Complexity of the Speech

[Lissa]

The idea came from some other post in which someone was trying to describe a table. I want to try to describe something in the "Speech" as well as I can and I welcome you to try as well.

Table

[table][top: shape:rectangle size:length:3'width:2'depth:2" material:glass] [legs: number:4 shape:cylinder size:diameter:2"length:3' material:wood]

How much do you think is too much description? Should it be taken to the atomic level? If this much description goes into an inanimate object, how much would have to go into something alive, like a dog?

[Zgirl]

Wow in the speech...it might have gone back to what type of wood...where the wood came from...how old it was...i don't know. I think I'm on a wood rant right now.
But that is a very good description.

Describing something alive? I can't even imagine. All the feelings...I'll try to describe myself one weekend and then post it here...

[Gryphon]

Hey, welcome to the forums, Lissa. We saw your username listed on the new member block, and, well, you're something we've been dreading. You see, we have a Melissa (previously called Lis, Lissa, etc), and then a Lisa joined. That was okay; one had two s's, and the other had one.

But now we have three Lis(s)as.

Dun dun dun.

You are the Lissa With Two S's.

I think it'll go crazy over description, but wizards would have to summarize; there's no way, without a lot of time, that they could describe everything down to atoms... and prescise location of each atom, their relationships, etc. Drives me mad, thinking about it. But here:

[table][top: shape:rectangle size:length:3'width:2'depth:2" material:glass] [legs: number:4 shape:cylinder size:diameter:2"length:3' material:wood]

[{lang="english; earth; solar system; universe b89"}tangible_object name=table
|| size_height: 3inch; size_length: 56inch; size_width: 36; density: (average#ofcompounds)/inch;
[][]subdef:
compound_1: (whatever); percentile: (bleh); (guh): (...);
compound_1: (*sobs*, no more)
//
//
And so on until you have an insane, crazily explained in detail, yet you could go further.

Suddenly I don't want to think about this.

There's actually a very huge, very scary topic about all of this. I've looked at it, but I haven't poked in enough to comment. Meh. It's late, I have history to worry about, and my brain feels fried.

Oh, age of the wood, so on. Z's making it worse.

[RhyanonSorenson]

Describing things like that is difficult! I have been training myself to be more observant about things, and that is hard. It's a similar concept, if you think about it.

The fact that there is a shorthand version of the Speech is a good thing!

Long hand version: Would possibly be similar to this...

{Dog: Earth mammal, sol system, four main limbs used in locomotion, tail for balance. Eyes in middle of face, black and white seeing. Muzzle, tongue, ears, two chambered heart,weighs 20 pounds, measures at 12 inches tall, fitness level, (going on to describe all physical characteristics such as blood type, etc, so on and so forth.) Name: (Goes on to name the animal completely in the Speech, using many different describing adjectives.) Feelings, beliefs, ate, chased, slept, IS, interests, hobbies, loves, lives with, etc.}

And the short hand would probably mainly describe who the living being is, with a minimum of physical characteristics...

My poor head! yeech....

Thank the Powers for the manuals!

[Ravensrose]

i know this isnt realy the same as 'the speech' but i knew of some eletist RPers back when we had AOL and trust me thoes guys/girls could give you a 12 (IM)box post on how there charater walked the way there lips formed the words how the accent of there voice sounded the sound there shoes made on what ever it was they were walking on how the wind moved there hair every thing from there eyes to how there clothes fit on ther body (and yes they would even talk about how ever part of there body looked even thoes parts) so 'the speech' would be a LOT harder but wiht the right adjitives i could be worked down to someing smaller but still just as disriptave

(if any one would like a RP post example ask and ill give you one)

[RhyanonSorenson]

I know what that's like! I'm an rper myself, and I also write on occasion. I can do that too. (i always wonder how annoyed people get from me going into so much detail. Of course, I only talk about the clothing a little bit, but yeah. I do the "her eyes gleam viciously, glinting in the half light of the sphere, waiting for him to attack." sort of thing. )

[Mimi_Fire]

Its easy...

just talk to what ever you want to descrbe in the speech and it'll probably tell you....

a human would be oddly complex...same with like an animal...

I mean your Speech name will have a lot of odd things in it

Refer to HW

Your mom's name
Your dad;s name
Your favorite color
Your best friend
Where you were born...

so on so on....

Dai Stiho!

[Cyber Mirage]

Not to mention all sorts of random things such as who you have a crush on, what type of soda you prefer, what you think of yourself, what you think on potentially every issue in the whole world...EVERYTHING about you pretty much has to be in there in longhad 'cause you don't want to cut anything and have the spell backfire or worse.

[Cheya]

This topic has totally lost me lol.

I have no idea how to write out The Speech like you guys did... but it would be pretty cool be be able to speak it

[Wiccangixie]

I think that as far as complexity goes, well, I think the complexity is also more involved with your own perception of the object, because as we all know the Speech is the truth of what one believes, and its a true description. There are shorthand versions of some words, so I think that what determines the length of a word goes back to how true the description of what's involved in a word is.

[dagonra]

I think that the level of definition required for the speech is to provide enough descrition that your are uniquely identifing the object at hand. If no such object is found, it changes the closest one into that ( thus the danger of miss writing your name..) I want to figure out the 418 letters and start to create a dictionary of the speech...

There should definintely be referances to absolute and or relative locality, though it probably would default to the closest object fitting the description given a certian threshhold.

As for shorthand, is the shorthand universal? or is it unique to each wizard?. I think it is universal as anyone can read it yet as a computer programmer I know that you can define your own functions as well as use known libraries of functions. So perhaps its like that? Perhaps everyone is updating and using a universal database?

I'm going to start a new thread about trying to define the characters of the speech and how the speech works... perhaps one day we can fully develop it into a language! :-)

------------
"From the stars to atom, the beauty of creation can be seen"

[Dragon Writer]

Wow... This topic has been dormant on and off for a while. I think the shorthand is mostly universal, but can always be added too - the book itself says that the speech is a living language, eternally changing.
I think it really just has to be specific enough to avoid confusion. If you don't need many words for that, so much the better. Most likely, however, you're going to have to go into a lot of detail if you don't want to end up changing the table two doors down instead of your own. Still, if you built location into the spell, or anything that would allow you to choose with a wand, or a charm, you can probably cut the spell short. You wouldn't need to specify quite so much what you're changing - just what it is, and what you're doing to it.

[Jacq]

I always imagined the shorthand for Speech much like the periodic table. The same way "O" can represent oxygen, an imperative, or nothing (zero) in English, a single symbol (or short collection thereof) in the Speech can represent say, a table, or a desk, or even "object used to hold other objects". As the books say the universe is an Active Listener, I think it (and by extension nearly any wizard) is able to parse the meaning out of shorthand through the context alone.
The same way a chemical reaction can be written so that anyone educated to can understand the results and the underlying processes, wizardry can make sense of abbreviations and shortened sentences.

I wonder though, Speech is universally understood, but it's written counterpart doesn't seem to be. IIRC, in DW, as well as in TVTQ, the wizards need to check the names of non-wizards in their group (Nita's parents, Artie Doyle.) Is it because the non-wizards can't understand the Speech in the spell circle? Or is it more of a double-check protection based on the Universe's protection of the magic - that is, are the non-wizards physically blind to the Speech the way they are blind to the actions of wizardry? If this is so, there are implications that Speech is an oral language and that some things have to potential to be, er, lost in translation, so to speak, when written down. Maybe that's why most spells have a spoken component?
(I'm going to stop there before I confuse myself)

[Wiccangixie]

When I think about how the Speech appears and organizes itself, I envision a virtual display of the world, somewhat like a Wii system where you can touch an object and match it up with appropriate qualities; I think of that and then I also think about how wizards can 'change' people and things depending on how they write the object's name, so in a way I think that the qualities of a person, being, or item changes depending both on what it wants to become, and also based on how people perceive it. If I wanted to change my sister's qualities for example, no matter what I would write within the speech, my sister is the only one that can determine how those qualities are used (if that makes any since ) so in a way the speech is both simple and complex. It depends on what you want, and what you do about the changes that happen. If anything DD created a language of wizardry that gives everyone one simple thing: a choice. And when you think about, a choice is something that's also simple and complex

[nelina]

As far as I'm concerned, everthing is only as complicated as you make it. One can labor long and hard on attempting to discover all that he/she thinks is required on order to describe something, when all you may really need to produce the proper words is an image. Every sentient being thinks in a different way. If you use your thought in picture form as a true description (with maximum vividity, of course), then you can channel that as your description, and make it take form in the place of a complicated one. It can either (form your perspective) turn into the words in the speech, or remain an image. to one who is interpreting it, via the speech, can either read it in the speech, as their minds should convert it for them, or if they can interpret the picture the same way you do, that might be better. Just make sure that as you release the picture, you make it clear in your thoughts exactly what you are reffering to. Since even non-wizards can understand the speech, that is proof that the mind can convert it for you. If you simply release the info with the will to make it understood by all.