It's not really a massive loophole. Not any more than the fact that Aes Sedai can lie by twisting words or by omission. Have you ever tried to convince yourself of something you do not really believe? Have you ever succeeded to 100%?

Elaida had obviously convinced herself that Egwene was a Darkfriend - thus, in her madness, she really, honestly did believe it, so she could say it. If it had only been a way to try and justify her actions, without actually believing them, she would not have been able to say it. If you know somewhere in the back of your head that what you state is untrue, then you cannot speak the words.

But words by themselves do not carry any inherent meaning. As such, "to speak a word that is not true" does not really work at all. Why? Because a single word without context is quite useless. If you speak a word without context, it cannot be either true or false, since it does not carry any significant meaning. The only thing that does matter is the intent of the words when put into context, because that is what gives them any meaning at all. Like somebody else mentioned, a word's meaning is only what two or more people agree that it means, when used in conversation.

Now, let's assume that all Aes Sedai speak English. I know they don't in the books, but for the sake of the discussion, let's assume. In that case, I make the assumption that they cannot lie, no matter what language they speak. So if they speak English or Japanese or the Old Tongue, it does not matter. They still cannot lie.

Not every language works the same way as English when interpreting simple answers. Let's take an example of a situation where an Aes Sedai could answer both "yes" and "no" to the same question, with the exact same intent.

We have an Aes Sedai who is having dinner. She is really hungry and most certainly wants much more food. A servants approaches her and asks "Don't you want some more food, Aes Sedai?"

If the Aes Sedai answers "Yes", we would mostly take it to mean "Yes, I do want some more food", but depending on what culture you come from and what language you're accustomed to speaking, "yes" might not mean that at all.

Let's take Japanese, for instance, where answering negative questions is dealt with differently than in English. When you make the answer in Japanese, you don't answer what YOU want - you agree or disagree with the one who asks the question.

So, in that case, answering "Yes" would mean "Yes, I agree, I don't want any more food".

If the Aes Sedai knows that the servant comes from a culture where that is how you deal with such questions, and have most likely taken that way of thinking with her when speaking English, the Aes Sedai would be lying if says "yes". She knows that by saying "yes", she says that she does not want any more food, and that is a lie.

If she is not aware of that difference, she might still answer "Yes", but the servant would take it to mean "Yes, I agree, I do not want any more food", and thus will not return with food. If the Aes Sedai gets angry because the servant, according to her, disobeyed, the servant could easily claim, with 100% certainty, that the Aes Sedai lied to her. And in a sense, she did, but it was completely unintentional.

My point is that even a word as simple as "yes" does not always have to mean what we generally agree that "yes" means. It all depends on the context. The words themselves do not mean anything; it is the context and the norms and rules of language and communication that decide the meaning we convey.

I can come up with one scenario where Cadsuane's sarcasm might have been taken as a lie. Say that someone, who has not been outisde and knows nothing of the Aiel, says "There are Aes Sedai in the city?" If Cadsuane sarcastically replies "I hadn't noticed", and the person asking does not understand irony or sarcasm in any way, the person would take it as a statement. As such, he would really believe that Cadsuane has not seen any aiel. He will have been lied to, but Cadsuane has no intention whatsoever of lying. If she had known that the man could not understand sarcasm, however, she would not have been able to say what she did.

In my opinion, there is a difference between deceiving and speaking untrue words. They can obviously deceive. A satement such as "She stood up and died" is a very good way to deceive someone, but it is not in any way a lie. To say "She stood up and then died directly on the spot" is a lie, because it adds untrue deatails.

But using sarcasm does not make words untrue, it just adds a different meaning to the words that are used. If that meaning is, as far as the Aes Sedai knows, agreed upon by the two people communicating, then she can say them, if the meaning she conveys is truth. In the case of sarcasm, the tone of the voice used to say the words would make their intended meaning true, since that is generally agreed upon implicitly. So, the words used in sarcasm are not false. Their meaning is true.

So, I believe that the this is how it works for Aes Sedai:

1) They can deceive if the deception is not spoken in untrue words (i.e. omission, answering a question with a question, twisting words).


2) If the words she speaks will, as far as the Aes Sedai knows, be interpreted as something she knows is a lie she cannot utter them - if the words are what carries the falsehood. If the falsehood lies in details such as omission or words with ambiguous meaning, the words are not untrue and can be spoken.

3) They can use irony and sarcasm, because the meaning and intent is clear to those involved (as far as the Aes Sedai know). The words, then, carry a different meaning than they ordinary would, since they are spoken with a different intonation. That gives the phrase a different meaning. If the Aes Sedai knows or suspects that the words will be understood literally, she cannot speak them if such a situation would make them untrue.

And as for "the words themselves are false so she should not be able to speak them" and all that, I'll repeat what I've already said. If the oath is to be interpreted literally, then no single untrue word can be spoken. And since no single word without context can be true or false, then the Aes Sedai should be able to lie freely. But of course no one interprets it that way, because it would be silly and not make sense at all. Instead, the words combined in context determine if they are true or false.

If anything, this discussion, I believe, makes it quite clear that there should be Aes Sedai who cannot speak sarcasm. If everyone here took the oaths, some would obviously believe that sarcasm = lying, and as such would be unable to use sarcasm in that way. Others would, on the other hand, be able to use sarcasm, because they do not believe that it qualifies as untrue words.