Active Users:839 Time:13/05/2026 04:53:56 PM
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? TheUltimateReality Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM
I concur that they might operate differently based on the difference in names.

The names come out of the AoL, from those who made the things in the first place. There is a clear distinction between ter'angreal and the others in function and operation. The name separation between sa'angreal and angreal implies some fundamental difference between the two classes beyond mere sizing.

Don't forget that Jordan had a trained and educated military background and in the military differentiation between guns, rifles, howitzers and cannons are based on function, not size. A sixteen inch weapon can be a rifle (if the barrel is rifled for spin), a cannon if not, a mortar depending on barrel length and so forth. The same applies to naval ship classes, function is the primary differentiation.

Separation of the classes based merely on size seems too simplistic, although I will accept correction if proof is found. I don't claim to know what the difference is, merely that one is likely to exist.

Also, challenging the idea that Asmo and Rand drew the same amount from the CK because they were tired. How astronomical would the chances have to be for both to end up at an identical starting strength that was multiplied by the CK. It makes more sense for the CK to give access, in equal amounts, to a fixed amount of the Power. Occam's razor and all that...
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1870 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 1046 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1120 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 12:37:46 PM 1018 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 980 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 02:27:41 PM 1007 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 985 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 975 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 1001 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1078 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 965 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1145 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 1022 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 983 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1136 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 457 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 502 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 1092 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1072 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 969 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 919 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 413 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 426 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 959 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 1011 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1207 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 952 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1478 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 1004 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 445 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 889 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1334 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 916 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 965 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 876 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 961 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 877 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 899 Views

Reply to Message