Latin

[Jim Flanagan]

No: HPFGUIDX 12673

Here's another theory that's probably been mentioned before:  the 
actual words have little or nothing to do with the magic itself.  
Like a wand, they help the person casting the spell focus and bring 
forth the magic.  The process of learning a new spell was explained 
most clearly when Lupin was teaching Harry the Patronus charm.  The 
most difficult part was learning to focus his mind and fill it with a 
feeling of pure happiness -- holding the wand and saying the words 
were trivial compared to the mental work required to actually summon 
the magic from within himself.

This may explain why it is sometimes sufficient to say simply "accio" 
and not "accio <something>."  When the mind is clearly focused on the 
object, the words are superfluous.

Naming new spells may be much like naming new organisms -- I suspect 
that more than a few genera and species are not "pure" Latin, Greek, 
Sanscrit, or whatever.

-Jim Flanagan

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nykteris" <nykteris at p...> wrote:
>     Priori incantatem makes no sense in Latin because the form 
*incantatem*
> doesn't exist. It's easier with Prior Incantato: prior - previous
> (comparative of *propinquus*);  incantato can be or Dat./Abl. sg. 
form of
> past
> participle  of *incantare* or - and this possibility IMO is much 
better - 2
> or 3 sg.
> imperat. futuri activi. Although the forms are correct, it still 
makes no
> acceptable sense in Latin.
>     My theory is: everybody can learn Latin - so spells in pure 
Latin form
> could seem too easy and too obvious, even for Muggles. But 
corrupted Latin
> is something you can't discover on your own - you have to study it 
in
> Hogwarts ;-))).
> 
> Katarzyna