[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

There is a note to Elrond's developement in the Annotated Hobbit as well (it deals with being "who had both elves and heroes of the North for ancestors" phrase):

Tolkien wrote to Christopher Bretherton in a letter of July, 16, 1964, "The passage in Ch. 3 relating him to the Half-elven of the mythology was a fortunate accident, due to the difficulty of constantly inventing good names for new characters, I gave him the name the name Elrond casually, but as this came from the mythology...I made him half-elven."

It appears Tolkien's first conception was he needed name that could fit the "some people who had both elves and heroes in the North for ancestors" description. Thus, he just chose Elrond, and the "fortunate accident" part is Elrond appears earlier in the mythology described as half-elfin, in 1926 "Sketch of the Mythology," which was published in The Shaping of Middle-earth:

"Their [Earendel and Elwing] son (Elrond) who is half-mortal and half-elfin, a child, was saved however by Maidros. When later the Elves return to the West, bound by his mortal half he elects to stay on earth. Through him the blood of Hurin (his great-uncle) and of the Elves is yet among Men, and is seen yet in valour and in beauty and in poetry."

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

I believe Form means that within the context of LOTR (particularly the Houses of Healing part he quoted), there is a clearly established relationship between Elrond, Aragorn, and the Dunedain. That is, Elrond's a figure of authority amongst the Dunedain. However, this does not have to be a formally recognized position. It could be, Elrond is a recognized figure of authority, a "foremost" person sought after by the Dunedain.

At least, that's how I read "contextual relationship" to mean, context in LOTR establishes a type of relationship between Elrond and Aragorn (and thus the Dunedain).

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 difference here is between "chieftain" and "chief."

Chieftain always refers to a leader of a clan/tribe. This is in fact the way Tolkien uses the word with the Dunedain. Chieftain of the Dunedain (or Chieftain of the North) is a formal position and title given to the heirs of Isildur. First it's the Kings of Arnor, then Kings of Arthedain. From Aranarth to Aragorn, the formal leader can not be called "king" or "prince" anymore for there is no more kingdom. The Dunedain are a de-populated group of survivors living in a wild land, thus Chieftain is most apt for the formal leader of the Dunedain remnant. And from the evidence given in the Appendices, Tolkien treats Chieftain as a formal position, used as a leadership title strictly referring to the heirs of Isildur. By law, Aragorn (no matter his age) is the next Chieftain after Arathorn II. Elrond, not being an heir of Isildur, could not take the title of Chieftain of the Dunedain, even on an interim basis (nor does Tolkien ever refer to Elrond by this title).

So, why refer to Elrond as " their chief?" Chief can be a shortened word for chieftain, but this is not always so. Historically, when chieftain is shortened to chief, it refers to the leader of Native American tribes. So, Form is correct in saying to use "chief" he would either associate the word to a Native American tribe, or to Lotho, who is informally called "the chief" when Saruman controls the Shire. Chief could easily refer to foremost, principal, main...as if one would say "chief city."

And in this way, I agree with Form, calling Elrond "chief" could be a courtesy title given to Elrond. Since he did in fact have an established relationship with Aragorn and the Dunedain, he would be a sought after person by them. As a courtesy, the casual "chief" (to mean foremost/principal/eldest) makes the most sense to me.

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.

Seems/suggests/appears is just the way Form discusses topics. Even when he disagrees, he likes reaching an understanding of other arguments being made. And even if Tolkien doesn't explicitly state something, that does not mean we can't reasonably assume it to be the case:

Originally Posted by [B

Form[/B]]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.

jallanite is correct that this is never explicitly stated. But this assumption seems more likely to me, than the assumption Elrond was the interim Chieftain of the Dunedain. For the fact, that when Tolkien wants to talk about the Chieftain of the Dunedain, he says Chieftain. And Chieftain of the Dunedain is a hereditary title for the heirs of Isildur as the leaders of the remaining Dunedain. I would go so far as to say Elrond could not hold this title or position (even on as an interim), because he is not a recognized heir of Isildur. The reference to Elrond as "their chief" is simply a courtesy title, as a foremost and important figure who had a relationship with the Dunedain.