# Does the Tongues Spell Allow You to Read?



## tylermalan (Dec 17, 2011)

As the title: If you cast the spell _Tongues_ can you also understand written languages, similar to _Comprehend Languages_?


----------



## master arminas (Dec 17, 2011)

Comprehend Languages
_You can understand the spoken words of creatures or read otherwise incomprehensible written messages.  The ability to read does not necessarily impart insight into the material, merely its literal meaning.  The spell enables you to understand or read an unknown language, not speak or write it._

Tongues
_This spell grants the creature touched the ability to speak and understand the language of any intelligent creature, whether it is a racial tonuge or a regional dialect.  The subject can speak only one language at a time, although it may be able to understand several languages.  Tongues does not enable the subject to speak with creatures who don't speak._

So, no.  Tongues grants no ability at reading written languages, and comprehend languages grants no ability to speak spoken languages.  If you want both abilities, you need both spells.  Please note that neither spell will allow you to write a language you don't know.

Master Arminas


----------



## tylermalan (Dec 17, 2011)

So, here is my dilemma.  Notice that the description of Tongues says that you can understand a language.  When we check Dictionary.com, we find...



			
				dictionary.com said:
			
		

> lan·guage   [lang-gwij]
> noun
> 
> 1. a body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition: the two languages of Belgium; a Bantu language; the French language; the Yiddish language.
> ...




There are multiple references to the word _language_ including written symbols.  So, if you were able to understand a language, you would be able to understand the written parts, as well.  I would not make this argument if the description of the Tongues spell specifically says that you can only understand spoken languages, but it seems that the literal reading of the spell description (coupled with the definition of the word 'language') states that a person under the effect of this spell can:

1)  Understand spoken word.
2)  Understand written word.
3)  Produce spoken word.
4)  Can NOT produce written word.


----------



## master arminas (Dec 17, 2011)

Unfortunately, no.  The key parts are highlighted in bold:

Tongues
_This spell grants the creature touched the ability to *speak and understand* the language of any intelligent creature, whether it is a racial tonuge or a regional dialect. The subject can *speak* only one language at a time, although it may be able to *understand* several languages. Tongues does not enable the subject to *speak* with creatures who don't *speak*._

While you are quite correct in your defination of language, _tongues_ also specifically references speak, refering to the spoken word.  Unlike _comprehend languages_ which also references reading written material.

The spell does not allow you to read written material; for that you have to use _comprehend languages_ or learn the language the old fashioned way.

Master Arminas


----------



## Morrus (Dec 17, 2011)

I think the intent is clearly verbal rather than written.  One may be able to out-semanticify the designers and point to alternate definitions of words from the dictionary, but the intent is - to me, at least - extremely clear.


----------



## enrious (Dec 17, 2011)

Quick guideline when trying to interpret the Pathfinder rules:  Context matters more than the definition in the dictionary.

In the case of the two spells, tylermalan, I understand your point that when we think of languages, we think of them as also encompassing a written component. But in Pathfinder, that is not automatically the case.

I can think of real-world examples where there is a written language without a spoken component, just as there are spoken languages without a written component (at least natively), so this actually makes sense.

In any event, let's take the above case of Comprehend Languages:



> You can understand the spoken words of creatures or read otherwise incomprehensible written messages.




Notice how it clearly states spoken words and clearly states read otherwise...messages?



> The ability to read does not necessarily impart insight into the material, merely its literal meaning.




Fairly plain what this means.



> The spell enables you to understand or read an unknown language, not speak or write it.




Notice how it clearly says both speak and write, rather than simply saying "communicate"?  This isn't a stylistic choice, this is to make it clear what the boundries are.  The spell does not allow you to write or to speak in an unknown language.


Let's contrast that to the Tongues spell:



> This spell grants the creature touched the ability to speak and understand the language of any intelligent creature, whether it is a racial tonuge or a regional dialect.




Notice here that it clearly spells out "speak and understand" but makes no effort to say "write".



> The subject can speak only one language at a time, although it may be able to understand several languages.




Again, no mention of writing - unlike Comprehend Languages.



> Tongues does not enable the subject to speak with creatures who don't speak.




Here is plenty of circumstantial evidence that is only via a spoken language that this spell can work.   Thus, if you were dealing with a creature who only had a written language, from the wording of this sentence, the spell would fail and that indicates that Tongues does not apply to writing.


----------



## enrious (Dec 17, 2011)

Morrus said:


> One may be able to out-semanticify the designers and point to alternate definitions of words from the dictionary, but the intent is - to me, at least - extremely clear.




If the OP's location is correct, then the OP may be a native-German speaker and trying to understand the nuances of English (and Pathfinder English) rather than wrangling out some sort of lawyerrific advantage.

If so, the OP has my sympathies.   I wouldn't wish English on anyone.


----------



## jonesy (Dec 18, 2011)

Isn't Tongues an allusion to 'speaking in tongues' which in olden times was thought to be people speaking in languages they didn't understand (instead of just uttering gibberish which is the more likely explanation)?


----------



## enrious (Dec 18, 2011)

jonesy said:


> Isn't Tongues an allusion to 'speaking in tongues' which in olden times was thought to be people speaking in languages they didn't understand (instead of just uttering gibberish which is the more likely explanation)?




Setting aside the "likely explanation" (too close to a religion discussion), then it's my understanding of the source.

The idea being that you were speaking a tongue foreign to you and yet other people could understand it, even if they didn't know it either.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 18, 2011)

enrious said:


> If the OP's location is correct, then the OP may be a native-German speaker and trying to understand the nuances of English (and Pathfinder English) rather than wrangling out some sort of lawyerrific advantage.
> 
> If so, the OP has my sympathies.   I wouldn't wish English on anyone.




True. That certainly puts this thread in the running for the irony awards.


----------



## enrious (Dec 18, 2011)

Morrus said:


> True. That certainly puts this thread in the running for the irony awards.






Irony: The universal language.


----------



## tylermalan (Dec 18, 2011)

Ha, that's funny!  My location is correct but I'm from the US, so no problem here.  And actually, I'm originally from St. Louis, enrious.

As for the original question, I had a game last night where I posed this question to my group (as I just acquired a new Inquisitor spell and wanted to take Tongues), and we decided to play it as you guys would - it does not allow you to read.

However, from a purely RAW perspective, I have to mention that I'm not totally convinced.  I agree that the examples and analysis going on in this thread _allude_ to a particular ruling, but I don't think that this ruling is specified by the wording of the spell.

As an example, lets say that someone hands you a piece of paper with some writing on it.  They ask you, "Do you understand this?"  This is a legitimate question, as your _understanding_ of the _language_ determines your answer.  So, if you had a spell active on your person that allows you to _understand_ any _language_... see what I mean?

Though, interestingly, prior to starting this thread I had not made a connection concerning the spell itself and the spell's title... which, I agree, implies a certain usage.


----------



## paradox42 (Dec 18, 2011)

For the record, my groups have always played it the way tylermalan suggested it should be in the original post- our logic was that since it's a higher-level effect, it should be able to incorporate the lower-level "reading" effect too. It is true, though, that the RAW alone does not necessarily support that view.

Also, as an interesting aside, some stories I've heard/read about the "speaking in tongues" effect suggest that a person doing it could speak to several people, and have each individual interpret the words as being from a different language- that is, listener A might think it was Latin, while listener B thinks it's Etruscan, listener C thinks it's Greek, and so forth. Would this sort of thing be achievable with one casting of the _Tongues_ spell, do you think? Or should it be an even higher-level spell, perhaps called "Glossolalia" or something? (Yes, I know that's the technical/scientific name for the "speaking in tongues" effect- that was an intentional choice.)


----------



## jonesy (Dec 18, 2011)

enrious said:


> Setting aside the "likely explanation" (too close to a religion discussion)



Even if you allow for a religious explanation, or even an in-game 'we know there's magic because the rulebook says so' perspective, gibberish is still the more likely explanation. Likely implying a certain percentage of cases.


----------



## enrious (Dec 18, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> As for the original question, I had a game last night where I posed this question to my group (as I just acquired a new Inquisitor spell and wanted to take Tongues), and we decided to play it as you guys would - it does not allow you to read.
> 
> However, from a purely RAW perspective, I have to mention that I'm not totally convinced.  I agree that the examples and analysis going on in this thread _allude_ to a particular ruling, but I don't think that this ruling is specified by the wording of the spell.




I would be careful going with just a RAW approach - we make a lot of assumptions about things in the rules because they are not specifically stated or are worded poorly.



> As an example, lets say that someone hands you a piece of paper with some writing on it.  They ask you, "Do you understand this?"  This is a legitimate question, as your _understanding_ of the _language_ determines your answer.  So, if you had a spell active on your person that allows you to _understand_ any _language_... see what I mean?




The problem is that there are many meanings to the word "understand" - do you _comprehend_ what the words mean, do you _comprehend_ the significance of the words, etc.

For example, consider:

"The domestic canine quadruped progressed at a superior velocity in a position anterior to the vehicle motivated by dual equine traction."  (one of my favorite sentences)

Now, you may "understand" what every single word in that sentence means, but do you "understand" the import of the sentence, what it actually is saying?  (rhetorical)


But even beyond that, your example is one of literacy, not understanding or comprehension - and again note the difference in wording of the two spells.


----------



## enrious (Dec 18, 2011)

paradox42 said:


> For the record, my groups have always played it the way tylermalan suggested it should be in the original post- our logic was that since it's a higher-level effect, it should be able to incorporate the lower-level "reading" effect too. It is true, though, that the RAW alone does not necessarily support that view.




And were that the ruling at the table, I'd have no objection because I think a case could be made for it (I think a stronger case could be made the other way but neither can be "proven" wrong) that supports that interpretation.

One thing I'd caution though - equating spell levels to power.   For example, maybe the reason that they increased the spell level was because unlike Comprehend Languages, Tongues can be cast on a target other than the caster or whatnot.

Also, I missed the import of the second paragraph of Comprehend Languages:



			
				PRD said:
			
		

> Written material can be read at the rate of one page (250 words) per minute. Magical writing cannot be read, though the spell reveals that it is magical. This spell can be foiled by certain warding magic (such as the secret page and illusory script spells). It does not decipher codes or reveal messages concealed in otherwise normal text.




Here you have rules for reading with Comprehend Languages - yet there is no such information with the Tongues spell.  Two logical conclusions spring to mind (if anyone can think of others, please contribute):

1) The information is not present for Tongues because Tongues cannot be used that way.

2) There is no limit to the amount of information per minute that can be read while under the influence of Tongues, it also allows for magical writing to be read, it cannot be foiled by certain warding magic, and it allows for the deciphering of codes or revealing messages concealed in otherwise normal text.



> Also, as an interesting aside, some stories I've heard/read about the "speaking in tongues" effect suggest that a person doing it could speak to several people, and have each individual interpret the words as being from a different language- that is, listener A might think it was Latin, while listener B thinks it's Etruscan, listener C thinks it's Greek, and so forth. Would this sort of thing be achievable with one casting of the _Tongues_ spell, do you think? Or should it be an even higher-level spell, perhaps called "Glossolalia" or something? (Yes, I know that's the technical/scientific name for the "speaking in tongues" effect- that was an intentional choice.)




Tongues, Communal

I think that spell could and it'd make a great role-playing opportunity, IMO.  But then, in my campaign world, there's over 60 languages present on one continent alone.


----------



## enrious (Dec 18, 2011)

jonesy said:


> Even if you allow for a religious explanation, or even an in-game 'we know there's magic because the rulebook says so' perspective, gibberish is still the more likely explanation. Likely implying a certain percentage of cases.




Again, not discussing the rightness or wrongness of your assertion, for me it's too close to a religious discussion (for example, someone who believes they have spoken in or witness someone who did could come by and offer up a spirited rebuttal) and to my understanding, ENWorld would prefer that such matters not be addressed here.


----------



## paradox42 (Dec 18, 2011)

enrious said:


> Tongues, Communal
> 
> I think that spell could and it'd make a great role-playing opportunity, IMO.  But then, in my campaign world, there's over 60 languages present on one continent alone.



You misunderstood what I was saying, I think. Let me try it a different way.

Character under the effect of _Tongues_ is called "Speaker."

Speaker says something to a group of four people, call them "Listener A, Listener B, Listener C," and "Listener D."

Listener A is from Rome, and is a native speaker of Latin.

Listener B is from southern Italy, and is a native speaker of Etruscan.

Listener C is from Athens, and is a native speaker of Greek.

Listener D is from Ashurbanipal, and is a native speaker of Persian.

Speaker says something in the unique "language" allowed him by the _Tongues_ spell. He just speaks once, and thinks of the words in whatever language he likes (most likely his native one).

Listener A hears Latin, as if Speaker were using Latin to talk (even though he's not). Listener B hears Etruscan, as if Speaker were using Etruscan (even though he's not). Listener C hears Greek, as if Speaker were using Greek (even though he's not). Listener D hears Persian, as if Speaker were using Persian (even though he's not).

It's a really weird and subtle effect, not directly implied by the wording of the existing _Tongues_ spell.


On another note, I have a world with lots of languages too.  Each continent has its own Common tongue, and the Underdark has Undercommon; there are some 70-odd different languages to learn (some of which are dead languages used by civilizations that were snuffed out for one reason or another centuries ago). I also wrote in rules for special things like language families (for example, several varieties of Dwarven, but learning one gives you a bonus on Linguistics with others in the family even if you don't technically speak them) and "espionage" languages (two different languages use the same symbols for writing, allowing you to hide secret messages in one language within a "surface message" written in the other). They might rarely or never come up in play, but I like having the option of using them for a cooler campaign.


----------



## enrious (Dec 19, 2011)

paradox42 said:


> You misunderstood what I was saying, I think. Let me try it a different way.




I got you and while I don't know of any spell that allows that _without_ "activating" listeners, I pointed out the group version of Tongues and how with a little campaign flavor could do just that.  (Everyone hears their own language)



> On another note, I have a world with lots of languages too.  Each continent has its own Common tongue, and the Underdark has Undercommon; there are some 70-odd different languages to learn (some of which are dead languages used by civilizations that were snuffed out for one reason or another centuries ago). I also wrote in rules for special things like language families (for example, several varieties of Dwarven, but learning one gives you a bonus on Linguistics with others in the family even if you don't technically speak them) and "espionage" languages (two different languages use the same symbols for writing, allowing you to hide secret messages in one language within a "surface message" written in the other). They might rarely or never come up in play, but I like having the option of using them for a cooler campaign.




On one continent, a French analogue serves as the lower common while a Latin analogue serves as the upper common.  In addition to national languages, there are tribal languages and so on - but I don't have anything really analogous to Common or Undercommon - there are racial languages, but orcs seperated by say 500 miles are unlikely to speak the same language.

As we're currently doing a Thieves campaign in Ptolus, I reintroduced something woefully removed - Underworld Cant.  I wonder how many people read of Cant in 1e and thought it was all made up?


----------



## Bloodspoor (Dec 19, 2011)

Just buy a babble fish and stick it in your ear once. End of discussion and no magic was needed. http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Babble_Fish_(3.5e_Creature)


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 19, 2011)

paradox42 said:


> You misunderstood what I was saying, I think. Let me try it a different way.
> 
> Character under the effect of _Tongues_ is called "Speaker."
> 
> ...




Actually, from my reading of _Tongues_, that's incorrect.  The "Speaker" would be able to understand anything spoken to him in any of the languages mentioned above.  However, when he addresses the four, if he wants someone to understand him, he'll have to chose one of the four languages to speak in - say Latin.  The other three speakers will have to either puzzle out what he said or wait until he repeats it in their native language.


----------



## Bloodspoor (Dec 19, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Actually, from my reading of _Tongues_, that's incorrect.  The "Speaker" would be able to understand anything spoken to him in any of the languages mentioned above.  However, when he addresses the four, if he wants someone to understand him, he'll have to chose one of the four languages to speak in - say Latin.  The other three speakers will have to either puzzle out what he said or wait until he repeats it in their native language.




He was referring to the actual real life application of speaking in tongues while you're referring to the game's ruling on the spells. He's simply saying that the game is not accurate to life. The spell is a misnomer, nothing more.


----------



## paradox42 (Dec 19, 2011)

Folklore about real-life speaking in tongues, yes. I don't think the spell is a misnomer, just that that extra application seems to have been lost in translation. And it could be cool to put it back.

If the basic _Tongues_ spell doesn't do it, then neither will the group version, since its rules text states "This spell functions like _Tongues_, except you divide the duration..." So no, it won't function any differently from basic _Tongues_.

Perhaps the weird "each listener hears a different language" effect would be better as a psionic power.

And, anybody who thought Cant was made up clearly never read any Planescape books during 2E. Those books were *full* of the stuff. Got rather annoying for me, actually.


----------



## enrious (Dec 19, 2011)

paradox42 said:


> Folklore about real-life speaking in tongues, yes. I don't think the spell is a misnomer, just that that extra application seems to have been lost in translation. And it could be cool to put it back.
> 
> If the basic _Tongues_ spell doesn't do it, then neither will the group version, since its rules text states "This spell functions like _Tongues_, except you divide the duration..." So no, it won't function any differently from basic _Tongues_.
> 
> ...


----------



## paradox42 (Dec 19, 2011)

enrious said:


> Which is why I said add in some campaign flavor.  Honestly, what happens if you change the effect of the Tongues spell to work as you describe?  Nothing bad and potentially a cool role playing hook.
> 
> Own your game, don't let it own you.



Personal preference. When I have an idea that the game's official spells don't cover, I prefer to invent a new one rather than change the existing one.  The question back in my first post on the subject suggested just that, actually, and it seems that people here mostly agree that the basic _Tongues_ in the Core Rules does not do it. So, looks like I'll be adding another spell to my list of new ones (I've made quite a lot of spells, actually).


----------



## enrious (Dec 20, 2011)

paradox42 said:


> Personal preference. When I have an idea that the game's official spells don't cover, I prefer to invent a new one rather than change the existing one.  The question back in my first post on the subject suggested just that, actually, and it seems that people here mostly agree that the basic _Tongues_ in the Core Rules does not do it. So, looks like I'll be adding another spell to my list of new ones (I've made quite a lot of spells, actually).




Yep, whichever way you prefer for your campaign.

If you make a spell, please post it so we can mock i...I mean comment and steal it.


----------



## Pliantreality (Dec 20, 2011)

Let me predicate this post with a caveat; anything I proffer here should be taken with a grain of salt.  Preferably the kind which rival Betelgeuse in size and density.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the spell name is a reference to the idiom 'Speaking in Tongues' which has been around awhile.  That idiom is itself offspring from something called 'glossolalia' (god help me on spelling), which was a supposedly religious experience in which the speaker tapped into a sacred, universal language.  Purportedly, to speak in tongues was to speak the fundamental language of heaven.  Or something.

The idiom as we know it today - speaking in tongues as a byphrase for speaking gibberish - comes from the practical experience of watching someone supposedly speak in tongues.  The priest would say the speaker was tapping into sacred language, but what actually came out... gibberish.

I'm by no means a scholar on all of the above, and would be very much surprised if I were remotely close to the mark.  Nonetheless, a quick wikipedia wouldn't turn.

I would timidly tender that, if one accepts the name and inspiration, then the spirit (bugger all if I can aptly argue the letter) of the Tongues spell would - to my thinking - point towards a universal langauge.  Were I to DM it, I would rule the subject of a Tongues spell able to speak and understand any language.  Those spoken to would hear in their vernacular, and the speaker himself would percieve in their vernacular.

So.  Yeah.  Those are my two ha'pennies.  Please don't hurt me.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 20, 2011)

My homebrews have literally hundreds of languages, some are as close as Danish and Norwegian in our world, others share scant, if any, common roots. The major ones (and some minor) have names, others get names when they come up, and are then noted in the Book.

As an example - there are more than two dozen languages spoken by the orcs of the New World, some spoken by fewer than five hundred people.

I do keep Tongues and Comprehend Languages spells separated by what they translate. Of the two Tongues is both the most common and the most abused. Being personal a translator can use it for disinformation. Especially useful when there is no written language, as in the case of the many tribes of orcs.

*Translator casts Tongues.*

Orc: We of the Dirty River welcome a trade pact with the dwarfs of Northshore.

Translator: We of the Dirty River are curious as to the nature of your trade. We will consider a trade pact in return for an honorarium of 500 Guilder, to prepare for further trade.

Dwarf: It seems a reasonable fee for starting what should be a most profitable endeavor. We will put the funds in an account at Lindtbank. *Big smile.*

Translator: The Dwarfs of Northshore are happy to agree with your treaty, and have decided to give you a gift of 100 Guilder to help with this endeavor! They will have me bring you the gifted funds from Lindtbank on the morrow! *Big Smile.*

Orc: The Dwarfs of Northshore are both honorable and wise. Let it be so. *Big smle.*

*Handshake between orc and dwarf, happy with the deal.*

Neither the dwarf nor the orc would ever have realized that they were both snookered if a PC hadn't _also_ cast Tongues.  The PC informed both the dwarfs and the orcs of the translator's duplicity. The dwarfs even let the orcs keep the gold! The player was listening because he did not trust the orcs - who were completely innocent in this scheme. 

*Big smiles, all around.  *

The Auld Grump


----------

