@Kirinki, I agree, it is entirely fair to say someone is wrong if it is thought they have no substance. The issue that arises, where it becomes less fair, is when an opinion lacking backing is denied with another opinion lacking backing. Any number of people can walk into a room and have an opinion. It's when one enters the room, bellows out their own opinion, and then starts claiming other occupants' opinions are wrong that a higher standard must be met. Yes, your opinion lacked quotes from the source to bolster it, but it did have a hint, and I did have a suspicion of the source (and an interest if I guessed wrong and you ever find it: what changes people's minds on Balrogs is somewhat of an interest of mine). If that's nothing, then certainly what was used to argue that you were wrong, and what three people (myself included) were quick to push against as not suitable for that, was also of no real substance. And while lore on the Plaza is less rigorous than it may once have been, there is a big difference between people sharing opinions that they haven't or don't care to develop fully and people repeating their own same as a way to counter others'. When we move from opinions to arguments, or when we use opinions as arguments, that's when substance really needs to appear.
Here it did not. The thing about the German passage is that, unless Google Translate is incredibly off-base, there's no functional difference between the German translation and the original English for the matter at hand. Google Translate renders the German back as this:
The Balrog's fire seemed to die out, but the shadows around him now grew even more. It slowly took a step forward, spreading its wings from one side of the room to the other.
which does not handle the 'wings' any differently than we see quoted very early in this thread by Mojo:
The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall;
The main distinction seems to be how that the German translation alters the sentence structure. It looks like the last part of the sentence, after the semicolon, was removed to a new sentence entirely. Something may have happened to the preceding sentence, as Tolkien uses 'it' here because he used 'Balrog' in the five-word sentence directly before this snippet (or maybe German or the translator does not care as much as Tolkien about immediate reuse of proper nouns). I don't know where the height clause went in the translation. But none of that alters the way 'wings' is used in the sentence itself. And the rest, while interesting from a translation perspective, is irrelevant to this topic.
This is nothing more than the oft-expressed difference of interpretation over whether that second use of 'wings' is figurative (as the first certainly is) or literal. Again, see Mojo's comment near the top of this thread, and add geordie's immediate disagreement. That's just the basic disagreement that makes this question a question. All arguments about Balrog wings exist to expand from and illuminate the use of that specific word. Without that word in that sentence, this question does not exist. Unless there is some unique nature to the German word itself that somehow bars it, unlike the English 'wings', from being used metaphorically, this is just that literal take we've all seen, needlessly filtered through a translation. Which I find unfortunate, because diving into a language most people here do not speak and with no apparent benefit only serves to
mystify the information. For a correction, or for any attempt to provide understanding, taking steps to make it less approachable is entirely counter-productive. The very point of an explanation should be to explain.
Again, it's possible that there is something inherent to the specific choice of the German word that bars it from being used in the same manner as the English equivalent, but if so, that would be crucial to inform people about. And I have specifically asked, and been given no response. Instead, it is just hammered into us that 'Schwingen' (a 'wings' cognate?) means 'wings', as if that's sufficient. Which implies that there is no greater analysis, that the argument being made is nothing beyond the inability to consider anything other than a literal reading of the word. That doesn't require the German. That argument can be made in original English, because that, too, has the word 'wings'. Again, as the most basic pro-wings argument, it's the most common pro-wings argument made. It's not new information. It's not unique to the translation. Going through German only makes it harder to follow, harder to recognize that it's the same elementary argument seen earlier in this thread and in literally every other thread about Balrogs ever made. I'm honestly struggling to see why it would be presented in this way by anyone saying they compared the quote in the languages. Because looking to the German translation adds nothing. All it does is reduce the ability of non-speakers to engage.
My only real guess here, and even this is a late-coming shotin the dark, because there's been more cheek than explanation, is that the wrong quote is being compared, and that instead of comparing the
second English use of 'wings' with the presumed
second German use, the
first English use, the simile, is being compared with the
second German use. This would explain the confusion around what Eldy originally thought Legolas was trying to highlight. Because to Eldy, who has a firm grasp on the material, 'dragon-like' would be a real difference they would see between the second quote and what Legolas originally said. Whereas the intentioned difference of 'actually spreads its wings' would be the mistake of someone wrongly comparing the first quote in one language to the second quote in another, and missing, because translations are not exact, that they are completely different quotes. Otherwise no real difference exists, and it's a hyper-literal fixation.