Gandalf’s Possible Inaccuracy in the chapter “The Shadow of the Past”

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Didn't I argue that Thrór was able to pass on his Ring because he was a Dwarf and not a Man?

That works if you don’t take Gandalf’s words literally. Gandalf says:

It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to someone else’s care – and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing, and really done it. He needed all my help, too.

Replace “keeper” with “mortal keeper”. But then someone will point out that Dwarves are mortal too.

For me the problem is the mainly the phrase “alone in history” which suggests any kind of being.

Also I just argued that "Rings of Power" seems to be a vague term with no rigid definition, which seems to refer to different groupings of Rings from usage to usage. I wasn't trying to give a hard and fast answer and I don't think I can.

I would argue that “Rings of Power” refers to any of the “Great Rings” and therefore may be used when Sauronic rings alone are being discussed, something like the word colour which does not refer normally to any particular colour. But at the same time, if I say the sky was dark coloured today, I obviously don’t mean a dark red colour or a dark brown colour or even a dark green colour. I mean dark blue or cloudy.

But if I say “Ring of Power” with no context, I would be understood to mean any one of the 20 Great Rings, not only a Sauronic Great Ring. So when Gandalf says “A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo”, he should be understood to mean any of the Rings of Power, not specifically a Sauronic Great Ring.

I understood you were attempting to show that Ring of Power was possibly comparable to the word corn, which has different primary meanings in U.S. English and British English, that Gandalf might mean Sauronic Ring primarily by Ring of Power, at least on occasion. But my examination of the evidence does not bear this out. Possibly you might present evidence that I had not considered. Note I do not think it valid to interpret the crux passage as evidence. One could more legitimately interpret the crux passage as a slip of the tongue.

I am not challenging you or anyone to find a solution. I don’t believe there is one. You at least have made an attempt.