: The Hithlum passage is not that simple. The Balrogs arrived as a tempest of fire. It's the "tempest of fire" part of the passage that is the most crucial, but all the parts must be taken together. They cannot (at least, they have not yet) be replaced by equivalent phrases which mean anything other than flight occurred.
: But such a descriptor has not been used of invading forces alongside "swiftly they arose" and "passing with winged speed over ..."
: Failing to take the entire passage into consideration invalidates any attempt at analysis. All you're doing is taking phrases out of context.

Whether you take that particular passage as a whole or break down and examine the individual pieces, the fact remains that it can mean flightless balrogs. It's a good example of the ambiguity of the English language. Personaly, I believe it does refer to flying balrogs, but I would be loathe to use it in an argument as it can refer to something else.

We can get into a discussion of semantic probablities, but without the creator available to reveal his true vision, such a discussion would be useless.

: Nonetheless, they [tempests] are a part of the sky. The sky begins where the ground begins.

Huh?

: It would be just as invalid to say, "Well, Tolkien used 'tempest of fire' to speak of the flying dragons, so 'tempest of fire' can only refer to things in the sky". It refers to flying Balrogs because the rest of the sentence, taken together with "tempest of fire", makes it clear that they were in the sky.

In terms of syntax, that is partially correct. However, it can be viably argued that the syntax of the Hithlum passage is clouded by murky semantics. The only clear syntax of balrog description to be found is in the passages describing the incident at Durin's Bridge.

: Your other criticisms are fair. But if one side raises an issue, no matter how illogical, the other side should respond, or an impression is laid upon the audience of an invincible argument having been given.

I don't deny that people should debate issues they disagree with,
but it helps to eliminate arguments that cannot aid the progression of the debate.

: There isn't really anything to be gained from the study of Balrogs, except perhaps an insight into J.R.R. Tolkien's vision of dreadful evil.

I would argue that the study of balrogs; specifically Tolkien's use of them, could have a place in academia. But let's not go there :)