Would Roboute Guilliman still be conscious with in the stasis field?

[Scalebug]

In fact looking a bit further down that same extract it says: Which again is a slightly odd choice of words when referencing the dead. The dead don't "recover". Even in a fantasy setting it would be more that the dead "return" or "resurrect" or "reincarnate" or similar. Not just "fully recover" as if they're simply unwell.

Mmm... sure, but that is pointing to what in-universe characters believe (and at that points out that it should be impossible), not stating it as "fact".

I see your point, but still, had it been a reading comprehension test I was grading, the red pen would have come out for missing the meaning of "as he died" .

What did Guilliman do? He died. Not "he was dying".

As a sidenote, isn't it a bit weird that people are so quick to misinterpret this, so as to posing a possibility of Guilliman's return, considering the Ultramarines usually being so hated on the interwebs?

[Lord Damocles]

As a sidenote, isn't it a bit weird that people are so quick to misinterpret this, so as to posing a possibility of Guilliman's return, considering the Ultramarines usually being so hated on the interwebs?

Robot Girly-Man is a Primarch. That seems to be a get-out clause for all sorts of things - up to and including being an Ultramarine, apparently.

[MvS]

Mmm... sure, but that is pointing to what in-universe characters believe (and at that points out that it should be impossible), not stating it as "fact".

In this context I think you're perhaps teasing too much of a difference out between the the two phrases. Although I don't think this is one of those 'deliberately hazy' moments, I do think that it's a slightly hazy choice of words - although given the context I don't think it is deliberately hazy. I think it was intended to be pretty clear that Guilliman was frozen on the point of death. Not posthumously, but certainly at or very near a point of no return.

Besides the choice of grammar around the quote, the actual logic of the in-narrative moment also makes most sense if we view the Apothecaries as desperately trying to prevent their Primarch's final death, rather than just deciding to preserve his remains immediately. There's no need to go to all the trouble of bringing a non-weaponised stasis bubble down to a battle-site while your Primarch is dying just to preserve a body after he finally pops his clogs - a body that certainly wouldn't decay in the time it would have taken them to transport it back to their ships in orbit.

The Apothecaries' actions speak of desperation, certainly, but not pointlessness or stupidity. I think Ultramarines are supposed to be more about respect, practicality and the bottom line than that.

had it been a reading comprehension test I was grading, the red pen would have come out for missing the meaning of "as he died"

You can take those 'paper-bullets' and lock them in your mental gun cabinet, thank you very much!

This is more an issue of of textual analysis than basic comprehension, and as I pointed out in my previous post, the meaning is derived from the context - the surrounding text - not just three words of moveable contextual meaning.

"As he died" is useful for the writer in this context because it adds a finality and makes it clear that Guilliman's death couldn't be prevented by any means (or else it would have been). "As he lay dying" suggests a possibility that the person in question could be saved. In normal parlance if I were to say "the paramedics arrived as I lay dying" it would make grammatical sense, but if I were to say "the paramedics arrived as I died", well, it makes it sound like I'm speaking from beyond the grave.

But because we're talking about a sci-fantasy setting where stasis bubbles exist,the author of the piece can have it both ways. We can have the certainty of death ("as he died") alongside the indefinite delay of that final end point because of the stasis bubble. The implication remains that if the bubble is dropped, possibly even for just a moment or two, Guilliman will die (or else the Ultramarines or Imperium more widely would have tried it already).

It calls to mind the rather standard/traditional mythic device of the 'magical deathlike sleep', or the princess encased in crystal on the brink of death, waiting for a handsome prince to bring her back to life - although I'm sure Guilliman fans might not appreciate that analogy. Anyway, the point is it's a standard trope. King Arthur is taken away as he died, and because others didn't see that moment of final death there's always the slim possibility of his return within his myth. I think Guilliman's story nods to similar ideas. Like the Emperor even

They're dead but also not quite. But it would take a complete miracle to change things.

As to whether the "fully recover" is an in-narrative comment or not, well the impossibility that pilgrims are seeing Guilliman's wounds healing while he's in time-stasis is the in-narrative leap of faith in that part of the text. The "fully recovered" is a more the context of the already impossible change being erroneously observed. It implies that the people imagining the healing know that Guilliman isn't dead but frozen on the point of death, something that I see no reason would be a mystery.

It could have said about the wounds being "fully healed", focusing on them instead on Guilliman's life. But it didn't. It would have only added to the darkness and magic of the story if it had been described as Guilliman being dead and desperate pilgrims imagine his wounds healing, both against frozen time and the laws of life and death. But this isn't described

As things stand, the dead don't "recover", fully or otherwise. It's both illogical and bad grammar to say someone "recovered" from death. The very sick or the dying recover. Not the already dead. Even in a fantasy setting (and as I've already suggested) it would be a better use of English to describe the dead as "returning" or "rising", not recovering. The dead have left already and may be 'brought back' magically. The dead haven't just sat down waiting for a brief blip in their mortality to pass.

Personally, I think the reason some people are imagining that they are seeing recovery is because they already know Guilliman wasn't quite dead when he was frozen, so their hope-against-hope has room to develop and take on a life of its own as a quasi-religious belief.

What did Guilliman do? He died. Not "he was dying".

We're told that he was put in stasis "as he died", not after he died or when he was dead. In this context "as" means something akin to "at the same time as", serving to show that the two events - Guilliman dying and the Apothecaries putting up the stasis field around him - were happening concurrently.

I know you're probably going to think it's splitting hairs, but in this context it really isn't. If the "as he died" comment was the last sentence on the matter of Guilliman's mortality and the rest of the text referred to him in the past tense and his body in stasis as being just that - his body, not HIM in the present tense - then yes, I'd totally agree with you. But this isn't the case.

As a sidenote, isn't it a bit weird that people are so quick to misinterpret this, so as to posing a possibility of Guilliman's return, considering the Ultramarines usually being so hated on the interwebs?

Maybe, but I can only speak for myself, and as such I have to say that I personally have no feelings either way about Guilliman or any other character. I don't want him to be alive and I don't want him to be dead. I'm just trying to interpret the text as I read it and then try to enjoy and/or rationalise it for myself.

[Scalebug]

I absolutely agree on your interpretations from a stylistic or dramatic point of view, but as for the text, we are talking plain grammar here, it is telling us he died. It isn't the same as "as he was dying", which would have fit with your explanation.

Seeing it as a nod towards King Arthur mythos and similar is apt and all, but bottom line is that what you are doing is just adding your own interpretations to a short piece of text, which is all fine and well, but you cannot present it as your point in a discussion of what the text says, because it isn't there.

So, sorry, it say "as he died". Died is what he did. If you want to re-tell the story for a project or something, and leave it more open by implementing your points above, that is fine, but as canon currently stands, that little piece of text is what we have, and it says he died.

(and the side note there wasn't aimed at you or anyone else in particular, it was just something that struck me as funny as I wrote).

[MvS]

as for the text, we are talking plain grammar here, it is telling us he died. It isn't the same as "as he was dying", which would have fit with your explanation.

I've considered this already in what I wrote above. The emphasis is on the concurrent actions of him being put in stasis "as" he died. Not after. Yes there's a subtle difference and yes it means that Guilliman is effectively dead and would just be a body within moments of being taken out of stasis, but the IA article at least doesn't give the certainty of final death, and I think deliberately. Like the lost Legions and the Emperor on the Golden Throne it's one of those "what if" hooks for fans.

Seeing it as a nod towards King Arthur mythos and similar is apt and all, but bottom line is that what you are doing is just adding your own interpretations to a short piece of text, which is all fine and well, but you cannot present it as your point in a discussion of what the text says, because it isn't there.

I think that it's clear that it is there in the text. I referenced the mythic tropes it draws on to explain its presence in the text, not project its presence. I tried to make my meaning clear in what I wrote but I guess I was a bit tired at the time, so apologies for the lack of clarity.

So, sorry, it say "as he died". Died is what he did. If you want to re-tell the story for a project or something, and leave it more open by implementing your points above, that is fine, but as canon currently stands, that little piece of text is what we have, and it says he died.

Please don't apologise. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Even in just a purely grammatical sense, which seems to be the whole basis of your argument, the paragraph in question isn't as final as you're suggesting. The "as" is as important to the meaning as the "died", as indeed are all the present-tense references to Guilliman that follow. Add all that to the fact that the actual subject is a sci-fantasy setting where someone is being frozen in a moment of time as he died shows that an effort was being made to halt that final moment. There's no reason for the stasis being mentioned at that point or in that way unless it is relevant to that narrative moment.

The logic being that in the case of someone as important to his followers as Guilliman was, even if his death cannot be prevented then even delaying it indefinitely in a state that is hardly any different to mortal experience than death is still preferable.

But again, agree to disagree and all that.