counterfeit Galleons, designer robes, humans (via Transfiguration

[justcarol67]

bboyminn wrote:
> Of course, the standard answer is that objects that are conjured are
not permanent, so I suspect that objects that are transformed in this
way are also not permanent. 
> 
> In addition, while you may be able to transfigure objects to look
like Galleons, would they really be Galleons, would they really be
made out of gold? Remember the whole purpose of Alchemy is the
conversion of matter; specifically the transmutation of base metals
into gold. If you could simply transfigure objects, there would be
little need for Alchemy. But we know that Alchemy exists, so one could
conclude that the transfiguation of 'objects' into true gold is not
possible.

Carol responds:
What about true silver? Wormtail's silver hand appears to be permanent
(and very strong, given the twig that he crushes to powder when he
first receives it). And yet it seems to be conjured out of thin air.
And if it's true silver, might it be lethal to a werewolf? (I'm
thinking of Fenrir Greyback, if he's at large or escapes from Azkaban,
not Remus Lupin.)
> 
bboyminn:
> JKR said when she set up her world, she set specific limits on it,
and one of the limits prevented people from performing conjuring, and
by extention transfiguration, in just the manner described. Magic or
no magic, you still have to work for a living.

Carol responds:
I agree with your logic regarding the impossibility (in the
Potterverse) of conjuring real money, food, clothing, etc., but I
don't think JKR is consistent in the limits she places on conjured
objects. On the one hand, Sirius Black has to eat real food from the
kitchens of Hogwarts--he can't borrow a wand and conjure some. The
Weasleys are poor; Remus Lupin wears the same tattered robes. (Maybe
Tonks will learn domestic spells to repair them, but why doesn't
someone just buy him some self-cleaning, self-repairing robes from
Madam Malkins?) Leprechaun gold vanishes, and yet we have seemingly
permanent conjured objects like Wormtail's silver hand.

bboyminn:
<snip>
> However, one very important thing would be missing in an animal to
human transformation, and that of course is /education/. Language and
speech, as well as general knowledge and critical/analytical thinking
are learned experiences. An animal to human transformation would have
the capacity to talk and reason, but no experience or education that
would provide the foundation for language, general knowledge, or
critical thought. <snip>

Carol responds:
It might depend on whether the transformed animal was magical or not.
Magical animals, e.g., Hedwig, Crookshanks, and Mrs. Norris,
understand human speech and seem to have some capacity for thought
already. (Owls can apparently read or magically sense the addresses on
the letters they carry, or even magically locate a person whose
address is not given. Part-Kneazle cats can detect suspicious
characters, much like animated Sneakoscopes.) A larger, more complex
human brain and the capacity for speech might be all such creatures
need to become fully human once they're given human form--possibly
retaining the powers they already had as animals as well. However, I
don't think anyone but Dumbledore would have that sort of power, and
he's no longer available to demonstrate it. 

Or maybe the only animals that can be turned into humans are animagi
in their animal form. If Scabbers hadn't really been Pettigrew in PoA,
he would have remained Scabbers when Lupin and Black cast their spell
to transform him. (Conversely, I wonder if the transfiguration of
Draco into a ferret would have been permanent if Crouch!Moody or
another adult hadn't reversed it.)

Carol, agreeing that there *are* limits to both Transfiguration and
conjuration (which seems not to be taught at Hogwarts) but still
mystified by the silver hand