[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Keep trying!

In light of this exchange, might I suggest that it may possibly be appropriate to reconsider this word staffs which has been used several times on this thread.

Yes, most internet dictionaries do allow staffs as well as staves for the plural of staff, when meaning a walking stick or rod or wand signifying authority. [Reference: Dictionary.com ; Meriam-Webster online dictionary ]Yet they do not reject staves. Consider the suitability of staves!

We are discussing JRR Tolkien, an English author whose work is so very much predicated upon language, and older forms of language in particular. His world of Middle-earth is--well, one might as well say, Sic transit gloria mundi, although we do attempt to relive it every day. In Tolkien's work, old and archaic forms come alive again.

Would it not seem preferable then to recognise and respect the good Professor's delight in the particular and precise use of language by using a word which comes closest to this sense of language?

The OED, the dictionary upon which Tolkien himself worked--not without some interesting results--has this to say about staves:

Originally Posted by OED, staves

The plural form staves is now somewhat archaic, exc. in certain senses in which a sing. form STAVE has been developed from it; but it is still preferred in those senses that are confined to literary use.

Of course it comes down to a matter of preference, but it seems to me that wizards just seem to merit staves rather than staffs.