Talk:Patronus Charm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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.


the incantation Expecto patronum (meaning I call/summon the protector)

OK, such scant Latin as I ever had is now largely forgotten, but this doesn't seem quite right. "Expecto" certainly doesn't mean "I call/summon", which would be "accio", or maybe "advoco". In fact - and I certainly stand to be corrected here - "expecto" isn't quite Latin at all, unless it maybe means "I cough up". Perhaps what is wanted here is "exspecto", from "ex" (out) and "spectare" (to look at), meaning "I look out for", or slightly idiomatically, "I anticipate" or "I long for" Securiger 07:38, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, my translation of the incantation into English was not based on any knowledge of mine in Latin, because I do not have any worth mentioning (although I am able to translate some words by intuitively drawing parallels to modern ones). My entry was based on the book's Greek translation of the incantation, "Kalo ton prostati" whose simplest adaptation in English is "I call/summon the protector". It might be that the Greek translators did not make an accurate translation of the incantation. Your suggestion makes sense, but I can't know whether it's correct or not.Sinistro 22:15, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My Latin is not very good either, certainly not good enough to pontificate. But looking at the list of spells in Harry Potter it's clear that a lot of them are dog Latin. It might be useful to create a page called Latin in Harry Potter and solicit contributions from both Potter fans and Latin scholars. The latter may be enticed by reports (e.g. [1]) that Rowling's books have caused a surge in Latin enrollments. Securiger 17:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to Lewis & Short, one of the canonical English-Latin dictionaries, expecto is a relatively common variant of exspecto, as Securiger points out; the definition allows it to mean "require" or "have need of" (but only poetically - the examples cited are from Virgil). The more typical meaning is either something like "hope for" or something like "await" or "expect". But dog Latin (I'm thinking particularly of Hiberno-Latin) can use unusual, poetic, or erudite forms of a Latin word.

In addition, the appropriate plural of patronus is patroni; the page should be updated to reflect that.

--MatthewDBA 19:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Update -- I just checked with Lewis & Short again based on something tickling the back of my mind; there is no Latin word having a form 'pecto'. In the ablative case (as it would follow the preposition ex, meaning 'out') the Latin word pectus, meaning 'chest' or 'heart', would take the form pectore, not pecto. So I think we're going to have to drop the ex pecto explanation. If this is okay, I'll fix it. --MatthewDBA 13:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I was just looking at the picture included in the article, Patronus.jpg, and I feel it should be pointed out that the third movie, where that picture was taken from, wasn't true to the book, it shows the patronus as more of a literal shield instead of the stag. Thoughts? -- GregAsche 05:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

No. I've already edited that observation out of both this article and the article on the film. In both the book and the movie, there is only one corporeal Patronus, and that is cast by future Harry at the end. Every other time, it's a shapeless silver whisp. The only Patronus related deviation from the book is the perspective, which I've noted in the article on the film. I think we should replace the picture with a screenshot of the stag. --MrBawn 12:48, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
maybe mention that a weak, ineffective patronus will be wispy rather than corporeal. 216.237.179.238 21:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's there: "Patronii summoned by less capable Witches or Wizards (or those who are under duress) are momentary formless bursts of silvery mist, or poorly-defined forms which quickly dissipate. Properly formed (or corporeal) patronii ..." Beowulf314159 22:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] ex pecto patronum

Rowling plays with spellings all over the place. She doesn't stick to any known language when naming spells, hexes, jinxes, or curses, she gives them names that sound mystical and may have interesting etymologies. I've never seen it spelt other than expecto patronum in any of the first five books (just finished Order of the Phoenix last night). Bollixing the spelling all over the Wikipedia because of some irrational tumble into portmanteau etymology is silly. I'll give this a few days sink in and then start fixing it. 216.237.179.238 21:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Then you're really not paying that much attention to spelling, are you? There are at least 3 different spellings printed in the books - one of which may be an error (but which one?), and one which is probably a pun - just because of it's placement. Like you said, "Rowling plays with spellings all over the place". Even if this wasn't the case, you admit she just plays with language, and then you get annoyed with non-rigourous application of linguistic tools to her use of language?
Don't forget that dubious "repairs" can themselves be repaired. 70.48.47.20 05:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't locate more than one. Would you mind providing references? MatthewDBA
The adult edition uses the spelling "Exxpecto" in the title of the chapter Tom Lougheed 21:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complexity of the spell

I'm not quite sure how we can say that the Patronus Charm is "a complex spell which is simple in theory", as the article states. I can understand a spell being simple in theory, but difficult in practice, but this sentence seems (to me at least) to imply that it is both complex (in theory) and simple (in theory). I'm not even sure the spell should be called "complex" -- the word overlaps with, but doesn't coincide with, the meaning of "difficult". I don't have my Book 3 around, but the spell doesn't seem to be particularly complex -- that is, it doesn't seem to involve a series of visualizations, sequences of wand movements, or particular intonations of the incantation (as Wingardium Leviosa seems to). The main difficulty appears to be the intense concentration which even Harry had to practise somewhat. I think we should just rephrase that sentence as "The Patronus Charm is simple in theory [perhaps 'in its effect' would be more appropriate] but quite difficult to master." -- MatthewDBA 12:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patronus Theories

Until further evidence is given, I cannot prove this. However, there happens to be a great deal of evidence that says the Patronus takes a form integral to either the user or someone who was an important part of a life changing event. Harry's Patronus appears as a stag, while Tonks uses a Werewolf Patronus. These are examples of people who underwent such changes. In Harry's case, he might have the regular power of the Stag Patronus (that is, be born with it) due to the Patronum referring to 'Father' as much as to 'Guardian.' However, I can say with great certainty that Lupin is not the father of Tonks.

[edit] Tonks' Patronus

Was it specifically a werewolf, not just a wolf? I don't remember and don't have a copy of the book handy. Is that right? --BDD 08:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Cleaning"

I have no problems with people tidying up phrasing, improving layout, or correcting errors. When you start ripping out information and meaning that are not errors, because of personal editing styles, I will repair it as the vandalism it is.

In the the case of the opening of the artcle, Patronus means two things in the novels themselves. The removal of that paragraph "convieniently" decided to ignore the second meaning.

As for the other material that is pre-spoiler: The pages on the Harry Potter material are interconnected - as is much of the wikipedia. If you don't think the material is 100% relevant to the specific topic, you may be correct - but it may be relevant to series of interconnected articles as whole They are called linking paragraphs and facilitate the reader moving from related article to related article. If you don't want articles linked together, go scribble notes on post-its - you don't need Wikipedia. The material pre-spoiler is a breif synopsis and connections to other - related articles. The concept is called an abstract. After that, you get on to the "in-depth" discussion part. It's not a new concept. - Beowulf314159 05:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a truckload of edits that has been ripped out again. In all seriousness, it looks like someone got their feelings hurt that their work was improved on and ripped it all back out. Rephrasing things, fine - unilaterally taking information out - not fine. Beowulf314159 05:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah. This would be a nice example of the differences in editing styles I mentioned not long ago. Let's see... if by ripping out you include this edit, I maintain that it does nothing but remove some redundancy, trim needlessly elaborate (and coming from me, that's saying something) descriptions. In the more likely case that you mean this one... I have to admit that you're right. That was rash of me and there was protectiveness of text involved that there shouldn't have. I'm sorry.

Moving on, I'm still against the linking paragraph. First, interconnectedness is good, but the article has plenty of that already and the non-canonical spells and unforgivable curses articles have very little to do with the Patronus Charm. Second, it's in the most obtrusive place possible. If anywhere, the link to the list of spells belongs in a 'see also' section. My case against the two-item list in the introductory paragraph is weaker, but I think that the *hauled off computer, have to get back on that*

Oh, and you were right about animals in your comment in edit history. That was just an attack of stupidity on my part. --Kizor 22:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit to, and apologize for, jumping off the handle myself — I'm sorry about that. Yes - I mostly meant this one. There were some other minor things that you took out that I thought were meaningful: The uniqueness of the patroni, and the fact that the Patronus charm is usually difficult to cast because of duress, even though it's not always used against Dementors. If I was being suffocated by a Letifold, I doubt that I'd be having nice fluffy thoughts, even though there was no soul-sucking-despair radiating out of it.
I also have to admit that the signpost is overly obtrusive and ornate - and includes links that really don't have much to do with Patronus. I've changed the opening, keeping some connectivity, and eliminated the list. Tell me what you think?
As for editing down overly elaborate prose, that has my full blessing :) Fewer words is better — as long as neither information or functionality of the article is lost. Lord knows I ramble on for far to long most of the time.
Beowulf314159 23:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Think nothing of it, you had provocation. The opening looks much better now. I still don't like the list, but I can live with that. You're right about the minor things - I blame a neuron misfire for touching the former in the first place - and since the trim was lost I'll try another after a while. --Kizor 00:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muggle Mantra?

Is there any source to support the last line in this article? "It is also interesting to note that the phrase expecto patronum can be used even by Muggles as a sort of mantra to restore tranquility and peace of mind in moments of agitation and depression." I don't seem to remember this being referred to canonically.--Vercalos 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] etymology blah blah

Is the "It is wise to keep in mind the limits etymological speculation in the Harry Potter universe" blah blah really needed? In my opinion it wastes space.--Muhaha 18:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly very unwieldy and takes up a lot of space. --Kizor 18:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I've taken it out. Night Gyr 02:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patroni?=

Since when is the plural of Patronus the word 'Patroni' ? The only plural mention is on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoneix, page 455, where Harry clearly says 'Patronuses'. I know that -us usually becomes -i when pluralized (as with Animagus, Animagi) but Patronus seems to be an exception.

[edit] Etymology

from the article: A rough translation of the incantation is thus "I summon my protector."

You really get "I summon my protector" even after that explanation? While what I'm about to say has little place on the article itself, I've always thought it to be a joke. Maybe "I summon my protector" is valid, but (in Harry's case anyway), I've always translated it as "I want my daddy!"

--- Vstarre 14:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Known Patronuses

The Harry Potter Lexicon [1] mentions that Electronic Arts featured many Famous Wizard cards, including "Andros the Invincible" who "Alleged to have been the only known wizard to produce a Patronus the size of a giant."

Is this canonical enough to include in the list of known patronuses (patroni?)

EddieC Vito 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/t/Talk%7EPatronus_Charm_287b.html"