Lens of Deciphering?

[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…

[Shadekeep]

Ha ha, yes, there are quite a few opportunities! Some of those terribly translated product instruction leaflets come to mind too. Can you imagine trying to use an ancient artifact with instructions equivalent to those of a cheap knock-off electronic gadget? "To ensure the great happening, be always to not make quiet the sad blue thing." ^_^

[KevinJ]

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. 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.

I have the Seamus Heaney translation of Beowolf and it's the best I've ever read. The more fluent the teacher, the better the translations will be. Appropriate secret codes would be no different. Heck, you could invent a gibberish language for the sole intent of writing 'secret messages'. Voynich manuscript, anyone?

[Shadekeep]

Originally Posted by KevinJ

I have the Seamus Heaney translation of Beowolf and it's the best I've ever read. The more fluent the teacher, the better the translations will be. Appropriate secret codes would be no different. Heck, you could invent a gibberish language for the sole intent of writing 'secret messages'. Voynich manuscript, anyone?

Bingo! The Voynich manuscript was one of the books I had in mind when asking this question. It looks a lot like a cipher disguised as a made-up language and is the kind of argot that Cidri secret orders might use between their members. The Lens essentially functions as a codebook, only much faster for decoding and encoding. (For the latter, write out the text in your own language, and then let the Lens show you the translated "encoded" version, which you copy out on another sheet. Be sure to burn or erase the "plaintext" original.)

[FireHorse]

I wonder… if you used a Vigenère cipher, would you need a separate Lens for each keyword that might be used?