15

In the Harry Potter world, there's the term "muggle" for people with no magical abilities, "muggle-born" for those with magical abilities who's parents are muggles and "squib" for those with no magical abilities who's parents are magical.

But is there any collective term for all magical people (as opposed to wizards for males and witches for females)? I don't recall seeing any word that refers to all men and women and children with magical abilities, and it's the only group left without noun or collective noun to describe them.

14

Well, when Hagrid describes Muggles to Harry as "non-magic folk" it might imply that 'magic' is a collective term used to describe witches and wizards. An example sentence might be, "All the non-magic folk to the right, the magic to the left." Also, 'magic' is the word I've most commonly seen/heard as used to describe the genetic attribute that makes a person a witch or wizard. Either a person has the magic gene or they don't.

There's always magician, but I don't think that word is used in canon.

  • What about Squibs who can do absolutely no magic, like Filch? They certainly aren't Muggles, but they aren't really 'magic' either. – Jeff Jan 18 '12 at 12:55
  • @Jeff - Totally non-ironically, I would imagine Squibs would be considered "differently-abled" like disabled individuals in our society. :/ Your comment brings up a question for me, though, which I will post separately :) – Slytherincess Jan 18 '12 at 13:21
  • Id say "magic-folk" would be a reasonable derivation from this. – ApproachingDarknessFish Oct 27 '14 at 22:56
9

Gryphook the goblin used the term "wand-carriers".

  • 1
    This works in most cases, but there are certainly people in the magical community who lack wands - Hagrid (officially) for one. – Jeff Jan 18 '12 at 12:54
  • 3
    In his viewpoint, that particular distinction was quite important -- he felt that goblins should have the right to carry wands. To an ordinary witch or wizard, who never thinks in that context, the name would seem odd. – Joe White Jan 19 '12 at 13:27
  • @Jeff Well..technically Hagrid does have his wand it's just secret and not in the same way. But there's a reason he holds tightly the umbrella in the wand shop. It's also known that the Elder Wand can repair wands and Dumbledore owned it for many years and helped Hagrid in many ways (and vice versa). So he didn't have a wand but in a way he did. – Pryftan Feb 17 at 23:43
  • @Pryftan - Hence why I said 'officially'. Hagrid's wand was snapped and he was expelled. Legally he is not allowed to carry a wand. The fact that he can and does carry the pieces (and use them) is illegal. But he's none-the-less still a member of the wizarding world, indicating that being legally able to carry and use a wand is not required for membership in the wizarding world. – Jeff Feb 19 at 14:33
  • @Jeff Yes. But literally he does have a wand whether it's 'normal' or 'legal' is besides my point. The world might not know about it but then that doesn't mean it's not the case anyway. That's all I was saying; if I were to hide that one of my passions is computer programming (from the world) and that my favourite author is Tolkien that doesn't mean anything but the world doesn't know! Maybe it's me being a literal thinker though. Certainly possible. Either way I get your point anyway; I was just adding that he still does have a wand even if not official. – Pryftan Feb 19 at 23:55
2

I would think the lowest common demoninator, which would be mostly used in scholarly works would be 'non-Muggle'. This would include witches and wizards AND squibs, even those who have absolutely no magical aptitude (some squibs are shown with a minimal amount of magical ability, others show none whatsoever).

It'd be unlikely to see common use, because witches and wizards don't like to define themselves by what they aren't (any more than other humans do).

However, the one common thing every mortal in the magical world has is that they are non-Muggle. Not everyone has a wand, not everyone has enough magic to be a witch/wizard, but ALL of them aren't Muggles.

  • Do you have a link or more info about squibs with a minimal amount of magical ability? – Tango Jan 18 '12 at 16:45
  • @TangoOversway: Not on hand. In the book where squibs were first discussed, however, we see many TV-esque adult learning programs aimed at squibs, promising to teach them magic. If there were absolutely NO results from those, word would rapidly spread among the small, heavily interconnected wizarding world. – Jeff Jan 18 '12 at 19:07
  • @Jeff, word has already spread through the Internet that there are absolutely NO (positive) results from those "get rich working at home! (after paying us a small fee)" ads, but people still fall for them anyway. Besides, wizards don't talk much about Squibs, and Filch doesn't seem part of any sort of Squib-centric community, so perhaps there wouldn't be any grapevine for the word to spread through in the first place. – Joe White Jan 19 '12 at 13:32
  • @JoeWhite: My point was that Filch, in an institute of magical learning, surrounded by dozens of people who could easily have taught him magic (if indeed he could learn) and who would be discussing openly (among the staff) the existence of false education such as this whenever the topic came up - would have known better than to trust it IF there weren't occasional cases of squibs learning at least some basic magic. – Jeff Jan 19 '12 at 14:16
  • Rubbish. People who are desperate will buy things that promise them results. Repeatedly too. Those courses do absolutely nothing; the fact Filch has them means nothing whatsoever. And as Harry thinks (as it's from his perspective) during the fireworks in year 5 Filch couldn't have stunned them at all. He can't do magic and it's as simple as that. – Pryftan Feb 17 at 23:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.