A Magical Theory Question

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

In order to perform most spells, wizards and witches must speak or think a particular incantation and wave their wands, often using specific movements. Different combinations of incantations and wand movements will have different magical effects.

I've long believed that all of the incantations and wand waving involved in spell-casting are merely focusing techniques. In other words, while the words and movements help to center one's attention upon a specific spell, it is ultimately the caster's intent which produces the desired results. However, I now realize that there is at least one instance of spell-casting in canon that defies this reasoning. It is the case of Harry casting Sectumsempra upon Draco in HBP. This has undoubtedly been discussed elsewhere before, but it is a new conundrum for me.

Harry finds the incantation for Sectumsempra in the Prince's potions book at the beginning of chapter 21 of HBP.

He had just found an incantation “Sectumsempra!" scrawled in a margin above the intriguing words "For enemies," and was itching to try it out, but thought it best not to in front of Hermione. Instead, he surreptitiously folded down the corner of the page.

There are no accompanying directions for how to wave one's wand to cast the spell, nor is there any description of what the spell is supposed to do.

Harry casts Sectumsempra for the first time in response to Draco's attempted Cruciatus Curse in chapter 24.

"SECTUMSEMPRA!" bellowed Harry from the floor, waving his wand wildly.

Blood spurted from Malfoy's face and chest as though he had been slashed with an invisible sword. He staggered backward and collapsed onto the waterlogged floor with a great splash, his wand falling from his limp right hand.

If Harry had ever studied Latin, he would have known that "sectum sempra" means something like "always cuts" or, as Whitehound put it, "sever forever." But he never learned Latin, and so he didn't know beforehand what the effects of the spell would be.

"I didn't mean it to happen," said Harry at once. His voice echoed in the cold, watery space. "I didn't know what that spell did."

Setting aside Harry's deplorable behavior in casting an unknown spell designed "for enemies," what does it mean magically that shouting "Sectumsempra!" produced the result of slicing Draco open, even though Harry had no specific thought behind the spell? If Harry didn't know what Sectumsempra would do, then who or what did know? Who or what processed the incantation of "Sectumsempra" and interpreted its meaning to be "sever forever," if it wasn't Harry's brain?

Was it Harry's wand? Could wands be something like magical computers that are programmed to interpret Latin commands? Or was it magic itself? Is magic somehow sentient rather than simply a form of energy?

What are you thoughts?

Comments

[melaniedavidson.livejournal.com]

Well, not for actual Latin, but for the... I guess Latin-ish programming language the wands know.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

But if such a language exists, it's bizarrely inconsistent. Crucio, Accio, and Imperio, if derived from the Latin, all mean "I torture", "I summon", etc. Stupefy, however, looks more like an imperative (and is English, implying a later date of invention). Wingardium Leviosa might (I'm a bit rusty on Latin imperatives) mean in wand-language "Levitate the (whatever wingardium means)", but Expelliarmus is undoubtedly a noun if it follows the Latin pattern and pretty much meaningless otherwise. Levicorpus looks to be derived from a verb and a noun glued together and is fairly acceptable, but Sectumsempra is more like a declarative statement ("it has been cut forever*"). None of it fits together.

*Or possibly "foreva", given that the actual Latin for "always" is "semper". Why Snape spelled it thus is a mystery for the ages.

[ioanna-ioannina.livejournal.com]

Latinist here. *wawes*
It is even worse. Crucio is an existing form, I torture.
Accio is probably an abbreviation from accipio, I get.
Imperio is ablativus from imperium, a command, so "by command"; the verb should be impero, "I command" (still in first person).
Stupefy seems to be from stupor (stiffness, rigidity) and fieri (to become), probably through English. ("stifbe!" to English, perhaps) Yes, there seems to be an imperative from fieri, only the word fieri does not have present imperative (if it had, it would be "fi!" for 2nd person singular, the -y there is/would be a medieval inclusion.
Wingardium leviosa: wingardium does not remind me of anything, only that there is a Latin ending -um; leviosa is a nonexisting verb what seems to be a substantive, feminine, from levis, light. (Otherwise is inexplicable the -s- there.) So something as "gogo levitetpsion".
Levicorpus: the same levis (light, adj.) and corpus, a body, corectly compounded. ("lightybody") (If it were from a verb, there should be -t-, as the verb is levitare, to make st. light.)
Expelliarmus: nonexisting, but quite correctly compounded from expellere (to expel) and arma (weapons): "expeliweapony".
Sectumsempra: a noun, feminine, compounded from secare, -avi, -atum (secatum - severed) with omitted -a-, what is not impossible in compounds, and semper (forever, every time) turned so as it suits a declension. Possible, but weird. Nonexisting. ("seciever", maybe ;o)) I love your "foreva", btw.)
Etc...
My theory is that it mustn´t be a real, existing form of real, existing word, because if it were, a wizard could cast a spell unvoluntarily, just by using the word in a sentence.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

My theory is that it mustn´t be a real, existing form of real, existing word, because if it were, a wizard could cast a spell unvoluntarily, just by using the word in a sentence.

But what about Crucio, Avada Kedavra (which I've heard is an actual Hebrew phrase but I'm not particularly confident in this)*, or Stupefy (which, regardless of its derivation, is a word in English)? Intent to cast magic seems to be required. We also have the case of Levicorpus being specifically annotated as "nvbl" (and yet being cast verbally by Hermione in DH) and the multiple crossings-out in the Half-Blood Prince's book implying some words just don't work for magical purposes (maybe Arithmancy's purpose is to perform some form of gematria on proposed spell-words to test their effectiveness?)

*In any case, it's probable that the "e" is just an approximation of whatever vowel was originally used what with there being no written vowels in Semitic languages**

**Although the same is said of Ancient Egyptian and I'm not sure how they're defining the sounds transliterated as "a" or "i" in that case.

[ioanna-ioannina.livejournal.com]

Well, er, exceptions? ;o))
I was thinking about a heated argument or so (for the crucio et stupefy), when you can have an emotion strong enough to create an (underconscious) intent.
For nonverbal use, maybe thinking the word is enough for some spells (maybe for all, depending on how strong a wizard is).
Yes for the Semitic languages - you have an another accent, you have a problem. :-D
Yes, I think of vibrations of vowels, too... :-))
(Any inconsistency falls into RowlingMaths category, anyway.)

[oryx_leucoryx]

What do we make of Ron's broken, backfiring and misfiring wand making Ron's 'Eat Slugs!' into a slug vomiting spell? Does this mean spells can be in a common, modern language too?

[ioanna-ioannina.livejournal.com]

Why not? Latin once was a common, modern language too, after all.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I believe that 'Avada Kedavra' is an Aramaic phrase (possibly anglicized?) which means 'let the thing be destroyed' and which is usually considered the origin of the nonsense magic word 'abracadabra.'

(Side note: 'gematria' has to be one of my favorite words ever, both in meaning and sound. :) )

[melaniedavidson.livejournal.com]

Well, it's inconsistent with actual Latin meanings, no problem there. But! It could still potentially have some kind of internal consistency that we can't see. Maybe certain kinds of spells (according to some mysterious classification and not just what JKR thought sounded better at the time, *cough*) use the imperative and others use different conjugations. Or maybe different conjugations would work, but they just teach students the one because... it's easier? Or there's some subtle difference? Or maybe the "programming language" itself is a patchwork created/added to by people who either weren't very good with Latin, or had other considerations (it might be important for two spells not to sound too similar, or look too similar when written down).

Sectumsempra is pretty odd. Draco had slashing wounds inflicted on him, but nothing was "severed", and it definitely wasn't "forever", since Snape came in and healed him up. Maybe that's that "partial success" thing, like partial transfiguration.

[melaniedavidson.livejournal.com]

...Whoops, I guess I got away from your translation a bit there. I guess he was "cut", but it still wasn't forever.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Actually a theorist (I think whitehound?) put forth the notion that the 'forever' bit of Sectumsempra wasn't referring to the wounds made, but rather to the fact that the spell works like a never-dull knife. I.e. that the phrase as a whole meant something like 'cuts every time.' This would fit with JKR's normal wordplay (Spellotape, etc.) since 'Staysharp' is a famous British brand of knife, I think.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

Yup, it was Whitehound. http://members.madasafish.com/~cj_whitehound/Fanfic/Sectumsempra.htm

[melaniedavidson.livejournal.com]

The idea of wizards naming spells like infomercial gadgets is kind of hilarious and sad at the same time.

(What the heck, Snape?)

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Maybe he was hoping to patent it and sell the rights, and he needed a memorable brand name?