Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RumHam

R+L=J v. 102

Recommended Posts

Valyria was founded, at most 5000 years ago.

Whats the source for this information?

Edit: also do you have a link to that SSM about how old the prophecy is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kill the boy and let the man be born . . .

Free the Targaryen king by killing the boy Snow . . .

Makes sense to me. ;)

I agree, but please don't tell anyone, I think I have them all believing my Rhaeven Targaryen thing.

Um... This isn't private, is it? I'm about to post it in the main thread -- damn. Let's just see if I can successfully navigate away without accidentally hitting "Add reply". Caaaaareful now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2-3 good answers to this question. Prince can be used as a catchall title for any kind of monarch. So, in that respect, there is no contradiction in referring to a king as a prince. Also, the Targaryens were no longer in possession of the IT. And, Jon may not have been crowned.

Something like Valyrian nobility is my guess for a rough translation of the original text. For years people thought it meant prince, Aemon stated that it might have meant princess. Given the subsequent translation(s), I doubt that dragon was being used in a way that was compatible with bastard.

Without knowledge of the possibly various languages the translation has come down through, the cultural biases of the individual translators, and scribal errors that may have crept in, I don't think you can draw any specific conclusions like that.

For example:

Original, literal translation: "The issue of the Height"

Ancient translator number 1, knowing that in the ancient idiom "height" was used for kings, and doing a good job: "The child of the king"

Less ancient translator number 2, translating translator number 1, being poetic and not thinking of bastards or women : "The prince"

Modern translator who knows the language of translator 1 better than most, but still doesn't think of bastards: "The prince or princess"

Modern translator who knows the original language but not the contemporary usage: "These are all totally wrong, it means 'the strife on the mountain'".

My hypothesis

Original, literal translation: "The child of the greatwing".

Ancient translator, from a time of dragons "The child of the dragon".

Less ancient translator, from a time of dragon princes: "The Prince".

Correct translation: "The Raven That was Promised".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats the source for this information?

Edit: also do you have a link to that SSM about how old the prophecy is?

I have been looking for a source for the founding of Valyria.....

and the age of the prophecy....

drawing a blank...

The closest I got to an answer was a link to R+L=J v 102...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does have no bearing on Ned's feelings the need for secrecy.

It has direct bearing on Ned's ability to maintain secrecy. Ned feeling things must be kept secret is of no consequence it Ned is not able to keep it a secret

It doesn't make sense to conclude from someone failing to do something that they didn't try to do it. Nor does it make sense to conclude that people having knowledge of an event after the fact means it can't have been a secret before the fact. The whole world knew about the Normandy landings within hours of them taking place, but it had been an extremely tightly guarded secret until then.

Ned's lies to try to get Robert to do the right thing... start and end with your assertion that Ned was lying to get Robert to do the right thing.

This lie is manipulative.... accepting it would mean giving up the claim that Ned is honest and honorable--the type of man that would never father a bastard.

That is the objection

Robert tells Ned that "You could never lie for love nor honour, Ned Stark", but he's wrong. Ned lies, and lies repeatedly. He lies to himself to assuage his guilt, being a human not a superhuman. He lies to others, frequently. He lies to his own king, and curses himself for it. He lied to his wife for 14 years. He died with a lie on his lips. Ned's honour does not stop him from lying, it means he tries to lie for good reasons, and even if he thinks he is lying for a good reason, he still curses himself for it. "The deceit made him feel soiled. The lies we tell for love, he thought". He spells this out to Arya:

"We all lie," her father said. "Or did you truly think I'd believe that Nymeria ran off?"

[...]

"We had to throw rocks," she said miserably. "I told her to run, to go be free, that I didn't want her anymore. There were other wolves for her to play with, we heard them howling, and Jory said the woods were full of game, so she'd have deer to hunt. Only she kept following, and finally we had to throw rocks. I hit her twice. She whined and looked at me and I felt so 'shamed, but it was right, wasn't it? The queen would have killed her."

"It was right," her father said. "And even the lie was . . . not without honor."

- aGoT ch.22

By the way, I appreciate your effort to use the quote feature more. It makes your posts much easier to follow.

As the quotes do not show up in the message reply...I limit them to secondary issues or material from a post other than the one being replied to....

Yes, the board's failure to nest quotes properly is annoying. Generally though, you don't need multiple layers of quotation, it keeps things more concise and easier to read if you only quote parts you are replying to directly -- people can scroll back if they need added context. You can add the quotes yourself quite easily though, by highlighting the text you want placed in quotes and hitting the quote button on the toolbar, or just hitting the quote button and pasting something inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the board's failure to nest quotes properly is annoying. Generally though, you don't need multiple layers of quotation, it keeps things more concise and easier to read if you only quote parts you are replying to directly -- people can scroll back if they need added context. You can add the quotes yourself quite easily though, by highlighting the text you want placed in quotes and hitting the quote button on the toolbar, or just hitting the quote button and pasting something inside.

I just use the code feature because otherwise the quoting feature sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make sense to conclude from someone failing to do something that they didn't try to do it. Nor does it make sense to conclude that people having knowledge of an event after the fact means it can't have been a secret before the fact. The whole world knew about the Normandy landings within hours of them taking place, but it had been an extremely tightly guarded secret until then.

Robert tells Ned that "You could never lie for love nor honour, Ned Stark", but he's wrong. Ned lies, and lies repeatedly. He lies to himself to assuage his guilt, being a human not a superhuman. He lies to others, frequently. He lies to his own king, and curses himself for it. He lied to his wife for 14 years. He died with a lie on his lips. Ned's honour does not stop him from lying, it means he tries to lie for good reasons, and even if he thinks he is lying for a good reason, he still curses himself for it. "The deceit made him feel soiled. The lies we tell for love, he thought". He spells this out to Arya:

Yes, the board's failure to nest quotes properly is annoying. Generally though, you don't need multiple layers of quotation, it keeps things more concise and easier to read if you only quote parts you are replying to directly -- people can scroll back if they need added context. You can add the quotes yourself quite easily though, by highlighting the text you want placed in quotes and hitting the quote button on the toolbar, or just hitting the quote button and pasting something inside.

It doesn't make sense to conclude from someone failing to do something that they didn't try to do it.

One does not get bonus points for trying to keep a secret... intent is a pitiful substitute for competence.

We have a viable report that Ned took a small party with him to the tower.

We used the viable report to assert a probable basis for Ned's decision.

That we have the a viable report of information about the tower getting out.

We use the viable report to assert probable basis for the release of information.

Nor does it make sense to conclude that people having knowledge of an event after the fact means it can't have been a secret before the fact.

agreed...

The whole world knew about the Normandy landings within hours of them taking place, but it had been an extremely tightly guarded secret until then

If another 20 divisions of Germans had showed up at the landings, it would be safe to say that it was no longer a secret... and the guarding of the secret was not sufficient.

Robert tells Ned that "You could never lie for love nor honour, Ned Stark", but he's wrong. Ned lies, and lies repeatedly. He lies to himself to assuage his guilt, being a human not a superhuman. He lies to others, frequently. He lies to his own king, and curses himself for it. He lied to his wife for 14 years.

The assertion that Ned lied to his spouse is based on him being an honorable man... a man too honorable to father a bastard... Ned is now--by the end of the paragraph--a compulsive liar.... not an honorable man. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/honorable Therefore we have no basis to assert that Ned lied to Cat about Jon being his son....

He died with a lie on his lips. Ned's honour does not stop him from lying, it means he tries to lie for good reasons, and even if he thinks he is lying for a good reason, he still curses himself for it. "The deceit made him feel soiled. The lies we tell for love, he thought". He spells this out to Arya:

agreed.

Yes, the board's failure to nest quotes properly is annoying. Generally though, you don't need multiple layers of quotation, it keeps things more concise and easier to read if you only quote parts you are replying to directly -- people can scroll back if they need added context. You can add the quotes yourself quite easily though, by highlighting the text you want placed in quotes and hitting the quote button on the toolbar, or just hitting the quote button and pasting something inside.

It is much easier when I am replying to a block of text than going line by line...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats the source for this information?

Edit: also do you have a link to that SSM about how old the prophecy is?

Naw, I searched for it and came up empty. It is relatively recent though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without knowledge of the possibly various languages the translation has come down through, the cultural biases of the individual translators, and scribal errors that may have crept in, I don't think you can draw any specific conclusions like that.

For example:

Original, literal translation: "The issue of the Height"

Ancient translator number 1, knowing that in the ancient idiom "height" was used for kings, and doing a good job: "The child of the king"

Less ancient translator number 2, translating translator number 1, being poetic and not thinking of bastards or women : "The prince"

Modern translator who knows the language of translator 1 better than most, but still doesn't think of bastards: "The prince or princess"

Modern translator who knows the original language but not the contemporary usage: "These are all totally wrong, it means 'the strife on the mountain'".

My hypothesis

Original, literal translation: "The child of the greatwing".

Ancient translator, from a time of dragons "The child of the dragon".

Less ancient translator, from a time of dragon princes: "The Prince".

Correct translation: "The Raven That was Promised".

Azor Ahai reborn appears to be a male, if we go on what Melisandre thinks. Sure seems like the Stallion that mounts the world would be male.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Azor Ahai reborn appears to be a male, if we go on what Melisandre thinks. Sure seems like the Stallion that mounts the world would be male.

...and so is Mormont's raven. Coincidence? I think not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that argument frequently by people who do not understand why Robert was named king after the rebellion. Robert was a usurper because he didn't take his line to the throne, but jumped past all of the other Targaryens. Robert's grandmother was a Targaryen is why he had the better right among the rebels to the throne.

Robert was named king because he took it, not because of birthright. He had better right to the throne cause anyone else who wanted it was likely to get clobbered. His hammer won him the crown on the trident, not any supposed grandmother. Admitedly, some of his men helped, especially the Starks, but if he hadnt had a grandmother like that, some other link would have been found.

I think R+L=J only matters if Jon is tPtwP, not in regards to gaining the Iron Throne. May become an afterthought if he wins it but birthright won't win it, and shouldnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and so is Mormont's raven. Coincidence? I think not!

Well, you want to look deeply into the subject, why did Rhaegar take up the sword? Because he believed that he was the Prince that was Promised and had to be a warrior to fulfill that prophecy. Jon is a warrior, Daenerys, meh . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert was named king because he took it, not because of birthright. He had better right to the throne cause anyone else who wanted it was likely to get clobbered. His hammer won him the crown on the trident, not any supposed grandmother. Admitedly, some of his men helped, especially the Starks, but if he hadnt had a grandmother like that, some other link would have been found.

I think R+L=J only matters if Jon is tPtwP, not in regards to gaining the Iron Throne. May become an afterthought if he wins it but birthright won't win it, and shouldnt.

Nope, you are mistaken, Robert was named to the throne because he had the stronger claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, you are mistaken, Robert was named to the throne because he had the stronger claim.

BS

He had the stronger arm. If birthright mattered, Viserys would have been named and maybe Robert as Regent. The army and the hammer won it. Birthright was convenient

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS

He had the stronger arm. If birthright mattered, Viserys would have been named and maybe Robert as Regent. The army and the hammer won it. Birthright was convenient

Viserys was being blockaded at Dragonstone, he couldn't table a claim. By succession, Robert is the next in line.

Go to the Targaryen family tree and catalog all of the living male descendants of Maekar I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been looking for a source for the founding of Valyria.....

and the age of the prophecy....

drawing a blank...

The closest I got to an answer was a link to R+L=J v 102...

Old Ghis fell to a "young Valyria" five thousand years ago... if Dany recalls correctly in ASOS, Chapter 23:

Old Ghis had fallen five thousand years ago, if she remembered true; its legions shattered by the might of young Valyria, its brick walls pulled down, its streets and buildings turned to ash and cinder by dragonflame, its very fields sown with salt, sulfur, and skulls. The gods of Ghis were dead, and so too its people; these Astapori were mongrels, Ser Jorah said. Even the Ghiscari tongue was largely forgotten; the slave cities spoke the High Valyrian of their conquerors, or what they had made of it.

That doesn't necessarily serve to date the Dragon that was Promised prophecy, though. In connection with the translation error issue, Maester Aemon says "the language misled us all for a thousand years." If that tells us when it was translated into the Valyrian tongue, the prophecy is more likely to have originated among the Rhoynar - whose defeat by Valyria is mentioned as having taken place at that time.

From ADWD, Chapter 18 (TYRION):

"The Shrouded Lord has ruled these mists since Garin's day," said Yandry. "Some say that he himself is Garin, risen from his watery grave."

"The dead do not rise," insisted Haldon Halfmaester, “and no man lives a thousand years.

and:

"The Palace of Love," [Tyrion] said softly. ... "That was the Rhoynar name," said Haldon Halfmaester, "but for a thousand years this has been the Palace of Sorrow."

I don't recall seeing anything to date the "PtwP" prophecy back any farther than that. It's Azor Ahai "whose coming was prophesied five thousand years ago," according to Melisandre (ASOS, Chapter 63 - DAVOS). But, so far anyway, these look like two different prophetic traditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS

He had the stronger arm. If birthright mattered, Viserys would have been named and maybe Robert as Regent. The army and the hammer won it. Birthright was convenient

Robert, Ned, and Jon took the Iron Throne from the Targaryens by force.

Robert took the IT from Jon and Ned by stronger claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you want to look deeply into the subject, why did Rhaegar take up the sword? Because he believed that he was the Prince that was Promised and had to be a warrior to fulfill that prophecy. Jon is a warrior, Daenerys, meh . . .

Interesting that he took up A sword rather than THE sword. Perhaps he had determined that Lightbringer was a metaphor rather than an actual sword? If it's a metaphor, we might consider that a sword does not have to be a pointy metal stick, it can refer to a person too -- a sellsword, a sworn sword, etc.

Yes, Jon is a warrior. With a sword called Longclaw. Ravens have claws. It's all very simple, Rhaeven Targaryen is AA and TPTWP, Jon is the raven's "sword", Lightbringer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old Ghis fell to a "young Valyria" five thousand years ago... if Dany recalls correctly in ASOS, Chapter 23:

Old Ghis had fallen five thousand years ago, if she remembered true; its legions shattered by the might of young Valyria, its brick walls pulled down, its streets and buildings turned to ash and cinder by dragonflame, its very fields sown with salt, sulfur, and skulls. The gods of Ghis were dead, and so too its people; these Astapori were mongrels, Ser Jorah said. Even the Ghiscari tongue was largely forgotten; the slave cities spoke the High Valyrian of their conquerors, or what they had made of it.

That doesn't necessarily serve to date the Dragon that was Promised prophecy, though. In connection with the translation error issue, Maester Aemon says "the language misled us all for a thousand years." If that tells us when it was translated into the Valyrian tongue, the prophecy is more likely to have originated among the Rhoynar - whose defeat by Valyria is mentioned as having taken place at that time.

From ADWD, Chapter 18 (TYRION):

"The Shrouded Lord has ruled these mists since Garin's day," said Yandry. "Some say that he himself is Garin, risen from his watery grave."

"The dead do not rise," insisted Haldon Halfmaester, “and no man lives a thousand years.

and:

"The Palace of Love," [Tyrion] said softly. ... "That was the Rhoynar name," said Haldon Halfmaester, "but for a thousand years this has been the Palace of Sorrow."

I don't recall seeing anything to date the "PtwP" prophecy back any farther than that. It's Azor Ahai "whose coming was prophesied five thousand years ago," according to Melisandre (ASOS, Chapter 63 - DAVOS). But, so far anyway, these look like two different prophetic traditions.

Thank you for the research.... really..

I was trying to find the basis of the following 2 assertions... and failed to find one outside of R+L=J v. 102.

Valyria was founded, at most 5000 years ago.

Old Ghis had fallen five thousand years ago, if she remembered true; its legions shattered by the might of young Valyria, its brick walls pulled down, its streets and buildings turned to ash and cinder by dragonflame, its very fields sown with salt, sulfur, and skulls. The gods of Ghis were dead, and so too its people; these Astapori were mongrels, Ser Jorah said. Even the Ghiscari tongue was largely forgotten; the slave cities spoke the High Valyrian of their conquerors, or what they had made of if----ASOS, Chapter 23:

Thank you Snowfire.

If Dany remembered true... we have at least 5000---- if not we do not even have the 5000 (or the more or less than)

The prophecy predates the Valyrians. It has been said to be 6000 years old, and Valyria would not have even been a glimmer in anyone's eyes at that time.

is based on the inaccurate "no more" than 5000 years. It also adds 1000 years to Mel's 5000 years from ASOS Chapter 54.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that he took up A sword rather than THE sword.

He took up martial training, not just a sword, but lance et al. You do seem to insist on being obtuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×