<	Latest Articles
	Comments Index
	Save Last On

Search Beyond Hogwarts:

Reference Desk:
•	Beyond Hogwarts FAQ
•	Wizard to Muggle Currency Converter
•	Harry Potter Spelling Reference

Pages:  <<  <  11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  >  >>

Reader Comments: (Page 27)

You have a good point, maybe he does have a brother or sister, there is to much about his family we don't know...

Posted by Sirius Black on May 26, 2007 12:03 AM

NEW TITLE INFO UPDATE!

We have learned that J.K. recently gave assistance to the foreign language translators of the Harry Potter books, specifically the Swedish translator, by providing an "alternate title" that would be easier to translate than "ly Hallows".

The alternate title for foreign language translators is "Harry Potter and the Relics of ". This would lead us to believe that the ly Hallows are things, and not places or people. Is this now conclusive proof that the ly Hallows are the Horcruxes that Harry must find and destroy?

Posted by Dave Haber from Los Angeles, CA on May 27, 2007 9:57 PM

Dave: I agree with you about the Horcruxes, and I think there is more in "Relics of " than simply the relics of persons. When you think about what happened to Dumbledore's hand, and the need for Snape to save Dumbledore himself, added to the fact the ring was one of the first Horcruxes made by Voldemort, it seems unbelievable that Harry could get rid of four Horcruxes without being ly wounded.

That's why I'm sure that all the four remaining Horcruxes are relics of the four founders, and if they are gathered at the same place, probably inside Hogwarts, they could interact in such a way that would get Voldemort's soul out of them. The Sorting Hat already hinted that the founders had to be gathered again.

It would be more significant if those relics were a wand, a sword, a cup and a pentacle/stone (or the locket itself).

For these reasons, I think there is much more in Godric's sword that meets the eye, and I think Nagini (if she is a Horcrux) is not what she looks like.

Posted by herve from strasbourg on May 28, 2007 12:27 AM

We can now be sure that these "Relics Of " are Lord Voldemort's remaining horcruxes.

Posted by Prongs from Athens.Greece on May 28, 2007 05:15 AM

I instantly thought about horcruxes too, when I discovered the news. It must be.

Posted by Claudia on May 28, 2007 07:22 AM

Yeah, it's named that in Swedish - "Harry Potter och Dödsrelikerna".

Posted by Amanda from Malmö, Sweden on May 28, 2007 09:14 AM

Dave -

Wow, cool! That would definitely seem to contradict the thoughts posted earlier based on the Dutch title. It would be in line with the first thought I had about it referring to the horcruxes.

Posted by Monkeeshrines from Orlando, FL on May 28, 2007 1:02 PM

Oo new information!

This means I can stick to the Irish Hallows theory, the spear, the sword, the cauldron, the stone. Just have to figure out what they are now!
Stone - the locket
Cauldron - HufflePuffs cup
Sword - wand on the purple pillow? (saying this as Dumbledore refers to Lockhearts backfiring obliviate curse as being 'impaled upon his own sword)
Spear -?

Posted by Orlando from England on May 28, 2007 1:09 PM

I think we find out that Nagini is the snake that Harry freed in the first book...

Posted by Amy from P. Kentucky on May 28, 2007 8:27 PM

Orlando: don't forget that in middle-ages, the spear became the wand and the sword remained a sword. Many people think that the wand could be a relic from Ravenclaw. That leaves along one relic from Gryffindor.

Posted by herve from strasbourg on May 29, 2007 01:08 AM

herve, thanks for that:o)

I was originally swayed towards spear being a wand, it seemed to make more sense, and of course there is the whole 'spear of destiny' thing and Hitler, and JK saying Grindelwald is something to do with Hitler. My head spins at times.
I only thought of sword as like I said Dumbledore referred to Lockharts error as being impaled upon his own sword, but I guess it could just be an expression.

Posted by Orlando from England on May 29, 2007 06:23 AM

Amy P. - I thought, too, for a while that Nagini might be the same snake as in the beginning of Philosopher’s Stone. It'd be a bit in her style. The only reason I don't think so anymore lies in a few contradictory facts. The snake in the zoo was a boa constrictor in the book, and (I think) a Burmese python in the movie. When Peter makes the potion to help Voldemort regain health, he has to milk Nagini. To milk a snake is to collect venom from it. Since the snake at the zoo was a constrictor, it does not have venom, and thus would not have any "milk" to collect. Unless this is another error on Jo's part along the lines of snowy owls being quiet and Great Danes (boarhounds) not drooling, it is pretty much not possible for Nagini to be that same snake.

Posted by Monkeeshrines from orlando, fl on May 29, 2007 09:25 AM

Pages:  <<  <  11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  >  >>