[HPforGrownups] Re: Runes (was:.../Classes/...)

[Neil Ward]

No: HPFGUIDX 8189

I wrote:

"I thought Runes were stones marked with glyphs, that were used for
divining, rather like Tarot Cards?"

Catlady explained:

<<<Runestones (runeSTONEs) are stones (antler, bone, and wood -- formerly
living materials -- are supposed to be more authentic) marked with glyphs
taht are used for divining.... RUNEs are the glyphs on the stones, but they
were an alphabet used  for writing Norse languages before they were written
on stones....>>>

***

Thanks, RITA.  As you were explaining that, the phrase "runic alphabet"
popped into my head.  A friend of my brother's used to "cast the runes" and
always referred to the stones as "runes", which must be how I got confused.
I now suspect that she was a charlatan who just wanted to appear mysterious.

I was thinking; we know very little about the Hogwarts' class Study of
Ancient Runes (SAR), because none of the triumvirate have plumped for that
option.  IIRC, it's also the only class for which we don't know the teacher.
I had assumed that it was a branch of Divination and perhaps,
subconsciously, that Trelawney would teach it.  However, if that were the
case, why not just stick it under Divination and be done with it?  I have
two theories on this:

(a) JKR is using 'Rune' to mean language, and intends SAR to be regarded as
the magical languages class.  However, it would still include magical
*ancient* languages (including Latin???) only and not modern languages.

(b) SAR is a branch of Divination, but is taught separately from the rest of
Divination, because (i) it covers the origins rather than practice of modern
Divination, (ii) Hogwarts has a specialist in Runes on the staff, perhaps
for a limited period, (iii) Trelawney won't or can't teach the subject and
clutches her temples when anyone mentions it, (iv) the teaching of
Divination (and perhaps other subjects) is split between several teachers.

***

Point (b)(iv), above, brings me to Chistian's comment (from his mammoth
post):

<<<Is it also plausible that a teacher does not teach all the forms (grades
in US English) -
so that Professor McGonagall for instance only teaches every second form and
those that
have transfiguration and related subjects as electives, with another teacher
(or two)
tackling the rest of the transfiguration-classes?>>>

He also said:

<<<Therefore I think that 300-400 students is a too low number, as
the population of wizards this would indicate only barely would be able to
support the
level of activity we see.>>>

During the 'number of students' debate earlier this year, I posted something
on the number of teachers, which made a similar point to Christian's.  I
didn't calculate the lesson times in the detail he has, but I did conclude
that the apparently small staff we know could not be expected to teach 1000
students within a weekly timetable.  If I may recap:

- If there were 1000 students, the average year size would be about 150,
which would place around 75 students in each double-House class.

- Even the elective classes, which presumably draw from all four Houses,
could easily attract 40-50 students.

- The above suggest that there would need to be (a) more than 14 sessions
per week for compulsory subjects even if each class was taught only lesson
per week or (b) massive class sizes for all subjects.

- From the students' point of view, there would have to be more than one
lesson of the compulsory subjects per week or they would have a pretty thin
timetable.

- We can assume that the students have at least two sessions of each subject
each week, because they sometimes have "double" lessons.  Christian's
assumption of four lessons per week seems reasonable.

- As Christian calculated, a Professor such as McGonagall might be facing 56
teaching sessions per week even if we ignore class sizes.

- If we accept that there are 1000 students and agree that most of the
classes would have to be split into streams to make the numbers smaller,
McGonagall could be teaching 56+ classes per week, but it might be
approaching 100.  At an hour a lesson, that would be 13 hours of teaching
every weekday with no breaks for a catnap.

- Conclusions: (a) 1000 students is virtually impossible unless there are
many more teachers than we have seen, (b) JKR didn't do her sums (and
probably didn't expect her work to be examined quite *this* closely).

Happy New Year

(a) Neil
(b) Flying-Ford-Anglia