There are any number of possible explanations for how the frogs came about. There is the obvious one that they were teleported from somewhere else, which I find to be the most logical since they were real frogs. Then there is your theory that they were transfigured (or conjured, since they're both basically interchangeable), which is equally as likely in my eyes, but I cannot see how that would correlate to how difficult transfiguring a frog would be.

Dresden commented on how something had to be really out of whack to bring about a spontaneous rain of frogs, which I take to mean that it takes a lot of power to bring that many frogs into existence (or transport them from elsewhere). Transfiguring a single frog is not the same as making a metric ton of them rain in the middle of Chicago. It takes an order of magnitude more power to do something like that, probably more, considering it took an imbalance in the Faerie Courts to make it happen.

All in all, I got the impression that he was commenting on the power it would take to produce that many frogs, whether by transfiguration or by some other method. Adding in that the frogs were produced by magic that was not under the control of a spell, a by product of reality being warped to critical density for random bursts of the illogical to happen.

 

The idea that he was talking about magnitude rather than the nature of the frogs is negated by the fact that he would be unconcerned about frogs of the same magnitude but different nature raining down spontaneously.

 

Dresden being the only wizard in the area until that morning with anywhere close to the power necessary to pull off a ritual that could do such a thing. We are not talking about 2-3 frogs but, enough to cover a large area of the city, the preparations and buildup of power would not be easy to hide alerting Harry before or after the fact. I don't see why he would think a wizard did it.

And jut to remind everyone.
We were talking about self-transfiguration and it's influence on thaumaturgy, when Taure mentioned the frogs. They didn't have anything to do with it then and they still don't.
Taure is arguing that the episode proves transfiguration is hard. While I'm saying the evidence is not conclusive and as such shouldn't have the minimum bearing on the argument, since we don't know if it even was a case of transfiguration. Never said transfiguring something inanimate into a living being was easy.

I think someone is confusing transfiguration and conjuration. The second being impossible with DF magic as far as we know and I would say qualifies as something big.

EDIT: Correction, conjuration is possible with divine intervention (“soul fire”). Again something exceptional and reality warping.

 

Since transfiguration itself is an HP term and not a DV one, I'm using the HP definition, which includes conjuration. Basically, anything which effects the base nature of things in-themselves rather than superficially = transfiguration.

Again, negated by the fact that Harry would have been untroubled by the fact that a rain of frogs that weren't real frogs would just be someone playing a trick.

Okay, time for a bit of what Jim Butcher has to say about this:

All from: http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/06/post.php

 

All well and right, you still haven't proven that transfiguration protects against taumaturgy.

 

No, you misunderstand. Creating a rain of frogs out of ectoplasm is a simple process for pretty much any Fae wandering around, but a rain of actual frogs means there's a lot of power behind the spell (or a lot of power being there to trigger an unnatural event). What I'm trying to point out is that when dealing with real frogs, not ones made out of ectoplasm, it would take lots more power to create real ones than fake.

So the idea that he was referring to magnitude still applies because it would still take a lot of magic to pull off, while doing the same with fake frogs would not be nearly as taxing.

 

...which is exactly the point that I'm making: all other things being equal, real frogs are much harder to make than fake frogs.

 

Yes, but it is more conceivable to create/transport one real frog than it is to make it rain frogs, plural, which is the point I'm trying to make. After all, transfiguration is specifically dealt with in the Second Law so it must be possible for a wizard to do, and we have several specific examples of it in Fool Moon alone. Remember also, Tera West was the one who first started the Alphas transforming, they just picked up how to do it along the way.

 

If you read the JB quote I posted above, the second law bans transforming others specifically because it's so hard that transforming someone is tantamount to murder - you destroy their minds, and even if you could keep their mind intact somehow the body would deteriorate rapidly and die unless you had a perfect knowledge of physiology.

And the point I'm making is that number has nothing to do with it, because Dresden compared the difficulty of making a rain of fake frogs - something he considered trivial despite its magnitude - and a rain of real frogs - something he considered a serious magical phenomenon. So that it is raining frogs has no impact on his judgement - it's all about the fact that they're real.

 

uh, yeah, making real frogs is hard.

But Wand Wizard can't do it either, can they? I mean, they can't do real food, so it means transfiguration isn't "real".

 

Oh wow, that's some good logic there.

Wizard is unable to do X transfiguration (food), thus wizard is unable to do any transfiguration.

Yeah, I'm not sure that works... especially since the inability to create food is stated explicitely to be an exception and not the rule (one of the five exceptions to Gamp's law of Elemental Transfiguration).

Moreover, transfiguration as defined by JKR is "real" by definition. That's the difference between charms and transfiguration: transfiguration changes things in themselves, whilest charms overlay an effect or alter secondary properties.

Finally, and most obviously: we've seen transfigured animals before.

 

Yes, we have seen "transfigured" animal before. My point was that if those animal were real, then they could be used as food. So, they aren't real. They are just "Transfigured Animal".

There seems to be a difference in hp between transfigured object and real object.

That was my point.

 

Where exactly is the difference? From what we've seen all the transfigured animals have acted just like their normal counterparts. The only exception that comes close to this is the animagus transformation, because transfigured animals act like animals mostly (even if transfigured from humans), which we think is an entirely different branch of magic entirely.

 

And who says they can't?

The exception to Gamp's law is simply that you cannot conjure food. Not that you can't transfigure food, and not that you can't transfigure something that could be food if you killed it, cut it up, prepared it and cooked it.

 

An animal *is* food. There is no point in conjuring food if you can transfigure a pebble into a eatable cow(meaning a cow that gives nutritive)

I thought it was pretty clear to that Transfigured object != the real object.

If you disagree, then it's most likely useless for me to continue talking about this.

 

Pretty clear in that pretty much everything we know about transfiguration in the HP series goes against it?

No point? So you think there's no point to a spell that could instantly create you this:



Rather than this:



?

You do not want to get into an anal semantic debate with me.

I'd say an animal is more an ingredient than food. Not even that: something that could become an ingredient.

The above two pictures illustrate my point. The first is food. The second is not (yet).

Anyway, this is off the point. I'm not claiming that you can conjure animals (though it might be possible, it's easier for me to win the argument if I don't). The exception to Gamp's law is talking about creation, not alternation. I.e. conjuration, not transfiguration.

 

You do not want to get into an arse-kicking competition with that centipede.

 

Bullshit. I'll gnaw off what I want, and ride the rest home! </Leary>

 

When he said "food," I'd imagine he meant edible, which a cow is. This is something I've often wondered, myself. I'm pretty sure that at some point in the sixth book, it was mentioned that you can conjure animals. It seems ridiculous to me that you would be unable to conjure cooked animals.

 

Could it perhaps be that whilst you could conjure what appeared to be a beef sandwich it may be a) inedible for reasons unknown to us, or b) prove pointless to eat as it contains no actual sustenance and may in fact disappear soon anyway. The latter idea would lead to the supposition that if you did conjure or transfigure something into a cow and then butchered it for food it would actually not be worth it as it still would not be actual food.