[HPforGrownups] Re: Why do Muggles get a capital letter?

[Silvercat]

No: HPFGUIDX 37741


> 
> > "... 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?

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

But we capitalize American, British, etc, so that doesn't really cover
why.  You have a good point, though.  They pratically need translators! 
It's even not so much a different nation (at least in this modern world,
further back in time, like when Japan first opened up to the West), as a
different world.  They have completely different mindsets and ways of
thinking.

> > 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 off
> JKR's
> > back)

finwitch wrote:
> 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.

I forgot about that.  I was referring to the traditional sense.  Hmmm. 
Maybe something like an Ph.D.?  But what would Grand Sorceror be? Maybe
it refers to different types.  Warlock could be expertise in
transfiguration, curses, potions (the darker, more witchy/medicine
men/shaman stuff), while Sorceror is charms... (the lighter stuff - more
wand waving).  I know in Anthropology witchcraft and sorcery have
different meanings. Lessee... Ah! 'sorcery involves the use of rites and
spells [...] we define witchcraft as the use of psychic power alone.' 
Okay, I've got the connotation's backward.  Maybe Warlocks are more
nature-stuff [beasts, potions] and Sorcerors are more, ummm, the other
stuff.

finwitch wrote:
> 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?

I wonder what a person has to do to be included.  My first thought was
that they weren't old enough, but who knows? I could see there being a
Harry card (imagine if Harry got one!).  Are Dark wizards included?  It
just says famous...

> 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.

finwitch wrote:
> And Vulcans have the oddity of Green Blood, but the point holds.

That's why I said 'usually.'  Vulcans have green blood, Klingons are
supposed to have pinkish blood, I think Andorians have blue.  Anyway...

> > 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.

Oops.  I should've paid more attention in class.  Well, it was just an
example.

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

But non-musical people can learn to play music.  Muggles can't learn
magic. (or can they?! Maybe nobody's ever tried...)  A genetic basis
would give that magic quill that writes down the new students something
to base it on.  And just like other genes, it can be there but not
functioning right (to make Squibs).  Since it's in families, it seems to
be much more than just a talent.


-- 
Silvercat / Phoenix - 

A mountain was in the way. A mountain of furiously quivering blue flesh
which turned the sky black, their knees to water, and cast a shadow
across the distant landscape. Somewhere near the summit a small pair of
ridiculous (and quite useless) red wings fluttered foolishly. 'You're
all going to die a most grisly death!'
- description of the Astral Moat Monster, Way Back...When?, Second
Thundercats Annual
_________________________
http://blackflame.topcities.com - Silvercat's Menagerie, a vast array of
mostly disconnected stuff