Does "end up with an object" always mean possession? Can it possibly mean destruction?
Here is the context.
Source: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K.Rowling.
Characters: Harry Potter, Dumbledore, Snape.
Object: the Elder Wand.
The first passage:
Harry: “If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end up with the Elder Wand, didn’t you?”
Dumbledore: “I admit that was my intention,” said Dumbledore, “but it did not work as I intended, did it?”
Does it mean that, according to Dumbledore's plan, Snape would have become the master of the wand?
The second passage:
Harry: “Snape was never the true master of the Elder Wand. He never defeated Dumbledore. ... Dumbledore’s death was planned between them! Dumbledore intended to die, undefeated, the wand’s last true master! If all had gone as planned, the wand’s power would have died with him, because it had never been won from him!”
(Harry explains that, according to Dumbledore's plan, the power of the wand would have been destroyed.)
- If "end up with an object" always means possession, don't you think that the passages are contradictory?
- If not, how we can possibly distinguish which of the two possible meanings is applicable: possession or destruction?