[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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."

Matters appear to be more complicated. Chief is from Old French and originally meant simply ‘head’ and later came to be used to mean ‘head man’, ‘leader’. Chieftain is from Old French chevetain ‘captain’, ‘leader’. According to Sir Walter Scott’s novel Rob Roy, published in 1818, a Highland chieftain is the head of a branch of a clan but a chief is the head of a whole clan. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_clan_chief . Perhaps others here know more about this than I do.

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.

Yes, indeed, it could be a courtesy title, or it might be explained otherwise. Tolkien doesn’t say, and without convincing evidence from other historical or literary works, that one explanation makes more sense to some people need not convince others. Evidence is what is needed.

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.

To assume anything is never reasonable.

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.

Maybe so, and maybe not. Have you reason to support your assumption? If so, there is no need of the assumption. Neither you or I should expect that a personal belief unsupported by evidence should be accepted by others.

To me the problem is that a statement by Tolkien in The Hobbit does not fit well with other statements in The Lord of the Rings. Assuming that the works are to be looked on as coherent, can they be somehow reconciled? I provided two possible explanations. You have provided another.