And seeing that Kreacher is crazier than a shithouse rat, that's not a very reliable source.

 

Hermione says in DH that is indeed possible to transform food, which might only mean that one food could be turned into another, but as nutritional contents and values vary, I would think she's also implying that non-food items can be transformed into food.

The hard restriction is on conjuration on food, as JKR has said, in one interview or another, IIRC, that all conjured items eventually disappear.

As for why more food isn't made using transfiguration (excluding conjuration), the simplest, and likely the most accurate, answer posited on this forum has been that it would probably be incredibly difficult for the vast majority if wizards to pull off such a perfect, total, and utterly permanent transfiguration as would be required to make food out of inanimate objects.

 

Do any of the Weasleys ever find out about Hermione's use of a Time Turner during her 3rd year? We can assume that Hermione and Harry mentioned to Ron that they used a trick from Dumbledore to save Sirius and Buckbeak, but I can't recall a time when the Turner use is brought up by Ron, Ginny or the twins.

 

Was Nagini immortal, disregarding the whole basilisk-coated sword or fiendfyre, or would she have died a natural death at some point? If so, why would Voldemort create a horcrux out of such a fragile and short-lived vessel?

 

nagino was probably immortal. Some magical creatures are, and there is precedent for magical immortal snakes.
If naginin was, it wasn't because she was a horcrux though.

 

Pensieves. Are users physically sucked in or only their mind drawn in?

 

Well, obviously. But it's a hint of what really happened, so I figured I would mention it. Especially since it's a book, not real life. It's JK Rowling giving a peek into what she imagined, even if it's through a questionable witness. We know Walburga's batshit insane in her protrait, we know that Regulus died before Walburga and that she was distraught that Kreacher couldn't tell her anything. We know that Sirius and Bellatrix went to Azkaban before she died. Her family name, which she cares so much for, was disgraced. She had nothing. So she wasted away in Grimmauld wih only Kreacher; she was probably shunned in public. She died bitter, she died isolated. To Kreacher, that'd be close to a 'broken hearted,' wouldn't it?

S1234567890m I don't believe you are physically transported in Pensieves, that idea is more from the movies. Snape pulled Harry out by the arm, he didn't have to jump in and find him.

 

Okay so what happens if you're killed while you have your head in a Pensieve? Instant brain download? Or would you just die as normal?

It would be a great way to kill a spy though, provided you have a way to sort through the years (decades) of memories that you might end up with.

 

Given that Snape was able to catch Harry in the act of using one, I'd say mind only.

 

Unbreakable vows: (I did search before posting these, did not see what I was looking for)

Does a witch or wizard's magic give them warning when they are about to encroach upon or break a sworn vow?

I'm thinking about if someone is forced to make an unbreakable vow and then is obiliviated. Will the lack of memory of the vow make it a magical landmine or will the participants have a warning that something is wrong?

Or does lack of knowledge of the vow negate it completely?

Also is breaking a vow instantly fatal, slow and painful, or only fatal sometimes (as in "Congrats, your a squib. Now GTFO) ?

 

Details are sketchy. It's worth noting that Bellatrix had to be involved, so it may come down to her laying the judgment on whether Snape had fulfilled his promises to Narcissa.

... making this Snape's most courageous act in the entire series.

 

That would imply that killing Bellatrix would have the same effect as safely getting out of the vow, if a third party is required to be the judge.

I don't remember any part of the scene where Snape and Narcissa make the vow in which Bella acted as anything but the binder, as in the magic fire loops were only around Snape and the Lady Malfoy's handshake of Murder/Assisted Suicide.

 

Which pronoun do I use for Fawkes, or better said, will it bother the reader if I switch between 'it' (the phoenix), and him (Fawkes). I've always seen Fawkes as a male phoenix.

For example: The phoenix soares higher, its talons ripping out chunks of flesh from Delores' shoulder as he ascended.

Or should I replace the 'its' with 'his' in this case? Normally I'd just use 'Fawkes' instead of 'the phoenix', but I used the name quite often in the paragraph already and am trying to break up the monotony somewhat.

 

Fawkes is a male. CoS, Chapter Twelve:

But you can use either. It depends on what you're saying and how you want it to be said. I doubt anyone would be bothered.

As for your example, I think 'its' was properly used and that 'his' would sound slightly odd because a phoenix is an animal. Like, you wouldn't use 'it' if you were talking about a witch or wizard because they're people, you know? Gender is more readily apparent for humans, but with animals—that aren't pets—we don't immediately think of their gender, we think of their species. They're 'it' to us. Also, I think ending with 'he' sounds odd. If you're going to use 'it' stick with it.

TL;DR: When using 'Fawkes' in a personal setting, 'he,' 'him,' and 'his' should be used. When referring to Fawkes as a phoenix, by his species, 'it' should be used.

 

Speaking of Fawkes, I can't remember - do we ever see Fawkes magically transport (via fire) anyone besides Dumbledore? He brings Harry and Ginny back from the Chamber in CoS by literally flying them, and all the other times I remember Fawkes floof-ing (that's what I'm calling it) someone, it's Dumbledore.

 

I have a question about beings and beasts.

We know that humans, goblins, vampires, hags, giants, house-elves, veela, and werewolves in their human form are considered beings.

We also know that centaurs and merpeople were offered this status but refused it because vampires and hags were involved.

My question is: when did this happen? I recall it being established by Minister Grogan Stump in 1811 but I'm not sure.

 

Just one small point I wanted to add. Fawkes is a pet and you usually wouldn't use gender neutral pronouns for them.

 

I mentioned that we normally refer to pets by their gender, but I was talking about common pets. Like dogs and cats. Fawkes is an exotic species and he's not Harry's pet, he's Dumbledore's. So I still think that if you're referring to Fawkes by his name, 'he' is appropriate, but if you're using 'the phoenix,' his species, 'it' should be used. But people have different styles and English isn't set in stone, so you do you.

 

I'd just think of how I'd refer to a dog in the same situation and then use whatever fit best.

 

The first try was made somewhere in the 14th century using the definition that anything with two legs was a being and all the rest a beast.

That (obviously) failed and the next try was made by his successor and used the definition that a being is something that can use the human tongue.

The current definition is indeed made by Grogan Stump in 1811.