The Problem of Rog

[aravanessë]

Argue that "Rog" is actually Quenya in form, and have a single Eldarin lord with a Quenya-formed name where the rest are Sindarin in form.

Rog can't be q(u)enya, single 'g' doesn't exist in q(u)enya. Changing the name is an unacceptable solution for me, and droping this name too. So the first solution seems to be the only possibility; but I think you don't consider all the parameters: for me, Rog doesn't mean 'demon', and I think you will be convinced after this, I have found a new element in QL.
Firstly, you assert 'rog' means 'dought, strong', but it is 'rôg'. The term 'rog' is unglossed in GL, it's a CT error. That's why (partly) I don't think CT's opinion having more authority than mine.

Secondly 'arog' is 'raug' with a- prefixed. a- is, according to GL a "prefix used in forming number of ajs and occasionally nouns – unaccented and probably of various origin". It is the 'a-' that causes the change of 'au' into 'o', there is no (established) connection between 'rog' and 'arog'. But we know Rog the Fleet, so we can think the two words are connected etymologically (but at which degree?), but with a meaning a little distinct.

But, according to QL, I quote: "ARAUKE pl. –i demon (Not really connected with arauka or rauka swift. These = Gn. raug[<<râg]) Gn. grôg." Beyond any doubts, there is no link between raug/arog (q. arauka) and rôg/grôg/graug (q. arauke).

Silmarillion appendix is made by Christopher, no? So I look it askance. Where is the term 'rog' as 'demon' attested in J.R.R. Tolkien work?
Moreover quenya 'ō' and 'au' are not connected etymologically, so Rōka and Rauk(i) are not connected.

aravanessë