That is actually not always so easily done even by mundane experts. There are a large number of tools and items from archaeological digs, where the archaeologists can't really say what the items were used for. They can make guesses, but those guesses often have to be revised later.
So, given a fork, you would not be able to tell that it was an eating implement unless you were already familiar with forks. And even then you might be wrong - a particular fork might not have been for eating, but for use during the cooking of the food. Or it might have been purely ornamental, unsuited for use as an eating implement (such as a hypothectical fork made of paper).
I agree the post is well put together. How does understanding signs, gestures and verbal language translate into the ability of spirits to read though?
There are obviously some edge cases. When in doubt, I'd just ask for a Finesse+Perception roll. But in general, show most people today most forks, and they'll tell you "sure, you use it to eat!". Show them to most courtiers in Byzantium, or in most of Western Europe by 1220, and they'll say "sure, you use it to eat". So, the definition is easily met.
But they are inherent to an object made of stone; in particular, to subtle aspects of its shape.
With some exceptions, you and I would be able to tell, by looking at such objects (when originating from our culture) whether they are gravestones or milestones. So can Hermetic magic.
As a side note, a crown can provide very different S&M bonuses from a ring. But based on the notion that "meaning" in objects is opaque to Hermetic Magic, how could you be able to enchant a ring fit for a giant with the appropriate S&M bonus?
A crown would have minute, but technically, visible wear and tear suggesting it sits upon a head, whereas a ring would have different wear and tear patterns. I forgot to metion stains from hair, sweat, and blood, would leave different visual properties.
In the case of a silver fork, the wear and tear patterns would tell InTe that it is not a miniature garden fork for miature gardens, nor a weapon, but would very quickly determine it was for manipulating mostly unresisting flesh. It would be somewhat more difficult to determine if its purpose is cooking, eating, dissection, surgery, or torture
@ezzelino:
From what I understand, you're arguing that glyphs carved into a rock can be read using InTe, correct?
What about glyphs painted onto a rock? Why/Why not?
Now you are assuming that the items have actually been used in some particular manner, and that there are detectable markings from such use. Neither is necessarily true.
Lets assume a fork that when it was made it was intended to be an eating implement, but the only time this particular fork was used, it was used as an improvised weapon.
Is that fork an eating implement or a weapon?
You know, if you want to make spirits illiterate go ahead. The OP has already got their answers, and the rest of this thread is going to be pedantic hair splitting and squeezing the most restrictive possible interpretation out of the rules out like blood from a stone.
No, any meaning humans have attached to a particular object are not inherent to the object in question.
A stone formed into a particular shape is not inherently a gravestone or a milestone or whatever, even if stones of that shape are commonly used for a particular purpose.
In many cases we could make a good guess, but as your paranthetical note about cultural origin suggests, it is a guess based on cultural assumptions rather than knowledge based on the stone's inherent properties. Hermetic Magic is poor at guesses and cultural assumptions.
I am not sure I understand your question. Why would that be a particular problem?
So your position is that any clarification offered by future books can just go take a flying leap and you will stick to the core book? If that's how you want to play bully for you but the community defines RAW in the opposite manner.
Generally.
Written language is a funny thing. The same signs, or configuration of signs, can mean different things to different people.
If I carve a + on a rock, what does it mean? Does it denotes the presence of a first aid station close by? Is it actually a cross, denoting religious meaning? Both? Neither?
If I stack three rocks, each of a bit smaller than the other, what does it mean? It might mean one thing to a local merchant when that stacking is done on the side of a road, and something completely different to a hunter who sees the stack near a cave.
The rock doesn't know, because it doesn't know the intent of the one who carved, stacked or wrote those symbols. Neither can Hermetic magic know, because it cannot target the person who put the symbols there in the first place.
An exception to this might be made if the writing/carving/stacking is recent enough to still constitute an Arcane Connection to the one who made it. Then you could use that arcane connection to read the intent from the writer's mind using an InMe spell.
The short answer is yes.
The longer answer is: again, do not think of it as "reading glyphs"; instead, think of it as understanding the basic function of a painted rock. If the glyph is just accidental - somebody defaced a rock by painting his name on it, InTe on the rock won't "read" the glyph. But if you were to cast the spell on a modern traffic sign (metal, painted), in my opinion you'd be able to learn "it's a warning-pole: it cautions against moving too fast".
If that were true, how could Hermetic magic distinguish between a very small crown, and average-sized bracelet, and a very large finger-ring? Physically, they might well be identical. And it certainly does distinguish between the three, because you get different S&M bonuses from them.
Now, I do see the problem with something that might have multiple meanings, or multiple uses etc. I think that in those cases the Intellego magic would either fail to provide an answer, or provide multiple answers, or one at random etc. (I'd base the outcome on a Perception+Finesse roll). That's ok: after all, it's not obvious what someone with appropriate skills might tell you upon seeing the object. But in the (majority?) of cases when this is not true, then I do not see any issues.
You get different S&M bonuses from them when enchanting.
In very modern terms, you can run an experiment, that only uses Hermetic Magic, whose outcomes differ depending on whether it's a crown, bracelet, or finger-ring. I dislike this modernist view for ArM5, but I am adopting it just for clarity.
As I am sure many of you have noticed, I have opened another thread (and poll) asking whether the basic InTe 2 guideline can ascertain the apparent function of a simple, common object -- a fork, though it could easily apply to a roof tile, a crown, a ship's anchor (or a modern traffic sign).
That discussion is a "subcomponent" of the one here. To avoid clutter, I would ask anyone who wants to contribute to it to post there; and from now on I'll only reply to posts on that subject on that thread.
None of these things are language symbols, so I find the analogy misleading. In any case, magic doesn't need to "know" what they are for them to provide a S&M bonus. The bonus is given because of their similarity to the kind of magic being done.
Magic isn't a sentient force. You can harness it in order to do something, and some ways of harnessing it are more efficient than others. It is like the wind -- the wind doesn't need to know what a sail is in order to fill it. And a sail is more efficient in harnessing the wind than a bare mast. Or a fork.
Here's the thing- "you would get different S&M bonises when enchanting" presupposes that those bonuses are intrinsic to the material instead of being an interaction between the material and how magic theory is applied. It is possible some mongol sorcerer would get entirely different bonuses, and it is certain that a learned magician will get a different bonus that "+2 to terram spells", furthermore learning an S&M bonus cannot be done with intelligo magic either, so again your argument shoots itself in the foot.
Would it be nice to have a base guideline that can easily be refered to for the purpose of diving whether a material is attuned to providing a bonus to S&M? Yeah, it would be convenient. Yet, for some reason, we have publications on S&M bonuses that can only be accessible by particular traditions, virtues, and even an entire mystery cult based arround experimental research to find new ones.
If you just start with a gold circlet, it is not inherent in the item if it is a small crown, a medium bracelet, or a large ring.
If you start enchanting it, you decide which it is to be used for, and thus what set of S&M bonuses apply.
When creating an enchanted item, you know the intended purpose of the item, and can make use of symbolic bonuses towards that purpose.
This does not mean that Intellego magic can easily discern the intended purpose afterwards.
This is not so much a limit of Hermetic Magic viewed as a whole, but rather a limit of the Technique of Intellego combined with the existing Forms.