Can you break an age without breaking the world?

[Majsju]

It's very simple. Are AOL and the 3rd Age two separate Ages, or one Age cut in half by a world changing event?

 

RJs quote flat out states that they are two separate Ages.

[RobertAlexWillis]

When a person, speaking English, inserts the phrase "or at least" in between two phrases with different meanings, that person is trying to communicate that he or she is not satisfied that what the first phrase says is correct, and then providing a clarification.  In this grammatical structure, the meaning of the second phrase overrides the meaning of the first.  This is called a "caveat" or a "qualification".

 

For example.

 

"I think the Cubs will win the World Series this year, or at least, make the playoffs."

 

By virtue of the second phrase, the meaning of the entire sentence is changed.  Anyone who reads that entire sentence, and thinks that I think the Cubs will win the World Series at the end of it, did not understand what I said.

 

Now, to the example at hand.

 

"Their appearance marked the beginning of the previous Age to that of the books, or at least the end of the Age before that one."

 

In essentially the same words, with a visual aide:

 

The appearance of channelers marked the beginning of the previous Age to that of the books, or at least the appearance of channelers marked the end of the Age before that one.

 

Perhaps that visual interpretation can better demonstrate how, by using the phrase "or at least", Jordan changes the meaning of the sentence from the first phrase, to the second.  

 

In other words, the appearance of channelers did not necessarily mark the beginning of the previous Age to that of the books.  Jordan's caveat removes the sequential aspect of his statement, leaving it only with the idea that the appearance of channelers marked the end of one Age and the beginning of another, no sequence attached.

 

Majsju is arguing that this statement from Jordan proves that the Age of Legends was a different Age, sequentially, than the Third Age of the present.  I firmly disagree with his interpretation.

 

But since I apparently don't speak "real English", I thank him for, in his wisdom, pointing out my abject idiocy.

 

After all, I am obviously the one ignoring Jordan's statements here.  I mean, I haven't quoted anything he said in support of my position, or anything like that.  

 

Surely I will go down to the dust exposed as the intellectual fraud I am.  I don't even understand my own native language, for heaven's sake!

[GrandpaG]

There is no wheel of time.

 

 

There are no ages.

 

 

The Aes Sedai made it all up to passify the people.

 

 

They are sophisticated fairy tales.

 

 

People have to have "something to believe in".

 

 

Wise rulers make sure that their subjects have a belief system.

 

 

Common beliefs unite people.

 

 

No beliefs result in anarchy.

 

 

Common people can visualize the "wheel" and "ages" stories.

 

 

Would I lie to you?  :D

[Majsju]

RAW, if you try to use being native to a language against me, the least you could do is to actually interpret a very simple sentence written in said language correctly.

 

First of all, your claim that inserting "at least" entirely changes the authors meaning is flawed. It Can be used to do so, but it is not an absolute mechanism. If that had been the case, why the heck would RJ, a man who makes a living using your native language even write a sentence like that in the first place, in stead of just erasing the first part, if he now felt that the first part was incorrect? If your theory would have been true, the sentence would have sounded something like this, "Their appearance marked the end of the Age before the current one."

But in reality, what RJ wrote sounds nothing like that.

 

Lets examine exactly what is being said here.

First part: Their appearance marked the beginning of the previous Age to that of the books,"

 

The beginning of the Age previous to that of the books. Either this means the beginning of the AOL as a separate Age from the current 3rd Age, or he tosses in an entire Age with channelers that somehow should have existed before the AOL.

 

Second part: "or at least the end of the Age before that one."

In this case, 'that one' obviously refers to the Age mentioned in the first part, ie again the AOL or this mysterious new Age full of channelers that somehow all of a sudden predated the AOL.

 

You don't exactly need to be an english professor to get a clear view of what RJ says here.

But then, I'm not a native english speaker, so what do I know, perhaps I got beginning and end mixed up or something...*rolleyes*

[RobertAlexWillis]

In this case, 'that one' obviously refers to the Age mentioned in the first part, ie again the AOL or this mysterious new Age full of channelers that somehow all of a sudden predated the AOL.

 

Right there is your error.

 

The object phrase "that one" refers to the Age before channelers appeared, not the Age of Legends, or the Age previous to that of the books.

 

If it meant what you claim it means, then there would be no need for the second half of the sentence, nor would Jordan have connected the ideas with the words "or at least".  He would have used "and".

 

The sentence that means what you claim would be, "Their appearance marked the beginning of the previous Age to that of the books, and the end of the Age before that one."

 

But that is not what he said.

 

This is where a lesson in sentence diagramming would prove incredibly useful.  Alas, we are not in a classroom.

[lou]

i cant believe that the two of you (robert and maj) are arguing over dialect and english.i would suggest that anyone who thinks that they know american english in all its dialects, please tour louisiana, then on to maine, then tell me what the heck the people there are talking about. it is a whole other world in just those two states.

[Gat]

american english, try every other variation while your at it, then add slang... damn that can be fun trying to work out.

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

The appearance of channelers marked the beginning of the previous Age to that of the books, or at least the appearance of channelers marked the end of the Age before that one.

 

So, let me see if I got this right.

 

Maj believes RJ said:

1)The appearance of channelers marked the beginning of the Age before the age of the books (either the AoL or some other age)

2) OR the appearance of channelers marked the end of the Age before the Age of Legends (if it was a separate Age).

 

RAW believes RJ said:

1) The appearance of channelers marked the end of the age before the Age previous to the current age (which, in RAW's mind, is not the AoL)

 

Firstly I would like to point out that this can only prove/disprove whether or not the AoL was a separate age if we conclude that the Age of Legends was where channeling was discvovered.

 

Also, the way I interpret the sentence is as an "if not," meaning that "The appearance of channelers, if not marking the beginning of the age before the previous one, marked the end of the age before the previous one." Or in other words, it could be either or.

 

But there isn't a clear line between the end of an age and beginning of the next, it's just a gradual change in the pattern as the new Age Lace is implemented. Or so I like to think.

 

 

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

Look.  An argument over semantics is not the purpose of this thread.  Suffice to say that I do not agree with Majsju's interpretation of that statement.

 

To make it perfectly clear, regarding RJ's statement:

 

"The appearance of channelers marked the beginning of the previous Age to that of the books, or at least the appearance of channelers marked the end of the Age before that one."

 

To the best of my understanding of English grammar, that is a sentence composed of two phrases, connected by an exclusionary conjuction "or".  Not "and".  Therefore, the second phrase negates the first one.  Which means that the final meaning of that sentence is:

 

The appearance of channelers marked the end of the Age previous to the appearance of channelers.

 

Please understand.  I am not claiming that this quote proves my position.  I am claiming that it does not disprove my position.  It does not provide any sequential context.  If RJ had only said the first phrase, then it would.  But he didn't stop.  The fact that he felt it necessary to add that caveat to the sentence is indicative (not proof, but indicative) that the idea expressed by the first phrase is not precisely what he wanted to say.

 

So.  Majsju claims that the above quoted statement is proof that the Age of Legends is a separate Age from the one in the "present".  I say his interpretation is incorrect.

 

We have reached the point in this conversation where further discussion will accomplish nothing, so, I will try this again.

 

OK Maj.  We disagree.

[The Lost One]

Ishamael is a lying liar who lies.

 

Oh my gosh, this just cracked me up.  It sounds just like my sister...not RAW, but my little sister can be and often is "a lying liar who lies".  It is very funny, because it so describes her and I don't recall hearing that phrase before.

 

Thanks RAW...you made me laugh.

 

 

[Achmed]

The appearance of channelers marked the beginning of the previous Age to that of the books, or at least the appearance of channelers marked the end of the Age before that one.

 

At least is not exclusionary.  Its almost a back up caveat.  In the example with the Cubs will win the world series, the person still believes that the cubs will win the world series - the person is just wise enough to hedge his bet. 

 

Besides if the channelers marked the beginning of the previous age to that of the books we have

 

Channelers mark beginning of the Previous Age

 

then

 

Age of the books

 

Or

 

Channelers mark the End of Age before the Previous Age

 

then

 

Previous Age

 

then

 

Age of the books

 

There is not really much difference there, as it seems that the end of one age and the beginning of the next just blend together.  Nevertheless, it seems as though this proves that in the previous age(as JORDAN terms it) channeling was still there.  So... channeling existed for at least 2 ages.  To me this seems to throw into doubt the whole "changing abilities" marks the changing of an age.

[GrandpaG]

Let me head way out into left field for a moment...nothing new, right?

 

 

You know how they add the disclaimer "as it is called by some" when they talk about the second, third, fourth age, right?  This really makes the numbering of ANY age relative to the belief of the narrator, doesn't it?  So, when some author in the "fourth" age is quoted, that author could really be living in Rand's age depending upon the viewpoint of the author...he might disagree that he is living in the "third" age...in his mind he lives in the "fourth" age.  Not that it amounts to a hill of beans...I was just thinking again...when will I ever learn.  :-\

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

I have to say that I totally agree with you on that.

 

However, as age is relative to the narrator, maybe the narrator viewed it as the Fourth Age, but to those in it, it was viewed as the Third Age.

[lou]

"Look.  An argument over semantics is not the purpose of this thread.  Suffice to say that I do not agree with Majsju's interpretation of that statement"

 

 

thank god. i hate using my "mom" voice. ;D

[GrandpaG]

I have to say that I totally agree with you on that.

 

However, as age is relative to the narrator, maybe the narrator viewed it as the Fourth Age, but to those in it, it was viewed as the Third Age.

 

 

So, when a quote in the books says it was quoted in the fourth age it could be someone elses second age...or fifth age...or first age, eh?

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

exactly. Or at least, that is how I see it.

 

I would expect that the number of the age people viewed it as would be based on the number of ages they knew had passed already.

 

For instance, if they remember two other ages, they might well view themselves in the Third Age,etc...

[GrandpaG]

So the quotes that refer to the "fourth" age do not indicate that there is another age after randland's "third" age.  They could be from two or three ages before the randland age.  Maybe TG will actually be the "last" battle that brings total destruction (e.g. the "final" age ends)?

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

Its always a possibility, and when time is a wheel, actual historical documentation can be prophecy and vice versa. So what might seem like historical documentation of what happened might have been "prophecy" if it occured before the "Third Age."