It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing... - Edit 1
Before modification by fionwe1987 at 12/11/2009 08:31:22 PM
Sa'angreal merely take the effect of angreal to a much higher level.
There is zero evidence to confirm this. Yes, this is a sensible theory, one that I gave quite a bit of support when these matters were discussed in wotmania. But the other alternative was always there, and I'm not so blinded by my theories to think that the author and the research specialist who worked on this book have to be wrong, because I cannot be wrong.
As for Egwene under forkroot's influence, I refer to Rand who - when exhausted is barely able to channel a single sheet of flame using his angreal. When he is at his full capability, he can crumple a city's walls with that angreal.
First... no, the angreal does not make him that powerful.
As for exhaustion... there is no comparison to Forkroot. Exhaustion doesn't just limit the amount of Power you can draw (in a very arbitrary manner. Nynaeve says in tGS that she cannot channel one more thread after Healing Kerb, then promptly does much more.), it also makes it tougher for you to weave. If Forkroot were similar to exhaustion, Egwene would never have been able to make fourteen weaves at once and have them dance around like she did in KoD.
Also, notice that when Rand is exhausted, he says using an angreal is okay, but if he used the CK, he'd be fried. Again showing a difference from Forkroot.
The basis of your argument is that sa'angreal increase your strength according to a different mechanism than angreal. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. In fact, the opposite has been indicated up to now. Sa'angreal are simply much more potent forms of angreal.
There is indication for that, yes. But it was never set in stone.
The one thing going for Brandon's view is the difference in naming. Why call them by different names if they perform the same function, but only to a greater magnitude?