[davem]

It is of note that the author himself uses 'dinner' and 'supper' interchangeably (but not so 'lunch' and 'dinner' throughout this whole sequence), and if you believe that Hobbits wrote LOTR, then this would be a direct reminiscence of Frodo or Bilbo (considering Sam would never use the term 'lunch' *winks*); otherwise, this is Tolkien himself imparting his preferences from Oxford, where they do indeed have lunch.

Hobbits did not write LotR – even if you indulge in the Translator Conceit' then Hobbits wrote only the bulk of the Red Book, which Tolkien translated. Hence, the fact that Tolkien used the word 'lunch' tell us nothing about Hobbit usage of the term – which must be inferred. Bilbo calls the mid-day meal 'dinner' – as we've seen in Rivendell, & the most likely explanation for 'lunch' being used in that context is to avoid confusion for the general reader if 'dinner' was used twice in a list of meals.

And as far as neologisms, Bilbo uses a neologism in the Hobbit: the word 'confusticate', as the concoction of such pseudo-Latinate words were very popular in the 19th century.

Confusticate is clearly utilised in TH in order to please the prospective audience – children like strange words. Lunch is a different kettle of fissssh

After the 'feast' (a word Tolkien uses several times to define this supper) came the dreaded 'after-dinner speech'. The use of 'supper' as a 'feast' goes directly against your implication that 'supper' is a light meal just before bedtime. There is no second dinner in this application, supper (or dinner) is the meal after tea, and lunch is the mid-day meal. Again, 'dinner' and 'supper' are interchangeable.

I think I stated that supper was generally a light meal before bed.

I need a reference to where Tolkien states that the Hobbits are only 'based on rural English folk from the time of the Diamond Jubilee'. I emphasize the word 'only' and 'diamond jubilee' here because you are stepping into a quagmire if you believe that Tolkien ever took merely one point of view for any of his characters/races. You supply that quote, and I shall provide several more to the contrary.

Just as I need a quote where Tolkien stated that Sam is only based on WWI batmen Tolkien knew. Although I never actually stated they are only based on the people Tolkien had known as a child.

What you believe does not matter (in this instance anyway), sorry. I am reading from the text directly and there is no implication anywhere that there is a societal ban on the term 'lunch'. 'Lunch' is featured prominently in the books, and there is never an aspersion cast on the word. Dinner and lunch and dinner and supper are used interchangeably throughout the text, and you can be as indignant as you wish but that does not change the text.

Lunch is not 'featured prominently in the text' – it is used by three characters – once by Pippin, twice by Merry & once by Gimli – the other times it appears it is used by the narrator/translator- which may tell us a great deal about the narrator/translator but little about Hobbits. Now, you are free to read the book as you wish. You're free to believe that Tolkien wasn't indulging in social commentary when he used the word. You're free to believe that Hobbits have no connection with rural English folk at the end of the 19th century. You're free to believe what you want. Frankly, I'm not that bothered. Your use of Tolkien's reference to Sam as a WWI batman but your rejection of his statement that Hobbits are based on English rural folk seems a bit selective- if Sam as a batman suits your argument you will use it for support, if Hobbits as rural English folk works against your argument you reject it.

I can only repeat that you do not get the significance of the dinner/lunch thing, or how lunch/dinner are not interchangeable terms to an English person, & which one you habitually use says a very great deal about you. Tolkien was an Englishman & he would not have thought of the terms as interchangeable. However, if you want to ignore the significance you can. You will miss out on a great deal of very interesting social commentary in both TH & LotR if you do ignore such 'trivialities', but its not to everyone's taste. Its there, but you can ignore it. Anyone who is interested can check out Shippey's Author of the Century.

Honestly, I'm not sure this is actually getting anywhere anymore, as we're basically going around in circles. I shall therefore bow out of this digression gracefully