ég tók þessa kenningu af einni síðu og fannst hún frekar merkileg… þetta er í sambandi við dauða Dumbledores:

There is a very interesting theory put forward by John Granger (no relation to Hermione) on his site hogwartsprofessor.com

He suggests that when Dumbledore destroyed the ring horcrux and was “saved” by the quick action of Severus Snape he wasn't exactly saved. In the book HBP , Harry's first potions lesson with Snape is referred to 3 times - cluing us back to the infamous “brew fame, bottle glory and stopper death” speech - plus the headmaster's damaged hand is mentioned constantly.

He asks, what exactly does it mean to “stopper” death? It doesn't mean cure death or you would say that. What if Snape didn't cure Albus but could only “stopper” him, - would that mean that Dumbledore was on the brink of death but temporarily able to function until the stopper was removed … a sort of “Dead Man Walking”? Albus says to Draco on the tower, “they can't kill you if you're already dead” - is that because Albus ISN'T actually alive but merely un-dead - ie: stoppered?

The implication is that on the tower Snape didn't kill Albus (who wasn't alive but un-dead) but just un-stoppered him.

The entire essay is long and the “stoppered death” part is about half way through at this link, but it is pretty interesting.