[HPforGrownups] Re: Prejudice

[Random]

No: HPFGUIDX 70631


On Tuesday, Jul 15, 2003, at 09:35 America/Indianapolis, naamagatus 
wrote:

> Why is it simpler that it's a contraction, exactly? Maybe I've missed
> an explanation of this in previous posts?

Actually, my previous message didn't quite show what i really think 
about it - i _do_ think it is bad at present, but i don't think it 
meant that when it was first coined, nor that the etymology itself 
(what ron gives is an etymology, not a definition. i'm not disputing 
the definition "racial slur used against magical offspring of muggles", 
but the etymology "dirty blood"). My doubt of Ron's telling the truth 
comes from this: he's not qualified. he's not a linguist, he hasn't 
studied etymology, he's just coming up with this off the top of his 
head.

> what it will be
> is open for debate - but that's just the point, that the author
> presented it as such (unlike the "Mudblood" issue, which isn't).

I believe the matter of the actual etymology is outside the scope of 
the books. we haven't been introduced to any linguists or been shown 
anyone looking it up in a dictionary. we haven't been taken back in 
time to whenever it was coined.

> (e.g., the character
> has lied before, another character made a contradicting statement,
> the statement flies against common sense knowledge, etc.).

or the character is unqualified. it would be like assuming Lupin knows 
his stuff on the function of any really advanced (higher than is taught 
at hogwarts) potion apart from wolfsbane, or on the manufacture of any 
including. just for one example

--Random832