tylermalan
First Post
As the title: If you cast the spell Tongues can you also understand written languages, similar to Comprehend Languages?
Does the Tongues Spell Allow You to Read?
- Thread starter tylermalan
- Start date
master arminas
First Post
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
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
Last edited:
tylermalan
First Post
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...
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.
dictionary.com said:
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
First Post
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
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
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:
Notice how it clearly states spoken words and clearly states read otherwise...messages?
Fairly plain what this means.
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:
Notice here that it clearly spells out "speak and understand" but makes no effort to say "write".
Again, no mention of writing - unlike Comprehend Languages.
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.
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:
Notice how it clearly states spoken words and clearly states read otherwise...messages?
Fairly plain what this means.
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:
Notice here that it clearly spells out "speak and understand" but makes no effort to say "write".
Again, no mention of writing - unlike Comprehend Languages.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
