[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Thus, as far as this passage goes, it is pretty much impossible to say that what it still means in the 3rd Edition (the last one Tolkien touched, in a post-LotR world) is the same as what it meant in the 1st Edition, before the LotR had been conceived.

See John D. Ratliff's The History of the Hobbit: Part One: Mr. Baggins. Beginning on page 121 Ratliff has a long discussion on Elrond before The Hobbit was published and shortly after. It is quite possible to show some of the differences between Tolkien’s conceptions before The Hobbit was published and when The Hobbit was first published.

Ratliff notes that Elrond was not even necessarily an immortal in those days and not considered an elf. Ratliff writes in part:

… and the very presence of Elrond himself, who is certainly not described as an elf (at the end of the chapter Elrond, the hobbit, the wizard, and the dwarves go outside ‘to see the elves’ dance and sing) and seems not to have been conceived of as an immortal or even particularly long-lived at this point, argues against a long gap in time between Gondolin’s fall and Mr. Baggins’ adventure. … By that scheme, Mr. Baggins’ unexpected party would have occurred no more than 14 years after the fall of Thangorodrim, which is clearly exceedingly improbable. These difficulties probably led to Tolkien’s deletion of the references to Beren and Lúthien’s adventure, which together with Elrond’s undefined status and nature enable Gondolin and its ruin to recede into the distant, legendary past.

Quoting all that Ratliff says on this matter would be overkill. You can look it up yourself.

Of course not--I am not claiming the two words are synonyms; only that they are being used in a way that suggests a contextual relationship.

I don’t understand what you mean by suggests a contextual relationship. That phrase is very, very vague.

I will grant that if the sentence ran "...was the chief," my argument would be unassailably stronger than the actual text of "was their chief." In that respect, your preferred definition has the grammatical high ground.

I disagree that the use of the over their would make any significant difference.

Nonetheless, "dubious" seems like an overly-strong condemnation of my interpretation.

I am not going to argue something when you use the word seems to push it.

To use "Chief" formally either invokes black-and-white westerns with "Red Indian" chiefs or else the incongruous image of Lotho Pimple, who was called the chief.

No it doesn’t. Tolkien uses the word chief of Elrond and I don’t know that anyone but yourself has made the associations that you are making. If by formally you mean dictionary usage, then see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chief or any other dictionary. Dictionary definitions are formal definitions. Find some differences between them that matter for this discussion and we can debate these true formal definitions.

The first of these two options, "one of great authority and power," is what I have been arguing for. Aragorn himself was the actual (that is to say, de jure) Chieftain of the Dúnedain during his minority. During his majority, he was similarly incapable of ruling his people while on his great journeys south and east, but there is nothing said of who ruled in his stead then. It seems more likely to me that some analogue of Halbarad ruled then--and during Aragorn's minority. Of course, this Acting Chieftain must have had great respect for Elrond and may well have sought his advice--but Aragorn himself does that.

Tolkien nowhere says anything about the matters of which you speak. That you must use the words seems more likely to me is an admission that you have no evidence.

My claim, such as it is, is only that it that it is possible that Elrond was interim chief, not that Elrond actually was interim chief.

This passage in The Hobbit does, I agree, suggest that Elrond was a formal chief, but if we read it with a hermeneutic of consistency with The Lord of the Rings, the evidence--as I read it--is against any such formality.

The phrase as I read it admits that other readings are possible. I have never claimed either that Elrond was provably a formal interim chief or that he was not.

More than any other reason, I would argue that you can't equate the Dúnedain of the North with half-Elves, even though I make the connection that many of them, in fact, had dilute Elven blood. It is an informal group of people to whom Elrond is their chief--and thus this line seems to be slender evidence for him possessing a formal leadership over another, not-quite-contiguous, group.

That is exactly what I claiming, that Tolkien’s statement is slender evidence. I am not claiming anything more. The phrase dubious evidence would work as well. Other possible explanations are also based on slender evidence or dubious evidence.

I never claimed that Elrond was an interim chief since Tolkien does not say and what Tolkien says goes. You appear to be claiming that Elrond could not have been an interim chief, but can provide no evidence.

I also claimed that possibly Elrond’s status as chief of “some people who had both elves and heroes of the North for ancestors” was a partial error on Bilbo’s part, the kind of explanation that Tolkien sometimes uses to cover similar problems.

I do not have any single explanation within The Lord of the Rings which clearly covers Tolkien’s statement:

In those days of our tale there were still some people who had both elves and heroes of the North for ancestors, and Elrond the master of the house was their chief.