Why do Muggles get a capital letter?

[finwitch]

No: HPFGUIDX 37705

> "... 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?

I figured it to be a nationality - after all, in many ways the wizard-
world is like a separate country: government, currency, boarders, 
culture...

> 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".

Silvercat:
 
> 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)

Seems to me that Warlock is some sort of title or achievement. Like 
Dumbledore's... Chief Warlock, Order of Merlin, First Class, Grand 
Sorceror... Did I get it right? I wonder if some of these titles 
proves more meaningful in Order of Phoenix than we may think. 
Something in the Chocolate Frog Card did (his association with 
Nicholas Flamel, and Philosopher's Stone)-- and speaking of Cards, 
does Ron have Cards on Lily, James and Harry Potter in his collection 
of 500?


Silvercat:
> 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.

And Vulcans have the oddity of Green Blood, but the point holds.
 
> 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?

Not genes, chromosomes. Down syndrome,  yes, there's 3 21-chromosomes 
instead of 2.

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

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

Actually... Chimps have a difference in chromosome-construction. They 
have one pair less than humans, because with humans, those genes are 
divided into *two* chromosomes, but with Chimps, there's just one 
chromosome. The change is incredibly small, something that requires a 
single mutation. Slightly more than with Down Syndrome, though.

And Down syndrome isn't the *only* mutation in Chromosome-level. 
Others are less noticeable, though. Ordinarily it might be XX for a 
girl, and XY for a boy. However, X-none is known, as well as XXY, 
XXXY and XXXYY... X-chromosome is a necessity for embryo to become 
existent, Y-chromosome only makes it male (with less genetic material 
than any other chromosome).

But back to the topic, I don't think magical ability is genetical any 
more than musical talent.

> "... 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?

Goblins are considered 'persons', Vampires are also, but werewolves 
are beasts by recent definition, merpeople and centaurs as beasts by 
their choise on not wanting to belong same category with Vampires. I 
wonder what Lupin thinks of *that* characterisation? Vampires are 
persons but werewolves are not? Definately not agreed. I don't recall 
what the book thought of giants, though...

-- Finwitch