Davem wrote:
Quote:
|
The Balrogs were 'born' on the battlefields of WW1 & I can't help feeling that however much Tolkien's thoughts about them & their nature may have developed over the course of his life, what they meant & their appearance would have changed little in essence.
|
I think you are right. Still, unless one accepts something like HerenIstarion's theory that there were in fact two quite distinct types of creature referred to as Balrogs/balrogs, there is
some major change in Tolkien's conception of them represented by his correction, in the Annals of Aman, of a reference to a "host" of Balrogs, with the note that there were only "3 or at most 7".
Anyone who's really interested in that issue might want to look at
this discussion in the New Silmarillion project.
HerenIstarion wrote:
Quote:
|
+ rauko and arauko (< *grauk-) 'a powerful, hostile, and terrible creature' is both powerful and terrible/hostile
|
Yes, but if "Balrog" is the cognate of "Valarauko" then the "Bal" comes not from NGWAL- but from BAL-.