[HPforGrownups] Why do Muggles get a capital letter?

[Silvercat]

No: HPFGUIDX 37697

"... Weaver ..." wrote:
> Why are there 'Muggles' and 'wizards'?  Why not 'muggles' and wizards, or
>  Muggles and 'Wizards'?  Surely it makes more sense to be consistent?
> 
> Given that the wizarding community is (I think...) much smaller than the
>  Muggle community, wouldn't it make more sense to capitalise the word 'Wizard'
> instead, as wizards are rarer?

Humans rarely capitalize themselves. It's strangers that get the special
attention. (Like most native names just mean "the people")

grey wolf c wrote:
> Anyway, getting to the point, I think Muggles deserves a capital letter 
> in the same way "French" or "German" or "Japanese:" it's a way of 
> indicating that they're from a different culture/country/whatever. 
> Wizard is not (normally) capitalized because it refers to oneself, like 
> "human" or "person". I'm not 100% sure, but isn't "Warlock" 
> capitalized? That would indicate that Warlock is the formal name of 
> wizards is, as a counter part of "Muggle".

There are languages that don't capitalize other languages, but the point
holds.  Doesn't Warlock only refer to males? Just another word for
wizard?  Hmmm, why do they use witch and wizard, instead of witch and
warlock, etc? (Besides to keep the Christian fundamentalists of JKR's
back)

"... Weaver ..." wrote:
> OTOH, most of the book is shown from the wizarding POV, so maybe they
>  refer to Muggles with a capital because they're seen as a separate species from
>  us (ie, we capitalise 'Wookiee' but not 'human').  Maybe the wizards don't
> consider Muggles to be the same species, despite the fact that they obviously
> can interbreed --
> 
> (thinking of dimly remembered biology lessons here... am I wrong in assuming
>  that, loosely, individuals are only considered the same species if they can
> interbreed?  I may be completely on the wrong track...)

Horses and donkeys aren't the same species, but they can interbreed. 
But I think only the same species can have kids that can reproduce.

"... Weaver ..." wrote:
> I'm
> thinking of ancient wizarding families considering Muggles as barely human,
> as beneath their dignity, something less than a dog or a cat (given that
> Animagi can *become* cats and dogs).

And bugs and sharks... I don't think that's it.

"... Weaver ..." wrote:
> (Digression: on that same track, *can* an Animagi transform into a Muggle?
>  Maybe Snapeykins is an Animagi and his form is that of an old crotchety Muggle
>  man...  ::giggling:: Maybe Draco Malfoy can, and that explains his bitterness
> towards the less magically-gifted...)

Why would they want to though?  It seems like they get to choose their
form.

"... Weaver ..." wrote:
> Cats and dogs, though, are obviously not of the same species as us, and they
> don't get a capital letter either.  Maybe it's just *sentient* other species
> that are capitalised (Wookiees, Bothans, Ithorians, Sullustans,  -- Vulcans,
> if you don't like those or even just Martians all get capitals)  BUT they all
> bear no physical similarity to humans.  Muggles and wizards are the same
> physically: my present view is that it's just an extra gene or two thrown up
> randomly that gives us magic.

I don't think so... Most Star Trek species are just humans with funky
foreheads or noses.  They usually even have red blood.  Betazeds just
have black irises (and telepathy). And they all can interbreed with
humans.

So wizards were originally mutants?  Maybe it's Muggles that were
originally different.  They seem to imply that magic was much more
common earlier, or maybe it's just me.  What's that one syndrome where
you have three genes in one spot instead of two - Down syndrome?

"... Weaver ..." wrote:
> (Digression: *does* that make them + us separate species?  Considering
> chimpanzees are only about five genes removed from us...)

I don't think that's right.  We have 28(?) chromosomes.  I think chimps
have 40-some pairs.

"... Weaver ..." wrote:
> Oops, more ideas coming -- house-elves don't get capitals either.  Is that
> because they're considered inferior (like cats and dogs)?  But then, even
> goblins don't get capitals.  (--Can someone tell me if they're given 'being'
> classification by Fantastic Beasts?  My copy's downstairs...)

I think they are.  They aren't liked much.  But aren't Muggles
considered inferior?

GulPlum wrote:
> I don't think it has anything to do with English usage. What I 
> suspect it has a lot to do with is intellectual property law (stand 
> up Ms Stouffer) - note that almost all JKR-invented terminology or 
> words with a specific meaning within the Potterverse are capitalised: 
> Transfigure, Apparate, Muggle, etc, etc.

Yeah, that's true and a good point... But no fun...

Darnit, I should check my mail more... most of my points get covered...

-- 
Silvercat / Phoenix - 

So what do you need? Besides a miracle.
Guns. Lots of guns.
-Tank and Neo, Matrix 
_________________________
http://blackflame.topcities.com - Silvercat's Menagerie, a vast array of
mostly disconnected stuff