Transfiguration

Dame Maggie Smith, Oscar-winner and, the actress for Professor Minerva McGonagall, has died aged 89, she was a Brillant actress and a huge part of Harry Potter we'll miss her Thank you for everything you gave to the franchise, let's raise our wands!

In response to @True Uncanny Clicker's post about creating new spells, here are my own ideas for what spells along with what types of spells they are, including variants of already-existing spells. I'd share with you their incantations, color lights, and effects, but I can't. You can check out my FanFiction profile and see them for it. My profile name is Archdruid89.

Charms

The Cobweb Cushioning Charm

The Protego Angelicus Charm

The Balancing Charm

The Human Doubling Charm

The Flower Decorating Charm

The Air Conditioning Charm

The Muscle-Relaxing/Massaging Charm

The Gorgon Shield Charm

The Telescoping Charm

The Wall-Climbing/Mountain-Climbing Charm

The Ear Cleaning Charm

The Magnetic Impervius Charm

The Preservation Charm

The Flower Preservation Charm

The Teeth Cleansing Charm

The Pregnancy Revealing Charm

The Birth Control Charm

The Fireproof Charm

The Bacteria Repelling Charm

The Cooling/Refrigerating Charm

The Translation Charm

The Anti-Mail Monitoring Charm

The Water-Breathing Charm

The Flood-Repelling Charm

The Pet Grooming Charm

The Forensics Lighting Charm

The Anti-Lockpicking Charm

The Reading-Glasses Translation Charm

The Bookmarking Charm

The Insect-Repelling Charm

The Pasteurizing Charm

The Anti-Spilling Charm

The Gift-Wrapping Charm

The Animation Charm

The Intangibility Charm

The Mouthguard Charm

The Diagnostic Charm

The Contraception Charm

The Laundry Folding Charm

Transfiguration

Human to donkey

Pumpkin to carriage/coach

Water to jelly/jam

Shoes to roller skates

Mouse to horse

Projectile to flower

Shoes to ice skates

Branch to snake

Legs to mermaid tail

Target to weasel

Stone to bubble

Broom to guitar

Serpent to pole

Surface to quicksand/Quicksand Spell

Boulder to elephant

Hexes

The Clown-Dressing Hex

The Nose-Growing Hex

The Face-Rearranging/Picasso-Face Hex

The Gender-Changing Hex

The Hair-Yanking Hex

The Pig-Face Hex

The Yodeling Hex

Jinxes

The Belching Jinx

The Dancing Jinx

The Ear Enlargement Jinx

The Spoon-Hanging Jinx

The Helium Voice Jinx

The Debagging/Pantsing Jinx

The Ear Pinching Jinx

The Jelly/Jam Gag Jinx

The Nose-Tweaking Jinx

The Rubber Jinx

The Elephant Trunk Jinx

Curses

The Corruption Curse

The Flatulence/Farting Curse

The Beatboxing Curse

The Hairy-Human Curse

The Pink Elephants Curse

The Organ Liquefaction Curse

Conjuration

The Frog-Conjuring Spell

The Sunglasses Conjuring Spell

The Baton Conjuring Spell

The Net Conjuring Spell

The Cookware Conjuring Spell

The Pillow Conjuring Spell

The Flotation Conjuring Spell

The Mirror Conjuring Spell

The Bat Conjuring Spell

The Stretcher-Conjuring Spell

The Crutches Conjuring Spell

The Piano Conjuring Spell

The Wheelchair Conjuring Spell

The Table Conjuring Spell

Healing Spells

The Muscle Rebuilding Spell

The Defibrillation Spell

The Tooth Regrowing Spell

Counterspells

The Counter-jinx for Dancing Jinx

The Counter-curse for Corruption Curse

What we know about Sirius's animagus/patronus is that it takes the form of a large bear-like shaggy jet-black dog (not unlike the grim). The problem with that is that there is no dog in existence that has the same description as Sirius's dog form (not even a German Shepherd or Irish Wolfhound or any sort of mixed breed dogs). Whilst we know the dog breed of another characters patronus (Ron is a Jack Russell), we are never given exactly what sort of dog breed is Padfoot.

What do you think? What kind of dog do you think JK Rowling intended for Sirius to be (I reckon he could be the grim without the death curse)?

Canon information states that Transfigurations and Charms are distinctly different. Particularly 'Book of Spells', which JKR helped write. It states that Charms modify the properties of an object, while Transfiguration changes it entirely.

The thing is... Almost all the transforming Transfiguration spells we know the incantation for are Jinxes! Pullus Jinx, Melofors Jinx, Vermiculus Jinx... Jinxes!

Okay, so a Jinx isn't a charm, that doesn't contradict anything, right?

Well... It does though, because Jinxes are also known as "dark charms."

This is further compounded by spells like Avis and Evenesco - Conjuration and Vanishing spells - which are referred to as Charms!

So... Are these spells not Transfigurations? Is there a difference between using the Vanishing Charm and actually Vanishing an object with Transfiguration? Gah, someone reconcile this!

Idk but is there a spell for transfiguring objects or is it just thinking about it or is it non verbal spell ?

SOOO, a few months ago I created a fanfiction, called An apple love, so I decided to make it a sequal.

Links to the first fanfic:

Chapter one

Chapter two

Chapter three

Chapter four

Btw, this starts just when chapter 4 ends, so go read it first lol.

Draco sat down at his sit in Transfiguration class, still holding the Red apple in his hands, For some reason, it was crying. Draco tried to make it stop, , Draco touched the tears, and tried to make them just stop from falling down on the apple's cheek and when he did he felt some cold feeling, he looked at his hand "R-red paint?" he said loudly "Revalio" he said, the red shining apple now was just a green apple, just like Draco had before. "Y-you were green all this time?" He asked, a smile started to get put on his face.

The apple hesitated, "Always" she said. Draco hugged the apple, "Draco, it was Harry he tried to paint me in red, Because Fred and George didn't allow the colour green in their common room" tears continued to get out of the apple's little eye. "Harry abused me! I never wanted to get painted in red, I look horrible in that colour! I'm so glad I'm green now"

"Those Weasleys! don't worry, they'll get revenged" Draco said.

"A- at first i thought you would hate how I look in green, because you are normal to me in red" the GREEN apple said.

"It's fine, you are now in the best colour in the world, Green" Draco smiled.

"I like blue better but Oka-" Draco put his hand on the apple's mouth before she could finish her sentence.

"How dare you?" Draco asked.

"What? what do you mean?"

"You like BLUE better than GREEN? why don't you also go away with that Loony Lovebad?" Draco said mockingly.

"WHAT, NO THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT!" the apple prayed for Draco to stay.

"Leave me alone! I'm leaving!" he said.

TO BE CONTINUED

Of the core subjects taught at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Transfiguration is perhaps the most complicated and least explored. While we know of terms like "Artificianimate Quasi-dominance" and "Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration", the intricate details of such things are never explored. Compared with Charms, where we know how to differentiate them from different kinds of spells and are presented with a suitable surface level understanding of how they work, the coverage of Transfiguration seems all together less comprehensive.

So what do we know?

We know that Transfiguration spells differ from Charms in at least one key way. A Charm adds or removes properties from an object, while a Transfiguration changes it totally. For example, the levitation charm adds the property of levitation to an object. That turning vinegar into wine is taught in Charms rather than Transfiguration is perhaps explained by this reasoning. In order to change vinegar into wine, you merely have to remove one of its properties - the acetic acid. From this we can extrapolate that what is being taught here is some kind of base or alkaline introducing Charm rather than a Transfiguration of the contents of the glass.

We also know that there are five "principle exceptions" to "Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration." Not only are there are contradicting accounts as to whether this is a law of legality or a law of nature, we also do not know what the actual law is, what four of the five exceptions to it are, or why being exempt from the law means that they can not be conjured.

We know that one of the five exceptions is food. This means that witches and wizards cannot conjure food from nowhere. However, they can transform, enlarge or multiply it. If one can purchase a cheap loaf of bread and then enlarge it to make it suitable enough to feed a large family for a long time and then simply keep enlarging or multiplying it, it begs the question what the point of such a law would be. It also does not prevent one from merely transfiguring a common item into food, nor does it prevent one from conjuring, for example, a fish and simply preparing it for consumption. Perhaps, then, this is a natural law relating to the complexity of a dish, and food in this sense relates to fully prepared meals rather than the ingredients therein. Or perhaps it is merely a vague excuse from J. K. Rowling as to why wizards don't just conjure a banquet whenever they feel like it or use their powers to solve world hunger.

Yet, we still find ourselves wondering... Just how was Molly Weasley able to produce sauce from her wand, and what are the other four exceptions to this law?

Some theorise that one of the exceptions is money or gold, as this would destabilise the wizarding economy (a vote in favour of Gamp's Law being a matter of legality rather than nature). Given that Leprechaun Gold is seen to vanish after some time, it would seem that this is a reasonable assumption (and an equal indicator that Gamp's Law may be a natural one). However much like Molly's magical sauces, this presents us with a contradiction. If Leprechaun Gold is indeed real gold, then it is being produced magically, even if only temporarily. Furthermore, one of the proposed distinctions between Charms and Transfigurations is that Charms are temporary while Transfigurations are not.

How do we reconcile this? Let's look at one of the few Conjuring spells we have reasonable details about: the bird conjuring spell. Supposedly, birds conjured by this spell - and likely anything conjured - will be more solid and life-like the more experienced the caster is at conjuring them. This tells us that they are not real birds. They only appear to be real. They will also fade with time, much like the effects of a Charm. To cap things off, the spell is known as the "Bird Conjuring Charm" despite being a conjuration, which we know to be a type of Transfiguration. However, we are told that Transfigurations do not behave this way. One might suppose, then, that this is a matter of semantics. I propose that conjurations fade, while transformations do not. If you transfigure a ferret into a feather duster, your ferret will forever be a feather duster until transfigured once again. If you conjure a ferret, that ferret will only exist for as long as the spell is at work. This way, we can say that the gold produced by Leprechauns is indeed conjured.

With the Bird Conjuring Charm in mind, does gold still seem like a possible exception to Gamp's Law, and what does this have to do with Molly's sauce? The connection is made, I believe, when we consider that life may be a third exception to Gamp's Law. If we take that to be fact, then a pattern emerges. If we say that life cannot be conjured, we can look to the Bird Conjuring charm and see that the birds are facsimiles that fade with time. If we say that gold cannot be conjured, we can look to the Leprechauns and see that their gold is counterfeit that fades with time. If we look to Molly's sauce... Does it last? What Molly is seen to conjure is merely a sauce, something to add flavour to a dish. What I wish to propose here is that the sauce is not real. It is an illusion. You can enjoy the taste of the sauce but cannot subsist on it. The sauce will fade. The calories, the energy, the nutrients, all will disappear. You can conjure what resembles food, but you cannot live on it. With this in mind, Gamp's law seems to make slightly more sense in the wider world. You can, if you like, conjure a chicken. You can conjure some potatoes, and even fire a stream of nice hot gravy out of the tip of your wand. Garnish it all with some parsley you grew using the Orchideous Jinx. But it won't be real. It will merely be an illusion, and despite feeling as though you have enjoyed a delicious feast, you will go to bed hungry. The only part of your banquet that could possibly last would be the table and chairs produced by Inanimatus Conjurus, which with no reason to contradict Gamp's Law would last until intentionally vanished.

With Gamp's Law out of the way - at least until two more possible exceptions with noteworthy examples of how they cannot remain after being conjured appear - it seems natural to turn to the mystery of Artificianimate Quasi-dominance.

This long and intimidating phrase, when broken down, appears to refer to artificial yet animate conjurations (such as our birds from earlier) and the apparent dominance of what form such conjurations will take. Unfortunately, with only two animal conjuring spells having two different incantations, there is little else that can be deduced from this term. We know it relates to conjuration and explains the appearance of wild and potentially disgusting hybrids caused by a poorly cast conjuration spell, but the how and why is largely unexplored. One can only deduce that certain forms are "dominant" over others when it comes to conjuration. We do not know why, but I believe that this pertains to why birds and snakes are the easiest animals to conjure. Perhaps there is a symbolism involved that has been overlooked. For now, I have no theory on this matter.

Finally, I would like to look at transformation spells taught at Hogwarts. Why would we ever want to turn an owl into opera glasses, and when would you ever need to turn a book into a mouse? Why are these strangely specific spells taught at Hogwarts?

Perhaps they are not really so specific. We know it takes a lot of calculations and formulae to properly prepare for a transfiguration spell, as this is what Harry's first lesson in the subject consisted of before the practical attempt at transforming a matchstick into a needle. With all these complex calculations, why then do we ultimately say a magic word and wave our wands for the result? What is the connection? I propose that the calculations are to ensure a specific result, while the incantation and wand movement alone may produce a wide range of different results (probably dependant on that principle of artificianimate quasi-dominance). To give an example: I believe that the incantation "Strigiforma" is not specifically for turning an owl into opera glasses. I propose that "Strigiforma" is the spell used to transfigure an owl into anything. The incantation relates to the target or the result, not both. This would explain why Transfiguration classes consist of so many strange combinations such as "Cat to Tea cosy" or "Rabbit to Slippers" - these are to familiarise students with the technical process of calculating the results of the spell. This way, the incantation "Strigiforma" could, with the correct calculations, be used to turn an owl in a box, or a shoe, or anything you like. It may even be possible to use the incantation to turn something else into an owl.

Many assume that the use of "Felifors" in the Hogwarts Mystery game to turn a cat into a cauldron is a mistake, but maybe it is an example of the flexibility of the incantation. Perhaps "Felifors" can work in both directions - turn a cat into a cauldron, or turn a cauldron into a cat, or a cat into a tea cosy. To add another example from Hogwarts Mystery: the wand movement to cast Vera Verto (animal into water goblet) on a rat, and the wand movement to turn a mouse into a snuffbox are both the same, suggesting it may indeed be the same spell. The rodent in this case is the common element, so perhaps what matters is the calculation relating to the rodent and the desired object rather than the incantation used. Different spells, same incantation and wand movement.

I'm Leon Grimalkin, and these have been my theories of Transfiguration. They are based on available canon but are ultimately mere speculation. I hope you enjoyed reading them, and I would love it if this essay sparks some debate on the subject of Transfiguration. Feel free to refute my claims. I'll be very interested to see what you all think. I hope it wasn't too boring. If any fanfic writers like my theories feel free to use them to bolster the lore and magical theory in your fanfics. That'd be swell.

Thank you for reading.

We know that you can transfigure objects into animals (McGonagall transfigured her desk into a pig and back again in the first book and Cedric Diggory transfigured a rock into a dog in the fourth) but does this mean that you can also transfigure objects into humans?

If so, how would that work? Would it be a random new person with no memories or knowledge of anything? What do you think?