Latin in Harry Potter--Arabella Figg

[GulPlum]

No: HPFGUIDX 42623

At 21:43 13/08/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Okay, I may be going overboard with this Latin thing, but still this is 
>pretty cool.  First, I looked up "ara."  It means sanctuary.  Next, 
>bella.  It could come from one of these root words:
>
>bellatrix = female warrior
>belliger = waging war
>bello = fight
>bellum = combat
>belua = monster
>
>Take your pick, any of them fits in and makes sense.

All but the fourth are directly connected to each other (and the fourth is 
a different stem, including as it does only one l and can be discounted), 
so you may as well just limit to the base "bellum", of which "bella" is the 
plural nominative or accusative. To have either of these plural cases 
connected to the singular nominative "ara" simply doesn't make grammatical 
sense.

You've forgotten the principal meaning of "bella" which is the single 
nominative female for "beautiful". As "ara" is a female noun in the 
nominative singular, we have grammatical concordance, which is awfully 
important in inflected languages.
This creates the accepted etymology of Arabella - "beautiful sanctuary". 
Which, as it happens, fits with her presumed role in the Potterverse.

If you were to insist on taking "bellum" as the root, then "ara bella" 
could only conceivably be translated "sanctuary of the wars", which whilst 
literally meaningless, implies "the place where the wars can be safe", 
which is diametrically the opposite of the role you're ascribing.

Grabbing Latin vocabulary out of the air without considering the grammar is 
a dangerous route to establishing false etymologies.

 > Now, here's the really cool part.
>Take her last name, Figg.  In Latin it would probably come from one of 
>these two words:
>
>figo = establish (that would make sense, she established a sanctuary and 
>was there to  wage war if necessary)

No, she *is* the sanctuary.

>figulus = potter

I hate to burst your bubble, but you're not the first person to have 
suggested that. :-)

>Whoa!  Could she have changed her name to avoid association and become 
>Arabella Figg instead of Arabella Potter?  Is she Harry's great 
>aunt?  Grandmother?  Great grandmother?  Wait!  Don't throw anything 
>yet.  Let me defend my wild theory for a moment.  1) The Dursleys more 
>than likely would not know any of James Potter's family, 
>right?  Right.  2) She may not have appeared with Harry's family in the 
>Mirror of Erised, as Dumbledore told Harry "the mirror will give us 
>neither knowledge nor truth."
>
>Okay, I'm admitting it's a really wild theory, but I'm rather fond of wild 
>theories.  I think I'll start writing all of my wild theories down, one of 
>them's bound to be right! :)

However, Dumbledore also said that the Dursleys are all the family that 
Harry has left. It would have made more sense for Dumbledore to have left 
Harry in Arabella's permanent care if she was any kind of close relative.

Besides, she is *MRS* Figg. If she wanted to change her name, she would 
have reverted to her maiden name rather than use fancy translations via Latin.

Sorry, I do think this is one of the more fanciful and unreliable theories 
out there. :-)

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, UK
(I've changed the way I access HPFGU and I hope this gets through!)