u/chopinmazurka

Surely that house contained possessions of sentimental value- photos, belongings etc- which Harry would have liked to have retained. Especially given his aunt and uncle had none at all.

In the first book Dumbledore shows a desire for Harry to have keepsakes- he gives Hagrid time to collect photos from the Potters' friends, and the Cloak was passed down to Harry.

[Edit: I know the cloak wasn't JUST a memento. But Harry recognises the sentimental significance nevertheless: 'His father's... This had been his father's.']

Why do we never see any more of those? Did Dumbledore never think to store up some items from the house for future use, so Harry could reconnect with his past?

All Harry gets after that, really, is that tiny fragment of Lily's letter in DH, and I guess the Marauders' map.

So many to choose from. One of the things I love about Regency-era English is the exquisitely refined way in which you can insult someone, to the point that (to a modern ear) it may take a moment to recognise it as an insult. I personally think Lizzy Bennet takes the crown.

'In such cases as this, it is, I believe, the established mode to express a sense of obligation [...] But I cannot [....] The feelings which you tell me have long prevented the acknowledgment of your regard can have little difficulty in overcoming it after this explanation.”

Closely followed by

'“You are mistaken, Mr. Darcy, if you suppose that the mode of your declaration affected me in any other way than as it spared me the concern which I might have felt in refusing you, had you behaved in a more gentlemanlike manner.”

And finally 'These would be heavy misfortunes indeed' when Lady Catherine tells her she will never be spoken of again by her family if she married Darcy.

I love the magical opening of Chopin's Rondo à la krakowiak. But the rest of the piece is quite mediocre. I wish he'd followed through on its potential.

Any other pieces you feel the same way about?

I'm just curious because I've never heard a primarily or entirely vocal arrangement of the piece- shame because I feel some of the melodies would sound great sung, and be doable if shared between many singers.

'“It—it wasn’t stealing!” said Hermione, looking from Harry to Ron with a kind of desperation. “They were still library books, even if Dumbledore had taken them off the shelves. Anyway, if he really didn’t want anyone to get at them, I’m sure he would have made it much harder to—”'

It was a nice bit of character continuity. 'We could have been killed, or worse, accused of stealing library books.'

This passage from Deathly Hallows confuses me:

'“The Cloak wouldn’t have helped them survive, though,” Harry said quickly. “Voldemort knew where my mum and dad were. The Cloak couldn’t have made them curse-proof.”

“True,” sighed Dumbledore. “True.”'

The broken Fidelius Charm ensured that Voldemort knew where the Potters lived and could attempt to cast curses at them. But as far as I understand, this shouldn't have impacted the Cloak's efficacy as it just protected the wearer from Death, regardless of the cause. It's not JUST physical invisibility, but INVISIBILITY FROM DEATH- I.E. INABILITY TO DIE.

'[the youngest brother] asked for something that would enable him to go forth from that place without being followed by Death.

[....] though Death searched for the third brother for many years, he was never able to find him. It was only when he attained a great age that the youngest brother finally took off the Cloak of Invisibility and gave it to his son. And then he greeted Death as an old friend.'

And we've seen throughout the series that multiple people can fit under the Cloak so the whole family should have been able to use it.

My two favourites:

'O madam, my old heart is cracked, it's cracked.' (Gloucester, King Lear)

'I did love you once.' (Hamlet, at the end of an angry and complex exchange with Ophelia)

Edit: I love the two above because they're nearly monosyllabic, but have to mention (also from King Lear) Gloucester's 'I see it feelingly.' That shatters me every time. The saddest pun ever.

Rereading Philosopher's Stone right now (I usually reread the later books) and I'd forgotten how (relatively) cosy it felt. Discovering Diagon Alley, Chocolate Frog cards, first lessons, first Quidditch matches.

Not that the later books aren't great (or that there isn't serious stuff in this book- the Mirror of Erised is still heartbreaking), but the first book still has a certain whimsy I miss sometimes.

(Ofc, as has been widely noted, the same logic applies to the first movie)

They sent the first letter inviting him to attend, received no reply that day, and so decided to send it again the very next day? What if the Dursleys had agreed to let Harry go, but were trying to work out how to post their reply? (Or wondering how on earth they could buy cauldrons, wands, cloaks- they'd have been far better off sending a teacher with the first letter)

So far I've listened to Bach BWV 997, an arrangement of the Chaconne and Hopkinson Smith's concert of various French/Italian pieces.

Any other recommendations?

To what extent can/do translators just lightly modernise grammar and swap out some obsolete words for modern ones? Just curious as to the exact linguistic gap we're talking about here, and so how much creativity translators exercise (is it like Middle English vs modern English, for example).

I feel like I understand the aorist and perfect fine when I see the regular patterns in the textbook. However when I try to apply the knowledge 'in the wild' reading texts, I often struggle to deduce the dictionary form of the verb to look up because there are so many irregularities. I know there are some rules, which I've applied with some success, but a lot of the time it just feels like the connection is so vague that I'm lost.

Do you have any sustainable tips for learning these tenses? And while reading, if you come across a verb form you recognise as aorist/perfect, but you have no clue what the root verb is, what's your strategy?

Always been very interested in Renaissance music, especially polyphony, and would appreciate recommendations of books about its history and cultural context.

I have sorta intermediate music theory so would prefer books which strike a balance between theory and broader cultural history.