# as well as any raider



## thetazuo

“How well do you know the north?”
He slipped his blade away. “*As well as any raider*. Some parts more than others. There’s a lot of north. Why?”

(A Dance with Dragons, novel)

Hi. Sorry for doing this topic again. But I haven’t asked about “as *adverb* as any”. I don’t know if it works the same way. 
So does this sentence mean raiders generally know the north well and the speaker knows the north no worse than them?
Thank you.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> So does this sentence mean raiders generally know the north well


It implies it, yes. 


thetazuo said:


> and the speaker knows the north no worse than them?


He means he knows the north as well as any raider in general, or an average raider, if you will.


thetazuo said:


> But I haven’t asked about “as *adverb* as any”. I don’t know if it works the same way


Again, don't assume there's a set pattern. As with the other similar phrases you asked about, context and facts are likely to make a difference.


----------



## se16teddy

thetazuo said:


> He slipped his blade away. “*As well as any raider*. Some parts more than others. There’s a lot of north. Why?


Without more context, I have no idea what sense connects these four sentences.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you both. 


se16teddy said:


> Without more context, I have no idea what sense connects these four sentences.


The second speaker is the leader of all raiders. The raiders are barbarians who often raid the north. The first speaker has assigned the leader a task, which needs a man who knows the north well. 
Does this help?


Barque said:


> Again, don't assume there's a set pattern. As with the other similar phrases you asked about, context and facts are likely to make a difference.


I take the expression “as as any” as an idiom. Context and facts will make a difference, yes, but they won’t change its fundamental meaning, I think.


----------



## se16teddy

_I am as good as anyone_ means that some people are worse but nobody is better.
_He is as cruel as anyone_ means that some people are less cruel but nobody is more cruel.
_I did it as well as anyone_ means that some people did it worse but nobody did it better.
_He acted as cruelly as anyone_ means that some people were less cruel but nobody was more cruel.

I suppose this use of "as X as any" is idiomatic in that the comparison is only with other leaders in the field, and not with "anyone" in a wider sense. It means "as X as some and more X than the others"!


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> I take the expression “as as any” as an idiom.


It's idiomatic in the sense in which it's used in your OP but it's not an idiom.


thetazuo said:


> Context and facts will make a difference, yes, but they won’t change its fundamental meaning, I think.


The "fundamental meaning" can also be different because "as" has other meanings. In the OP it's used to indicate comparison. It can also mean, for instance, "because". 
T_his allows scheduling to be predictable, as any employee can fill in for another at a moment’s notice._
Future of Retail: Companies That Profit By Investing in Employees


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you both.


se16teddy said:


> It means "as X as some and more X than the others"!


This meaning seems strange. The comparison is not with other leaders but with raiders. Since he is the leader of all raiders, I would propose that the sentence can also mean no raiders know the north better than him.


Barque said:


> The "fundamental meaning" can also be different because "as" has other meanings. In the OP it's used to indicate comparison. It can also mean, for instance, "because".


I know that, but it is irrelevant here.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> I know that, but it is irrelevant here.


You were talking about the fundamental meaning of the words "as any", which means the meaning irrespective of context and facts. I was saying there's no single "fundamental meaning". Now if you say that the alternative meaning I cited is "irrelevant here", you're obviously looking at "as any" based on the context available here, in this thread. Do you see the contradiction?


thetazuo said:


> Since he is the leader of all raiders, I would propose that the sentence can also mean no raiders know the north better than him.


At the risk of encouraging you to go deeper into this than it deserves, there's no conflict between this and "As well as some and better than others".


----------



## thetazuo

Barque said:


> You were talking about the fundamental meaning of the words "as any"


I’m actually taking about “as [quality] as any”, not “as any”.


Barque said:


> At the risk of encouraging you to go deeper into this than it deserves, there's no conflict between this and "As well as some and better than others".


"As well as some and better than others"? I’m afraid this is impossible.
I would have accepted "As well as some and better than *most*".


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> I’m actually taking about “as [quality] as any”, not “as any”.


In #4, you referred to it as "as as any". I thought the double "as" was a typo and you meant "as any".


thetazuo said:


> "As well as some and better than others"? I’m afraid this is impossible.
> I would have accepted "As well as some and better than *most*".


I don't follow your reasoning. I don't see why it's impossible. You can be "better than others" without being "better than most".

Edit: Perhaps you're interpreting "others" as "all others". "Others" just means "others", i.e. an unspecified number of other people.


----------



## kentix

This _"As well as some and better than others"?_ implies this (in common English usage) _"As well as some and better than some others"?_

_


thetazuo said:



			So does this sentence mean raiders generally know the north well and the speaker knows the north no worse than them?
		
Click to expand...

_I'll give you a wholehearted yes, based on past similar topics. I think you are honing in on the way this is used in real life (of novels ). That's the point the author is trying to convey. He's painting a big picture. He's not doing strict comparisons. The raiders aren't tested and given a score at the end of every year. Even the raider says he knows some areas better than others. So in theory it's entirely possible there's another raider who knows those areas well that he doesn't know well. But maybe the quoted raider knows places the other raider doesn't know. The specifics are irrelevant to the point the author is having his character make. No other raider is more _meaningfully_ qualified than him (even though they can't possibly all be exactly equal in every area).


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, kentix, Barque. 
You say context plays an important role in interpreting this pattern. Yes, I seem to find an example whose meaning vary with the context:
Tyrion Lannister knew the maps as well as anyone, but a fortnight on the wild track that passed for the kingsroad up here had brought home the lesson that the map was one thing and the land quite another.

Context 1: in medieval times, most people are illiterate; they can’t read maps. So this sentence means Tyrion knew the maps as well as any other who knew the maps best; his knowledge of the maps was in the top group; no one knew the maps better than Tyrion;
Context 2: if this sentence is set in modern times, when most people are educated, then the sentence just means he is as knowledgeable about the maps as average people.
Make sense?


----------



## Barque

In that sentence, the thing that caused the problem was not that people in medieval times couldn't read maps as well as people in modern times. It was because the person who drew up the map hadn't done a good job (Edit: or that there was a limit to how well maps could reflect geography). It didn't (exactly)* match the actual layout of the land, as the words below suggest.
*Added later.


thetazuo said:


> the lesson that the map was one thing and the land quite another.




I'd interpret the sentence you're asking about the same way whether it referred to someone in 1418 or in 2018.



thetazuo said:


> So this sentence means Tyrion knew the maps as well as any other who knew the maps best; his knowledge of the maps was in the top group; no one knew the maps better than Tyrion;


Again, this isn't meant to be taken absolutely literally. That comes from logic; there's no way to measure exactly how well someone knows a map as compared to someone else. It implies Tyron Lannister was very familiar with the maps. He was as comfortable with those maps as anyone else who often referred to them.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, Barque.


Barque said:


> Again, this isn't meant to be taken absolutely literally.





Barque said:


> He was as comfortable with those maps as anyone else *who often referred to them*.





Barque said:


> In that sentence, the thing that caused the problem was not that people in medieval times couldn't read maps as well as people in modern times.


If we take the first half of the sentence out of he context and set it in modern times, how will you interpret it?
This is my thinking: Tyrion’s knowledge of the maps is mediocre, which is no better or worse than the most people.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> If we take the first half of the sentence out of he context and set it in modern times, how will you interpret it?


Do you mean this part?


thetazuo said:


> Tyrion Lannister knew the maps as well as anyone,



I'd interpret it the same way. _He knew the maps as well as anyone who had reason to refer to them (and possibly better than some of them).
_


thetazuo said:


> This is my thinking: Tyrion’s knowledge of the maps is mediocre, which is no better or worse than the most people.


No, it implies more than a "mediocre" knowledge. It's faintly complimentary, or positive.


----------



## kentix

thetazuo said:


> This is my thinking: Tyrion’s knowledge of the maps is mediocre, which is no better or worse than the most people.


People don't invent maps if they can't read maps. If maps exist it's because someone is expert enough to create them.  If someone is expert enough to create them and others use them it's because they're helpful. Certainly the mapmakers know them well. Some other people, with a mind for maps, will find them extremely helpful and know them well also. Tyrion is one of those people.

If you want to say what he was average then you have to say he was average:
_Tyrion Lannister knew the maps as well as any average man..._


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you both.


Barque said:


> I'd interpret it the same way. _He knew the maps as well as anyone *who had reason to refer to them* (and possibly better than some of them)._


But I don’t know how you can infer the information in bold. In modern times most people are literate and they can read maps. So the “anyone” is supposed to refer to average people, not just limited to some people who know them well, isn’t it? And the assumption is no average people read maps especially well. So the mediocrity is suggested. Where am I wrong?


----------



## kentix

Any and anyone cover all of humanity, potentially. All ability levels.

P is a person. P1 is Person 1. Map knowledge goes from 1 to 10. 1 means the person doesn't know the maps. 10 means the person knows them very well.

P1: 2
P2: 7
P3: 4
P4: 8
P5: 10
P6: 4
P7: 3
P8: 6

Tyrion knows the maps as well as *anyone* (= *any* other person). Pick *any* person at random from the list. No matter which person you pick, Tyrion knows the maps as well as that person. The only way that can be possible is if Tyrion's map knowledge is 10. Because if Tyrion's map knowledge was 7 and you picked Person 5 then the sentence wouldn't be true. Tyrion doesn't know the maps as well as Person 5 if his map knowledge is only 7. So he has to be in the top group. He has to be a 10.


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> Any and anyone cover all of humanity, potentially. All ability levels.
> 
> P is a person. P1 is Person 1. Map knowledge goes from 1 to 10. 1 means the person doesn't know the maps. 10 means the person knows them very well.
> 
> P1: 2
> P2: 7
> P3: 4
> P4: 8
> P5: 10
> P6: 4
> P7: 3
> P8: 6
> 
> Tyrion knows the maps as well as *anyone* (= *any* other person). Pick *any* person at random from the list. No matter which person you pick, Tyrion knows the maps as well as that person. The only way that can be possible is if Tyrion's map knowledge is 10. Because if Tyrion's map knowledge was 7 and you picked Person 5 then the sentence wouldn't be true. Tyrion doesn't know the maps as well as Person 5 if his map knowledge is only 7.



Sometimes numbers and or pictures are needed to explain words


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> But I don’t know how you can infer the information in bold.


I think it's only logical. If the speaker/writer's comparing Lannister's map reading ability with others, he's more likely to be comparing it with people who engage in the same practice than with people who never have occasion to look at a map.


thetazuo said:


> In modern times most people are literate and they can read maps.


That supports my reasoning, I think. People who never looked at maps are more likely to have been found in medieval than modern times, so it's more likely the writer's comparison base comprised only people who used maps.


----------



## kentix

The average in that group is 4.4.

So if you said Tyrion knew the maps as well as the average man (instead of any man) then Tyrion would be expected to have an ability of 4 or 5 (or maybe 3 or 6). But you wouldn't expect him to be 8 or 9 or 10. And you also wouldn't expect him to be 1 or 2.

But none of this is quantifiable with numbers. These numbers are just made-up examples. It's not measurable in this detail. In the book, it just means people believe/he believes/people who know him know that he knows the maps very well and no one knows them significantly better than he does.



thetazuo said:


> So the “anyone” is supposed to refer to average people,


I think you get this now but I'll repeat it - it refers to every possible person anywhere, any time in that society. From the lowest to the highest.

You could say "anyone" only includes other people who can read maps but it doesn't matter. If someone can't read maps that person is automatically going to know less than anyone who does read maps, including Tyrion. All those people will be a 0 on my scale. They are less than any higher number. So you can consider them part of the comparison or not. It's irrelevant to the final conclusion.

The same thing is true for medieval times or modern times. You're comparing to everyone at all levels. More people might be a 0 in medieval times but it doesn't change the fact that Tyrion is equal with the top level always, based on the grammar of the sentence.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. Sorry if I have managed to make the sentence look more difficult than it is.
By average I mean normal people/people in general, not the average amount.


kentix said:


> people believe/he believes/people who know him know that he knows the maps very well and no one knows them significantly better than he does.


Yes, I figure as much. But the underlined part is the literal meaning and Barque said I shouldn’t take the sentence so literally? Do you two say different things?


----------



## kentix

No. All of this is a judgment, not a measurement. There's nothing exact. There are no numbers involved like in my example. It's like saying I'm as good a singer as you. Are your skills and my skills exactly equal to each other in every area of singing? No. Do we sound exactly the same? No. But neither one of us is definitely better than the other in all areas or even most areas. We're even, without being exactly even. But as far as can be judged by normal human beings, we are so close in ability there is no meaningful difference. Today I might sound a bit better than you and tomorrow you might sound a bit better than me. But our overall ability is so close that any temporary minor difference is meaningless.

If you said Tyrion knew the maps *better* than any man then he would have to be an 11 on the scale. He couldn't be a 10, because there is already a 10. But if you say "as well as" he can be tied with anyone else who's a 10. But in real life there's no such thing as an exact tie because there's no such thing as a 10. You can't measure it. It's a judgment call. Close enough is close enough. So to say Tyrion was better than anyone he has to be clearly better than anyone. It has to be obvious. A little bit better doesn't count because it's not measurable or obvious.

_By average I mean normal people/people in general, not the average amount._

Average is irrelevant when you use the word any. Any includes the average ones, the good ones and the bad ones. But keep in mind that those categories sometimes overlap to the point where differences are insignificant. "I'm as happy as any man to be alive." That basically is one group of people. They're all tied. One doesn't stand out above the other.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, kentix.


kentix said:


> No. All of this is a judgment, not a measurement. There's nothing exact.


OK. I see.
It’s just that after going through all these similar examples, I feel two different meanings are suggested by you and others for this pattern:
the structure “[subject] as X as any Y” has two different meanings, namely,
1) there may be other Y equally X as the [subject], but no Y is more X than the [subject] (namely, the [subject] is one of the most X);
2) the [subject] is very X (for this meaning, we can think “any” means “typical/normal”)


kentix said:


> it just means people believe/he believes/people who know him know that he knows the maps very well and no one knows them significantly better than he does.


I think you and Barque say the same thing. But as I understand it, the pattern has two meanings, so the interpretation “he knows the maps very well” and “no one knows them significantly better than he does” are not quite compatible with each other. So I don’t quite follow this part of your explanation?


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> But the underlined part is the literal meaning


The underlined part isn't the literal meaning. It's the logical or consequential meaning. 


thetazuo said:


> so the interpretation “he knows the maps very well” and “no one knows them significantly better than he does” are not quite compatible with each other.


I don't see any incompatibility.


----------



## thetazuo

Barque said:


> The underlined part isn't the literal meaning.





Barque said:


> I don't see any incompatibility.


If there is no incompatibility, then why do  you interpret some of my examples as meaning 1) while some others as meaning 2)?
For example, 
A woman was feeling the body of a dying man, and she described his body as being “as cold as any stone.”
(This is clearly meaning 2))


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


>


"Knows them as well as any man" doesn't literally mean "No one knows them significantly better".


thetazuo said:


> If there is no incompatibility, then why do you interpret some of my examples as meaning 1) while some others as meaning 2)?


If you mean meanings 1 and 2 as described in #24, I haven't gone through your analysis in detail. I don't think that's the right way to understand idiomatic phrases. 
Why don't you explain what you think the incompatibility is, with reference to that particular example, and perhaps I may be able you. 


thetazuo said:


> If there is no incompatibility, then why do you interpret some of my examples as meaning 1) while some others as meaning 2)?


I don't understand the connection. What's the link between there being no incompatibility between those two conclusions, and my interpretation of different phrases in different ways?
If I interpret different examples in different ways, it's because there _is_ a difference. As I've been saying, it isn't a good idea to concentrate on interpreting these phrases on the basis of a "rule" or "pattern".


thetazuo said:


> For example,
> A woman was feeling the body of a dying man, and she described his body as being “as cold as any stone.”
> (This is clearly meaning 2))


I don't think I've seen this before or answered any question on it. But it means: _Stones are often cold (because they're lifeless things) and his body was as cold as a stone might be. _It's meant to be understood as: _His body was cold, and not warm like the body of a live person._


----------



## thetazuo

Thanks for your response.


Barque said:


> "Knows them as well as any man" doesn't literally mean "No one knows them significantly better".


I don’t agree.


Barque said:


> If you mean meanings 1 and 2 as described in #24, I haven't gone through your analysis in detail.


But your and other’s explanation all point to such a difference.
For example,
The room was as splendid as any Sansa had ever seen. (Meaning 1)
The town was as dark as any forest. (Meaning 2)
The Barrymores were as respectable a couple as any in the county. (Meaning 2)


Barque said:


> I don't understand the connection. What's the link between there being no incompatibility between those two conclusions, and my interpretation of different phrases in different ways?
> If I interpret different examples in different ways, it's because there _is_ a difference. As I've been saying, it isn't a good idea to concentrate on interpreting these phrases on the basis of a "rule" or "pattern".


Actually, all my examples can be understood in the same way. I also get responses on other forums and many a teacher told me all my examples work in the same way/have the same meaning. Maybe you just trivialize the importance of a pattern. But I think there are merits in your arguments so I choose to continue the topic here.


Barque said:


> I don't think I've seen this before or answered any question on it. But it means: _Stones are often cold (because they're lifeless things) and his body was as cold as a stone might be. _It's meant to be understood as: _His body was cold, and not warm like the body of a live person._


Yes, I think so. This interpretation seems just a convoluted way to say “his body was very cold”.



Barque said:


> The underlined part isn't the literal meaning. It's the logical or consequential meaning.


Do you mean if he knows the maps very well, then no one is better than him? This doesn’t seem logical.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> I don’t agree.


That's up to you of course.


thetazuo said:


> But your and other’s explanation all point to such a difference.
> For example,
> The room was as splendid as any Sansa had ever seen. (Meaning 1)
> The town was as dark as any forest. (Meaning 2)
> The Barrymores were as respectable a couple as any in the county. (Meaning 2)


Sorry, I haven't followed this part. I don't know what you mean by this.


thetazuo said:


> This interpretation seems just a convoluted way to say “his body was very cold”


I put it in detail to make sure you understood, since you asked me about it. I don't see how it's convoluted. It just uses more words than your sentence. I had no way of knowing if a briefer explanation would have sufficed or not.


thetazuo said:


> Do you mean if he knows the maps very well, then no one is better than him?
> This doesn’t seem logical.


I'm referring to the original wording which was  "He knew the maps as well as anyone". If that's the case, there can't be anyone who knows the maps significantly better than him. If there were, the sentence "He knew the maps as well as anyone" wouldn't be true.


thetazuo said:


> Actually, all my examples can be understood in the same way. I also get responses on other forums and many a teacher told me all my examples work in the same way/have the same meaning. Maybe you just trivialize the importance of a pattern.


I'm not sure why you wrote this, but I'm not here to argue with you. I posted answers to your questions and when you address further questions to me, I answer them. If you think my answers are inaccurate in any way, that's up to you, but I'm not going to change my answers merely because someone else told you something else.


thetazuo said:


> But I think there are merits in your arguments so I choose to continue the topic here.


Glad you think so. So my life hasn't been entirely wasted.


----------



## thetazuo

Thanks for the response.


Barque said:


> That's up to you of course.


Actually, I think “no one knows the maps better than Tyrion” is the intended meaning as well as the literal meaning. I don’t know if you think it is the intended meaning?


Barque said:


> Sorry, I haven't followed this part. I don't know what you mean by this.


I just mean I think there are two meanings for this pattern, according to your answers to my examples, as written in post 24.

I have another two examples, 
“... and Hullen says I sit a horse as well as anyone in the castle.” (No one in the castle sits a horse better I)
He knew the wolfswood around Winterfell as well as any man. (No one knew the wolfswood around Winterfell better than him)

My understanding is in brackets. Make sense?


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> I think “no one knows the maps better than Tyrion” is the intended meaning as well as the literal meaning. I don’t know if you think it is the intended meaning?


No, I don't.


thetazuo said:


> Tyrion Lannister knew the maps as well as anyone,


As I said earlier (in different words), the intended meaning is that he knew them quite well. There was no one who knew them much better than he did (though there were probably some who knew them just as well as he did).


thetazuo said:


> “... and Hullen says I sit a horse as well as anyone in the castle.” (No one in the castle sits a horse better I)
> He knew the wolfswood around Winterfell as well as any man. (No one knew the wolfswood around Winterfell better than him)
> My understanding is in brackets. Make sense?


I follow your reasoning but I don't agree that that's what the writer intended to convey.


----------



## thetazuo

thetazuo said:


> no one knows the maps better than Tyrion





Barque said:


> There was no one who knew them much better than he did


Thank you. So could you tell me what you think is the difference between what I said and what you said? I see no difference.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> I think “no one knows the maps better than Tyrion” is the intended meaning


This sentence would normally be understood as: _Tyrion knew the maps better than anyone else._ That's how I understood it too. Perhaps you were also allowing for the possibility that some people  knew the maps as well as Tyron but this structure is usually used to say that someone was the best at something.

My full answer was (emphasis added):


Barque said:


> the intended meaning is that he knew them quite well. There was no one who knew them *much* better than he did (though there were probably some who knew them just as well as he did).



My reading is that the sentence doesn't mean he's the best, merely that he's one of the best (which can also mean that there are people who are just a little better than him, so little that it doesn't make much difference).

If you re-read my answer with emphasis on the underlined words, you should be able to see the difference.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. It seems the pattern “as *adverb* as any” is a little bit different from “as *adjective* as any”.
So can I say the map example means “no one knew the maps *much* better than Tyrion”?


----------



## Barque

When you reword/restructure a sentence, even if it seems to literally mean the same, the emphasis can shift from one thing to another and the meaning as would normally be understood, changes.

As I said, I'd understand that sentence "Tyron Lannister knew the maps as well as anyone" as meaning he knew the maps very well/was among those who knew it best. _Therefore_ it also means that there weren't any who knew them much better than him.

But when you put it this way,


thetazuo said:


> “no one knew the maps *much* better than Tyrion”?


the emphasis shifts. It moves from saying that Lannister was among those who knew the maps best, to suggesting that he was the one who knew it best. It may be true - the sentence doesn't rule that out - but there's still a subtle but significant difference.


----------



## kentix

P1: 2
P2: 7
P3: 10
P4: 8
P5: 8
Tyrion: 10

Tyrion knows the maps as well as anyone
true

P1: 2
P2: 2
P3: 2
P4: 6
P5: 2
Tyrion: 6

Tyrion knows the maps as well as anyone
true

P1: 9
P2: 9
P3: 10
P4: 10
P5: 10
Tyrion: 10

Tyrion knows the maps as well as anyone
true

P1: 10
P2: 10
P3: 10
P4: 10
P5: 10
Tyrion: 10

Tyrion knows the maps as well as anyone
true

P1: 1
P2: 1
P3: 1
P4: 1
P5: 1
Tyrion: 1

Tyrion knows the maps as well as anyone
true

P1: 1
P2: 1
P3: 1
P4: 1
P5: 1
Tyrion: 10

Tyrion knows the maps as well as anyone
true
Tyrion knows the maps better than anyone
true
​

​


----------



## kentix

Theoretically
P1: 10.1
P2: 10.2
P3: 9.9
P4: 9.9
P5: 10.0
Tyrion: 10.0

Tyrion knows the maps as well as anyone
true
Tyrion knows the maps better than anyone
false
Because in human experience 10.1 is indistinguishable from 10.0 or 10.2
There is no map knowing test. It's a judgment, not a measurement. To the human eye, they all look like 10.

Theoretically
P1: 10.1
P2: 10.0
P3: 9.9
P4: 9.9
P5: 10.0
Tyrion: 10.2

Tyrion knows the maps as well as anyone
true
Tyrion knows the maps better than anyone
false
Because in human experience 10.1 is indistinguishable from 10.0 or 10.2
There is no map knowing test. It's a judgment, not a measurement. To the human eye, they all look like 10.

Theoretically
P1: 10.2
P2: 10.1
P3: 9.9
P4: 9.9
P5: 10.0
Tyrion: 11

Tyrion knows the maps as well as anyone
true
Tyrion knows the maps better than anyone
true

11 is distinguishable from 10, 10.2 is not​


----------



## thetazuo

kentix said:


> no one knows them significantly better than he does.





Barque said:


> But when you put it this way,
> the emphasis shifts. It moves from saying that Lannister was among those who knew the maps best, to suggesting that he was the one who knew it best. It may be true - the sentence doesn't rule that out - but there's still a subtle but significant difference.


Thank you. But may I refer you to post 21 where kentix said the sentence means “no one knows them significantly better than he does“? I just replace “significantly” with “much”. Do you mean kentix is wrong? Or “significantly” and “much” aren’t synonymous here?


----------



## Barque

I believe Kentix and I are saying the same thing. See below:


Barque said:


> I'd understand that sentence "Tyron Lannister knew the maps as well as anyone" as meaning he knew the maps very well/was among those who knew it best. _Therefore_ it also means that there weren't any who knew them much better than him.





kentix said:


> it just means people believe/he believes/people who know him know that he knows the maps very well and no one knows them significantly better than he does.




I'm not sure you've understood the point I was making. As you'll see from both Kentix's and my statements, the proposition "There weren't any people who knew the maps much/significantly better than him" is something that arises out of the main meaning, and the main meaning is "He knew the maps very well".

See the statements below. I said this in #13 and Kentix said this in #16.


Barque said:


> It implies Tyron Lannister was very familiar with the maps.





kentix said:


> Some other people, with a mind for maps, will find them extremely helpful and know them well also. Tyrion is one of those people.



I maintain that you're analysing these statements in too much detail and you are in fact hampering your understanding of the intended meaning of these phrases by your analysis. 

Statements like "He knows the town as well as anyone" or "He can drive a car as well as anyone" are often said without specifically thinking about the skills of other people - the "anyone" in those sentences. Their primary and intended meaning is just that the subject is very good at that thing and is among the best at whatever it is. It's quite possible that he may not be the single best at it. And it's also quite possible that there may be a few who are a little better than the subject.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you.
If the expression “no one knows them significantly better than he does” and “There weren't any people who knew the maps much/significantly better than him" are different and the latter is more accurate, then probably kentix should not use the former. 


Barque said:


> Statements like "He knows the town as well as anyone" or "He can drive a car as well as anyone" are often said without specifically thinking about the skills of other people - the "anyone" in those sentences. Their primary and intended meaning is just that the subject is very good at that thing and is among the best at whatever it is. It's quite possible that he may not be the single best at it. And it's also quite possible that there may be a few who are a little better than the subject.


So the following two examples work in the above way or mean the same thing as the map example?
“... and Hullen says I sit a horse as well as anyone in the castle.”
He knew the wolfswood around Winterfell as well as any man.

But these two don’t work in the same way as is said above, right?
1. The example in the op (as well as any raider)
2. She steers a ship as well as any *man* and has a pretty face.
Namely, 1 doesn’t mean the leader is among the best raiders (since the leader is not a raider); nor does it mean the leader is on a par with the best raider.
The same goes to 2. 2 doesn’t mean she is among the best man who can steer a ship (because she is not a man); nor does it mean she is on a par with the best man who can steer a ship.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> If the expression “no one knows them significantly better than he does” and “There weren't any people who knew the maps much/significantly better than him" are different and the latter is more accurate, then probably kentix should not use the former.


As I said earlier, Kentix and I are saying much the same thing (but in different words, because we are different persons). The above statements aren't different in meaning and one isn't more accurate than the other. I didn't say they were different. I said they mean the same thing.

The point that you might have misunderstood is that "No one knows them much/significantly better than Tyrion Lannister" is a consequential conclusion that arises from the main intended meaning - which is "He knows the maps very well".

But if you consider "No one knows them much better than Tyrion Lannister" as the main meaning, then that particular phraseology suggests Lannister undoubtedly knew them the best. It's the context in which you consider that sentence that makes a difference.


----------



## thetazuo

OK. Thank you for the response. I see. Then how about my rest questions?


----------



## Barque

My understanding:


thetazuo said:


> “... and Hullen says I sit a horse as well as anyone in the castle.”


People in the castle were generally good horsemen. Hullen believes the speaker was just as good as them.


thetazuo said:


> He knew the wolfswood around Winterfell as well as any man.


He knew the wolfswood just as well as any man among those who were familiar with the wolfswood.


thetazuo said:


> 1. The example in the op (as well as any raider)





thetazuo said:


> Namely, 1 doesn’t mean the leader is among the best raiders (since the leader is not a raider); nor does it mean the leader is on a par with the best raider.


I don't understand what you mean by "the leader is not a raider". Perhaps you have context that I'm not aware of. I understand the OP sentence as meaning the speaker's a raider too. As I said in #2, he means he knows the north as well as any raider in general. The sentence suggests raiders knew the north well, so he knew the north well too.


thetazuo said:


> The same goes to 2. 2 doesn’t mean she is among the best man who can steer a ship (because she is not a man); nor does it mean she is on a par with the best man who can steer a ship.


I don't agree with the way you're looking at this. Her not being a man isn't the crux of the sentence; her ability to steer a ship is. The speaker's going on the premise that only men would normally know how to steer a ship, not women. By saying this woman could steer the ship as well any man, he means she steered the ship as well as any sailor/helmsman, who were usually men. She may even be as good as the best sailor in the world but that's not the point. The point is that she can steer a ship very competently.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. I see. 


thetazuo said:


> “... and Hullen says I sit a horse as well as anyone in the castle.”





Barque said:


> People in the castle were generally good horsemen. Hullen believes the speaker was just as good as them.


If I remember correctly, there is no text in the story suggesting people in the castle were generally good horseman. I’m not sure if the sentence on its own does imply it.


Barque said:


> He knew the wolfswood just as well as any man among those who were familiar with the wolfswood.


I’m not sure if I get your meaning. It seems to work in the same way as the map example? (Namely, see the following)


Barque said:


> Their primary and intended meaning is just that the subject is very good at that thing and is among the best at whatever it is. It's quite possible that he may not be the single best at it. And it's also quite possible that there may be a few who are a little better than the subject.





Barque said:


> As I said in #2, he means he knows the north as well as any raider in general. The sentence suggests raiders knew the north well, so he knew the north well too.


So you mean raiders generally knew the north well and he is as good as them?


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> I’m not sure if the sentence on its own does imply it.


That's the most likely explanation. It may not be the right one but without further context, it seems the most likely to me. Even if the people in the castle weren't known for their horsemanship, the sentence suggests they were at least reasonably good riders.


thetazuo said:


> I’m not sure if I get your meaning. It seems to work in the same way as the map example? (Namely, see the following)


Yes, more or less.


thetazuo said:


> So you mean raiders generally knew the north well and he is as good as them?


Unless you provide further context that makes a difference, yes, that's what I mean. He was as good as any raider in general who was familiar with the north.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. Sorry if my questions seem endless. But I’m going to continue it. Please bear with me.
1. Davos stood frowning. “My lord, what did you do?”
“Not treason. Never treason. I love His Grace as much as any man.” (Said by a lord who was wrongly put in prison on a charge of treason)
I think it means he loves the king very much. He is among the men who love the king best. There might be men whose love for the king is equal to him. And it's also quite possible that there may be a few who love the king more than he does. Right?
2. “Man and boy I’ve served the Watch, and ranged as far as any,” said Ebben.
(Context: the Watch is a troop but not everyone of it is a ranger; there are stewards, builders, etc)
I think this works the same way as the treason example. Right?


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> “Not treason. Never treason. I love His Grace as much as any man.”


It suggests His Grace is a popular, much-loved person, the speaker is one of those who love him/have high regard for him, and he loves him just as much as any other person who knows His Grace does.


thetazuo said:


> I think it means he loves the king very much.


Yes.


thetazuo said:


> He is among the men who love the king best.


Well, this might be true but it's not the intended meaning. It might be an incidental consequence of the intended meaning. The point is that the sentence isn't intended to speak of who loves the king best, who loves the king second-best and so on. The speaker essentially means: _I love the King very much._

Don't assume that merely because two sentences follow the same structure, they are to be interpreted exactly the same way. The content of the sentences makes a difference. I suggest not just paying attention to the structure but also to what the individual words are, or the purpose behind the statements.



thetazuo said:


> There might be men whose love for the king is equal to him. And it's also quite possible that there may be a few who love the king more than he does.


Possible but in my opinion this is irrelevant. The speaker isn't engaged in a competition to see who loves the king the most.


thetazuo said:


> “Man and boy I’ve served the Watch, and ranged as far as any,” said Ebben...
> I think this works the same way as the treason example. Right?


It means: _I've ranged a lot, as much as any other experienced ranger. _
I think this is closer to the "raider who knows the north well" example.


----------



## kentix

Barque said:


> Possible but in my opinion this is irrelevant. The speaker isn't engaged in a competition to see who loves the king the most.



You can't measure how well someone loves someone to four decimal places. There is no way to measure if one person loves the king 2% more than another person. I think you misunderstood my use of the word significantly. My point was, if it's not a lot more, then any difference is not even unnoticeable. It's unobservable. In the real world, it doesn't exist in any meaningful way. It has no significance. Those two people are equal.

Don't think of a scale, think of big fuzzy groups that overlap. You have the group that mostly hates the king, the group that is neutral, the group that mostly loves the king and the group that loves the king very much. Each group could have thousands of people. All the quote is saying is that the person in the quote is in the last group. That's all it's saying.

For him to love the king *better than *any man you'd have to create a whole new group above that last group for him to be in. But there's no room for that. The people in the last group already love the king very much. Is very, very much measurable compared to very much? No. It's love. You can't measure it that precisely.

The raider -
The leader of the raiders is a raider. His job is to raid, like all the other raiders. He has the added responsibility of making decisions for the group.

He's in the top group of raiders who know the north. (Like the king example.) There might be hundreds of people in that group. As far as it's measurable (it's not easily measurable) he is equal to all the others in the top group. If you were sending an expedition you would want someone in the top group, not the middle group. So he meets the qualification, but it's possible 300 other men meet that qualification, too. _It's impossible _to know if he knows the north 2% better than any of those 300 men, but _it is possible_ to know he's in the top group _with_ those 300 men, based on his previous experience (journeys to the north).

The same is true with the other examples. Think in terms of groups that have a quality and not individuals that can be measured precisely.


----------



## thetazuo

kentix said:


> There is no way to measure if one person loves the king 2% more than another person.





kentix said:


> _It's impossible _to know if he knows the north 2% better than any of those 300 men,


Thank you very much. I never intend to interpret the two examples as the subject loves/knows the north more than any other person.



kentix said:


> The same is true with the other examples. Think in terms of groups that have a quality and not individuals that can be measured precisely.


If so, things would be much easier. 
But according to Barque, the raider example and the “sit a horse” example seem to be different from the map example?
Or can I just think this way?
All of my examples of “A does xxx as *adverb* as any B” means A is in the top group, but there might be other members in the top group who do xxx slightly more *adverb* than A.

BUT, if the construction is “ A is as *adjective* as any B”, then it means no B is more adjective than A (no one/none surpasses A, though some might be equal to A)


----------



## JulianStuart

thetazuo said:


> Or can I just think this way?
> All of my examples of “A does xxx as *adverb* as any B” means A is in the top group, but there might be other members in the top group who do xxx slightly more *adverb* than A.
> 
> BUT, if the construction is “ A is as *adjective* as any B”, then it means no B is more adjective than A (no one/none surpasses A, though some might be equal to A)


I would not say that.  I agree with post #5 - none of these constructions allow the "slightly more" condition, regardless of whether it is adjective or adverb in the as...as any.  (Unless we are being pedantic and saying that uncertainty in "quantity of unquantifiable" characterstics like love or cruel etc allow the "slightly" based on "experimental error  )


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, JS. So you don’t agree with Barque? 


JulianStuart said:


> I agree with post #5 - none of these constructions allow the "slightly more" condition


But Barque and kentix make a point of letting me know the “slightly more” condition matters. It seems your and teddy’s answer are in conflict with Barque’s.
So you think the pattern always works in the same way, as teddy said in post 5, be it uses adjectives or adverbs?


se16teddy said:


> _I did it as well as anyone_ means that some people did it worse but nobody did it better.


I know what teddy’s said here is short for “nobody did it better than I did”. Originally I really believe this is the established meaning.
But Barque said this is not the main meaning and if I take it as the main meaning, I’m suggesting the subject did it best. This is the conflict, I think.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> I know what teddy’s said here is short for “nobody did it better than I did”. Originally I really believe this is the established meaning.
> But Barque said this is not the main meaning and if I take it as the main meaning, I’m suggesting the subject did it best.


You're presenting an inaccurate picture.

The statement of se16teddy that you're referring to comes from #5 and was given as an example, without a specific context.

My statements on what the main meaning was and what it wasn't were with reference to other, different, statements. My comments were meant to be taken in relation to the specific statements to which they applied, not as general rules or guidelines.


----------



## thetazuo

Barque said:


> My statements on what the main meaning was and what it wasn't were with reference to other, different, statements. My comments were meant to be taken in relation to the specific statements to which they applied, not as general rules or guidelines.


Thank you. 
Teddy’s sentence is _I did it as well as anyone._
Mine is _Tyrion knew the maps as well anyone._
“do it” can represent all kinds of actions. So there shouldn’t be any significant difference between how we interpret teddy’s sentence and mine.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> So there shouldn’t be any significant difference between how we interpret teddy’s sentence and mine.


I disagree. There need not be. But there can be.

"Do it" can also include something as mundane as, for example, drinking a glass of water. I would interpret these two sentences quite differently, because, in spite of their very similar structure, their content is different, the actions to which they relate are different, and therefore their interpretations are different.
_
Tyrion drank water as well as anyone.
Tyrion knew the maps as well as anyone.
_
This may seem an overly simplistic example but I'm trying to explain that my statements are meant to be considered in the light of the context in which they were made.


----------



## thetazuo

Barque said:


> Tyrion drank water as well as anyone.


Well, as I think you know, this example is fundamentally different from all the other examples I’ve asked about. I’m referring to cases where the adverb modifies the verb.


----------



## thetazuo

By the way, do you think the op example works the same way as the map example? It seems Barque doesn’t.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> do you think the op example works the same way as the map example? It seems Barque doesn’t.


I wish you'd be a little more careful when talking about what I think or do not think. I can't find a single post of mine where I've compared the OP sentence (I assume you mean the OP of this thread) and the  sentence on Tyrion's knowledge of the maps.


----------



## thetazuo

Barque said:


> I wish you'd be a little more careful when talking about what I think or do not think. I can't find a single post of mine where I've compared the OP sentence (I assume you mean the OP of this thread) and the  sentence on Tyrion's knowledge of the maps.


OK. I will. So do you think these two examples work in the same way?


----------



## Barque

These are the two examples I believe you're referring to.


thetazuo said:


> “How well do you know the north?”
> He slipped his blade away. “*As well as any raider*.





thetazuo said:


> Tyrion Lannister knew the maps as well as anyone,







thetazuo said:


> So do you think these two examples work in the same way?


Broadly, yes.


----------



## kentix

Me, too. 

There is a group of raiders who have the most experience traveling in the north. The leader is one of those. There are others who have less experience.

There is a group of people who have the most experience reading the maps. Tyron is one of those. There are others with less experience.

Within that top group in each example there have to be some slight differences because no two humans can be exactly identical. But those differences are too small to measure or even point to or to make any difference in the real world. So they are "equal" even if they aren't identical.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you.


Barque said:


> Broadly, yes.





kentix said:


> There is a group of people who have the most experience reading the maps. Tyron is one of those. There are others with less experience.


So do all of my examples in this thread work this way?
“Man and boy I’ve served the Watch, and ranged as far as any,” said Ebben.
There is a group of people who ranged the farthest, Ebben is one of those. There are others who ranged less far.
She steers a ship as well as any *man* and has a pretty face.
There is a group of people who steer ships best. She is one of those. There are others who steer shop worse.


kentix said:


> But those differences are too small to measure or even point to or to make any difference in the real world


I agree. The difference doesn’t matter. So why not just interpret my examples as “no xxx does something more adverb than the subject”? This interpretation just means < or =; there might be xxx who are equal to the subject but no xxx surpasses the subject. 
As JS pointed in post 50, none of these constructions allow the "slightly more" condition.
“Man and boy I’ve served the Watch, and ranged as far as any,” said Ebben.
=No one ranged further than I.
She steers a ship as well as any *man* and has a pretty face.
=No man steers a ship better than her.
I am not quite sure if the interpretation “no xxx does something more adverb than the subject” implies “the subject does something more adverb than anyone”, but to me, it doesn’t, logically.


----------



## JulianStuart

thetazuo said:


> I am not quite sure if the interpretation “no xxx does something more adverb than the subject” implies “the subject does something more adverb than anyone”, but to me, it doesn’t, logically.


I would be surprised if anyone asserted that it implied "the subject does something more adverb than anyone”.  The record of "doing something" is SHARED by the subject and some others in the group.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> So do all of my examples in this thread work this way?


No.
I've answered on a few threads of yours and as far as I can remember none of the people who've answered your questions on this sort of construction have advised keeping a pattern in mind. However, your questions keep referring to the use of some sort of pattern or formula. Perhaps that's what you're comfortable with but it doesn't work that way, not with this at least.


thetazuo said:


> So why not just interpret my examples as “no xxx does something more adverb than the subject”? This interpretation just means < or =; there might be xxx who are equal to the subject but no xxx surpasses the subject.


Why do you think that every example can be interpreted on the basis of that pattern? By using that pattern, you're completely taking away the importance of context and the meaning of the words used. Those, not a pattern, are of primary importance in understanding the examples.


thetazuo said:


> “Man and boy I’ve served the Watch, and ranged as far as any,” said Ebben.
> There is a group of people who ranged the farthest, Ebben is one of those. There are others who ranged less far.


This isn't meant to emphasise that there are some people who have ranged a great distance and others who have ranged only a little, as your interpretation suggests. That might be true but that's by the way. The intended meaning is that he's a very experienced member of the Watch. I'm not really sure how "range" is meant to be understood here, as I haven't read the story, but the intent of the sentence is to say that he's one of the most experienced members of the Watch. Is "ranging" what the Watch primarily does? I don't know.


thetazuo said:


> She steers a ship as well as any *man* and has a pretty face.
> There is a group of people who steer ships best. She is one of those. There are others who steer shop worse.


No. We've discussed this before. This just means that though she's a woman (and women don't usually steer ships, at least in the world of that story), she still steers ships well, just as well as men who are used to steering ships. There could be people who steer ships worse but that's not the point. The point is that she steers ships well. The words "and has a pretty face" are meant humorously - they suggest that in addition to steering a ship as well as a man, she also has something men don't, as men aren't as pleasant to look at.

I believe you're looking for a pattern because it makes it easier to understand these sentences. That's very understandable, but the bad news is that it doesn't work that way. The good news is that once you stop trying to apply a pattern and start trying to understand each example on its own merit, things will get easier.


----------



## thetazuo

Barque said:


> story, but the intent of the sentence is to say that he's *one of the most *experienced


Thank you again. The bold part suggests there are members in the Watch who are slightly more experienced than him, but the “as as any” construction doesn’t allow that. But you’re right that’s the intended meaning, not the literal meaning, since we cannot measure exactly how experienced a person is.


Barque said:


> she still steers ships well, just as well as men who are used to steering ships.


Yes. But no man surpasses her in terms of ship skills, this much being important as well, literally.


Barque said:


> I believe you're looking for a pattern because it makes it easier to understand these sentences. That's very understandable, but the bad news is that it doesn't work that way.


...
By the way, what do you think is the difference between the two interpretations of the following example?
A terror as overwhelming as anything Sansa Stark had ever felt filled her suddenly.
1) “the terror was *on a par with* the most overwhelming thing Sansa had ever felt”
2) “nothing Sansa had ever felt was more overwhelming than the terror”

And does 2) imply there is something she had felt before this terror just as/equally overwhelming as this terror?


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> but the “as as any” construction doesn’t allow that.


It does. You're saying it isn't because you're taking it too literally. Kentix explained this in detail a few posts ago, if I remember right.


thetazuo said:


> But no man surpasses her in terms of ship skills, this much being important as well, literally.


I can't come to that conclusion from that one sentence, and if that's the intended meaning, there must be something specific to that effect.


thetazuo said:


> A terror as overwhelming as anything Sansa Stark had ever felt filled her suddenly.
> 1) “the terror was *on a par with* the most overwhelming thing Sansa had ever felt”
> 2) “nothing Sansa had ever felt was more overwhelming than the terror”


It means it was one of the most terrifying moments in her life. It's not meant to be taken as something specifically measurable.


----------



## kentix

_A terror *as overwhelming as* anything Sansa Stark had ever felt filled her suddenly._
1) “the terror was *on a par with* the most overwhelming thing Sansa had ever felt”
2) “nothing Sansa had ever felt was more overwhelming than the terror”

Here I think "ever" makes a difference (more context). Ever is a long time. It _implies_ this feeling is right at the top of her most terror-filled experiences (but perhaps still as a tie) but it doesn't say it's the outright most. If the author wants to be crystal clear about it then the author can say it differently.

_A terror *more overwhelming than* anything Sansa Stark had ever felt filled her suddenly.
_
In that sentence, every other experience is declared to be less overwhelming than this one. Answer 2) applies but even more so. _2) “nothing Sansa had ever felt was more overwhelming than the terror *or even equal to it*”

He knew the maps *better than* anyone.
She could steer a ship *better than* any man.
He had ranged *farther than* any man.
He knew the north *better than* any other raider.
He loved the king *more than* any man.
The direwolf pup was *larger than* any regular wolf.
_
These versions of the sentences are saying those people (or wolves) are alone in first place and have no equals.


----------



## thetazuo

kentix said:


> but it doesn't say it's the outright most. If the author wants to be crystal clear about it then the author can say it differently.


Thank you. Do you mean these two interpretations of mine suggest this terror was *more overwhelming than* anything Sansa Stark had ever felt?


----------



## kentix

I don't know what the author meant. What I'm saying is he has an option to say it's the *most overwhelming* terror she's ever felt, if that's what he really means, but he did not. Why, only he knows. Either he didn't think it was true or he's simply in love with saying "as <blank> as any". I suspect the latter might be the real answer. If all these example are from one book then maybe he needs to work on coming up with other ways to express himself.

_Barque said:
story, but the intent of the sentence is to say that he's *one of the most *experienced
_
_Thank you again. *The bold part suggests there are members in the Watch who are slightly more experienced than him*, but the “as as any” construction doesn’t allow that. But you’re right that’s the intended meaning, not the literal meaning, since we cannot measure exactly how experienced a person is.
_​That's not necessarily so that it suggests that.

*one of the most experienced
one of the most experienced
*
There is a group that is the most experienced. He is one member of that group. It implies nothing about whether he is more or less experienced than other specific member of that group.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you.


kentix said:


> There is a group that is the most experienced. He is one member of that group. It implies nothing about whether he is more or less experienced than other specific member of that group.


Yes, I agree that it is what the “as far as any” sentence says. But the sentence “he is one of the most experienced” *alone* leaves open the possibility that there is a slightly more experienced (or whatever it is) example than the subject, right?


kentix said:


> That's not necessarily so that it suggests that.
> 
> *one of the most experienced
> one of the most experienced*


And does the sentence “he is on a par with the most experienced” *alone* suggest there is someone who is slightly more experienced than him?


----------



## JulianStuart

thetazuo said:


> And does the sentence “he is on a par with the most experienced” *alone* suggest there is someone who is slightly more experienced than him?


It _allows_ that possibility but does *not* _imply_ it.  We will never know, unless the experience is measured mathematically (  ).  The writer does not know exactly what the outcome of the measurement will be (and doesn't care!) and is only making the statement about the comparability, using the construction to convey this understanding.


----------



## kentix

I think you should go back to my earlier point and think in terms of groups. That really cleared things up in my thinking about the intention of those types of sentences.

_he's *one of the most *experienced_

Forget about *one* and* he *and those individual terms and think in terms of groups. That's the important part to the meaning.

There is an entire group that is the most experienced. That group might have 10,000 members  or 100 members or 2 members or 1 member. It's not specified. But that is a group that is distinct from other groups. (It's not a formal group with a membership card, but it's a natural division.)

He is a member of that group.

_he's a member of the group that is recognized as the most experienced_

Forget about the number one (as compared to two or three), that's not the important part. Think of "one of" as simply meaning a "member". There is a pre-existing group and his experience qualifies him to be considered a member. It doesn't tell you anything about his place in the group and if anyone is a little better or a little worse. They are all members. They can all be compared equally in a sentence like that.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, kentix.
I have accepted your thinking quite a few posts ago.
He/She/It is a member of the top group and when it comes to [quality] shared by the memebers in the top group, no fine lines of difference are drawn. Right?

I think it is also the case with the example “She steers a ship as well as any *man* and has a pretty face“, but Barque says no. Why?


----------



## kentix

I'm not sure what Barque said about it but what I would say is this sentence is actually different in a fundamental way from all the other ones.

The other ones were making a single expected comparison. Where does his knowledge about maps lie - low, middle, high? How much does he love the king - low, middle, high? How knowledgeable is he about the north - low, middle, high?

This one is making an unexpected comparison - she isn't expected to steer a ship at all (I imagine, in this world). So this sentence is making two intertwined comparisons. To me the most important comparison (because of the context) and meaning of this sentence isn't her skill level - it's the fact that she has any skill with ships at all. That's the unique context of this sentence and at its most basic level it's saying that she should be considered in the "men's group" (the group known for its experience) versus the "women's group" (known for having essentially no experience). On top of that, not only does she belong in the men's group, but she is a member of the top tier of that group.

Added: It's actually making three comparisons. It's making the implicit assumption that all men are in the group that has non-pretty faces and stating that she's not in that group.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, kentix.
Whether it is an expected comparison or not, if she is a memeber of the top tier of that group, then I think it is OK to say there is a group of men who steer ships best. She is one of those.


----------



## kentix

While it may be true, it's not the main point. The main point is she is doing well in a position in society which is completely not expected for someone of her sex to even be in.


----------



## thetazuo

kentix said:


> While it may be true, it's not the main point. The main point is she is doing well in a position in society which is completely not expected for someone of her sex to even be in.


Thank you. But I think the interpretation doesn’t always apply when the comparison is between different genders (men and women)?
For example,
“His eyelashes were as long as any woman’s.”
This means he is in the top group in terms of the length of eyelashes, right?


----------



## JulianStuart

thetazuo said:


> Thank you. But I think the interpretation doesn’t always apply when the comparison is between different genders (men and women)?
> For example,
> “His eyelashes were as long as any woman’s.”
> This means he is in the top group in terms of the length of eyelashes, right?


He is in the group that includes those women with the longest eyelashes.  (They are as long as those of the women with the longest ones).  An implication one might, _depending on context_, read from this is that women in general have longer eyelashes than men (dunno if that's true!).


----------



## thetazuo

JulianStuart said:


> He is in the group that includes those women with the longest eyelashes.  (They are as long as those of the women with the longest ones).  An implication one might, _depending on context_, read from this is that women in general have longer eyelashes than men (dunno if that's true!).


Thank you, JS. So I can say his eyelashes are on a par with the longest eyelashes of women’s but not no woman’s eyelashes are longer than his?


----------



## JulianStuart

Yes. I think we are back to square one


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, JS. Can I ask about another sentence?
“A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear.”
There is a group of the bravest men and a craven can be in that top group. And in terms of bravery, no fine lines of difference are drawn in the top group. Right?


----------



## kentix

Here's what that sentence "means":

Cravens are cowards.

That's all it means.

Look up the definition of "craven" and you'll see why he decided to call those characters Cravens.


----------



## Barque

The last few posts have been reminding me of the saying: "not seeing the wood for the trees".


----------



## thetazuo

Thanks.


kentix said:


> That's all it means.


We all know it doesn’t mean that.


kentix said:


> Look up the definition of "craven" and you'll see why he decided to call those characters Cravens.


Definition won’t help. The author doesn’t refers to any characters as cravens. It is a metaphor. The soldiers in the Watch can keep their pledge “easily” because they sever the relationship between them and their relatives, just as a craven rids himself of all burdens so he has nothing to fear.


Barque said:


> The last few posts have been reminding me of the saying: "not seeing the wood for the trees".


... If you think I focus too much on details, that’s merely coincidental.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> We all know it doesn’t mean that.


I agree completely with Kentix.

It appears you're ignoring the last six words - underlined.


thetazuo said:


> “A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear.”


It's a sarcastic comment. It just means cravens are essentially cowards, and can only be brave if there's nothing to fear. Anyone can pretend to be "brave" if there's nothing to fear. Bravery by definition only shows up when there's something to fear.

"Any man" means "any man who's not a craven".

I'm not aware of the underlying context behind this sentence, so I've interpreted it on face value.



thetazuo said:


> ... If you think I focus too much on details, that’s merely coincidental.


Don't get me wrong - I didn't mean that offensively. I'm impressed by how hard you're trying to get to the bottom of this, but I'm disappointed because I believe you aren't going about it the right way, and one of the things that's affecting your understanding is that you're looking too closely at the literal meaning of the words.


----------



## kentix

A better way to say that in that context (the context changes the meaning, as Barque keeps saying)* is “*A* craven can be as brave as any man, when *he has* nothing to fear.”

The point of this sentence is very simple in this context you've now explained. Removing his ties to his past frees him up to be brave because he no longer has others to worry about. That's what the author wants you to know. He is not asking you to rank anyone except in two categories - brave/not brave.

* The comments you're getting are not about the level of detail. They are about the level of pointless detail. This is a novel, not a scientific paper. The author is using these phrases in a context to paint a big picture. They are a literary device to convey an idea in a more interesting way. The important point is the idea, not the specific wording. What is the author trying to tell you that is the important information?

The leader of the raiders is a very experienced traveler in the north.
Tyrion is very skillful at reading maps.
Direwolves are much larger than regular wolves.
His love for the king was great.
Sansa was extremely scared.
The man has unusually long eyelashes.

These are the meanings you should be taking from those sentences.


----------



## Barque

kentix said:


> They are a literary device to convey an idea in a more interesting way. The important point is the idea, not the specific wording.


I agree. In fact, thinking about it a little more, I'd go as far as to say that in many cases, when people say "He knows those roads as well as any man" or "He can ride as well as anyone else in the town", they haven't actually considered the competence levels of all other people who know the roads or can ride. All they mean is that he knows the roads very well, and can ride very well.


----------



## thetazuo

Many thanks.


Barque said:


> It appears you're ignoring the last six words - underlined.





Barque said:


> It's a sarcastic comment.


I didn’t ignore anything. I just didn’t realize this example is fundamentally different from my other examples because it is sarcasm. The next sentence to the craven example is “And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it.” If cravens are essentially cowards, then it seems to imply the soldiers essentially have no honor; the only reason they keep their pledge and do their duty is there is no cost to it.
Do I get it right? I have never thought this way before.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> “And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it.”


I don't know who "we" refers to here - it seems to be a statement about people in general but I could be wrong. It means people are more wiling to do whatever they're supposed to do if they don't suffer by it. The idea is very similar to the sentence on cravens being brave.


----------



## thetazuo

kentix said:


> The important point is the idea, not the specific wording. What is the author trying to tell you that is the important information?
> 
> The leader of the raiders is a very experienced traveler in the north.
> Tyrion is very skillful at reading maps.
> Direwolves are larger than regular wolves.
> His love for the long great.
> Sands was very scared.
> 
> These are the meanings you should be taking from those sentences.


Thank you. Originally, when I first tead the book, the information I inferred from those examples are the same as you write above. But after reading many threads on this topic I begin to think that understanding is not very accurate. And many people do tell me elsewhere that the meaning “there is no A more X than B” is a more accurate interpretation, as in the pirate example.


Barque said:


> I don't know who "we" refers to here - it seems to be a statement about people in general but I could be wrong. It means people are more wiling to do whatever they're supposed to do if they don't suffer by it. The idea is very similar to the sentence on cravens being brave.


Thank you. They refer to the soldiers in the Watch.


----------



## thetazuo

Do you remember this example “You’re bold as any sellsword”?
I have found another example “He had not been outside Winterfell since his fall, but he was determined to ride out as proud as any knight.”
I think this example is comparable with the sellsword example. It can be interpreted as “no knight was more proud than him”. Right? (I know it is an exaggeration)


----------



## kentix

thetazuo said:


> And many people do tell me elsewhere that the meaning “there is no A more X than B” is a more accurate interpretation, as in the pirate example.


Yes, that is a more accurate interpretation of *the words*, but not necessarily of the reason the author says it, i.e. the *meaning* in context. That's why context is critical. Sometimes the more accurate, specific meaning is important but often it's not. Sometimes it's actually distracting. You should know that "more accurate" meaning but also know when it's not meant to be understood literally and therefore is actually less accurate.. This is a perfect example.

_The town was as dark as any forest.
_
The point is not to compare forests or compare towns to various forests. The point is to say the town was oddly dark. The author could have simply said, "the town was oddly dark". He didn't. He used the "as <> as" form. The more accurate meaning is pointless here and no time should be wasted thinking about it. He's just saying the town would not normally be expected to be dark but it is.


----------



## kentix

I also thought of this example. The scenario is modern times. There is a photographer whose job is to take pictures of the insides of houses for an interior design magazine.

He works on one room. "This room is as dark a room as I've ever had to photograph."
He works on another room: "This room is as beautiful a room as I've ever had to photograph."

It's the same scenario and the exact same sentence structure but the contexts are slightly different and that changes the meaning and implications considerably.

In the first sentence, the more accurate meaning of "as dark as" is much more important, probably even critical. If it's "as dark as", and possibly even the darkest room he's ever had to photograph, he might have to make special arrangements. He might have to use special lighting, or special film or special camera settings, or other special techniques. He might have to use a combination of all of those. The exact amount of light available is very important.

In the second sentence, it's not only not critical it's probably not even necessary to think about the "more accurate" meaning. The second sentence is basically a statement of opinion and has no practical effect (like the first sentence). It won't change anything about the way he photographs it. He simply thinks the room is really beautiful. He's had to photograph lots of beautiful rooms and this is on par with those. How many of those were there? Who knows. Maybe none on par, maybe one, maybe 300. It doesn't matter because it has no meaning beyond the room being beautiful. The "more accurate" meaning does matter but only at a very basic level. It eliminates the ugly rooms and normal rooms he's photographed from the comparison. We know it's in the potentially large group called most beautiful. But it's an opinion and it can't be measured against other rooms because it's unmeasurable and unnecessary to be measured to understand the meaning. By contrast, the light in the other room can be and probably will be measured, in order to produce good photos.


----------



## thetazuo

Hi. A lot of thanks, kentix. I see.
I think the following examples are comparable with the “town is dark” example because the comparison is not important and “as ... as any” just means “very”.
Winter will make this place as cold as any tomb.
The south shore was red clay, smooth as any road.
A hardwood staff can crack a skull as well as any mace.

And I think another possible explanation is that
1) if the subject is being compared to a small group, the literal meaning is more likely.
2) If the subject is being compared to everyone/everything in the world, then the non-literal meaning prevails. In those circumstances, the real meaning is that the person is either has X quality to a very high degree or, at least, has X quality as much as is average or normal.
I think these examples fall into the second category:
1. He had not been outside Winterfell since his fall, but he was determined to ride out *as proud as any knight*.
2. You are *bold as any sellsword*.
For 1, the comparison is between he and all knights in the world.
For 2, the comparison is between you and all sellswords in the world.
Make sense?


----------

