DIY Spell making

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 141230

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" <aussie_lol at y...> wrote:
> How do wizards and witches make a new spell? 
> 
> I was of the opinion spells were something supernatural that existed 
> in nature and just needed to be DISCOVERED and tapped into.
> 
> Now I am thinking a devious mind can come up with a new creative (or 
> destructive) spell like a hacker comes up with new viruses or 
> trojans.
> 
> Or are spells more like coming up with recipes ... a pinch of that 
> spell, a touch of that and .. ooh, what happens if I bring this in.
> 
> Do It Yourself (DIY) Spells ... I wonder who will show a flare for
> it in the trio. - Or have the twins been doing it all along?
> -aussie-

bboyminn:

I think it is a combination of things; a knowledge of the ancient
language upon which spells are based, a deep thorough understanding of
magic, and the ability to combine the two in a logical and reasonable
way. Not as simple as it sounds.

First a knowledge of the ancient language which in our case is Latin,
but is not necessarily Latin in other parts of the world. For example,
in South Asian, it's probably Sanskrit.

Here is an illustration of how knowledge of the ancient language is so
critical. Before OotP, I was trying to create my own 'Door Locking'
charm (yes, I know I'm not a wizard, it was for a fan fiction). The
best I could come up with was -

door bolt unbreakable = ostium telum infragilis

barricade door unbreakable = obex ostium infragilis

I suppose 'door/ostium' 'unbreakable/infragilis' might be enough, but
you see how complicated it can get.

Keep in mind that I have no knowledge of Latin, I was simply looking
words up in a dictionary. JKR has truly studied classic languages and
knows the deeper nature of Latin and its proper syntax. To 'lock' a
door, she came up with -

Colloportus - "colligo" L. to bind together + "portus" L. door

Obviously, she came up with a more compact and effective spell than I
did. 

Yes, I know this is a real world example and we are talking about
fiction, but it still nicely illustrates how someone who understands
the language can create a better spell. 

So, not only is it a knowledge of the ancient language, but a deep
knowledge of how that ancient language is applied to magic. It's not
simple grammatical syntax that counts, but the syntax of magic.

Then you must understand what it is you want to accomplish relative to
magical syntax. For example, we have serveral 'mobilis-' spells like -

Mobiliarbus - "mobilis" L. movable + "arbor" L. tree

Mobilicorpus - "mobilis" L. movable + "corpus" L. body
 
to create new 'mobilis-' spell you have to understand the nature of
the root 'mobili-' and know what extension it can and can not be
applied to. 

We also have spells than end in '-sempra', such as -

Rictusempra - "rictus" L. gaping mouth, grin + "sempra" L. always

Sectumsempra - "sectus" L. past participle of "seco", to cut "sempra"
L. always

So, I say it takes a very deep understanding of the nature and
construction of magical language. It's not as simple as combining
various Latin roots as I did with my own 'door lock' charm. I suspect
certain combinations of roots and extension, while making logical
sense, would actually be ineffective because they don't make magical
sense.

Further, we see that intent or underlying motivating force makes a
great deal of difference and I suspect when inventing a new spell,
that would be very difficult to find. For example, we no that
'Riddikulus' requires a strong underlying humorous thought. The
'Patronus' or 'Expecto Patronum' requires an underlying happy thought
to fuel the spell. 

In the case of the Patronus spell, you can wave your wand as
accurately as you want and say the words to perfection, but the spell
doesn't work without the underlying 'fueling' thought. And, again, I
suspect the new discovery of this underlying 'fuel' would be very
difficult. This also seems true of the Unforgivables, especially the
Killing Curse, if a very precise underlying intent or 'fuel' is not
present, the spell doesn't work (according to fake!Moody).

Which brings us to another aspect, in many cases, the wand movement
seems to have precise requirements. A newly created or conceived spell
may not work until you have worked out the exact nature of the wand
movement necessary to invoke the magic. I suspect 'wand movement' is
both an art and a science in itself.

Not sure what it's worth, but there are my thoughts on the matter.

Steve/bboyminn