: Nope. Many have said that, none have been able to show it. It's not enough merely to say it means flightless Balrogs. If someone asks how you need to be able to show them.

I'm not saying that it merely means flightless balrogs. I'm saying that it CAN mean flightless balrogs due to the variability in the semantics. If a word or phrase can be taken to mean something else, no matter how far removed from the widely accepted or most popular form, then someone, somewhere, is bound to read it that way. Thus we get the non-wingers :)

Can you prove, without a doubt, that the words in the Hithlum passage cannot have the meanings that the non-wingers believe them to have? You haven't done so yet; your arguments, albeit based on well educated guesses, are still conjecture. Without the one man who could ever lay the issue to rest around to do so, you cannot prove that he did not intend balrogs to be wingless. In Tolkien's quotes, his letters, or accounts from people that knew him, did Tolkien ever state that balrogs have or do not have wings? I sure hope he did, and we just haven't discovered it yet :)

: There is nothing ambiguous about the sentence. It clealy puts the Balrogs in flight over Hithlum and nothing else.

Clear to you, but not to those who, for whatever reason, have processed it with the other meanings it CAN have. Such is a product of ambiguity.

: : : Nonetheless, they [tempests] are a part of the sky. The
: : : sky begins where the ground begins.
: : Huh?
: Sky. Tempests, storms, air -- the sky is the air above the world and space beyond.

Ahhh...so you meant that the sky begins where the earth ends. Well, if that's the case, then we're all in the sky anytime we step outside, even if our feet never leave the ground. Does that mean we're flying?

: Nope. Syntax deals with sentence structure. Semantics deals with the meaning of words. The syntax of the Hithlum passage is quite clear: "Swiftly they arose" (this is an independent clause) ", and" (this is a conjunction joining two independent clauses), they passed with winged speed over Hithlum" (this is another independent clause) ", and" (another conjunction) "they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire" (a third independent clause).

Good job at reading sentence structure; your professor would be mighty pleased indeed! :)

Now, to get back to my point. The syntax is sound (as you have clearly shown), but the syntax of this passage does not overrule the inherent variability of the semantics. Why? Because the syntax is good enough that it works for both meanings argued in the balrog debate. In such a case, one cannot say, without there being any doubt whatsover, what the author intended the passage to mean without the author explicity laying it out. Obviously, JRR Tolkien will never be able to clarify his meaning. Therefore, the meaning of the Hithlum passage cannot be used as definite proof in the wing vs no wings debate.

: The first clause indicates the Balrogs rose quickly. They might or might not have been flying, but the second clause indicates they passed over Hithlum swiftly and Hithlum was not a plain like Ard-Galen it was surrounded by mountains and had a chane of mountains passing through it, so "running through Hithlum" is simply pure nonsense, since they don't set it afire as they come to "Lammoth as a tempest of fire". Fire burns.

Where, in any of Tolkien's works, is there any statement describing a balrog's full capabilities to travel over land and the effects such passage may have? We're talking about what are, in effect, supernatural beings; meaining they have the ability to do things that are not natural.

A balrog passing overland does not necessarily mean it's going to set fire to everything it touches or passes by. As a matter of fact, when Gandalf and company first view the balrog of Moria it isn't blazing, it's wrapped in shadow (something that conceals the presence of fire very poorly). It kindles only after the flames of the fissure rush up and wrap about it.

: That's pretty much what I do. There is nothing wrong with the syntax of the Hithlum sentence, and it's by no means ambiguous in meaning.

Not the syntax, the semantics. ;)