Priori Incantatem/ Prior Incantato (was: Re: prior incantantum... )

[eloise_herisson]

No: HPFGUIDX 124251


Becky: 
> > > I was just reading the thread about 'prior incantantum'.
> > > 
> > > The thing I'm confused about (now that I've just thought of 
it), 
> is 
> > > what happened to the AK that LV aimed at Harry? It was a spell 
> cast 
> > > by LV's wand, why is there no prior incantantum of any sort for 
> this 
> > > spell? ...
> 
Doddiemoemoe now:
> 
> Well, first off....there would be no prior incantantem spell as 15 
> mo.(or so) old Harry would have no wand!

Eloise:
I think here's a little confusion here: there's no such thing 
as 'Prior Incantantem'. The names of the two different phenomena are 
so close that they are frequently confused or conflated.

'Prior Incantato' is the name of the *spell* that makes a wand reveal 
the most recent spell it performed. It's what Amos Diggory does to 
Harry's wand at the QWC.

Priori Incantatem ('the reverse spell effect')is a natural effect 
occuring when brother wands are forced to do battle and one forces 
the other 'to regurgitate spells it has performed - in reverse.'

Whether Harry had a wand as an infant has no bearing. He wasn't even 
present when most of the other spells Voldemort's wand regurgitated 
were performed. If Harry had held on long enough, presumably 
Voldemort's wand could have carried on regurgitating spells from 
before Harry was even born.

Actually, I noticed something in the wording as I was copying that 
quote from GoF. A wand is forced 'to regurgitate spells it has 
performed'. Not *all* the spells it has performed, or even *the* 
spells it has performed, but just 'spells'. JKR may have got the 
order wrong the first time, but perhaps she did realise that there 
were some spells that she couldn't describe and worded accordingly.

~Eloise