Comments on: Orthographic notes from Harry Potter

By: Auto Parts for Brains

Auto Parts for Brains — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:55:51 +0000

Let us consider the situation the characters are obviously in. First of all, though the two speaks English, the PM obviously has no idea what Fudge was saying. It was to him a new language all in all. That may be hard for us to imagine, but we should bear in mind that the Prime minister did not have the advantage of having any of the Wizarding world explained to him. It is but common that since the words were first heard, the hearer will try to understand it by digesting it in the context of words already know to him.

Though, it is hard to truly figure out what Rowling intends, clearly she just wants to show us the chasm between the two worlds (the wizarding and muggle world), much as Mr. Weasley exhibits fascination to many of the usual things muggles are used to.

As for the differences in the British and American editions, that is indeed a thing that Harry Poter fans will brood about.

By: Chris Waigl

Chris Waigl — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:46:10 +0000

I think you may be overinterpreting from the phonologist’s perspective what is going on in the scene between Fudge and the PM.

For me, the PM’s use of “Serious Black” shows that he is able and willing to recall a conversation that happened two years earlier, but that none the less he is hopelessly behind times and ignorant about the wizarding world. He might be enunciating the name rather carefully, as if it was some bizarre title.

Black is, however, the last person Fudge has on his mind. He has known for a year that he is innocent, and has just lost his post, though the PM and the reader won’t know this for another three pages. He is flustered and out of his depth, and only the PM’s mentioning Black makes him dredge up this “little detail” of the entire mess he is in.

The slight difference in pronunciation (and I imagine, intonation) between “Sirius Black” said as a simple name and “Serious Black” said as a not-totally-understood way to refer to someone the PM thinks is probably the greatest threat to the part of Britain he is responsible for (known muggle-killer etc.) might come into Fudge’s blustering. But the PM bringing up Black at all comes out of left field for him.

By: Emily Moore

Emily Moore — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:24:39 +0000

As Rowling is not a linguist, it is unsurprising that small details such as orthography would escape her notice, and that of her editors. However, I don’t think these are mistakes or oversights. The PM has a mental transcription of these magical, foreign words, and their inaccuracy highlights the PM’s mundane, non-magical attitude.
The “serious”/”Sirius” homophone is possibly the outcome of a device I’ve encountered before - in pun-filled junior fiction. Sometimes a magical or “superior” character can perceive the written spellings of spoken words, so that spoken homophonous puns are reinforced. Fudge can tell how the PM spells the word he speaks, because Fudge is magical, and therefore superior to the PM.

By: phonoloblog » Should I be surprised?

phonoloblog » Should I be surprised? — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 19:18:16 +0000

[...] stuff that attracts most of the few but loyal readers we have. Should I be surprised that my most recent post on orthographic conventions of Harry Potter provoked three comments from readers (an [...]

By: Geoffrey S. Nathan

Geoffrey S. Nathan — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:01:25 +0000

I think what’s going on here is what sociolinguists call ‘eye dialect’. You write a word ‘phonetically’, representing the absolutely standard pronunciation (the classic example is ’sez’), but conveying that the speaker speaks an ignorant, nonstandard dialect. By writing ‘kwidditch’ Rowland is conveying (I’m sure not consciously) that the speaker is unfamiliar with the word. It’s not a phonological thing at all, but a sociolinguistic one, based on the mismatch between sound and spelling in English and the sociological message conveyed by the inability to spell correctly.

By: Eric Bakovic

Eric Bakovic — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:59:11 +0000

Daniel, I like your more positive consideration of the sounds-like spellings, but I'm not as sure as you are that this is what was intended. Why would it be relevant for us to know how the P.M. thinks these words/names might be spelled? Still, it's clearly a more charitable interpretation and quite probably right ... Sharon, I am also inclined to share your hypothesis about Hagrid's orthographic rs but ter pops up before consonants as well as vowels (e.g., ter dinner on p. 402 of the Half-Blood Prince). Is this common in the relevant dialects? (I find myself wanting to re-watch the movies now to see if Hagrid speaks r-fully there.) Also, there are several other instances of purely orthographic r spoken by people other than Hagrid. Everyone stammers by saying er -- which I assume is just like American uh, not an actual r-colored vowel -- and on p. 312 of the Half-Blood Prince, Peeves says (emphasis added): "Potty lurves Loony! Potty luuuuurves Looooooony!" -- again, I assume ur here as a substitute for o in loves indicates something other than r-coloring; it's supposed to represent a mocking tone of voice, which is at least perceived to be accomplished by slightly adjusting the quality of the vowel.

By: Sharon Rose

Sharon Rose — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:13:20 +0000

Hagrid speaks an ‘r-ful’ dialect, probably West Country (Devon, Somerset) so ‘ter’ is the spelling and pronounciation with final [r] of reduced ‘to’ and not an indication of a rounded/central vowel as in the linked post.
It’s there to give the flavo(u)r of Hagrid’s dialect. That’s my guess, unless you’ve noticed it with characters that speak r-less dialects, too.

By: Daniel C. Hall

Daniel C. Hall — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:07:42 +0000

Well, what the quotation marks suggest to me (quite effectively) is simply that these words don’t have any meaning to the P.M., and that the P.M. is merely guessing at their spellings. The reader knows which guesses are correct, but the P.M. does not, and the quotation marks reflect the P.M.’s point of view, not ours.