Well holy duh, that's the entire point of a wizard using a wand, that they channel their magic through it. What is completely unsubstantiated by the text is the assertion that wands are crafted to understand/parse Latin or with some sort of spell database stored in them.

"...or at least THINKING the incantation..."

Despite its etymology, not all incantations have to be spoken aloud (they don't sing them either, so...). You retain your human mind as an Animagus - that's like the entire point - so I'm not sure what bearing that has on the conversation. As for Apparating, it's a form of magic that doesn't have an incantation, like potions brewing or caring for magical creatures, so again I have no idea what that has to do with the theory that wands have a spellbank. (Also Apparition is wand...wanded? wandful?...magic)

On the other hand, when wandless and/or nonverbal execution of spells has been shown (or at least shown from a POV we're privy to), it has always involved saying or thinking the incantation. Harry says Lumos to get his wand to light up. Harry thinks the incantations in his 6th year DADA classes and in his fight against Snape.

How many times do I have to repeat that Lumos is the Wand-Lighting charm, not the Conjure a light wherever you want charm? Just like Nox is the Wand-Extinguishing charm, not the turn off any nearby light charm. It doesn't matter is it's wandless, nonverbal or cast from across the freaking Atlantic, its effect is to light the tip of its fucking caster's wand.

 

In DH someone said that you can channel magic through anything, it's just that wands are the tool most suited to channeling magic. I'm pretty sure it was Hermione who told it to Harry when he was experimenting with Hermione's wand after his broke. That doesn't work with the spelldatabase theory.

 

It wasn't Hermione, it was Ollivander.

 

That's not how I interpret that quote.

Look at the context. Ollivander is responding to Harry's question about if a wizard can use a wand that hasn't chosen them. Instrument in this case means wand, not any staff, magic ring, random piece of wood or other devise a wizard might try to use magic through.

 

That's not necessarily true. The passage works fine either way - Harry could obviously channel magic through a wand that hadn't chosen him if he could also channel magic through a random piece of wood, or something decidedly nonmagical. Indeed, I could make the argument that Ollivander would not say "any instrument" unless things other than wands could be considered instruments, the same way I wouldn't say "any weapon" if I only meant swords.

I'm fairly sure anything can be used to channel magic. I could've sworn there was a passage where Dumbledore said something to that effect, but I've been searching for the past half hour and I can't seem to find anything.

 

There is also mad eye staff.

 

This is only in the movies, and even if it weren't it wouldn't prove much. Hagrid's umbrella, for example, is not a wand, and yet the pieces of the wand within it can still channel magic. Likewise, Moody could have just as easily concealed a second wand (or his real one, as we never see him use it in the movies) within the staff.

So as much as I hate to say it, since I do think a staff could probably exist in HP, Moody using the staff in the movies doesn't really prove anything.

 

Uh...wand cores exist and are taken from explicitly magical creatures for a reason. Mundane items can be enchanted, but you're not going to be channeling magic through them anytime soon.

The instruments Ollivander mentions aren't random junk picked off the street either (or he would have said any thing. Whether they're rings or staves, they likely are crafted just as carefully as wands.

 

Please don't patronize me. I am fully aware of wand cores and their properties. The use of magical substances in the crafting of wands merely implies that magical substances are more effective than nonmagical substances. It does not mean that it is impossible to channel magic through a nonmagical substance.

Additionally, "instrument" instead of "thing" could simply be more descriptive of the object at hand. Comparing magic to music, I can make music with virtually any object. I can run my finger along the edges of filled cups to make a melody as much as I can lay down a beat on my bedstand. Of course, I will always find it easier to play a piano or a drumset, but all those things are instruments in the hands of a musician.

In any case, I believe we have strayed far enough and long enough from the topic at this point. Returning to the idea of a spell database, I would simply like to point out that there are often multiple wand makers in a country, and yet all of the students using their products get educated at the same institutions, learning the same incantions. Given that there are demonstrably "wrong" incantations (see Baruffio), the incantation would have to be hard-coded by the wandmaker, not learned as the wand developed. Therefore, each wandmaker would have to make every single wand to know exactly the same incantations as each other. Given how often we are told that wandmaking is a mysterious, inscrutable art, I doubt that wandmakers have the precision to do such a thing.

 

I have often heard that in learning a language it starts to click when you start to /think/ in the language.

Related to that is something of Taure's that stuck with me. In transfiguration they turn a beetle into a button (or vice versa). However for Beauxbatons students, thinking in French, it would be scarabée, coléoptère, or mailloche (so says Google). Magic carries curiosities with it and in this case colour, maybe shine, and starting with the same letter would be important (and perhaps syllables and sound, double letter in each, T in each).

Meaning the French would have a harder time of it, as I would argue it is no simple thing to truly think of a coléoptère as a /beetle/. Or take Football which will have a primary association, even if objectively you understand another sport is so named, there will always be a distinction between Football and /Football/.

So saying I believe Latin would often be used because contemporary words hold a meaning of their own before magic is ever learnt, and especially before a capable witch could craft a spell. Taking the word /light/, which another mentioned, would hold many thoughts that couldn't be retrained. The common word might make the mind think of the blinding light of the sun, the soft glow of the moon's light, a lamp, torch, or candle for reading, a roaring fire, the fear of darkness or the safety in light. It's too all encompassing.

The ideas might help inform someone trying to understand the concept of a spell, but when creating a spell they are inherently putting the concept in a box. The word /light/ is a word and the incantation /lumos/ is a honed purpose. A wand is preferable if not outright required for good magic. Similarly I think spell creation and spell use is going to be easier, or outright possible, only by setting the spell into a purposed incantation.

If I'm making any sense then it isn't that contemporary languages couldn't strictly be used for magic, but it would needlessly multiply the difficulty in learning a spell. And if the word is known it would probably require mastered Occlumency to separate meanings and ideas enough to make it work. Honestly, even then I'm not sure. It makes a good deal more sense to have worked hard to personally encapsulate the spell concept into an incantation.

To touch on English spells I think the cases where English is used as a spell generally aren't a real spell, but a personalized order by a user who understands enough to enact it. ie. there is no Packing Spell, incantation: Pack, as you would have with Levitation Charm, incantation: Wingardium Leviosa.

Latin would also be used because it is relatively familiar. Not so I can read it, but as a layman even I can look at Protego and get a sense of the meaning. Much more so than Sanskrit or Cuneiform and be told that squiggle means protection.

Latin then for good portion of the earth is the perfect blend of familiar and strange. It is distant enough to not have confusion over what Wingardium Leviosa is to do and yet it isn't so foreign as to make it a hurdle. Of course, in my mind at least, there is a lot more under the hood of a spell, but grasping the basic identity at least gives you a chance to access and understand the inner workings (in a way that I might never be able to with an Egyptian pictograph).

The wizarding world's history shows more useful spells being made, and none to my knowledge unearthed so it would seem magic is advancing. And, to offer an alternative to Taure, I'd prefer to think Latin didn't become common during Latin proper's heyday but more so in it's aftermath. It's bastard children the Romantic Languages, and further influences.

As Latin is used in more and more useful spells over the years, made not only in Britain but across Europe via it's major schools, more and more wizards would be likely to adopt it. If the ICW is any sign Latin would be spread, just as European languages have spread. I think local regions, old world included, would have their own spells, but I think the weight of useful Latin spells would make it the clear dominant form in those regions and continue ever more so. For Hogwarts the odd Alohomora sneaks in, and perhaps an old Brittonic or Norse spell, but only if it it fills a void.

 

I generally try not to write too many replies in a row, so as to allow other people a chance to talk, but I really have to respond to this. It's not that you're especially wrong, or anything, I just...I have to. You know?

Anyway, this is a cool idea, and one that I've supported in the past myself, but there's a lot of canon evidence that contradicts it. Probably the most important bit is that pronunciation really, really matters in Harry Potter. Some examples:
- The aforementioned Wizard Baruffio conjured a buffalo by accident due to a speech impediment.
- Ron failed to use Wingardium Leviosa in the first book at first because he pronounced it wrong.
- Neville broke his nose in OotP and couldn't cast Stupefy.
- From Pottermore: Miranda Goshawk's sisters told her the wrong incantations to spells, making her fail at them.

If the primary limitation were conceptual, none of these cases would happen, because you would understand the spell equally well regardless of whether you said "Stupefy" or "Stubefy". The fact that Neville was incapable of casting the spell through a broken nose says to me that the universe actually cares what you say, or in some cases think, when attempting magic.

Now, it is interesting that you bring up English words used as spells, since that doesn't quite square with Taure's idea of affixing a name through a ritual, unless Tonks's mother actively turned "Pack" into a spell. I'm not sure how to deal with that, since I really like his idea, and I think it's something we should discuss.

 

I think I'm on the same page as you. I wasn't very clear, as is often the case. I'm speaking really to spell creation. To lay it out

-I don't think there is anything more magical about a given language.
-Pronunciation is definitely important for a spell
-Understanding the spell is too

The basis is from the English vs French Transfiguration example
-Incantation would be the same
-The difference is the symbolical connection
-Meaning the mental language of an Englishman and a Frenchman would cause to exist separate identities (beetle-button vs coleoptrere-bouton)
-Creating a difference in difficulty

The more similarities the better with tortoise-teapot, bunny-slippers, beetle-button probably being in order of difficulty.

My theory then is that
-Incantations will be in a language that provides a connection with the mental language of the creator
-Allowing conceptual desires to form easier
-Incantation needs to feel fluid and sound right, as well as conceptually fit
-Latin is often the chosen language, but by no means the only, nor is it limited to a single language

-Greek in Anapeno ​

-Swedish and French (altered) in Waddiwasi​

-Bastardized French in Morsmordre​

-In general I think natives, like a Frenchman, would be unlikely bastardize their own language, but as we see with Stupefy they may use a native word straight up if it's a perfect fit.

This last might sound weak, but it's like finding your /Hobbit/. The syllables and sounds that just feel right and fit perfectly to your creation. Not easy.

example
-/Cut/ is both too simple and too broad.
-Cut-and-separate-the-flesh-of-my-enemy-always has concrete accuracy, but it doesn't feel right and won't work if left like that
-Perma-cut-flesh isn't very pretty
-Any attempts to merge like Laceraetern(o) (lacerate, eternally) is just pseudo latin anyhow
Other languages might do, but eventually in distilling the concept down to something that fits and ties the concepts all together
-Sectumsempra

Just as writers have to work to get it right, I would go further and say the spell creator would be stuck until they reach the equivalent of that timelessly perfect opening line.

Of course creating a spell isn't so simple as just finding the right incantation, but it's part of it.

Once the incantation is set in stone as it were, then it contains a magic of it's own (which the language didn't provide prior). It follows that in reproducing the now actualized spell the pronunciation must match it. But so must the wielder's understanding be enough to enact it's purpose (and wand work, confidence and so on.)

And now I'm wondering if any of that made any more sense than the original. I'm not very good at being clear and concise.
*sigh*
and here I started writing to in part get better at organizing my thoughts.

---------- Post automerged at 23:12 ---------- Previous post was at 23:02 ----------

As for the common English words I will say again that I don't think they are actual spells typically.
-Stupefy! is common English and is an incantation, which holds an actualized magic concept, ready to be enacted.
-Pack and others I argue are words imbued with magic, but which don't contain it otherwise.

Pack works, even though it isn't a conceptualized, actualized, specialized packing spell, because she knows somewhere spells and charms to levitate, sort, and fit them. It's the result of long study and practice which means not having to actively think and focus about the nitty gritty details.

I take this from the idea that if you look at Wingardium Leviosa we know Flitwick can with hardly a thought, without a word, and with a casual wand movement make an object zoom about the room.
First years can only lift something up or down and that's only with the correct pronunciation, wandwork, a load of theory understanding through class or homework, practice, and the correct mental and emotional state.

 

Language in my opinion is non magical because silent casting exists. It's probable that in spell crafting there are more "schools" with their rules and the Latin school merely is the most used in Europe because the Romans conquered half of it for an exestended periodo of time

 

Silent casting is merely 'speaking' the incantation in your head, rather than out loud.

 

I like also the possibility that incantations have nothing to do with any language or real words other than in secondary way of being easier to pronounce and remember than random collection of syllables.

With that kind of explanation phonetic phones are simply generic building blocks of a spell, and combining them into an incantation is a process similar to brewing a potion from generic ingredients. The same goes for wand movements: moving the wand in one direction with certain speed means something, and combining that something with something else gives some reasonably predictable result.

The fact that incantations sometimes mean something (or at least resemble words that mean something) would be just a by-product of spell creators preferring that kind of phonetic combinations for aesthetic reasons (think of mathematicians looking for the "elegant" solution), and maybe because the meaning might add some little bit of extra oomph from a mental component.

This kind of explanation ties nicely with the known fact that mispronunciation can lead to unexpected results (instead of simple failure), as well as with the idea that certain core/wood combinations are better for some types of magic than others. It also has a nice correlation with potion brewing, where things like stirring direction have meaningful effect on the end result, and using wrong ingredients can lead to completely different result than intended.

It also allows for the fanon "rune-magic", where individual runes also have meanings that can be combined to create new effects.