R+L=J v.157

[UnmaskedLurker]

2 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I can do so, but what would it prove? Only that the people I know think it means "x." It doesn't disprove your contention or prove mine. 

Let me give you another example. I've done some study of character ages over the years I've been on these boards, and in that process you find seeming contradictions in the text. One of these seeming contradictions happens with phrase used for the same purpose as the "close to" this discussion is about - that is Martin's usage of the phrase "all of" to describe Tommen's age at different times in the story. Does "all of" mean "about" or does it mean "almost"? Well, I was kind of excited because I thought I could prove it means "almost" in Tommen's case and, if so, make a conclusion about Jaime's description by Robert at the sack of King's Landing. The usage of the phrase in relationship to Tommen, could indicate the usage of the phrase in Jaime's case means he was younger than I thought, sixteen instead of seventeen. I was wrong. Tommen's age is right when "all of" means "almost" but Jaime is seventeen by the time of the sack, not still sixteen.

All of which is to say, the proof of the meaning of phrases in Martin's work needs to be found, not in your personal experience or in mine. Nor is it to be found in "experts" of the usage of American English idioms, but in the books themselves. We have to further narrow down the ranges for markers within the history of Robert's rebellion. The answer, it seems to me, is in looking relationships between established markers, instead of phrases like "close to" or "all of" - these phrases are only useful in a more general sense.

Fair enough. Originally, I was responding to posts from another thread that were referenced by RT in this thread that seemed to focus not just on it possible meaning in the text -- but its meaning in the "real world." I had been addressing that latter point. But given that in terms of this board, the only relevance is its meaning in the text, we cannot be sure how GRRM had intended to use it.

[SFDanny]

55 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Fair enough. Originally, I was responding to posts from another thread that were referenced by RT in this thread that seemed to focus not just on it possible meaning in the text -- but its meaning in the "real world." I had been addressing that latter point. But given that in terms of this board, the only relevance is its meaning in the text, we cannot be sure how GRRM had intended to use it.

I agree. 

[corbon]

11 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Again -- what we speak in the US is whatever language that GRRM speaks. Whether English or just something we call English -- it is the language that GRRM has grown up speaking. So while I agree that in Westeros, speaking patterns might be more "formal" I would not expect GRRM to use a phrase that likely would be so misunderstood by the majority of American readers. GRRM sometimes uses awkward or antiquated phrases that require an audience to try to figure out what it really means. But to use a common phrase to mean something other than its typical meaning is different.

But its not different to its actual meaning, its just different to its common idiomatic usage.

Quote

So can I be sure what GRRM intended to mean by the phrase -- of course not. But I simply maintain -- and do not waiver one bit despite the disagreement from other native US speakers (like USD and SFDanny) that in normal idiomatic speech, the phrase "close to a year" would be normally understood to mean just under a year. And if someone I knew used that phrase but intended to mean maybe a little more or maybe a little less than a year -- then that person really risked being misunderstood -- because that simply is not the typical usage of that phrase.

In other words, despite the evidence to the contrary, you maintain that because GRRM is a modern american his writing must be interpreted in modern americanese?
Regardless of the internal evidence that his writing is actually rather different from modern americanese?

This seems somewhat contrarian.

10 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I genuinely am surprised that this language usage point is getting so much push back from people like USD and SFDanny. I would not have thought this point would really get any real disagreement. Now whether we can be 100% certain that GRRM is sticking to this "typical" usage of the phrase -- of course we cannot. But that is a totally different question from what would normally be intended in general usage.

Well, some people are worth pushing back to (and some aren't). The point is that some people are insisting on a limited and limiting viewpoint, despite evidence against them, just because its what they are familiar with.
I tend to push back against such unreasonable limitations.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Despite being sort of responsible for the beginning of this debate, I have to agree. Especially in light of the fact that we all know that George uses such phrases as 'close to...' or 'about' etc. to actually obscure the exact amount of time that passed/not being forced to give us an exact date or an exact distance.

Except that I showed he doesn't use the same phrases we typically use for inexact observations. He doesn't use 'around' as an approximation (my most common one I think) and very very rarely used 'about' for an approximation. He doesn't use 'approximate'. He uses 'nearly' sometimes, always meaning 'not quite' when in terms of a measurement or value. He uses 'close on' or 'close to' a few times in reference to milestones but in some cases they clearly reference 'either side' (eg close to someone's age clearly could be a little younger or older) so, given the absence of other terms that allow a certain idiomatic inference to be applied to 'close to', it seems that he is using 'close' in its literal sense without the inference of one side or the other of a milestone.

To clarify:
Modern americanese idiomatically allows an inference (mostly) of 'just short of the mark' (whichever side is short) when using the term 'close to' in reference to a milestone. However, it is allowed that inference only by the use of a number of other terms which are substituted for the literal meaning of 'close to'. These typically include 'around', 'about', 'approximately' and the like. The absence, or extreme rarity, of these other terms in ASoIaF shows that we cannot apply the same idiomatic inference to 'close to' to mean 'just short' in ASoIaF because we don't have any other terms to cover the literal meaning of 'close to'.
Just to reinforce this, the phrase 'close to' is used several times to reference indeterminate values (random people's ages) which clearly shows that it is used in a literal manner and not a modern amercanese idiomatic manner. Street kids 'close to' Arya's age are surely not defined as 'just short' of her age, but as 'approximately' her age, with some possibly younger and some possibly older.

Quote

We can reasonably try to pinpoint events and dates George has actually settled on (those being mostly dates and events he tackled later during the writing process, when he realized that he had to fix them to avoid mistakes) but it should actually be impossible to actually make thorough timeline without admitting that there are lot of mistakes/inconsistencies. Granted, you can explain away some/many of them with incorrect memories of the POVs, but still...

Agreed.

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

All of which is to say, the proof of the meaning of phrases in Martin's work needs to be found, not in your personal experience or in mine. Nor is it to be found in "experts" of the usage of American English idioms, but in the books themselves or in further information from the author. We have to further narrow down the ranges for markers within the history of Robert's rebellion. The answer, it seems to me, is in looking relationships between established markers, instead of phrases like "close to" or "all of" - these phrases are only useful in a more general sense.

Agreed.
Except I think its important not to falsely narrow our accounting by insisting on specific idiomatic inferences. Its meant to be inexact, to deliberately narrow it down using tight inferences that aren't supportable within the text simply doesn't make sense.

[Ygrain]

I agree that we need to examine GRRM's use but I'd still like to consult some experts if the use is, hm, correct for everyday use :-) Teacher talking, you see :-)

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

I agree that we need to examine GRRM's use but I'd still like to consult some experts if the use is, hm, correct for everyday use :-) Teacher talking, you see :-)

The old anthropology major in me thinks about the fluidity of language and how it changes over time and from place to place. One of the great courses I had to take in my old university days was in Linguistic Anthropology in which people spent their lives measuring the differences of language from one small town to the next. From that perspective, there is no real life correct answer to any of this.

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

The old anthropology major in me thinks about the fluidity of language and how it changes over time and from place to place. One of the great courses I had to take in my old university days was in Linguistic Anthropology in which people spent their lives measuring the differences of language from one small town to the next. From that perspective, there is no real life correct answer to any of this.

Indeed. Those changes are interesting for me, as well, but it is important for me to know what it is that I am passing on.

[UnmaskedLurker]

4 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Indeed. Those changes are interesting for me, as well, but it is important for me to know what it is that I am passing on.

If your interest is "common usage" (separate from how GRRM might be using the phrase) -- I really think that King Monkey on the prior page has the use of "close to" pretty much nailed. But the differences can be subtle. corbon makes reference to a statement about others being "close to Arya's age" and points out it cannot mean "just short of" her age. But I would maintain that even in common American usage it would not -- because there is no starting point -- it is like my example of living "close to the library." In the Arya reference -- Arya age is merely a reference point around which the other ages are being compared -- but there is no direction from which the actors are being seen as advancing toward.

Whereas when a person states they are "close to 18 years old" or ran "close to a mile" or worked for a company "close to a year" -- then in those contexts, it becomes clear that they are working toward a goal or approaching a reference point. Even in King Monkey's example of the temperature reaching "close to zero" it is clear that while "zero" might not be a goal the person "wants" to reach -- it is the goal to which the sentence implicitly references or the reference point upon which the temperature was advancing -- and thus the implication is that the temperature is just above zero because it never reached zero (it only got "close to" zero).

So if you are teaching English to non-native speakers -- and you want to try to give them nuanced understanding of idiomatic usage -- I think that this understanding of the use of "close to" is a pretty reliable way to explain the difference between when "close to" means exactly the same as "approximately" or "about" and when it mean "approaching but not quite reaching" a reference point or goal.

[RumHam]

Just a reminder for whoever starts the next thread, technically it should be version 160, not 158. 

[RumHam]

double, but I may as well fill it with something:

[Alia of the knife]

Not sure if anyone has heard about this, but apparently it's rumored that Sabastian Croft has been cast as a young, thirteen year old Ned for a flashback scene, (wiggles eyebrows).

 

 

 

 

[RumHam]

2 hours ago, Alia of the knife said:

Not sure if anyone has heard about this, but apparently it's rumored that Sabastian Croft has been cast as a young, thirteen year old Ned for a flashback scene, (wiggles eyebrows).

 

 

 

 

That'd just be something like him fighting with Lyanna in the yard instead of Benjen, or some new scene. I have no doubt we're getting the Tower of Joy next season but Ned shouldn't be thirteen there.

[purple-eyes]

1 hour ago, RumHam said:

That'd just be something like him fighting with Lyanna in the yard instead of Benjen, or some new scene. I have no doubt we're getting the Tower of Joy next season but Ned shouldn't be thirteen there.

I think it is rumored that Sean bean will be back to play Ned in toj. 

[Ygrain]

4 hours ago, Alia of the knife said:

Not sure if anyone has heard about this, but apparently it's rumored that Sabastian Croft has been cast as a young, thirteen year old Ned for a flashback scene, (wiggles eyebrows).

Cute!

- Though, it means, no HH flashback... unless they put more time between HH and the Rebellion?

55 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

I think it is rumored that Sean bean will be back to play Ned in toj. 

Huh. That would require a lot of makeup...

[sciteacher]

16 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Cute!

- Though, it means, no HH flashback... unless they put more time between HH and the Rebellion?

Huh. That would require a lot of makeup...

Or the use of special effects, as seen in the link. Special effects are expensive, so you expect fewer full-on face shots. Then again, you wouldn't really want to see lots of Ned, you'd want to see what he was seeing. 

[GoTSpoiler]

Alright, for the last time: R + L = J is true. It means Robert + Lyanna = Jon (Baratheon).

As I first elaborated in a different thread on April 1 2013 (no foolin’), Robert is clearly Jon’s father. Everyone wants Jon to be a Targaryan for some reason, but it’s a brilliant distraction from the far more interesting truth.  Okay, my theory about the White Walkers and the Children of the Forest was flat wrong, but that’s got nothing to do with this. We know from the background material (DVD extras, books), that Baratheons have dragon blood (in small measure) because the family came to Westeros with the Targaryans from way back when. Remember those centuries of Targaryan rule over the seven kingdoms, the Hand was always a Baratheon. Until the day that Robert revolted against the Mad King. Now, by looking backward, we see the path forward. A return. A restoring of balance. A putting of things right. In other words, the series with end by putting the Targaryans back on the Iron Throne, with a Baratheon back at her side as her Majesty’s Hand. That Hand, that Baratheon, is Jon.

Think about it: how can Jon and Dany fall in love and get to shagging is he’s her nephew (son of Rhaegar). No, he’s a Baratheon, and the series will end with a marriage between the Queen and the Hand.

 

Seems obvious, yet all the naysayers get quite uppity and say it makes no sense. They can’t imagine why Ned would hide Robert’s son from Robert. But of course Ned WOULD do it if the boy’s identity put the boy’s life in danger (the Lannisters would not have tolerated such a potential threat to their line) and, of course, because he promised his dying sister that he would ...

 

 

[Jon Weirgaryen]

@GoTSpoiler: In general, we R+L=J denizens expect arguments, quotes, similarities, leads, etc. from the book(s) to support ideas and theories.

Game of Thrones is quite a worthwhile book. Read it, and come back with what you find supporting your theory and we will gladly tell you, how it fares compared to what else is around. Also, after having read the books, reading the OP of the fixed thread and, if you like, some of the essays linked to it, will help you along.

[The Wolves]

1 hour ago, GoTSpoiler said:

Alright, for the last time: R + L = J is true. It means Robert + Lyanna = Jon (Baratheon).

 

As I first elaborated in a different thread on April 1 2013 (no foolin’), Robert is clearly Jon’s father. Everyone wants Jon to be a Targaryan for some reason, but it’s a brilliant distraction from the far more interesting truth.  Okay, my theory about the White Walkers and the Children of the Forest was flat wrong, but that’s got nothing to do with this. We know from the background material (DVD extras, books), that Baratheons have dragon blood (in small measure) because the family came to Westeros with the Targaryans from way back when. Remember those centuries of Targaryan rule over the seven kingdoms, the Hand was always a Baratheon. Until the day that Robert revolted against the Mad King. Now, by looking backward, we see the path forward. A return. A restoring of balance. A putting of things right. In other words, the series with end by putting the Targaryans back on the Iron Throne, with a Baratheon back at her side as her Majesty’s Hand. That Hand, that Baratheon, is Jon.

 

Think about it: how can Jon and Dany fall in love and get to shagging is he’s her nephew (son of Rhaegar). No, he’s a Baratheon, and the series will end with a marriage between the Queen and the Hand.

 

 

Seems obvious, yet all the naysayers get quite uppity and say it makes no sense. They can’t imagine why Ned would hide Robert’s son from Robert. But of course Ned WOULD do it if the boy’s identity put the boy’s life in danger (the Lannisters would not have tolerated such a potential threat to their line) and, of course, because he promised his dying sister that he would ...

 

 

 

 

No. Just no. 

[Ygrain]

4 hours ago, GoTSpoiler said:

As I first elaborated in a different thread on April 1 2013 (no foolin’), Robert is clearly Jon’s father

Then be so kind and sum up your points.

4 hours ago, GoTSpoiler said:

Remember those centuries of Targaryan rule over the seven kingdoms, the Hand was always a Baratheon.

All the non-Baratheon Hands say hello.

4 hours ago, GoTSpoiler said:

Think about it: how can Jon and Dany fall in love and get to shagging is he’s her nephew (son of Rhaegar). No, he’s a Baratheon, and the series will end with a marriage between the Queen and the Hand

In the book where Dany's parents were brother and sister? As easy as.

4 hours ago, GoTSpoiler said:

Seems obvious, yet all the naysayers get quite uppity and say it makes no sense. They can’t imagine why Ned would hide Robert’s son from Robert. But of course Ned WOULD do it if the boy’s identity put the boy’s life in danger (the Lannisters would not have tolerated such a potential threat to their line) and, of course, because he promised his dying sister that he would ..

Except that at the time when Ned makes the promise, Robert is not married to Cersei and the Lannisters are doing their best to get in his good graces. Killing Robert's own baby by his beloved, pedestaled Lyanna? That would pit all of Robert's rebel allies against the Lannisters and the former royal loyalists would happily join to get their revenge for the Sack.

 

[Alia of the knife]

On 2/4/2016 at 2:54 PM, RumHam said:

That'd just be something like him fighting with Lyanna in the yard instead of Benjen, or some new scene. I have no doubt we're getting the Tower of Joy next season but Ned shouldn't be thirteen there.

That was my thought as well.

 

On 2/4/2016 at 4:54 PM, Ygrain said:

Cute!

- Though, it means, no HH flashback... unless they put more time between HH and the Rebellion?

Maybe they will manipulate Ned age in the flashback scene?

[Rob Storm]

Relatively new here and would love some opinions on Ned/Lyanna's promise, I have few questions:

If R+L=J is correct then Lyanna likely filled Ned in a little regarding tPtwP or at least some of Jon's significance and danger he is in. 

Is Ned breaking Lyanna's promise simply by allowing Jon to go to the Wall?  Does he feel he protected Jon as long as he could?  He is very aware that the Wall is dangerous and Winter is in fact Coming (even heard the questionable tales from the Nights Watch deserter to make the Wall seem more dangerous even than normal).  Seems like this is a poor way to protect his nephew and tPtwP if that was in fact Lyanna's dying wish.

 

Side question:  do we believe that Ned or Lyanna/Rhaegar gave Jon the name Jon?  Could be a name Rhaegar wanted to use to honor his best friend Connington?  Not a traditional Stark name, but that could be because Ned doesn't want a "bastard" to have a Stark name like Brandon or Rickard.