R+L=J v.157

[nanother]

Does it make a difference that most/much of the time 'close on' is used in the books instead of 'close to'?

E.g. 'His own remote ancestor, King Loren of the Rock, had tried to stand against the fire when he joined with King Mern of the Reach to oppose the Targaryen conquest. That was close on three hundred years ago, when the Seven Kingdoms were kingdoms, and not mere provinces of a greater realm.'

 Two notable exceptions being the quotes about the war and the siege of Storms End.

Also, does it only work that way for time intervals? When Cat says 'Close to forty men poured out through the castle gates, to what end she did not know. ' (her 2nd chapter in ASoS), or when Tyrion's rough estimate is that there were 'close to fifty' in the common room when he was kidnapped by Cat, I'm inclined to think those mean 'about' 40 or 50. Unless they can somehow be certain it was less.

[Anath]

Looks more like "about" indeed. But people tend to not give much thought to things they're seeing right now, precision-wise. When they think about time and things from the past, they automatically fill in the correct form if they know the dates or lengths, or quantities.

[purple-eyes]

You guys reminded me when I was a young child of middle school, I loved one book so much that I had to spend a lot of time to figure out what those subtle words mean and I had to read every book which is related to this novel (I can find), and had to imagine what will happen to these figures after the ending of book and literally wrote and painted a lot of them by myself. I seriously considered to take this as my major for college (but was stopped by my parents)

Just like you guys wanted to figure out what is the exact meaning of "close to one year".

And my passion towards this song of ice and fire is not even close compared to that one. I can literally recite many sentences and paragraphs right now even I have not read it for many years.

It is so good to be young!

 

 

[purple-eyes]

1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

I am glad to hear you know all my thoughts and desires. Your interpretation of my idiomatic usage is close to laughable. If you want a scan of my driver's license or birth certificate, I guess I can get you a redacted version. I've spent nearly all of my 29 years on Earth in the Midwest. I wouldn't have written something if I wouldn't say it in real life.

Usually in this scaenario you have to hold your driver license as well as a piece of paper which wrote your forum ID by hand-writing so that people can be sure it is you. 

 

[SFDanny]

On January 25, 2016 at 7:47 AM, purple-eyes said:

I'm stuck in a quote box. This new interface is terrible. So many bugs.

[SFDanny]

For what it's worth, as a native speaker of American English - a California native all my life - the phrase "close to a year" can be used to mean either a little less than a year or a little more than a year. Sorry, about this UL, but I have to disagree about this. Normally, if I want to make sure which of those two options are understood, I would say "a little more than a year" or "a little less than a year" but if I'm just telling the listener it's about a year's length of time, give or take, then the phrase is appropriate for that meaning. There is no rule to dictate the usage of this idiom to eliminate one meaning over the other.

Here is the results of a quick google search:

Quote

Close to:

Adv.

1.

close to - (of quantities) imprecise but fairly close to correct; "lasted approximately an hour"; "in justabout a minute";  "he's about 30 years old"; "I've had about all I can stand"; "we meet about once amonth";  "some forty people came"; "weighs around a hundred pounds"; "roughly $3,000";  "holds 3gallons, more or less"; "20 or so people were at the party" just about, more or less, or so, roughly, some, about, approximately, around

underlined for emphasis.

[Universal Sword Donor]

8 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

Usually in this scaenario you have to hold your driver license as well as a piece of paper which wrote your forum ID by hand-writing so that people can be sure it is you. 

 

I'm not pretty enough to do that

[Fire Eater]

On 1/22/2016 at 11:43 AM, IceFire125 said:

"Dragons will win the lords over quicker than ravens"

Doubts and accusers will follow Jon all the way in the halls of the Great Council, just like it was in the halls of Castle Black for the election of a new Lord Commander.  However, just as the raven mount Jon's shoulder causing the droves of votes for Jon, it will be the inverse of Jon mounting on a dragon, in front of the lords of Westeros to see, that will be the final push for the lords to vote him as king.

Good catch regarding that line. To add to that:

Sam glanced up at the sound. Lord Commander Mormont's raven was circling the fire, beating the air with wide black wings.

Drogon's wide black wings beat the air

Jon didn't choose to become LC he was chosen by the brothers of the NW in the election. Jon likewise won't choose to become king, but will be chosen by the lords of the realm at the Great Council. 

I think we know which dragon Jon will mount going by the "wide black wings" description. The one that is a black dragon (akin to LC Caswell being called the "Black Centaur") like him. 

If one brings up that Drogon is already bonded to Dany, I think that may be a reason why Drogon would be the one mounted by Jon. In stories, the hero has to complete a seemingly impossible task to get the reward or recognition. I think Dany would challenge Jon to mount Drogon, thinking he'll get himself killed and eliminating any doubts to his paternity. GRRM also likes to create expectations so he pull the rug put from under the reader, and I think he would want to give the reader the impression that Jon is about to get himself killed like Quentyn. There is also another factor that serves as a wildcard in this scenario: skinchanging. 

[purple-eyes]

Ok, question for native speakers. 

World book: 

Early in the year 279 AC, Rhaegar Targaryen, Prince of Dragonstone, was formally betrothed to Princess Elia Martell, the delicate young sister of Doran Martell, Prince of Dorne. They were wed the following year, in a lavish ceremony at the Great Sept of Baelor in King’s Landing, but Aerys II did not attend.

So they were betrothed in early of 279. 

Then they were wed the following year. 

Is October of 279 counted as "following year"? 

This following year means the following calendar year, which is 280? or the 12 months following the betroth? 

It indeed sounds like Aerys or rhaegar had no reason to wait for one whole year to marry them since he is already 20 and elia is already 22. They should be in a hurry to marry and produce heir. 

 

Second question:

With the coming of the new year, the crown prince had taken to the road with half a dozen of his closest ...

Does this mean rhaegar left in late 281? 

Because when he left, it is still " coming of the 282".......

which can mean 282 has not come yet. 

[Wall Flower]

Well if Australian English counts, I would say that 'the following year' meant that Rhaegar and Elia were married early in 280. They were still likely to be 20 and 22 respectively, with Rhaenys born towards the end of the same year - the Westeros equivalent of September or October, I guess.

I would interpret 'with the coming of the new year' as meaning that Rhaegar left Dragonstone early in 282, after the arrival of the new year and presumably after the birth of Aegon.

[purple-eyes]

11 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

Well if Australian English counts, I would say that 'the following year' meant that Rhaegar and Elia were married early in 280. They were still likely to be 20 and 22 respectively, with Rhaenys born towards the end of the same year - the Westeros equivalent of September or October, I guess.

I would interpret 'with the coming of the new year' as meaning that Rhaegar left Dragonstone early in 282, after the arrival of the new year and presumably after the birth of Aegon.

Aussie surely counts.  

love this country. 

So they wed in 280. And rhaenys was born in 280 too. 

 

 

[purple-eyes]

Oh, for your information, 

that contradictory sentence we have discussed before: 

after Jaime was arranged to join KG, then Tywin resigned, then....

" shortly thereafter, lord whent announced harrenhal tourney" 

was already changed into this in the latest edition

"shortly before, lord whent announced harrenhal tourney". 

So that it will not be contradictory with the announcement in "late 280" on the next page. 

 

[Universal Sword Donor]

7 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

Ok, question for native speakers. 

World book: 

Early in the year 279 AC, Rhaegar Targaryen, Prince of Dragonstone, was formally betrothed to Princess Elia Martell, the delicate young sister of Doran Martell, Prince of Dorne. They were wed the following year, in a lavish ceremony at the Great Sept of Baelor in King’s Landing, but Aerys II did not attend.

So they were betrothed in early of 279. 

Then they were wed the following year. 

Is October of 279 counted as "following year"? 

This following year means the following calendar year, which is 280? or the 12 months following the betroth? 

It indeed sounds like Aerys or rhaegar had no reason to wait for one whole year to marry them since he is already 20 and elia is already 22. They should be in a hurry to marry and produce heir. 

 

Second question:

With the coming of the new year, the crown prince had taken to the road with half a dozen of his closest ...

Does this mean rhaegar left in late 281? 

Because when he left, it is still " coming of the 282".......

y since he which can mean 282 has not come yet. 

 

I'm engaging my native (yet drunk) speaker license,

1) The following year has to be 280

2) Rhaegar waited or decided to do whatever. The crown prince was a mench

3) With the departure, especially since he was on DS most of the time and the pyromancers burnt the blackwater, he and Lyanna couldnt have broken bread until 282.

Shit was crazy

/ashford was after the BotB

[purple-eyes]

4 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

 

I'm engaging my native (yet drunk) speaker license,

1) The following year has to be 280

2) Rhaegar waited or decided to do whatever. The crown prince was a mench

3) With the departure, especially since he was on DS most of the time and the pyromancers burnt the blackwater, he and Lyanna couldnt have broken bread until 282.

Shit was crazy

/ashford was after the BotB

Thanks. 

Lone more question:

"aegon was born in the year before Robert rebellion. "

"Aegon was born in the year prior to the Robert rebellion". 

Robert rebellion happene in somewhere 282. 

Do these mean aegon was born in 281? 

If Robert rebellion happened in oct of 282. Aegon was born in jan of 282, does this count as " the year before rebellion" ?

[Jon Snow Nothing]

7 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

Thanks. 

Lone more question:

"aegon was born in the year before Robert rebellion. "

"Aegon was born in the year prior to the Robert rebellion". 

Robert rebellion happene in somewhere 282. 

Do these mean aegon was born in 281? 

If Robert rebellion happened in oct of 282. Aegon was born in jan of 282, does this count as " the year before rebellion" ?

Question from a non native speaker:

What does this have to do with R+L=J?

 

 

[purple-eyes]

25 minutes ago, Jon Snow Nothing said:

Question from a non native speaker:

What does this have to do with R+L=J?

 

 

The exact birth date of Aegon has a tremendous effect on the story line of R+L=J.

it can have a huge effect on the purpose of tourney and motiivation of rhaegar and the details of abduction.

By the way, this is obvious the reason why GRRM never bothered to tell us which year Aegon was born.

and also why he never bothered to tell the exact time of tourney. not even, early or late of 281.

[Jon Snow Nothing]

19 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

The exact birth date of Aegon has a tremendous effect on the story line of R+L=J.

it can have a huge effect on the purpose of tourney and motiivation of rhaegar and the details of abduction.

By the way, this is obvious the reason why GRRM never bothered to tell us which year Aegon was born.

and also why he never bothered to tell the exact time of tourney. not even, early or late of 281.

Well, if there was an abduction, you think it happened right after the tourney? Didn't GRRM state that his dates are all mixed and he doesn't know exactly when each character did what?

Don't tell me this is all about sex with Elia being dangerous or sex with Elia being ok... You think he needed desperately a "third head" like many people here, right? And that he chose Lyanna to be the mother?

I just don't understand the huge effect on the purpose of tourney... wasn't it to be a reunion of Lords to depose Aerys? What this has to do with Aegon? Either she was pregnant or she was not, no way she was in the tourney after giving birth. So... maybe it's my lack of English skills, but I don't get it? Especially related to the parentage of Jon Snow?

[purple-eyes]

5 minutes ago, Jon Snow Nothing said:

Well, if there was an abduction, you think it happened right after the tourney? Didn't GRRM state that his dates are all mixed and he doesn't know exactly when each character did what?

Don't tell me this is all about sex with Elia being dangerous or sex with Elia being ok... You think he needed desperately a "third head" like many people here, right? And that he chose Lyanna to be the mother?

I just don't understand the huge effect on the purpose of tourney... wasn't it to be a reunion of Lords to depose Aerys? What this has to do with Aegon? Either she was pregnant or she was not, no way she was in the tourney after giving birth. So... maybe it's my lack of English skills, but I don't get it? Especially related to the parentage of Jon Snow?

GRRM surely has a messy timeline. But for some major events, there is a timely order.

If Aegon was born before tourney, then Rhaegar already knew that he needed a different woman to give him the third child.

Then his crowning or even the tourney itself may be desgined to fulfil this need.

He may organize this tourney to choose a proper mother for his third head, he may use rose crown to show his final choice, he may use crowning to seduce Lyanna to fall in love and agree to elope with him. and if Elia already knew she can not have third child, she would be fine with this crowning, that is why she was silent for this infamous crowning. So everything can be different.

Yes, I believe a major reason of eloping is to create the third child.

 

 

[Jon Snow Nothing]

4 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

GRRM surely has a messy timeline. But for some major events, there is a timely order.

If Aegon was born before tourney, then Rhaegar already knew that he needed a different woman to give him the third child.

Then his crowning or even the tourney itself may be desgined to fulfil this need.

He may organize this tourney to choose a proper mother for his third head, he may use rose crown to show his final choice, he may use crowning to seduce Lyanna to fall in love and agree to elope with him. and if Elia already knew she can not have third child, she would be fine with this crowning, that is why she was silent for this infamous crowning. So everything can be different.

Yes, I believe a major reason of eloping is to create the third child.

 

 

Oh, I see now. You think Rhaegar might have thought about Ice and Fire, and was sure Lyanna Stark would be among the people there?

And if Elia was bed-ridden for six months after Rhaenys, do you think she could leave DS to go to a tourney after giving birth to Aegon? Does that fit the timeline?

ETA: how do you know she was silent about the crowning?

 

[corbon]

 

On 29/01/2016 at 3:45 AM, UnmaskedLurker said:

Wow -- it came from corbon. That is really disappointing as he is a really sharp guy who engages in fairly critical analysis most of the time.

Thanks, I guess.

On 29/01/2016 at 3:45 AM, UnmaskedLurker said:

Maybe it is function of where he lives (I believe he lives in Asia).

Not a function of where he lives (yes Asia), but where he's from (NZ) and perhaps being more aware of differences in speaking patterns, maybe? Having a wife for whom english is not a first language means idiomatic usage gets thought about and discussed (more often in the lines of "what the heck does that mean?!" ) a bit more than it might in other circumstances. 
And its a more precise analysis IMO (of course). I doubt it differs greatly in use even in US, where they don't even speak english, but some bastardisation they  call english. 

On 29/01/2016 at 3:45 AM, UnmaskedLurker said:

Here in the U.S. (where GRRM also lives) the phrase "close to a year" would be understood by just about anyone I know as meaning a little less than a year. Maybe other parts of the world have different word usage for such a phrase -- I have no idea -- I am only speaking from the point of view of an American speaker (and again -- GRRM is an American).

That would be its most common modern usage, yes - to just 'fail' reaching a milestone. That could be over or under the milestone depending on whether short or long is 'good'. For example, a 9.99sec 100m would not usually be called 'close to' a 10sec 100m because it is close, but it falls on the 'good' side' of the 10sec milestone.
In modern parlance we tend to be very much about the milestones, so this usage is dominant.
We are also much more casual in language use. We use 'about' often in its 'approximately" type meaning whereas more formal language seems to use 'about' much more as its connective term instead and use other phrases for the approximately term.

However, it is also possible, and reasonable, for a person who is really not interested in the milestone to use 'close to' in exactly the same way as 'about' - merely indicating proximity to the milestone rather than one side or the other. In this case the person is not deliberately deceiving their audience to imply one way or another, they simply don't care about the milestone. Or they are using slightly more formal language and thus not using the casual 'about' for proximity.

On 29/01/2016 at 3:45 AM, UnmaskedLurker said:

Corbon's analysis is all about the technical meaning of the word "close" as I suspected anyone taking that position would focus on for purposes of making such an argument. But that analysis ignores the nature of speech -- and phrases -- and the way idiomatic English is used -- at least the specific use of that phrase in the U.S.

I think its more appropriate to consider the language as used in Westeros, more than the US. Westerosi speakers are more formal than modern westerners. Thats why (IMO) the ToJ dialogue comes off to many people as stilted and unnatural, whereas I find it entirely natural given the more formal usage that Westerosi nobles commonly use, especially in very formalised settings like the ToJ meeting, almost ritual-like.

On 29/01/2016 at 3:45 AM, UnmaskedLurker said:

John Suburbs retort was right on point. Context always matters. If I say that I live "close to a store" then of course it would mean close on either side. But corbon simply is wrong that at least in the U.S. (again -- where GRRM is from) that anyone would ever use the phrase "close to a year" to mean anything other than a little less than a year. That phrase just is not used in any other sense of the meaning. 

I don't think I got time to reply there before that conversation drifted off. Or I chose not to. Sometimes its just not worth it. As above, I think that you have to look past defining it by a limited modernistic usage and be aware of who is talking and how they say things.

On 29/01/2016 at 3:45 AM, UnmaskedLurker said:

To emphasize the point and demonstrate that the issue is one of idiomatic usage of a phrase and not technical definitions of each word in a phrase -- the word "close" does not have the same usage as the word "about" in a similar context. Even though in the dictionary they both mean "near" in this context -- the usage simply is not the same. I keep repeating the phrase in my head to think of whether I could ever hear those words as possibly meaning a little over a year -- and I cannot. corbon can call bullshit all he wants -- but he does not live in the U.S. I live here -- and GRRM lives here. I can tell you and corbon that an American that used the phrase "the war lasted close to a year" to mean possibly a little more or less than a year -- was intentionally trying to mislead a bunch of listeners. On the other hand, if an American stated that "the war lasted about a year" then it would be heard as meaning maybe a little under or a little over a year.

And I suspect that even an american could use it without deceit if he simply didn't care about the year-milestone - he was disinterested enough in the subject at that time that he didn't feel that the year or not-year was relevant, and wasn't sure whether it was a full year or not quite. He probably wouldn't because he has 'about' to use that way instead as most common usage.

OTOH, of the 246x the word 'about' occurs in AGoT (I'm not checking through the rest of the books too!), only a single one (in the prologue) is using the 'approximately' meaning - (night falls) every day about this time - Ser Waymar sarcastically to Gared. About is nearly always used in its connective term - about him, about her, talk about, sing about, about this castle, look about, etc etc...
"Close to" however is referenced on every occasion as meaning proximity. Close to each other, close to tears, close to a year, close to the sun, close to fifty men (a rough count), close to home, close to three feet wide, close to them, close to (various places, various people, various things), close to a hundred nights captive, close to Arya's age.
Of those, I think its clear that the close to 50 (milestone) could be on either side, since its a rough count, the close to Arya's age (milestone) could definitely be either side since ages aren't ever entirely clear, the close to a hundred (milestone) knights captured (and a dozen Lords) is probably just under but could easily be an approximation and actually be just over and I very much doubt that the 'close to three feet' wide trail is entirely under three feet wide, but probably varies slightly, maybe mostly just under and occasionally just over.
Based on that, I can't be sure that the 'close to a year' means 'just under'. Because 'about' simply isn't used that way when these people speak, so wouldn't be used instead of 'close to' if desiring an approximation term, and because 'close to' seems to be used often in indeterminant situations that could be either side of a milestone. 
So I think actually looking at how Westeros uses their phrases backs up my argument that we can't rule out 'close to a year' being possibly slightly over 12 months.

On 29/01/2016 at 3:45 AM, UnmaskedLurker said:

Idiomatic usage simply cannot be proved by formula or breaking down the sub-parts of the phrase. I can only tell you that I have lived in the U.S. my entire life and that is how that phrase is used here.

Which doesn't mean it is the only way it can be used, just that its what you are familiar with.

On 29/01/2016 at 4:21 AM, UnmaskedLurker said:

Now we are getting into much vaguer territory. To my ear -- close to a year actually gives less leeway than better part of a year -- but I admit that distinction could just be me. I don't think there are any firm rules on what someone subjectively means -- other than close to a year means "almost a year, but not quite".

Well, I think there are 'rules' but they aren't firm and they may differ slightly with every speaker. Hence its impossible to parse them 100% accurately when used by another...

On 29/01/2016 at 4:21 AM, UnmaskedLurker said:

I really don't think I can be any more specific than that -- because I don't think the phrase has a more specific meaning. Now I think it is clear that better part of a year really can only mean less than a year even on a technical level as the word "part" cannot mean more than. So that phrase really should not be a matter of any debate that it could mean more than a year. 

Agreed.

On 29/01/2016 at 4:21 AM, UnmaskedLurker said:

After writing the first paragraph above, I looked up "better part of a year" on Google and it states -- more than half. Which supports my initial instinct that "close to a year" is more limiting than "better part of a year" (I don't think a little over half would be considered close to a year). If you really pressed me, I would say that someone who says "close to a year" probably would mean at least ten months -- but again, some people have different notions of how "close" it requires to be "close" so I could not state that something like nine months would be wrong. But ten to eleven months is probably not a bad guess given that we are talking about a war, after all, where there were quite a few battles, so it is going to take some amount of time.

Agreed.
IMO:
"close to year" means probably 10-11 months, could be 13-14 months.
"better part of a year" means 7-11 months.
And then factor in people simply being wrong, in either their memory or their knowledge...