Usrnmhsnomning Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 There is no such thing as dragons having full growth, because they're constantly growing. Which means that the term dosen't refer to something exact (as you make it look like) and you can use it freely. And I consider that the best time you can say they reached maturity is when they're albe to ride into a fight. But don't turn this discussion into arguing semantics. I didn't say they had a full growth. I didn't use the term to refer to something exact. I didn't turn this discussion into arguing semantics (but I'll happily oblige). Your definition of growth means squat to the author, and the characters who actually are involved with dragons a la TPATQ. By TPATQ, Danys dragons are small and wouldn't be considered combat ready. I never said that they're undoing the connection they already have with the word, merely changing some of them (as any being does). but to assume that a grown and already bounded dragon will unleash fire whenever someone randomly says "dracarys" is completely :bs: No, you just insisted that in all likeliness a dragon won't have the same connection to the word even when "unbounded". It's fair to assume that they're no longer interested in games and being cute around people. The lash worked for Dany but it did not for Quentyn, why should 'dracarys' be any different? If 'dracarys' from anyone but Dany was so off-limits, why'd they respond to Jorah? No, really, what textually supported reason do you actually have for the response the dragons give to Jorah for using that word (that isn't "they are trained to respond to it")? The lash 'worked' for Dany in the sense that she beat down her dragons with it when they were smaller. What'd Drogon do when Dany raised the lash against him in the pits? He tried to kill her with fire. Poor point you've made, given Danys lash almost had the same result as Quentyns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usrnmhsnomning Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Just gonna add that I'm probably not doing AM's theory justice, but I certainly agree with it and believe the posters I'm responding to have flawed conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arya kiddin' Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I'd say the argument of comparing a command to "bark" with a command to "breath fire" is way off, particularly when all you have is a hypothetical anecdote to back yourself with. Nevermind that dogs =/= dragons and barking =/= breathing fire. Viserion knows that "dracarys" means breath fire. Viserion breaths fire when Jorah says "dracarys". I fail to see how the argument is "off" when it is a literal direct reflection of the text. And all I'll say again is there is no way in-text to know that what Viserion did was whether an angry reaction or actually him obeying Jorah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 A bit OT, but an interesting byproduct of the dragon fire translation of dracarys is that Targaryen names ending in -ys literally end in fire. Not that I'm claiming it's a code telling us that "Dany will end (die) in fire" or anything. Though that does seem like a distinct possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usrnmhsnomning Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 And all I'll say again is there is no way in-text to know that what Viserion did was whether an angry reaction or actually him obeying Jorah You have to be deliberately misreading and misrepresenting the text to deny that Viserion was obeying Jorah, so you keep doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arya kiddin' Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 You have to be deliberately misreading and misrepresenting the text to deny that Viserion was obeying Jorah, so you keep doing that. It's ok. We don't have to agree. With clearly nothing in the text it is just a matter of interpretation after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usrnmhsnomning Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 It's ok. We don't have to agree. With clearly nothing in the text it is just a matter of interpretation after all. Except it's really not. Dany makes a point that 'dracarys' is used as a command for fire, Jorah inadvertently proves it works for all three dragons by saying 'dracarys' with Viserion responding. That's a clear cut as you can get. A command to breath fire was given, Viserion responded. If you want to claim that Viserion wasn't responding to 'dracarys' and was instead just having an angry outburst, go ahead and back it up. Otherwise, the text as it lies is what we go by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IRON BANK Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Yes, I think the Ministry of Targ Propaganda would be very upset. I disagree Targ blood is more than likely what is needed to bond with dragons, However other magic might be able to be instilled in that process as well, horns, warging, and some other elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Rayne Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 A bit OT, but an interesting byproduct of the dragon fire translation of dracarys is that Targaryen names ending in -ys literally end in fire. Not that I'm claiming it's a code telling us that "Dany will end (die) in fire" or anything. Though that does seem like a distinct possibility. Or the 'ys' ending could mean "dragon". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Or the 'ys' ending could mean "dragon". I find that to be highly unlikely considering the Latin word for dragon is draco. Fwiw, David J. Peterson, who creates the languages for the show, came to the same conclusion. Peterson commented that he considered unfortunate Martin's choice of dracarys because of its (presumably intended) similarity to the Latin word for dragon, draco. - Link One point I should have clarified is that I'm not sure where 'dragon' ends and 'fire' begins in dracarys. I'd say it's at least drac, but could also be draca or dracar. So the valyrian word for 'fire' could be -arys, -rys, or -ys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoamingRonin Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Just gonna add that I'm probably not doing AM's theory justice, but I certainly agree with it and believe the posters I'm responding to have flawed conclusions. The theory hinges on the belief that Dany's older dragons will behave exactly like her younger ones. She has come to a flawed conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Creighton Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 A bit OT, but an interesting byproduct of the dragon fire translation of dracarys is that Targaryen names ending in -ys literally end in fire. Not that I'm claiming it's a code telling us that "Dany will end (die) in fire" or anything. Though that does seem like a distinct possibility.Dear god J. Star don't even use the word code. I are you trying to give me an ulcer?Drac, Draco, Dragon, makes sense.There are multiple forms of fire in latin and it could be they same as they are close enough.Arys, Aryen, Matin often spells fire with a y fyre as well when used in a name. If using Latin the name could find it's root in Ares, Homer who wrote of Ares blazing steeds, his symbolic fiery sphere (Mars). Ares often blazed with a burning light and the shine from his eyes was like a burning fire. Ares is often associated with fire do to war. Fire and blood is also associated with war and Ares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I disagree Targ blood is more than likely what is needed to bond with dragons, However other magic might be able to be instilled in that process as well, horns, warging, and some other elements. I don't know if Targ blood is needed or not. Just finished the series recently and haven't thought about the issue much. Maybe you're right. Just saying the boys and gals down at the Targaryen Ministry of Propaganda would probably be pretty upset if the blood of Valyrian Master Race wasn't needed to control dragons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kephv Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 The dragons wouldn't even obey Dany eventually, so it's likely they won't be obeying strangers' commands either, unless it's to fry them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyse Stark Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I know this is totally OT but if Jon even bonds with a dragon, will he need to train his dragon to co-exist and work with his direwolf Ghost? I am looking at this as a possibility, as Ghost and the dragon would be on opposite ends of the spectrum. For both to exist harmoniously both may need to learn how to endure the temperatures that each other's are used to. Dragons are used to climates that are scorching and arid, while dire wolves usually tolerate arctic climates. But Jon may be the conduit that may help both learn to cope with climates that are vastly different from what they are used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usrnmhsnomning Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 The theory hinges on the belief that Dany's older dragons will behave exactly like her younger ones. She has come to a flawed conclusion. I would imagine the theory comes with the implication that as per TPATQ, Danys dragons would be considered young for quite some time (the rest of the series) and not considered battle ready by the original dragon riders. As such, the conclusion you are referring to isn't flawed, it's actually supported by the text. Conversely, the idea that Danys dragons won't behave the same (and by that I refer to their learned behaviour, 'dracarys') as they age IS unsupported by the text and is supposition on the behalf of those suggesting it. And we aren't talking about general behaviour here, as far as I can tell, making your statement flawed in premise. We are discussing the learned behaviour of the dragons and the likeliness that the learned behaviour will be exploited, or more specifically, whether or not other people will be able to use 'dracarys' to illicit a response. And the answer is yes, because we already have a case of it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carcetti Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Crackpot: Could this have something to do with The Doom? "Dracarys" being tossed out one too many times and everything just spiralling down from there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Beyond the Wall Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 ............ One point I should have clarified is that I'm not sure where 'dragon' ends and 'fire' begins in dracarys. I'd say it's at least drac, but could also be draca or dracar. So the valyrian word for 'fire' could be -arys, -rys, or -ys.Just to add....... adding -ary(s/ies) in English indicates that a word is related to something, example unitary is relating to units. So Dracarys is relating to dragons. I know I know it probably is something great in Valaryian, just pointing out that in English it makes sense as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 And all I'll say again is there is no way in-text to know that what Viserion did was whether an angry reaction or actually him obeying Jorah Are you kidding? Jorah says "dracarys," which has been established as the "fire" command, and Viserion breathes fire (and as Tze hypothesized, it's possible that if Drogon and Rhaegal would have too if they hadn't so recently done it; they do "react"). Gee, I wonder what could we possibly draw from that incident? Weren't you the one bitching about snow and kings and whatnot? And yet you're arguing this? Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 The theory hinges on the belief that Dany's older dragons will behave exactly like her younger ones. She has come to a flawed conclusion. Prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.