Talk:Spells in Harry Potter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Harry Potter, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as Class B on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Various from MatthewDBA 2 Pronunciation guide 3 Avada Kedavra 4 Incendiah 5 Protean Charm 6 Serpensortia Etymology 7 Accio Pronounciation 7.1 Leave the HTML notice for Accio in! 8 Original Research 9 Attn: Tom Marvolo Riddle 10 Aguamenti 11 What kind of stone is it anyway? 12 Arresto Momentum 13 Colloportus 14 Peskipiksi Pesternomi 15 Movie Notes 16 'Reducto' 17 Reducing unwieldiness 18 Requested Move 19 Stress marks 20 Split up the article? 21 Conjunctivi-TUS/TIS? 22 Misplaced spells

[edit] Various from MatthewDBA

To Do:

• Sort the "silent spells" at the end of the article into the rest of the Canonical Spells. -- Done (MatthewDBA 11:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
• Expand all "paragraph" spell entries into the new template seen in Accio. -- Done (MatthewDBA 11:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
  • The first word in the template should be spelled Pronunciation, not Pronounciation. -- MatthewDBA 15:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've expanded several spell entries into the standard template; I've also added or edited some etymological information based on definitions in the Perseus Project's Classical language word search web page. I did not change the etymological discussion of the Ennervate spell, as the etymological situation seems a bit complex and I'd like to have some other user input before making a change. -- MatthewDBA 15:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC) -- Done (MatthewDBA 11:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Should we expand the template to include a specific entry for etymology? I have, or can find, etymologies for all the Latinate incantations. -- MatthewDBA 12:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC) -- Done (MatthewDBA 11:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

ATTN: Typer 525 - Re your change in the entry for Avis, the spell Hermione uses is nowhere stated to be "Avis", and we don't actually see her casting the spell; that's why I decided to class that use as conjectural and put it in "Notes" rather than in "Seen/Mentioned". Comments? -- MatthewDBA 11:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation guide

The pronunciations should be in IPA characters.

This is certainly a good way to standardize pronunciation; however, it will be useless for readers not familiar with the notation. For these readers, a simplified guide based on typical English pronunciation is probably the easiest approach; but we should probably add IPA readings for those who are familiar with IPA, or for those who are not fluent in English.

Please don't forget to sign your name to your posts. -- MatthewDBA 19:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick question - what sources are people using for the pronunciation of spells? Personally I think the pronunciation on the Audiobooks - Stephen Fry - should be adopted, but the fact that the emphasis in the word 'Avada' (on this page) has been placed on the second syllable, as opposed to the first, would suggest that the films seem to have more influence. Does anyone else feel that this is incorrect? --Libatius 21:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avada Kedavra

Is there a non-Rowling source for the Aramaic origin of this name? When I googled on 'avada kedavra aramaic', I got nearly 100% Harry Potter returns. Some of them mentioned a connection between the Aramaic phrase and 'abracadabra'. But the abracadabra entry says that avada means "create", not "destroy". [|Etymonline] gives 'Abraxas' as the origin of abracadabra, a possibility also discussed in the Wikipedia entry. Since the Etymonline site lists the documents it uses as sources (at least in general) whereas the Wikipedia article doesn't, I'm inclined to go with that entry -- at least until I find someone who can speak Aramaic. This (or even the idea of avada meaning "create" rather than "destroy") undermines the relevance of the etymology entry.

-- MatthewDBA 18:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incendiah

Could the author, or someone else, point out where this spell is mentioned in the novels? That is what the "seen/mentioned" section is for - not exposition on the spell it'self.

If no one comes forward in the next day or so, I'll take it back out.

Beowulf314159 14:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Heck with it - it almost certainly was someone "making up something cool and getting into Wikipedia". Bad description, badly written up. If it's actually mentioned in the books, by all means put it back in - but reference it this time! - Beowulf314159 14:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protean Charm

Either take the prounciation OUT again, or leave the dual name in as it fits the naming convention.

I've reverting this a vandalism

Beowulf314159 00:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, not sticking to the naming convention was an honest mistake on my part. I've fixed it. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 01:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Serpensortia Etymology

I changed the note on the etymology while arranging all spells into template form. Serpensortia does not come from Latin serpens meaning snake and Latin sortia meaning "attack". According to Lewis & Short, there is no Latin word sortia or any similar form with a meaning of "attack". The English word "sortie" comes from a Late Latin/Medieval Latin word "surctus", which is an altered form of the Classical Latin surgere, meaning "to rise up" (reference).

(edited from my earlier -- accidentally unsigned -- entry MatthewDBA 16:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Accio Pronounciation

It's amazing the things that can be points of contention on Wikipedia!

There have been a number of edits changing the pronounciation of Accio from A-kee-oo to A-see-oo and back again. I tried to stop the flurry of edits by putting both in, and today somone "corrected" the english pronouncition to ASK-ee-oo.

I took the last one out, because I don't think CERN has a particle ask-ell-er-at-tor.

However - I did put an HTML comment in the code asking people to STOP changing it back and forth.

If you disagree with the current pronounciations, please discuss them here first. - Beowulf314159 18:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't AK-see-oh the English pronunciation of accio (like in "accept")? --Muhaha 19:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Great - a 4th candidate! Is there an etymologist in the house! -- Beowulf314159 21:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Here I've always pronounced it with a "ch" sound, a la modern Italian (cf. cappuccino). Oh well. :) -- Acheron

I tend to agree with Muhaha, although it comes down to what you feel constitutes acceptable evidence for one pronunciation over another. While Daniel Radcliffe does indeed pronounce it with a hard 'c' (Akkio - my phonetic transcription is a little rusty...), Stephen Fry offers 'Ak-see-o' in the audiobooks. I am inclined to go with Stephen Fry, considering the films' track record on pronunciation...anyone remember Lockhart's version of 'obliviate'?Libatius 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake, how on earth do you get ['æsiəʊ] out of accio?? Only the second <c> got palatalized in Latin, giving French and English [ks]. The only possibilities are English ['æksiəʊ] and Classical Latin ['akkio:].

[edit] Leave the HTML notice for Accio in!

MatthewDBA took it out - and just over two hours later someone "corrected" Accio again. Do we need to get an admin to lock the page or something? Beowulf314159 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I was only intending to add the IPA pronunciation guides; I don't recall specifically removing the comment, and did not intend to. I have no problem with the display of two acceptable pronunciations. Apologies for any misunderstandings created, and I fully support your position on this.

Minor quibble: should the second pronunciation be listed as classical, rather than classic, Latin?

-- MatthewDBA 16:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I find HTML comment warnings annoying myself - I don't like having to put it in, but it seemed the only end to the edit war.

Go for it :) I guess you could just say Latin as well. - Beowulf314159 17:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, technically no -- there is a difference in pronunciation between classical (German pronunciation) Latin and ecclesiastical (Italian pronunciation) Latin. I'll change it to 'classical'.

Classical pronunciation = German pronunciation? Isn't German pronunciation also different from classical? --Muhaha 19:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, it's speculated in several pages that dog Latin might be better? - Beowulf314159 17:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Accio is correct Latin --Muhaha 19:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering that "Dog Latin" is often "correct" Latin strung together unconjugated or "tensed" you can't tell :) It seems that a lot of the "Latin" in J.K. Rowling's books is "Dog Latin". - Beowulf314159 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Directly from Latin dictionary: "accio -ire -ivi (-ii) -itum [to call , summon]." (remember that the first form means "I summon" and the second (accire) means "to summon") --Muhaha 14:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Calm down guys :) This particular word is in fact a verified Latin form, although it's pronunciation isn't clear. The points I would make about "dog Latin" are:

• It does include correct as well as corrupted Latin forms
• It doesn't have any particular pronunciation, since it's a written rather than a spoken phenomenon
• Those who spoke or wrote in dog Latin generally had had exposure to ecclesiastical, rather than classical, pronunciation of Latin ("Latin pronunciation" meant "ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation" until about 130 years ago)
• Most of Ms. Rowling's Harry Potter incantations are probably best classed as "dog Latin"
• Most importantly, it's impossible (and in many ways meaningless) to say that any single word of correct Latin should or should not be classed as "dog Latin".

Here endeth the lesson ;-P MatthewDBA 14:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The last point was kinda what I was driving at. - 69.19.14.24 16:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

After looking at the discussion regarding the article on Horcrux, I started wondering about how much of the "perhaps" speculation on this page might count as "original research". Any ideas? -- MatthewDBA 17:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with you, in theory, I have to wonder as to how practical an attempt to weed out "original research" on this page. It's hard enough weeding out comments tacked on the end like "and then Harry did so-and-so, which proves that pudding is better than cake!". A lot of people edit the Harry Potter pages, and I suspect that not all of them are completely familiar with peer-review journals - or are old enough to drink. I think keeping the comments down to "perhaps" keeps the original research inoffensive and stunted - and might be a good "compromise position" between a Harry Potter fan club discussion, and a strict interpretation of the Wikipedia content guidelines. - Beowulf314159 17:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attn: Tom Marvolo Riddle

Do you have canon sources for the Confundus and Fidelius Charms? If not, we should at least mark them as speculative. -- MatthewDBA 20:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aguamenti

So, is it Portuguese or Spanish? Given that the words are apparently the same in both languages, is there a reason to pick one over the other? Let's please not get into an edit war over this. -- MatthewDBA 11:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What kind of stone is it anyway?

We just had a number of changes of "Philosopher's Stone" to "Sorceror's Stone". "Sorceror's Stone" is a live link, but just redirects to "Philosopher's Stone". Either is acceptable (I suppose one could argue that "Philosopher's Stone" is more acceptable, since that's not a redirect). But I thought we should clear that up before people get into an edit war. -- MatthewDBA 11:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Philosopher's Stone is the author's original title. Sorcerer's Stone is an American 'translation'.

[edit] Arresto Momentum

There was a spell in the third movie that does not appear in this glossary. When the Dementors in the air above a Quidditch match once knocked Harry out and made him fall from his broomstick, Dumbledore called out "Arresto Momentum" just before Harry was to slam into the ground. I can only assume it was meant to stop him before he struck earth. I don't know if it was in the book.

--64.95.49.41 23:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not in the book. The reason Harry wasn't hurt in the book was because it was raining very hard and the ground was soft as a result.--Vercalos 01:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The notes claim that whether Arresto Momentum is canonical or not is currently disputed...surely this is fairly clearcut..? There's no incantation in the book, so personally I don't think it has a place in this article. Apologies if I've missed a debate somewhere along the line...Libatius 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colloportus

In the description of this spell, it previously said "The fact that the Death Eaters mentioned above did not just open the sealed doors with Alohomora may indicate complex interactions of Alohomora and Colloportus. It is in fact because the alohomora charm only works on uncharmed doors." This has been changed to "The deatch eaters opened the door with 'ALOHAMORA'" by User:82.5.189.55 on 13:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

In my edition of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix it says "'Colloportus!' gasped Hermione and the door sealed itself with an odd squelching noise. [...] They were almost there when Harry heard something large and heavy collide with the door Hermione had charmed shut. 'Stand aside!' said a rough voice. 'Alohomora!' As the door flew open, Harry, Hermione and Neville dived under desks." (UK edition, p. 695)

So it seems that doors sealed with Colloportus can indeed be opened by Alohomora. But perhaps (and this could explain why it previously said that these doors could not be opened this way), there is another occurence of Colloportus in the novel around these pages (but I didn't find it), where the Death Eaters are not able to open a sealed door. This could also explain why it says "Neville, Luna and Harry needed to seal doors", whereas in the aforementioned passage it's Hermione, Harry and Neville sealing the door.

Any help on clarifying this would be appreciated. — Sebastian Goll 14:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the it depends on the wizard's power if he may or may not open a "Colloportused" door with "Alohomora"... an example would be that if a normally experienced wizard like let's say Neville would lock a door with Colloportus and Dumbledore would use Alohomora to open it, he could easily do it, but if it was the opposite, Neville couldnt open it because Dumbledore is way more powerful than Neville... but that's a personal oppinion -- Halyks 01:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peskipiksi Pesternomi

I want to draw your attention to the spell Peskipiksi Pesternomi. In the notes, it says "In the Chamber of Secrets movie, when Lockhart starts saying the spell one pixie took his wand and then spoke the same incantation, pointing it at a rope holding a creature's skeleton and cut it, releasing the skeleton and making it fall down."

In my opinion, this is not correct. The way I see it, the pixies don't say any spell (they're talking amongst themselves but definitely not saying "Peskipiksi Pesternomi"), they simply touch the chain to the skeleton with Lockhart's wand after taking it from him (who tried to say the spell just before that, but was interrupted by the pixies).

Furthermore, in the German version of the movie, the pixies are saying "Los, hau weg das Ding" (something like "Let's cut it", perhaps someone can give a better retranslation?) while releasing the skeleton. That leaves the possibility of a mistranslation in the German version, but personally I think it's proof that the the pixies are not saying "Peskipiksi Pesternomi" themselves.

Again, any help on clarifying this is appreciated. — Sebastian Goll 07:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember, to be honest... My edit was mostly a copy-edit. I honestly don't remember the pixies saying anything particularly coherent.--Vercalos 08:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to remove the aforementioned note from Peskipiksi Pesternomi in a few days' time, if there aren't any objections, because I still think that it is not correct (feel free to correct me if I am mistaken). -- Sebastian Goll 12:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Notes

This is an article about CANONICAL spells in the world of Harry Potter. Therefore, all references to the effects of spells in movies or games ought to be removed. Wackojacko1138 03:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think, the notes concerning the Harry Potter films and video games should be preserved. You are right, this is a list of canonical spells, but in my opinion this only tells us that all spells mentioned on this list should have occured in the books in the first place (which is the case). The "notes" merely give a reference from the spells to their respective occurences in film and video game. It's quite interesting to note how specific spells were shown and/or interpreted in film/video game, and this list is (again, my opinion) the perfect place for such a comparison. (The alternative, i.e. putting these references on the non-canonical list, is not practicable in my opinion, because you'd have to mention spells twice, on the canonical list and on the non-canonical list, thus possibly confusing the reader.) — Sebastian Goll 11:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, we'd only mention spells from the books here, and make notes of movie usages as applicable?--Vercalos 09:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that's correct. Compare the introduction to the article: "This article is about specific canonical spells which are those spells that are specifically mentioned and/or 'demonstrated' in the novels, or other writings of J. K. Rowling, [...]." So, if I interpret this correctly, we should mention only canonical spells (as above) on this list, and place a note whenever a spell has been reinterpreted in one of the films or video games (e.g. Orchideous). On the other hand, spells that never occured in one of the books and were invented for either film or video game, should only occur on the non-canonical list (compare "[...], as opposed to non-canonical spells which appear only in the movies or games." and "Non-canonical spells are those spells that are mentioned only in the films, video games or other media, but not the novels.") — Sebastian Goll 15:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Reducto'

Can anyone provide a source to show that 'reductio' is a genuine Latin verb, meaning to reduce? Surely it's from 'reduco' which has the supine 'reductum' from which we get 'reduction' in English, but the Latin literally means 'to lead back', although the connection isn't hard to make...And the combination of 'c' and 't' (reduCTio) is almost unheard of in the present tense. Just checking before I delete it. Libatius 09:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reducing unwieldiness

The name "Canonical spells in the world of Harry Potter" is massive and rather redundant. The article was originally renamed this as a part of a larger naming system, but that basis has been somewhat lost due to other renamings. I'm planning to move this to "Spells in Harry Potter" or "List of Harry Potter spells", and the counterpart to "Noncanonical spells in Harry Potter" or similar - are there any objections? --Kizor

Well, I don't object. "Spells in Harry Potter" (or even "Canonical spells in Harry Potter" is better than what we have now! Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 19:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with this move that has just happened is that at WikiProject Harry Potter we just finished fixing links that linked to List of spells in Harry Potter, which was moved to Canonical spells in the world of Harry Potter to distinguish from the non-canonical. Can we just move this to Canonical spells in Harry Potter, because there still is the page Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter. I think taking out the "the world of" cuts down its massiveness but still preserves the effect. What do we think? --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

I've deleted Spells in Harry Potter as a csd request to make room for a page move of this page. If concensus for this is not met, please recreate the Spells in Harry Potter as a redirect to here, or request undeletion (it was only a redir though). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Xaosflux. There should not be a problem. --Kizor 14:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stress marks

I was going to start moving all the IPA stress marks to their correct places, until I saw this discussion page. Now I just want to shout that you're a load of useless bloody loonies. Typical masturbating Wikipedian clueless pedantic idiots. What a pile of ludicrous rubbish this site is. Shee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.78.72.92 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Split up the article?

Given the article's length, it might be appropriate to split it into sub-articles, in a similar manner to List of gay people. Just to make this explicitly clear, I'm not implying any homosexuality of anyone present or anything in the article, but providing an example of how I think the article should be divided, should it be divided.--Vercalos 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conjunctivi-TUS/TIS?

Since "conjunctivitus" is a common misspelling of the correct "conjunctivitis", I was going to change Conjunctivitus Curse to Conjunctivitis Curse, but then I realized that it might be intentional.

A Google search isn't helping (both versions of the curse get about the same number of hits) and I don't have any references I can consult at the moment.

Can anyone check this? Intentional or Typo? Mip | Talk 14:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misplaced spells

Is it just me, or are there a lot of spells here that don't belong in the article?--Vercalos 23:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, loads. It's getting ridiculous...Libatius 12:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)