You can't say "everyone have lived" in British English, either. But number agreement in English is generally not to be taken entirely seriously, so "everyone has ... their life/lives" is fine in both variants. The reason is that "everyone" works semantically like "all people", not like "every person", but just happens to nonetheless trigger singular agreement on the verb. That's also why you can say "everyone liked each other", like "all people liked each other", but not "every person liked each other".
Thanks for elaborating. Is British English generally freer with plural verbs on collective nouns, would you say? I was taught that it is, but by American grammarians.
Has the 26-hour day been explained yet?
Somewhat off-kilter way to get the Time Turner into the story? Does it need more explanation than that?
All of tomorrow's article will be about nailing down what scarcity is. Among other things, we shall see that everyone has lived with scarcity all their...lives? (Which is correct here, life or lives? Do not mean to be suggesting reincarnation.)
Will say right now for avoiding confusion that scarcity is being used as technical economics word, not implying deprivation or poverty.
You have asked a difficult grammar question. I prefer "lives". This is definitely not correct (the two nouns and the verb should agree in number), but at some point you have to stop letting mere grammar push you around.
Collective nouns like "everyone" can be treated as either singular or plural, depending on whether you want to treat the collection as single entity, or deal with each part of the group separately. In your case, each person in "everyone" has their own life, they're not all living the same life, so we should treat "everyone" as plural and use "lives"...
...but, the verb must agree with the noun! So now we have "...everyone have lived with scarcity all their lives". This sort of thing is common British English, but to my American ear it sounds very strange. In American usage collective nouns almost always take singular verbs, with a few word-specific exceptions like "police".
That seems to be the only thing that makes sense, but does the text say that anywhere?
It does not. It doesn't quite not say it, either:
1) At 15, Voldemort creates his first Horcrux from Abagail Myrtle.
2) After he "grasp[s] the stupidity of ordinary people", Voldemort decides to invent a better ritual.
3) He spends "years" refining it in his imagination.
4) Quirrel finds one of the Horcruxes which Voldemort had hidden in the "hopeless idiocy of [his] youth"
So, is "when he grasped the stupidity of ordinary people" + "years" < "youth"? It seems unlikely. But I do not think that it is quite ruled out.
He is. But assuming that he is super-prepared, beyond the abilities and equipment we've seen or been given reason to postulate, results in an unsolvable puzzle. Someone as intelligent, experienced, prepared and resourceful as Voldemort could theoretically have a counter for anything we can come up with.
We know or can reasonably assume that he obtained a gun specifically as a solution to the problem of not being able to injure or kill Harry with magic. We don't have any reason to believe that he has prepared further, backup solutions to that specific problem.
There's one thing for which it's genuinely impossible for V to have a counter: the realization that killing Harry is not in his interests. Speaking in Parseltongue, bound by the Vow, Harry is uniquely prepared to make that case -- assuming it's true.
One further remark on that last paragraph. "A potion spends that which is invested in the creation of its ingredients". What counts as creation? Ultimately, pretty much everything on earth is made of the remnants of supernovas...
I think that must be the role of the stirring and heating requirements: to control which aspects of the thing's creation, and how much of them, are infused into the potion. There may well be a way to call forth solar fusion from common iron. But of course we know that no one has ever done it.
Thanks for keeping me honest, but I don't have the book available to me now either. If you can quote from a different language edition (especially German), that would help.
Without the book to review, what I relied on in my comment[^1] was this: When I first read it, I came away with the impression that there was no secret. I remember reading about Petunia's letter and concluding that the Evanses knew all about Witches and Wizards. (The differing reactions to them are like the attitudes towards Mutants in Marvel comics.)
[^1]: That, and checking the Wikia for first mentions.
Perhaps, primed by this, I missed later references to secrecy. (But that doesn't help with any comments by McGonagall in the prologue.) I do remember being disappointed (but understanding) with the secrecy in book 2.
Regarding Azkaban: No mention in book 1, yes, but it is mentioned in book 2, before it started to play a major role in book 3.
Yes, certainly. In fact, I always thought that Hagrid's trip to Azkaban in book 2 was set up so that we'd know what the title of book 3 meant. (I knew that title before I read book 2.)
Here's the passage from chapter 1:
Verärgert schnaubte Professor McGonagall durch die Nase. »O Ja, alle Welt feiert, sehr schön«, sagte sie ungeduldig. »Man sollte meinen, sie könnten ein bisschen vorsichtiger sein, aber nein - selbst die Muggel haben bemerkt, dass etwas los ist. Sie haben es in ihren Nachrichten gebracht.« Mit einem Kopfrucken deutete sie auf das dunkle Wohnzimmerfenster der Dursleys. »Ich habe es gehört. Ganze Schwärme von Eulen ... Sternschnuppen ... Nun, ganz dumm sind sie auch wieder nicht. Sie mussten einfach irgendetwas bemerken. Sternschnuppen unten in Kent - ich wette, das war Dädalus Diggel. Der war noch nie besonders vernünftig.«
My rough, not-a-native-German-speaker translation:
Professor McGonagall snorted angrily through her nose. "Oh yes, the whole world is celebrating, very nice" she said impatiently. "One might think they could be more careful, but no -- even the Muggles have noticed that something is going on. It was in their newspapers." With a jerk of her head, she indicated Dursley's dark living room window. "I heard about it. Swarms of owls, meteorites...they aren't all idiots. They must have noticed. Shooting stars over Kent -- I bet that was Daedalus Diggle. He never was very sensible."
I take from that that McGonagall doesn't expect the Muggles to know what it means that there are suddenly a bunch of owls everywhere, but that wizards everywhere nevertheless have a duty to make sure that Muggles don't see those sorts of things.
Even after re-reading the horcrux stuff a couple times, I'm still confused.
There are two types of horcuxes, v1 and v2. v1 only captures your mindstate as it was at the time of creation. v2 updates all horcruxes to the current mindstate. v1s were hidden in the canonical places (diadem, slytherian's locket, etc), v2 in the hard to reach ones (mariana trench, pioneer probe).
After 10/31/1981, Tom's mindstate bounced around the v2 horcruxes. In 1992, Quirrell found a v1 horcrux ("one of my earliest"). How does that work? How can a v1, which hasn't updated, give rise to the current Voldemort?
He wouldn't have Slytherin's monster's power, or knowledge of anything after the horcrux's creation.
Also, how are those current v2 backups handling two Toms? Which mindstate is getting backed up? Probably the QQ one, but how does V know the system even works??
And isn't it suspicious that Quirrell finds this horcrux just a few months before Harry is to attend Hogwarts?
Upon rereading 108, it's ambiguous if QMort is telling the full truth about horcruxes. His Parseltongue confirmation comes later, after his horcrux explication.
Don't have it in front of me, but my sense was the timeline was more nuanced. First he made some Horcruxes. Then he invented the True Horcrux, and made some of those. Then he invented the True Horcrux Hiding Place, and made about a zillion of them. Quirrel found Horcrux v2 in Hiding Place v1.
Harry is the viewpoint character, and he thinks everyone is an idiot except him and Quirrell. He is in error. He has been consistently in error about this since ... forever. It's probably a character flaw that he shares with Voldemort, although Harry has a somewhat less murderous form of it.
For instance, Harry believes that the wizarding economy should be trivially exploitable via exchange with the Muggle precious-metals market. He believes this because even though he knows about half-bloods (i.e. witches and wizards who have a Muggle parent), he thinks that he is special and that nobody else ever would have thought of that.
Similarly, he believes that he is the first to come up with the idea of combining magic and Muggle science. He isn't that, either. He doesn't realize this even after he is given the (ostensible) diary of Roger Bacon.
And here's the thing ... he doesn't update about these errors. He's not particularly curious about them. "Hey, wait, there are Muggleborns; what's the chance any of them has ever had a relative in Muggle banking, finance, or economics?" "Oh, Roger Bacon was a wizard? I had better learn me some Latin so I can find out what the history of magic/science interaction has been."
I kinda agree, but...the Time Turners really didn't have protective shells. If you see what I mean.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
I'm sure he realizes it, but Harry literally obliviated everything in his memory, which would presumably include knowledge of any anti-obliviation counter measures (like the signals that were mentioned early on).
Unless there's some spell or artifact we haven't heard of before now that blocks/reverses Obliviation, I am going with it worked. And from a meta perspective, we know the story is winding down, so Voldie coming back with his full memory and then having another showdown with a different solution seems highly unlikely.
I agree with this interpretation. But given that, I'm not sure why Harry thinks he didn't kill Voldemort.