido versus Honor, Mr./Mrs./Ms. versus '-san', etc.)

Or even more confusingly, consider this: the Japanese differentiate between 'Green' and 'Blue' at a slightly different location on the color spectrum than Westerners — so there are certain colors that an English-speaker would call 'Green' while a Japanese-speaker would call the same thing 'Blue'. (Traffic lights, for example.)

So what does the Lens of Translation do when it sees the Word 青 ('ao', 'blue') but the color it's referring to is one the owner of the Lens would call 'green'? Does the Lens know how to distinguish intended Meaning?

If it doesn't, then what you really need is a Lens of Interpretation. Because there's a big difference between a Translator and an Interpreter, and that sort of stuff right there is what it is. (It's also why automated translation generally sucks, because algorithms can't be taught to recognize subtle nuances.)

[Shadekeep]

Originally Posted by FireHorse

If it doesn't, then what you really need is a Lens of Interpretation. Because there's a big difference between a Translator and an Interpreter, and that sort of stuff right there is what it is. (It's also why automated translation generally sucks, because algorithms can't be taught to recognize subtle nuances.)

Exactly. That was part of my considerations as well, and why I thought the Lens might leave truly untranslatable words in their original tongue. For example, "déjà vu" has a much more complex meaning than just what the words mean individually in French. So a direct translation of them would miss out much of the intended meaning.

Since a Lens has to be "taught" a language, I think that it's actually the skill and preconceptions of the translator doing the teacher that affect the final result. So if one translator considers the Spanish word "grande" to correspond to "big", that's what their Lens will translate it as. But one who teaches the Lens that "grande" means "large" will result in that translation. Thus one gets a much more individualistic experience with various Lenses, and it's even possible that those Lenses taught by highly skilled translators would be more sought after.

[Anaraxes]

Ciphers are easier than translation for exactly this reason. There might be some sophisticated mathematical concepts behind the design of a crypto algorithm (or there might not!), but the actual execution is usually intended to be as easy as possible -- especially historically, when you're be doing it by hand -- and the meaning of the plaintext is irrelevant, even detrimental if it affects the ciphertext, because then the ciphertext is carrying some meaning that you could correlate.

I'd make decryption/encryption a different spell. You could always enchant one Lens with both spells if you like. But in practice, the intended recipient of your message probably already reads the plaintext language.

A universal decryptor I'd avoid except as a plot device. If the PCs had one, that's very nearly the same as saying that encrypted messages just aren't a point in the campaign. The exception is that little window where only the PCs know about and have the universal decryptor, but other people still think their encryption is secure, so they keep using it. Usually that's a fleeting secret, driving a stage of the plot -- hence the plot device. You might somehow work it in to some sort of secret magic campaign where the PCs are outnumbered rebels or monster hunters that rely on that edge just to survive -- also a plot device.

[Shadekeep]

Right. I have no desire for a "universal translator" in TFT, that would spoil much of the game world for me. I'm just working on backfilling for myself how Lenses function. If they can handle a cipher, then they are capable of learning "rules", since ciphers are rule-based methods of encoding. If they are simply magical dictionaries ("noir" equals "black") then a cipher would be outside their abilities and need to be another kind of Lens, as suggested.

The Telepathy spell does get around translation and language issues between two people, but is useless insofar as written text is concerned. So it's not a universal solution, though a very good one where feasible. I can imagine a number of societies having bans on telepathic devices, however.

[hcobb]

What if you entangle two lenses to be one-time pads for each other?

[KevinJ]

Originally Posted by hcobb

What if you entangle two lenses to be one-time pads for each other?

Just don't reuse your 'one time' pads of the Anglish will break your diplomatic code with Project Venice and learn you are trying to steal their top secret bread recipe.

I could see some encryiption codes being treated as individual languages. I wouldn't think an agency would want more than one code to their native language, just for simplicity sake.

And what if the encryption is based on a book? Word 6 in Paragraph 5 of page 143 of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Or you use the oval cut in a piece of paper that you place over the important bit. There are lots of 'mechanical' encoding systems that a lens just might not be able to duplicate.

[FireHorse]

Originally Posted by Shadekeep

… If they can handle a cipher, then they are capable of learning "rules", since ciphers are rule-based methods of encoding. If they are simply magical dictionaries ("noir" equals "black") then a cipher would be outside their abilities and need to be another kind of Lens, as suggested.

Well, I would argue that a Lens of Translation cannot be a mere dictionary, because that would be next to useless — because any word-for-word translation from one language to another is always going to come out as half-senseless gibberish. It's more than just the Vocabulary that differs, it's the Grammar — any two languages you choose will have different cases and tenses, different structural rules, different word order, and so on.

Simple Example: English is usually SVO (Subject Verb Object), as in "Ragnar killed the Dragon", but Japanese is usually SOV, as in "Ragnar the Dragon killed".

Except that Japanese doesn't use articles at all, so it would really be "Ragnar Dragon killed". And you can omit the Subject if it's understood from context, so "Dragon killed". And for that matter, you can (depending on the cirumstances) omit the Object, too. So just "Killed".

It can get much worse, too. I ain't even trying hard.

So if that Lens of Translation is truly any good at its job, it cannot simply be converting the Vocabulary, one word at a time in the same order. It must be translating the Grammar too, and rearranging things to make intelligible sentences in the target language. (And it also probably must be paying attention to context.)

Which means: Yes, the Lens must surely be capable of learning the much simpler process of deciphering a Cipher (or even decoding a Code). To be honest, I would think it should be child's play, by comparison.

And I rather like the idea of using a pair of them to send Important Secret Messages, but I like even better the idea that not all Lenses of Translation are equally accurate. Maybe the cheap, crappy ones are little more than word-for-word substitution with bad Grammar, while the expensive models are progr—err, enchanted by native speakers.

Maybe such Lenses have Fluency ratings…?

[Shadekeep]

Originally Posted by FireHorse

Well, I would argue that a Lens of Translation cannot be a mere dictionary, because that would be next to useless — because any word-for-word translation from one language to another is always going to come out as half-senseless gibberish. It's more than just the Vocabulary that differs, it's the Grammar — any two languages you choose will have different cases and tenses, different structural rules, different word order, and so on.

Agreed. There has to be some measure of comprehension involved in order to render the translated text worthwhile. So a cipher should be within scope for a Lens, as long as the teacher fully understands it as well.

And I do think that the translation skill of the Lens is directly related to the abilities of the teacher. Thus a Lens instructed by a really gifted translator would be a notably superior item. Just take a look at the different translations of, say, Beowulf or Dante's Inferno. There are significant differences in English, especially when the translation is by someone who is a gifted writer/poet themself. The Seamus Heaney translation of Beowulf and the John Ciardi translation of Inferno are incredible works in my opinion, and miles apart from other efforts using the same sources.

[FireHorse]

Originally Posted by Shadekeep

… And I do think that the translation skill of the Lens is directly related to the abilities of the teacher. Thus a Lens instructed by a really gifted translator would be a notably superior item. …

Some possibilities for story twists come to mind, too. For example, what if the party is working off a set of written directions — a 'text map' — but they were too cheap to buy a good Lens, so the one they're using is junk?

It could be an awful tragedy if their low-budget, Economy Model Lens of Translation failed to correctly distinguish between the accusative and dative cases in Ancient High Proto-Orcish, causing the party to totally botch their attempt to talk their way past the Guardian Golem…