Or, how tied is magic to language?

I'm vehemently opposed to the idea of magical cores, partly because I think HPverse magic is inherent to the world itself. Part of that is languages. There must be a reason why [European] spells are crafted in Latin and not native languages beyond pseudointellectualism (Watsonian or Doylist). For one thing, it's reasonably clear that pointing your wand and saying "I cleave asunder" or "I divide" will do a whole lot of nothing, while saying "Diffindo" results in a nice Severing Charm.

You could justify that by saying that people don't want to confuse speech with spells, but it's also reasonably clear that magic with a wand is not something you can accidentally cast. Most if not all spells require you to point your wand, (less importantly) execute a motion, visualize your result and (most importantly) intend that result for any magic to occur (that's how professors can teach wand motions and spells without casting the spell each time, after all).

I have this theory (more of a headcanon) that spells can only be crafted in specific languages; or rather, the most important, zeitgeist-influencing language of the era. Languages like that, like Sumerian and Sanskrit and Latin and now English (in the West, at least), are so inherently powerful that the world itself imbues them with magic, just like unicorns and Kneazles casually evolved beside horses and cats.

This would make a spell like Point-Me less of an anomaly and more of a first step in a new age of spell-crafting. And makes a spell like Avada Kedavra very old, older than most if not all other spells we're aware of. Or something.

 

I doubt that Asian or African or Native American people casted spells in Latin, especially before wands.

Magical cores are also entirely fanon and have no basis in canon whatsoever.

 

In the very first book Harry says there's more to magic than wand waving and saying the incantation. They have entire books dedicated to single spells, like the Summoning Charm. Therefore, while it's not outright mentioned, spells like the Patronus are the ones that deviate from the norm. I'd be pretty mad if I had to go to school for seven years to learn visualization + willpower = Magic like many authors are fond to write, so we can assume that there is some heavy theory behind the magic learned in HP.

Edit: But I think you're on to something when you say that language matters. IIRC, Snape tried many incantations before finally reaching the correct one (I don't remember if it was Levicorpus or Sectumsempra), which means that the right wording is essential for a workable spell. Also, Flitwick mentioned that weird and sometimes dangerous things happen to those who mispronounce incantations.

 

There's really not much at all to go on here canon-wise.

My fanon is that when a wizard creates a spell it involves two elements:

1. The conceptual structure that determines the nature of the spell: what concepts are involved and in what relations. Basically what effect the spell will have.

2. The incantation which will act as a kind of magical label for that conceptual structure.

The act of spell creation is then a magically significant act which affixes the incantation to that conceptual structure, bringing it out of theory and into practice, making it a part of magic. From that time onwards anyone can use that incantation to invoke that particular conceptual structure aka a spell.

The reason why many spells will use Latin, therefore, is because historically a lot of spells were made during the period when Latin was dominant. Even well after the fall of the Rome Latin continued to be used as a universal language. One of the revolutionary things about Descartes' Meditations was that he published them in French as well as Latin. Even today Latin is still often used for, say, labelling newly discovered animal species. So it's not particularly unusual that wizards should continue to use Latin in modern times for incantations, though we know of at least a few spells where English has been used.

The issue of other areas of the world is built into this idea: the nature of the spell is determined by its conceptual structure, not its incantation. So a Japanese wizard could create the same spell as a European wizard (i.e. a spell invoking the same concepts) but affix a different incantation to it.

 

You...might have noticed the part where I list languages that are not Latin, and mention that I'm speaking of the Western world?

Yeah, I was going off that as well. Though I extrapolated that to being the right language as well. By my assumption, "Cut always" or "Coupe toujours" ("Coupez toujours"? "Coupé toujours"?) would not have worked, even though they're passable translations for the phrasing he finally settled on.

I did mention I didn't want to chalk it up to pseudointellectualism Then again the only fairly recent spell-crafter we know of is Snape, and he was an edgy teenager at the time, so...

We've already seen people creating new incantations for (admittedly enhanced) concepts that involved completely changing the root of the incantation - the aforementioned Sectumsempra vs. Diffindo, though that probably had more to do with Rowling wanting something that rolled off the tongue nicely than with any in-world reason.

Still, it's indicative that the universe itself propagates magic and its rules; concept, incantation and the link between them are certainly not sustained by witches and wizards. It's fair to assume that if every single magical person in the world was killed in a single day by wizard super-AIDS and a Muggleborn witch stumbled across a wand and textbook a thousand years down the line, "Alohomora" and "Vera Verto" would work just as well as they do now.

Wait, does that sentence even make sense?

 

This does raise the question, though: if any incantation whatsoever can be used for a spell, why hasn't an enterprising prankster turned a perfectly normal word into a spell by now? I mean, with all the twins and marauders out there (there does seem to be one in every generation), you'd expect one of them to make it so that a pink elephant is conjured anytime somebody holding their wand waves and says, "Hello!"

...Or maybe somebody has done this, and that's why we never see a wizard say "butterscotch."

 

Well you have to know that the word hello is a spell word and what is the effect first i think.

 

Tut, tut! Never forget Wizard Baruffio, who said 's' instead of 'f' and found himself on the floor with a buffalo on his chest. It's very easy to accidentally a spell.

 

I should be clear that I don't envisage the process as arbitrary. The incantation and the act which brings the spell into existence have to be symbolic of the nature of the spell.

 

Also what in the everloving fuck did Baruffio want to say that ended up with a buffalo on the chest? That's the real question the HP fandom should be asking.

Like, I'm seriously considering running some sort of analysis on the entirety of the Latin lexicon at this point.

 

My theory- the spells are in Latin (mostly) because the wands made in the West were designed/raised/imbued to understand orders in Latin, along with a library of known spells.

As semi-sentient interpreters, wands will take the incantation, the motion and the dollop of magic from the caster and go to work. If the instructions are confusing, bad results happen. Development of spell incantations is a matter of giving the wand a new instruction based on the meaning intended, but in such a way as not to confuse it about what effect you're calling for.

Once an incantation is found that matches the desired effect, a smart spellmaker will try it out on a number of other wands to make sure that they produce similar results.

 

...you realize wandless magic is a thing, right?

 

Yes, as is accidental magic, but in neither of those cases is an incantation part of the formula.

In the fifth book, when Harry lost hold of his wand during the Dementor attack, he kicked off a Lumos... and his wand enacted the spell for him.

 

...both wandless and nonverbal magic as far as we have seen it involves the caster at least thinking the incantation if not speaking it out loud, you know

What does this even have to do with anything? Obviously his wand is what was affected by the spell, because Lumos is the Wand-Lighting Charm, not the Light Up My Hand Charm.

 

The question 'Why do we name new plants in Latin' comes in to mind whilst discussing this. Maybe it is that names carry power, and through time, a power is attributed to a word. But, all of the above is still pretty much speculation, and almost none of the above theories can be proven by the books or movies. As such, this question could host a variety of answers, some of which I think are plausible are written below;

1) Powers are attributed to words and through time the word and power become linked with each other, thus giving a common 'incantation' for a specific spell.

2)Maybe spells were created in times where Latin was the language of man, the langua commun, and so, is still used for simplicities sake.

3)Maybe it is to honor tradition and to continue what the ancestors of modern-day witches and wizards started, hence the obsession with incantations of spells being in a specific language.

What's your opinion. Please note that this is speculation on my part, and so please try to refrain from asking me to give evidence, as J.K Rowling has never to my knowledge written and/or talked about as to why incantations are in a specific language.

P.S, It could just be that they needed 'cool names' to go with the spells.
Toodles.

 

His wand lit up despite not being in his hand. It was on the ground.

 

Again, what does that have to do with anything?

 

Actually, I don't know- first of all, wordless spells out of wands still suits my theory- that the wand is getting the message from the caster and implementing it.

In the case of wandless magic, I can't think of any book examples where an incantation is used. Apparating doesn't have an incantation, nor does the animagus transformation (good thing, too, or the caster would be stuck in that form until someone else turned them back, assuming they knew that the dog or rat or stag used to be their friend).

My point was that Harry gave the order and his wand, like a well-trained and loyal companion, obeyed it. Therefore, this isn't a case of wandless magic. If Harry had said Lumos to a broken off chair leg and had its tip light up, I'd have to admit that it was a case of wandless magic using an incantation.

 

But harry want the wand to light up though so he can pick it and since lumos is wand light up it light up.