[obloquy]

No, the spirits of the Incarnates remain fëar even when unhoused because they are naturally incarnate, rather than naturally discarnate. The Children were created as incarnate beings whose fëa and hröa are bound to the point that the separation of the two results in 'death'. When an Incarnate dies, the being's 'fate' comes into play: for Elves it is to return to Aman; for Men it is mysterious; for incarnated ëalar it seems to be something like limbo--they kinda float around aimlessly and powerlessly. An ëala could probably be referred to as a fëa without crossing any lines, but a fëa could not be called an ëala.

At least, this is my take on it, based on the fact that Tolkien only uses the word ëalar to refer to spirits that we know were discarnate in their beginnings. This may be, of course, because the term is a new one in this emendation.

Why assume there was some other kind of being than the Ainur------what are the Ainur anyway?

We're not assuming that there were, we are saying that it is undeniable that there could have been. Ainur and ëalar are basically the same thing, except that the term ëalar potentially encompasses more. Ainur are all spirits who fall into either the Vala or Maia category, but ëalar are all spirits whose created nature is incorporeal.

All right, davem. You have succeeded in being a pest. I thought it was clear enough so I didn't go into it, but I will clarify just for you.

The portion I quoted is an emendation. This is the original text:

But the other Valar came seldom thither; and in the North Melkor built his strength, and gathered his demons about him. These were the first made of his creatures: their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named by the Noldor in later days.

I have put the portion that was obviously replaced in bold. The preceding sentence was retained, however, as it lends context to the "these" that begins the next sentence of the emendation. The final version, therefore, would read thus:

But the other Valar came seldom thither; and in the North Melkor built his strength, and gathered his demons about him. These were the (ëalar) spirits who first adhered to him in the days of his splendour, and became most like him in his corruption: their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named by the Noldor in later days.

So, these 'demons' spoke of in the first sentence that Melkor gathered around him were the 'spirits' whom he had first corrupted, who later became known as Balrogs. The sentence does not read "These were the ëalar, the spirits who first adhered to him..." The parenthetical ëalar is semantic: Tolkien is providing his term for the word 'spirits'. There is a footnote to the word ëalar which defines them as discarnate beings. The nature of Balrogs is never adjusted from fallen Maiar after these revisions, not even in Myths Transformed.

This may be a bit late, but...

Well, I admitted myself that there could just as well be three rankings as four. But it was a somewhat minor point...

I submit that there need only be two rankings: 1) Melkor, 2) Umaiar.