[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Hmmm...and what happened to 'supper', another one of your unshakeable social institutions? Or are you now saying that supper is not part of the equation? Would Old Noakes (a rustic by speech pathology) be inclined or be able to afford 'second dinner', or would he be of Yorkshire persuasion and eschew the term 'dinner' (which is 'lunch') and instead use 'supper' (which is 'dinner')? By your use of the word 'clearly' you are trying to impose and absolute on something that is not clear-cut in the least; in fact, as with many discussions I've had regarding Tolkien over the last few decades, one can say that Tolkien emulates the Elves: he says both yes and no.

Not following this line of argument. Noakes refers to 'dinner' as an evening meal. Hobbits have two dinners when they can get them. Where supper comes into it I'm not sure. I will say though that 'supper' is often used to refer to a very light meal taken just before bed, & one wouldn't usually go out after supper - that's not a rule though.

Imagine that, Pippin using 'lunch ' and 'dinner' synonymously (just as if it didn't matter to him in the least). Perhaps it didn't matter in the least to Tolkien as well. Actually, the more quotes I read, the more he seems to be disinclined to give an official designation to anything but breakfast.

No. You're missing the point. These distinctions are extremely significant - & extremely noticeable for an English reader. Look - I'm sure that there are distinctions in speech patterns & phraseology between New Yorkers, Texans & Californians which I wouldn't pick up on, but you would. There are also class distinctions even in the US - a homeless man in New York would speak very differently from a Yale graduate. In England - & particularly in the rural Edwardian England that Tolkien used as a model for the Shire, there were very fine distinctions in phraseology.

Again, your attempt to use absolutes is untenable, just as implying that the term 'lunch' is an upper-class term is unsupportable. It is obvious to me they are interchangeable, just as, by your own designation, 'dinner' and 'supper' are interchangeable. An upper class Hobbit uses lunch and dinner synonymously (surprising that a 'middle-class dandie' would deign to use a term below his station), and a lower class Hobbit uses dinner in place of what clearly should be supper (which would be absolutely unacceptable in Yorkshire).

I implied it was a middle class term (or upper middle class). The fact that to you as an American the terms are interchangeable & to me as an English person they are not is the whole point. To you a rural working class Hobbit like the Gaffer having 'lunch' is perfectly fine. To me it would stick out like a sore thumb & feel wrong - because I know how rural English folk speak.

As far as 'lunch' being used often by the narrator/translator, just whom do you think that is, exactly? My guess would be the author, Tolkien, hadn't the slighest concern over using the term 'lunch' in any applicable situation.

Sorry, but an English ear will pick up on subtleties of speech & terminology which a non English ear will not. You can argue about the interchangeability of lunch/dinner & dinner/supper till the cows come home. I accept that a new M-e novel which treated those terms (& others) as interchangeable would not cause a problem for non English readers. I'm just telling you that for English readers they would jar.