According to Cambridge dictionary:
elemental: basic or most simple, but strong:

Maybe Gamp law just cover a certain section in Transfiguration, the elemental/basic kind.
Further our source of information is Hermione, while smart with a lot of book knowledge isn't Mcgonagall or Dumbledore when it comes to Transfiguration.
Unless there are other instance of this law being mention, outside of book 7.


Another note: from Physics there are lots of laws that under regular set apply, however when you move to exceptional environments those laws break and no longer apply.

Further is Gamp law rose from lots of empirical tests of wizards and witches over the years trying to transfiguration lots of stuff and listing what they succeed and what they didn't ?
Without knowing the why ?

I think much is missing from what canon knowledge we able to draw, to figure out how much we need to apply this law.

I think there is also mix of conjuration with other types of transfigurations, especially Hermione comment on the RoR, i need to find her earlier comment in book 7.

 

Eh, JK Rowling uses Hermione as a mouthpiece for that kind of information. I think we can take it as the real deal.

 

I'll echo what I've said before:

Gamp's law of Elemental Transfiguration = A perfect transfiguration results in an object with the properties and qualities of the intended end-result, with no vestiges of the object's prior state left behind. There are five exceptions- qualities where magic cannot transfigure or conjure them properly.

Food- life feeds on life; conjured food has no nutritive value and non-consumables transfigured into food are similarly incomplete

Life - one cannot conjure sentience, nor can a non-animal be made into an animal with the capacity to procreate. Hearkening back to the first exception, such an animal will deteriorate as the living material that originally had no life fails to replicate new cells (or something)

Rare elements - transfigured materials made of elements higher on the periodic table tend to deteriorate (magically), meaning transfigured gold and silver lose their chemical properties over time, as does titanium, uranium, plutonium... the highest stable material appears to be Bromine [just declaring a line in the sand on this one]

Enchantment - transfiguration in and of itself cannot bestow or remove magical properties; turn a horse into a unicorn and it may be attractive but its blood and horn will have no greater value than that of any mundane creature; transfigure a horcrux into a plushie and it will still retain the soul it protects (also see below)

Magic - magical creatures resist permanent transfiguration while still alive- the effect will wear off, unless the creature is actually happier in its new state (see Quintped, Animagi 'going native')

People in the habit of 'conjuring' beverages and sauces with their wands are actually using a charm to draw the fluid from a known nearby source- water condensed from the air, mead from a flask, Hollandaise from the pot on the stove or even breathable air from above the surface of a lake (cf. Bubblehead charm)


Also, the food exception brings to mind the fables about visiting with fairie creatures - that eating their food will trap you into staying in their realm. If they only use transfigured food (as often fables will reveal), it could be that the consuming of these temporary nutrients will lead to holes appearing in the body when the food's digested material dissipates.

 

I think somewhat a premise of this discussion.
That McGonagall transfigure her desk to a pig is the real deal is incorrect or at least contradict by information JKR released later

From https://scifi.stackexchange.com/que...ons-to-gamps-law-of-elemental-transfiguration

The points are derived from JKR site.

So if we go with @Taure idea it was a real pig, we run into a problem with the above, because McGonagall transfigure it back into a desk.

 

They also turn hedgehogs into pincushions in GoF, so whoever "deduced" the points to that question screwed up. The correct answer is "none of the above".

 

Thank you Taure,, it was implied JKR gave the answers to the WOMBAT, further research point out she didn't publish answers at all.
So someone screwed up there with their assertions.

How you solve the issue of potions ingredients that aren't from magical creatures ?
Is a transfigure goat bezoar will be the same as real one ?

 

I'd say it depends on how it's used in the potion. Most potions are consumed, so we have to go back to the first exception- is this ingredient part of the life-value of the potion or a mere catalyst to affect other ingredients? Safety protocol suggests we avoid replicated ingredients unless a potion-maker has proven their value in a particular recipe.

 

Big frown.

Way to all ignore the premise of the thread and instead just repeat the same discussion we've had at least 5 times before.

Let's try again:

WHEREAS transfiguration only concerns physical transformations;

ACCEPTING that all non-physical properties fall outside the definition of transfiguration, and therefore do not need exceptions;

DISCARDING abstract exceptions as a discussion we've already had multiple times;

ASSUMING for the sake of discussion that the exceptions are specific, narrowly defined categories of physical object;

WHAT would you propose as the exceptions?

 

It is an antidote also that you are suppose to consume.
So if we go with it is a real pig, the Bezoar suppose to be a real thing as well.
--- Post automerged ---
It will help if we had handy list of transfiguration in canon, to narrow down what is possible and what isn't.

My first gut feeling was metals.
However they did it in the first lesson or so.
So specific metals ? here i run into memory issue not remembering what they did or didn't.

Which mean going back to do more research.

 

Just to throw it out there, I've always fancied the possible idea that elemental transfiguration didn't mean some fundamental level of magic, but rather some functional level of everyday wizarding life. Elemental transfiguration is the transfiguration every wizard and witch needs/uses just to go day to day.

In which case law would be more a codex of common areas and observations and the magic underpinning them, rather than an eponymous physics law dealing with one specific phenomenon.

 

I think the idea of a physical soul is a problem when you consider this part of DH explaining horcruxes:

The whole premise of a horcrux is taking something which normally transcends the physical and latching it onto a physical thing.

With respect to wands, are you saying:

A) You cannot make a complete wand, including the magical core, or

B) Putting aside the magical core, you cannot make the wooden part of a wand.

The former I think falls outside the definition of transfiguration, but the latter is I think a good exception. Wand wood comes from regular trees; it's not innately magical. But nonetheless we also know that not all wood is apt for wand making.

So.... in light of the Fantastic Beasts canon of being able to create clothes, my revised five "narrow exceptions" are:

1. Food

2. Money

3. Books

4. Artwork

5. Wand wood

 

Can you expand on what you mean by Artwork?

We know wizards can make things with transfiguration that I'd certainly consider artwork. Indeed, making the end result "pretty" is something they are graded on. For example,

 

I mean it in the narrow sense: literally paintings, drawings, etc.

 

Taure, you try to make sense to something that doesn't make sense.
Money, books, artwork are to wide definitions.
Wand wood is used by many common trees.

to everyone else, can anyone point me to why we made the basic assumption that:
desk => pig = real pig ?

Maybe when Wizards/Witches eat transfigure food, because they are magical beings, they some how damage the spell and reverse it partially ?
Making desk=>food leads to unstable food under certain circumstances ?
the stomach of wizard/witch ?


Edit:
If Wizards can transfigure cloths, can't they transfigure drawings as well?
It is a visual effect after all ?

 

I really don't see the point of this being an exception. Why does it matter if wizards can transfigure an oil colour painting? What would change if this was possible?

 

I refer you to the Headcanon document linked in my signature:

The "point" (and I'm not entirely clear on the point of there being a point) is that in canon, painting appears to be performed as a skill rather than people just conjuring up paintings.

 

But wizarding painting are also magical. They move and talk and do all kinds of other things. That is clearly magic and, as such, outside the definition of transfiguration to create.

So, yes, a wizard could transfigure or conjure or duplicate a painting. So what? It would be worthless to wizards, a muggle curiosity at best. Wizarding children would poke it and ask "why doesn't it move."

If you want a magical painting, which is the only type a wizard would ever want, you can't just conjure it up.

 

I think that with clothes it's probably less a matter of magical exception and more of following the law (despite Lupin and Weasleys not being actually very law-abiding), as it was said that the law regulates what you can transfigure.