Questions about Moiraine ???

[Roxinos]

Then its not a "victory" for you, either, to put it in the terms of your claim.  Its your opinion, unsupported by the text.  Which you are entirely entitled to, but any disagreement from any source carries the same validity, until evidence is introduced.

 

It is supported by text. But not by your interpretation of the text.

 

Most languages are quite flexible in the right person's hands.  There is PLENTY of wiggle room here.

 

The problem is that the definitions of "sent" which would allow for a different interpretation do not fit in the phrase "Moiraine sent me." There is no ambiguity. There is no second level to it.

 

By second level I mean, another part of the phrase which modifies "send."

 

"To put or drive into a given state or condition. (As in "The fire sent them into a panic.")"

 

The fire sent them into a panic.

 

"To cause to take place or occur. (As in "They were determined to overcome, whatever fate sent their way.)"

 

This one actually supports my point. It does not have a second level to it. Fate is anthropomorphized and "sent" obstacles which they were determined to overcome.

 

"To cause to go to a place or point. (The explosion sent her flying through the air.)"

 

Again, no second level. This one supports my point. The explosion directly sent her flying through the air.

 

"To cause, permit, or enable to go. (Moiraine sent me, whether she meant to or not.)"

 

And I have never heard a definition of sent that makes it a synonym of "permit." In fact, after a quick Google search, I find no evidence that there is, either.

 

# send - cause to go somewhere; "The explosion sent the car flying in the air"; "She sent her children to camp"; "He directed all his energies into his ...

# send - to cause or order to be taken, directed, or transmitted to another place; "He had sent the dispatches downtown to the proper people and had slept"

# send - mail: cause to be directed or transmitted to another place; "send me your latest results"; "I'll mail you the paper when it's written"

# send - transport: transport commercially

# send - station: assign to a station

# send - transfer; "The spy sent the classified information off to Russia"

# send - commit: cause to be admitted; of persons to an institution; "After the second episode, she had to be committed"; "he was committed to prison"

# send - air: broadcast over the airwaves, as in radio or television; "We cannot air this X-rated song"

 

Not a single one of those means to permit. Send is not a synonym of permit. Plain and simply.

 

The phrase "Moiraine sent me" and "Moiraine made me follow you" does not mean the same thing. Neither does "Moiraine sent me" and "Moiraine permitted/enabled/caused me to go."

 

Because she believes in the principles of being Aes Sedai.  Its becoming rarer in our world, but some people do act based on a moral compass, even when it is inconvenient.  Verin's POVs have demonstrated that she is intent on preserving the letter of the Oaths in her actions.

 

The girls believe in the principles of being an Aes Sedai as well. They also understand the benefit of being unbound by the First Oath. I will not push the point that much because I'm not certain we know enough about Verin's character to question her in this regard.

[DemandredFO]

Illustrating what RAW said, Verin said that Logain would be destroyed by channeling the Male Choedan Kal.  We know this is not objectively true but Aes Sedai believe it.

[Roxinos]

Illustrating what RAW said, Verin said that Logain would be destroyed by channeling the Male Choedan Kal.  We know this is not objectively true but Aes Sedai believe it.

 

Different case.

 

I'll quote myself wherein I acknowledged what RAW said about the mutability of the truth in light of a person's perception.

 

The First Oath does not work that way. She cannot just say something if it can be justified. She has to believe that it's truth.

 

I would think it would've been possible it were the truth in her opinion if the phrase "Moiraine sent me" could be modified in any way to read "Moiraine made me go." But the two phrases are not equivalent.

[RobertAlexWillis]

All your examples show, Roxinos, is that you don't believe the same way that I do about the meaning of the word "sent".  I could contend that my performance in a Language and Literature curriculum in college sort of supports my expertise in that area, but actually, that is entirely beside the point.

 

Which is this.

 

If I can genuinely believe that the word "sent" can be interpreted that way (which I do), why is it impossible for Verin to actually believe that?  And if she believes, then the First Oath is satisfied.  There is absolutely no requirement for truth in the First Oath, as far as actual effect.  There is only a requirement that the person speaking believe what she says is true, in any interpretation.

 

The bottom line is this; as long as Verin genuinely doesn't agree with your interpretation, then she's free and clear.

 

And I have never heard a definition of sent that makes it a synonym of "permit." In fact, after a quick Google search, I find no evidence that there is, either.

 

LOL ... did you try, oh I don't know, Dictionary.com?  It is the very first entry.  ;D

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/send

 

Anyway, you've clearly made up your mind, so I'll just leave it here.

[Roxinos]

If I can genuinely believe that the word "sent" can be interpreted that way (which I do), why is it impossible for Verin to actually believe that?

 

Because I believe Jordan is a better writer than that. I believe that he understands the definitions of words. And moreover, I believe that Verin does as well. Jordan chose the phrases, "Moiraine sent me," and, "I did not send her," for precisely that reason. There is no ambiguity about the word "sent." It inherently implies intent. So much so that it can be used to anthropomorphize various forces (like fate).

 

LOL ... did you try, oh I don't know, Dictionary.com?  It is the very first entry.  Grin

 

Nope. I chose Google. And the specific part I quoted is from wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn. Which, quite frankly, I believe a lot more than Dictionary.com.

 

Send is not a synonym with permit. It is not a synonym with enable to go.

 

Edit:

 

I could contend that my performance in a Language and Literature curriculum in college sort of supports my expertise in that area, but actually, that is entirely beside the point.

 

And I'll ignore this part because I have more respect for you than that. Your speculative capabilities are mind-bogglingly powerful, and your ability to express yourself is excellent. And I'm saying this because this is the second time I've seen you mention your education in an argument.

[RobertAlexWillis]

And I'll ignore this part because I have more respect for you than that. Your speculative capabilities are mind-bogglingly powerful, and your ability to express yourself is excellent. And I'm saying this because this is the second time I've seen you mention your education in an argument.

 

You're right that I should probably leave that out.  Each argument should come on its own merits, and people with degrees are just as capable of being morons as anyone else, so its irrelevant in reality.  Thanks.

 

I admit that its an attempt at a shortcut, because I can demonstrate how the "second level" argument that you're making is meaningless, grammatically, but that would be a pain in the butt, so I didn't want to do it.  Good for you for calling me out on it, though.

 

Which, quite frankly, I believe a lot more than Dictionary.com.

 

What is your basis for disbelieving that site?  Because it doesn't agree with you?

 

Fortunately, I happen to be in a library at the moment, so I skipped on over to reference and got a print copy of Webster's.

 

entry #3 reads as follows: to arrange for the going of; to enable to go or attend

entry #6 reads as follows: to cause to happen, come, etc.

 

(Webster's New World College Dictionary, Indexed Fourth Edition. New York: Webster's New World, 1999.)

 

In Merriam-Webster's online version (the fourth result of a Google search for the word "send" and the first dictionary result), the first entry is as follows:  1. to cause to go. (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/send)

 

In short, simply causing someone to go, with or without overt intent, can be interpreted as "sending" that person.  I'm sorry if that is not how you use the word, but it CAN be used that way.

[Roxinos]

I admit that its an attempt at a shortcut, because I can demonstrate how the "second level" argument that you're making is meaningless, grammatically, but that would be a pain in the butt, so I didn't want to do it.

 

Grammar has nothing to do with it. It's linguistics. Specifically, a branch of linguistics referred to as pragmatics which deals with the intended or inherent meanings of words or phrases in the written and spoken language as well as gestures.

 

What is your basis for disbelieving that site?  Because it doesn't agree with you?

 

Because it does not agree with a site with a more reputable nature. That being a .edu site.

 

entry #3 reads as follows: to arrange for the going of; to enable to go or attend

 

To arrange for the going of. That involves intent. To enable to go or attend also involves intent.

 

entry #6 reads as follows: to cause to happen, come, etc.

 

To cause to happen. Yes. That's intent.

 

And "to cause to happen" does not mean the same as "Moiraine caused me to go."

 

I'm not arguing with Webster. I'm agreeing with it, and saying that it supports me.

 

In short, simply causing someone to go, with or without overt intent, can be interpreted as "sending" that person.

 

No, it can't. Because in each of those instances you have provided, intent is included unless sent is used in a non-anthropomorphic sense. And you've only provided one instance of that. "The fire sent them into a panic." And that phrase's use of the word "sent" is not equivalent to the phrase "Moiraine sent me"'s use of the word "sent."

[RobertAlexWillis]

To cause to happen. Yes. That's intent.

 

Enabling and causing do NOT always require intent.  If that were true, accidents could never happen.  Ever heard of someone sending an email to someone by accident?  I have.  They didn't mean to, but they did.  Moiraine did not intend for Verin to go, but her actions caused Verin to go.  Its genuinely not that complicated.

 

One can cause actions without INTENDING to cause them.  It does not change the simple fact that the action was caused.

 

As for this:

 

Because I believe Jordan is a better writer than that. I believe that he understands the definitions of words.

 

What Verin believes may or may not be related to what Robert Jordan believes.  Ishamael believes that the world should be destroyed.  An author separates his characters from himself as much as is possible, and Robert Jordan is indeed highly skilled at that.

 

Because it does not agree with a site with a more reputable nature. That being a .edu site

 

What?  Can you really be serious here?  Just because a dictionary is published for profit online, it is automatically disreputable?  Thats ... wow ... I don't think I can actually respond without being insulting ...

 

But hey, if you don't believe them, I don't feel bad about you not believing me.

 

 

[Alghar Khan]

I think maybe you should find that statement of RJ's. As for no twisting of the truth, all indications are that that was all it could have been, adn therefore exactly what it was. As the Agelessness is as a result of three Oaths, and Verin is Ageless, then what was her new Oath, given that you believe she has lost one of the originals?

Alright, here it is:          (from wotmania 04 report)

15. What happens to objects left in Tel'aran'rhiod? Could an AS free herself from the Three Oaths in Tel'aran'rhiod by creating an Oath Rod?

 

The only way for an object to enter Tel’aran’rhiod would be for it to be carried there by someone who entered physically rather than through a dream state. If left there, it would remain until it was retrieved by someone else who entered physically. And, yes, an Aes Sedai could free herself of the Three Oaths with an Oath Rod created in Tel’aran’rhiod, but remember that relatively few sisters actually have access to the World of Dreams, and for those who do want to remove the Three Oaths – sisters joining the Black Ajah – there is the Oath Rod in the White Tower to serve that purpose.

 

 

Regarding the supposed RJ quote regarding Verin:

 

According to Wotmania, RJ explicitly denied a rumor that he had said that Verin did not hold the Oath Rod.

See the "supposed" RJ quote above. Who is trying to claim that Verin has not held the oath rod? Not me anyway. Linguistically speaking, who did?

 

The word "sent" definitely includes intent. Something cannot be sent by something else without intent. So Verin's use of the word "sent" cannot be explained by a mere trick of double-meanings. The meaning of the word is quite clear.

Exactly! I agree completely with the "intent" part. Otherwise any of these aes sedai can invent their own language and tell all lies they want. Forget about twisting the truth. Hello outright lies.

 

Sorry, but linguistically, it doesn't.  And if I can convince myself of that, so can Verin.  It does to you, and you're certainly not unusual in that regard, but Verin's Oaths aren't filtered through your mind.

Intent. You can't lie to someone into their face, expecting them to take your lie for the absolute truth and convince yourself that it wasn't your intent to lie all along. That is what you're claiming that Verin did. That isn't to twist the truth. That's a lie. Linguistically speaking, or any other kind of speaking. You choose.

 

Here are some alternate definitions of "send" that require no active intent:

 

To put or drive into a given state or condition. (As in "The fire sent them into a panic.")

That particular expression does not apply to this discussion about Verin.

 

To cause to take place or occur. (As in "They were determined to overcome, whatever fate sent their way.)

That particular expression does not apply to this discussion about Verin.

 

To cause to go to a place or point. (The explosion sent her flying through the air.)

That particular expression does not apply to this discussion about Verin.

 

To cause, permit, or enable to go. (Moiraine sent me, whether she meant to or not.)

The proposed intent would have been to lie. That means that Verin lied. If you tell someone something that is not true (claiming it is true), then you're lying. Not twisting the truth.

 

(For reference, I did not create any of those definitions.  The usage examples are mine, however

None of that applies to this situation.

[RobertAlexWillis]

See the "supposed" RJ quote above. Who is trying to claim that Verin has not held the oath rod? Not me anyway. Linguistically speaking, who did?

 

The quote you used is not the one I referenced.  I referenced the one on the page to which I provided a link.

 

The quote you mentioned is completely unrelated to Verin personally.  Yes, it proves that she hypothetically COULD have released herself from the Oaths.  That is not at issue.  What is at issue is whether there is an indication that she actually DID so.

 

The proposed intent would have been to lie. That means that Verin lied. If you tell someone something that is not true (claiming it is true), then you're lying. Not twisting the truth

 

The Oath does not say "To never tell a lie".  It says "To speak no word that is not true".  Moiraine lies to Nynaeve with a nod in TEoTW chapter 21, when Nynaeve asks her not to reveal to anyone that Nynaeve can channel.

 

Aes Sedai deceive others CONSTANTLY through omission and innuendo.  It truly boggles the mind that you are interpreting the First Oath to mean that you can never intentionally deceive anyone, since the text gives us multiple examples of exactly that.

 

The Oath does NOT prevent deception, in either intent or action.  It prevents only the most narrow interpretation, the interpretation that is IN THE MIND OF THE SPEAKER, of "speak no word that is not true".  Verin's own POVs demonstrate her skill in rationalizing loopholes in the Oaths.  I can't demonstrate it any clearer than Jordan did.

 

Anyway, this has become futile again.  We disagree.  Thats all.

[Alghar Khan]

The quote you used is not the one I referenced.  I referenced the one on the page to which I provided a link.

you wrote

Regarding the supposed RJ quote regarding Verin:

and now you're claiming that you referred to a "supposed" quote that you referenced yourself later?

 

The quote you mentioned is completely unrelated to Verin personally.  Yes, it proves that she hypothetically COULD have released herself from the Oaths.  That is not at issue.  What is at issue is whether there is an indication that she actually DID so.

Verin had the twisted ring dream ter'angreal. She used it. How would my "supposed" quote be unrelated to Verin?

 

 

The Oath does not say "To never tell a lie".  It says "To speak no word that is not true".

I've already explained why it must be intent. But if you still don't believe it, how about now:

For Majsju, the oath against lying does leave room for sarcasm.  It is intent and result that matter.  No sister can intentionally speak an untruth either with the intent of passing on false information or with the belief that false information might be passed on.  Thus the careful slicing and dicing of words.  But if someone were to hold up a piece of white cloth and ask whether it was black or white, someone who had sworn the Three Oaths would be capable of saying that it was black as a matter of sarcasm.  But not if, for example, the person asking the question was blind and thus might well take the statement for truth rather than sarcasm.

 

 

Moiraine lies to Nynaeve with a nod in TEoTW chapter 21, when Nynaeve asks her not to reveal to anyone that Nynaeve can channel.

Moiraine didn't force Nynaeve to become Aes Sedai. She wanted it herself. But I don't know what relevance a nod would have had for this discussion anyway.

 

Aes Sedai deceive others CONSTANTLY through omission and innuendo.  It truly boggles the mind that you are interpreting the First Oath to mean that you can never intentionally deceive anyone, since the text gives us multiple examples of exactly that.

See quote above

 

Anyway, this has become futile again.  We disagree.  Thats all.

Sure we do. You disagree with RJ too. That's all.

[RobertAlexWillis]

and now you're claiming that you referred to a "supposed" quote that you referenced yourself later?

 

Um, yes, thats exactly what I'm claiming, because thats exactly what I referenced.  If I had been referencing your quote, I would have quoted your quote.

 

Verin had the twisted ring dream ter'angreal. She used it. How would my "supposed" quote be unrelated to Verin?

 

Because it doesn't mention anything that Verin did.  It mentions a hypothetical possibility.  We've already established, without doubt, that Verin COULD have freed herself from the Oaths.  The question is what she actually DID, and your quote does nothing to establish that.  It only establishes what could, hypothetically, have happened.

 

I've already explained why it must be intent. But if you still don't believe it, how about now:

 

The intent to "speak an untruth", and the intent to deceive are not the same.  I'm sorry if you cannot grasp the distinction.

 

Moiraine didn't force Nynaeve to become Aes Sedai. She wanted it herself. But I don't know what relevance a nod would have had for this discussion anyway.

 

Maybe you should read my examples before you deny them.

 

Nynaeve didn't ask Moiraine not to force her to become Aes Sedai.  Nynaeve asked Moiraine not to tell anyone she could channel.  Moiraine responded by nodding, which deceived Nynaeve into thinking that Moiraine had promised not to tell, since nodding your head is an accepted form of agreeing without speaking the words.  Moiraine then tells Siuan in TGH ch 4 that Nynaeve can channel.

 

Sure we do. You disagree with RJ too. That's all.

 

Oh my.

 

[Hybrid]

Wow, I haven't been on here in a while.

 

I'd just like to add that:

Surely, he must've wanted to appear like an ordinary Illianer lord so as not to attract the wrong attention?

The Chosen are pretty arrogant, what attention would he be worried about attracting? And Sammael's scar, while noticeable, is hardly so far out of the ordinary - particularly in cultures where duels are fought (at least some of the Westlands cultures), people do pick up scars. So people might just think that he lost a duel.

Sammael in particular was very obsessed with his scar.  Remember, he could have had it removed in the AoL, but he didn't because it was a reminder of his hatred for Lews Therin.  Add that to the fact that all the Forsaken look down upon the Third Agers as primitives, and it seems reasonable that his disguise would not be scarless.

[Alghar Khan]

and now you're claiming that you referred to a "supposed" quote that you referenced yourself later?

 

Um, yes, thats exactly what I'm claiming, because thats exactly what I referenced.  If I had been referencing your quote, I would have quoted your quote.

Oh, now you've intrigued me. Why was your quote a "supposed" quote?

 

 

Verin had the twisted ring dream ter'angreal. She used it. How would my "supposed" quote be unrelated to Verin?

Because it doesn't mention anything that Verin did.

No, but it relates to Verin because we know she was in t'a'r. Therefore my quote is related to Verin.

 

The intent to "speak an untruth", and the intent to deceive are not the same.  I'm sorry if you cannot grasp the distinction.

RJ said it was intent to deceive that counted. That was what I argued for all along. I don't care for your grasped distinction, because it's RJ's words that counts. It's fantasy, but he was the author.

It is intent and result that matter.  No sister can intentionally speak an untruth either with the intent of passing on false information or with the belief that false information might be passed on.  

 

 

 

Moiraine didn't force Nynaeve to become Aes Sedai. She wanted it herself. But I don't know what relevance a nod would have had for this discussion anyway.

 

Maybe you should read my examples before you deny them.

 

Nynaeve didn't ask Moiraine not to force her to become Aes Sedai.  Nynaeve asked Moiraine not to tell anyone she could channel.  Moiraine responded by nodding, which deceived Nynaeve into thinking that Moiraine had promised not to tell, since nodding your head is an accepted form of agreeing without speaking the words.  Moiraine then tells Siuan in TGH ch 4 that Nynaeve can channel.

Maybe you should read what I wrote first. I repeat; what relavanc does a nod have for this discussion anyway? None what so ever, that's what. It was clear that Nynaeve were going to become aes sedai, so she was in on it. And if you still believe in all of this "nod=word" business, then we could easily assume that she formally gave consent off screen from viewer knowledge.

 

Sure we do. You disagree with RJ too. That's all.

 

Oh my.

Did you read RJ's words, quoted by me? Did you? If you missed them last time, then look higher up in this post. It's intent, as I've argued for too long already. There can be no doubt.  He said so himself, spelled it out clearly.

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

Oh, now you've intrigued me. Why was your quote a "supposed" quote?

 

LMAO ... THE ONE REFERENCED IN THE LINK I PROVIDED!  Here's the link again, in case you missed it. (http://www.wotmania.com/faqtopic.asp?ID=58)

 

Its at Q 86 in case you have trouble finding it.

 

No, but it relates to Verin because we know she was in t'a'r. Therefore my quote is related to Verin.

 

Not to what Verin DID, but to what she COULD have done.  Can you really not tell the difference?

 

RJ said it was intent to deceive that counted. That was what I argued for all along. I don't care for your grasped distinction, because it's RJ's words that counts. It's fantasy, but he was the author

 

The intent to decieve by "speaking an untruth".  You have to look at the context of the quote you cited.  RJ was responding to Maj's question about sarcasm.  When you are sarcastic, you say the words meaning one thing, but your intent is something else.  Therefore, the First Oath doesn't apply to your words, because of your intent.

 

But the opposite is also true.  If you speak words that are perfectly true, in and of themselves, you can still decieve.  In that case, the Oath would ALSO not apply, because you did not "speak an untruth".  The quote you provided is a classic case of taking something OUT of context.

 

Maybe you should read what I wrote first. I repeat; what relavanc does a nod have for this discussion anyway?

 

It proves that Aes Sedai can deceive, as long as they don't "speak and untruth".

 

And if you still believe in all of this "nod=word" business, then we could easily assume that she formally gave consent off screen from viewer knowledge.

 

LOL ... you can assume anything you want to, off screen.  That means absolutely zero.

 

Did you read RJ's words, quoted by me? Did you? If you missed them last time, then look higher up in this post. It's intent, as I've argued for too long already. There can be no doubt.  He said so himself, spelled it out clearly.

 

I did so.  In context.  And what he said doesnt mean what you interpreted it to mean.  There is a distinction between "Speaking an untruth with intent to deceive" and "Intent to deceive while not actually speaking an untruth".

 

Are you genuinely claiming that no Aes Sedai intends to, at any time, deceive anyone with anything she says?!  I would find that claim ... absolutely ... ludicrous.

[Alghar Khan]

Oh, now you've intrigued me. Why was your quote a "supposed" quote?

 

LMAO ... THE ONE REFERENCED IN THE LINK I PROVIDED!  Here's the link again, in case you missed it. (http://www.wotmania.com/faqtopic.asp?ID=58)

 

Its at Q 86 in case you have trouble finding it.

No, I had no trouble finding it. By the way, it does not support your case. And it certainly does nothing to disprove me or anyone else for that matter. So I don't know why you brought it up in the first place. The thing is that you haven't answered my question. Why was your quote a "supposed" quote? I would very much like hear the answer.

 

No, but it relates to Verin because we know she was in t'a'r. Therefore my quote is related to Verin.

 

Not to what Verin DID, but to what she COULD have done.  Can you really not tell the difference?

Yes, I can. And it doesn't change the fact that it DOES relate to Verin.

 

 

RJ said it was intent to deceive that counted. That was what I argued for all along. I don't care for your grasped distinction, because it's RJ's words that counts. It's fantasy, but he was the author

 

The intent to decieve by "speaking an untruth".  You have to look at the context of the quote you cited.  RJ was responding to Maj's question about sarcasm.  When you are sarcastic, you say the words meaning one thing, but your intent is something else.  Therefore, the First Oath doesn't apply to your words, because of your intent.

Moiraine didn't send her. She said:..."she thought you might need me". Why would Moiraine say that? People would believe that Moiraine sent her. It is by all definitions a lie. Someone in a courtroom, testifying, would have been considered a liar under such circumstances. Not because it's something peculiar about courtrooms, but because it REALLY IS A LIE ! As I've already explained, this is NOT twisting the truth, this is an outright lie. Any aes sedai would be able to invent their own language and fabricate whatever lie they wanted if they did as you suggest. Is Verin really the only one smart enough to have discovered that the oath is completely useless. No way.

 

But the opposite is also true.  If you speak words that are perfectly true, in and of themselves, you can still decieve.  In that case, the Oath would ALSO not apply, because you did not "speak an untruth".  The quote you provided is a classic case of taking something OUT of context.

All words are "not untrue". Therefore, if you were right (which you're not), anyone can form whatever untrue sentence they want to. They can't. This is because of their intentions. It must be that way, because otherwise the oath against lying would be completely and utterly worthless. It is not.  The reason she was there was because she wanted to be there, not because someone sent her. Noone sent her. Not Moiraine, not Siuan and not Bela. SHE LIED !

 

And if you still believe in all of this "nod=word" business, then we could easily assume that she formally gave consent off screen from viewer knowledge.

 

LOL ... you can assume anything you want to, off screen.  That means absolutely zero.

A nod does not mean that she "spoke an untrue word". Do you really believe that Moiraine lied?

 

Did you read RJ's words, quoted by me? Did you? If you missed them last time, then look higher up in this post. It's intent, as I've argued for too long already. There can be no doubt.  He said so himself, spelled it out clearly.

 

I did so.  In context.  And what he said doesnt mean what you interpreted it to mean.  There is a distinction between "Speaking an untruth with intent to deceive" and "Intent to deceive while not actually speaking an untruth".

Verin did speak an untruth with intent to deceive. The reason why she came was not because Moiraine sent her. It was a lie. Spoken with the intent to lie. "Moiraine Sedai sent me, Lord Ingtar, she thought you might need me." And outright lie, and those sworn on the oath rod (the "no lie" part) can not do that.

 

 

Are you genuinely claiming that no Aes Sedai intends to, at any time, deceive anyone with anything she says?!  I would find that claim ... absolutely ... ludicrous.

No, I don't claim that. I agree, it is ludicrous to claim such a thing. I'm glad I didn't.

 

 

 

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

Why was your quote a "supposed" quote?

 

The. Quote. Referenced. In. That. Link. Was. Never. True.  Therefore, it was a "supposed quote".  IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR QUOTE!

 

Moiraine didn't send her.

 

Moiraine didn't INTEND to send her.  It is possible to do things without intending to do them.

 

This is the crux of this entire dispute.  Either you cannot comprehend what I'm actually saying, or you don't understand that people can cause things to happen without intending for them to happen.

 

All words are "not untrue"

 

LOL ... what does that even MEAN?

 

A nod does not mean that she "spoke an untrue word". Do you really believe that Moiraine lied?

 

That depends on how you define "lied".  She deceived Nynaeve, willfully and intentionally.  But she did not "speak a word which is untrue".

 

No, I don't claim that. I agree, it is ludicrous to claim such a thing. I'm glad I didn't.

 

But that is precisely what you are intimating.  Your whole argument hinges on intent.  You are claiming that when Verin Sedai spoke, she could not speak with the intent to deceive.  Her words were technically true.  Moiraine Sedai's actions caused her to come.  That falls within multiple definitions of the word "send".  That may not be the way YOU use the word "send".  But it is a linguistically valid one.

 

So, now.  Enough is enough.  I find your argument lacking in clarity and consistency, and you obviously find mine lacking as well.  I truly hope that something definitive about Verin still being bound by all three Oaths is a part of the last book, but even if it is, I doubt you'll be convinced.

 

As to this conversation, I'm done.  I know I said that earlier.  I'm a fool for getting back into it, but sometimes, we all do foolish things.

[Osan`gar]

One of them did lie.

No. Aes Sedai twist the truth all the time. The truth you hear isn't the truth you think you hear. Plus, we have no reason to believe Verin is freed from the Oaths, and her POVs indicate this is not so. She always tells the truth. Look at her POV in PoD Prologue. Everything she says there is true.

 

let me make this simple for you... verin told ingtar that she was sent by moiraine. moiraine said that she did NOT send verin. These statements are incompatable. ONE OF THEM LIED!!!

[mb]

About the Great Hunt situation, neither really violated the oath.

At least these would fit:

-Moiraine saying something that Verin interpreted as sending.

-Moiraine forgetting (like from Compulsion that Verin used).

 

[Graendals favourite]

I've thought this might be a good passage where Verin could understand Moiraine literally sending Verin to find the dagger, in Blood Calls Blood:

Moiraine gave the Brown sister a wry look. Another danger confronts us, and she sounds as if it is a puzzle in a book. Light, the Browns truly are not aware of the world at all. "Then we must find the dagger. Agelmar is sending men to hunt those who took the Horn and slew his oathmen, the same who took the dagger. If one is found, the other will be."

 

Verin nodded, but frowned at the same time. "Yet, even if it is found, who can return it safely? Whoever touches it risks the taint if they handle it long. Perhaps in a chest, well wrapped and padded, but it would still be dangerous to those nearby for any great time. Without the dagger itself to study, we cannot be sure how much it must be shielded. But you saw it and more, Moiraine. You dealt with it, enough for that young man to survive carrying it and to stop him infecting others. You must have a good idea of how strong its influence is."

Verin of course stands lower that Moiraine, so such a suggestion is more than a suggestion coming from Moiraine to Verin. Also, since Siuan and Moiraine were not going to go find the dagger, "us" obviously could only mean Verin.

[Alghar Khan]

Moiraine didn't send her.

 

Moiraine didn't INTEND to send her.  It is possible to do things without intending to do them.

If you intend to send someone, then you do. If you don't, then you don't. Moiraine didn't intend to send her, she didn't actually send her. Verin knows it. She went anyway.

 

 

All words are "not untrue"

 

LOL ... what does that even MEAN?

The words themselves are not untrue. "I", "green", "weather" and "word" are not untrue.

 

 

 

No, I don't claim that. I agree, it is ludicrous to claim such a thing. I'm glad I didn't.

 

But that is precisely what you are intimating.  Your whole argument hinges on intent.  You are claiming that when Verin Sedai spoke, she could not speak with the intent to deceive.  Her words were technically true.  Moiraine Sedai's actions caused her to come.  That falls within multiple definitions of the word "send".  That may not be the way YOU use the word "send".  But it is a linguistically valid one.

She could speak with the intent to deceive, but only through omission an unclear (non-untrue) statements. Intention is central when it comes to how the oath rod works. It's all centered around the listener. The blind person in RJ's example might believe a sarcasm about a colored item, and the very chance that it MIGHT be percieved as the truth, makes it impossible for the aes sedai to tell that sarcastic remark. Intention (towards the listener) is what determines whether it is a lie. The Aes Sedai can't think about another item (of the same kind) in the same room (or even another item somewhere else) and say "this ... is ...[insert color here]". That might be misunderstood by the blind person, and makes it a lie. So, I do base my beliefs around intent, but just not in the way you seem to think. Why, you might ask. Because it's the only reasonable explanation, and also because RJ said so. Verin knows in the bottom of her heart that Moiraine DID NOT send her, and thus she should not have been able to tell them that. It was a lie and she had intent to lie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Roxinos]

It's amazing what going away for a few hours can do to one's desire to argue a point.

 

I'll start by saying you did not bother to even concede the point here: "Grammar has nothing to do with it. It's linguistics. Specifically, a branch of linguistics referred to as pragmatics which deals with the intended or inherent meanings of words or phrases in the written and spoken language as well as gestures." You just moved on. I'm tempted to not even respond because of that. But I really have little better to do.

 

Enabling and causing do NOT always require intent.  If that were true, accidents could never happen.  Ever heard of someone sending an email to someone by accident?  I have.  They didn't mean to, but they did.  Moiraine did not intend for Verin to go, but her actions caused Verin to go.  Its genuinely not that complicated.

 

One can cause actions without INTENDING to cause them.  It does not change the simple fact that the action was caused.

 

You're right about the general idea behind causes. However, the word "sent" inherently implies intent in the sending. So "sent" is not used to refer to an accident unless it is specifically modified to refer to the accidental nature of it.

 

You can not honestly tell me that the straightforwardness of Verin's "Moiraine sent me" contrasted with Moiraine's "I did not send her" does not cause some bell to ring in your head. If you can, then I'm just baffled.

 

What Verin believes may or may not be related to what Robert Jordan believes.  Ishamael believes that the world should be destroyed.  An author separates his characters from himself as much as is possible, and Robert Jordan is indeed highly skilled at that.

 

That has little to do with it. I'm referring to Jordan's word choice. The straightforwardness meant to illicit the jarring response. To call attention to the direct conflict between the two. To call attention to the fact that Verin can lie. Very subtly.

 

What?  Can you really be serious here?  Just because a dictionary is published for profit online, it is automatically disreputable?  Thats ... wow ... I don't think I can actually respond without being insulting ...

 

But hey, if you don't believe them, I don't feel bad about you not believing me.

 

It's not that I don't believe Dictionary.com blatantly. I never said that. I said in light of a more reputable site implicitly disagreeing with the choice of definitions, I choose to trust the more reputable site.

 

I will elaborate to say that a for-profit site may not be too strict about its choices for definitions. Show me the OED's definitions for "send" and then I'll be happy. But as it stands, Merriam-Webster did not agree with Dictionary.com and neither did Princeton.

[Mr Ares]

Sammael in particular was very obsessed with his scar. Remember, he could have had it removed in the AoL, but he didn't because it was a reminder of his hatred for Lews Therin.

Also, scars often prove a hit with the ladies.

 

let me make this simple for you... verin told ingtar that she was sent by moiraine. moiraine said that she did NOT send verin. These statements are incompatable. ONE OF THEM LIED!!!

No. They both said the truth, from a certain point of view. In Moiraine's eyes, she didn't send her, in Verin's eyes, she was sent.

 

You're right about the general idea behind causes. However, the word "sent" inherently implies intent in the sending.

No. You infer that, it is not implied.

 

To call attention to the fact that Verin can lie.

No, she can't.

 

Moiraine didn't send her.

Moiraine didn't INTEND to send her.  It is possible to do things without intending to do them.

If you intend to send someone, then you do. If you don't, then you don't. Moiraine didn't intend to send her, she didn't actually send her. Verin knows it. She went anyway.

No, send does not imply intent. Moiraine could have sent her without intending to. It is that simple.

 

She could speak with the intent to deceive, but only through omission an unclear (non-untrue) statements. Intention is central when it comes to how the oath rod works. It's all centered around the listener. The blind person in RJ's example might believe a sarcasm about a colored item, and the very chance that it MIGHT be percieved as the truth, makes it impossible for the aes sedai to tell that sarcastic remark. Intention (towards the listener) is what determines whether it is a lie. The Aes Sedai can't think about another item (of the same kind) in the same room (or even another item somewhere else) and say "this ... is ...[insert color here]". That might be misunderstood by the blind person, and makes it a lie. So, I do base my beliefs around intent, but just not in the way you seem to think. Why, you might ask. Because it's the only reasonable explanation, and also because RJ said so. Verin knows in the bottom of her heart that Moiraine DID NOT send her, and thus she should not have been able to tell them that. It was a lie and she had intent to lie.

The important part of the example about a blind person was the sarcasm part - the sarcasm would be "untrue", but would be understood as such, it being clear that the person was not saying that. Verin's words were true. She was sent. Even if Moiraine didn't intend to send her, even if she did it unknowingly, she sent Verin. Aes Sedai can (and do) say things that they know will be taken for untruth, but which are true. They give part of the truth, make implications, and let you do the rest. They are able to deceive, but they must do so within the bounds of the truth. Everything they say is true. It is just misleading. In the case of sarcasm, the words said are untrue, if taken literally, so it must be clear that they are not intended literally in order for them to be considered truthful by the standards of the Three Oaths. Verin was not being sarcastic. Her words were not intended to have a non-literal meaning, therefore it needn't be made clear that they were intended in a non-literal fashion. The words she said were intended literally - she was sent. If this is untrue, it is a lie. If it is true, then the uestion arises of how she could have been sent, when Moiraine didn't send her? Because Moiraine didn't intend to send her. If Moiraine says something that could be interpreted as one of them needing to do something, and makes it clear that she will not go, then it falls to the other - Verin - and thus she was sent. If Moiraine didn't intend it to be taken that way, they from her point of view she didn't send her, but from Verin's she did. Both statements are true, from the point of view of the speaker, which is what is important.

 

About the Great Hunt situation, neither really violated the oath.

At least these would fit:

-Moiraine saying something that Verin interpreted as sending.

-Moiraine forgetting (like from Compulsion that Verin used).

The Compulsion would be needlessly complicating what is actually a very simple issue. The former is correct.

 

The words themselves are not untrue. "I"' date=' "green", "weather" and "word" are not untrue.[/quote']Nor are they true. The words "Moiraine" "sent" and "me" are, deprived of context, neither true nor false. Put them together and we have a sentence - "Moiraine sent me" - which can be true or false. And it is true. Moiraine, quite without intending to, did send Verin. So what she said is true. Thus is not outside of the confines of the First Oath.

 

Yes, I can. And it doesn't change the fact that it DOES relate to Verin.

How?

 

People would believe that Moiraine sent her.

Really? Isn't that, you know, the point? Moiraine did send her, whether she meant to or not. So Verin said that, and people believed it.

It is by all definitions a lie.

Except that every word she said was true. If your definition of lying requires untruth, then it wasn't a lie.

 

All words are "not untrue". Therefore, if you were right (which you're not), anyone can form whatever untrue sentence they want to.

How? They cannot speak untruth.

 

A nod does not mean that she "spoke an untrue word".

I think you'll find that is exactly the point. She did not speak a word that is not true. By AS standards, that is not lying. It is stated in the books that AS cannot lie, but they say all sorts of true but misleading things that ordinary people might consider a lie. What Verin said, though, was not a lie except in the normal sense that AS lie.

 

Verin did speak an untruth with intent to deceive. The reason why she came was not because Moiraine sent her. It was a lie. Spoken with the intent to lie. "Moiraine Sedai sent me, Lord Ingtar, she thought you might need me." And outright lie, and those sworn on the oath rod (the "no lie" part) can not do that.

No, it was not a lie. It was true, every word, from a certain point of view, and misleading, but it was not untrue, therefore it was not a violation of the FO, therefore it was not a lie, unless all AS are liars.

 

The intent to "speak an untruth", and the intent to deceive are not the same. I'm sorry if you cannot grasp the distinction.

RJ said it was intent to deceive that counted. That was what I argued for all along. I don't care for your grasped distinction, because it's RJ's words that counts. It's fantasy, but he was the author.

It is intent and result that matter. No sister can intentionally speak an untruth either with the intent of passing on false information or with the belief that false information might be passed on.

I have taken the liberty of highlighting the important part. Sarcasm is an untruth, but would not be taken as such, as it would be understood that it was not true by both parties. Intent to deceive only counts with regards to untruth. Otherwise, they can deceive away, provided they do so within the confines of the truth.

 

Sure we do. You disagree with RJ too. That's all.

Oh my.

Did you read RJ's words, quoted by me? Did you? If you missed them last time, then look higher up in this post. It's intent, as I've argued for too long already. There can be no doubt.  He said so himself, spelled it out clearly.

If you believe that, you didn't read it properly. It is intent only with regards to untruth. With regards to truth, intent isn't relevant.

 

Thank you, by the way, for providing the quote about the possibility of removing the Oaths in T'a'r. However we still have no indication that Verin would want to do something like this, or that she has done something like this. Indeed, RJ is quite specific that BA would want to remove the Oaths, but not so much as a hint that anyone at all, absolutely anyone, would want to. Which leaves us with it being theoretically possible, but not actually occuring in this instance.

 

Otherwise any of these aes sedai can invent their own language and tell all lies they want.

How? They create a new language, which no-one else speaks, and then still cannot tell untruths in it. Unless this new language is essentially the same, but with new meaning for all the old words. But that is clearly irrelevant. AS cannot tell "lies" in the sense of being unable to say untruths unless is is clear that no-one will mistake these untruths for truths. Verin cannot lie in the same sense. What she said was a truth, with intent to deceive, which AS do all the time, and so is nothing out of the ordinary.

 

To cause to go to a place or point. (The explosion sent her flying through the air.)

That particular expression does not apply to this discussion about Verin.

Doesn't it? "What brings you here?" "The explosion sent me."

 

To cause, permit, or enable to go. (Moiraine sent me, whether she meant to or not.)

The proposed intent would have been to lie. That means that Verin lied. If you tell someone something that is not true (claiming it is true), then you're lying. Not twisting the truth.

Yes, if you tell someone something that is not true with the intent to decieive tham, it is a lie, but that is hardly relevant, as Verin told a truth with the intent to deceive them. That is twisting the truth, in the same way that all AS do, so is only a lie in the same way as all the otehr AS, which is clearly not the intention of those that argue that it is a lie, because that argument is founded on the idea that Verin did something out of the ordinary. In fact, what she did was very ordinary, for an AS. It was no more a lie than any other AS statement.

 

entry #6 reads as follows: to cause to happen' date=' come, etc.[/quote']To cause to happen. Yes. That's intent.

No. It is not. Heavy rain can cause flooding to happen. Doesn't mean we need anthropomorphised rain, with the intention of causing floods. Intention is not implied, no matter how many times you say it. It (Verin going) happened. Moiraine caused it to happen. She did so unintentionally, but she did so. Or one could say that by leaning on the rock, you sent it rolling down the hill. Doesn't mean you intended it to roll down the hill. You still caused it to happen, you still sent it down the hill. Intention is not implied. Accidents happen. Verin going could be an accident, caused by Moiraine, but it is not a lie, because whether Moiraine wanted to or not, she sent her. But if she doesn't know this, then she didn't lie when she said she didn't. Furthermore, implication is a tool AS use. They can imply things, but they do not say untrue things. Verin did not say something untrue, therefore she did not lie, not by the standards of AS.

[Gentled Ben]

I've thought this might be a good passage where Verin could understand Moiraine literally sending Verin to find the dagger, in Blood Calls Blood:

Moiraine gave the Brown sister a wry look. Another danger confronts us, and she sounds as if it is a puzzle in a book. Light, the Browns truly are not aware of the world at all. "Then we must find the dagger. Agelmar is sending men to hunt those who took the Horn and slew his oathmen, the same who took the dagger. If one is found, the other will be."

 

Verin nodded, but frowned at the same time. "Yet, even if it is found, who can return it safely? Whoever touches it risks the taint if they handle it long. Perhaps in a chest, well wrapped and padded, but it would still be dangerous to those nearby for any great time. Without the dagger itself to study, we cannot be sure how much it must be shielded. But you saw it and more, Moiraine. You dealt with it, enough for that young man to survive carrying it and to stop him infecting others. You must have a good idea of how strong its influence is."

Verin of course stands lower that Moiraine, so such a suggestion is more than a suggestion coming from Moiraine to Verin. Also, since Siuan and Moiraine were not going to go find the dagger, "us" obviously could only mean Verin.

 

I think Graendal's Favourite solves it rather nicely right here. It is certainly simpler and better supported by the text (indeed, it is straight from the text) than using a great deal of hypothetical possibilities involving TAR that all occur offscreen to explain a discrepancy between two Aes Sedai, especially when any theory that states Verin lied will have difficulty resolving itself with the mental gymnastics we see her go thorough in the PoD prologue in order not to say any word that is untrue. It makes the most sense that if Verin can lie, then she simply would have lied to Beldeine instead of dancing with the truth the way she did.

 

In the quoted example, we have a situation in which Verin can at least convince herself that Moiraine sent her sufficiently enough to say it to Ingtar, and Moiraine can deny sending Verin, as in her eyes, she most likely did not.

 

Luckers points out in another thread that Verin seems to make an effort to sabotage the efforts of other Aes Sedai to control Rand, and her statement that Moiraine sent her, after Moiraine had indicated to Rand that she was letting him have his head, certainly interfered with her manipulations of him, and as such, if that really was Verin's intent (to interfere with attempts to control Rand), then she would have made the mental gymnastic efforts required in order to say that she had been sent. She would have motive, and from the text, we see that she would likely have had sufficient words from Moiraine with which to work.

[Alghar Khan]

I will never ever agree with Mr Ares and Robert Ales Willis on this matter. In my book it was a lie. I've explained why. I am hoping to see the answer revealed in book 12 or book 13. I think the chances are high that it will be revealed. Verin is an interesting character. I think she might have lots and lots of secrets and agendas. Moiraine might be the key to helping Rand win tarmon gai'don (woman dead and gone), but I think Verin might already have played an important part. Give us more Verin point of views please. And same for Moiraine as well.