Misc. Questions

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Originally Posted by Legolas

No one.

That's impossible. It specifically says that when Sauron chanted the incantations (i.e. One Ring to rule them all...), the Elves (who were these "elves") became aware of him & took their rings off. Surely that would imply that somebody held the Three before Gil-Galad & Galadriel. Galadriel was in Lorinand & Gil-Galad was in Lindon.

[Joy]

Celebrimbor made the 3 rings and gave them to Gil-galad, Cirdan, and to Galadriel.

At the time that Sauron had made his ring, even though they were apart, they could sense the power of his and took theirs off. They also had means of Osanwe Kenta. They could have spoken this way.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Originally Posted by Joy

Celebrimbor made the 3 rings and gave them to Gil-galad, Cirdan, and to Galadriel.

At the time that Sauron had made his ring, even though they were apart, they could sense the power of his and took theirs off. They also had means of Osanwe Kenta. They could have spoken this way.

No no. Clebrimbor along with the smithies(under the influence of Sauron) revolted against the rulership of Celeborn & Galadriel resulting to Galadriel's departure for Lorinand. At this time Celebrimbor began secretly making the Three & Sauron went to Mordor to fulfill his scheme. By the time Sauron finished the One & began saying the deplorable rhyme, it was implied that the Elves became aware of them & so Celebrimbor went to Lorinand (after finding out Sauron's deception) to take counsel with Galadriel & it was at this time that she recieved Nenya. That would mean there were other three bearers of Three who "sensed" Sauron's deception.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Well, there are roughly 103 years of which we have no account. The three were made in S.A. c.1590; Celebrimbor discovered Sauron's plot in S.A. c.1600, and the Three were hidden in S.A. 1693, so I can see how this question arises. Legolas and Joy have given you the best answer that the books can supply, though. I can't claim to have made an exhaustive study, but I'm fairly sure that never in any of the writings available to us does Tolkien mention by name any keepers of the Three before Gil-galad, Círdan and Galadriel. This includes the published letters, the early drafts of LotR and all post-LotR versions of the Silmarillion. What Tolkien does say, however, is that:

Throughout the Third Age the guardianship of the Three Rings was known only to those who possessed them. But in the end it became known that they had been held at first by the three greatest of the Eldar: Gil-galad, Galdriel and Círdan.

[The Return of the King, Appendix B, p.365 (first edition). My italics]

As for the discovery of the plot, the Tale of Years has this to say:

c.1600 Sauron forges the One Ring in Orodruin. He completes the Barad-dûr. Celebrimbor perceives the designs of Sauron.

[Ibid, p.364. My italics]

Those are the facts as matters stand. My guess is that Tolkien means what he says and that the Three were given first to the named parties. Note that no mention is made of when this first giving took place: it could easily have been when the Rings were hidden, which would only mean that Celebrimbor held the Three in his charge for just over a century. Nor is there any particular reason why at first the rings should have been given to different people rather than being stored in a treasury: they were separated in order to make it more difficult for Sauron to acquire them. Since Celebrimbor was the ruler of Eregion, the smiths thereof being subject to him as such, it does not seem altogether unlikely that he should have been the Rings' original keeper. This would explain why in the Tale of Years it is he who is specifically mentioned as the uncoverer of the plot. Also it seems unlikely that he would entrust the Three to anyone but the named keepers once Sauron's plan became known to him, so the questionable period is only ten years: a short enough time for an Elf. If there were any anonymous early keepers then there is no record of them. In history, that is as close as one can get to being nobody.

[Thinlómien]

Well this is a stupid question, but did Maedhros have red hair? Is it mentioned anywhere? I've always imagined him with dark hair, but every single piece of artwork about him shows him with red hair. So do these artists know more than I do, or do they just have a different picture about his haircolor?

[Joy]

Maedhros was nicknamed "Russandol," or "copper top" by his mother Nerdanel.

[Joy]

Speaking of red-heads, it seems that the twins Amrod and Amras were red-headed also.

Amras's mother name was Ambarussa - which means "russet-top" Amrod's mother name was Ambarto.

According to The History of Middle Earth, Vol. XII, The Peoples of Middle Earth, the twins may even have been identical. Below is an extended quotation which reveals Tolkien’s explanation for their names, which were originally Ambarto (which was then changed again to Umbarto and back again) and Ambarussa.


"These two names of [the] twins (i-Wenyn) were evidently meant to begin similarly. Ambarussa ‘top-russet’ must have referred to hair: the first and last of Nerdanel’s children had the reddish hair of her kin. Around the name Ambarto [> Umbarto] - which one might expect to begin with an element of the same sense at (Ambarussa) - much legend and discussion gathered. The most authentic seems to be thus:

The two twins were both red-haired. Nerdanel gave them both the name Ambarussa - for they were much alike and remained so while they lived. When Fëanor begged that their names should at least be different Nerdanel looked strange, and after a while said: ‘Then let one be called [Ambarto >] Umbarto, but which, time will decide.’

[HerenIstarion]

Older thread: Redheads of Middle Earth

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Another Question:

How did the One Ring reach all the way back to the Gladden Fields?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Come on: this isn't the quiz room. The Gladden Fields were where the massacre of Isildur and his men took place. The Ring simply slipped off his finger as he tried to swim the Anduin, then lay on the riverbed until Déagol found it. There's no mystery there whatsoever.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

Come on: this isn't the quiz room. The Gladden Fields were where the massacre of Isildur and his men took place. The Ring simply slipped off his finger as he tried to swim the Anduin, then lay on the riverbed until Déagol found it. There's no mystery there whatsoever.

Why was he venturing in the Gladden Fields?

[Son of Númenor]

From Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age:

The Ruling Ring passed out of the knowledge even of the Wise in that age; yet it was not unmade. For Isildur would not surrender it to Elrond and Círdan who stood by. They counselled him to cast it into the fire of Orodruin nigh at hand, in which it had been forged, so that it should perish, and the power of Sauron be for ever diminished, and he should remain only as a shadow of malice in the wilderness. But Isildur refused this counsel, saying: ‘This I will have as were-gild for my father's death, and my brothers. Was it not I that dealt the Enemy his death-blow?' And the Ring that he held seemed to him exceedingly fair to look on; and he would not suffer it to be destroyed. Taking it therefore he returned at first to Minas Anor, and there planted the White Tree in memory of his brother Anárion. But soon he departed, and after he had given counsel to Meneldil, his brother's son, and had committed to him the realm of the south, he bore away the Ring, to be an heirloom of his house, and marched north from Gondor by the way that Elendil had come; and he forsook the South Kingdom, for he purposed to take up his father's realm in Eriador, far from the shadow of the Black Land.

But Isildur was overwhelmed by a host of Orcs that lay in wait in the Misty Mountains; and they descended upon him at unawares in his camp between the Greenwood and the Great River, nigh to Loeg Ningloron, the Gladden Fields, for he was heedless and set no guard, deeming that all his foes were overthrown. There well nigh all his people were slain, and among them were his three elder sons, Elendur, Aratan, and Ciryon; but his wife and his youngest son, Valandil, he had left in Imladris when he went to the war. Isildur himself escaped by means of the Ring, for when he wore it he was invisible to all eyes; but the Orcs hunted him by scent and slot, until he came to the River and plunged in. There the Ring betrayed him and avenged its maker, for it slipped from his finger as he swam, and it was lost in the water. Then the Orcs saw him as he laboured in the stream, and they shot him with many arrows, and that was his end. Only three of his people came ever back over the mountains after long wandering; and of these one was Ohtar his esquire, to whose keeping he had given the shards of the sword of Elendil.

(emphasis mine)

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

It is said that Galadriel's longing for the sea became so strong that she & Celeborn decided to dwell in Dol Amroth. This has been several years since the the One has been lost deep in the Anduin. It was only after the time when the first shadows of Mirkwood were felt, & at the awakening of the Balrog that she & Celeborn decided to dwell permanently in Lorinand. So my question is, has she been wielding the power of Nenya (like say in Dol Amroth) even before she came to Lorien? For it was said that Nenya increased this yearning & was the reason why she dwelt in Dol Amroth. And when did Elrond start using his ring?

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

- Does anybody know if Sauron with the ring became mightier to the point where his strength could rival a Vala, or did it just augment his power to the point of surpassing Eönwë?

- In the War of Wrath, did the Valar only send the Noldor & Vanyar? Did they not come themselves?

- What exactly is Ancalagon? I know he is a winged Dragon but was he a maia because it seemed like he was the most powerful out of Gothmog, Sauron, & Glaurung?

[Marky Lazer]

Were the Nazgul immortal?

[Marky Lazer]

Maybe it's interesting for anyone, but to provide you with the answer to my own question:

I can't think of any point where this is addressed directly, but I think it's possible to have a fairly good guess at the answer.

In Tolkien's universe, mortality is a special gift from Eru, and it's outside the power even of the Valar to remove that gift. If the Valar can't achieve this, then certainly it should be impossible for Sauron to make a mortal being into an immortal one. This ties in, I think, with Bilbo's comments about the long life granted him by the Ring - 'Why, I feel all thin, sort of stretched, if you know what I mean: like butter that has been scraped over too much bread.' (The Fellowship of the Ring I 1). In other words, his mortal lifespan has been unnaturally extended, but he's still a mortal being (as stated explicitly in Tolkien's letters).

I think the same effect must apply to the Nazgûl, too (and also Gollum, of course). The Rings of Power clearly granted a greatly extended lifespan to those under their power, but they seem to have remained essentially mortal.

I hope that's of some help.

Kind regards
Mark Fisher

[The 1,000 Reader]

To answer old questions, Sauron is not more powerful than a balrog. He may have been more evil, but that does not mean he was more powerful. He may have been great because he was evil, but a balrog would stomp him into the ground.

Besides, when was the last time you saw a balrog lose every fight it entered, with one of the losses being due to its own stupidity? That is proof enough.(No, Gothmog wasn't being stupid when he was killed if I recall correctly.)

Sauron may have beaten Huan if he didn't pull any stupid mistakes like he did in the Tale of Beren and Luthien.

The nazgul were not immortal, they just couldn't die. They were like people who could get tired but could never fall asleep in a sence. Immortality is not like that.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

To answer old questions, Sauron is not more powerful than a balrog. He may have been more evil, but that does not mean he was more powerful. He may have been great because he was evil, but a balrog would stomp him into the ground.

Back up your argument, please. I am curious as to why you this... The following is more conjecture than definite evidence:

Besides, when was the last time you saw a balrog lose every fight it entered, with one of the losses being due to its own stupidity? That is proof enough.(No, Gothmog wasn't being stupid when he was killed if I recall correctly.)

Sauron may have beaten Huan if he didn't pull any stupid mistakes like he did in the Tale of Beren and Luthien.[/QUOTE]

Furthermore, how do you square that with this, from the "Valaquenta":

But he was not alone. For of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, demons of terror.
Among those of his servants that have names the greatest was that spirit whom the Eldar called Sauron, or Gorthaur the Cruel. In his beginning he was of the Maiar of Aule, and he remained mighty in the lore of that people. In all the deeds of Melkor the Morgoth upon Arda, in his vast works and in the deceits of his cunning, Sauron had a part, and was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself. But in after years he rose like a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost of his malice, and walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the Void.

Overall, the passage could be used to support your thesis that Sauron was merely "more evil" than the Balrogs- but it appears to me to also be a clear statement as to the greater power of Sauron.

Furthermore, Sauron is called the "Lieutenant of Melkor"- and had the command of Angband before the breaking of Utumno.

Again, I'd like to hear some evidence for your rather loud statement there...

[Thinlómien]

I'm along the same lines with Formendacil. Gandalf won a balrog, but said he didn't have enough power to challenge Sauron. (Well that was partly because Sauron had such armies and the nazgûl and such...) But anyway I think it's made quite clear that Sauron is more powerful than balrogs. Elves and dwarves slayed many balrogs in the First Age, but I can't imagine an elf or an dwarf warrior defeating Sauron. (About that Luthien+Huan incident it is proved that Sauron made a mistake and so on.)

[Bergil]

The Balrog DID work for Sauron. Sauron offered to give the dwarves back Moria, so the balrog would leave if he was told. Granted, it could have been a bluff, but if Gandalf feared that Smaug would follow Sauron and reacted, but didn't set uot to do something about the balrog, it implies that the balrog was weaker then Smaug. I hope this helps.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Bergil

The Balrog DID work for Sauron. Sauron offered to give the dwarves back Moria, so the balrog would leave if he was told. Granted, it could have been a bluff, but if Gandalf feared that Smaug would follow Sauron and reacted, but didn't set uot to do something about the balrog, it implies that the balrog was weaker then Smaug. I hope this helps.

A nice idea, but I think you may be putting your own slant on things...

The fact that Sauron offered to give back Moria is not at all conclusive. As you meantion, it might well be a bluff- and that's what I would call it. Sauron would not want the Dwarves to recolonise Moria in any case, because it would mean a weakening of his control.

Furthermore, I highly doubt that any Balrog would be weaker than Smaug. Maybe less well-armoured, but a Balrog is much more ancient, much more terrifying. Look at the Elves of Mirkwood- they avoid Smaug, but they remain in the neighbourhood, trade with the Lakemen, and live their lives as usual. Although dragons are dangerous, and not to be taken lightly, as the tale of Scatha proves- and for that matter, Smaug's own death and that of Glaurung- they are still vulnerable to mortal attack.

Balrogs, on the other hand, simply evoke terror. Legolas, in Moria, goes so far as to loose his weapons and shout in terror. Celeborn, on hearing what Durin's Bane was, is ready to throw the Fellowship out just on that score. Furthermore, the killing of Balrogs seems to be out of a mortal's league. Setting aside the early version of the Fall of Gondolin, where Tuor chops them down like saplings, it always seems to take an Elf with the Light of Valinor in his blood or an Istari to take down a Balrog.

Which is, I would say, another piece of evidence for a Balrog's greater power. Gandalf wasn't able to unveil his Maiarin power against Smaug, but had to resort to Thorin and Co with Bilbo, whereas he seems to have gone "uncloaked" to take down the Balrog once they fell off the bridge. In the case of Gandalf the White, anyway, his power seems most unveiled when fighting his strongest opponents, namely the Nazgul.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Back up your argument, please. I am curious as to why you this... The following is more conjecture than definite evidence:

Besides, when was the last time you saw a balrog lose every fight it entered, with one of the losses being due to its own stupidity? That is proof enough.(No, Gothmog wasn't being stupid when he was killed if I recall correctly.)

Sauron may have beaten Huan if he didn't pull any stupid mistakes like he did in the Tale of Beren and Luthien.

Furthermore, how do you square that with this, from the "Valaquenta":



Overall, the passage could be used to support your thesis that Sauron was merely "more evil" than the Balrogs- but it appears to me to also be a clear statement as to the greater power of Sauron.

Furthermore, Sauron is called the "Lieutenant of Melkor"- and had the command of Angband before the breaking of Utumno.Again, I'd like to hear some evidence for your rather loud statement there...[/QUOTE]



The reason I believe a balrog would defeat Sauron is that Sauron, for all his names and titles, never won a single fight he entered. No offense to any Sauron fans out there, but after his screw-up in the Tale of Beren and Luthien, I doubt he was as great a captain or being everyone made him out to be. If anything, that event proved that he was incompetent and inexperienced. Morgoth also had no other dominating servants. He needed his balrogs on the battlefield, so he had no other choice. I doubt Morgoth would make an orc the leader of Angband.

Sauron was mighty in lore, not combat. Lieutenant is not the highest rank military wise. Also, if I am not mistaken, one reason Gandalf defeated the balrog was because it fell into the water, thus weakening it. Like someone said before, a reason Gandalf would not fight Sauron is the armies of Mordor and the nazgul. Gandalf may be a maia, but he isn't Superman.

A balrog is a great and powerful creature. Balrogs are warriors. Balrogs kill everything they see. If Sauron fought, say, Merry, he would laugh and make the fight linger, toying with Merry. If a balrog fought Pippin, for example, the balrog would just stomp him into the ground or slice him with its sword in one second. Who would you want to fight? A guy with many titles and an ego, or a giant, powerful creature that would kill you in a heartbeat?

This is just my opinion, and I am sorry if it offends you. If this topic should be continued, it should have its own thread, so that we don't end up ruining this thread.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

The reason I believe a balrog would defeat Sauron is that Sauron, for all his names and titles, never won a single fight he entered. No offense to any Sauron fans out there, but after his screw-up in the Tale of Beren and Luthien, I doubt he was as great a captain or being everyone made him out to be. If anything, that event proved that he was incompetent and inexperienced. Morgoth also had no other dominating servants. He needed his balrogs on the battlefield, so he had no other choice. I doubt Morgoth would make an orc the leader of Angband.

Sauron was mighty in lore, not combat. Lieutenant is not the highest rank military wise. Also, if I am not mistaken, one reason Gandalf defeated the balrog was because it fell into the water, thus weakening it. Like someone said before, a reason Gandalf would not fight Sauron is the armies of Mordor and the nazgul. Gandalf may be a maia, but he isn't Superman.

A balrog is a great and powerful creature. Balrogs are warriors. Balrogs kill everything they see. If Sauron fought, say, Merry, he would laugh and make the fight linger, toying with Merry. If a balrog fought Pippin, for example, the balrog would just stomp him into the ground or slice him with its sword in one second. Who would you want to fight? A guy with many titles and an ego, or a giant, powerful creature that would kill you in a heartbeat?

This is just my opinion, and I am sorry if it offends you. If this topic should be continued, it should have its own thread, so that we don't end up ruining this thread.

Ah, no offence, just disagreement.

You say that Balrogs are great and powerful creatures. I say that Sauron could have been if he wanted. He retained the power to change his form until the Fall of Numenor- whereas the Balrogs were bound in their shadow and flame.

What's to say that Sauron couldn't have made himself that way?

You say that Sauron never won a fight. True, but you'll notice that he GROWS in his knowledge about how to fight and who to fight. Sauron is a born survivor. It took Three Ages to kill him. If a Balrog loses a fight, the Balrog is done for.

You say that Sauron is smart, not strong. I say that smarts is strength.

I will admit that Sauron is less of a natural warrior than a Balrog- but I do not for one minute think that in a one-on-one fight that the Balrog would win, especially at the height of his power in the late Second Age. Sauron's ability to change form could have endowed him with something easily Balrog-equivalent (and Gandalf was able to fight the Balrog in Old Man form). Furthermore, Sauron's greater smarts would likely win through.

As my final argument, I present Sauron's death.

Yes, that's right, his death- the "death" at the hands of Gil-galad and Elendil.

"But... but... you say," Sauron was DEFEATED by them- what proof is that?"

I'll tell you what proof.

Morgoth's power was greater than any of his servants'- that is why, even after his power had been dispersed throughout the entire matter of Arda that he was still more powerful than pretty much any challenger (although, as the Host of the West showed, not quite). After his casting into the void, and the total separation from the power dispersed in Arda, he remained a complete person. Sauron, similarly, had a spirit great enough that even with the destruction of the Ring, containing the greater portion of his power, he remained "as an impotent spirit", so to speak.

There is never any similar connection made for a Balrog. Kill them and they're gone- just like those other, less-than-Sauron Maiar, the Istari.

[Gothmog]

I think it's wrong to decide how powerful a being is by stuying the battles he/she/it might have won. Just look at the fight between Fingolfin and Morgoth. Fingolfin challenged Morgoth and scared him. Morgoth didn't want to leave his safe halls of Angband, but was forced to. Then the battle began and Fingolfin attacked Morgoth time after time. Seven wounds he inflicted and Morgoth cried out every time. Then, being a bit tired, Fingolfin stumbled and was then crushed. But what if he hadn't stumbled? Does the fact that Fingolfin was equal to a Vala, the greatest of them, in battle imply that he was the equally powerful as Melkor? I think not.

So even if the outcome of a fight between for example Sauron and a Balrog could be predicted, that tells us nothing of how powerful either creature is. That depends on the meaning we put into the word "powerful".

If you want my opinion, I'd say Balrogs is greater in might, on the battlefield. They're one of the most terrifying creatures of Morgoth. But Sauron is more powerful in other ways. A Balrog is not fit to command armies, nor would thay have the power to snare men in nets of treachery or make powerful items like the One. Also, I think of Sauron as a great master of witchcraft. So to decide who's most powerful or mighty, we must decide what characteristics we're looking for.

[Marky Lazer]

Is the staff of Gandalf magical or not? Or is it a normal wooden staff, and comes the magic from the wizard himself?

[Gurthang]

That's an excellant question, Marky Lazer. Personally, I believe that Gandalf's staff, as well as the staves of the other wizards, were basically a tool. In the hands of the right person, it can be deadly, but with no skill to use it, it is useless. A wizard without a staff is not necessarily less powerful, but it is more difficult to transfer his power to reality(which would be called 'magic').

The staff is also a symbol, used to denote power and rank. The breaking of the staff is a way of saying someone has lost their rank or standing.

If you want to know more, try these:

Magic in Middle-Earth
Gandalf's Staff

Look especially at Essex's post (#27) in Gandalf's Staff. It's got a lot of good info.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Gurthang hit the nail right on the head. Good job. Losing rank is not always bad. Gandalf's staff broke before he fought the balrog and that was because he was unleashing his power.

Gothmog, saying Sauron was more of a witchcraft person is fairly accurate. The problem was that his ego made him think that he was a warrior as well. Combat wasn't his strong point and his ego would most likely prevent him from making himself a greater form, such as a troll or a creature akin to a balrog. Like you also said, it is hard to judge a character's skill or greatness by a fight. I'll share my comments on these things when a thread is made for them. Until then, let the questions continue.

[Marky Lazer]

Who awoke Durin's Bane?

Where it Durin's mithril diggers?
Or was it Sauron?

In Appendix A III (Durin's Folk) of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien hints that the Dwarves may in fact not have awoken the Balrog, but that instead it was the growing power of Sauron in nearby Dol Guldur that returned it to life. If this is true, then the Dwarves did no more than release the creature from its subterranean tomb. It is certainly notable that Durin's Bane appeared in the same year that the Nazgûl returned to Mordor.

"Moria! Moria! Wonder of the Northern world! Too deep we delved there, and woke the nameless fear."
Words of Glóin from
The Lord of the Rings 2 II The Council of Elrond

[The 1,000 Reader]

Possibly both of the two. The balrog may have even been awoken by the Witch-King while he was fleeing Angmar, but this is a topic for another day.

[Eonwe]

ok here's a question that has always bothered me. in the world of middle-earth, "magic" and "sorcery" are words the Hobbits uses to describe innate abilities that they don't understand, right.

Ok if that is true, what about the Mouth of Sauron. I believe it says that he is "much learned in sorcery", or something along those lines. how can you learn innate ablilites?

[Rimbaud]

...how can you learn innate ablilites?

Rimfucious he say: the nesting chick has the innate ability to fly - it still needs to learn how.

[Gothmog]

A quick question about language then. I tried searching the internet but came up with nothing so now I'm turning to you people. This quote is from a post by Neithan on the thread uh.. wots a maiar ???/ ( post #14):

Also, I always thought that the term Umaia referred to only those Maiar who turned evil (Sauron, Balrogs), but that may just be because it reminds me of the Quenya word Umea "evil", so that might not have any truth to it.

My question to you is, does Umea mean evil? I haven't found that translation anywhere.

It would be rather funny as I live in a town called Umeå right now and with english spelling that becomes...Well, you see my point.

Even if this turns out wrong, can somebody recommend a good elvish-english english-elvish translator? Thank you!

P.S. I don't know if questions regarding language belong here, but to me it's a misc. question...Forgive me if there's some other, better suited thread for this kind of linguistic matters.

/That villanious, very crazy Balrog (or was it Balrog lover?)

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

A quick question about language then. I tried searching the internet but came up with nothing so now I'm turning to you people. This quote is from a post by Neithan on the thread uh.. wots a maiar ???/ ( post #14):
My question to you is, does Umea mean evil? I haven't found that translation anywhere.

It would be rather funny as I live in a town called Umeå right now and with english spelling that becomes...Well, you see my point.

Even if this turns out wrong, can somebody recommend a good elvish-english english-elvish translator? Thank you!

P.S. I don't know if questions regarding language belong here, but to me it's a misc. question...Forgive me if there's some other, better suited thread for this kind of linguistic matters.

/That villanious, very crazy Balrog (or was it Balrog lover?)

Actually... I have no idea where Neithan was getting that information from. Could be a typo, could be something I don't know and/or have forgotten, of course, but I've never heard of the word "umea" before, in connection with Quenya, or with Middle-Earth at all.

[Aiwendil]

The Quettaparma Quenyanna gives "umea" as "evil". But I have checked the two sources it gives (HoMe IX and XI) and cannot find the word.

[Maerbenn]

“[Q] úmea evil” can be found under the entry for ugu- and UMU- in ‘The Etymologies’ published in HoMe V: The Lost Road and Other Writings.

[Gothmog]

Thank you very much people! I'm now (almost) sure I live in "EVIL". Feels good...

[bilbo_baggins]

Does anyone know if Gimli was the only dwarf to go to the Undying lands? And would the Hobbits and Gimli die even after they live there? How could the Vala change the gift of mortality? And does Sam go to Valinor later?

[Gurthang]

Well, I can answer one of your questions. If you look towards the very end of Appendix B you'll find.

Originally Posted by Return of the King: Appendix B

1482 Death of Mistress Rose, wife of Master Samwise, on Mid-year's Day. On Sptemeber 22 Master Samwise rides out from Bag End. He comes to the Tower Hills, and is last seen by Elanor, to whom he gives the Red Book afterwards kept by the Fairbairns. Among them the tradition is handed down from Elanor that Samwise passed the Towers, and went to the Grey Havens, and passed over the Sea, last of the Ring-bearers.

Shortly after that is where it says that Legolas took Gimli with him to Valinor. I'd guess that there were no other dwarves there, but I don't have any text that could back that up.

[Gothmog]

To answer your question about mortals dying or not in the Undying lands I provide this quote:

As for Frodo or other mortals, they could only dwell in Aman for a limited time - whether brief or long. The Valar had neither the power nor the right to confer 'immortality' upon them. Their sojourn was a 'purgatory', but one of peace and healing and they would eventually pass away (die at their own desire and of free will) to destinations of which the Elves knew nothing.- The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 325

There's already a few threads concerning this, this one for example.

And Gimli probably was the only dwarf to go to the undying lands, even if it's hard to prove it. I don't think it says so literally, but I've never come across any record of some other dwarf doing the journey. It would be a quite famous dwarf if that would be the case and we should have heard of it.

Hope that's enough information!

Could the watchers that sam saw may have been the two blue wizards