I find it hilarious that Crawford thinks that Tamarian is like Thieves' Cant; it really isn't.
The Tamarian language makes sense to everyone that speaks Tamarian, and the allusions do not have double-meanings. If you understand Tamarian, you understand what all Tamarians are saying. The translators not working was a laughable macguffin (as all "universal translator" plot devices typically are) because of course it couldn't decipher the meaning. Allegorical language structures are like non-phonetic languages; you can't assume that components have static meaning in a vacuum.
Now if someone were to use Tamarian in such a way that it contained a double-meaning that only some Tamarian speakers would understand, that would be Thieves' Cant.
Yeah, it's not a perfect analogy - just one that happens to make sense in the context of the question he was responding to (about "translating" coded vs. literal meaning for comprehend languages).
Except that's what I'm trying to get at: Tamarian isn't a "coded" language. "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra" has an actual literal meaning in Tamarian. They are not independent words strung together as a phrase; it is one thing with a singular meaning, and no other interpretation. The components "Darmok", "and", "Jalad, "at", and "Tanagra" do not have any independent meaning. It is more accurate to consider them as components to a logical word structure.
IMO, Comprehend Languages works perfectly with Tamarian. Crawford would not have survived that episode. ;)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I find it hilarious that Crawford thinks that Tamarian is like Thieves' Cant; it really isn't.
The Tamarian language makes sense to everyone that speaks Tamarian, and the allusions do not have double-meanings. If you understand Tamarian, you understand what all Tamarians are saying. The translators not working was a laughable macguffin (as all "universal translator" plot devices typically are) because of course it couldn't decipher the meaning. Allegorical language structures are like non-phonetic languages; you can't assume that components have static meaning in a vacuum.
Now if someone were to use Tamarian in such a way that it contained a double-meaning that only some Tamarian speakers would understand, that would be Thieves' Cant.
Yeah, it's not a perfect analogy - just one that happens to make sense in the context of the question he was responding to (about "translating" coded vs. literal meaning for comprehend languages).
Except that's what I'm trying to get at: Tamarian isn't a "coded" language. "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra" has an actual literal meaning in Tamarian. They are not independent words strung together as a phrase; it is one thing with a singular meaning, and no other interpretation. The components "Darmok", "and", "Jalad, "at", and "Tanagra" do not have any independent meaning. It is more accurate to consider them as components to a logical word structure.
IMO, Comprehend Languages works perfectly with Tamarian. Crawford would not have survived that episode. ;)
Full disclosure: I haven't actually watched the episode. But wasn't the entire issue at the beginning of the episode that Starfleet's translators could only understand the literal words they were saying, not the underlying meaning of the expression? "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra" refers literally to a specific event in their history (IIRC), but it actually functioned as an allegorical reference to cooperation. Obviously "Darmok", "Jalad", and "Tanagra" are all proper nouns, but that's not the point being made; it's that the literal expression of a reference to their history has a true underlying meaning referencing some related idea.
I see your point about “all Tamarians speak Tamarian so its not a secret code.” And in that regard you are 100% correct. As a broad example of how people outside of “the know” can hear the words but not understand the meaning it makes sense. If I understand V2Blast correctly the: Tniversal Translator=Common. Even though the Enterprise crew could hear and understood the words, they did not catch the meaning. Therefore: The Galactic Population=All people in the world, and Tamarians=Thieves because they are the ones “in the know”
V2Blast,
I totally get the analogy. If I understand them correctly, what I think the flaw in the analogy that Sigred is trying to get at is: Tamarians =/= Thieves for a number of reasons, one of which is that their “common” is Tamarian, and to them the rest of the Galactic languages are just as indecipherable to them as their language is to “us.”
Sig and V2,
It seems to me that the two of you are saying the same thing from different points of view. From the Tamarian perspective their language is a terrible example of Thieves’ Cant. From the Star Fleet perspective it’s not a bad analogy at all. It’s simply a matter of perspective.
That’s why I think an inside language among friends is a better analogy for Thieves’ Cant. All the friends still speak “common” (I suppose English in our case), but unless you all have seen the same movies and have the same understood concept of the scenes and lines (and costuming and everything else), even though you could understand every word we said you still couldn’t follow an inside conversation I might have with the friends I physically hang out with every week because you don’t have the same shared experiences.
It's mostly an issue with the episode itself. The way they present things makes you think that there must have been a point in time when Tamarians didn't speak completely in allegory. Otherwise, how would they even have the components to construct allegories, right? Not necessarily. The construction of new words & phrases can be from the slow change in components over time (dialect), or it can be a completely spontaneous creation that gets adopted as more people are exposed to it. The episode presents things as being more spontaneous in nature, yet it's unclear.
Whether modern Tamarian is like Thieves' Cant or not really doesn't depend on whether components in Tamarian have meaning on their own, but whether Comprehend Languages would work or not does depend on that. Tamarian language doesn't have a double-meaning when spoken normally; it's not Thieves' Cant.
That’s why I think an inside language among friends is a better analogy for Thieves’ Cant. All the friends still speak “common” (I suppose English in our case), but unless you all have seen the same movies and have the same understood concept of the scenes and lines (and costuming and everything else), even though you could understand every word we said you still couldn’t follow an inside conversation I might have with the friends I physically hang out with every week because you don’t have the same shared experiences.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
In the TV show "Fool Us," magicians try to fool professionals Penn and Teller with a magic act on stage. When done, the two pros have a short conversation with the magician. Yet somehow, during the conversation, they're able to convey whether or not they successfully figured out how the magician did the act... but in such a way that the audience is clueless.
I only realized exactly what they were doing because with one of the magic tricks, I personally knew how it was done. So when Penn and Teller had their little "after-performance chat," I picked up on some of the words they were using and realized that they were basically telling the guy, "yeah, we know how you did it, you specifically used this and did exactly this," only shrouding it all in a larger context with more words. I was blown away--especially since I'd seen the show before, and hadn't really seen through what they were doing, I just knew they were "kinda somehow" conveying the info. I didn't expect it to outright be "magicians' cant."
Dael Kingsmills' videos are great and worth checking out beyond the Theives Cant video. Real "thieves cants" consist of a mix of embraced class markers (i.e. "the cops and educated classes don't understand us when we talk like this) as well as constructed coding. I don't think comprehend languages should apply because we're ultimately talking about cyphers derived from language and other communications.
In my game thieves cant has spoken elements, geographic "tags" and markers, as well as gestural sign language components for use on the job but also to give quick orientation to rogue's entering someone else's turf. I'll have rogues make pretty easy perception checks to "make" other rogues and upon that recognition usual receive some sort of signal (a gesture, or something as simple as a nod) conveying info like "you're not welcome here" "come back some other time" "you're cool, but you're friends should bail" "respect our racket".
Never. Ever. Go Rounin Ron to Re Ro. That'll strip you of all your criminal contacts and make you the target of endless vendettas. Don't do it,
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Got to use some of Dael's suggestions tonight. It really livened up the whole use of Thieves' Cant; what a potentially powerful tool in a party's arsenal, if both player and DM are on the same page! (Had the player watch the video too, he loved it.)
Back in the old days of D&D my brother and I would use Pig Latin whenever speaking in Thieves' Cant (not a literal representation of what the characters were doing, more to signal to the rest of the players/DM that our thieves were using the Cant. Yeah, I said thieves... this was in the pre-rogue days).
Back in the old days of D&D my brother and I would use Pig Latin whenever speaking in Thieves' Cant (not a literal representation of what the characters were doing, more to signal to the rest of the players/DM that our thieves were using the Cant. Yeah, I said thieves... this was in the pre-rogue days).
can thieves' cant be used with any language? can you hide a message in dwarvish, elven, or any other language the rogues both speak?
Yes. In fact, the only reason the Cant counts as a language is that the PHB declares it to be one on page 123 - the description of it on the Rogue class describes it as an ability you use to modify messages in some other language. The Cant not only works with any language, it requires a language - if the only language two creatures share is the Cant, they can't communicate.
can thieves' cant be used with any language? can you hide a message in dwarvish, elven, or any other language the rogues both speak?
Yes. In fact, the only reason the cant counts as a language is that the PHB declares it to be one on page 123 - the description of it on the Rogue class describes it as an ability you use to modify messages in some other language. The Cant not only works with any language, it requires a language - if the only language two creatures share is the Cant, they can't communicate.
While that would make sense, it's unsupported by the rules, which are that "Only another creature that knows thieves’ cant understands such messages." There's absolutely no mention of requiring a shared language (aside from thieves' cant) whatsoever.
that is what I thought, the description of thieves' cant doesn't take into account that there are many languages, not just common. it makes sense that the messages are buried in a shared language, but that is not stated. it also begs the question are the signs and symbols universally understood or not? can my human rogue recognise a dwarven symbol? does the elven sign for "safe house" mean safe for elves?
can thieves' cant be used with any language? can you hide a message in dwarvish, elven, or any other language the rogues both speak?
Yes. In fact, the only reason the cant counts as a language is that the PHB declares it to be one on page 123 - the description of it on the Rogue class describes it as an ability you use to modify messages in some other language. The Cant not only works with any language, it requires a language - if the only language two creatures share is the Cant, they can't communicate.
There is no supporting evidence for this bolded sentence.
Yes, the Cant is generally a linguistic code, which would rely on other languages, it does not need to be only that. There are/could be universal words, sounds, or symbols that transcend languages. If you as a player wanted it to be only dwarf-speaking rogues could understand you, that'd be fun. Mixing in both normal dwarven plus Cant together could accomplish that. But there is no rule that says 2 people must share an additional language + the Cant for them to communicate with one another in Cant. If you only know dwarven and cant, and you meet up with a shady fella who only known gnomish and cant, you can probably still exchange stolen goods for money. Or get stabbed. Who knows.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Except that's what I'm trying to get at: Tamarian isn't a "coded" language. "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra" has an actual literal meaning in Tamarian. They are not independent words strung together as a phrase; it is one thing with a singular meaning, and no other interpretation. The components "Darmok", "and", "Jalad, "at", and "Tanagra" do not have any independent meaning. It is more accurate to consider them as components to a logical word structure.
IMO, Comprehend Languages works perfectly with Tamarian. Crawford would not have survived that episode. ;)
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorFull disclosure: I haven't actually watched the episode. But wasn't the entire issue at the beginning of the episode that Starfleet's translators could only understand the literal words they were saying, not the underlying meaning of the expression? "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra" refers literally to a specific event in their history (IIRC), but it actually functioned as an allegorical reference to cooperation. Obviously "Darmok", "Jalad", and "Tanagra" are all proper nouns, but that's not the point being made; it's that the literal expression of a reference to their history has a true underlying meaning referencing some related idea.
Sigred,
I see your point about “all Tamarians speak Tamarian so its not a secret code.” And in that regard you are 100% correct. As a broad example of how people outside of “the know” can hear the words but not understand the meaning it makes sense. If I understand V2Blast correctly the:
Tniversal Translator=Common.
Even though the Enterprise crew could hear and understood the words, they did not catch the meaning. Therefore:
The Galactic Population=All people in the world, and
Tamarians=Thieves because they are the ones “in the know”
V2Blast,
I totally get the analogy. If I understand them correctly, what I think the flaw in the analogy that Sigred is trying to get at is:
Tamarians =/= Thieves for a number of reasons, one of which is that their “common” is Tamarian, and to them the rest of the Galactic languages are just as indecipherable to them as their language is to “us.”
Sig and V2,
It seems to me that the two of you are saying the same thing from different points of view. From the Tamarian perspective their language is a terrible example of Thieves’ Cant. From the Star Fleet perspective it’s not a bad analogy at all. It’s simply a matter of perspective.
That’s why I think an inside language among friends is a better analogy for Thieves’ Cant. All the friends still speak “common” (I suppose English in our case), but unless you all have seen the same movies and have the same understood concept of the scenes and lines (and costuming and everything else), even though you could understand every word we said you still couldn’t follow an inside conversation I might have with the friends I physically hang out with every week because you don’t have the same shared experiences.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's mostly an issue with the episode itself. The way they present things makes you think that there must have been a point in time when Tamarians didn't speak completely in allegory. Otherwise, how would they even have the components to construct allegories, right? Not necessarily. The construction of new words & phrases can be from the slow change in components over time (dialect), or it can be a completely spontaneous creation that gets adopted as more people are exposed to it. The episode presents things as being more spontaneous in nature, yet it's unclear.
Whether modern Tamarian is like Thieves' Cant or not really doesn't depend on whether components in Tamarian have meaning on their own, but whether Comprehend Languages would work or not does depend on that. Tamarian language doesn't have a double-meaning when spoken normally; it's not Thieves' Cant.
Exactly.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Resurrecting this because I discovered a real-life example of something very similar to thieves' cant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdj5GXXV4uM&t=360
In the TV show "Fool Us," magicians try to fool professionals Penn and Teller with a magic act on stage. When done, the two pros have a short conversation with the magician. Yet somehow, during the conversation, they're able to convey whether or not they successfully figured out how the magician did the act... but in such a way that the audience is clueless.
I only realized exactly what they were doing because with one of the magic tricks, I personally knew how it was done. So when Penn and Teller had their little "after-performance chat," I picked up on some of the words they were using and realized that they were basically telling the guy, "yeah, we know how you did it, you specifically used this and did exactly this," only shrouding it all in a larger context with more words. I was blown away--especially since I'd seen the show before, and hadn't really seen through what they were doing, I just knew they were "kinda somehow" conveying the info. I didn't expect it to outright be "magicians' cant."
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
Here's an interesting take on Thieves' Cant:
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Thanks, Ophidimancer. That was actually really helpful!
(*quickly adjusts encounters for new campaign this evening*)
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Dael Kingsmills' videos are great and worth checking out beyond the Theives Cant video. Real "thieves cants" consist of a mix of embraced class markers (i.e. "the cops and educated classes don't understand us when we talk like this) as well as constructed coding. I don't think comprehend languages should apply because we're ultimately talking about cyphers derived from language and other communications.
In my game thieves cant has spoken elements, geographic "tags" and markers, as well as gestural sign language components for use on the job but also to give quick orientation to rogue's entering someone else's turf. I'll have rogues make pretty easy perception checks to "make" other rogues and upon that recognition usual receive some sort of signal (a gesture, or something as simple as a nod) conveying info like "you're not welcome here" "come back some other time" "you're cool, but you're friends should bail" "respect our racket".
Never. Ever. Go Rounin Ron to Re Ro. That'll strip you of all your criminal contacts and make you the target of endless vendettas. Don't do it,
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
https://youtu.be/UUQd55xFbfw?t=47
This is what comes to mind xD
Got to use some of Dael's suggestions tonight. It really livened up the whole use of Thieves' Cant; what a potentially powerful tool in a party's arsenal, if both player and DM are on the same page! (Had the player watch the video too, he loved it.)
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
Back in the old days of D&D my brother and I would use Pig Latin whenever speaking in Thieves' Cant (not a literal representation of what the characters were doing, more to signal to the rest of the players/DM that our thieves were using the Cant. Yeah, I said thieves... this was in the pre-rogue days).
I am 100% going to steal this
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
can thieves' cant be used with any language? can you hide a message in dwarvish, elven, or any other language the rogues both speak?
Yes. In fact, the only reason the Cant counts as a language is that the PHB declares it to be one on page 123 - the description of it on the Rogue class describes it as an ability you use to modify messages in some other language. The Cant not only works with any language, it requires a language - if the only language two creatures share is the Cant, they can't communicate.
While that would make sense, it's unsupported by the rules, which are that "Only another creature that knows thieves’ cant understands such messages." There's absolutely no mention of requiring a shared language (aside from thieves' cant) whatsoever.
that is what I thought, the description of thieves' cant doesn't take into account that there are many languages, not just common. it makes sense that the messages are buried in a shared language, but that is not stated. it also begs the question are the signs and symbols universally understood or not? can my human rogue recognise a dwarven symbol? does the elven sign for "safe house" mean safe for elves?
There is no supporting evidence for this bolded sentence.
Yes, the Cant is generally a linguistic code, which would rely on other languages, it does not need to be only that. There are/could be universal words, sounds, or symbols that transcend languages. If you as a player wanted it to be only dwarf-speaking rogues could understand you, that'd be fun. Mixing in both normal dwarven plus Cant together could accomplish that. But there is no rule that says 2 people must share an additional language + the Cant for them to communicate with one another in Cant. If you only know dwarven and cant, and you meet up with a shady fella who only known gnomish and cant, you can probably still exchange stolen goods for money. Or get stabbed. Who knows.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.