R+L=J v.157

[purple-eyes]

7 hours ago, Jon Snow Nothing said:

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?

 

In fact GRRM's timeline is a mess.

Technically Elia should not be in the tourney in any given scenario. Because she is either in bed for rest, or pregnant, or weak after birth through the whole 281. And tourney seems to be in the second half of the year, so she was surely pregnant for several months already if Aegon was born in 281. 

But GRRM needed her to be at the tourney to make things more dramatic. He mentioned Elia was there every time he mentioned about the crowning.

I mean we cannot argue with author on this, if he said she is there, then no matter how unreasonable it is, she had to be there.

I will not be surprised at all that we found later that by the timeline, Elia was heavily pregnant during the tourney.

But GRRM would simply say: what? I did not say she is pregnant, does not mean she is not.

 

[Lord Varys]

There are little timeline problems with Aegon's birth, really. Everything works out if we assume Rhaenys is born late enough in 280 AC to give her six months of recovery time before she is impregnated again, allowing Aegon to be born in December 281 AC or January 282 AC. Harrenhal can then easily be at some time in the year when Elia Martell was still able to travel to Harrenhal without it inconveniencing her too much. 

The idea that Aegon was already born at Harrenhal makes no sense because Yandel does not mention Aegon as being born by that time. That certainly is no proof, but we also know that Elia nearly died during Aegon's birth. Would she soon thereafter travel to tourney in the Riverlands if she also had a newborn babe to care for? Not very likely.

[purple-eyes]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There are little timeline problems with Aegon's birth, really. Everything works out if we assume Rhaenys is born late enough in 280 AC to give her six months of recovery time before she is impregnated again, allowing Aegon to be born in December 281 AC or January 282 AC. Harrenhal can then easily be at some time in the year when Elia Martell was still able to travel to Harrenhal without it inconveniencing her too much. 

The idea that Aegon was already born at Harrenhal makes no sense because Yandel does not mention Aegon as being born by that time. That certainly is no proof, but we also know that Elia nearly died during Aegon's birth. Would she soon thereafter travel to tourney in the Riverlands if she also had a newborn babe to care for? Not very likely.

sure. But wording about false spring implied that tourney happened in the late of 281.

I agree it is more likely that Aegon was born after the tourney.

But it is also positive that tourney happened in the late 281.

Then this left no choice other than Elia was late in her pregnancy at tourney.

but we had nothing about her situation over the description of HH tourney.

For me, at this point. I tend to believe when GRRM wrote the story of KOLT, he simply forgot or ignored or intentionally hid the fact that Elia was pregnant with Aegon. This may give too much about his central mystery that Rhaegar left due to prophecy of three head dragon. Or this would make his Gary Stu Rhaegar look too bad.

 

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

sure. But wording about false spring implied that tourney happened in the late of 281.

I agree it is more likely that Aegon was born after the tourney.

But it is also positive that tourney happened in the late 281.

Then this left no choice other than Elia was late in her pregnancy at tourney.

but we had nothing about her situation over the description of HH tourney.

For me, at this point. I tend to believe when GRRM wrote the story of KOLT, he simply forgot or ignored or intentionally hid the fact that Elia was pregnant with Aegon. This may give too much about his central mystery that Rhaegar left due to prophecy of three head dragon. Or this would make his Gary Stu Rhaegar look too bad.

 

There is no real proof that the tourney was late in 281 AC. It could easily have been in the middle of the year, say, in one of the 'summer months' (June, July). The fact that the actual false spring didn't last all that long doesn't mean the weather changed to icy-cold winter in a very short period of time. It should take quite some time for the Blackwater to freeze solid, after all. Not to mention that we don't yet know whether the tourney actually took place during the 'official time' of the false spring. All we know is that it occurred during the Year of the False Spring. Granted, we know that there was good weather during the tourney and all, but then, there must have been very mild 'winter weather' during the entire year until such time as the official 'false spring period' began, since people would never have thought that spring was about to begin if there hadn't been any signs in that direction.

But it is, of course, quite clear that Elia must have been pregnant with Aegon during the tourney. George not mentioning that isn't an issue at all. Having Elia being late in her pregnancy at this point is an issue, though, since it raises the question why she, a woman of delicate health who also had severe health problems in the wake of her last birth, would take it upon herself to travel to Harrenhal in the first place. That wouldn't make sense since any form or stress certainly would increase the risk of a miscarriage or an early birth.

Therefore it makes more sense to assume the tourney took place at a time when Elia's pregnancy wasn't as advanced as to make it risky/dangerous for her to travel.

[Ygrain]

Can't resist the linguistic debate :-)

I think that the whole issue is also complicated by the similarity of "close" and "near". They both mean proximity, but if we say "nearly a year", it means "almost", not "slightly over", right? Yet, corbon is right in his quotes that the way" close to" is used by GRRM seems to indicate differentiation in meanings, with "close to" equalling "about" or "approximately" instead. I am almost tempted to consult some language authorities what they know about this :-)

[corbon]

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Can't resist the linguistic debate :-)

I think that the whole issue is also complicated by the similarity of "close" and "near". They both mean proximity, but if we say "nearly a year", it means "almost", not "slightly over", right?

Usually, yes.
its that same thing. We tend to use certain words in certain ways, but thats almost 'fashion' rather than meaning. Languages changing over time and all that...

Incidentally the 'close' usage in AGoT was 222x including all variants of close and only maybe 20-30 were 'close to' (I discounted one where there was clearly a clause separation between "close" and "to" - pulled her close to remove the last of her silks), and of those only the 3-4 I mentioned were using the approximately meaning . "Close on", seemingly used the same way as close to IMO, fits to '300 years' and 'half a year' in the two times it is attached to a milestone. Hard to tell again if it means just short, or merely "approximately", maybe there is a difference from close to, maybe there isn't.

In ACoK 'close' and its variants happens 213x. 22 are used in the connective way.
"Close to" : 'a year' (the siege), Edmure's age (indeterminate number in other words)
"Close on" : the 300th year since Aegon's Landing, 30 years (bringing men otNW to the Wall), two years (since Euron was seen)
In ACoK 'about' is used 312x. We have only one time its used in place of 'approximately" - Bran could see about twenty of them. The rest its other meanings. Interestingly, as another example, a large proportion of the 'about's I would replace with 'around' and would never hear anyone use 'about' in such a way - again, to me, its an older and more formal style of speaking (perhaps not even more formal, just older?)
Similarly, in ACoK in the 242x 'around' is used, not a single one is substituting for "approximately". In my own speaking I'm probably more likely to use 'around a year' than 'about a year' indicating that the term is inexact and being rounded (but not which way' and I would probably use 'nearly' rather than 'close to' for something which fell just short of a milestone (4x use in ACoK, never meaning the way I would).

It seems to me that 'close to' is again merely indicating proximity, not a particular side of a milestone. 'Close on' maybe seems to be falling just short of a milestone, but even that isn't entirely clear.

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Yet, corbon is right in his quotes that the way" close to" is used by GRRM seems to indicate differentiation in meanings, with "close to" equalling "about" or "approximately" instead. I am almost tempted to consult some language authorities what they know about this :-)

It might actually be a good idea. I really work by instinct in my initial appreciation of these sorts of things, but its rare that following up the data doesn't back me up. A professional can explain why, and usually leaves me thinking "I kinda knew that, I just didn't know how to express it so clearly'.
Its the same way if you read the Hobbit you can easily tell it was written for kids in the first half of the 20th century in the UK, whereas the Lord of the Rings was clearly written for an older audience.
In this case I can 'feel' that GRRM writes Westerosi speech in a slightly older, slightly more formal way, which leaves certain (some, not all) word patterns slightly different to the way we would more naturally say them, and, to use the same example again, leaves some readers feeling certain passages (ToJ dialogue) are stilted or unnatural.
In this case I think that the almost total absence of the phrases we would more commonly substitute for 'approximately' means that 'close to' is used this way instead of the way we would more commonly use it.

And all said and done, even used as 'approximately', its still at least 50% likely to mean 'under'!

[Wall Flower]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no real proof that the tourney was late in 281 AC. It could easily have been in the middle of the year, say, in one of the 'summer months' (June, July). The fact that the actual false spring didn't last all that long doesn't mean the weather changed to icy-cold winter in a very short period of time. It should take quite some time for the Blackwater to freeze solid, after all. Not to mention that we don't yet know whether the tourney actually took place during the 'official time' of the false spring. All we know is that it occurred during the Year of the False Spring. Granted, we know that there was good weather during the tourney and all, but then, there must have been very mild 'winter weather' during the entire year until such time as the official 'false spring period' began, since people would never have thought that spring was about to begin if there hadn't been any signs in that direction.

But it is, of course, quite clear that Elia must have been pregnant with Aegon during the tourney. George not mentioning that isn't an issue at all. Having Elia being late in her pregnancy at this point is an issue, though, since it raises the question why she, a woman of delicate health who also had severe health problems in the wake of her birth, would take it upon herself to travel to Harrenhal in the first place. That wouldn't make sense since any form or stress certainly would increase the risk of a miscarriage or an early birth.

Therefore it makes more sense to assume the tourney took place at a time when Elia's pregnancy wasn't as advanced as to make it risky/dangerous for her to travel. Especially not while we have no precise information on the actual date of the 

I'm a bit nervous about stepping into expert territory here, but I think Lord Varys is right. The most likely scenario is that Elia was in the early stages of pregnancy at Harrenhall with Aegon being born late in 281 or early 282. Women didn't get to pee on a stick in medieval times, so it may be a couple of months before her pregnancy was confirmed.

The wording in the WOIAF seems a little ambiguous. Most likely there were a few turns of the moon between the good weather of the tourney and the end of the year when winter had returned with a vengeance. People had to travel home so they couldn't have been snowed in at Harrenhall. It certainly seems unlikely that Elia would have been able to travel to Harrenhall in an advanced stage of pregnancy. I've even wondered if Elia conceived when she and Rhaegar stopped in Kings Landing on the way to Harrenhall (which I presume they did) and Rhaegar had first hand knowledge of the comet.

I think it's JonCon who mentions the half a year bed rest and we don't know how precise he's being - he is no maester and given his attitude to Elia, he may be exaggerating a little. 

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

I'm a bit nervous about stepping into expert territory here, but I think Lord Varys is right. The most likely scenario is that Elia was in the early stages of pregnancy at Harrenhall with Aegon being born late in 281 or early 282. Women didn't get to pee on a stick in medieval times, so it may be a couple of months before her pregnancy was confirmed.

The wording in the WOIAF seems a little ambiguous. Most likely there were a few turns of the moon between the good weather of the tourney and the end of the year when winter had returned with a vengeance. People had to travel home so they couldn't have been snowed in at Harrenhall. It certainly seems unlikely that Elia would have been able to travel to Harrenhall in an advanced stage of pregnancy. I've even wondered if Elia conceived when she and Rhaegar stopped in Kings Landing on the way to Harrenhall (which I presume they did) and Rhaegar had first hand knowledge of the comet.

I think it's JonCon who mentions the half a year bed rest and we don't know how precise he's being - he is no maester and given his attitude to Elia, he may be exaggerating a little. 

In addition, we have to keep in mind that Aerys left Rhaella and Viserys in KL, too. One should assume that the pregnant Princess Consort of Dragonstone would have had an excuse to stay home, too, if her pregnancy had been advanced. It is more likely Elia was at Harrenhal because she wanted to go there, and presumably she only wanted to go there if she felt up to it and healthy enough.

There are two competing versions when Lord Walter announced the tourney (late in 280 or early in 281 AC) but regardless when that was one assumes that spring was already expected when the announcement was made because, you know, one assumes winter is very bad time for a huge tourney, regardless who is paying for it. No idea whether there can be jousting with snow lying around (most likely not), and very few people would be looking forward to camp around Harrenhal in the snow if they also had the option to stay at home where it was much warmer than in some tents.

We don't know how long the winter exactly was, but it clearly would have been close to the end (winter returned, but during the Rebellion it apparently was already spring and eventual summer), suggesting that the stores would be not exactly full, and if there hadn't been a widespread belief that winter was nearing its end (regardless whether it was already spring or not) the tourney simply wouldn't have been announced.

Rhaegar needed the correct season, good weather, and a huge castle to arrange his tourney/covert Great Council thing. Trying to pull this off in the middle of winter or during a time in which could be expected that it would still be cold wouldn't make much sense.

Sure, the guys couldn't predict the weather, but they could make an educated guess.

[Ygrain]

2 hours ago, corbon said:

It might actually be a good idea. I really work by instinct in my initial appreciation of these sorts of things, but its rare that following up the data doesn't back me up. A professional can explain why, and usually leaves me thinking "I kinda knew that, I just didn't know how to express it so clearly'.

I'll see what can be done :-)

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Its the same way if you read the Hobbit you can easily tell it was written for kids in the first half of the 20th century in the UK, whereas the Lord of the Rings was clearly written for an older audience.

Yes, the difference in style is considerable even in translation, and The Silmarillion is a completely different style, as well.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

In this case I can 'feel' that GRRM writes Westerosi speech in a slightly older, slightly more formal way, which leaves certain (some, not all) word patterns slightly different to the way we would more naturally say them, and, to use the same example again, leaves some readers feeling certain passages (ToJ dialogue) are stilted or unnatural.

For me, the ToJ dialogue is "unnatural" not due to the formal way (as a way of speaking, it sounds natural to me in the Westerosi environment), but due to the way the information in it is condensed, which differs from the way other formal dialogues are written. It is such a beautiful gem of writing.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

In this case I think that the almost total absence of the phrases we would more commonly substitute for 'approximately' means that 'close to' is used this way instead of the way we would more commonly use it.

That's a good catch indeed.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

And all said and done, even used as 'approximately', its still at least 50% likely to mean 'under'!

Wow, I have found out that if I mark a part of the text, there appears an offer to quote it! 

"Approximately" definitely goes both ways :-)

[UnmaskedLurker]

On 1/29/2016 at 5:43 PM, 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.

It seems like I hit a nerve -- sorry. I am not trying to read your thoughts or desires. My point was that you started by indicating how "close to" would be used -- but then in your actual "real world" example you used the term "about" rather than "close to". I found that usage somewhat telling because in my 49 years on Earth -- all but two living in the Midwest -- I have not heard people use the term "close to a mile" or "close to a year" to mean maybe a little over or a little under -- rather always a little under.

Whereas, I have heard people use the term "about a mile" or "about a year" to mean maybe a little more or a little less. If your personal usage or experience is different -- I would be tremendously surprised -- but OK. I just would ask you to inquire around without hinting at which answer you prefer -- and ask people that if you told them that you ran "close to a mile" (or "close to two miles" -- or whatever similar phrase) - would they think you meant the same as "about a mile" (i.e., maybe a little more or a little less) or would they think you mean "just under a mile". I strongly suspect that the vast majority would indicate that they would assume you meant a little under a mile. 

If I am wrong -- so be it. But I really don't think I am.

On 1/30/2016 at 10:41 PM, SFDanny said:

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:

underlined for emphasis.

SFDanny--

Same basic challenge to you as to USD. Ask people you know -- without prompting on which alternative you prefer -- what they think you mean if you told them that you worked for a company for "close to a year."  I really doubt they would say maybe a little more or less -- the implication to most people's ear (I strongly suspect) would be just under a year.

But again -- if a reasonable number of people would hear it as identical to "about a year" -- then I am wrong and I will admit that my limited world experience has colored my understanding of idiomatic English.

9 hours ago, corbon said:

 

[snip]

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.

Maybe GRRM would do so on the formalistic grounds that as a technical matter it can mean that -- and as others have pointed out, GRRM is not so precise with his time lines in any event. So even if GRRM originally meant a little under a year -- he might decide to "retcon" it later to match other things he said that would not fit in that time line. I believe he has admitted that distances and time lines are not his strong suit and he tries to be vague on those issues to avoid contradictions.

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.

[purple-eyes]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In addition, we have to keep in mind that Aerys left Rhaella and Viserys in KL, too. One should assume that the pregnant Princess Consort of Dragonstone would have had an excuse to stay home, too, if her pregnancy had been advanced. It is more likely Elia was at Harrenhal because she wanted to go there, and presumably she only wanted to go there if she felt up to it and healthy enough.

There are two competing versions when Lord Walter announced the tourney (late in 280 or early in 281 AC) but regardless when that was one assumes that spring was already expected when the announcement was made because, you know, one assumes winter is very bad time for a huge tourney, regardless who is paying for it. No idea whether there can be jousting with snow lying around (most likely not), and very few people would be looking forward to camp around Harrenhal in the snow if they also had the option to stay at home where it was much warmer than in some tents.

We don't know how long the winter exactly was, but it clearly would have been close to the end (winter returned, but during the Rebellion it apparently was already spring and eventual summer), suggesting that the stores would be not exactly full, and if there hadn't been a widespread belief that winter was nearing its end (regardless whether it was already spring or not) the tourney simply wouldn't have been announced.

Rhaegar needed the correct season, good weather, and a huge castle to arrange his tourney/covert Great Council thing. Trying to pull this off in the middle of winter or during a time in which could be expected that it would still be cold wouldn't make much sense.

Sure, the guys couldn't predict the weather, but they could make an educated guess.

I usually highly respect your explanation, but this one is sort of hard to buy. 

In the history of westeros, there was a winter tourney. And there was some long winter like 5, 10 years. In real life we do activities outside in winter too. We have Winter Olympics regularly. All you need is to clean the snow and choose a dry day. 

If false spring last less than two months,  then unless it happened in early 281, it is hard to believe lord whent already expected spring is coming in late 280. Plus this is to celebrate the naming day of his daughter. Nobody can predict her name day will be overlapping with false spring. She was born 13 years ago. 

For people like stark, they need to travel much more than two months from winterfell to harrenhal. No to mention people from even further. Or from sunspear. 

For this type of national meeting, you really need to announce early enough. Especially you have an date: your daughter's name day. 

Let us forget about elia, look at another quote: 

281 AC is known as the year of the false spring. Winter had held the land in its icy grip for close on two years, but now at last the snows were melting. 

Combined with the quote: 

false speing lasted less than two turns. When the year draw to a close. Winter returned to westeros with a revengence. 

So with all my proficiency in English, I think this said: winter lasted for close on two years (280 and 281), There was snow. Then false spring came. It Lasted less than two turns. Then at the close of year, winter returned to westeros. In the last day, Snow again. 

 

If false spring is June and July. Then what is august, sept, oct, nov? 

False autumn? 

No, it is winter. Even there is no snow, even it is sort of mild, it is still winter. In this case, We will say winter returned to westeros in august, not in the end of the year. 

Sure, there is a chance the author just has a bad wording. 

But before any facts, I will believe tourney happened in the late 281. 

Elia is obviously pregnant by then and grrm just did not want to mention it, or he forgot. 

 

[Kingmonkey]

Close to / close on implies the closing of a gap. Thus normally "close to x" means "less than x" -- the gap on x is being closed. This assumes there is some kind of implied direction. In distance, numbers, passage of time, etc. the natural direction will be to approach it from a zero point, though context may change that (for example if someone told you the temperature was "close to zero" you'd assume it meant above zero because your expectation is that you'd be approaching zero from above), and common usage is fluid anyway. 

For GRRM to use "close to" as a synonym for "about" would be somewhat clumsy, and it's certainly not how I'd expect it to be meant in this context. However let's be honest about this: GRRM ain't perfect and Ygrain's idea of consulting an expert wouldn't help unless he was. If this is GRRM trying to sound slightly archaic, forget it. He gets a lot of his archaisms wrong. 

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

I usually highly respect your explanation, but this one is sort of hard to buy. 

In the history of westeros, there was a winter tourney. And there was some long winter like 5, 10 years. In real life we do activities outside in winter too. We have Winter Olympics regularly. All you need is to clean the snow and choose a dry day. 

If false spring last less than two months,  then unless it happened in early 281, it is hard to believe lord whent already expected spring is coming in late 280. Plus this is to celebrate the naming day of his daughter. Nobody can predict her name day will be overlapping with false spring. She was born 13 years ago. 

For people like stark, they need to travel much more than two months from winterfell to harrenhal. No to mention people from even further. Or from sunspear. 

For this type of national meeting, you really need to announce early enough. Especially you have an date: your daughter's name day. 

Let us forget about elia, look at another quote: 

281 AC is known as the year of the false spring. Winter had held the land in its icy grip for close on two years, but now at last the snows were melting. 

Combined with the quote: 

false speing lasted less than two turns. When the year draw to a close. Winter returned to westeros with a revengence. 

So with all my proficiency in English, this said: winter lasted for close on two years (280 and 281), There was snow. Then false spring came. It Lasted less than two turns. Then at the close of year, winter returned to westeros. In the last day, Snow again. 

 

If false spring is June and July. Then what is august, sept, oct, nov? 

False autumn? 

No, it is winter. Even there is no snow, even it is sort of mild, it is still winter. In this case, We will say winter returned to westeros in august, not in the end of the year. 

Sure, there is a chance the author just has a bad wording. 

But before any facts, I will believe tourney happened in the late 281. 

Elia is obviously pregnant by then and grrm just did not want to mention it, or he forgot. 

We don't have a clear picture of how a winter works in Westeros. We know there are summer snows, though, at least in the North. If that works, then there can also be reasonably mild temperatures (i.e. no snow, and no freezing weather) in winter, too, at least in the southern reaches of Westeros.

George already has confirmed there is (usually) no snow in Dorne or Oldtown. A fact we should keep in mind when discussing stuff like that. In fact, some lords in the southern regions of the Reach might even be able to harvest crops in winter.

I'm aware that there are winter tourneys, too, but one assumes that those would be smaller and local affairs, not something like the Harrenhal tourney. This was deliberately planned as a covert Great Council, not a tourney, and therefore was supposed to draw the entire Realm to Harrenhal. Such plans are most likely not made in the thick of winter, Mad King or no, the chances that the Starks, for instance, would take it upon themselves to travel to Harrenhal just for some fancy tourney if they had to march through a lot of snow for that isn't very likely.

In this whole discussion you have to keep in mind what medieval/ancient cultures did during winter in the real world. And the answer is: pretty much nothing. People usually spend their life at home and waited for the weather to change, hoping that their provisions would get them through winter. There were feasts and such, of course, especially for winter solstice and the like, but you didn't travel miles and miles to participate in such. Not to mention that aside from winter solstice most tradition feasts and celebrations happen to coincide with the approximate ending of winter (e.g. the carnival season here in Germany, which has just begun).

If George wants to sell us that winter and snow is no severe hindrance for the people in his world to travel and/or participate in huge feasts/events then he deals a huge blow to the realism of his series. Winter should also be a major hindrance for war, by the way, as medieval and ancient cultures never warred in winter if their winters involved snow (a fact that should be taken into account when thinking about the end of the Dance, a war that began in autumn and stretched into the first winter year).

A tourney host has to feed his guests, and even if the Prince of Dragonstone paid for everything, the grain and meat had to come from somewhere (i.e. most likely the winter stores). Something you wouldn't do if you weren't under the impression that winter might last another two years or so.

I'm not saying the weather was as good in the early months of 281 AC as it was during the official 'false spring' period, I'm saying that prior to that spring-like, warm weather there would have been a mild winter with, say, temperatures around or above freezing, no fresh snows, melting snows, and the general impression that winter was nearing its end, not continue much longer. Just as not every summer day in Westeros must be hot, not every winter day, month, or year has to be (equally) cold. Winter would have been mild enough to allow Rhaegar and Walter to think that they could arrange their tourney even if it was still winter at that time (because, you know, it would have been a rather mild winter). One assumes that nobody would have gone to the tourney if winter had returned with a vengeance a month or two before the tourney.

And, yeah, the period between the end of the false spring and the return of winter might have been a period of transition. It can take some time and continuous cold temperatures to freeze broad, fast-running streams like the Blackwater, not to mention that the return of winter doesn't necessarily mean that it snows immediately in KL.

The winter years aren't clear either - are they supposed to be 279-280 with 281 being a third year? That would be my opinion, since Yandel is introducing the Year of the False Spring as year were things changed. More importantly, if we go with a 'mild weather 281 AC' even before the false spring began we can perhaps explain how the hell Ned can believe he came down from the Eyrie to go to Harrenhal. We know from AFfC that the Arryns leave the Eyrie for the Gates of the Moon as early as autumn, and, presumably, only return to the Eyrie in spring. If winter had been especially mild in the Vale, Jon Arryn may have had the idea to leave the Eyrie open throughout winter or at least may have decided to return to his summer castle as early as early 281 AC.

1 minute ago, Kingmonkey said:

Close to / close on implies the closing of a gap. Thus normally "close to x" means "less than x" -- the gap on x is being closed. This assumes there is some kind of implied direction. In distance, numbers, passage of time, etc. the natural direction will be to approach it from a zero point, though context may change that (for example if someone told you the temperature was "close to zero" you'd assume it meant above zero because your expectation is that you'd be approaching zero from above), and common usage is fluid anyway. 

For GRRM to use "close to" as a synonym for "about" would be somewhat clumsy, and it's certainly not how I'd expect it to be meant in this context. However let's be honest about this: GRRM ain't perfect and Ygrain's idea of consulting an expert wouldn't help unless he was. If this is GRRM trying to sound slightly archaic, forget it. He gets a lot of his archaisms wrong. 

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. He was, after all, not exactly happy when he realized that one could use the length of the Wall as means to get some good numbers to the distances in Westeros.

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...

I remember cringing visibly when it turned out that Dance only took two years - George had the opportunity to stretch it two about three years if he had set the beginning in January 129 and the end in December 131 AC. That would have allowed the war and events time to breathe. Marshaling armies takes time, and riding across Westeros takes even more time. Since he wasn't writing a novel about the Dance he would have been able to add more realism to that war...

[UnmaskedLurker]

6 minutes ago, Kingmonkey said:

Close to / close on implies the closing of a gap. Thus normally "close to x" means "less than x" -- the gap on x is being closed. This assumes there is some kind of implied direction. In distance, numbers, passage of time, etc. the natural direction will be to approach it from a zero point, though context may change that (for example if someone told you the temperature was "close to zero" you'd assume it meant above zero because your expectation is that you'd be approaching zero from above), and common usage is fluid anyway. 

For GRRM to use "close to" as a synonym for "about" would be somewhat clumsy, and it's certainly not how I'd expect it to be meant in this context. However let's be honest about this: GRRM ain't perfect and Ygrain's idea of consulting an expert wouldn't help unless he was. If this is GRRM trying to sound slightly archaic, forget it. He gets a lot of his archaisms wrong. 

Great point about "close to zero" and I agree. Of course, it can vary by context. If someone states they live "close to the library" then there is no implied direction at issue and it simply means "near the library." But I agree 100% that in a context where an implied "starting point" is at issue, then the "normal" or "typical" usage (at least in American idiomatic English) would be for the meaning to be on the "starting point" side of the ultimate reference point. 

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.

[purple-eyes]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't have a clear picture of how a winter works in Westeros. We know there are summer snows, though, at least in the North. If that works, then there can also be reasonably mild temperatures (i.e. no snow, and no freezing weather) in winter, too, at least in the southern reaches of Westeros.

George already has confirmed there is (usually) no snow in Dorne or Oldtown. A fact we should keep in mind when discussing stuff like that. In fact, some lords in the southern regions of the Reach might even be able to harvest crops in winter.

I'm aware that there are winter tourneys, too, but one assumes that those would be smaller and local affairs, not something like the Harrenhal tourney. This was deliberately planned as a covert Great Council, not a tourney, and therefore was supposed to draw the entire Realm to Harrenhal. Such plans are most likely not made in the thick of winter, Mad King or no, the chances that the Starks, for instance, would take it upon themselves to travel to Harrenhal just for some fancy tourney if they had to march through a lot of snow for that isn't very likely.

In this whole discussion you have to keep in mind what medieval/ancient cultures did during winter in the real world. And the answer is: pretty much nothing. People usually spend their life at home and waited for the weather to change, hoping that their provisions would get them through winter. There were feasts and such, of course, especially for winter solstice and the like, but you didn't travel miles and miles to participate in such. Not to mention that aside from winter solstice most tradition feasts and celebrations happen to coincide with the approximate ending of winter (e.g. the carnival season here in Germany, which has just begun).

If George wants to sell us that winter and snow is no severe hindrance for the people in his world to travel and/or participate in huge feasts/events then he deals a huge blow to the realism of his series. Winter should also be a major hindrance for war, by the way, as medieval and ancient cultures never warred in winter if their winters involved snow (a fact that should be taken into account when thinking about the end of the Dance, a war that began in autumn and stretched into the first winter year).

A tourney host has to feed his guests, and even if the Prince of Dragonstone paid for everything, the grain and meat had to come from somewhere (i.e. most likely the winter stores). Something you wouldn't do if you weren't under the impression that winter might last another two years or so.

I'm not saying the weather was as good in the early months of 281 AC as it was during the official 'false spring' period, I'm saying that prior to that spring-like, warm weather there would have been a mild winter with, say, temperatures around or above freezing, no fresh snows, melting snows, and the general impression that winter was nearing its end, not continue much longer. Just as not every summer day in Westeros must be hot, not every winter day, month, or year has to be (equally) cold. Winter would have been mild enough to allow Rhaegar and Walter to think that they could arrange their tourney even if it was still winter at that time (because, you know, it would have been a rather mild winter). One assumes that nobody would have gone to the tourney if winter had returned with a vengeance a month or two before the tourney.

And, yeah, the period between the end of the false spring and the return of winter might have been a period of transition. It can take some time and continuous cold temperatures to freeze broad, fast-running streams like the Blackwater, not to mention that the return of winter doesn't necessarily mean that it snows immediately in KL.

The winter years aren't clear either - are they supposed to be 279-280 with 281 being a third year? That would be my opinion, since Yandel is introducing the Year of the False Spring as year were things changed. More importantly, if we go with a 'mild weather 281 AC' even before the false spring began we can perhaps explain how the hell Ned can believe he came down from the Eyrie to go to Harrenhal. We know from AFfC that the Arryns leave the Eyrie for the Gates of the Moon as early as autumn, and, presumably, only return to the Eyrie in spring. If winter had been especially mild in the Vale, Jon Arryn may have had the idea to leave the Eyrie open throughout winter or at least may have decided to return to his summer castle as early as early 281 AC.

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. He was, after all, not exactly happy when he realized that one could use the length of the Wall as means to get some good numbers to the distances in Westeros.

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...

I remember cringing visibly when it turned out that Dance only took two years - George had the opportunity to stretch it two about three years if he had set the beginning in January 129 and the end in December 131 AC. That would have allowed the war and events time to breathe. Marshaling armies takes time, and riding across Westeros takes even more time. Since he wasn't writing a novel about the Dance he would have been able to add more realism to that war...

Really? That two winter years you think are 279 and 280? Then 281 has a long warm and soft "winter" until two months of "really warm" false spring? 

I disagree. This is not how " false spring" works. In reality we have false spring. It is a short period within a winter. Have you experienced in the end of cold winter, suddenly there were a few weeks of warm and sunny days, people say: oh, spring is here! Then suddenly a cold air flow came from north and temperature dropped back? I think this is what false spring look like. 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The winter years aren't clear either - are they supposed to be 279-280 with 281 being a third year? That would be my opinion, since Yandel is introducing the Year of the False Spring as year were things changed. More importantly, if we go with a 'mild weather 281 AC' even before the false spring began we can perhaps explain how the hell Ned can believe he came down from the Eyrie to go to Harrenhal. We know from AFfC that the Arryns leave the Eyrie for the Gates of the Moon as early as autumn, and, presumably, only return to the Eyrie in spring. If winter had been especially mild in the Vale, Jon Arryn may have had the idea to leave the Eyrie open throughout winter or at least may have decided to return to his summer castle as early as early 281 AC.

In 281 AC, when the false spring began, "winter had held the land in its icy grip for close on two years". To me, that would suggest that 280-281 was the second year of winter, and 279 AC-280 AC the first, indicating that the winter began in 279 AC.

[purple-eyes]

8 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

 

In 281 AC, when the false spring began, "winter had held the land in its icy grip for close on two years". To me, that would suggest that 280-281 was the second year of winter, and 279 AC-280 AC the first, indicating that the winter began in 279 AC.

This all depends on when this winter started. And we have no idea about this. 

The only thing we know is that,  from the start of this winter to the start of false spring, is close to two years. That is all. 

If false spring is in may, then winter started in 279. 

If false spring is in nov, then winter can start in jan of 280. 

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

Really? That two winter years you think are 279 and 280? Then 281 has a long warm and soft "winter" until two months of "really warm" false spring? 

I disagree. This is not how " false spring" works. In reality we have false spring. It is a short period within a winter. Have you experienced in the end of cold winter, suddenly there were a few weeks of warm and sunny days, people say: oh, spring is here! Then suddenly a cold air flow came from north and temperature dropped back? I think this is what false spring look like. 

Real life seasons are much different. We have calendrical seasons, but the seasons in Westeros have nothing to do with the year and the movement of the planet in relation to its star. They have as of yet unknown magical origins.

In that sense spring, summer, autumn, and winter are measured by completely different means than real world seasons.

While some people in real world might say 'winter is long' or 'spring has come early this year' or something like that, nobody is going to say 'oh, it's winter' if it snows in July because we all know that the calendrical winter is still months away. In Westeros something like that doesn't work. Determining when the seasons end and began is an art unconnected to planetary movements and not connected to the calendar, meaning that, most likely, some magical studies and/or certainly comparative measurements of the temperature, the length of the days (days are much shorter in winter, and presumably the sun disappears altogether in really severe winters like the Long Night, but not for astronomical reasons) and some other studies give the Citadel sufficient knowledge to announce that summer has ended, and autumn began, etc.

Just a little bit good weather shouldn't convince any Westerosi that spring has come in winter, just as snow in the North doesn't convince the average Northman that winter has come. In that sense, I think, the false spring of 281 AC must have been a very unusual event, not just two months of good weather, but a longer period of mild weather culminating in two months of such good weather that people all across the Realm had reason to think that spring had begun.

In light of the fact that astronomy and calendars play no role in the measurement of the seasons the four seasons must have striking and easily recognizable qualities to identify them, or else no one could actually measure them. And we know that there is a recognizable difference between a so-called 'autumn snow storm' of the quality Stannis army suffered through in ADwD (which only killed Southrons and their horses) and an actual blizzard in a northern winter (which should also kill the horses of the Northmen as well as weaker Northmen).

1 hour ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

 

In 281 AC, when the false spring began, "winter had held the land in its icy grip for close on two years". To me, that would suggest that 280-281 was the second year of winter, and 279 AC-280 AC the first, indicating that the winter began in 279 AC.

The potential problem I see with the quote stating that is that this comes in the beginning of the entire section of the Year of the False Spring. Is Yandel there specifically talking about the official period of the false spring, or about the mild weather/the year as a whole? That isn't clear.

It is also not entirely clear whether the winter was two years long - it only speaks about the icy grip. Could be that the actual winter was 2.5-3 years, but the especially icy period stretched over two years. Just as not every summer has to be overwhelmingly hot one assumes not every winter brings equal cold to the entire Realm. If that was the case then nobody would survive even one winter.

[purple-eyes]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Real life seasons are much different. We have calendrical seasons, but the seasons in Westeros have nothing to do with the year and the movement of the planet in relation to its star. They have as of yet unknown magical origins.

In that sense spring, summer, autumn, and winter are measured by completely different means than real world seasons.

While some people in real world might say 'winter is long' or 'spring has come early this year' or something like that, nobody is going to say 'oh, it's winter' if it snows in July because we all know that the calendrical winter is still months away. In Westeros something like that doesn't work. Determining when the seasons end and began is an art unconnected to planetary movements and not connected to the calendar, meaning that, most likely, some magical studies and/or certainly comparative measurements of the temperature, the length of the days (days are much shorter in winter, and presumably the sun disappears altogether in really severe winters like the Long Night, but not for astronomical reasons) and some other studies give the Citadel sufficient knowledge to announce that summer has ended, and autumn began, etc.

Just a little bit good weather shouldn't convince any Westerosi that spring has come in winter, just as snow in the North doesn't convince the average Northman that winter has come. In that sense, I think, the false spring of 281 AC must have been a very unusual event, not just two months of good weather, but a longer period of mild weather culminating in two months of such good weather that people all across the Realm had reason to think that spring had begun.

In light of the fact that astronomy and calendars play no role in the measurement of the seasons the four seasons must have striking and easily recognizable qualities to identify them, or else no one could actually measure them. And we know that there is a recognizable difference between a so-called 'autumn snow storm' of the quality Stannis army suffered through in ADwD (which only killed Southrons and their horses) and an actual blizzard in a northern winter (which should also kill the horses of the Northmen as well as weaker Northmen).

The potential problem I see with the quote stating that is that this comes in the beginning of the entire section of the Year of the False Spring. Is Yandel there specifically talking about the official period of the false spring, or about the mild weather/the year as a whole? That isn't clear.

It is also not entirely clear whether the winter was two years long - it only speaks about the icy grip. Could be that the actual winter was 2.5-3 years, but the especially icy period stretched over two years. Just as not every summer has to be overwhelmingly hot one assumes not every winter brings equal cold to the entire Realm. If that was the case then nobody would survive even one winter.

I completely disagree that there is a much longer time of warm weather in 281 then it only cultivated in warmest weather for two months. 

This does not fit the description in the book. 

When false spring arrived, the snow started melting. 

This means it was at freezing temperature before and snow was kept from melting. 

It is not warm or soft. 

 

[SFDanny]

7 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

SFDanny--

Same basic challenge to you as to USD. Ask people you know -- without prompting on which alternative you prefer -- what they think you mean if you told them that you worked for a company for "close to a year."  I really doubt they would say maybe a little more or less -- the implication to most people's ear (I strongly suspect) would be just under a year.

But again -- if a reasonable number of people would hear it as identical to "about a year" -- then I am wrong and I will admit that my limited world experience has colored my understanding of idiomatic English.

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 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.