Questions about Moiraine ???

[Graendals favourite]

Under the Light and by my hope of salvation and rebirth, I vow that I will speak no word that is not true.

Under the Light and by my hope of salvation and rebirth, I vow that I will make no weapon for one man to kill another.

Under the Light and by my hope of salvation and rebirth, I vow that I will never use the One Power as a weapon except against Shadowspawn, or in the last extreme of defending my life or that of my Warder or another sister.

 

While it is up to the person who makes the vows how exactly to interpret them:

Question: Why should you have it for yourself? ['it' is a chair]

Answer: There are many ter'angreal for which we do not know the use, it is better if the uninitiated avoid such things.

 

The result: The questioner let the Aes Sedai have the only available chair, thinking it a dangerous ter'angreal, since Aes Sedai cannot lie, however while misleading the questioner the Aes Sedai truly did not speak an untrue word, since she merely avoiding answering the question and babbled about ter'angreal instead.

 

 

On the other hand, it seems clear that Aes Sedai can make weapons that require many people to operate and kill more than one person at a time. Also it is evident that Aes Sedai cannot use the power as a weapon to defend other Aes Sedai's Warders.

[Roxinos]

No. It is not. Heavy rain can cause flooding to happen.

 

You're right.

 

Unless, of course, you substitute "can cause" for the word in question "sent." Then the sentence becomes, "The heavy rain sent floods." And that is anthropomorphizing the rains, and that implies intent.

 

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.

 

Except it wasn't the truth. Verin said one thing. Moiraine said the opposite. One of them lied.

 

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

 

Yep. Anthropomorphizing the explosion, giving the explosion an intent.

 

No. You infer that, it is not implied.

 

No. It is a function of the word "sent" to imply intent. Any time it is used, it either refers to a person intentionally sending something to somewhere, or it anthropomorphizes something to create the same effect.

 

Sending very clearly implies intent.

 

Edit: *sigh* I'm really just finished with this argument. It's not fun anymore, and it's really just an argument on semantics. Which is fun, normally, but not when everyone can just pretend to know what the answer is without having some agreed upon authority to reference.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Bob: "Hey, Mike, why did you send that email with the naked pics of your girlfriend?"

 

Mike: "WHAT!  Bob, I didn't mean to send you that email!"

 

Bob: "Well, you sent it dude, because its in my inbox right now.  I mean, she's hot and all, but ... "

 

Mike: "Dude, you better delete that thing right now!"

 

The word "send" can be used in cases where the action and result are not intentional.  I'm sorry, but this is simply a fact.  If someone had asked "Mike" ten minutes before this conversation if he had sent "Bob" naked pictures of his girlfriend, he would have said "Of course not."  Just like Moiraine said that she did not "send" Verin.  But that is exactly what happened.  Without intent.

 

Edited to remove embarrassing evidence of my lack of willpower ... lol ... I just can't get out of this one.

[Roxinos]

Interesting analogy. I will admit that it has some merit. However, it's not a perfect analogy in that the mistake on Bob's end lies not in the fact that he sent something, but that he sent the wrong thing. Or sent something to the wrong person. The action of sending still has intent.

 

The analogy would only fit if Moiraine accidentally sent Verin to follow the Horn rather than sending her somewhere else, or if she accidentally sent Verin instead of sending someone else. Either way, it doesn't work in this situation, because it is clear that Moiraine did not intend to send ANY Aes Sedai to follow the Horn.

[Osan`gar]

when i posted this topic i anticipated getting some intelligent debate and maybe some informatio that ididn't already know which would answer my questions. most of them have been answered except for whether or not moiraine or verin told a lie. i did not expect you guys to go berserk with this one. i do not understand the semantic responses nad the hair splitting. you all sound like bill clinton trying to re-define the word to mean what you want it to say. while it is true that aes sedai can lie as long as the words that hey speak are true. it is equally true that the word "sent" is unambiguous and implies clear intent from the "sender" to the receipent. if verin was twisting words to be deceptive she would have said something like "Moiraine 'wanted' me to aid you" which would have implied her opinion of Moiraines wishes and not a direct statement of fact. i fail to see how it is possible for them to both be truthful... one of them told a lie or RJ made a mental error when writing that passage. pick one!!!

[RobertAlexWillis]

Grrrr.  I keep getting sucked in.

 

No analogy is perfect, otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy.  In this hypothetical case, Mike did not intend to send the email to anyone at all, but accidentally did so.  This is analogous to Moiraine's complete lack of intent to send anyone after Rand, but accidentally doing or saying something that caused Verin to do so.

 

I cannot say this any more clearly.  Action does not always entail intent.  I believe you cited Merriam-Webster as a "reliable" source, so here is their definition of "send".

 

1- to cause to go.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/send

 

It does not say "to intentionally cause to go".  Intent is nowhere in the definition.  You say that it is implied, because you use the word "send" only in situations where it denotes intent.  I freely admit that that is by far the most common usage.  But the most common usage is NOT the only acceptable usage.  This is simply a fact.  Words can and often are used in unusual ways.  That does not make them WRONG ways.

 

Verin did indeed deceive Ingtar.  She deceived Moiraine.  But she did not "speak an untruth".  She took advantage of the fact that Ingtar thinks of the word "send" in precisely the same way you do, to deceive him, without breaking the First Oath.

[Osan`gar]

the key to the truth as Aes Sedai use it is their own belief. they can lie as long as they only speak truth. no one who is not clinicaly insane or completely whacked out stoopid could use the word sent without thinking they were being untruthful verin could have easily used other words like "she wanted, needed, intended, me to follow." each of which leaves room for verin to interpret moiraines intent with out lieing about it.

[Roxinos]

Grrrr.  I keep getting sucked in.

 

*laughs* Same here, dude.

 

In this hypothetical case, Mike did not intend to send the email to anyone at all, but accidentally did so.

 

Then it's a hypothetical that has no bearing on reality and thus no bearing on the nature of sending. Do I need to go through a list of every step that one needs to take and all of the intents necessary to open an e-mail and send pictures of something to someone? You cannot just ignore all of the intents inherent in a situation like that and then say that it's analogous to some other situation.

 

Action does not always entail intent.

 

Most often, it does. Depends on how you define "action," actually.

 

Needless to say, I'm not referring to any action except the action of sending.

 

You say that it is implied, because you use the word "send" only in situations where it denotes intent.

 

Perhaps. And I addressed it the last time you mentioned Merriam-Webster.

 

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.

 

Though, I admit that it's not the strongest of cases, and I also admit that is my weakest point. However, there is something inherent to the use of the word "sent" that implies intent. Setting aside how Verin used it, in the real world, one would not use the word "send" in any aspect but that which involves intent. If you would, then please provide me with an example sentence of a use of the word "send" which does not involve intent. The accident analogy you used before is invalid because it involves intent in the sending of the e-mail itself, regardless of the accidental nature of the consequences. You cannot ignore the intent necessary in the sending of the e-mail.

 

Now, seeing as "send" involves intent in any real world context, Jordan chose the word for that very reason. It conflicts directly with what Moiraine said. Which clues you in that something is funny about Verin.

[RobertAlexWillis]

You see ... there is nothing but your own, unsupported bald assertion that "To cause to happen. Yes. That's intent."  You say that it is so, just because you say so.  I'm sorry, but it just isn't so.  And that is the bottom line of our argument, you say it is, I say it isn't.

 

Logically, if I can disagree with you as a sane person and a native English speaker (and I do hope you don't think I'm insane), then both Robert Jordan, and Verin, could disagree with you as sane people.  Therefore, whatever your opinion in the matter, it is possible that Verin thinks of the word "send" differently than you do, and since the First Oath only deals with her subjective reality, our opinions on the matter are irrelevant.

 

the key to the truth as Aes Sedai use it is their own belief. they can lie as long as they only speak truth. no one who is not clinicaly insane or completely whacked out stoopid could use the word sent without thinking they were being untruthful verin could have easily used other words like "she wanted, needed, intended, me to follow." each of which leaves room for verin to interpret moiraines intent with out lieing about it.

 

Actually, those are the words that Verin could NOT have used, since she knew perfectly well that Moiraine did NOT want, need, or intend for her to follow Rand.  By the way, I think you just called me "clinicaly insane" and "completely whacked out stoopid" [sic], since I would, without hesitation, use the word "sent" that way.  Thanks.

 

I think too much is being read into the Jordan quote regarding "intent" in his blog.  He was addressing a specific question regarding sarcasm, in which an Aes Sedai could technically "speak an untruth" without intending to deceive.  In that case, intent saves her from the letter of the Oath.

 

But Aes Sedai are free to intentionally deceive in any time and circumstance, so long as they do not violate the letter of the Oath, which is, "to speak no word that is not true".  So, in Verin's case, intent becomes a moot point, since her intent is obvious.  The only point of dispute is whether the word "sent" can have a meaning which does not imply intent.  I agree that it is not USUALLY used that way.  But I contend that it CAN be used that way legitimately.

 

Verin is more than intelligent enough to use a word in a very unusual way, if that enables her to deceive without "speaking an untruth".

[Graendals favourite]

Perhaps there is an advantage to learning languages, aside from being able to communicate in them, if only to make it very clear that words have many different meanings. You learn it latest when you accept that dictionaries are good tools for refreshing the memory, but really quite useless in creating or translating a sentence--just a little more complicated than my name is peter, I like oranges-- to a new language: you really need to know what you are doing without the dictionary, or the sentence invariably becomes grammatically horrible, most likely incomprehensible, and if the meaning stays there you are lucky if it really reads as you mean it. I hope "Sie hat mich hier geshicken" means "she sent me here" in German. I do know that "Hän lähetti minut tänne" is quite old-fashioned in Finnish, you don't really use the verb "send" for people anymore, at least not very commonly, it somehow sounds biblical like an angel was sent down on earth, I think you usually use some kind of construction applicable to the situation, but I think the same nevertheless applies. The sentence is completely understandable, of course, and only implies Moiraine knew what she was doing. This is one reason I have never bothered even looking at the Finnish translation of WoT, since I can manage the English one well enough: A translator will likely avoid directly translating 'send', as the that would sound clumsy, but I cannot think the crux of this argument would not be lost in the process. Hmm, perhaps it might be interesting to see what the story looks like in Finnish.

 

Then when you get a good grasp on this, kind of book-style language, you realise no one actually speaks like that, and every other word is shaded somehow in common use. This last can however be ignored, if one wishes to, at least in a literary style. The common usage varies quite considerably, after all, by location, situation and the people in question. Verin is quite a literate person, most probably aware of many ways to say things, and aware of the many ways what she says can be interpreted.

 

I'm not being very clear here, but Verin only needs one way to understand how her sentences are true to say them, even if in the ten other ways they were wrong: time flies like an arrow, pick your meaning, there's three to choose from. Verin was there when Moiraine said something she could understand as Moiraine sending Verin to find the dagger. There is no need for Verin to forget this, and Verin did join the hunters in a very reasonable manner, considering she likely wanted to avoid the wrong attention. It is not relevant that Verin need not have obeyed Moiraine in this.

 

The other, I think, is less clear, that was mentioned, that Verin should have said "Moiraine wanted me to help you"... Did Verin think Moiraine wanted her to come?

[Roxinos]

You see ... there is nothing but your own, unsupported bald assertion that "To cause to happen. Yes. That's intent."  You say that it is so, just because you say so.  I'm sorry, but it just isn't so.  And that is the bottom line of our argument, you say it is, I say it isn't.

 

I admitted that was my weakest point, so I went on to elaborate.

 

Because of the nature of "send" as a word which inherently implies intent (and I welcomed you already to prove me wrong by providing a sentence which uses "sent" and does not imply intent), it cannot be replaced with "caused to go" and have the sentence mean the same thing.

 

Again, I will admit it is my weakest point, but you have also not provided me with an example of "send" which does not imply intent.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Again, I will admit it is my weakest point, but you have also not provided me with an example of "send" which does not imply intent.

 

I have, you simply did not acknowledge it.  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.  You're entitled to your opinion.

[Roxinos]

Where?

 

Do you mean your analogy with the e-mail? Did you bother to read why that is invalid?

[RobertAlexWillis]

Do you mean your analogy with the e-mail? Did you bother to read why that is invalid?

 

Do you understand the nature of analogy?  I can't use the example in the text, because that is the example in dispute.  You dismissed my example because, and I quote "Then it's a hypothetical that has no bearing on reality and thus no bearing on the nature of sending"

 

Would it help if I said that I have actually sent things to people by accident?  That has a "bearing on reality".  ::)

 

Whatever Moiraine did that caused Verin to go, she had SOME intent, or she wouldn't have done it, just like "Mike" had SOME intent, but it wasn't to send the email to "Bob".  The actual event did not match the intent.  Therefore, the action of sending the email to Bob was unintentional.  The word "send" is still properly used, just as it was when Verin used it.

 

You have inserted your own, personal opinion into the definition as a qualification.  Your usage is a valid usage.  It is a common usage.  But IT IS NOT THE ONLY USAGE, or the DEFINITION WOULD BE DIFFERENT.  You cannot simply assert that there are unstated qualifications in the definition, on your own cognizance, and expect to be taken seriously.  At least by me.

 

Now, this has truly devolved into "IS SO" "IS NOT", so I'm stopping, for real this time.

[Roxinos]

Would it help if I said that I have actually sent things to people by accident?  That has a "bearing on reality".  Roll Eyes

 

*laughs* How so? *grin* It's not so simple. You have to analyze each situation individually. That's why I'm welcoming you to provide proof that "sent" can be used without intent, because as it stands, every use of the word indicates intent of some form.

 

I can't use the example in the text, because that is the example in dispute.

 

I know, it sucks. *sigh* I wish this crap were simpler. We should stick to reading young adult novels. Twilight anyone?

 

But IT IS NOT THE ONLY USAGE, or the DEFINITION WOULD BE DIFFERENT.

 

Not really. Connoted and denoted meanings are quite different beasts.

 

You cannot simply assert that there are unstated qualifications in the definition, on your own cognizance, and expect to be taken seriously.

 

I admit I'm doing such, which is why this is so difficult. We have to build on a common understanding of language. Not an easy task in the slightest. Entire doctoral theses are written on topics like these.

 

But I'm not simply asking you to take my word for it. I'm asking you to take my word for it unless you can provide an example otherwise. It's a simple dichotomy. Either I'm right, or I'm wrong.

 

Now, this has truly devolved into "IS SO" "IS NOT", so I'm stopping, for real this time.

 

Pfft, forgive me for doubting your sincerity. :-p It's impossible to resist me!

[Alghar Khan]

I can't believe this debate is still going on. Verin lied. Most aes sedai can't do that (=those that are not Black Ajah or otherwise freed from the oaths). Why is that hard to grasp?

[mb]

I can't believe this debate is still going on. Verin lied. Most aes sedai can't do that (=those that are not Black Ajah or otherwise freed from the oaths). Why is that hard to grasp?

 

Actually, lying does not exactly break the oath.  Speaking things that the speaker knows is false, that is the only thing that breaks the oath.

It could be probable that Verin believed her statement.

 

[Osan`gar]

I can't believe this debate is still going on. Verin lied. Most aes sedai can't do that (=those that are not Black Ajah or otherwise freed from the oaths). Why is that hard to grasp?

 

 

while i agree with you that either Verin or Moiraine lied it is by no means certain which one lied. That being said it does seem more likely that Verin lied as Moiraine had no reason to deny that she Sent Verin. Verin on the other hand had to have a reason to shadow Rand. This is by nomeans proof but i believeit is indicative.

[Alghar Khan]

If Moiraine had sent Verin, then it should have been Verin who went after Rand first. It wasn't. This is what Anaiya said to Egwene (TGH, Woven in the Pattern):

Moiraine isn't on a ship, girl. She's gone, two days gone, and the Amyrlin is in a taking over it. First Moiraine vanishes with Lan, then Liandrin right on Moiraie's heels, and then Verin, none of them with so much as a word for anyone. Verin did not even take her Warder; Tomas is chewing nails with worry over her.

 

We know how Verin could have removed the "no lie" oath (and probably replaced it with something like "I promise to lie no more than ten times a day"  ;D  ). She possessed the twisted ring dream ter'angreal. And we know that she had used it. That explains how the lying was possible for her.

 

 

[Marussan]

Moiraine very obviously read the glossary in the back of the book.

 

 

 

[Roxinos]

Moiraine very obviously read the glossary in the back of the book.

 

End of discussion. Marussan wins.

[Mr Ares]

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.

Except it wasn't the truth. Verin said one thing. Moiraine said the opposite. One of them lied.

No. It was the truth. Each of them told the truth, from their point of view.

 

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

Yep. Anthropomorphizing the explosion, giving the explosion an intent.

No. It does not give the explosion intent. Explosions don't intend things. Just because it sends things flying through the air, doesn't mean that there was any intention to do so, and no-one would think there was. Intention is not implied. Maybe you could provide a dictionary definition that says that "send" implies intent, because so far we have been given no reason to believe that. Just you claiming that it does, and claiming every example given involves intent, no matter how clear it is made that it doesn't. It is possible to send something accidentally. No intent. It is that simple. We are stuck because you insist that a definition that has not been shown to exist outside your head is not accepted. No mention is made of intent in definitions.

 

most of them have been answered except for whether or not moiraine or verin told a lie.

It has been. Repeatedly.

i do not understand the semantic responses nad the hair splitting.

It is simple. Some people claim' date=' quite wrongly, that send requires intent when it doesn't.

you all sound like bill clinton trying to re-define the word to mean what you want it to say. while it is true that aes sedai can lie as long as the words that hey speak are true. it is equally true that the word "sent" is unambiguous and implies clear intent from the "sender" to the receipent.

Well, Mr Pot, it turns out you're just as black as us kettles. You just rewrote the dictionary to support your argument. Sent does not require intent on the part of the sender, given that it is a well known fact (to those that know it well) that things can be sent by accident - and thus without intent. So, given that it is not true that sent implies clear intent, your whole argument falls. Better luck next time, Mr President.

if verin was twisting words to be deceptive she would have said something like "Moiraine 'wanted' me to aid you" which would have implied her opinion of Moiraines wishes and not a direct statement of fact.

Actually, that is a statement of fact, and is quite untrue. Thus, a lie.

i fail to see how it is possible for them to both be truthful... one of them told a lie or RJ made a mental error when writing that passage. pick one!!!

How they can both be truthful has been explained many times at great length. You could try reading. It is not "RJ made a mistake or one of them lied", because there is a third option - that both of them told the truth, as they saw it.

 

Because of the nature of "send" as a word which inherently implies intent...

Which dictionary supports that interpretation?

 

I can't believe this debate is still going on. Verin lied. Most aes sedai can't do that (=those that are not Black Ajah or otherwise freed from the oaths). Why is that hard to grasp?

Verin didn't lie. She told the truth. Why is that so hard to grasp? I can't believe this debate is still going on. Do you see what I did there?

 

If Moiraine had sent Verin, then it should have been Verin who went after Rand first.

Or so you would like to imagine. Because Moiraine didn't intend to send Verin, and wasn't aware she had.

We know how Verin could have removed the "no lie" oath

Theoretically. Yet we have no reason to believe she did, nor that she wanted to. We can, in fact, be pretty bloody sure that she did not remove the Oath. See PoD Prologue. Everything she says there is true. So why did she only ever lie the once? She is still bound. That is the best explanation that fits the evidence. No matter how much you choose to deny that evidence, to redefine words to suit your agendas, it is really very simple: Verin did not lie. Sent does not imply intent.

[Alghar Khan]

I can't believe this debate is still going on. Verin lied. Most aes sedai can't do that (=those that are not Black Ajah or otherwise freed from the oaths). Why is that hard to grasp?

Verin didn't lie. She told the truth. Why is that so hard to grasp? I can't believe this debate is still going on. Do you see what I did there?

I think I do know what you're doing. But don't worry, I won't tell anyone.

[Osan`gar]

i do not understand the semantic responses and the hair splitting.

It is simple. Some people claim, quite wrongly, that send requires intent when it doesn't.

you all sound like bill clinton trying to re-define the word to mean what you want it to say. while it is true that aes sedai can lie as long as the words that hey speak are true. it is equally true that the word "sent" is unambiguous and implies clear intent from the "sender" to the receipent.

Well, Mr Pot, it turns out you're just as black as us kettles. You just rewrote the dictionary to support your argument. Sent does not require intent on the part of the sender, given that it is a well known fact (to those that know it well) that things can be sent by accident - and thus without intent. So, given that it is not true that sent implies clear intent, your whole argument falls. Better luck next time, Mr President.

 

Mr. Ares or should i say bill, sex doesn't mean sex unless it means intercourse, because oral sex isnt sex. if it was i would be wrong and that just can not happen, therefore i will rabidly defend my opinion to the death with spurious arguments and casutic acerbic responses, Clinton. in the reality you dwell in words of factual statement may have dubious yet multifaceted meaning. however i hate to shatter you fingernail grip on non reality by intruding myself on your fragile psyche with the terrible, painful; truth. the word sent is not, not, not ambiguous it is an irrevocable statement of fact it's meaning is not debateable unless of course the alternate reality in which you dwell has strange and unusal meanings for common, well understond word usages. that being said i eagerly await the imminent bashing you will confer upon me which is of course the last resort of the sheltered mind. please feel free to tell me how outrageously deranged i am because i refuse to acknowledge your flawed reality. i am sure that you will be quite sarcastic and caustic please feel free to do so as you have repeatedly demonstrated a great talent in this arena. however i feel that i must advise you that your constant defense of a indefensible position leaves you looking somewhat similar to the south end of a north bound mule. please do not stop. your ravings are most entertaing; kind of like watching a monkey do algebra. thank you for the entertainment.

[Gentled Ben]

your ravings are most entertaing; kind of like watching a monkey do algebra. thank you for the entertainment.

 

Haha...says the guy who can't solve the quote-function puzzle.  :D