Ëa would fit that description very well. Of course, one can always go fishing for definitions at http://www.dictionary.com/.

: : I have looked for evidence of an "alternate reality" and
: : found none. I have looked for evidence that there is a
: : separate "spirit world" and found none. I have, however,
: : found a great deal of evidence that the spirits remain in
: : Middle-earth and participate in it -- or, more precisely,
: : they remain in Ëa and participate in it. They lack bodies. It
: : is roughly equivalent to removing the software from a
: : computer and having the electrical energy continue to perform
: : the software as if the computer were still there.
:
: You do not need to look elsewhere - it is my point that this is
: implied by the passages in Many Meetings - and that these
: conflict with Tolkien's other writings. Unless you give
: Gandalf's utterances their most limited meaning. Given the
: dictionary definitions of the word "World" - which being taken
: from a small pocket dictionary will therefore be the prime
: meanings in the English language - I cannot see how you
: can claim you are not reducing the meaning in your argument.

First of all, we are not agreed that Gandalf's comments have the implications you say they do. Those implications, if they were there, would be borne out by Tolkien's other material concerning wraiths in Middle-earth. Instead, they conflict with that other material, so they are inferences and not implications at all.

Secondly, see my point about Ëa above with respect to the dictionary definition you provided. Unless one gives "world" its most limited meaning, even by that definition everything I have said fits with what Tolkien and the dictionary have to say.

: : : : The robes they wore gave them shape -- hence, they were
: : : : "solidified" by whatever "magic" went into the robing or
: : : : the robes themselves. There is no difficulty in this.
: : :
: : : However, there is no direct evidence that the robes were
: : : magical. Instinctively I would doubt that a robe would
: : : enable the unseen thigh to grip a horse or the unseen hand
: : : to grasp an all too real knife (the hilt anyway). The robes
: : : would not at all times cover the hands of the wraiths - but
: : : they seem to have had hands with the capability of holding
: : : real objects. Further Merry broke the spell which gave
: : : Morgul effectiveness in the real world by stabbing him not
: : : stripping him.
:
: : We see their hands are covered by "daylight" and are
: : uncovered when Frodo wheres the Ring or when he has so nearly
: : faded he can see them at the Ford of Bruinen. And yet Merry's
: : stroke does break a spell. Tolkien doesn't say where the
: : spell comes from or when it was cast, does he? Nor how
: : the spell was implemented. It does not follow that Merry's
: : stroke implies something contradictory to what Gandalf tells
: : Frodo in "Many Meetings" concerning the robes.
:
: I am working purely from memory here but does not Gandalf (or
: possibly Aragorn) tell Frodo that the robes like the horses
: are real [with the implication that they are ordinary] with no
: significant mention of magical status given them. The only
: reference to what allowed the Nazgul a measure of corporeality
: is the "Sinew knitting" spell which Merry broke by the entry of
: the Dunadain dagger into the unseen flesh of Morgul. I can
: imagine the spell being laid on this flesh but not on a
: garment. Also the robes were recovered by the elves but there
: is no mention of them being handled warily or with aversion as
: Aragorn and Glorfindel handled the ensorcelled morgul knife.

What Gandalf says in "Many Meetings" is (and I hope I format this properly -- there should be indentations and line breaks):

  "I know,' said Frodo. 'They were terrible to behold!  But
  why could we all see their horses?'
  "'Because they are real horses; just as the black robes are
  real robes that they wear to give shape to their nothingness
  when they have dealings with the living.'"

In "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields" Tolkien wrote:

  "So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse.
  But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it
  slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were
  young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of
  Angmar and its sorceror king.  No other blade, not though
  mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a
  wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell
  that knit his unseen sinews to his will."

I don't see where there is a contradiction here.

: : : My feeling would be that it was the ducking the Nazgul
: : : suffered which led to their loss of effectiveness. It would
: : : seem more logical to me that immersion in water might lead
: : : to a temporary weakening of the "Sinew-knitting" spell that
: : : Merry broke with his dagger thrust, than that the loss of a
: : : robe would have the same effect. This would also account
: : : for the Nazgul's fear of water. Of course from my point of
: : : view, if the Nazgul existed in a dry and dismal half-world,
: : : logically they might fear the effects of contact with fire
: : : and water - the physical world's most active elements :)
: :
: : This is completely contradictory to what Tolkien tells us,
: : however, and I see no reason to doubt the author's rules for
: : his world or to reject them out of hand.
:
: Not contradictory - additional. The loss of clothing to render
: them visible would also debilitate the Nazgul.

On the one hand you say it is the immersion in water which weakened them, and yet now you say it is the loss of clothing which would "also debilitate the Nazgul". The knit-sinew spell (for lack of a better referent) is not broken at the Ford of Bruinen. The Lord of the Nazgul is still able to function in Middle-earth afterward. He is rendered harmless by Merry and Eowyn's strokes, however, when the spell is broken by Merry's sword. He is no longer able to function in Middle-earth. The last we "see" of him is when his shadow passes overhead as Sam and Frodo journey through Mordor.

[snip]

: : : No but it illustrates that Tolkien was not always
: : : consistent or logical in his writing.
: : :
: : I don't see it as that illogical. Do you not fear fire? If a
: : house is on fire, would you not fear running into it? And
: : yet, you are willing to pick up a flaming torch and use it to
: : find your way through the dark, are you not? The Lord of the
: : Nazgul at least had control over his flaming blade. He need
: : not fear it would be used against him, need he? Not
: : reasonably.
:
: I would not fear a person waving a torch around if I was armed
: with a sword, as the Nazgul were at Weathertop. This tends to
: show that the Nazgul had a particular aversion to this element.

What sort of sword was he armed with at Weathertop? We know he had a Morgul-knife in one hand, but he dropped that. No one but Frodo saw the swords the Nazgul bore -- were they nothing more than "wraith-swords", shadows of memories of weapons such as the Dead Men of Dunharrow bore?

Nonetheless, even the greatest swordsman can be burned by fire, and would not foolishly disregard it if such were wielded against him simply because he possessed a sword.

------------------
The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Web