# Uruks vs. Uruk-hai



## Greenwood

A week or two back, in a long thread on the movie forum, there was considerable discussion over the use of the terms Uruk vs. Uruk-hai in LOTR. A number of us contended that the terms have different meanings, while others said they were interchangeable. A number of quotes from the book were given. Since them I have spent some time looking through LOTR to find any additional instances I could of the use of the two terms. Following are all the instances I could find, including those already found:

1) In the chapter The Uruk-hai in The Two Towers, Ugluk says: "We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here ..... " 

2) Later in the same chapter, Ugluk again speaking: "Leave them to me then! No killing, as I've told you before; but if you want to throw away what we've come all the way to get, throw it away! I'll look after it. Letting the fighting Uruk-hai do the work, as usual. ..... "

3) On the next page, Ugluk again: "You seem to know a lot. ... More than is good for you I guess. Perhaps those in Lugburz might wonder how, and why. But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as usual. ...."

4) This is not exactly a quote, but in The Two Towers, Tolkien titles his chapter "The Uruk-hai", he does not call it "The Uruks". 

5) In The Two Towers in the chapter Helm's Deep, as Aragorn looks out for the dawn there is the following passage: 

"The Orcs yelled and jeered. 'Come down! Come down!' they cried. 'If you wish to speak to us, come down! Bring out your king! We are the fighting Uruk-hai. We will fetch him from his hole, if he does not come down. Bring out your skulking king!'

" 'The king stays or comes at his own will,' said Aragorn.

" 'Then what are you doing here?' they answered. 'Why do you look out? Do you wish to see the greatness of our army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai.'

" 'I looked out to see the dawn,' said Aragorn.

" 'What of the dawn?' they jeered. 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. .... " 

6) In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Seige of Gondor there is the following sentence: "No hours so dark had Pippin known, not even in the clutches of the Uruk-hai."

7) In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Land of Shadow, Sam and Frodo overhear two orcs talking and one says: ".... First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together."

8) In The Fellowship of the Ring, in the chapter The Bridge of Khazad-dum, Gandalf says: "There are Orcs, very many of them .... And some are large and evil: black Uruks of Mordor. ...."

9) In The Two Towers, in the chapter The Choices of Master Samwise, Gorbag says: " .... I say something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks. ....."

10) In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Land of the Shadow, Sam and Frodo are overtaken on the road by troops of orcs and there is the following description of the troops: "Beside them, running up and down the line, went two of the large fierce _uruks_, cracking lashes and shouting." (Italics in original.)

11) In The Return of the King, in Appendix A it says: "In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475 they swept across Ithilien and took Osgiliath."

12) In The Return of the King, in Appendix F it says: "Related. no doubt, was the word _uruk_ of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'." (Italics in the original.) 

In examples 1 to 6, the term Uruk-hai is clearly referring to Saruman's orc troops. In examples 8 to 11, the term Uruks (sometimes spelled with a lower case "u") is clearly referring to Sauron's troops. We are left with examples 7 and 12. Example 7 is ambiguous since Sauron's orc could be referring to orcs in the employ of Saruman, who he might well consider rebels. Example 12 is the only case where Tolkien uses the two terms in close proximity and it seems to me to be ambiguous. The first sentence clearly refers makes uruk refer to Mordor orcs as in examples 8 to 11, but the second sentence use of Uruk-hai does not automatically make the two terms equivalent and I find it interesting that Tolkien captilizes Uruk-hai as if it is a specifc name, but does not do the same with uruk. Thus, it seems to me clear that uruk and Uruk-hai are used quite differently by Tolkien in LOTR with uruk referring to Sauron's large, soldier orcs and Uruk-hai referring to Saruman's large, soldier, daylight-tolerant orcs.

Cian and other forum members pointed out the Index entry (by Christopher Tolkien) in Unfinished Tales that says: "Uruks -- Anglicized form of Uruk-hai of the Black Speech." This entry specifcally refers to the account "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" in Unfinished Tales in which Tolkien repeatedly uses the term uruks when he is talking about Saruman's troops fighting with the troops of Rohan. This seems to be the only time where Tolkien uses the term uruk for Saruman's orc troops. However, this is a draft piece which Tolkien did not use in LOTR and hence can be assumed to not be in a final form.

Cian also posted many examples of third party "Tolkien scholars" repeating the definition of uruk as being an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai. I have come across references which claim that Uruk-hai is a plural form of Uruk, which clearly does not fit Tolkien's usage since he uses both uruk and uruks.

My question after all this is the following: Does anyone have any evidence from Tolkien, himself to support the interpretation that has been advanced by the various "Tolkien scholars". I have been able to find nothing in Tolkien's own hand to support the "scholar's" interpretation, with the exception of the account in Unfinished Tales, which is a unused draft and thus cannot be used against Tolkien's published words in LOTR.

I am not trying to reignite a controversy from the movie forum on the book forum. I have noticed that there are many knowledgeable members who never visit the movie forum and I thought perhaps someone might have additional knowledge to share.

I thank Aragil. Cian, Greymantle, ReadWryt, Thrakerzog and Wide Boy for originally finding some of the 12 passages cited above. (NOTE: I am not saying they were all on the same side of the question. They were not.) My apologies if I have left out any other member who also contributed to the thread in the movie forum.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow

I thought that the urak-hai was a development of normal orcs done by saruman from the orders of sauron that made them more versatile and bearable to sun. and that uruks were the massive orcs of mordor. In the 3 book lotr when sam and frodo are running in the orc host it says someting about the orcs running past ran staright through them and they were the big massive uruk orc from barad-dur. holla


----------



## Greenwood

> In the 3 book lotr when sam and frodo are running in the orc host it says someting about the orcs running past ran staright through them and they were the big massive uruk orc from barad-dur. holla



Beleg Strongbow

Thank you. You are right. On the next page from the passage I cite in 10) in my post it says: "A troop of heavy-armed _uruks_ from Barad-dur charged into the Durthang line and threw them into confusion." I guess I should number this as 13) so as not to chnage the numbering in my original post. That now means we have six instances (numbers 1 to 6) of Tolkien using Uruk-hai to refer to Saruman's orc troops and five instances (numbers 8 to 11 and 13) where Tolkien uses uruk to refer to Sauron's troops and two instances that are open to interpretatin. 

I hoped others would be able to find instances I had missed.


----------



## aragil

Not to put too much faith in second sources, but a number of them seem to think that the translation of 'hai' should be 'people'. Here's a web example, from the encyclopedia of Arda:
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/u/urukhai.html
My point is that 'people' in our world, and 'people' in Middle-Earth could have very different connotations. In our world, there is only one species that is regularly referred to as 'people'- humans. In Middle-Earth there are many species which could take the term people- dwarves, hobbits, elves, orcs and humans, to name a few. I wonder how the secondary sources come to the conclusion that 'people' could be applied to any race in that context. Why couldn't it just be a synonym for humans?
Another use of 'hai' is for Olog-hai, which are trolls which could withstand sunlight. I don't remember what their references were, but Iron Crown Enterprises, which used to publish the Middle Earth Role-Playing game (talk about your disreputable secondary sources) claimed that the Olog-hai were bred from crossing humans and trolls, thusly givning them their sun tolerance. If this were the case, then maybe Olog-hai meant 'troll-men' or 'troll-humans', rather than 'troll-people'.
The only other use of hai which I am aware of, was the derogatory handle which orcs gave to the Woses, 'Ogor-hai' (sp?). I don't see why this wouldn't also seem to indicate some sort of half-human term, as the Orcs probably had no idea what the Woses were.
Anyway, I think that another bit of quotation which gives this theory credence, comes from the mouth (pen) of Tolkien himself, while discussing Saruman in _Morgoths Ring_

"_... his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile_."
(thank you Cian). 

According to the theory, Men-orcs and Orc-men (the names Tolkien uses here) would be the translations from the black speech of Uruk-hai, which these particular orcs call themselves.
Why not?


----------



## Cian

Well, I don't think I've been on either side, but I do have a few comments to add 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> The first sentence clearly refers makes uruk refer to Mordor orcs as in examples 8 to 11, but the second sentence use of Uruk-hai does not automatically make the two terms equivalent and I find it interesting that Tolkien captilizes Uruk-hai as if it is a specifc name, but does not do the same with uruk.



There it would be normal not to capitalize the word _uruk_ as the context is linguistic, ie about the Black Speech word itself, as a word. Just as if JRRT wrote the word _sinda_ ("grey") and then followed with nominal plural _Sindar_ meaning "Grey-ones" or "Grey-elves". 

That said, Tolkien does capitalize the word Uruk in LotR anyway, though not in all instances, and also in Unfinished Tales.



> However, this is a draft piece which Tolkien did not use in LOTR and hence can be assumed to not be in a final form.



As I mentioned in the other thread, in reference to UT's _The Battles of the Fords of Isen_, this was not a draft for LoTR however. This is Tolkien writing about his mythology years after the publication of LotR, using "Uruks" throughout. For clarity, as your sentence might imply that it was written at the time of writing LotR. Christopher Tolkien defines this as a 'late' narrative.



> Cian also posted many examples of third party "Tolkien scholars" repeating the definition of uruk as being an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai.



Tolkien linguistic scholars, yes (though some clearly know the works outside of the linguistic arena). We don't know the specific work process behind each opinion I gave, but I can say generally that they (the ling folk) often enough have different opinions about X and express such, like we do here  In any case good scholarship is not simple parroting of course, and some of these folks publish, or want to. 



> I have come across references which claim that Uruk-hai is a plural form of Uruk, which clearly does not fit Tolkien's usage since he uses both uruk and uruks.



Compare _Silmaril_ and "Silmarils" and _Silmarilli_ though. Quenya pluralization _Silmarilli_ along with anglicized Silmarils.

Just my comments to those points anyway. Cheers


----------



## Wildcat98

The way I see it, Uruk-hai is a subset of uruk. Uruks being a larger soldier type of orc first developed by Sauron. Uruk-hai are then a further advanced form of uruk. So therefore all Uruk-hai are Uruks, but only Sauraman's Uruks are considered Uruk-hai.

This would explain why in #12 Uruks are said to have come from both Mordor and Isengard.

"though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard."


----------



## Grond

Why don't we try this from a different tack. Does anyone remember if the Uruks could withstand sunlight. If there is proof that the Uruks were afraid of sunlight then we have a match and someone wins the Double Jeapordy prize. If Uruks were able to withstand sunlight, then we may be talking about the same thing.

I personally think Saruman (oops...edited from Sauron to Saruman)to did some breeding of his own and came up with a totally different animal. But the proof is in the pudding, as they say, so someone find the answer. Okay, okay, I'll look too.


----------



## Greenwood

Cian

My apologies for implying that you had taken a position on either side of the discussion on the other thread. I wanted to give credit to all who contibuted direct quotes, but I did not want to imply that everyone shared the same opinion. Also thank you for another excellent post. 

To give my views on a few of your points: I find it interesting that Tolkien (so far as I have been able to find) is quite consistent in always capitilizing Uruk-hai whenever he uses it, thus treating it as a proper name, but, as you say is inconsistent in captilizing uruk, only doing so about half the time in LOTR. If Uruk-hai were merely a plural form of uruk in another language I do not see why Tolkien would always capitilize it and only use it (except in example 12 which is ambiguous) to refer to Saruman's orc troops. 

I should have been clearer in my original post. I think there are two related, but independent questions here. The first is: Does Tolkien, in LOTR, use the terms uruk and Uruk-hai interchangeably. In my opinion he does not. The word Uruk-hai occurs ten times in LOTR (counting the multiple uses in example 5); in eight cases it clearly refers to Saruman's troops and the remaining two cases are ambiguous. So far there have been six cases found in LOTR of the term Uruks/uruks/uruk being used; in five cases they are unambigously Sauron's troops; only in appendix F (example 12) are Sauron's and Saruman's troops referred to together (see below for my thoughts on that). The second question is what _precisely_ do the two terms mean and what is their etymology. This is of course related to the first question, but not the same question.

I thank you for the clarification on when UT's _The Battles of the Fords of Isen_ was written. However, since Tolkien never made any attempt to include it in LOTR, for instance in a later edition, I do not think it can be considered to be in a final form and hence is in a sense a draft. His use of the term Uruks is inconsistent in this piece with his use in LOTR. If he actually included it in a later edition of LOTR Tolkien probably would have made the usage consistent, or would have had the inconsistency brought to his attention. This is precisely why I say that all Tolkien's posthumously published material is a secondary source _when we are looking at possible inconsistencies within LOTR_.


Aragil

Your suggestion of the suffix -hai meaing "men" (or "half-men" in conjunction with orc or troll or Woses) makes sense to me given the usage of the terms in LOTR. Certainly, more sense than the definitions I have seen from the published "scholars". I started this thread to see if anyone had any idea why the scholars used their definition instead of something like this one.


Wildcat98

You make an excellent point. In the earlier incarnation of this discussion on the movie forum I suggested that the most inclusive term would be orcs. Uruks are then a subset of orcs, specifically the large, soldier orcs originally used by Sauron and the Uruk-hai are a further subset, specifically the large, light-tolerant soldier orcs "created" by Saruman. Thus as you say all Uruk-hai could be considered uruks (and orcs), but not all uruks are Uruk-hai. And while all uruks and Uruk-hai are orcs, not all orcs are either uruks or Uruk-hai.


Grond

The light tolerance question was raised on the other thread also (by Thrakerzog ?, perhaps Aragil?). Other than the Uruk-hai, who boast of their disdain for the sun, the only time I can remember any orcs unambiguously being active in daylight is inthe crossing of Rohan with Merry and Pippin. There we seem to have at least two and probably three kinds of orcs: 1) the Uruk-hai from Isengard led by Ugluk, 2) orcs of unspecified type from Mordor led by Grishnak, and 3) smaller, northern orcs apparently from Moria come to seek revenge for the Fellowship's trespass in Moria. Tolkien clearly has the Uruk-hai in charge, driving the other orcs and jeering at them for their weakness in the sun. The fact that even the Moria orcs could function in daylight would indicate that while orcs are not happy in the sun, they can function in it at need; i.e. they are not totally incapacitated by the sun or turned into stone like trolls. Grishnak leaves the group and later catches up again with some of his fellow Mordor orcs, so once again at great need, they seem able to abide the sun. In every other case I can think of in LOTR (or The Hobbit), orcs, other than the Uruk-hai, are only active at night or under cover of dense cloud provided by Sauron (as in the Seige of Gondor). Perhaps someone will remember something else. I just checked the ROTK for the final battle in front of the Black Gates and it does not appear to have been fought in full daylight. The few references to the light refer to the "grey light of early day" and "the sun gleamed red"; also "shadows" and "gloom" over Mordor. In any event, it does not sound like bright sunlight.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

Perhaps another look at '-hai' should be taken, particularly in reference to the 'Olog-hai'.


----------



## Ossiriand Blade

*half breeds*

The easiest explanation is that uruk,black speech for orc,refers to pure bred orcs wheras uruk-hai means half orc,an orc crossed with man.Tolkien uses this elsewhere with olog and olog-hai,or troll and half troll.


----------



## Lantarion

I think that both _Uruk_ and _Uruk-hai_ are the same thing; it is simply easier to say _uruk_ (ie. 'orc') than to say 'one of the _Uruk-hai_'. Unless I am mistaken, _-hai_ is Morbeth, and means 'people, folk'. So _Uruk-hai_ means 'orc-folk'. It is like saying "British people" and "a Briton". _Uruk-hai_ is just the 'formal' way of saying 'orcs'. IMHO, at least.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Cian My apologies for implying that you had taken a position on either side of the discussion on the other thread.



Thanks and no apology needed really. I was just nitpicking about my "fence-sitting" there. 



> If Uruk-hai were merely a plural form of uruk in another language I do not see why Tolkien would always capitilize it and only use it (except in example 12 which is ambiguous) to refer to Saruman's orc troops.



Hmmm, it's not capitalized with the reference to "uruks" as a seeming "race" (_"In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, ..."_). Might need to look closer here ...

Aside: the HoMe quote I gave elsewhere seems to put a stamp on "training" interestingly, in that the word _uruk_ ultimately referred specially to "trained and disciplined Orcs", though indeed lesser "breeds" were _snaga_

Anyway, perhaps we should look to UT where Tolkien seems to get quite consistent with his frequent enough, capitalized Uruks. Heheh  



> ... in eight cases it clearly refers to Saruman's troops and the remaining two cases are ambiguous.



But remember that 6 of 8 quotes you point out here are "Uruk-hai" (or a member of) calling themselves "Uruk-hai" and the seventh is the chapter name. We may simply look at this as maybe due to circumstance of chosen "scene(s)", ie do we have another scene(s) in which the troops of Mordor are being so vocal about themselves, and using "we are the fighting uruks ... " rather? Or similar.



> I thank you for the clarification on when UT's _The Battles of the Fords of Isen_ was written. However, since Tolkien never made any attempt to include it in LOTR, for instance in a later edition, I do not think it can be considered to be in a final form and hence is in a sense a draft. His use of the term Uruks is inconsistent in this piece with his use in LOTR. If he actually included it in a later edition of LOTR Tolkien probably would have made the usage consistent, or would have had the inconsistency brought to his attention. This is precisely why I say that all Tolkien's posthumously published material is a secondary source _when we are looking at possible inconsistencies within LOTR_



I understand your general view here. But will you briefly (as if I should ask you to be brief! considering how long this one's likely to come out ~ LoL) explain what you mean on how Tolkien's use of Uruks in _The Battles of the Fords of Isen_ is "inconsistent" with that of LotR? 

Here's CT's characterization of the narrative in any case (while I'm rambling here anyway), of the Isen Battles narrative, it:

_"... belongs with other late pieces of severe historical analysis; it presented relatively little difficulty of a textual kind, and is only unfinished in the most obvious sense."_

It breaks off in mid sentence (Garn it!). Compare this to Christopher Tolkien's introductory remarks regarding _The History of Galadriel and Celeborn_ though ~ that this is an Unfinished Tale _"... in the larger sense: not a narrative that comes to an abrupt halt"_. 

That speaks to consistency in relation to published writings of course, any many Tolkien fans already know about the history of G & C in that light. Also, CT's general notes say that he has made no alterations (in UT) for the sake of consistency with published works, but still has rather: _"drawn attention throughout to conflicts and variations"_. 

And Imo, the use of Uruks cannot be easily tagged as an editorial "shift in nomenclature" (also mentioned in CT's intro) ... an editorial shift from "Uruk-hai" that is, because had U-h been used, it could hardly be said to fall into the category of "disproportionate confusion" I think. Cheers

I'm winded (for now)


----------



## Greenwood

> But remember that 6 of 8 quotes you point out here are "Uruk-hai" (or a member of) calling themselves "Uruk-hai" and the seventh is the chapter name. We may simply look at this as maybe due to circumstance of chosen "scene(s)", ie do we have another scene(s) in which the troops of Mordor are being so vocal about themselves, and using "we are the fighting uruks ... " rather?



Cian

A couple of quick comments at the end of my lunch break.

But see my example 6: In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Seige of Gondor there is the following sentence: "No hours so dark had Pippin known, not even in the clutches of the Uruk-hai." 

In this case it is not any character using the term Uruk-hai to refer to Saruman's troops, but the book's "narrator" himself, Tolkien.




> But will you briefly (as if I should ask you to be brief! considering how long this one's likely to come out ~ LoL) explain what you mean on how Tolkien's use of Uruks in The Battles of the Fords of Isen is "inconsistent" with that of LotR?



The inconsistency is that throughout LOTR Tolkien refers to Saruman's elite orc troops are referred to as Uruk-hai, but in The Battles of the Fords of Isen they are called Uruks.


----------



## DGoeij

This is a good thread. I do not have much more to add than to say that the addition -hai does look in the context of ME as something to refer to anything that has something to do with the human race. Which makes sense if you deal with several different races all the time.
But Pontifex makes sense with the idea that maybe it was just a kind of formal speach. These creatures from Isengard where pretty arrogant IMHO, being big, strong and able to endure sunlight. Maybe they where just used to boasting about themselves being: The Fighting Uruk-hai. Something like, I am John Doe, Big Bad Army Dude (not meant as an offence to people serving in the military, I just needed an example)


----------



## Greenwood

DGoeij

But in my examples 4, 6 and 8 it is the author (Tolkien) who uses the term Uruk-hai, not one of the Uruk-hai themselves. And in example 7 it is a Mordor orc who refers to a "pack of rebel Uruk-hai". None of these fit into the idea of an individual engaging in boasting about himself.


----------



## DGoeij

D'oh,
that thought popped up when I was typing. You're right, away with the boasting theory. Interesting problem nonetheless. I'll keep an eye on this thread.


----------



## Grond

One can't be sure this issue will ever be resolved. It appears from the text that the author himself didn't feel this should have been an issue. He never once (that I can find) sees fit to actually define the Uruk-hai. His descriptions and use of the term make me feel they are an entirely different breed of Orc.... but if we're so confused and the topic is so confusing, why didn't the author address it? Surely, learned tho all of us may be, this question has come up before the author's death. A real conundrum!!


----------



## Greenwood

> His descriptions and use of the term make me feel they are an entirely different breed of Orc.



Grond

That certainly seems (to me) to be the way he uses the terms.



> One can't be sure this issue will ever be resolved. It appears from the text that the author himself didn't feel this should have been an issue.



To me it seems the only reason it is an issue is because some "Tolkien scholars" have advanced definitions at odds with the apparent meanings in LOTR. When I started this thread it was because I wondered if anyone had any evidence as to what the "Tolkie scholars" based their definitions on. I suppose short of writing them individually we will not know.


----------



## Grond

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * To me it seems the only reason it is an issue is because some "Tolkien scholars" have advanced definitions at odds with the apparent meanings in LOTR. When I started this thread it was because I wondered if anyone had any evidence as to what the "Tolkie scholars" based their definitions on. I suppose short of writing them individually we will not know. *


The ultimate Tolkien scholar was the author himself. In all of his published works, there are deatailed descriptions of most of the races of Middle-earth. Specifically in the Appendices of RotK. There it speaks of Orcs. In his works which were published after his death there are definitions and indexes that could have answered this question very easily. My question is still the same. This question surely came up before the death of the author. This reader-student-scholor of Tolkien can't understand why we are debating an answer. The author should have answered it. 

I am going to write a letter to CT himself and see what/if he responds. Of course, I know that won't satisfy you Greenwood since he is a secondary source.


----------



## Greenwood

> I am going to write a letter to CT himself and see what/if he responds. Of course, I know that won't satisfy you Greenwood since he is a secondary source



Grond

Actually, I would find CT's take on the whole question interesting given that his entry in the index of UT conflicts with the apparent meaning in LOTR. It would not surprise me if the various Tolkien scholars were relying on CT's index entry in UT, a not unreasonable thing for them to do, but it does demonstrate the dangers of not going back to the primary source that I have been stressing. What I wonder about is that the Tolkien reference book (by JEA Tyler) that Greymantle cited on the earlier thread actually predates the publication of UT. So, did CT use an outside source when making up his index or is Greymantle's copy of the reference book a later edition that incorporated material from UT?




> This question surely came up before the death of the author. This reader-student-scholor of Tolkien can't understand why we are debating an answer. The author should have answered it.



Perhaps the question never came up before Tolkien's death because the usage is clear in LOTR? At least it always seemed clear to me. Without CT's index entry in UT and without third party "scholars" opinions, it would still seem clear.


----------



## Grond

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *Perhaps the question never came up before Tolkien's death because the usage is clear in LOTR? At least it always seemed clear to me. Without CT's index entry in UT and without third party "scholars" opinions, it would still seem clear. *


What would have made it clear is the author discussing Orcs, Uruks and Uruk-hai in the Appendix under Orcs. That would have left nothing open for discussion. This blaring ommission makes one wonder as to what the proper answer is. It matters not what CT says or Tolkien scholars, the author should have included the information in the Appendix to LotR. So I hold the author's feet to the fire for not clearing the matter up. 

I must say that it astounds me that we all think we know more about this conflicted issue than the author's son. He was his father's confidant and sounding board. But I still see enough evidence in the works to disagree with him; but, I am able to see that there are definately two sides to this issue.


----------



## Greenwood

> So I hold the author's feet to the fire for not clearing the matter up.



Grond

Poor old JRR! I hope you aren't drummed out of the purist's league for that one.


----------



## Grond

There are times that even a great author makes a mistake. JRRT admitted as much on several occassions. If I'm drummed out of the purist elite for simply stating something the author himself portrayed, then so be it. I still consider myself a purist but I guess one would say I am a "realistic" purist or a purist resigned to the fact that the author is dead and not here to lend us his expertise. For anyone to say how the author would feel today if he saw the movie is ludicrous. He said over thirty years ago that his book wasn't a suitable subject for a movie (probably because of it's narrative style and the limited ability to render the world believable); however, with today's graphics and the right screenplay (maybe even PJ's although I'm sure the author would object to Arwen's expanded role ) it is possible that the author would have been "tickled pink" with a movie version of his book.

Who's to say? Certainly not the ever so humble Grond.


----------



## Aldanil

Although I think it very likely that Ronald would have been (most justifiably) horrified at quite a number of things that were done to his book in the course of this movie, the willful mangling / manufacturing of Arwen's character not least among them, I also have to concur with my main man the Mace that Tolkien's effort in creating the secondary world which he bequeathed to us was not an exercise in perfect certainty; the chapter on "The Problem of _Ros"_in The Peoples of Middle-earth shows that he very often struggled at length, and sometimes unsuccessfully, to bring all the fine details into agreement with one another and his own conception. Given the truly prodigious quantity and quality of his authorial invention, it seems only natural that there are gaps and lacunae left for subsequent explorers of Arda to wander around in. I'd further affirm with our humble Hammer that a screenplay *might* be written which would have pleased him; had PJ and his co-conspirators spent as much time working on the script as they did on all the other cinematic wonders on display at a theater near you, they might have come a little closer to it. Finally, any surety of ours, thirty years after the author's death, about how he would have reacted to the current movie must be speculative at best, if not necessarily "ludicrous". As I started by saying, I believe he would not have been happy by half, but we can hardly be certain, and one would like to imagine he would have found some solace in the tremendous success of a film derived from his Tale, however much flawed it might otherwise be.

All this is probably better suited to one of the movie forums, I'm sure, but Grond's comment got me going...


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: half breeds*



> _Originally posted by Ossiriand Blade _
> *The easiest explanation is that uruk,black speech for orc,refers to pure bred orcs wheras uruk-hai means half orc,an orc crossed with man.Tolkien uses this elsewhere with olog and olog-hai,or troll and half troll. *



There is nothing in the corpus that indicates 'hai' is used for 'half'. The Uruk-hai are not 'Half-orcs' (a cross breed of Men and Orcs) and the Olog-hai are not 'Half-trolls' (a cross breed of Men and Trools). Try reading App. F, I, Other Races, Trolls.


----------



## Greenwood

> The Uruk-hai are not 'Half-orcs' (a cross breed of Men and Orcs)



Tar-Elenion

Actually there are a number of indications in LOTR that the Uruk-hai are a some sort of half-breed, probably with men. Here are three quotations form LOTR:

A) In The Two Towers in the chapter "Treebeard", Treebeard says in talking about Saruman: "He has taken up with foul folk, with the Orcs. Brm, hoom! Worse than that he has been doing something to them; something dangerous. For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, ir has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!" (While not using the term Uruk-hai directly, this quote specifically suggests that the elite orc troops of Saruman that are capable of fighting in daylight, unlike orcs in general, were created by blending orcs and men.

B) Again in the chapter "Helm's Deep", Glamling says: "But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun." (Another character, not Treebeard, describes Isengard's, i. e. Saruman's, troops as being half breeds whose specialty is being able to fight in the sun.) 

C) In The Two Towers in the chapter "Flotsam and Jetsam", Aragorn says: "We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep." (Yet another character referring to Saruman's orc troops as "half-breeds" or a blending of races. 

Tolkien does not say specifically how it is that the Olog-hai can endure the sun or where they came from. He does say that no one doubted that Sauron bred them and that as long as "the will of Sauron held sway over them" they could endure the sun.


----------



## Grond

Well said Greenwood. I was just getting ready to dig into the books for quotes myself. Alas, you beat me to it.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

-----------------
Quothe Greenwood:
Cian and other forum members pointed out the Index entry (by Christopher Tolkien) in Unfinished Tales that says: "Uruks -- Anglicized form of Uruk-hai of the Black Speech." 

[and]

Actually, I would find CT's take on the whole question interesting given that his entry in the index of UT conflicts with the apparent meaning in LOTR. It would not surprise me if the various Tolkien scholars were relying on CT's index entry in UT, a not unreasonable thing for them to do, but it does demonstrate the dangers of not going back to the primary source that I have been stressing. 
--------------------

That the entry in the index to UT is CT's not necessarily accurate. What CT said about the index is:
"In the event there was no index to The Lord of the Rings until the second edition of 1966, but my father's original rough draft has been preserved. From it I derived the plan of my index to The Silmarillion... and also, both there and in the index to this book, some of the translations and the wording of some of the 'definitions'."
UT, Introduction, The Istari


Also try Letter 78: "Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks..."

------------
Quote:

Actually there are a number of indications in LOTR that the Uruk-hai are a some sort of half-breed, probably with men. Here are three quotations form LOTR: 

A) In The Two Towers in the chapter "Treebeard",
<snip>
----------------------

As you note, Treebeard does not specifically refer to the Uruk-hai. 
And as JRRT said of Treebeard (and Treebeard's reference to Orcs): "Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot that he does not know or understand."
Letter 153

--------------
Quote:
B) Again in the chapter "Helm's Deep", Glamling says: "But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun." (Another character, not Treebeard, describes Isengard's, i. e. Saruman's, troops as being half breeds whose specialty is being able to fight in the sun.) 
----------------------- 

Replace 'Treebeard' with 'Gamling' in the above quote.

--------------
Quote:
C) In The Two Towers in the chapter "Flotsam and Jetsam", Aragorn says: "We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep." (Yet another character referring to Saruman's orc troops as "half-breeds" or a blending of races. 
---------------------------

You would be better served by providing a fuller context, particularly by noting that Aragorns reference to 'half-orcs' is in responce to Merry speaking of 'marching Orcs', and 'troops [of Orcs] on great wolves', and 'battalions of Men, most ordinary looking but others that were horrible with goblin-faces'.


Now go to UT, Battles of the Fords of Isen.
"In its van were some Dunlending horsemen and a great pack of the dreadful Orcish wolfriders, feared by horses. Behind them came two battalions of the fierce Uruks... The garrison of the east bank, surprised by the sudden assault of the massed Uruks was swept away... they were driven from the Fords... with the Uruks in pursuit".
"As soon as the enemy had gained possession of the eastern end of the Fords there appeard a company of men or orc-men (evidently dispatched for the purpose), ferocious, mail-clad, and armed with axes... Theodred fell, hewn down by a great orc-man."

There is a clear distinction here between Orcs (the lesser variety small enough to ride wolves), Uruks (or Uruk-hai) and, Orc-men (or Half-orcs).

-------------------
Quote:
Tolkien does not say specifically how it is that the Olog-hai can endure the sun or where they came from. He does say that no one doubted that Sauron bred them and that as long as "the will of Sauron held sway over them" they could endure the sun.
---------------------

He also says "Trolls they were". Not Man-trolls, or Troll-men.


----------



## Greenwood

Tar-Elenion



> my father's original rough draft has been preserved. From it I derived the plan of my index to The Silmarillion... and also, both there and in the index to this book, some of the translations and the wording of some of the 'definitions'."



And how do we, the readers, know what is JRR Tolkien and what is C Tolkien? He says he derived the "plan" of "my" index. This hardly sounds like we can take the whole index as being definitively JRR Tolkien's.



> Also try Letter 78: "Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks..."



This is indeed interesting. This is the first time I have seen any reference to Tolkien ever discussing Uruk-hai. Can you give us some background and context for this quotation? To who and when was it written? Was Tolkien answering a question and if he was, what was it? Can you put the above quote in context? What comes before and after it?




> As you note, Treebeard does not specifically refer to the Uruk-hai.
> And as JRRT said of Treebeard (and Treebeard's reference to Orcs): "Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot that he does not know or understand."
> Letter 153



Who or what else could Treebeard be referring to? There are repeated references to the Uruk-hai being some form of orc, that they belong to Saruman and that they do not care about sunlight. As for the Tolkien letter, the same questions as for the above letter. When did Tolkien write this and to who and what is the context? We know that Tolkien kept changing his mind about the origins of orcs; to such an extent that it seems it is impossible to resolve the question about orcs' origins because Tolkien himself never resolved it to his own satisfaction.




> Replace 'Treebeard' with 'Gamling' in the above quote.



It is always a quaint conceit when an author treats his fictional characters as completely seperate personas from himself, but he did write them and put those words in their mouths. Following the above reasoning for Treebeard and now Gamling means we might as well not try to figure out what Tolkien meant on anything in his books. You are not seriously arguing that we treat LOTR as an actual history of real events and Tolkien is just repeating real people's conversations?




> You would be better served by providing a fuller context, particularly by noting that Aragorns reference to 'half-orcs' is in responce to Merry speaking of 'marching Orcs', and 'troops [of Orcs] on great wolves', and 'battalions of Men, most ordinary looking but others that were horrible with goblin-faces'.



If you want a fuller context, you should give it. The full sentences before Aragorn's statement are (Merry speaking): " 'Most of them were ordinary men, rather tall and dark-haired, and grim but not particularly evil-looking. But there were some others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed. Do you know, they reminded me at once of that Southerner at Bree; only he was not so obviously orc-like as most of these were.' " It then continues: " 'I thought of him too,' said Aragorn. 'We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep.' "

We have four of Tolkien's characters Treebeard, Gamling, Merry and Aragorn all clearly saying that these troops of Saruman's are not normal orcs, nor normal men, but something in between. Maybe Tolkien was changing his mind in later years, but he never changed what he wrote in LOTR and it is pretty clear that in LOTR these are some sort of half-orc/half-man creatures. I do not see how these passages can be reasonably read in any other way.

Now as to the Battles of the Fords of Isen in Unfinished Tales I have stated at great length on other threads (see for example The Council of Elrond thread) why Tolkien's posthumously published works cannot be used to argue against the clear meaning of things in LOTR. Here I will only repeat part of Christopher Tolkien's Introduction to Unfinished Tales: "The problems that confront one given responsibility for the writings of a dead author are hard to resolve. Some persons in this position may elect to make no material whatsoever available for publication, save perhaps for work that was in a virtually finished state at the time of the author's death. In the case of the unpublished writings of J. R. R. Tolkien this might seem at first sight the proper course; *since he himself, peculiarly critical and exacting of his own work, would not have dreamt of allowing even the more completed narratives in this book to appear without much further refinement.* [emphasis added] Also germane is Christopher Tolkien's remarks in the Introduction to The Silmarillion: "A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for .... " This certainly holds true for all of Tolkien's unpublished work. 




> He also says "Trolls they were". Not Man-trolls, or Troll-men.



No where have I ever said that Olog-hai were crossbreeds or half anything. I said Tolkien said they could abide the sun when normal trolls could not and that Tolkien does not specify how this ability is arrived at. I have never said that -hai meant half. That was Ossiriand Blade's suggestion. I do not agree with it. I think an argument could be made that the suffix -hai refers to a sun tolerant ability in a creature that normally cannot abide, or shuns the sun, but I have not done enough research into LOTR to see if there are any exceptions that would argue against that.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> But see my example 6: In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Seige of Gondor there is the following sentence: "No hours so dark had Pippin known, not even in the clutches of the Uruk-hai." In this case it is not any character using the term Uruk-hai to refer to Saruman's troops, but the book's "narrator" himself, Tolkien.



My usually bad math attests that I'm aware of example 6  but this is my point here actually, to the number of quotes and to their characterization. You have shown (so far) one quote in the narrative voice that points to Saruman's elite as -hai.

On the net, an orc enthusiast called "Shagrat" points out the same thing, when he says: "It's noteworthy that "Uruk-hai" is almost never used by the narrative voice in LotR."



> The inconsistency is that throughout LOTR Tolkien refers to Saruman's elite orc troops are referred to as Uruk-hai, but in The Battles of the Fords of Isen they are called Uruks.



As said, Tolkien is "narrator" in UT, and in this way the Prof refers to Saruman's elite not throughout LotR with _-hai,_ but once rather, using the examples given so far ~ generally note that "Uruks" occurs something like 9 times in UT I think. 

Another mention about a quote given: when we _do_ get to orc-eavesdrop a bit in Mordor, indeed we see the term "Uruk-hai" pop up ~ and "rebel" Uruk-hai, which (arguably anyway), might imply that there are non-rebel "Uruk-hai". A point such as it is anyway. Cheers


----------



## Greenwood

> Another mention about a quote given: when we do get to orc-eavesdrop a bit in Mordor, indeed we see the term "Uruk-hai" pop up ~ and "rebel" Uruk-hai, which (arguably anyway), might imply that there are non-rebel "Uruk-hai". A point such as it is anyway.



Cian

It could equally be argued that to a Mordor orc, all Uruk-hai are rebels because they are Saruman's troops.

If one accepts the (I believe reasonable and justifiable) premise that uruk and Uruk-hai refer to subsets of the broader category of "orcs" and that uruk refers to Sauron's large, soldier orcs from Mordor and that Uruk-hai are a further refinement of uruks and refers to Saruman's elite, sun-tolerant orcs (these last two premises also seem reasonable and justifiable to me) than there are no inconsistencies within LOTR. All the examples given fit within this framework. It is only when material written by people other than Tolkien or Tolkien's posthumously published Battles of the Fords of Isen are considered that there is any inconsistency. I have repeatedly given the reasons why posthumously published material cannot be used in a case such as this (see my response to Tar-Elenion). We are left with an inconsistency apparently created by others, not Tolkien. If Tar-Elenion can give the relevant information about the letter he mentions in which Tolkien refers to Uruk-hai, then perhaps we can lay the inconsistency on Tolkien's doorstep. Based on what has been presented so far, I don't see how we can.


----------



## Cian

The quote is from a letter to Christopher Tolkien. Tar-E may elaborate or whatever, but here's a longer section:



> "And of course, as you already discover, one of the discoveries of the process is the realization of the values that often lurk under dreadful appearances. Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable (though I fear it must be admitted that there are human creatures that seem irredeemable short of a special miracle, ...) JRRT 1944



Another:



> "But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are as clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side ... Well, there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai. Keep up your hobbitry in heart, and think that all _stories_ feel like that when you are _in_ them." 1944 to CT


----------



## Greenwood

Cian

Thank you for the expanded material. Tar-Elenion's use of the quote was clearly out of context and not relevant to this discussion.


----------



## aragil

Just thought that I'd remark on the fact that quotes 2 and 9 (from the first page of this thread) seem to be in almost exactly the same context: 'Other people have messed up, now it is time for the biggest, meanest orcs to take care of it.' Both are referring to a group of orcs (plural), and both are essentially bragging about the abilities of big orcs. However, the Mordor orc says _uruks_, the Isengard orc says Uruk-hai. I think that it is lucky that the two terms are both used in virtually the same context, and I think it is useful to note how the two terms seem to make a distinction between the orcs of Mordor and those of Isengard.

Regarding secondary sources:
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/g/greatorcs.html
What I love about this entry is that it addresses the fact that the characters seem to regard the orcs of Isengard as a new race, but rather than following suit the encyclopedia insists that the characters in the book were wrong and that the Uruk-hai are really just the uruks, despite the fact that there is no use of the term Uruk-hai used anywhere between the fall of Ithilien and before the treason of Isengard.
I would also like to point out that Aragorn thinks that the orcs of Saruman (specifically those slain by Boromir at Amon hen) are different than any other orcs he's seen (he remarks about this), and he also claims to know more about orcs than any other man in Middle-Earth. It is to Aragorn that Gamling is speaking when he describes the half-orcs of Isengard. If Aragorn knew so much about orc-kind, and if the Uruk-hai were really just Uruks with white badges on, then it is unlikely that Aragorn would have been so perplexed by their appearance at Amon Hen, or that he wouldn't have corrected Gamling if the old warrior of Rohan was off base. Would Tolkien say: 
"_Aragorn is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and knows more of orc-kind than any man in Middle-Earth, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot that he does not know or understand_."
Would anybody buy that as an excuse for Aragorn being unable to recognize that the Uruk-hai of Isengard are the same as the uruks which had been plaguing Middle-Earth for 500 years? Gandalf was able to recognize Uruks (from Mordor) in a matter of seconds while dodging arrows and trying to peer out of the chamber of Marzbul. Is there the slightest possibility that Uruks really are different from the Uruk-hai, and that perhaps Eomer, Glamding, Treebeard, and Aragorn really do know a little about Orcs?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

----------------
Quothe Greenwood"

And how do we, the readers, know what is JRR Tolkien and what is C Tolkien? He says he derived the "plan" of "my" index. 
------------------------

He says 'my index' in reference to the Silmarillion. He says 'the index' for UT (which is what we are discussing).
Further he says he derived not only the 'plan' but used both the translations and wording of some definitions.

--------------------
Quote:
This hardly sounds like we can take the whole index as being definitively JRR Tolkien's. 
------------------------


I did not say that the whole index could be definitively taken as JRRT's. What I did say was that the entry in question was not necessarily CT's.


But lets add some further circumstantial evidence. Robert Foster in his 'Complete Guide to Middle-earth' (which is useful despite some errors) notes the same thing, that 'uruks' is the "Anglicized" plural. It is odd that both CT and RF would use the same term, in the same circumstance, except that RF also had access to the (at that time) unpublished materials. So perhaps RF made it up, and CT (he did note that he found the Guide quite useful) simply lifted the terminology from RF. Or perhaps they are both drawing from the same source, JRRT and his index, with translations and wording.
Circumstantial, but intriguing none the less. 



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also try Letter 78: "Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks..." 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-------------------
Quote:
This is indeed interesting. This is the first time I have seen any reference to Tolkien ever discussing Uruk-hai. Can you give us some background and context for this quotation? To who and when was it written? Was Tolkien answering a question and if he was, what was it? Can you put the above quote in context? What comes before and after it?
-----------------------

I take it, then, that you do not have Letters?

Certainly, though I note that Cian has given part of it, so I will respond below. 



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you note, Treebeard does not specifically refer to the Uruk-hai. 
And as JRRT said of Treebeard (and Treebeard's reference to Orcs): "Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot that he does not know or understand." 
Letter 153 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------
Quote:
Who or what else could Treebeard be referring to? There are repeated references to the Uruk-hai being some form of orc, that they belong to Saruman and that they do not care about sunlight.
---------------

And also to Uruk-hai in Mordor. These would be Saurons.

-------------------
Quote:
As for the Tolkien letter, the same questions as for the above letter. When did Tolkien write this and to who and what is the context?
---------------------

He wrote it in 1954, to Peter Hastings, in responce to PH asking if he had not 'overstepped the mark in metaphysical matters regarding for example Treebeards statement that the Dark Lord created Trolls and Orcs'. Tolkien responded that Treebeard does not say 'created' but rather 'made in counterfeit', and that Treebeard does not know everything anyways (or words to that effect).

-----------------
Quote:
We know that Tolkien kept changing his mind about the origins of orcs; to such an extent that it seems it is impossible to resolve the question about orcs' origins because Tolkien himself never resolved it to his own satisfaction. 
-------------------

Here we agree.



--------------------
Quote:
It is always a quaint conceit when an author treats his fictional characters as completely seperate personas from himself, but he did write them and put those words in their mouths. Following the above reasoning for Treebeard and now Gamling means we might as well not try to figure out what Tolkien meant on anything in his books. You are not seriously arguing that we treat LOTR as an actual history of real events and Tolkien is just repeating real people's conversations?
------------------

I suggested no so thing. Though JRRT does note some such circumstances in any event, even in LotR itself.
Are you suggesting that we should just ignore what JRRT had to say about certain things just because it does not fit into a particular veiw?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You would be better served by providing a fuller context, particularly by noting that Aragorns reference to 'half-orcs' is in responce to Merry speaking of 'marching Orcs', and 'troops [of Orcs] on great wolves', and 'battalions of Men, most ordinary looking but others that were horrible with goblin-faces'. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------
If you want a fuller context, you should give it. 
-------------------

My paraphrase was clear enough. And notes the different types that Merry was speaking of.


--------------------
Quote:
The full sentences before Aragorn's statement are (Merry speaking): " 'Most of them were ordinary men, rather tall and dark-haired, and grim but not particularly evil-looking. But there were some others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed. Do you know, they reminded me at once of that Southerner at Bree; only he was not so obviously orc-like as most of these were.' " It then continues: " 'I thought of him too,' said Aragorn. 'We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep.' "
----------------------- 

You left out the preceeding sentences where Merry speaks of the "endless lines of marching Orcs; and troops of them mounted on great wolves. And there were battalions of Men too[and then continue with the quote you provided above]." 

Which of course ties in neatly with the 'Fords of Isen' narrative. 

---------------------
Quote:
We have four of Tolkien's characters Treebeard, Gamling, Merry and Aragorn all clearly saying that these troops of Saruman's are not normal orcs, nor normal men, but something in between. 
----------------------

We also have Merry and Pippin captured by the Uruk-hai, but do they ever call them Orc-men, or Man-orcs, or Half-orcs?
Note also"The Orcs yelled and jeered. 'Come down! Come down!' they cried... We are the fighting Uruk-hai."
The 'Orcs' are the Uruk-hai, not the Half-orcs, or Orc-men.

We know that _some_ of these troops are 'Half-orcs'. We do not have any defintive statement that the Uruk-hai are the 'Half-orcs'.
We do know that Saruman interbred Orcs and Men, in MR, JRRT refers to these as 'Saruman's wickedest deed producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile' (Morgoth's Ring pg 419), but he does not refer to these as Uruk-hai.

----------------
Quote:
Maybe Tolkien was changing his mind in later years, but he never changed what he wrote in LOTR
------------------

And perhaps he did not change his mind at all.

------------------
Quote:
and it is pretty clear that in LOTR these are some sort of half-orc/half-man creatures. I do not see how these passages can be reasonably read in any other way. 
--------------------

I have not suggested that there were not any 'half/orc/half man creatures. What I have suggested is that the Uruks are not Half-orcs.

-----------------------
Quote:
Now as to the Battles of the Fords of Isen in Unfinished Tales I have stated at great length on other threads (see for example The Council of Elrond thread)
-----------------------

I will look at it.

-----------------
Quote:
why Tolkien's posthumously published works cannot be used to argue against the clear meaning of things in LOTR.
------------------

Yes they can. And they can also be used to clarify what is actually intended by the author himself.
------------------------
<some snipage>
Quote:
Also germane is Christopher Tolkien's remarks in the Introduction to The Silmarillion: "A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for .... " This certainly holds true for all of Tolkien's unpublished work. 
---------------------------

Not necessarily. In many cases there is great consistancy. And when further clarity and insight into the Legendarium is offered by the posthumously published corpus it should be utilized, even if it forces one to put aside preconceived notions.


--------------------
Quote:
No where have I ever said that Olog-hai were crossbreeds or half anything. I said Tolkien said they could abide the sun when normal trolls could not and that Tolkien does not specify how this ability is arrived at. I have never said that -hai meant half. That was Ossiriand Blade's suggestion. I do not agree with it. 
-------------------

Excellent.

------------------
Quote:
I think an argument could be made that the suffix -hai refers to a sun tolerant ability in a creature that normally cannot abide, or shuns the sun, but I have not done enough research into LOTR to see if there are any exceptions that would argue against that.
-------------------

It would be interesting to see that kind of argument.
However the Druedain are named Oghor-hai by the Orcs. The Druedain were Men and not of some creature that was normally sun-intolerant.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

-------------
Quothe aragil: 
Would anybody buy that as an excuse for Aragorn being unable to recognize that the Uruk-hai of Isengard are the same as the uruks which had been plaguing Middle-Earth for 500 years? Gandalf was able to recognize Uruks (from Mordor) in a matter of seconds while dodging arrows and trying to peer out of the chamber of Marzbul. Is there the slightest possibility that Uruks really are different from the Uruk-hai, and that perhaps Eomer, Glamding, Treebeard, and Aragorn really do know a little about Orcs?
----------------

Is there any possibilty that JRRT might know what he is speaking of? There are Uruk-hai in Mordor as well, (refer to Cian's quote above), and JRRT refers to Saruman's as Uruks.
In any event I am not arguing that there were not differences between Sauron's Uruks and Saruman's Uruks. What I am debating is whether they were 'Half-orcs' or not. The Half-orcs are a seperate group, as is distinguished by the author. I am also debating that 'uruks' is the 'Anglicized' form of 'uruk-hai'.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *Cian
> 
> Thank you for the expanded material. Tar-Elenion's use of the quote was clearly out of context and not relevant to this discussion. *



You may consider it irrelevant, but I do not.

Letter 78 shows JRRT using Urukhai and its 'Anglicized' counterpart 'Uruks'.

Letter 66 shows JRRT using the plural 'Orcs' and then refers to CT being among the 'Urukhai', again suggesting that 'Uruk-hai' is a plural form.

Thank you Cian for typing those out.


----------



## Cian

Little favor for _Tal-Elmar,_ since "winging" it's way into better MB circulation


----------



## Greenwood

Tar-Elenion

Your style of mixing one line quotes with one line answers is extremely difficult to read but I will do my best to interpret it and answer you points in the order you made them.

First in regards to the index in Unfinshed Tales. Are you seriously arguing that JRRT produced the index for a book published seven years after his death? I also suggest you look at the copyright page of UT. There you will find it says "Introduction, Commentary, *Index*, and Maps copyright 1980 by Christopher Reuel Tolkien. [emphasis added] Clearly the index, like the introduction and commentary are Christopher Tolkien's work, not his father's. As such they bear no more weight than any other outside party's writings, they are not JRRT's words. Robert Foster's work is equally worthless in regard to the question since we do not know on what it is based. You say yourself there are errors in it. You cannot arbitrarily decide that in cases where Foster agrees with you he is right without any further evidence. You say: "So perhaps RF made it up, and CT (he did note that he found the Guide quite useful) simply lifted the terminology from RF"! That is precisely the point! Thank you for making it for me. This may indeed have happened. Personally, I suspect it did, but I have no proof. The point is it cannot be ruled out. You continue: "Or perhaps they are both drawing from the same source, JRRT and his index". But there is no JRRT index for Unfinished Tales! It is Christopher Tolkien's index.




> I take it, then, that you do not have Letters?



You are correct. I do not own a copy of Tolkien's Letters. Neither do a lot of other Forum members, that is why it is incumbent on someone quoting from them to give a full enough account so that readers can judge what you are quoting. I have thanked Cian for taking the trouble to give some of the context of the letter. The fuller quote provided by Cian is: "And of course, as you already discover, one of the discoveries of the process is the realization of the values that often lurk under dreadful appearances. Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable". Clearly, Tolkien is discussing the nature of "bad folk" and whether they are created that way by their maker. He is not talking about the terms uruk and Uruk-hai and their meanings relative to each other. Your limited quote was totally misleading. The quote is irrelevant to this discussion.

You then say in regard to my question of what else could Treebeard being referring to: "And also to Uruk-hai in Mordor. These would be Saurons." But there is not a single bit of unambiguous evidence that there are any Uruk-hai in Mordor except for your contention that uruk and Uruk-hai are equivalent. You are engaging in circular reasoning, you are assuming the two terms as equivalent and then using the results of that assumption to "proof" the assumption.

Thank you for the fuller context of Tolkien's letter to Peter Hastings. As with the earlier letter to Christopher Tolkien above we now see that Tolkien's comment about Treebeard has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, but was in reference to the creation of orcs and trolls, something we are not discussing here.

I repeat, it is a quaint conceit when an author treats his fictional characters as seperate personas. It is the author who puts the words in his fictional characters mouths, so they are indeed the authors words. I am not ignoring JRRT's words in LOTR. You are attempting to do that by citing outside sources like Robert Foster and Christopher Tolkien over JRRT's own words in LOTR.

Moving on, if you wish more of the passage from the chapter Flotsam and Jetsam, very well we will move several more sentences up. Merry speaking: " 'He emptied Isengard. I saw the enemy go: endless lines of marching Orcs; and troops of them mounted on great wolves. And there were battalions of Men, too. Many of them carried torches, and in the flare I could see their faces. Most of them were ordinary men, rather tall and dark-haired, and grim but not particularly evil-looking. But there were some others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed. Do you know, they reminded me at once of that Southerner at Bree; only he was not so obviously orc-like as most of these were.' " It then continues: " 'I thought of him too,' said Aragorn. 'We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep.' " I fail to see how this longer quote in anyway changes Aragorn's statement calling them "half-orcs" and as Aragil has pointed out Aragorn is supposed to be one of the most knowledgeable men in all of Middle Earth on the subject of orcs. As for tying in with the "Fords of Isen", for the umpteenth time, Tolkien's posthumously published work cannot be used to refute the clear meaning of his words in LOTR.

You then go on to talk about Merry and Pippins capture and say that they do not call them half-orcs. But Merry and Pippin were captured by a mixed party. Some were Saruman's elite troops, the Uruk-hai. Some were Sauron's troops, but it is never specified whether they are the large uruks or the smaller kinds of orcs. And finally, some were definitely identified as the smaller, northern orcs from Moria. Therefore, of course, as a group Merry and Pippin would class them all as orcs. This was also Merry's and Pippin's first ever close-up encounter with orcs and not exactly the time to be composing a treatise on the different varieties.

Continuing, you say: "What I have suggested is that the Uruks are not Half-orcs." No one in this thread has suggested that uruks are half-orcs. This in fact is the opposite of what is being discussed. For you to even be arguing the point suggests you have not read and understood the thread. You seem to have jumped into the middle of it without understanding the discussion. The contention here is that uruks are a breed of orcs and that Uruk-hai are another kind of orc, belonging to Saruman who are light-tolerant and who are probably a blend of orcs (possibly uruks) and men.

Finally, on the subject of the suffix -hai you state: "However the Druedain are named Oghor-hai by the Orcs." The term Oghor-hai, as far as I can find appears no where in LOTR. The only reference I can find to it is a single mention in Unfinished Tales which appears to be the basis for your statement. There is no indication what-so-ever as to why orcs called the Druedain the Oghor-hai. Therefore, it could mean anything and cannot be used to argue for or against any meaning that might be considered for the suffix -hai.


----------



## Grond

Okay, I've been searching the works and have a few more tidbits of info to throw into the fire. They resolve the conflict for me but I know won't convince all or even any.

quote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This quote is from _Morgoth's Ring_, Text X, Myths Transformed, it states, *"Finally, there is a cogent point though horrible to relate. It became clear in time that undoubted Men could under the domination of Morgoth or his agents in a few generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning. There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile...'*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
end quote

Here is the perfect opportunity for the author (who wrote this passage himself) to clearly identify these half breeds as Uruk-hai and he does not. He instead refers to them as Men-orcs and Orc-men. We now have proof from the author's own hand that Saruman did indeed make Half-orcs as Tar-Elenion has stated. I now must agree with him that Uruk-hai does not identify them, else the author would have pointed it out in the referenced passage.

This quote also answers another thread about how orc's breed. I think my post back then was "the old fashioned way" and I think that this quote answers that riddle as well. 

My logic is sound, even though this is from a later published source, it indicates clear evidence to me of the answer to the subject of this post. Argue if you will, but it is crystal clear to me.

That is my humble opinion, but I could be wrong.

***note***
I would like to emphasize that the quote above is that of JRRT and not CT. In my copy of Morgoth's Ring, CT's remarks are made in small type with JRRT's writings in large type.


----------



## Greenwood

Tar-Elenion 

It was easiest to deal with your first long post in one reply, now I will reply to your shorter posts to Aragil and myself.



> Is there any possibilty that JRRT might know what he is speaking of? There are Uruk-hai in Mordor as well, (refer to Cian's quote above), and JRRT refers to Saruman's as Uruks.


Nowhere in LOTR does Tolkien place Uruk-hai in Mordor. The only thing that even comes close is the reference to a "rebel pack of Uruk-hai" which can easily be understood as referring to Saruman's troops. Nowhere in LOTR are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks.




> In any event I am not arguing that there were not differences between Sauron's Uruks and Saruman's Uruks. What I am debating is whether they were 'Half-orcs' or not. The Half-orcs are a seperate group, as is distinguished by the author. I am also debating that 'uruks' is the 'Anglicized' form of 'uruk-hai'.



No one is saying that uruks are half-orcs. You are apparently debating that with yourself. What we are saying is that the Uruk-hai are Saruman's elite troops and they are probably a blend of orcs and men. As to uruks being an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai, neither you nor anyone else has yet presented a single piece of hard, uncontovertible evidence for this contention.

Moving on to your next post, I discussed the first Tolkien letter in my previous post. Cian's longer quotation from it shows that it does not mean what you implied it meant.

Moving to the second letter (once again a thank you to Cian for supplying a fuller quotation) it says: "But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are as clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side ... Well, there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai. Keep up your hobbitry in heart, and think that all stories feel like that when you are in them." Once again we see from the fuller quotation Tolkien is not saying what you implied he was saying. In the context of the letter orcs and Urukhai are not necessarily equivalent. The phrase "a hobbit amongst the Urukhai" in the context of Tolkien's writings would appear to be a reference to Merry's and Pippin's time in captivity during their trek across Rohan. Tolkien does not define Uruk-hai as the plural form of uruk.

Once again we are left solely with secondary sources stating that uruks and Uruk-hai are equivalent. There is nothing in Tolkien's writing to state this. It might indeed be a reasonable hypothesis, except for the fact that it does not explain Tolkien's usage of the two terms in LOTR. In LOTR he consistently uses Uruk-hai (always capitalized) to refer to Saruman's elite, sun-tolerant orc troops and uruks (sometimes capitalized, sometimes not) to refer to Sauron's large, soldier orcs. I find it hard to believe that this sort of consistency from a perfectionist, philogogist doesn't mean anything and that the terms are really interchangeable.


----------



## Greenwood

Grond

Thank you for your research. I accept it as JRRT's own writing and will not argue with it. It does indeed make clear that Saruman blended men and orcs. It does not, however, shed any direct light on the question of uruk and Uruk-hai being equivalent or not. There is no reason for JRRT to use the term Uruk-hai in the passage you cite.

If we accept Tar-Elenion's argument then we have the following in LOTR:

a) orcs -- (no problem here)
b) uruks/Uruk-hai -- these are in the employ of both Sauron and Saruman, but Saruman's have absolutely no problem with the sun, unlike all other orcs. Saruman's even boast about their disdain for the sun
c) orc/men hybrids bred by Saruman that are different from his sun tolerant Uruk-hai.

I hate to sound like Harad here and invoke logic, but if b) and c) are totally different, where did Saruman's sun tolerant Uruk-hai come from? Was this yet another unnamed deviltry of Saruman's? What of Treebeard's comments? Do we now dismiss them afterall. If Saruman's breeding experiments were not for the purpose of creating sun-tolerant orcs what were they for? The soldier uruks already existed. Isn't it far simpler to accept that Saruman's breeding experiments produced his sun-tolerant Uruk-hai? That seems crystal clear to me.

Well that is my opinion.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

-------------
Quothe Greenwood:
Your style of mixing one line quotes with one line answers is extremely difficult to read but I will do my best to interpret it and answer you points in the order you made them. 
----------

Thanks, I often find it easier to respond point by point.

------------
Quote:
First in regards to the index in Unfinshed Tales. Are you seriously arguing that JRRT produced the index for a book published seven years after his death? 
<snip>
Clearly the index, like the introduction and commentary are Christopher Tolkien's work, not his father's. As such they bear no more weight than any other outside party's writings, they are not JRRT's words.
------------------------

I suggest you reread what I actually posted, including what CT said, about the index in UT (nowhere did I argue that JRRT 'produced' the UT index).
What CT said about the index is: 
"In the event there was no index to The Lord of the Rings until the second edition of 1966, but my father's original rough draft has been preserved. From it I derived the plan of my index to The Silmarillion... and also, both there and in the index to this book, some of the translations and the wording of some of the 'definitions'." 
UT, Introduction, The Istari 
In otherwords, CT is saying that some of the translations and wordings and definitions in the UT (and Sil.) index are his father's. 

------------------
Quote:
Robert Foster's work is equally worthless in regard to the question since we do not know on what it is based. You say yourself there are errors in it. You cannot arbitrarily decide that in cases where Foster agrees with you he is right without any further evidence.
----------------------------

But you can arbitrarily decide that JRRT's words in UT are wortheless, because they do not agree with your interpretation of passages in LotR?

In any event I did not decide or say that Foster was right, I said the evidence was 'circumstantial'. But nonetheless it is there. People can judge it how they wish. If you wish to arbitrarily dismiss it because it does not agree with your interpretation, that is your right. 

---------------------
Quote:
You say: "So perhaps RF made it up, and CT (he did note that he found the Guide quite useful) simply lifted the terminology from RF"! That is precisely the point! Thank you for making it for me. This may indeed have happened. Personally, I suspect it did, but I have no proof. The point is it cannot be ruled out.
---------------------

Ah, the point also is that given the two sources saying the samething, both having access to JRRT's own notes and drafts it is entirely possible that this was drawn from JRRT's own notes. Indeed the circumstantial evidence points toward it. 

----------------------
Quote:
You continue: "Or perhaps they are both drawing from the same source, JRRT and his index". But there is no JRRT index for Unfinished Tales! It is Christopher Tolkien's index. 
------------------------

I did not say the _index in UT_ was JRRT's. I refer you again to the CT's statement about the index:
"In the event there was no index to The Lord of the Rings until the second edition of 1966, but my father's original rough draft has been preserved. From it I derived the plan of my index to The Silmarillion... and also, both there and in the index to this book, some of the translations and the wording of some of the 'definitions'." 
The index I am referring to is the draft JRRT originally made for the LotR.


--------------
Quote:
You are correct. I do not own a copy of Tolkien's Letters.
--------------

That is a shame. You should look into getting a copy. It is very informative and there is a (relatively) new edition out.

-----------------
<snip>
Quote:
[In Letter 78]
Clearly, Tolkien is discussing the nature of "bad folk" and whether they are created that way by their maker. He is not talking about the terms uruk and Uruk-hai and their meanings relative to each other. Your limited quote was totally misleading. The quote is irrelevant to this discussion. 
-------------------

What he is discussing may be irrelevant, but his use of the terms 'Uruks' and 'Urukhai' is not. He is using the 'Anglicized' form.


-----------------
Quote:
You then say in regard to my question of what else could Treebeard being referring to: "And also to Uruk-hai in Mordor. These would be Saurons." But there is not a single bit of unambiguous evidence that there are any Uruk-hai in Mordor except for your contention that uruk and Uruk-hai are equivalent--------------

Cian has already posted about Uruk-hai in Mordor.


------------
Quote:
Thank you for the fuller context of Tolkien's letter to Peter Hastings. As with the earlier letter to Christopher Tolkien above we now see that Tolkien's comment about Treebeard has nothing to do with the subject under discussion 
-------------

Welcome. The reference stands. JRRT was pointing out that characters in his works are not all knowing or otherwise always correct, which is the point I was making.

-------------------
Quote:
It is the author who puts the words in his fictional characters mouths, so they are indeed the authors words. I am not ignoring JRRT's words in LOTR. You are attempting to do that by citing outside sources like Robert Foster and Christopher Tolkien over JRRT's own words in LOTR.
--------------------

You are ignoring JRRT's words outside LotR, because they do not agree with your interpretation of passages in LotR. You have also chosen to dismiss 'JRRT's' own words about Uruk-hai in Mordor by suggesting that they are Sarumans, because it does not support your interpretation.

-----------------
Quote:
Moving on, if you wish more of the passage from the chapter Flotsam and Jetsam
-----------------

I already posted the relevant portion.

-----------------
Quote:
I fail to see how this longer quote in anyway changes Aragorn's statement calling them "half-orcs" and as Aragil has pointed out Aragorn is supposed to be one of the most knowledgeable men in all of Middle Earth on the subject of orcs.
------------------------------

It doesn't, especially if he is calling the 'half-orcs' "half-orcs". What it does show is that he is not calling Uruk-hai 'half-orcs'.


------------------
Quote:
As for tying in with the "Fords of Isen", for the umpteenth time, Tolkien's posthumously published work cannot be used to refute the clear meaning of his words in LOTR. 
---------------------

You are welcome to dismiss JRRTs posthumously published works, because they do not agree with your interpretation of LotR, but for myself I will use them because they explain and clarify what he meant. Especially when it is quite clear in LotR that Sauron and Saruman had Uruk-hai, '-hai' refers to 'folk' or 'race', and 'half-orcs' and Uruks are seperate creatures. 

---------------------
Quote:
You then go on to talk about Merry and Pippins capture and say that they do not call them half-orcs. But Merry and Pippin were captured by a mixed party. Some were Saruman's elite troops, the Uruk-hai. Some were Sauron's troops, but it is never specified whether they are the large uruks or the smaller kinds of orcs. And finally, some were definitely identified as the smaller, northern orcs from Moria. Therefore, of course, as a group Merry and Pippin would class them all as orcs. This was also Merry's and Pippin's first ever close-up encounter with orcs and not exactly the time to be composing a treatise on the different varieties. 
--------------------

And none of them were 'Half-orcs'.

--------------
Quote:
Continuing, you say: "What I have suggested is that the Uruks are not Half-orcs." No one in this thread has suggested that uruks are half-orcs.
---------------------

That is what it seemed 'Ossiriand Blade' was suggesting in post 1-22-02 2:55 am, and to what I was responding in post 1-22-02 5:31 pm.

-------------------
Quote:
This in fact is the opposite of what is being discussed. For you to even be arguing the point suggests you have not read and understood the thread. You seem to have jumped into the middle of it without understanding the discussion. The contention here is that uruks are a breed of orcs and that Uruk-hai are another kind of orc, belonging to Saruman who are light-tolerant and who are probably a blend of orcs (possibly uruks) and men. 
--------------------

Ah, no, you seem not to have understood. My contention is that 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' are synonomous in this manner, and the Uruks (the 'anglicized form of 'Uruk-hai'), (or, if you prefer, Uruk-hai) are not 'half-orcs'.


-----------------
Quote:
The term Oghor-hai, as far as I can find appears no where in LOTR. The only reference I can find to it is a single mention in Unfinished Tales which appears to be the basis for your statement. There is no indication what-so-ever as to why orcs called the Druedain the Oghor-hai. Therefore, it could mean anything and cannot be used to argue for or against any meaning that might be considered for the suffix -hai.
---------------------

It is obvious that they called them the Oghor-hai, because they were the Oghor-folk. Just like the Olog-hai and the Uruk-hai, were respectively 'folk' (or 'race' or otherwise pluralized).
It can be used to argue against your 'consideration' that:
--------
Quothe Greenwood:
I think an argument could be made that the suffix -hai refers to a sun tolerant ability in a creature that normally cannot abide, or shuns the sun, but I have not done enough research into LOTR to see if there are any exceptions that would argue against that. 
---------

Since there is no indication that the Druedain were originally some creature that could not abide or tolerate the sun, considering that they were Men. This would be an 'exception', that would argue against that possible interpretation.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

--------------------
Quote:
Nowhere in LOTR does Tolkien place Uruk-hai in Mordor. The only thing that even comes close is the reference to a "rebel pack of Uruk-hai" which can easily be understood as referring to Saruman's troops. Nowhere in LOTR are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks. 
---------------------

The context is clear. The rebel Uruk-hai are in Mordor. They would be 'rebelling' against Sauron. There is a LotR reference to Sarumans troops as uruk: "Related, no doubt, was the word URUK of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time ISSUED from Mordor and ISENGARD. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga, slave."
Emphasis mine.
LotR, App. F.

Hmm... 'great soldier-orcs from Isengard' (Saruman's troops), referred to by the word 'uruk'. 'Snaga' is used in both the Uruk-hai chapter, and in the Tower of Cirith Ungol chapter. 


-----------
Quote:
No one is saying that uruks are half-orcs. You are apparently debating that with yourself. 
-------------

You seem to be debating with me.

-------------
Quote:
What we are saying is that the Uruk-hai are Saruman's elite troops and they are probably a blend of orcs and men. As to uruks being an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai, neither you nor anyone else has yet presented a single piece of hard, uncontovertible evidence for this contention. 
---------------

What you are saying, yes. What I am saying, no.
You have presented no 'uncontrovertible' evidence to support your contention.

----------------
Quote:
Moving on to your next post, I discussed the first Tolkien letter in my previous post. Cian's longer quotation from it shows that it does not mean what you implied it meant. 
-----------------

What was it that I implied it meant?

---------------
Quote:
Moving to the second letter (once again a thank you to Cian for supplying a fuller quotation) it says: "But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are as clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side ... Well, there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai. Keep up your hobbitry in heart, and think that all stories feel like that when you are in them." Once again we see from the fuller quotation Tolkien is not saying what you implied he was saying. In the context of the letter orcs and Urukhai are not necessarily equivalent. The phrase "a hobbit amongst the Urukhai" in the context of Tolkien's writings would appear to be a reference to Merry's and Pippin's time in captivity during their trek across Rohan. Tolkien does not define Uruk-hai as the plural form of uruk.
------------------

The 'Hobbit' being referred to is CT. The Orcs (or Urukhai) are referring to the Nazis and those less reputable elements among the Allies, if I am not greatly mistaken.

------------
Quote:
Once again we are left solely with secondary sources stating that uruks and Uruk-hai are equivalent. There is nothing in Tolkien's writing to state this. It might indeed be a reasonable hypothesis, except for the fact that it does not explain Tolkien's usage of the two terms in LOTR. In LOTR he consistently uses Uruk-hai (always capitalized) to refer to Saruman's elite, sun-tolerant orc troops and uruks (sometimes capitalized, sometimes not) to refer to Sauron's large, soldier orcs. I find it hard to believe that this sort of consistency from a perfectionist, philogogist doesn't mean anything and that the terms are really interchangeable.
-----------------

In accurate but seem quote from App. F above, where he uses 'uruk' for the great soldier-orcs from both Isengard and Mordor.

Also note Ugluk refering to the "Uruk-hai of Isengard" when speaking to Grishnakh.
"But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as usual."
Is this because there are other Uruk-hai than just those of Isengard?


----------



## Greenwood

Tar-Elenion

Part of the time your reasoning ignores your own statements, the rest of the time it is circular. You have never once gone back to the original post in this thread and dealt with the quotations presented there from LOTR. You have never once presented any evidence to back up your assertion that uruk is an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai other than to repeat the assertion. You always ignore the fact that there is a possible alternative interpretation to a passage you cite. You never give any reason why the alternative interpretation could not be correct; you merely assert that yours is correct without any support for the assertion.

The hypothesis under discussion here, which you have never yet addressed directly is simple, but I will restate it. There are undoubtedly orcs in LOTR. There is a subset of orcs known as uruks. There is another subset of orcs known as Uruk-hai; these last belong to Saruman, are disdainful of the sun and apparently were created by Saruman by blending orcs and men. Thus all uruks are orcs, but not all orcs are uruks. Also all Uruk-hai can be considered orcs, but not all orcs are Uruk-hai. If we consider the likely possibility that Saruman created his breed by crossing men with uruks to create his Uruk-hai, then we can also say that all Uruk-hai are uruks, but not all uruks are Uruk-hai.

Moving on to your last posts: You keep repeating that CT says "some of the translations and wordings and definitions in the UT (and Sil.) index are his father's". That is precisely the point. Some are his father's, but the rest are CT's. Which are which? There is no way to know. The individual entries are not initialed. You want to say that the uruk being an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai entry is JRRT's entry, but you have absolutely no evidence to back this up. It could well be CT's entry. You say that I want to: "arbitrarily decide that JRRT's words in UT are wortheless". But you have absolutely no evidence that the index entry in UT are JRRT's words and this entry is the sole basis for the "Anglicized" theory. In you own earlier post you entertain the possibility that CT merely copied Foster's viewpoint for this definition. Nowhere have you given anything in JRRT's own hand that says this was his definition. All you say is that both CT and Foster had access to JRRT's notes so they could have found the "Anglicized definition" there. Yes, they could have, but you have no evidence they did, other than to say that they agree with each other, but you have also said they may agree with each other because they copied from each other rather than finding it in Tolkien. Your own arguments refute each other. 

As to the whole question of using Tolkien's posthumously published work to refute something in LOTR. It cannot be done. You do not seem to grasp the difference between primary sources and secondary sources that Aragil and I have pointed out. As I suggested earlier, go read the discussions about this on the other threads, for instance the Council of Elrond thread in this section (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2160&perpage=15&pagenumber=1 ). The difference between primary and secondary sources is basic to doing any research. Secondary sources cannot refute primary sources.

Moving on to Tolkien's letters you say: "What he is discussing may be irrelevant, but his use of the terms 'Uruks' and 'Urukhai' is not. He is using the 'Anglicized' form." The only evidence that Tolkien is using the "Anglicized form" is your assertion that he is. You have never proven the "Anglicized" theory. 

(BTW, snide and somewhat smug comments like: "That is a shame. You should look into getting a copy [of Tolkien's letters]. It is very informative and there is a (relatively) new edition out." do not advance your arguments in the least.)

You say: "Cian has already posted about Uruk-hai in Mordor". But, Cian's post does not prove there are Uruk-hai in Mordor. It is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. It proves nothing. You say: "You have also chosen to dismiss 'JRRT's' own words about Uruk-hai in Mordor ... ". But nowhere does JRRT say there are Uruk-hai in Mordor. I ignore it because JRRT doesn't say it. Please give a direct quote from LOTR where JRRT says there are Uruk-hai in Mordor. No one else has yet been able to find such a statement. If you are going to point to the two orcs overheard by Sam and Frodo in Mordor in Return of the King (number 7 in my original post) please do not engage in your usual habit of taking snippets out of context. This quote starts out with the orc saying: "First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour ... ". Are we to take it that there are "great elves in bright armor" running around Mordor? In addition, if you refer to my example 9 you will see we have Gorbag, a Mordor orc speaking, he says, talking of himself and his orcs: "Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks". He does not call himself and his men "Uruk-hai", but rather "Uruks".

You say: "It is obvious that they called them the Oghor-hai, because they were the Oghor-folk." It is only obvious, because you say that -hai equals -folk. There is nothing in the text to make it obvious. You are engaging in circular reasoning again, in essence saying: "I define it this way therefore it is obvious that my definition is right."

Moving on to your later posts, you say: "The context is clear. The rebel Uruk-hai are in Mordor." I have dealt with this point above, the context is not clear. Or are you saying that the are "great elves in bright armor" running around Mordor. As for your quotation form Appendix F in ROTK, this was also dealt with earlier in this thread, please scroll up and read the posts. At this point I will merely point to two things, as I said at the beginning of this particular post Uruk-hai may indeed be classed as uruks so the quote from the appendix saying that uruks "issued from Mordor and Isengard" does not mean that Uruk-hai came from Mordor. Much more interesting, however is the part of the quote from the Appendix that says: "word uruk of the Black Speech". You have been arguing that uruk is the Anglicized form of Uruk-hai and citing Foster and Christopher Tolkien as your only sources for this. Here we have JRRT himself saying that uruk is a word "of the Black Speech". How can uruk than be an Anglicized word if it is Black Speech? Or are you now going to argue that Black Speech and English are equivalent? Your thesis that uruk is an Anglicized word has just been shot down by JRRT's own words.

You say: "Snaga' is used in both the Uruk-hai chapter, and in the Tower of Cirith Ungol chapter". I cannot find snaga anywhere in the Uruk-hai chapter. Can you give a quotation? As for the Cirith Ungol chapter, Snaga is clearly used in this chapter as the name of a particular orc in the service of the tower of Cirith Ungol.

The rest of your post has already been dealt with either above or in earlier posts.

Finally:



> Also note Ugluk refering to the "Uruk-hai of Isengard" when speaking to Grishnakh.
> "But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as usual."
> Is this because there are other Uruk-hai than just those of Isengard?



This last suggestion is the thinnest argument yet. Suggesting that Ugluk's statement implies there are Uruk-hai other than Isengard's is about as ludicrous as Greymantle's thesis about "mercenary" bands of Uruk-hai in the original discussion on the movie thread.


----------



## Cian

> "And here are others strange to me. Their gear is not the manner of orcs at all!" TTT



The "goblin-soldiers" are then described, and what is said to be not usual is that they were armed with short, broad-bladed swords, (as opposed to curved scimitars) also (seemingly as implied), that they bore bows like that of Men. They further had a "strange" device upon their shields, and Aragorn comments that he has not seen these tokens before (include S-rune on helms).

In general, not everything in this goblin description can be said to be especially notable however (outside of the comparison to the other Orcs present here of course), including I think, the stature of these soldier-orcs, as they likely do not outstrip that of the huge Orc-chieftain met in Moria, or at least, it doesn't seem implied. I too think Aragorn knows his goblins pretty well, and just to note, his reaction, immediately following the notice of "strange", drew an exclamation about their gear. 

Make what you will of that. Or ... make what you will of that!


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Here we have JRRT himself saying that uruk is a word "of the Black Speech". How can uruk than be an Anglicized word if it is Black Speech? Or are you now going to argue that Black Speech and English are equivalent? Your thesis that uruk is an Anglicized word has just been shot down by JRRT's own words.



For clarity, the argument, if I may speak for Tar-E here, is that "Uruks" or "uruks" is anglicized, not _uruk_, which Tolkien saith is a probable borrowing from archaic Elvish (and indeed is given so as archaic _uruk_). Compare Silmarils to _Silmaril, Silmarilli_. Any anglicization here must reasonably refer to the pluralization -s.


----------



## Greenwood

Cian

Just so I am clear here on this argument.

Uruk-hai is Black Speech
uruk is Black Speech
uruks is an Anglicization

?

Even if this is the argument, nowhere does JRRT say uruks is the Anglicized form of Uruk-hai.

And if uruks is an Anglicization, why does an orc of Mordor use it? Is he just back from a jaunt to Merrie Olde England?


----------



## Grond

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *Grond
> Thank you for your research. I accept it as JRRT's own writing and will not argue with it. It does indeed make clear that Saruman blended men and orcs. It does not, however, shed any direct light on the question of uruk and Uruk-hai being equivalent or not. There is no reason for JRRT to use the term Uruk-hai in the passage you cite.
> If we accept Tar-Elenion's argument then we have the following in LOTR:
> a) orcs -- (no problem here)
> b) uruks/Uruk-hai -- these are in the employ of both Sauron and Saruman, but Saruman's have absolutely no problem with the sun, unlike all other orcs. Saruman's even boast about their disdain for the sun
> c) orc/men hybrids bred by Saruman that are different from his sun tolerant Uruk-hai.
> I hate to sound like Harad here and invoke logic, but if b) and c) are totally different, where did Saruman's sun tolerant Uruk-hai come from? Was this yet another unnamed deviltry of Saruman's? What of Treebeard's comments? Do we now dismiss them afterall. If Saruman's breeding experiments were not for the purpose of creating sun-tolerant orcs what were they for? The soldier uruks already existed. Isn't it far simpler to accept that Saruman's breeding experiments produced his sun-tolerant Uruk-hai? That seems crystal clear to me.
> Well that is my opinion.  *





> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *This last suggestion is the thinnest argument yet. Suggesting that Ugluk's statement implies there are Uruk-hai other than Isengard's is about as ludicrous as Greymantle's thesis about "mercenary" bands of Uruk-hai in the original discussion on the movie thread. *


Greenwood, as to your first post above, I totally disagree with your assertion in the first paragraph. You make JRRT seem a fool. Had the Orc-men or Man-orcs been called the Fighting Uruk-hai, he would have stated it here. When does an author actually tell you of the greatest abomination of one of his anti-heroes and then not give you the whole story? This is beyond debate to me and is what influenced my decision in this matter more than all other arguments. As to your sun tolerant theory of "if b) and c) are totally different, where did Saruman's sun tolerant Uruk-hai come from? I haven't found anything in the texts that would suggest that the Uruks weren't sun tolerant. But I will look. 

As to your final paragraph above stated to Tar-Elenion, in response to his Uruk-hai of Isengard statement, your comments are just too strong. I think Ugluk's comments are one of the best arguments yet that there must be other Uruk-hai. The argument is at least as good as any other put forward as they are all speculation. 

I had definitively made up my mind but will put it on hold until I have researched the issue as to whether there is evidence that the Mordor Uruks were sun tolerant or not. If I find evidence that they are, my opinion that the Uruk-hai are just another verbal form of Uruk will stand (at least in my humble opinion). This thread is just about played out. We are nearing the point to where it will degenerate into a logic argument (my logic's better than your logic) and I will have no part in another "Why did Gandalf take the Fellowship through Moria thread"; but we're not quite to that point yet.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *Little favor for Tal-Elmar, since "winging" it's way into better MB circulation  *




You are welcome. I have been paying little attention to those particular threads. I think I noted one use of it at the 'Inklings' forum, but it had no reply as I recall. Are there any interesting ones using Tar-Elmar and where?


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Cian Just so I am clear here on this argument.
> Uruk-hai is Black Speech/uruk is Black Speech/
> uruks is an Anglicization



Right (unless there is some evidence about that BS employs plural marker -s!!!). In other words, words inflected for plurality would normally inflect using the markers of their own languages.



> And if uruks is an Anglicization, why does an orc of Mordor use it? Is he just back from a jaunt to Merrie Olde England?



This is just Tolkien's choice within his role as translator apparently. Note that Thingol and Aragorn, for examples, both seemingly use "Silmarils" as we read the translation. But -s is not the "correct" plural marker here of course: the word is Quenya, as it's creator knows of course, and it's (nominative) plural marker is properly -i (cf. alternate singular _Silmarillë_ for this example). 

This is what's meant by _Uruks_ being "anglicized" ~ ie made English in quality or characteristics.


----------



## aragil

*What I will make of that...*



> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *
> 
> In general, not everything in this goblin description can be said to be especially notable however (outside of the comparison to the other Orcs present here of course), including I think, the stature of these soldier-orcs, as they likely do not outstrip that of the huge Orc-chieftain met in Moria, or at least, it doesn't seem implied. I too think Aragorn knows his goblins pretty well, and just to note, his reaction, immediately following the notice of "strange", drew an exclamation about their gear.
> 
> Make what you will of that. Or ... make what you will of that!  *



I think what is most noticeable here is that the Isengard orcs' gear is more like to that of humans than to the gear of other orcs. I think the reason behind this is that Saruman's orcs are some sort of orc-men hybrid. In the quote from Morgoth's ring Tolkien seems to be making a distinction between men-orcs and orc-men. Of course, it can be argued that Tolkien writes this way a lot, using 'blah and bleh' to describe the same thing. But I think that in this case Tolkien might be referring to two different things- orc men being men with a little orc blood in them (still mostly mannish), which he might use as spies in Bree, and which might compose a minority of his troops at Helm's deep; and men-orcs, orcs with enough mannish blood to not be affected by sunlight, which form the base of his troops. Both Gamling and Treebeard seem to think that Saruman's man/orc breeding program has been devised to bring out sun tolerant orcs. The orcs at Helm's Deep say that '_We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm_'. This seems to imply that other orcs do stop the fight for day. If the bulk of Saruman's troops were uruks (and if this was distinct from orc-men), then either they would perform poorly in the light of day, or else all uruks would have already been sun tolerant. This brings up the issue of why Saruman would bother to cross orcs and men if there had been a supply of sun-tolerant orcs available for the last 500 years? If there had been such a supply of orcs available for 500 years (uruks appeared 35 years before the establishment of Rohan), why would Gamling remark that the Isengarders could fight in the sun? Wouldn't the fact that generations of men were fighting sun-tolerant orcs for the past 500 years have made sun-tolerance in orcs pretty much a standard thing?
Just for the sake of drawing out old arguments, I'd again like to point out that in our world _folk, people_, and _men_ all tend to have the same connotation, and usually refer to humans. In Tolkiens world this would not be the case, and it would be important to make a distinction between men and folk. I assume that Tolkien linguists derive their translations from the context with which a word is used. A linguist familiar with our world could confuse the distinction between folk and men, and hence get that Uruk-hai meant 'orc-folk', when it might mean 'orc-men'. In our world it wouldn't really matter, both would be 'people of the orc'. In Tolkien's world it would matter- Orc-men is used very often to refer to the troops of Saruman, by several different characters (Aragorn, Treebeard, Gamling, and notably Tolkien himself). Of note is the fact that Saruman's troops don't refer to themselves as orc-men. They seem to prefer the term Uruk-hai.

ps Cian- so that I am pronouncing your name in my head correctly, should it be 'Kee-un', 'Sigh-ann', or other?


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *
> This is just Tolkien's choice within his role as translator apparently. Note that Thingol and Aragorn, for examples, both seemingly use "Silmarils" as we read the translation. But -s is not the "correct" plural marker here of course: the word is Quenya, as it's creator knows of course, and it's (nominative) plural marker is properly -i (cf. alternate singular Silmarillë for this example).
> *



Why should Tolkien choose to anglicize for Gorbag, and yet consistently not anglicize for Ugluk or all of the orcs at Helm's Deep? Ugluk and Gorbag were bragging in the same context- they are members of breeds of orcs that can handle stuff that regular orcs can't. If Tolkien were just randomly flipping a coin in his head as to when to anglicize and when to not, it is statistically improbable (very improbable) that Tolkien would use the anglicized version in his lone quote from a Mordor Uruk, yet consistently use the black speech version for the quotes from Saruman's orcs. If Tolkien was not mentally flipping a coin, but instead intended to make this distinction then we should ask ourselves why he wanted to make this distinction.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> You are welcome. I have been paying little attention to those particular threads. I think I noted one use of it at the 'Inklings' forum, but it had no reply as I recall. Are there any interesting ones using Tar-Elmar and where?



I'm a bit winded to those as well. And even where I used it doesn't seem particulary interesting to me lately  

Is Inklings forums Xenite, or something else? Heheh, not that I need more places to chat Tolkien though.


----------



## Greenwood

> Right (unless there is some evidence about that BS employs plural marker -s!). In other words, words inflected for plurality would normally inflect using the markers of their own languages.



Cian

If Black Speech employs the plural marker -s than the word uruks is not an Anglicization but Black Speech! You can't it both ways.

I simply do not understand why it is necessary to invoke all sorts of tortured explanations to justify the Anglicization hypothesis when there is no evidence that JRRT himself ever thought it or said it. All the different usages of uruk/uruks and Uruk-hai are perfectly consistent throughout LOTR without the Anglicization hypothesis.


----------



## Greenwood

Grond

I will grant you some wiggle room on whether the Uruk-hai are a blend of orcs and men or whether there are other half-breeds out there without a name of their own. It does not make sense to me, but we are arguing different opinions. However, I will point out, again, that Morgoth's Ring is a secondary source compared to the primary source, LOTR, and secondary sources cannot be used to manufacture inconsistencies in primary sources.

As for Tar-Elenion invoking Ugluk's statement "we are the fighting Uruk-hai of Isengard" as evidence that there are Uruk-hai other than Isengard's, this is indeed pulling a rabbit out of thin air. If uruks and Uruk-hai are equivalent and both are a plural form of uruk, why doesn't the Mordor orc just call himself Uruk-hai.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Cian. If Black Speech employs the plural marker -s than the word uruks is not an Anglicization but Black Speech! You can't it both ways.
> 
> I simply do not understand why it is necessary to invoke all sorts of tortured explanations to justify the Anglicization hypothesis when there is no evidence that JRRT himself ever thought it or said it. All the different usages of uruk/uruks and Uruk-hai are perfectly consistent throughout LOTR without the Anglicization hypothesis.



I'm not trying to have it both ways Greenwood ~ the parenthetical added was simply remarking that someone who wants to actually "prove" _uruks_ is not an anglicization, should simply show evidence of -s as a plural marker in Black Speech 

Do you believe that 'uruk-s' is a pure Black Speech word though, ie that BS pluralizes in the same way as seen in English dog/dogs or whatever?

Not any tortured hypothetical really, it's just that -s is the reasonable (anglicizing) plural marker, like in "Silmarils". Cheers


----------



## Grond

Greenwood, we are arguing facts without any "real" evidence from the author. Cian and Tar are supporting their case and you and markrob and others are supporting yours. Grond flounders in between. There is absolutely nothing that is beyond refute in any of the posts thus far. So a secondary source that adds clarity does add weight to the argument. This is my opinion and not yours, but I do believe that secondary sources have intrinsic value when no definitive conclusion may be reached from the primary source. You're trying to break your own rules. 

It is apparent from the argument that your assumptions are not conclusive enough to convince a majority of the posters on this thread. I have introduced secondary information that would logically lead someone to the conclusion that had Uruk-hai been the name of the Orc-men or Man-orcs, the author would have stated it in Morgoth's Ring. This example is not conclusive either, but it is both important and relevent. It gives another insight into the fact that apparently the author thought this was a non-issue since he never definatively addressed it himself. That leads me back to the assumption of comparitive sourcing. If the author assumed that it was a non-issue (but it is an issue nonetheless) then who would be most knowledgeable as to the "correct" answer. The answer to this is that the most authoritative source currently surviving is his son Christopher who also feels it is a non-issue and defines Uruk-hai as an anglicazation of Uruk. 

I will continue to search for the correct answer, I'm just not sure it can be found.


----------



## Cian

aragil,
For Cian (Céin) 'Kee-in' will do


----------



## Tar-Elenion

[various snippages for sake of length, not always attributed (my apologies) and somewhat unsuccessful]

-------------
Quothe Greenwood:
Tar-Elenion 
Part of the time your reasoning ignores your own statements, the rest of the time it is circular. You have never once gone back to the original post in this thread and dealt with the quotations presented there from LOTR.
---------------

Others have done that already. However I will refer to your #12,
the quote from Appendix F:
"Related. no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'." 
To which you stated: "Example 12 is the only case where Tolkien uses the two terms in close proximity and it seems to me to be ambiguous. The first sentence clearly refers makes uruk refer to Mordor orcs..."

This is not accurate. The word 'uruk' is clearly stated to refer the great soldier-orcs from _both_ Mordor and Isengard.

This also contradicts your later statement that:
"Nowhere in LOTR are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks."

App. F is clearly in LotR, and 'great soldier-orcs' from Isengard are clearly Saruman's troops, and it is clearly stated that the word 'uruk' was applied to them



-------------------
Quote:
You have never once presented any evidence to back up your assertion that uruk is an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai other than to repeat the assertion.
---------------------

I suggest rereading my posts as I have presented evidence (such as Letter's and the UT index). You just do not accept that evidence. You are on firmer ground by saying that it is not 'incontrovertible' evidence, and indeed I have labelled some of it 'circumstantial'.

---------------
Quote:
You always ignore the fact that there is a possible alternative interpretation to a passage you cite. You never give any reason why the alternative interpretation could not be correct; you merely assert that yours is correct without any support for the assertion. 
----------------

These passages I cite, would that be the 'evidence I have never presented'? 
Is my labeling of some of these passages as 'circumstantial evidence' ignoring the fact that there are possible alternative interpretations?

------------------
Quote:
The hypothesis under discussion here, which you have never yet addressed directly is simple, but I will restate it. There are undoubtedly orcs in LOTR.
----------------------

True.

----------------
Quote:
There is a subset of orcs known as uruks.
---------------

This is reasonably accurate, at least for the timeframe we are discussing within.


---------------
Quote:
There is another subset of orcs known as Uruk-hai; these last belong to Saruman, are disdainful of the sun and apparently were created by Saruman by blending orcs and men.
---------------

You have yet to present any 'incontrovertible evidence' to support that. That Saruman had Uruk-hai is undeniable. That Saruman's Uruks were disdainful of the sun is undeniable. That Saruman 'created' (or improved) his Uruks by blending Men with Orcs is not unlikely, though not stated. However they are not 'Half-orcs' ('Orc-men' or 'Man-orcs') as is shown by the clear distinction found between them in the 'Fords of Isen' narrative, and taking into account the circumstantial evidence in Morgoth's Ring.

-----------------
Quote:
Thus all uruks are orcs, but not all orcs are uruks. Also all Uruk-hai can be considered orcs, but not all orcs are Uruk-hai. If we consider the likely possibility that Saruman created his breed by crossing men with uruks to create his Uruk-hai, then we can also say that all Uruk-hai are uruks, but not all uruks are Uruk-hai. 
-----------------

But are all 'Half-orcs' Uruks, (or Uruk-hai if you prefer)? 

----------------
Quote:
Moving on to your last posts: You keep repeating that CT says "some of the translations and wordings and definitions in the UT (and Sil.) index are his father's". That is precisely the point. Some are his father's, but the rest are CT's. Which are which? There is no way to know.
----------------

Would this be more of the evidence that I have 'never once presented' and for which I 'ignore possible alternatives'?

-------------
Quote:
The individual entries are not initialed. You want to say that the uruk being an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai entry is JRRT's entry, but you have absolutely no evidence to back this up. It could well be CT's entry.
---------------

I would like to say that, yes. But I have not said that, and indeed I have made it clear that it is only a possibilty and presented circumstantial evidence to back that possibility up.
Would it be fair to say that you do not want the entry to be drawn from JRRT's original index because it does not support your interpretation?

------------------
Quote:
You say that I want to: "arbitrarily decide that JRRT's words in UT are wortheless". But you have absolutely no evidence that the index entry in UT are JRRT's words and this entry is the sole basis for the "Anglicized" theory.
--------------------

The words of JRRT that I was refering to are those found in the 'Fords of Isen' narrative.

----------------
Quote:
In you own earlier post you entertain the possibility that CT merely copied Foster's viewpoint for this definition.
-----------------

Is this more of my 'ignoring possible alternatives'?


[continued below]


----------



## Tar-Elenion

continued from above

[various snippages, for sake of length, not always attributed (my apologies) and somewhat unsuccessful]
-------------
Quothe Geenwood:
As to the whole question of using Tolkien's posthumously published work to refute something in LOTR. It cannot be done. 
-------------

It can be done, it is done and CT has done it too. 
In any event, the posthumously published 'Fords of Isen' does not refute LotR, nor does it contradict it. It clarifies it.



--------------------
Quote:
You do not seem to grasp the difference between primary sources and secondary sources that Aragil and I have pointed out. As I suggested earlier, go read the discussions about this on the other threads, for instance the Council of Elrond thread in this section (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/show...15&pagenumber=1 ). The difference between primary and secondary sources is basic to doing any research. Secondary sources cannot refute primary sources. 
-------------------

Secondary sources can be used to refute primary sources, particulaly when it corrects an error (which has been done with LotR).

You do not seem to grasp their is a difference between using secondary sources to clarify what is found in the primary sources, and using them to refute it.

I may read the thread you refer to.

------------
Quote:
Moving on to Tolkien's letters you say: "What he is discussing may be irrelevant, but his use of the terms 'Uruks' and 'Urukhai' is not. He is using the 'Anglicized' form." The only evidence that Tolkien is using the "Anglicized form" is your assertion that he is. You have never proven the "Anglicized" theory. 
--------------

You have never disproven it. The context of the usage is clear, at least to me.



------------
Quote:
(BTW, snide and somewhat smug comments like: "That is a shame. You should look into getting a copy [of Tolkien's letters]. It is very informative and there is a (relatively) new edition out." do not advance your arguments in the least.)
-------------

(BTW I could respond in kind, and point out what might be veiwed as snide comments by you, but I had chosen not to read them that way).
You are reading to much into the recommendation. It was not intended to be either snide or smug. It was merely a suggestion.

-----------------
Quote:
You say: "Cian has already posted about Uruk-hai in Mordor". But, Cian's post does not prove there are Uruk-hai in Mordor. It is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. It proves nothing. You say: "You have also chosen to dismiss 'JRRT's' own words about Uruk-hai in Mordor ... ". But nowhere does JRRT say there are Uruk-hai in Mordor. I ignore it because JRRT doesn't say it. Please give a direct quote from LOTR where JRRT says there are Uruk-hai in Mordor. No one else has yet been able to find such a statement. If you are going to point to the two orcs overheard by Sam and Frodo in Mordor in Return of the King (number 7 in my original post) please do not engage in your usual habit of taking snippets out of context. This quote starts out with the orc saying: "First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour ... ". Are we to take it that there are "great elves in bright armor" running around Mordor?
--------------------

Snippets out of context? Lets put this in context. The two Orcs are looking for Sam and Frodo. But they do not know exactly what they are looking for ("Garn! You do not even know exactly what you are looking for." The other Orc responds: "Whose blame's that... Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. First they say its a great Elf in bright armour, then its a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe its all the lot together."). Now these Orcs are in Mordor. They have presented possibilties for what has been causing the troubles therein. The 'great Elf' could be refering to Sam: "Tell Captain Shagrat that the great Elf-warrior has called...", mixed in with rumors of Frodo's mithril coat. The 'small dwarf-man' seems an obvious reference to the Hobbits. This leaves the 'pack of rebel Uruk-hai'. Considering that the rumours of an Elf warrior are reasonable (if mistaken). And the 'dwarf-man' is obvious. We know what caused these. So what would the 'Uruk-hai' rumours come from? If there were no Uruk-hai in Mordor it would seem odd that there would be rumours of rebel Uruk-hai there. And if there were the possibility 'rebel Uruk-hai' in Mordor, it seems reasonable that there were non-rebel Uruk-hai as well. It also seems reasonable that the supposed 'rebel Uruk-hai' in Mordor, were rebelling against something, likely Sauron. 

--------------
Quote:
In addition, if you refer to my example 9 you will see we have Gorbag, a Mordor orc speaking, he says, talking of himself and his orcs: "Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks". He does not call himself and his men "Uruk-hai", but rather "Uruks".
------------------

Ah yes, the 'Anglicized' form. 

----------------
Quote:
You say: "It is obvious that they called them the Oghor-hai, because they were the Oghor-folk." It is only obvious, because you say that -hai equals -folk. There is nothing in the text to make it obvious. You are engaging in circular reasoning again, in essence saying: "I define it this way therefore it is obvious that my definition is right." 
-----------------

It is much more obvious that '-hai' refers to 'folk' than it does to one possibilty you suggest, that of it referring to some sort of sun resistant capabilty.



-------------
Quote:
Moving on to your later posts, you say: "The context is clear. The rebel Uruk-hai are in Mordor." I have dealt with this point above, the context is not clear.
-------------

I dissagree, but see above.

-----------
Quote:
Or are you saying that the are "great elves in bright armor" running around Mordor.
--------------

That possibility seems to have been entertained by the 'Higher Ups', but see above.

----------
Quote:
As for your quotation form Appendix F in ROTK[...snip]. Much more interesting, however is the part of the quote from the Appendix that says: "word uruk of the Black Speech". You have been arguing that uruk is the Anglicized form of Uruk-hai and citing Foster and Christopher Tolkien as your only sources for this.
-----------

Reread my posts. As Cian has pointed out, I am arguing that uruks (with an 'S', the _plural_) is the 'Anglicized' form of Uruk-hai. 


--------------
Quote:
Here we have JRRT himself saying that uruk is a word "of the Black Speech". How can uruk than be an Anglicized word if it is Black Speech? Or are you now going to argue that Black Speech and English are equivalent? Your thesis that uruk is an Anglicized word has just been shot down by JRRT's own words.
----------------

Again, the Anglicized plural form of 'uruk' is 'uruks'.
Are you now going to argue that Black Speech used the English 's' as a plural? 

--------------
Quote:
You say: "Snaga' is used in both the Uruk-hai chapter, and in the Tower of Cirith Ungol chapter". I cannot find snaga anywhere in the Uruk-hai chapter.
---------------

Try the index, it should give you the page location.

------------
Quote:
Can you give a quotation? As for the Cirith Ungol chapter, Snaga is clearly used in this chapter as the name of a particular orc in the service of the tower of Cirith Ungol.
---------------

"'Now we will deal with Grishnakh,' said Ugluk; but even some of his own followers were looking uneasily southwards.
"'I know,' growled Ugluk. 'The cursed horse-boys have got wind of us. But thats all your fault, Snaga. You and the other scouts ought to have your ears cut off." 

Snaga, 'slave' when taken in context with the info in App. F, is not a proper name. 

The rest of your post has already been dealt with either above or in earlier posts. 


------------------
Quote:
Finally:

-----------------
[Quoting Tar-Elenion] 
Also note Ugluk refering to the "Uruk-hai of Isengard" when speaking to Grishnakh. 
"But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as usual." 
Is this because there are other Uruk-hai than just those of Isengard? 
-----------------------

This last suggestion is the thinnest argument yet. Suggesting that Ugluk's statement implies there are Uruk-hai other than Isengard's is about as ludicrous as Greymantle's thesis about "mercenary" bands of Uruk-hai in the original discussion on the movie thread.
------------------------------

Thinnest yet? In your opinion.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *
> 
> I'm a bit winded to those as well. And even where I used it doesn't seem particulary interesting to me lately
> 
> Is Inklings forums Xenite, or something else? Heheh, not that I need more places to chat Tolkien though. *



Yes.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

There seems to have bee some suggestions that Sauron's 'great soldier-orcs' were less 'sun-tolerant' than Saruman's 'great soldier-orcs'. In rereading the 'Uruk-hai' chapter I find no evidence of that. The 'Northerner's' are the ones who complain about the sunlight. 
If there is a passage stating that Sauron's great soldier-orcs are less sun tolerant than Saruman's would someone please point it out.


----------



## Grond

Tar-Elenion, Grond is researching the light resistance characteristic of Mordor Orcs and will have a comment later. I, too, am winded and need a rest. Who would have thought that the Great Hammer of Melkor would be caught between the anvil and .....another hammer????


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *Tar-Elenion, Grond is researching the light resistance characteristic of Mordor Orcs and will have a comment later. I, too, am winded and need a rest. Who would have thought that the Great Hammer of Melkor would be caught between the anvil and .....another hammer???? *



Fascinating. Another 'hammer'. That very well could be.


----------



## Greenwood

Since there seems to still be some misunderstanding of why secondary sources are treated differently from primary sources I will try yet another example. I have written and published material in magazines, journals and books. As with probably 99% of all authors I write drafts before the a manuscript is submitted to the editor. The editor then may or may not make changes and usually I then check over the corrected manuscript and may or may not make other changes. When the whole process is finished the work is published. I also write letters to friends and sometimes write things for myself that I either do not intend to publish or for whatever reason never had published. I can tell you from personal experience when I write drafts and letters this is very different than final versions that are published. I (and the editor) carefully look for any problems and/or inconsistencies. My published work is an entirely different animal than my unpublished drafts, notes and letters. Some authors go so far as to destroy their unpublished materials so that no one can publish them after their deaths as Christopher Tolkien as done with his father's material.

For all of the above reasons an authors published material that he/she saw through to publication is considered in a very different light than any posthumously published material that someone else has gathered together and published. Material written partly or wholly by someone other than the author, even when working form the authors extensive notes is yet another matter and is a further step removed from the author's published work.

Thus looking at any author's literary work we may have three basic types of material

1 -- an author's published work, published by him during his lifetime -- primary material
2 -- posthumously published manuscripts and letters -- secondary material
3 -- various third party encyclopedias, companions, etc. by other authors -- tertiary material

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are JRR Tolkien's primary material regarding his creation of Middle Earth. The Silmarillion and posthumously published works all fall into category 2 (secondary) with parts of them, such as Christopher Tolkien's Introductions and Commentaries being category 3 (tertiary) material. Much of The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and the other books before the History of Middle Earth series actually fall somewhere between category 2 (secondary) and category 3 (tertiary) since by Christopher Tolkien's own admission he was forced to select and edit from his fathers extensive notes and emendations. Various Tolkien companions and encyclopedias are category 3 (tertiary) material

Now how do you use these different categories of material? You may use category 2 material to perhaps get a glimpse of how the author arrived at his final published work. If there are inconsistencies in the primary (category 1) material you may use the secondary (category 2) material to look for clues as to how you might solve the inconsistency, but barring finding a "smoking gun" such as a note or letter from the author stating: "there is inconsistency X in my published work and I intend to fix it in such and such away" you cannot resolve the published inconsistency. Even the "smoking gun" is not 100% certain, because unless the author wrote the "smoking gun" note on his deathbed, he might still have changed his mind about how he wished to resolve the inconsistency. In the absence of a smoking gun there is always the possibility the author might have even intended the inconsistency, had no desire to resolve it or had never resolved it in his own mind.

One thing you absolutely cannot do is use secondary and/or tertiary material to manufacture inconsistencies in the primary material or to redefine things in the primary material.


----------



## Greenwood

------------- 
Quothe Tar-Elenion 
To which you stated: "Example 12 is the only case where Tolkien uses the two terms in close proximity and it seems to me to be ambiguous. The first sentence clearly refers makes uruk refer to Mordor orcs..." 

This is not accurate. 
------------- 

It is accurate. It is the only place in LOTR where uruk and Uruk-hai are used in close proximity.

------------- 
quote
The word 'uruk' is clearly stated to refer the great soldier-orcs from _both_ Mordor and Isengard.
------------- 

I have said that Uruk-hai are a subset of uruks so there is no problem here.

------------- 
quote
This also contradicts your later statement that: 
"Nowhere in LOTR are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks." 

App. F is clearly in LotR, and 'great soldier-orcs' from Isengard are clearly Saruman's troops, and it is clearly stated that the word 'uruk' was applied to them 
------------- 

Oops. Sorry.
I will amend it to: Nowhere in the LOTR narrative text are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks.

------------- 
quote
I have presented evidence (such as Letter's and the UT index). You just do not accept that evidence. You are on firmer ground by saying that it is not 'incontrovertible' evidence, and indeed I have labelled some of it 'circumstantial'. 
------------- 

Fine.
You have never once presented any incontrovertible evidence to back up your assertion that uruk is an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai other than to repeat the assertion. 

BTW secondary and tertiary sources do not even rise to the level of "circumstantial evidence" in the face of evidence from a primary source.

------------- 
quote
These passages I cite, would that be the 'evidence I have never presented'? 
------------- 

No. They are the passages from LOTR.

------------- 
quote
That Saruman had Uruk-hai is undeniable. That Saruman's Uruks were disdainful of the sun is undeniable.
------------- 

We agree.

------------- 
quote
That Saruman 'created' (or improved) his Uruks by blending Men with Orcs is not unlikely,
------------- 

I would consider it proven since Grond's passage from Morgoth's Ring concurs with Treebeard's statement in LOTR.

------------- 
quote
However they are not 'Half-orcs' ('Orc-men' or 'Man-orcs')
------------- 

Would you prefer "quarter-orcs", "one-eigth orcs", "three-quarter orc-quarter men"? If they are a blend of orc and men, why can they not be called half-orcs, orc-men or man-orcs?

------------- 
quote
shown by the clear distinction found between them in the 'Fords of Isen' narrative,
------------- 

It is not all that clear. Besides it is secondary material, never put in puiblished form by JRRT.

------------- 
quote
and taking into account the circumstantial evidence in Morgoth's Ring. 
------------- 

Circumstantial material from a secondary source? Hardly very convincing.

------------- 
quote
But are all 'Half-orcs' Uruks ?
------------- 

No.

------------- 
quote
But are all 'Half-orcs' ......, (or Uruk-hai if you prefer)? 
------------- 

I would say that all Uruk-hai are a blend of orcs and men. Perhaps in some individuals the orc inheritance is more obvious and in others the man side is more obvious. This is not uncommon when dealing with hybrids.

------------- 
quote
Would this be more of the evidence that I have 'never once presented' ... ?
------------- 

No.

I will repeat: You keep repeating that CT says "some of the translations and wordings and definitions in the UT (and Sil.) index are his father's". That is precisely the point. Some are his father's, but the rest are CT's. Which are which? There is no way to know. 

------------- 
quote
I would like to say that, yes. But I have not said that, and indeed I have made it clear that it is only a possibilty and presented circumstantial evidence to back that possibility up. 
------------- 

No, you have presented evidence from secondary sources to back up a possibility from a secondary source. In some case you have presented circumstantial evidence from a primary source to back up a possibility from a secondary source. You then try to use the circumstantial evidence derived from the this merry-go-round of secondary sources and circumstantial arguments to refute evidence from a primary source which you never directly address. The whole thing is a house of cards.

------------- 
quote
The words of JRRT that I was refering to are those found in the 'Fords of Isen' narrative.
------------- 

I repeat (with slight modifications for emphasis): You have absolutely no evidence that the index entry in UT are JRRT's words and this entry is the origin of the "Anglicized" theory.

------------- 
quote
Is this more of my 'ignoring possible alternatives'? 
------------- 

No. You are ignoring you own earlier post in which you entertain the possibility that CT merely copied Foster's viewpoint for this [Anglicized] definition. The possibility that CT may have copied Foster makes the fact that they agree with each other worthless as any sort of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. This is what you continually ignore.

------------- 
quote
It can be done, it is done and CT has done it too. 
------------- 

The fact that something can be done does not mean it does not break the rules, which you know well was what was meant. I can rob a bank. It does not mean I am not breaking the law.

CT did not refute anything in LOTR. He created a definition unsupported by the majority of usage in LOTR.

------------- 
quote
Secondary sources can be used to refute primary sources, particulaly when it corrects an error (which has been done with LotR). 
------------- 

There was no error in LOTR to correct.

------------- 
quote
You have never disproven it. The context of the usage is clear, at least to me
------------- 

I have given evidence from LOTR to dispute the "Anglicization" theory (examples 1 - 12) in the original post on this thread plus example 13 given later. Far more evidence than you have given from LOTR for the "Anglicization" theory.

------------- 
quote
So what would the 'Uruk-hai' rumours come from?
------------- 

Grishnakh has long since reported that Ugluk and his Uruk-hai pals have captured halfings and have refused to bring them to Lugburz. Perfectly reasonable to consider them rebels. Grishnakh considered Saruman a rebel for setting up his own troops with their own badges. Why wouldn't a Mordor orc consider anyone working for Saruman a rebel? I repeat: The Mordor orcs statement is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations.

------------- 
quote
Ah yes, the 'Anglicized' form. 
------------- 

Ah yes, Good old Gorbag, just back from his holiday in jolly olde merrie England using Anglicized speech instead of Black Speech. Do all the orcs in Mordor Anglicize their speech?

------------- 
quote
It is much more obvious that '-hai' refers to 'folk' than it does to one possibilty you suggest, that of it referring to some sort of sun resistant capabilty. 
------------- 

The sun resistant possibility was merely a suggestion. It is irrelevant to the main points under discussion. You have nothing to back up your "folk" suggestion except your "Anglicization" theory. It's a wash.

------------- 
quote
I am arguing that uruks (with an 'S', the _plural_) is the 'Anglicized' form of Uruk-hai. 
------------- 

Are you saying Gorbag uses Anglicized words when speaking to another orc? Or are you saying Tolkien chooses to have his orcs use Anglicized words instead of the Black Speech words he has invented for them? 

------------- 
quote
Are you now going to argue that Black Speech used the English 's' as a plural? 
------------- 

See above.

------------- 
quote
Try the index, it should give you the page location. 
------------- 

Sorry, none of my various copies of LOTR have indexes. Which edition are you using? I will have to check it out.

------------- 
quote
Snaga, 'slave' when taken in context with the info in App. F, is not a proper name.
------------- 

I was unfamiliar with the orthographic usage that would capitalize the word Slave whenever it was used. I must say it makes it a bit confusing to know when a capitilized word might be a proper name as opposed to a social classification. Seems sloppy usage for a philologist, but I guess if Tolien can make up his own words he can make up his own orthography.


----------



## Greenwood

Grond

I will not give you a Tar-Elenion style post.

I have not changed my rules about primary and secondary sources (see my post two posts up). Of course, a secondary source can corroborate or clarify a primary source. Your passage from Morgorth's Ring corroborates Treebeard's account. The fact that Tolkien does not say anything about Uruk-hai in it cannot be used as proof of anything about the term Uruk-hai, however. The whole passage is a piece he never used in LOTR or prepared for publication. We cannot know how he might have modified it in a final form. We know that orcs are not fond of sunlight, we know that the Uruk-hai are openly disdainful of the sun, we know that they work for Saruman, Treebeard speculates that Saruman has blended orcs and men to develop orcs that are tolerant of sunlight. It is a reasonable inference that these creations of Saruman's are the Uruk-hai. No it is not proof. If you look back at my original post that started this thread you will see that there is nothing there about half-orcs or sun tolerance or anything. It was a simple listing of the usages of the terms uruk/uruks and Uruk-hai in LOTR. These arguments about hybrids are irrelevant. As is my suggestion about -hai being related to sun tolerance. It was a top of the head suggestion that is irrelevant to the original argument.

As for Tar-Elenion's contention about "Uruk-hai of Isengard" implying that there are other Uruk-hai I repeat my opinion that it is grasping at straws. Under this argument if a herald announced: "All hail Theoden of Rohan", it could be argued that there are other Theodens that the herald is distinguishing this Theoden from. Ugluk boasting we are the "Uruk-hai of Isengard" is the same sort of flowery, somewhat archaic speech useage most of us enjoy in LOTR. To twist it the way Tar-Elenion has is ludicrous.

As for Tolkien, I do not think he is a fool. I think he chose his usage carefully as I pointed out in the post that started this thread. I think Christopher Tolkien may have made a mistake in following someone elses theory about uruks vs. Uruk-hai. I repeat my view that the 12 examples given in my first post and the one example added later add up to a considerable body of evidence in LOTR that does not jibe with the "Anglicization" theory advanced by people other than JRR Tolkien. I remain mystified as to why people are so wedded to it.


----------



## Grond

Greenwood, I ask you to show me one single time in the published primary works where the author definatively says that the "Uruk-hai" are Orc-men or Man-orcs. It isn't there. The next best source in my humble opinion would be the author's outline of the whole of the works "The Lord of the Rings". These are found in the History of Middle-earth VI, _The Return of the Shadow_, VII, _The Treason of Isengard_, VIII, _The War of the Ring_, and IX, _Sauron Defeated_. It is a work published after the author's death but contains a basic outline of the LotR. The bulk of the references are found in VII, _The Treason of Isengard_. It is well that you consider this a work of little meaningful value because it indicates clearly to me that the chapter is dealing with Orcs. The Orcs of Mordor are snaga, the small orcs and the Orcs of Isengard are of a bigger size and carry man-like weapons. These Orcs of Isengard are consistently referred to as the Isengarders or the great orcs and the Orcs of Mordor as Mordor Orcs. 

In the scene where the Orcs battle with one another the author's outline reads,
"Some want to go North. Some say ought to go straight to Mordor. The great orcs were ordered to go to Isengard..."
A paragraph later.
"Fight breaks out. Slain orc falls on top of Pippin with blade drawn. Pippin manages to cut wrist bands. Ties cord loosely again. 
Isengarders win. Mordor orcs are killed. They start on. [?Leader] called Ugluk [?leaves them]. They rouse Merry, give him drink; cut ankle bonds and drive hobbits with whips. Dark night. Pippin manages to unclasp brooch unseen."
And on the next page.
"Orcs become aware of pursuit by horsemen, Merry and Pippin do not know about horsemen; but perceive that the orcs are afraid..."

It is ironic that Tolkien's has only the chapter number XXIV until the handwritten title of _An Orc-raid_ was later added.

Given this information, along with the fact that the author didn't feel this issue should be confusing enough to elaborate on further, it is apparent to me that the Uruk-hai is a plural form of a group of Uruks. Large and mean fighter orcs of both Mordor and Isengard. It is also just as clear that Saruman bred groups of both Man-orcs and Orc-men based on descriptions from this very same text. If you absolutely refuse to accept these writings, I have nothing further to offer. If the author's outline (published after his death) is not a significant piece of research material, then we have reached an impasse where "common sense" is wonting. 

I again reiterate that there is no definitive proof in the text published during the author's lifetime; but, this chapter from _The Treason of Isengard_, in Chapter XXI, titled The Uruk-hai makes it clear to me what the author meant. 

Grond is done with debate. I am fully satified and will depart from this thread. If you don't agree with me, so be it. We will just agree to disagree. I have worked long and hard to try and bring everyone to a logical conclusion. If I have failed to do that, I apologize.... but it wasn't for lack of trying on any participant's part..... including mine!


----------



## Bombadillodillo

Well,

I will say this. The two of you (Greenwood and Tal-Elenion -- Grond snuck a post in there--), I have no doubt, have considered Uruks and Uruk-hai more than Tolkien probably ever did.

It seems to me likely that Uruk-hai merely means orc-folk. Though it could mean orc-men (but then again don't all orcs have their origin in men). 

Regarding the "Anglicization" of Uruk-hai theory, I thought the whole of the Lord of the Rings was written in Common Speech. (Though perhaps translated by Tolkien into English, I've always taken it that the Common Speech was English, which is strange since English has changed so much over the years, but I'm sure Tolkien was better aware of this than I.) In any case almost all the orc speech is translated.

It seems to me that "Uruks" is merely Common Speech-ization. And some of the orcs did speak common speech. Indeed black speech is merely a bastardization of Common Speech and a bastard language altogether, just as orcs are a bastard race, if bastard is not to good a term for them. Therefore I see no problem with the Uruk-hai themselves refering to themselves alternately as Uruks and Uruk-hai. The bastards probably couldn't keep it straight themselves.

Concerning the "rebel Uruk-hai" that can also be taken to mean that all the Uruk-hai are rebels, since those of Cirith Ungol clearly regarded Saruman and his Uruk-hai as rebels by that time (since they didn't bring the hobbits to Mordor but took them Saruman instead and his treachery was laid bare). Or it could refer merely to some of the Uruk-hai who undoubtedly fled to Mordor after Saruman's fall and yet could not bare the utter slavishness of the Mordor orcs. Which leads me to a point about the difference between the orcs of Mordor in general and the Uruk-hai of Saruman. Saruman's Uruk-hai were more noble than those of Mordor because Saruman had not fallen as low as Sauron. Sauron's orcs were utterly slavish and had come to altogether hate the light, whereas the Uruk-hai did not hate the light just as because their lord Saruman had not yet utterly fallen. Remember Gandalf still kept the hope that Saruman woud yet be saved. 

I don't know why Tal-Elenion thinks that Sauron's orcs also could endure the light. The Uruk-hai rather surprised Aragorn at Helm's Deep when he learned that these orcs did not fear the day. Saruman's were the only orcs who did not fear or at least dislike the day.

One final note. It is the Uruk-hai who identify themselves as the Uruk-hai. I think they do this so as to distinguish themselves from the rest of the orcs. Saruman's orcs at least still have some dignity. They take pride in the fact that they are the "orc-folk" or "orc-men" what you will. What it shows is not that the Uruk-hai were more wicked than your typical orc but perhaps still had some remnant of dignity and humanity left in them, however little that was. And it shows not that Saruman was more wicked than Sauron but less so, even as wicked as he was feeding his orcs man flesh. It only makes you wonder, though not much, what Sauron did to his orcs.


Sorry, I meant to give a rather short response, but then again this is short in comparison to the length of yours 

PS. Don't take this post too seriously. I really don't think the matter that important. At worst it is a mere slip of Tolkien on a relatively unimportant matter. However, I llike the explanation that the stupid orcs were merely slipping in and out of common speech of which their own is a bastardization. This combined with the pride of the Uruk-hai as being the great orc folk.


----------



## Bombadillodillo

. . . . . I'm still looking for Grond's original post . . . 

Wow! there are a lot of posts on this.


----------



## Grond

Crap!!!! I came to a final conclusion to the wrong question. After rereading this thread in its entirety one last time before unsubscribing I realize I got waylaid by Greenwood. Many posts ago he put forth the hypothesis that Uruk-hai could possibly have been a Man-orc or Orc-man. That was not the original premise of the thread and somehow my slow operating brain changed the thread criteria. For the last 24 hours I have been seeking to prove the author did not mean Man-orc when he wrote Uruk-hai.

I have reached the conclusion that the author definately did not mean Man-orc when he wrote Uruk-hai. I am, however, unconvinced that Sauron's Uruks and Saruman's Uruk-hai are the same or different. I have come to no conclusion on the original subject of the thread. The chapter in HoMe The Treason of Isengard, Chapter _Uruk-hai_ never refers to Sauron's orcs as great orcs. It simply refers to them as orcs whereas Saruman's orcs are referred to as great orcs. There are other references to great orcs of Sauron coming against Osgiliath (I believe) during the reign of Denethor and that they were tolerant to sunlight. I will find this entry and others if the exist and carry on my search; however, I tend to agree with the Bombadilliodillo man who said that this really isn't that important of an issue. But I wouldn't ever want anyone to think the Mace of Melkor was a quitter. 

BTW, Greenwood, none of this should matter a whit to you since you consider the HoMe an unreliabe secondary source; but, for me, I think the answer doesn't lie in the LotR. The only definitive answer (if there is one) is in the "other works" of the author published after his death.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

------------------------------------
Greenwood posted:
------------- 
Quothe Tar-Elenion 
To which you stated: "Example 12 is the only case where Tolkien uses the two terms in close proximity and it seems to me to be ambiguous. The first sentence clearly refers makes uruk refer to Mordor orcs..." 

This is not accurate. 
------------- 
[Greenwood]
It is accurate. It is the only place in LOTR where uruk and Uruk-hai are used in close proximity. 

------------- 
quote [Tar-Elenion]
The word 'uruk' is clearly stated to refer the great soldier-orcs from _both_ Mordor and Isengard. 
------------- 
[Greenwood:]
I have said that Uruk-hai are a subset of uruks so there is no problem here. 
--------------------------

I see you have chosen to break up my responce in such a manner as to make it seem I was saying something I was not. 

As you well know, I did not say that the 'close proximity' was not accurate. You know this since you seem to have _puposely_ seperated the part where I pointed out what I was saying was not accurate, in an attempt to make it seem that I was saying something I was not. 
I ask you to refrain from doing that. 

This is the innaccuracy I was refering to was:
Greenwood wrote:
"Example 12 is the only case where Tolkien uses the two terms in close proximity and it seems to me to be ambiguous. The first sentence clearly refers makes uruk refer to Mordor orcs as in examples 8 to 11,"

And this is how it was innaccurate:
"The word 'uruk' is clearly stated to refer the great soldier-orcs from _both_ Mordor and Isengard". 

You should have left it in its proper place and responded to what I was writing instead of trying to make it look like I was saying something else.

Or were you honestly mistaken and you actually thought I was saying the two words were not in close proximity?

-----------
Qouthe Greenwwod
I have said that Uruk-hai are a subset of uruks so there is no problem here. 
----------------

Please provide a citation from JRRT saying that Uruk-hai are a subset of uruks.

------------- 
quoting Tar-Elenion
This also contradicts your later statement that: 
"Nowhere in LOTR are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks." 

App. F is clearly in LotR, and 'great soldier-orcs' from Isengard are clearly Saruman's troops, and it is clearly stated that the word 'uruk' was applied to them 
------------- 


-------------
Greenwood responds:
Oops. Sorry. 
I will amend it to: Nowhere in the LOTR narrative text are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks.
----------------

JRRT clearly and definitely used 'uruk' to refer to Saruman's troops. What difference does it make that it was not in the 'LOTR narrative text'?



---------------
Qouthe Greenwood: 
You have never once presented any incontrovertible evidence to back up your assertion that uruk is an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai other than to repeat the assertion. 

BTW secondary and tertiary sources do not even rise to the level of "circumstantial evidence" in the face of evidence from a primary source. 
-----------------

In your opinion. However the 'evidence' you have presented is open to interpretation. The posthumous works clarify the primary works, narrowing the alternative interpretation. 



------------- 
quoting Tar-Elenion: 
That Saruman 'created' (or improved) his Uruks by blending Men with Orcs is not unlikely, 

Greenwood responds:
I would consider it proven since Grond's passage from Morgoth's Ring concurs with Treebeard's statement in LOTR. 
------------

The passage in Morgoth's Ring does not mention Uruk-hai. 
Treebeard is _not_ making _statements_. He _is_ asking questions:
"I wonder what he has done? Or they Men he has ruined, or has he blended the races of Orcs and Men?"
Treebeard does not know.


Even if he were making statements, JRRT has pointed out that Treebeard is fallible.


------------- 
Quote:
Would you prefer "quarter-orcs", "one-eigth orcs", "three-quarter orc-quarter men"? If they are a blend of orc and men, why can they not be called half-orcs, orc-men or man-orcs? 
--------------

Because 'half-orcs', or 'orc-men' or 'man-orcs' is refering to something specifically different than Saruman's Uruk's. This is conclusively proven in 'Fords of Isen', which does not contradict LotR, is fully compatible with it, and uses JRRT's own words, which give us greater clarity and insight into LotR.


----------
Quothe Greenwood:
Circumstantial material from a secondary source [Morgoth's Ring]? Hardly very convincing. 
------------

In your opinion. 
But as with 'Fords of Isen', noncontradictory, compatible, and clarifies what is found in LotR.

----------
Quote:
I will repeat: You keep repeating that CT says "some of the translations and wordings and definitions in the UT (and Sil.) index are his father's". That is precisely the point. Some are his father's, but the rest are CT's. Which are which? There is no way to know. 
------------

It is evidence nonetheless, and makes sense. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe that CT did not simply make it up.


------------
Quote:
No, you have presented evidence from secondary sources to back up a possibility from a secondary source. In some case you have presented circumstantial evidence from a primary source to back up a possibility from a secondary source...
<snip> 
-------------

The evidence is there. You can choose to dismiss it, but it does not change the fact that it is evidence. And it clarifies what is in LotR.


------------- 
quoting Tar-Elenion
The words of JRRT that I was refering to are those found in the 'Fords of Isen' narrative. 

Geenwood replies
I repeat (with slight modifications for emphasis): You have absolutely no evidence that the index entry in UT are JRRT's words and this entry is the origin of the "Anglicized" theory. 
----------------

Again, here I was referring to (as the quote from me you supplied shows) the 'Fords of Isen' narrative. I was not referring to the UT index.


--------------
Quothe Greenwood:
No. You are ignoring you own earlier post in which you entertain the possibility that CT merely copied Foster's viewpoint for this [Anglicized] definition. 
<snip>
-------------

I choose to belive that CT is not a plagiarist. I choose to believe that CT did not simply make it up. You are of course at liberty to dismiss it. But what evidence do you have that 'Uruks' is not an 'Anglicization' of Uruk-hai? 



------------- 
quoting Tar-Elenion
Secondary sources can be used to refute primary sources, particulaly when it corrects an error (which has been done with LotR). 

Greenwood responds:
There was no error in LOTR to correct. 
------------


Really? There is an error in Appendix A (a primary source), which was corrected in UT and PoME (secondary sources).

------------
Quote:
I have given evidence from LOTR to dispute the "Anglicization" theory (examples 1 - 12) in the original post on this thread plus example 13 given later. Far more evidence than you have given from LOTR for the "Anglicization" theory. 
--------------

Your 'evidence' has proven nothing. Nothing in LotR disputes 'uruks' being the Anglicized form of Uruk-hai.


------------- 
quoting Tar-Elenion: 
So what would the 'Uruk-hai' rumours come from? 

Greenwood responds:
Grishnakh has long since reported that Ugluk and his Uruk-hai pals have captured halfings and have refused to bring them to Lugburz. Perfectly reasonable to consider them rebels. Grishnakh considered Saruman a rebel for setting up his own troops with their own badges. Why wouldn't a Mordor orc consider anyone working for Saruman a rebel? I repeat: The Mordor orcs statement is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. 
----------------

You _seem_ to be suggesting that the Orcs believed that Saruman's Orcs had 'invaded' Mordor. Is this an accurate inference?
If it is then how? Why would the 'Higher Ups' believe this (it was the 'Higher Ups' that the Orcs got their info from)?
The obvious interpretation of the passage is that there were Uruk-hai in Mordor, some of which might be 'rebelling'. I think you are terming it ambiguous because it does not agree with your position, (that only Saruman had Uruk-hai). 

-----------
Quote:
Ah yes, Good old Gorbag, just back from his holiday in jolly olde merrie England using Anglicized speech instead of Black Speech. Do all the orcs in Mordor Anglicize their speech? 
-------------

When the author chooses that do, the do. JRRT 'Anglicizes' many words. Cian has already cited examples.


------------- 
Quote:
Are you saying Gorbag uses Anglicized words when speaking to another orc? Or are you saying Tolkien chooses to have his orcs use Anglicized words instead of the Black Speech words he has invented for them? 
------------- 

Seeing that JRRT 'Anglicized' words he invented in many cases, then yes (Cian has cited circumstances), He is choosing to do just that.

Once again:
Are you now going to argue that Black Speech used the English 's' as a plural? 

------------- 
Quote:
Sorry, none of my various copies of LOTR have indexes. Which edition are you using? I will have to check it out. 
---------

As all my editions have the index we seem not to be using the same editions. It is just after (most) of the Northerners take off.

An aside:
Which LotR does not have an Index?

------------- 
quoting Tar-Elenion
Snaga, 'slave' when taken in context with the info in App. F, is not a proper name. 

Greenwood responds:
I was unfamiliar with the orthographic usage that would capitalize the word Slave whenever it was used. I must say it makes it a bit confusing to know when a capitilized word might be a proper name as opposed to a social classification. 
<snip>
---------------

Like 'Higher Ups'


----------



## Tar-Elenion

---------------
Quothe Bombadillodillo:
Concerning the "rebel Uruk-hai" that can also be taken to mean that all the Uruk-hai are rebels, since those of Cirith Ungol clearly regarded Saruman and his Uruk-hai as rebels by that time (since they didn't bring the hobbits to Mordor but took them Saruman instead and his treachery was laid bare). Or it could refer merely to some of the Uruk-hai who undoubtedly fled to Mordor after Saruman's fall and yet could not bare the utter slavishness of the Mordor orcs. 
---------------

The implication of the statement is that there are Uruk-hai in Mordor. The simplest explanation is that Saurons 'great soldier-orcs' were also Uruk-hai, and that both Sauron and Saruman had Uruk-hai. But lets go on the presumption that this pack of Uruk-hai are from Isengard. How did they get to Mordor and why would they go there, and which ones were able to flee there?

------------------
Quote:
I don't know why Tal-Elenion thinks that Sauron's orcs also could endure the light. The Uruk-hai rather surprised Aragorn at Helm's Deep when he learned that these orcs did not fear the day. Saruman's were the only orcs who did not fear or at least dislike the day. 
------------------

The 'Northerners' show some concern for the daylight itself. I have asked for a passage indicating that those from Mordor seemed to be adversely effected by the sun, none has been provided.

Aragorn does not seem at all surprised.
The Orcs ask what he is doing on the walls.
He says he is looking out to see the dawn.
They say they dont care about it being night or day, and ask what of it.
He says that no one knows what will come with the day (presumably he is referring to and awaiting Gandalf's return) and tells them to get lost.
They threaten him.

I do not read any surprise in it. 
Why do you think so?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *Crap!!!! I came to a final conclusion to the wrong question. After rereading this thread in its entirety one last time before unsubscribing I realize I got waylaid by Greenwood. Many posts ago he put forth the hypothesis that Uruk-hai could possibly have been a Man-orc or Orc-man. That was not the original premise of the thread and somehow my slow operating brain changed the thread criteria. For the last 24 hours I have been seeking to prove the author did not mean Man-orc when he wrote Uruk-hai.
> 
> *



I am unsure of the context of this post. If by meaning 'Man-orc' with 'Uruk-hai' you are referring to 'uruk', 'orc' and '-hai', 'man' (I realize you are not saying you believe that but rather you are attempting to find out if it is possible), then one reasonable proof is 'olog-hai', which would mean 'troll-man', but it is stated in Appendix F that they were Trolls.


----------



## Greenwood

------------
Quothe Tar-Elenion
Or were you honestly mistaken and you actually thought I was saying the two words were not in close proximity?
------------

Yes.

------------
Quote
Please provide a citation from JRRT saying that Uruk-hai are a subset of uruks.
------------

He didn't. It is my suggestion based on his usage.

------------
Quote
What difference does it make that it was not in the 'LOTR narrative text'?
------------

Because that is where all but one ambiguous instance of the word are found.

------------
Quote
However the 'evidence' you have presented is open to interpretation.
------------

You have never addressed my evidence.

------------
Quote
The posthumous works clarify the primary works, narrowing the alternative interpretation. 
------------

The posthumous works follow a different usage, muddying the primary works.

------------
Quote
Even if he were making statements, JRRT has pointed out that Treebeard is fallible.
------------

The hybrid orc/man question was not part of the original thread and is irrelevant to the uruks vs. Uruk-hai question.

------------
Quote
This is conclusively proven in 'Fords of Isen', which does not contradict LotR, is fully compatible with it, and uses JRRT's own words, which give us greater clarity and insight into LotR.
------------

The usage of uruks is different in 'Fords of Isen' from in LOTR. The usage of uruks vs. Uruk-hai in LOTR was the original question of this thread. Read the first post.

------------
Quothe Greenwood
Circumstantial material from a secondary source [Morgoth's Ring]? Hardly very convincing.

Quothe Tar-Elenion
In your opinion.
But as with 'Fords of Isen', noncontradictory, compatible, and clarifies what is found in LotR
------------

Morgoth's Ring (as quoted by Grond) makes no mention of either uruks or Uruk-hai. It is irrelevant to the question under discussion. Read the first post in this thread.
As for the 'Fords of Isen', see above.

------------
Quote
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe that CT did not simply make it up.
------------

He probably didn't. You suggested he copied from Robert Foster.

------------
Quote
You can choose to dismiss it, but it does not change the fact that it is evidence. And it clarifies what is in LotR.
------------

I dismiss it because it is circumstantial and based on circular reasoning. You suggested the possibility CT copied the "Anglicization theory" from Foster, yourself.

------------
Quothe Greenwood
I repeat (with slight modifications for emphasis): You have absolutely no evidence that the index entry in UT are JRRT's words and this entry is the origin of the "Anglicized" theory

Quothe Tar-Elenion
Again, here I was referring to (as the quote from me you supplied shows) the 'Fords of Isen' narrative. I was not referring to the UT index.
------------

But what we were discussing was the "Anglicization theory". You appeared to be confused as to what was being discussed. I attempted to get you back on point. You still appear confused.

------------
Quote
I choose to belive that CT is not a plagiarist. I choose to believe that CT did not simply make it up.
------------

I never accused CT of being a plagiarist. You suggested CT may have adopted Foster's definition.

------------
Quote
But what evidence do you have that 'Uruks' is not an 'Anglicization' of Uruk-hai?
------------

What evidence do you have that it is? That was the question at the beginning of the thread. The "Anglicization theory" was advanced after Tolkien's death with no evidence cited from LOTR. I started this thread to ask for such evidence. Read the original post. I do not have to prove a negative.

------------
Quote
There is an error in Appendix A (a primary source), which was corrected in UT and PoME (secondary sources).
------------

This is the first I have heard on this thread of an error in Appendix A. What is it?

------------
Quote
Nothing in LotR disputes 'uruks' being the Anglicized form of Uruk-hai.
------------

In your opinion. Nothing in LOTR supports the "Anglicization theory"; a theory proposed without any evidence from LOTR years after Tolkien's death. You are supporting this theory, you should provide support for it from LOTR. I have provided numerous examples from LOTR to show that the usuage in LOTR does not follow what would be expected from the "Anglicization theory". You test a theory by making predictions based on it, or in this case by seeing if the facts, the usage of the terms uruk/uruks vs. Uruk-hai in LOTR fit what could be reasonably expected from the "Anglicization theory". I have given numerous examples in the first post of this thread to show that the usage does not consistently follow the "Anglicization theory". You have never addressed those examples, nor even shown any evidence that you have read them.

------------
Quote
You _seem_ to be suggesting that the Orcs believed that Saruman's Orcs had 'invaded' Mordor.
Is this an accurate inference?
If it is then how? Why would the 'Higher Ups' believe this (it was the 'Higher Ups' that the Orcs got their info from)?
------------

No. The "Higher Ups" suggested it to the orcs. They were wrong, just as they were wrong about the warrior elf.

------------
Quote
The obvious interpretation of the passage is that there were Uruk-hai in Mordor, some of which might be 'rebelling'.
------------

It is not obvious. I, and others, have given an alternative interpretation. You choose not to believe it. That is why I say it is ambiguous.

------------
Quote
When the author chooses that do, the do. JRRT 'Anglicizes' many words. Cian has already cited examples.
------------

What does the first sentence above mean? You lost me.
Then you are saying that JRRT only chooses to "Anglicize" Uruk-hai when he refers to orcs in Mordor? (See the examples in the first post in this thread.) Why would he?

------------
Quote
Seeing that JRRT 'Anglicized' words he invented in many cases, then yes (Cian has cited circumstances), He is choosing to do just that.
------------

Then I guess you are saying that JRRT only chooses to "Anglicize" Uruk-hai when he refers to orcs in Mordor? Seems odd to me. Can you suggest why JRRT would do that?

------------
Quote
Are you now going to argue that Black Speech used the English 's' as a plural?
------------

That was Cian's suggestion to explain Gorbag's use of the word Uruks instead of Uruk-hai.

------------
Quote
Which LotR does not have an Index?
------------

Houghton Mifflin hardcover editions from the mid 1960s.


----------



## Greenwood

> After rereading this thread in its entirety one last time before unsubscribing I realize I got waylaid by Greenwood. Many posts ago he put forth the hypothesis that Uruk-hai could possibly have been a Man-orc or Orc-man



Grond

Actually, it was Ossiriand Blade who put forth that hypothesis. Tar-Elenion then said: "There is nothing in the corpus that indicates 'hai' is used for 'half'. The Uruk-hai are not 'Half-orcs' (a cross breed of Men and Orcs)". I said there was evidence that the Uruk-hai are a cross-breed and things went downhill from there. In my opinion there is evidence that Uruk-hai are a blend of men and orcs, but the evidence is in dispute so we have agreed to disagree. In any event, the question is irrelevant to the original point of the thread which I have been trying to get back to in my last few posts.


----------



## Ged

This is an interesting thread, perhaps the best I've read in the short time I've been accessing this site. Nice to see well-reasoned arguments on both sides, backed up by research, even if everybody can't necessarily agree.

Actually, this has cleared something up for me. When I watched the film (I know I shouldn't bring it up here, but just this once...) my first feeling was that Saruman breeding Lurtz and his type was a deviation from JRRT. I went back to the books, and sure enough in Foster's guidebook (I'm not claiming he is an authority by the way) he said the Uruks (Or Uruk-Hai I can't remember) were bred by Sauron 500 years before the time of the War of the rings. I'm now convinced by Greenwood's argument that the Uruk-Hai specifically were bred by Saruman, and were a stronger sub-set of the general Uruks around (specifically in Mordor).

Isn't this interesting? The film actually got it right! 

More evidence that old PJ and his collaborators know more about Middle Earth than many self-styled Tolkien experts.


----------



## Greenwood

Tar-Elenion

The question of the use of the word "snaga" seemed to me to be worth a seperate response rather than lumping it in with my longer comments to you in an earlier post. You said, based on the following entry in Appendix F of Return of the King: "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'." that snaga is always used as the word "slave' in LOTR. At the time I could not find the passage you referred to in The Two Towers, but I said that in Return of the King it was Snaga was clearly used as a proper name. You kindly supplied the passage from The Two Towers, but completely ignored the much more extensive uses of the word in Return of the King. Both passages are given below.

From The Uruk-hai chapter in The Two Towers we have the following short passage: "'I know,' growled Ugluk. 'The cursed horse-boys have got wind of us. But that's all your fault, Snaga. You and the other scouts ought to have your ears cut off."

From The Tower of Cirith Ungol chapter in Return of the King we have the following passages:
".... An orc-voice rose in anger, and he [Sam] knew it again at once, harsh, brutal, cold. It was Shagrat speaking, Captain of the Tower.
" 'You won't go again, you say? Curse you, Snaga, you little maggot! If you think I'm so damaged that it's safe to flout me, you're mistaken. ......'
" 'They won't come, not before you're dead anyway,' answered Snaga surily. 'I've told you twice that Gorbag's swine got to the gate first, .....' "
Two paragraphs later: " 'I'm not going down those stairs again,' growled Snaga, be you captain or no. ......' "
On the next page: "As far as Sam could see, Shagrat hunted Snaga round the roof, until ducking and eluding him the smaller orc with a ylep darted back into the tower and disappeared. ...."
A couple of pages further on: " 'All right,' growled Snaga. 'But I'll come and have a look at you all the same, and see what you're up to.' "

The single usage of the word Snaga in TTT is I suppose open to interpretation, given that it is only a single use. Normally, I would interpret it as a the name of the orc being addressed by Ugluk, but I will grant you the possibility that Ugluk is merely calling him "Slave". However, I find it very hard to see how, in the much more extensive uses of the word in ROTK that any reasonable reader would interpret Snaga as anything but the name of the orc being addressed by Shagrat. It would seem to me that, at least in the case of it's use in the Cirith Ungol chapter, the word "Snaga" is not used as equivalent to the word "slave" as stated in Appendix F. Either we have an inconsistency on Tolkien's part or he is using it in more than one way in the books. The fact that "Snaga" appears in two places in LOTR is indeed odd and I suppose might be an argument for it meaning slave. Or it might be a slip on Tolkien's part or it might be that "Snaga" was a common orc name.Or perhaps it is an orc name in Mordor, but as Tolkien states in Appendix F, the word is used to mean slave among the Uruk-hai, which of course Ugluk is and according to the thesis that started this thread, the Mordor orcs are not. In this case we have no inconsistencies. The passage you cited in TTT fits Tolkien's statement in the Appendix and the passage I referred to in ROTK fits my contention that Snaga is used there as a proper name and both are then in accordance with Appendix F. Any comments?


----------



## Cian

------------
Tar-Elenion:
Are you now going to argue that Black Speech used the English 's' as a plural?
------------

------------
Greenwood:
That was Cian's suggestion to explain Gorbag's use of the word Uruks instead of Uruk-hai.
------------

Greenwood, that is, and was, not my suggestion. I would not offer, or even imply it, so please do not attribute it to me. 

The parenthetical was just another way to challenge you, or anyone who wants to (certainly not me!!! ack!) to somehow definitively prove _uruks_ as not an anglicization by somehow showing that BS pluralizes like English dog/dogs. It was simply a tongue in cheek challenge (note smiley or exclamation !) that I didn't, and don't, think anyone would actually undertake. 

For further clarity: I do not in any way think this could be done, or is even likely to have even been considered by JRRT, ie plural -s as a linguistic element of Saurons Esperanto. 

I hope this issue is clear now  Onward then.

There isn't much "theory" to it. _Uruk_ is a pure Black Speech word but _Uruks_ is not because the plural marker -s comes from another language, and to 'anglicize' a Black Speech word is to give it English quality or characteristics. 

Also this is not the only case where Tolkien does this as I've shown. 

I've the same question as Tar-Elenion has asked though. Are you, or anyone, going to argue that BS pluralizes in -s?


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Bombadillodillo_
> Regarding the "Anglicization" of Uruk-hai theory, I thought the whole of the Lord of the Rings was written in Common Speech. (Though perhaps translated by Tolkien into English, I've always taken it that the Common Speech was English, which is strange since English has changed so much over the years, but I'm sure Tolkien was better aware of this than I.) In any case almost all the orc speech is translated.



As you seemed to say in one part  Common Speech is not English. Tolkien rendered it into English almost everywhere. Example: Westron _nîn_ means "water", very likely related to Elvish, compare Elvish stem NEN "water".


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Just for the sake of drawing out old arguments, I'd again like to point out that in our world _folk, people_, and _men_ all tend to have the same connotation, and usually refer to humans. In Tolkiens world this would not be the case, and it would be important to make a distinction between men and folk. I assume that Tolkien linguists derive their translations from the context with which a word is used. A linguist familiar with our world could confuse the distinction between folk and men, and hence get that Uruk-hai meant 'orc-folk', when it might mean 'orc-men'.



Part of linguist David Salo's discussion on the English word "Man" as it related to Glorfindels prophecy:

_"The key words (for your question) are dîr/nér. These refer to the males of any kind of _hnau_ or intelligent beings, especially of Elves and humans of various sorts."_

Another section:

_"Which would leave open the possibility that he could be killed by _edhel_, _nogoth_, _onod_, or _perian_. However, it would preclude the possibility he could be killed by a female _adan_."_ (incidently this is based on a hypothetical and not reflective of Davids view regarding the death of the Witch King)

This is just to show that David is certainly well aware of the various beings in Middle-earth, moreover, I think naturally, he would be not only mindful of possible distinctions between "Man" and "folk" but of distinctions beyond that. 

Leave them at the door or not, the linguistic "opinions" from David and others regarding BS _-hai_ (that I posted in the other thread) ... well let's just say that from my experience in reading David, Helge, Lisa Star, Carl Hostetter, are very familiar with Tolkiens world too


----------



## aragil

*Cian...*

I am sure that David et al are more familiar with the races (and languages) of Middle-Earth than I am. I wasn't trying to accuse them of an ignorant mistake, but rather a hasty mistake. If they have spent as much time on 'hai' as we have spent here on this post, then I wouldn't even accuse them of a hasty mistake. It seems to me that black speech is much less fleshed out than most of the other languages of Middle-Earth, so I just assume that the linguists have spent less time on it. If this is the case, then it might be possible that they took a glance, said 'hai looks like folk', and then decided to get back to languages which were more fleshed out and interesting (and nice sounding). If at all possible, I think it would be very instructive if we could get any of these linguists on the forum. This is the stuff they love, so I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to get them here if we could some how contact them. Does anyone know how? On a similar note, I've been considering contacting the Encyclopedia of Arda to ask how they arrived at uruks and Uruk-hai being equivalent (and to inform them of our debate). Has anyone ever e-mailed EofA to get clarification on a definition? They warn that with the movie they've been getting an awful lot of traffic, but maybe they'd be interested enough to respond?


----------



## Greenwood

Cian

I have pointed out, and given numerous examples, that in LOTR Tolkien uses the term Uruk-hai when referring to Saruman's elite orc troops, or when he has them speaking of themselves. The single instance in which a Mordor orc uses the word Uruk-hai, I and others have shown can easily be interpreted to be a reference to Saruman's troops. Tar-Elenion (and perhaps you) disagree. That is why I term this usage ambiguous. Throughout LOTR Tolkien uses the term uruks/Uruks when referring to the large soldier orcs from Mordor. As far as I can remember (don't hold me to this since I do not have my books handy) the word uruk (no -s) appears only once on LOTR and that is in Appendix F. It is also the only time the word is used to refer to elite orc troops from Isengard as well as Mordor and in one of my responses to an earlier post of yours I pointed out in that instance it could easily be interpreted that uruk (no -s) is a generic term for the large soldier orcs of both Isengard and Mordor. I continue to maintain that uruks/Uruks (with an -s) is consistently used to refer to Mordor soldier orcs and Uruk-hai to Isengard soldier orcs throughout LOTR.

In the course of the debate I pointed out that a Mordor orc refers to himself and his compatriots as uruks (with an -s) and said I thought it strange that the orc would use an Anglicization. In response you said it was Tolkien's choice to translate the speech using an Anglicization. Fine. I will not argue the point. Tar-Elenion and you have used this exchange, hwever, to repeatedly attempt the debating trick of getting me to argue a possibility that you raised, that Black Speech pluralizes with an -s. I have declined and continue to decline to do so.

I repeat, the proposal that uruks/Uruks (with an -s) is an Anglicized version of Uruk-hai is a theory proposed years after Tolkien's death and has no basis of support in the text of LOTR. The only instance that anyone has come up with where Tolkien uses the word Uruks (with an -s) is in the Fords of Isen account in Unfinished Tales. I have repeatedly pointed out the reasons why this secondary source cannot be used to counter all the examples from the primary source, LOTR. If Tolkien had chosen to include this account in some later edition of LOTR, he might well have changed all the instances of Uruks to Uruk-hai in keeping with his usage in LOTR. This kind of argument highlights the dangers of trying to use secondary sources to refute a primary source.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> I am sure that David et al are more familiar with the races (and languages) of Middle-Earth than I am. I wasn't trying to accuse them of an ignorant mistake, but rather a hasty mistake.



A Treebeard warning then. For the record I wasn't trying to imply that David was more familar with anything than you  just familiar enough with Tolkien.


----------



## Greenwood

Cian

A quick apology if I seemed at all intemperate or abrupt with you in my last post. I respect your obvious knowledge of Tolkien, even if we sometimes have different opinions. I find Tar-Elenion's style of "snippet" debate annoying and I am afraid I may have let that annoyance spill over on you.

My apologies.


----------



## Grond

Greenwood, it appears that you have boxed yourself into a corner and in doing so, boxed everyone else involved in this debate into that same corner. Your unwillingness to accept secondary sources as contributory material is absurd and I now wonder is you would embrace it if it, in fact, supported your cause.

I will be civil though and adhere to your rules. I have combed the "real" text, which, of course, would be the LotR and come up with one final tidbit of information to be chewed, swallowed and digested by all. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring, Appendix B, The Tale of Years,
3019
February
26 ...Aragorn sets out in pursuit of the *Orcs* at evening. Eomer hears of the descent of the *Orc-band* from Emyn Muil.
27 ...Eomer...sets out from Eastfold about midnight to pursue the *Orcs*.
28 ...Eomer overtakes the *Orcs* just outside Fangorn Forest.
29 ...The Rohirrim attack at sunrise and destroy the *Orcs*.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This information makes nothing clear except by its silence. I again reiterate that this couldn't have been an issue to the author or he would have explained it. My only conclusion is that he is referring to Uruks throughout and that there are only two types of Orcs, the snaga and the Army Uruks. Maybe Saruman's were bigger and maybe they were stronger but they were Orcs, none the less, and the term Uruk-hai is simply a saying meaning Orc-folk. I say this because in an entry from a source in HoMe it clearly states that Sauron has light tolerant Orcs involved in the destruction of Osgiliath. Also there are the multiple entries in The Treason of Isengard which was the author's own outline. I will again state that the chapter was originally entitled *An Orc-raid*. And with that I will retire from this thread viewed as an idiot by some and a hero by others but "I pass the test. I will diminish and go into the West, and remain Grond."


----------



## Cian

Thanks for the note Greenwood. No problem 

This is an interesting thread, just to add. Cheers


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> And with that I will retire from this thread viewed as an idiot by some and a hero by others but "I pass the test. I will diminish and go into the West, and remain Grond."



LoL. But are you really done?


----------



## Greenwood

Grond

My rules about secondary sources are fairly standard ones. I did not invent them and I pointed them out on other threads long before the current thread began. I believe I have been consistent in applying them. I am perfectly willing to consider secondary sources in a contributory manner. I have just consistently pointed out their limitations. Their limitations in a debate such as this are that they may provide evidence (but not conclusive evidence) for something in a primary source. However, given the fact that their very nature prevents them from being conclusive they cannot disprove something in the primary source. 

You are absolutely right when you say I am trying to box people in. But I did not make the box. I am merely pointing out where the walls of the box are. The very nature of the material we are dealing with creates the box. We are not dealing with real history. We are dealing with a fiction. Tolkien as its creator is free to change this history (and the meaning of his invented words) whenever he wants up to the time of publication. He is free to continue to change things in subsequent editions. Once Tolkien dies, the creator is gone and the published material is "set in stone". This is the box we must all work in. And yes I am adamant about pointing to the walls and trying to force people to keep their debate within those walls. If I stray outside those walls, please, please, please point it out to me so that I can be yanked back inside.

Extraneous matters about half-breeds and sun-tolerance, etc., that were not part of my original post that started this thread have cropped up and confused the issue at times and I have tried in recent posts to force things back to my original thesis.

I will even admit to refining my position during the course of the debate, but it seems to me that is one thing that happens naturally during a good debate. Especially when both sides do their research and present their cases. Weaknesses in one's arguments are exposed and you make an attempt to correct them. (I am not pointing to any individual when I refer to weaknesses, just making a general statement. As I say, I have been forced to refine my position and arguments and I appreciate the input from everyone.)

After all of this to actually address your last post to me, I have no problem with your listing of the times the word orcs is used by JRRT to describe events in LOTR. Orcs is the broadest most inclusive term. I work professionally with certain species of birds. There are times that I use a shorthand and just refer to them as birds rather than specfying which exactly which species I am referring to. Sometimes I do this because I feel it is clear from the context of the conversation which species I am talking about. In other cases I do it because it doesn't really matter which species. (As an aside, I also sometimes wotk with hybrids. I still at times refer to them as birds.) To get back to Tolkien, I still ask if Uruk-hai actually really just means "orc-folk", why does he only use it for Saruman's elite troops in LOTR? Why does he instead use Uruks for the Mordor orcs? If Tolkien was some other author I might accept that the usage was an accident, but he was a philologist. Words were his profession and these were his own made up words. I find it hard to believe he would be as cavalier with their usage as some seem to argue.

Peace.


----------



## aragil

*Exploring possibilities*

Just taking a few moments here to try to address UT, and bring possibilities into the larger context of the thread:

In Morgoth's ring, Tolkien says, regarding Saruman:

"_Finally, there is a cogent point though horrible to relate. It became clear in time that undoubted Men could under the domination of Morgoth or his agents in a few generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning. There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile..._"

I read from this passage that Saruman created two reasonably distinct offspring from his breeding program, men-orcs and orc-men. I would say that orc-men were mostly mannish, and they were probably useful as spies since they could blend in with men (think Bree and the scouring of the Shire). The other variety would be men-orcs, probably mostly orcish, who would be more disciplined than regular orcs, and would be sun-tolerant (if that did not already exist). Now, regarding the often-quoted passage from UT:

"_In its van were some Dunlending horsemen and a great pack of the dreadful Orcish wolfriders, feared by horses. Behind them came two battalions of the fierce Uruks... The garrison of the east bank, surprised by the sudden assault of the massed Uruks was swept away... they were driven from the Fords... with the Uruks in pursuit". 
"As soon as the enemy had gained possession of the eastern end of the Fords there appeard a company of men or orc-men (evidently dispatched for the purpose), ferocious, mail-clad, and armed with axes... Theodred fell, hewn down by a great orc-man_." 

Notice that the distinction here is the uruks and orc-men. Man-orcs are not mentioned, but uruks are. If man-orcs were bred from uruks (what other variety of orc would Saruman use, the whimpy kind?), it would (in my opinion) be fair to refer to them as uruks. If Tolkien distinguished between orc-men and men-orcs in Morgoth's ring, it would be fair to do so now. I believe this is exactly what he is doing here- the uruks are the 'men-orcs', and the orc-men are, well, the orc-men.

Are there passages in the LotR proper where uruks are equated with man-orcs? Yes- in Helm's Deep. Two passages follow:

"_But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun._"

and

"_The Orcs yelled and jeered. 'Come down! Come down!' they cried. 'If you wish to speak to us, come down! Bring out your king! We are the fighting Uruk-hai. We will fetch him from his hole, if he does not come down. Bring out your skulking king!' 
" 'The king stays or comes at his own will,' said Aragorn. 
" 'Then what are you doing here?' they answered. 'Why do you look out? Do you wish to see the greatness of our army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai.' 
" 'I looked out to see the dawn,' said Aragorn. 
" 'What of the dawn?' they jeered. 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. .... _" 

Both of these passages are in reference to (or spoken by) the troops of Saruman. In one case we have a character in the story refering to Saruman's troops as half-breeds who can withstand the light of day, and in context it seems to be the peculiar property of half-breed orcs that they can withstand sunlight. It could be argued that Gamling is wrong -the creatures of Saruman aren't half breeds but Uruks who could ordinarily withstand sunlight. I would object by noting that Aragorn is right there. Aragorn definitely knows all about Uruks- he fought in Southern Gondor in his youth, he claims to know more about orc-kind than any man in Middle-Earth, and he recently fought Uruks in Moria (Gandalf gave the positive ID). The only way that Gamling would be wrong is if Tolkien were intentionally trying to mislead the reader by having Gamling speak out of ignorance, and then choosing to have Aragorn remain silent. I don't see this as Tolkien's style- in The Council of Elrond several characters speak in ignorance of the ring, and then they are always corrected by the more knowledgeable council members present. Given this line of reasoning it is hard to argue that Gamling is wrong, and hence we have half-breeds of Isengard with the peculiar property that they can fight in the sun, which apparently was not a development that came along with the uruks.
Now, turning to the statements of the orcs, they say that both they are the Uruk-hai, and that they do not quail in the sunlight. There is no direct statement made here that they are orc-men or men-orcs. However, we can refer back to Gamling's statement. If 'normal' uruks could withstand the light of day, then Gamling would hardly need to narrate the fact that these orcs could withstand the light of day. Uruks were first seen in TA 2475, Rohan was established by Eorl in TA 2510. The whole history of Rohan occurs within the time that Uruks had been attacking Gondor. It would not only be reasonable to assume that Gamling was aware of Uruks, it would be unreasonable to assume that Gamling did not know of Uruks. By this line of logic I will now contend that the Uruk-hai are the same creatures that Gamling (and Treebeard, Aragorn, and Tolkien in Morgoth's ring) refers to as half-orcs. They are boasting that they will be fine in the sunlight, in fact, they seem to be saying 'Wait until the sun comes up, then you'll see what sort of deep doo-doo you're in!' They would not make this statement if they were in any way going to be in trouble when the sun came up. From Gamling's quote we can infer that uruks probably were affected by the sun. So either the orcs were idly boasting and were about to cower in the sun, or else they were saying that they would not cower in the sun, and hence were Saruman's half-orcs. Of course they also say that they are the Uruk-hai, which can be interpreted as either meaning that they are uruks with the special distinctions of being half-orcs and sun-tolerant, or else it could mean that Uruk-hai is a term quite separate from Uruk, and refers to the traits of being both half-orc and sun tolerant.
Again I'll make my assertion that '-hai' might mean men, and thus claiming to be the 'Uruk-hai' is the same as claiming to be orc-men/men-orcs, which is how Tolkien, Gamling, Aragorn, Merry, and Treebeard seem to refer to the troops of Saruman. Uruk-hai is undeniably a black speech term, and man-orc/orc-man is an English term. It would not surprise me at all if the orcs of Saruman who might be half orcs refer to themselves as orc-men in Black-speech, while all the English-speaking characters used the same term in English. I notice that Tolkien uses this sort of naming convention throughout his works. _Rohirrim_, from Sindarin meaning 'host of the horse-lords', an apt name for a people with so many horses; _Baranduin_, Sindarin for 'golden-brown river', an apt name for such a muddy river; _Ered Wethrin_, Sindarin for 'mountains of shadow', so named for the deep shadows they cast over the lands to the north. Why not _Uruk-hai_, Black Speech for 'orc-men', an apt name for the race bred from orcs and men? I believe this usage would be consistent with the manner Tolkien used in naming peoples and places, and would also be consistent with the usage of the term in the books.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *Cian
> 
> A quick apology if I seemed at all intemperate or abrupt with you in my last post. I respect your obvious knowledge of Tolkien, even if we sometimes have different opinions. I find Tar-Elenion's style of "snippet" debate annoying and I am afraid I may have let that annoyance spill over on you.
> 
> My apologies. *



Relax. 
If you found it annoying you should have let me know. 

The note of it you made to me was:
"Your style of mixing one line quotes with one line answers is extremely difficult to read but I will do my best to interpret it and answer you points in the order you made them." 

You seemed to accept my responce, that I liked to reply to points individually. I have used that 'style' for quite some time now, and have had no complaints in other Forums where I post.

I would make more use of the 'quote function' but I do not know how to 'break up' the 'quoted' post so as to reply to seperate portions in order (my attempts to do that elsewhere have been quite unsuccessful). I do note that both you and Cian (et.al) have been able to do this (see for example Cian's post dated 01-19-2002 09:23 PM, the fifth post in the thread).

I do not post replies in that manner to cause any problems. I find it annoying to have to 'cut and paste' posts in an attempt to make it clear what I am replying to. If you or Cian could explain how to use the 'quote function' in the manner you both have I would be more than happy to to do so. It would make things much easier for me.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

I will reply to seperate points in seperate posts.
Hopefully Geenwood will find that less annoying than my 'snippet' style.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *------------
> 
> ------------
> Quote [Tar-Elenion]
> What difference does it make that it was not in the 'LOTR narrative text'?
> ------------
> 
> Because that is where all but one ambiguous instance of the word are found.
> *



In App F. it is written:
"Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'." 

It seems clear that both Sauron's and Saruman's great soldier-orcs are referred to as 'uruk'. 

Please clarify how you find the statement ambiguous.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> -----------
> Quote [Tar-Elenion]
> Even if he were making statements, JRRT has pointed out that Treebeard is fallible.
> ------------
> 
> The hybrid orc/man question was not part of the original thread and is irrelevant to the uruks vs. Uruk-hai question.
> 
> *



The 'hybrid orc/man question may not have been part of the original thread but it is part of this thread. The discussion has expanded.
And to clarify my position it is quite possible (if not stated) that Saruman used Men to 'improve' his great-soldier orcs, but his great soldier-orcs are not the 'Man-orcs' or 'Half-orcs' such as are referred to in Morgoth's Ring or Flotsam and Jetsam.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *------------
> Quote [Tar-Elenion]
> This is conclusively proven in 'Fords of Isen', which does not contradict LotR, is fully compatible with it, and uses JRRT's own words, which give us greater clarity and insight into LotR.
> ------------
> 
> The usage of uruks is different in 'Fords of Isen' from in LOTR. The usage of uruks vs. Uruk-hai in LOTR was the original question of this thread. Read the first post.
> 
> ------------
> Quothe Greenwood
> Circumstantial material from a secondary source [Morgoth's Ring]? Hardly very convincing.
> 
> Quothe Tar-Elenion
> In your opinion.
> But as with 'Fords of Isen', noncontradictory, compatible, and clarifies what is found in LotR
> ------------
> 
> Morgoth's Ring (as quoted by Grond) makes no mention of either uruks or Uruk-hai. It is irrelevant to the question under discussion. Read the first post in this thread.
> As for the 'Fords of Isen', see above.
> *



Your contuoued 'suggestion' that I read the first post in the thread is unnecessary. I have read it, and even responded to it.

The Uruks in Fords of Isen, and the Uruk-hai of Isengard in LotR are the same creatures. That JRRT chose to anglicize the term in Fords of Isen is telling. This shows 'Uruks' being used as an 'anglicization' of Uruk-hai. 

That JRRT does not use Uruk-hai in the Morgoth's Ring essay is quite relevant, to the question regarding what Uruk-hai were or were not.


----------



## Greenwood

> Tar-Elenion
> 
> In App F. it is written:
> "Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'."
> 
> It seems clear that both Sauron's and Saruman's great soldier-orcs are referred to as 'uruk'.
> 
> Please clarify how you find the statement ambiguous.



We have two sentences in the statement in Appendix F. Each seems clear to me. The first sentence states that uruk is a word in Black Speech that refers to large soldier orcs (from Mordor and Isengard). The second sentence (still on the subject of language) says that the smaller orcs were often called snaga (I presume another Black Speech word), especially by the Uruk-hai. Tolkien capitalizes Uruk-hai, he does not capitilize uruk in the previous sentence. To me it seems clear that Uruk-hai are a specific group of orcs of that name. Uruk-hai is not synonymous with uruk (or uruks). I previously saw no ambiguity in it. However, you and some others, say that the two sentences together equate uruks and Uruk-hai. I do not see that, but rather than argue that your interpretation is wrong (which I believe it is), in the spirit of give and take, I allow you your interpretation. We now have two different interpretations of the same passage. I define that as an ambiguity.





> The 'hybrid orc/man question may not have been part of the original thread but it is part of this thread. The discussion has expanded.
> And to clarify my position it is quite possible (if not stated) that Saruman used Men to 'improve' his great-soldier orcs, but his great soldier-orcs are not the 'Man-orcs' or 'Half-orcs' such as are referred to in Morgoth's Ring or Flotsam and Jetsam.



The hybrid question did indeed become part of the thread. However, you seemed to be attempting to link it to the original subject of the thread, the "Anglicization theory". They are not linked in any way. I am attempting to return to the original question. If you wish to discuss the hybrid question, as the entirely separate question it is I am willing to do so. 



> If you found it annoying you should have let me know.
> 
> The note of it you made to me was:
> "Your style of mixing one line quotes with one line answers is extremely difficult to read but I will do my best to interpret it and answer you points in the order you made them."
> 
> You seemed to accept my responce, that I liked to reply to points individually. I have used that 'style' for quite some time now, and have had no complaints in other Forums where I post.
> 
> I would make more use of the 'quote function' but I do not know how to 'break up' the 'quoted' post so as to reply to seperate portions in order (my attempts to do that elsewhere have been quite unsuccessful).



I find your style of posting extremely difficult to read and stated that. Being forced to reading long posts in that style becomes annoying. I have seen no one else on the forum use such a style. I can adapt to it and will use whichever style you prefer.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *------------
> Quote [Tar-Elenion]
> In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe that CT did not simply make it up.
> ------------
> 
> He probably didn't. You suggested he copied from Robert Foster.
> 
> ------------
> Quote[Tar-Elenion]
> You can choose to dismiss it, but it does not change the fact that it is evidence. And it clarifies what is in LotR.
> ------------
> 
> I dismiss it because it is circumstantial and based on circular reasoning. You suggested the possibility CT copied the "Anglicization theory" from Foster, yourself.
> ------------
> Quote [Tar-Elenion]
> I choose to belive that CT is not a plagiarist. I choose to believe that CT did not simply make it up.
> ------------
> 
> I never accused CT of being a plagiarist. You suggested CT may have adopted Foster's definition.
> *



My 'suggestion' that CT adopted it was _not_ intended to be taken seriously in any manner. 
Let me rephrase it:
The point of the post was to show that two different sources, both with access to the (then) unpublished materials used the same term in the same way. As CT was using his fathers original index for LotR to provide defintions etc. for the UT index,and the explanation of the word in question occurs therein then it IS from JRRT (and initially written for LotR).
Any other explanation would either make CT a plagiarist (since he did not attribute it), or imply that he made it up and thus virtually make him a liar.
Considering his use of JRRT's LotR index there would be no reason for him to make it up, and plagiarism is out of the question, the only thing left is that JRRT said that Uruks is the Anglicized form of Uruk-hai, this is then entirely consistant with the use of Uruks and Uruk-hai in LotR and UT.


----------



## Greenwood

> Your contuoued 'suggestion' that I read the first post in the thread is unnecessary. I have read it, and even responded to it.
> 
> The Uruks in Fords of Isen, and the Uruk-hai of Isengard in LotR are the same creatures. That JRRT chose to anglicize the term in Fords of Isen is telling. This shows 'Uruks' being used as an 'anglicization' of Uruk-hai.
> 
> That JRRT does not use Uruk-hai in the Morgoth's Ring essay is quite relevant, to the question regarding what Uruk-hai were or were not.



I agree that the creatures referred to as Uruks in the Fords of Isen manuscript are the same creatures referred to as Uruk-hai in LOTR. That does not make the two terms, Uruks and Uruk-hai, equivalent. The Fords of Isen manuscript is not equal to the published book, LOTR. I have given the reasons for this. By standard rules of research, and by common sense, a manuscript that there is no evidence the author ever intended to publish is not on an equal footing with the same author's published work. They are fundamentally and qualitatively different. Given the difference, you cannot make different Tolkien invented words in the manuscript and the published work equivalent even though they refer to the same things in the two writings. You may say that you can because you can type it out, but it is still unjustified.

JRRT is quite consistent in his use of the terms uruks and Uruk-hai in LOTR and he does not use them interchangeably. You may have read the first post in this thread, but you have never once gone through each of the numbered examples in it and explained why JRRT would be so consistent in his usage of always using the word uruks when he is speaking of Mordor orcs and always using the word Uruk-hai when speaking of Isengard's troops. I therefore have no way of knowing that you have read the post.

You say: "That JRRT chose to anglicize the term in Fords of Isen is telling. This shows 'Uruks' being used as an 'anglicization' of Uruk-hai." This is circular reasoning. You say that JRRT has "anglicized" a word, with no proof that he has done this, and then point to the word you have just defined yourself as an Anglicization, as proof that the word is an Anglicization. It is circular reasoning. You are assuming that Uruks equals Uruk-hai and then pointing to that unproven equality as proof of the equality.

The only thing proven by Tolkien's not using the term Uruk-hai in the Morgoth's Ring manuscript is that Tolkien did not use Uruk-hai in the Morgoth's Ring manuscript. In that manuscript (based on Grond's quotation from it) Tolkien uses the term "Isengarders" for the creatures he chose to call Uruk-hai in his published version of the story.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *------------
> Quothe Greenwood
> I repeat (with slight modifications for emphasis): You have absolutely no evidence that the index entry in UT are JRRT's words and this entry is the origin of the "Anglicized" theory
> 
> Quothe Tar-Elenion
> Again, here I was referring to (as the quote from me you supplied shows) the 'Fords of Isen' narrative. I was not referring to the UT index.
> ------------
> 
> But what we were discussing was the "Anglicization theory". You appeared to be confused as to what was being discussed. I attempted to get you back on point. You still appear confused.
> *



I have reread the posts in question. It seemed to me that the discussion was expanding, when you said (in part):

"...You cannot arbitrarily decide that in cases where Foster agrees with you he is right without any further evidence."
(see post 1-23-02 8:07pm for fuller context)

To which I responded (in part):
"But you can arbitrarily decide that JRRT's words in UT are wortheless, because they do not agree with your interpretation of passages in LotR?" 
(post 1-23-02 10:04pm)

To which you commented on the index, and I attempted to clarify that I was referring 'Fords of Isen'


Is that clear?


----------



## Greenwood

> My 'suggestion' that CT adopted it was _not_ intended to be taken seriously in any manner.
> Let me rephrase it:
> The point of the post was to show that two different sources, both with access to the (then) unpublished materials used the same term in the same way. As CT was using his fathers original index for LotR to provide defintions etc. for the UT index,and the explanation of the word in question occurs therein then it IS from JRRT (and initially written for LotR).
> Any other explanation would either make CT a plagiarist (since he did not attribute it), or imply that he made it up and thus virtually make him a liar.
> Considering his use of JRRT's LotR index there would be no reason for him to make it up, and plagiarism is out of the question, the only thing left is that JRRT said that Uruks is the Anglicized form of Uruk-hai, this is then entirely consistant with the use of Uruks and Uruk-hai in LotR and UT.



If your suggestion was not a serious one, why did you make it? Your post said that CT stated he found Foster's work useful. Are you saying that CT found it useful, but then totally disregarded it? 

You have presented absolutely no hard evidence that the Uruk-hai definition presented by CT in his UT index comes from any manuscript of his father's. You presented a quote from CT that said: "some of the translations and the wording of some of the 'definitions'" came from his father's rough draft. There is nothing to indicate that the Uruk-hai definition presented in UT came from JRRT's "rough draft". Clearly, much of the index was CT's own work, he copyrighted it to himself along with the Introduction and commentary in UT. He did not copyright the various manuscript stories presented in UT to himself. You say: "Considering his use of JRRT's LotR index there would be no reason for him to make it up". If it is JRRT's index why is it copyrighted to CT? Clearly CT wrote enough of the index to feel he was justified in copyrighting it in his own name. I have never called CT either a plagiarist, nor a liar. Are you then saying he is a thief who stole his father's index and copyrighted it under his own name? I certainly do not think so. I believe what the copyright evidence and CT's statement say. He wrote the index using "some of the translations and the wording of some of the 'definitions' " from his father's rough draft.

You say: "there would be no reason for him to make it up". There would be a reason to "make it up" with an entry if JRRT's rough draft did not have one in it for Uruk-hai. Clearly CT had to make up some definitions. If he didn't why didn't CT just say "the defintions come from my father's rough draft". He certainly made up enough of the index to copyright it in his own name.

Finally, you say that "Uruks is the Anglicized form of Uruk-hai, this is .... entirely consistant with the use of Uruks and Uruk-hai in LotR and UT." But, it is not consistent. In LOTR whenever JRRT uses the word uruks it clearly refers to Sauron's large soldier orcs. In LOTR, in all but one case, when JRRT uses the word Uruk-hai it clearly refers to Saruman's large soldier orcs. The lone case refered to above is the conversation between the tracker orc and his officer in RTOK. I and others have shown how that use of the word Uruk-hai can easily be interpreted as referring to Saruman's troops. You disagree and put forward a different interpretation. At best that makes this use of the term Uruk-hai ambiguous. The usage in the Fords of Isen manuscript in UT is different from LOTR; it is inconsistent with the usage in LOTR. The only way to make the two usuages (in LOTR and UT) appear in any way consistent is to adopt your "Anglicization theory" (for which there is no proven basis that JRRT ever considered it), but doing that raises far more questions than it answers. It makes the consistent usage of the terms uruks (for Mordor troops) and Uruk-hai (for Isengard troops) in LOTR incomprehensible


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> This is the first I have heard on this thread of an error in Appendix A. What is it?
> *



In Appendix A, the 18th ruler of Numenor listed is Tar-Calmacil. The 19th ruler listed is Ar-Adunakhor. Ar-Adunkhor is later said to be the 20th.
It seems Tar-Ardamin who ruled in between the two was left out.


----------



## Greenwood

> I have reread the posts in question. It seemed to me that the discussion was expanding, when you said (in part):
> 
> "...You cannot arbitrarily decide that in cases where Foster agrees with you he is right without any further evidence."
> (see post 1-23-02 8:07pm for fuller context)
> 
> To which I responded (in part):
> "But you can arbitrarily decide that JRRT's words in UT are wortheless, because they do not agree with your interpretation of passages in LotR?"
> (post 1-23-02 10:04pm)
> 
> To which you commented on the index, and I attempted to clarify that I was referring 'Fords of Isen'
> 
> Is that clear?



Tar-Elenion

Here again you take a small quotation, use it out of context, and then attempt to ignore what was being debated by shifting to something else. You do it far too often for me to believe it is an accident. And no, I will not take the time to give multiple examples. I will just document this one. Below are the series of exchanges that culminated in your quote given above. It is quite clear that throughout the series of exchanges we were discussing CT's index in Unfinished Tales, not the Fords of Isen. You are the one who suddenly invoked the Fords of Isen. 

It has taken considerable time and effort to reconstruct the chain of debate reproduced below, but debate by ordeal seems to be your chosen style. I see no reason to continue the debate if you are going to persist in this tactic. If you wish to honestly debate questions without little debating tricks like snipping short pieces out of longer passages and using them out of context or of debate by misdirection and sudden shifts, I will accomodate you, otherwise the discussion is at an end.



In the post that started this thread I said:
"Cian and other forum members pointed out the Index entry (by Christopher Tolkien) in Unfinished Tales that says: "Uruks -- Anglicized form of Uruk-hai of the Black Speech." "


After a series of exchanged posts Grond said:
"I am going to write a letter to CT himself and see what/if he responds."


To which I responded:
"Actually, I would find CT's take on the whole question interesting given that his entry in the index of UT conflicts with the apparent meaning in LOTR. It would not surprise me if the various Tolkien scholars were relying on CT's index entry in UT, a not unreasonable thing for them to do, but it does demonstrate the dangers of not going back to the primary source that I have been stressing. What I wonder about is that the Tolkien reference book (by JEA Tyler) that Greymantle cited on the earlier thread actually predates the publication of UT. So, did CT use an outside source when making up his index or is Greymantle's copy of the reference book a later edition that incorporated material from UT? "


You then joined this exchange by quoting parts of my two above posts and saying:
" That the entry in the index to UT is CT's not necessarily accurate. What CT said about the index is: 
"In the event there was no index to The Lord of the Rings until the second edition of 1966, but my father's original rough draft has been preserved. From it I derived the plan of my index to The Silmarillion... and also, both there and in the index to this book, some of the translations and the wording of some of the 'definitions'." 
UT, Introduction, The Istari "


I responded:
"And how do we, the readers, know what is JRR Tolkien and what is C Tolkien? He says he derived the "plan" of "my" index. This hardly sounds like we can take the whole index as being definitively JRR Tolkien's. "


You responded:
"He says 'my index' in reference to the Silmarillion. He says 'the index' for UT (which is what we are discussing). 
Further he says he derived not only the 'plan' but used both the translations and wording of some definitions. "


You added:
" I did not say that the whole index could be definitively taken as JRRT's. What I did say was that the entry in question was not necessarily CT's.
" But lets add some further circumstantial evidence. Robert Foster in his 'Complete Guide to Middle-earth' (which is useful despite some errors) notes the same thing, that 'uruks' is the "Anglicized" plural. It is odd that both CT and RF would use the same term, in the same circumstance, except that RF also had access to the (at that time) unpublished materials. So perhaps RF made it up, and CT (he did note that he found the Guide quite useful) simply lifted the terminology from RF. Or perhaps they are both drawing from the same source, JRRT and his index, with translations and wording. 
"Circumstantial, but intriguing none the less. "


I responded:
"First in regards to the index in Unfinshed Tales. Are you seriously arguing that JRRT produced the index for a book published seven years after his death? I also suggest you look at the copyright page of UT. There you will find it says "Introduction, Commentary, Index, and Maps copyright 1980 by Christopher Reuel Tolkien. [emphasis added] Clearly the index, like the introduction and commentary are Christopher Tolkien's work, not his father's. As such they bear no more weight than any other outside party's writings, they are not JRRT's words. Robert Foster's work is equally worthless in regard to the question since we do not know on what it is based. You say yourself there are errors in it. You cannot arbitrarily decide that in cases where Foster agrees with you he is right without any further evidence. You say: "So perhaps RF made it up, and CT (he did note that he found the Guide quite useful) simply lifted the terminology from RF"! That is precisely the point! Thank you for making it for me. This may indeed have happened. Personally, I suspect it did, but I have no proof. The point is it cannot be ruled out. You continue: "Or perhaps they are both drawing from the same source, JRRT and his index". But there is no JRRT index for Unfinished Tales! It is Christopher Tolkien's index."


You responded:
"I suggest you reread what I actually posted, including what CT said, about the index in UT (nowhere did I argue that JRRT 'produced' the UT index). 
"What CT said about the index is: 'In the event there was no index to The Lord of the Rings until the second edition of 1966, but my father's original rough draft has been preserved. From it I derived the plan of my index to The Silmarillion... and also, both there and in the index to this book, some of the translations and the wording of some of the 'definitions'.' UT, Introduction, The Istari 
"In otherwords, CT is saying that some of the translations and wordings and definitions in the UT (and Sil.) index are his father's."

You added:
"But you can arbitrarily decide that JRRT's words in UT are wortheless, because they do not agree with your interpretation of passages in LotR? "


I then responded:
"Moving on to your last posts: You keep repeating that CT says "some of the translations and wordings and definitions in the UT (and Sil.) index are his father's". That is precisely the point. Some are his father's, but the rest are CT's. Which are which? There is no way to know. The individual entries are not initialed. You want to say that the uruk being an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai entry is JRRT's entry, but you have absolutely no evidence to back this up. It could well be CT's entry. You say that I want to: "arbitrarily decide that JRRT's words in UT are wortheless". But you have absolutely no evidence that the index entry in UT are JRRT's words and this entry is the sole basis for the "Anglicized" theory. In you own earlier post you entertain the possibility that CT merely copied Foster's viewpoint for this definition. Nowhere have you given anything in JRRT's own hand that says this was his definition. All you say is that both CT and Foster had access to JRRT's notes so they could have found the "Anglicized definition" there. Yes, they could have, but you have no evidence they did, other than to say that they agree with each other, but you have also said they may agree with each other because they copied from each other rather than finding it in Tolkien. Your own arguments refute each other."
After quoting my: "The individual entries are not initialed. You want to say that the uruk being an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai entry is JRRT's entry, but you have absolutely no evidence to back this up. It could well be CT's entry."


You responded:
"I would like to say that, yes. But I have not said that, and indeed I have made it clear that it is only a possibilty and presented circumstantial evidence to back that possibility up. 
Would it be fair to say that you do not want the entry to be drawn from JRRT's original index because it does not support your interpretation?"

Then you added, suddenly invoking the Fords of Isen:
"The words of JRRT that I was refering to are those found in the 'Fords of Isen' narrative."


----------



## Greenwood

> In Appendix A, the 18th ruler of Numenor listed is Tar-Calmacil. The 19th ruler listed is Ar-Adunakhor. Ar-Adunkhor is later said to be the 20th.
> It seems Tar-Ardamin who ruled in between the two was left out.



This is yet another example of one of your little debating tricks that you insist on resorting to rather than sticking to the subject.

Throughout this long thread we have been discussing uruks vs. Uruk-hai. In the middle of this discussion you throw in a comment about an error in Appendix A. This alleged error has nothing to do with the thread. It is just another one of your red herrings and time wasters. Stick to the topic or stop wasting everyone's time.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

Greenwood
Yes, I said 'JRRT's words in UT'.
You misunderstood what I was refering to, and so I clarified it.
Which I pointed out in my above post.

I have explained why I was posting in the 'snippet manner' you have referred to.

You can except it or not. That is your choice.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> This is yet another example of one of your little debating tricks that you insist on resorting to rather than sticking to the subject.
> 
> Throughout this long thread we have been discussing uruks vs. Uruk-hai. In the middle of this discussion you throw in a comment about an error in Appendix A. This alleged error has nothing to do with the thread. It is just another one of your red herrings and time wasters. Stick to the topic or stop wasting everyone's time. *



You opened the door by saying that posthumously published works cannot be used to refute something in LotR.

I responded that they could, and it had been done, and an error in LotR was corrected.

You said there is no error in LotR.

I responded that there was in App. A.

You asked what it was.

I answered.

If you don't want an answer don't ask the question.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *Tar-Elenion
> 
> The question of the use of the word "snaga" seemed to me to be worth a seperate response rather than lumping it in with my longer comments to you in an earlier post. You said, based on the following entry in Appendix F of Return of the King: "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'." that snaga is always used as the word "slave' in LOTR. At the time I could not find the passage you referred to in The Two Towers, but I said that in Return of the King it was Snaga was clearly used as a proper name. You kindly supplied the passage from The Two Towers, but completely ignored the much more extensive uses of the word in Return of the King.
> 
> <snip >
> *



Your assertion that I 'completely ignored' the use of 'Snaga' in RotK is simply inaccurate, at best. 
I said the word was used in both places, this is not ignoring it. You said you could not find the one in TT, I provided the one in TT. You did not ask for or indicate that you needed the ones in RotK.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

In the corpus the Black Speech word '-hai' is used for three different groups.

The Uruk-hai, the 'great soldier-orcs' apearing in the Third Age.
The Olog-hai, the Black Trolls bred by Sauron.
The Oghor-hai, the Druedain, so named by Orcs.

Several theories have been postulated on what 'hai' means or refers to.

One suggestion was that it means 'half' (and so half-orc, half-troll).
A second suggestion was that it referred to a sun tolerant ability in creatures that could not normally withstand the sun.
A third suggestion was that it meant 'Man' (so Orc-man, Troll-man).
A fourth was that it means folk or race (a plural suffix).

Which is consistant throughout?

We are provided with no definition for 'Oghor'. While some postulate that Uruk-hai are 'Half-orcs' (Orcs crossed with Men), it is not supportable that Olog-hai are 'Half-trolls'. In Appendix F it says that some believed they were giant Orcs, but it is noted that they were quite unlike Orcs in body and mind. It is then stated that "Trolls they were". So 'half' does not seem to fit.

The second suggestion fits for both Olog-hai and Uruk-hai. However the Oghor-hai are the Druedain, and thus Men. Men are not 'normally sunlight intolerant'. So the 'sun tolerance' theory does not fit.

The third suggestion falls into the same category as the first. While the Druedain are Men, and some theorize that the Uruk-hai are 'Orc-men' (or 'Man-orcs'), the Olog-hai are stated to be Trolls. 
So it to seems to fail.

This leaves the fourth suggestion, 'hai' meaning 'folk' or 'race'. This is consistant throughout. 
Lets also look at Letter 78:
"And of course, as you already discover, one of the discoveries of the process is the realization of the values that often lurk under dreadful appearances. Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable (though I fear it must be admitted that there are human creatures that seem irredeemable short of a special miracle,...)".

'Uruks' here is referring back to 'Urukhai', and are referring to '_folk_ made bad'. 'Orc-folk is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Orcs, that is _folk_ made bad by the intention of their maker'. 

The fourth possibility is also the one accepted by the Tolkien linguists. I can find no case of the term being used to refer to an individual, only groups.
Are there any circumstances where it is used to refer to an individual?

-------------
Cian posted earlier:

Leave them at the door or not, the linguistic "opinions" from David and others regarding BS -hai (that I posted in the other thread) ... well let's just say that from my experience in reading David, Helge, Lisa Star, Carl Hostetter, are very familiar with Tolkiens world too 
--------------------

Cian,
Do you know of any comments by Carl Hostetter on '-hai', and 'Uruks' as the 'anglicized' form of 'Uruk-hai'. It could be enlightening due to his access to the manuscripts.


----------



## Greenwood

Tar-Elenion

You continue to play word games and debating games rather than discuss the topic.



> Yes, I said 'JRRT's words in UT'.
> You misunderstood what I was refering to, and so I clarified it.
> Which I pointed out in my above post



I have provided a long extract of the posts in questions showing clearly that we were discussing the "Anglicization" theory advanced in CT's index in UT. When you could not support your position that this entry could be proven to be JRRT's you merely suddenly shifted to the Fords of Isen manuscript and claimed that was waht you were talking about. When I pointed this out in my last long post you merely tried to shift the discussion again and once again provided nothing to prove the index entry was JRRT's. Another cheap debating trick rather than addressing the issue.



> Your assertion that I 'completely ignored' the use of 'Snaga' in RotK is simply inaccurate, at best.
> I said the word was used in both places, this is not ignoring it. You said you could not find the one in TT, I provided the one in TT. You did not ask for or indicate that you needed the ones in RotK.



You are playing word games again. You have completely ignored the use of the word Snaga in ROTK. Responding to my request for information about where it is used in TT in no way deals with its use in ROTK. I stated that Snaga is used as a proper name in ROTK and I took the trouble to provide all the uses of it from ROTK. Any reasonable reader can see it is a proper name. You continue to completely ignore this and my demonstration that of how the two occurrences of the word, once in TT, once (in a single sense) in ROTK fit the entry in Appendix F. You constantly ignore what you seem unable to come up with a response for.



> Several theories have been postulated on what 'hai' means or refers to.



But in my posts I have only advanced one theory about what the suffix -hai might mean. You once again try to muddy and cloud the discussion. My theory is that -hai might refer to in some way to the sun (or the fact that a creature normally shunning the sun has been changed into one that ignores the sun). The only two uses of the suffix in LOTR, Uruk-hai and Olog-hai can be clearly shown to refer to creatures for which the above is true. The only other use of the suffix "in the corpus" as you are fond of saying is for the Oghor-hai in UT. Other than saying it is used by the orcs to refer to the Druedain we are given no clue as to its meaning. It could mean anything. I could come up with a "sun" explanation as easily as you come up with your "folk" explanation. There is nothing to back up either in the case of the Oghor-hai.

Your entire last post is once again an effort to shift attention from the fact that you continue to refused to deal directly in a coherent manner with the contents and topic of the post that started this thread.


[In the interests of clarity I will state that I have added the following section in an edit.] 



> You opened the door by saying that posthumously published works cannot be used to refute something in LotR.
> 
> I responded that they could, and it had been done, and an error in LotR was corrected.
> 
> You said there is no error in LotR.
> 
> I responded that there was in App. A.
> 
> You asked what it was.
> 
> I answered.
> 
> If you don't want an answer don't ask the question.



The is yet another debating word game. You throw in an a matter off subject, I ask for a clarification, you give it, I point out the whole thing is irrelevant to the matter under discussion and then you say: "If you don't want an answer don't ask the question." A word game.

But, just to deal with your example. UT does not correct an error in Appendix A. None of these kings were real people. (Or do you believe they were?) Reading the CT's note in UT makes it obvious what is involved here. An inconsistency in the Appendix was pointed out to JRRT by a reader. In a letter he suggested several possibilities for the origin of the inconsistency. JRRT clearly never felt it rose to the level of being important because he made no effort to resolve or elimnate the inconsistency in the second edition. In The Simarillion CT attempted to resolve the inconsistency by *changing his father's manuscript before publication*. He later decided that his change was not the best way to resolve the inconsistency and was now, in UT, offering yet another alternative to resolve the inconsistency. All of this demonstrates twwo things. One, the dangers of secondary sources and trying to rely on them -- now neither The Silamrillion not UT agree with LOTR. Two, CT admits to changing his fathers words when he sees fit (he did it in The Sil). Once again a demonstration of why I have said secondary sources are different than the primary source.

[End of edit. Now back to my original.]


I have repeatedly given extensive backing for my contentions. I have given at length my reasoning. You, on the other hand, engage in transparent debating tricks and word games in an effort to hide the fact that you do not deal with the substance of my arguments. I have given you repeated opportunities to cease your games and to honestly discuss the issues. Any reasonable person might draw the conclusion that you persist in your style of debate because you cannot answer my arguments. I see no reason to continue to waste my time debating you. Any one reading this thread can draw their own conclusions.


----------



## Bombadillodillo

Tar-Elenion wrote:



> In the corpus the Black Speech word '-hai' is used for three different groups.
> 
> The Uruk-hai, the 'great soldier-orcs' apearing in the Third Age.
> The Olog-hai, the Black Trolls bred by Sauron.
> The Oghor-hai, the Druedain, so named by Orcs.



Your argument from this three uses of "-hai" is very strong. It seems very unlikely that Olog-hai means Troll-men. I also strongly contend that -hai is not a plural suffix, for of the four languages I have studied and the little I know of others, I know of no language that uses a hyphenated suffix to denote the plural. Moreover, I am almost positive that of the languages that Tolkien used as models for the construction of the languages in MiddleEarth none use such suffix plurals. I find it most likely that -hai is not a suffix but means folk, which is why Uruk-hai is always used as a plural since the term folk refers to a group. 

However, I might argue that "-hai" means something more like "breed" since the orcs and trolls are really not folk and probably don't think of themselves even as such. There are breeds of trolls and orcs, not really folks. The term folk connotates some kind of civilization and neither trolls nor orcs had civilization. They are bastards of men (and in the case of trolls of ents perhaps). Moreover, civilization requires households and laws. Concerning laws, the orcs live by the most brutish form of survival of the fittest and rule by might. And we never see female orcs -- probably because orc procreation is brought about through rape and is the reason why Tolkien does not go into depth into it. 

Oghor-hai was I believe considered a derogatoy term used of the Druedain and indeed it would be if -hai meant breed and "-hai" was the consequence of organized rape. 

. . . . . 

Grond, now no peeking.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Bombadillodillo_
> Your argument from this three uses of "-hai" is very strong. It seems very unlikely that Olog-hai means Troll-men. I also strongly contend that -hai is not a plural suffix, for of the four languages I have studied and the little I know of others, I know of no language that uses a hyphenated suffix to denote the plural. Moreover, I am almost positive that of the languages that Tolkien used as models for the construction of the languages in MiddleEarth none use such suffix plurals. I find it most likely that -hai is not a suffix but means folk, which is why Uruk-hai is always used as a plural since the term folk refers to a group.



Bombadillodillo,
Generally, JRRT uses collective suffixes in his langs of course, and of note, he does not always hyphenate Urukhai in any event.

For a hyphenated example of "folk" see Adûnaic _kadar-lâi_ which means, according to Tolkien, "city folk" 

~ (-lâi) may come from Avarin _Kinn-lai_ ~ itself perhaps a reflex of *Quende-lië ~ well attested "a-infixion" (See Elvish stem LI) can explain the form in the Avarin clan name suffix. Stem LI > Q. _lië_ "people".

Tar-Elenion, weekends are tough for me to respond, but I'll hopefully address the questions you raised (re: Carl Hostetter), as best I can, come monday-ish if not sooner. Cheers


----------



## Bombadillodillo

> I am almost positive that of the languages that Tolkien used as models for the construction of the languages in MiddleEarth none use such plural suffixes.



That was a foolish thing for me to have claimed and I realized it shortly after I posted. Thanks for the correction.

But the collective suffix as you call it -- a very appropriate term -- is not the same as a plural inflection and seems always to signify something more than a mere plural inflection, as the "-s" inflection in English. The collective suffix usually signifies something about the group as a whole.

But I would be interested in what you think of my translation of "-hai" as a collective suffix signifying breed.

I am not a linguist, but I have dabbled in it a little, and do love studying languages and wordcraft.


----------



## Greenwood

> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *
> 
> Generally, JRRT uses collective suffixes in his langs of course, and of note, he does not always hyphenate Urukhai in any event.
> *



Cian

I have listed all the instances of the use of the term Uruk-hai in LOTR in the first post of this thread. In every case Tolkien uses a hyphenated suffix. Is there another instance of Uruk-hai in LOTR that I have missed?

Bombadillodillo

Excuse me for not addressing your posts on this thread earlier.

Your suggestion that the suffix -hai is used by Tolkien to indicate a breed is interesting and it seems to me it would fully fit Tolkien's usage in LOTR. The Uruk-hai and the Olog-hai certainly seem to be a different breed than the creatures they are apparently derived from. As I said in an earlier post, my suggestion that it might have something to do with the sun tolerance of the Uruk-hai and the Olog-hai was merely an over the top of my head thing and I am perfectly willing to discard it for a different suggestion that fits all of Tolkien's usage in LOTR. As I also said in an earlier post to Tar-Elenion on the subject of -hai, the single instance of Oghor-hai in UT gives us no basis for deciding on what the usage of it there means, thus we have great latitude in interpreting it there.

I will give you suggestion more thought, but at first look it appears to have considerable merit.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Cian,
> I have listed all the instances of the use of the term Uruk-hai in LOTR in the first post of this thread. In every case Tolkien uses a hyphenated suffix. Is there another instance of Uruk-hai in LOTR that I have missed?



Well I didn't say LotR  (however in one of my editions it is so spelt in RotK, but obviously not in others). I'm just basing that statement on _Letters_ where it's apparently not hyphenated (spelled Urukhai twice [different letters], in both new and old editions at least).

A probable reason for a hyphenated form: _"... simply to avoid the pronunciation of -kh- as a fricative."_ David Salo

In any case my main thing was to show a hyphenated example including "folk", as in Adûnaic _kadar-lâi_

:Only getting on here quick again due to an e-bay thing:


----------



## aragil

*Why -hai might mean men....*

Before anybody completely dismisses the possibility that -hai might mean 'men', I would love to defend it.

Usage 1: Uruk-hai
This of course is the usage most germaine to this thread, and so of course it has been the most often discussed. If hai meant 'men', then a direct translation of the term Uruk-hai would be orc-men. Tolkien applies the terms 'orc-men' and 'man-orcs' to the troops of Saruman in Morgoth's ring. Gamling refers to the troops of Saruman as 'goblin-men', and adds that they are tolerant to light. The troops of Saruman refer to themselves as 'Uruk-hai', and they also say that they are resistant to light. I think that the reference to sun tolerance pretty well links 'Uruk-hai' and 'goblin-men' to be the same creatures. 'Goblin-men' is reasonably close to 'orc-men', which is the name that Tolkien gives them in Morgoth's ring. I think that it would be fair to say that Tolkien often times uses such descriptive names as 'orc-men' when rendering proper nouns into their own language, so I think that 'orc-men' could be a translation of 'Uruk-hai'. 
Finally I'll note that 'Hai-uruk' would be the direct translation of 'men-orcs'. This might violate some grammatical rule of the Black-Speech, and might account for the reason that Tolkien in UT differentiates between Uruks and orc-men. Drawing back on an example in our world, Eskimos have something like 20 (or was it 200, can't recall) different names for snow. In English there is just snow. If we were using English to describe a mixed snow scene, we would just say that there was snow. The Eskimos would distinguish, and say 'wet-snow' and 'dry-snow', or something along those lines. Back to Tolkien, in English there is a way to distinguish 'orc-men' and 'men-orcs', in Black Speech there might just be the term 'Uruk-hai' to cover both varieties. This would explain the passage in 'The fords of isen' in UT. Uruks would be a description of men-orcs, which we remember Tolkien describing as large and cunning (but probably still orcish, and probably descended from pure uruks), and then the orc-men wielding axes would be the other half of the equation from Morgoth's ring, those who were treacherous and vile. In my opinion this completely explains why Tolkien differentiates in the passage from UT.

Usage 2: Olog-hai
This is referring to the creatures of Sauron that were sun-tolerant. For the sake of future contentions, here is the description of them from appendix F, which as far as I know is the only passage regarding this breed in all of Tolkien's works:

_But at the end of the Third Age a troll-race not before seen appeared in southern Mirkwood and in the mountain borders of Mordor. Olog-hai they were called in the Black Speech _(why oh why no translation here?)._ That Sauron bred them none doubted, though from what stock was not known. Some held that they were not Trolls but giant Orcs; but the Olog-hai were in fashion of body and mind quite unlike even the largest of Orc-kind, whom they far surpassed in size and power. Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race, strong, agile, fierce and cunning, but harder than stone. Unlike the older race of the Twilight they could endure the Sun, so long as the will of Sauron held sway over them. They spoke little, and the only tongue that they knew was the Black Speech of Barad-dur._ (how does Cian use all those cool accents?)

The question here is wether or not this passage could reasonably be interpreted as having the possibility of Trolls crossed with men, in which case 'Olog-hai' could be translated as 'troll-men'. Tolkien says that they are Trolls, but this is to contradict the assertion that they are large orcs, with no troll-ish blood in them. It does not preclude them being a hybrid. I believe that Tolkien more than once refers to the half-orcs of Saruman as 'orcs', the half elves as 'elves', etc. In the same passage Tolkien distances the olog-hai from 'the older race of the Twilight', which presumably includes both the hill-trolls of the Hobbit and Return of the King, as well as the cave-troll of Fellowship of the Ring. This means that the olog-hai were more different from cave and hill-trolls than those two groups were from eachother. Presumably he would then have to bring in outside blood to make these new trolls so different. I'll bring to your attention that here he says that Sauron _bred_ the olog-hai, which means he actively controlled what genetic material was going into subsequent generations. Saruman likewise _bred_ his orc-men, so I think that it is _possible_ that the Olog-hai were bred with men. Tolkien says that the stock from which the Olog-hai were bred was unknown, so I will not say that they definitely came from men, but given that they became sun tolerant, and that breeding with orcs and men produced sun tolerant orcs, I think that there is definitely the possibility that the Olog-hai had mannish blood in them.

Usage 3: Oghor-hai
Well, what do we know about this one? It was used by the orcs to describet the Druedain. It was probably not the friendliest term, as there was a great deal of mutual hatred between the races. There probably was not a lot of understanding on the parts of the orcs as to what the Druedain were. They were generally short, about 4', with little head hair, and fairly ungraceful limbs. The orcs probably associated them with men, since they were entirely unlike Elves and lacked the prominent facial hair of the Dwarves. That being said, it would not be surprising if the orcs called them some sort of insulting name like 'ogre-men'. I'll remind everyone that the Druedain made statues of themselves squatting on statues of dead orcs, and they lived solitary lives in the forest- pretty ogre-like if you ask me. Now this is where it begins to get very interesting. In UT we learn that there is a great bit of enmity between the races of orcs and Druedain. Surrounding footnote 5 in the text is speculation that the wild-men contributed to the genetic materials of the orcs. 
_But some thought, nonetheless, that there had been a remote kinship, which accounted for their special enmity. Orcs and Drugs each regarded the other as rendegades._
Of course, this is continued speculation by Tolkien on the origin of orcs, but it brings about a very interesting point. The final footnote in UT (#14), describes the origin of the term pukel-men.
_It seems that the term "Pukel-men" (again a translation: it represents Anglo-Saxon pucel "goblin, demon," a relative of the word puca from which Puck is derived) was only used in Rohan of the images of Dunharrow._
Now I look to my Webster's dictionary, under ogre:
_ogre n. French probably.<Middle Germanic Ogor, Hungarian, probably influenced by French orc. *1* in fairy tales and folklore, a man-eating monster or giant. *2* a hideous, coarse, or cruel man._
From what I know of Tolkien, he definitely knew about the word ogre, and it's origin (middle Germanic, also influenced by French orc, which he also knew a lot about). I'll point out the obvious here- The translation of the Rohirric phrase is 'goblin-men'. If '-hai' means 'men', then the translation of the Black speech is 'Oghor-men'. Oghor is fairly close to Ogor, which is a phrase from middle germanic/french, meaning a hideous man, and is related to the term 'orc' which Tolkien has equated with goblin. Tolkien definitely knew the connotation of ogor, he described the Druedain as hideous by human standards, and he speculated that they might be related to orcs. He then had the Rohirrim describe statues of them (also the people themselves on p. 400 or UT) as 'goblin-men'. Is it possible that he would have the orcs refer to them as 'ogre-men', keeping in mind that the word ogre in English is at least influenced by the word orc? In my opinion the answer is a resounding *YES*! A further note on the naming of the Druedain, from footnote 6 in UT: dru comes from their own term for themselves, 'Drughu', adopted into Sindarin as Dru, to which the Elves later added the suffix adan, meaning 'man'. Hence Druedain actually means 'Dru-men'.

So here we have reasoned arguments as to how '-hai' might be interpreted as 'men', consistent with all three uses found in Tolkien's works. In my previous post on this thread
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2146&perpage=15&pagenumber=7
I have shown how the Uruk-hai can reasonably be interpreted as being half-orc/half-men, and the invention of Saruman, distinct (but probably descended from) the uruks of Mordor. I would love to see replies to these two posts, and I admit I was rather disappointed that my last post was ignored, as it took me most of an afternoon to compose.

ps. Tar-Elenion- if you'd like to further differentiate quotes from other text, simply surround it with the {QUOTE} and {/QUOTE} tags- but using square brackets rather than the curlies. You can further distinguish it with {B} and {/B} (bold type), or {I} and {/I} (italic type) tags (again use square brackets). I agree with Greenwood that your posts are hard to read, and it becomes difficult to distinguish when you are quoting yourself from a previous post, and when you are adding somehing new to the debate.


----------



## Bombadillodillo

Aragil,

Your argument makes a lot of sense to me. I do recant my opinion that "-hai" means breed. The reason is that all the various kinds of orcs were different breeds. Therefore, it wouldn't make sense to call them orc-breed. It now seems silly but I understand how I got on that track. However, I think I can now dismiss the contention that "-hai" means folk for the same reason. Wouldn't all the trolls be troll-folk and all the orcs orc-folk and not just a particular breed of them?

The biggest disagreement I had with translating "-hai" as men was that it didn't seem to make much sense with trolls, but I like your account for that.

Regarding the translation of "-hai" as having to do with their tolerance of the sun, that too makes sense, except perhaps in the case of the Oghor-hai, although they too if they have similar lineage to orcs should shun the day. But if all three of these races (and it seems that the Urukhai most certainly were) were partly of manstock that might account for their tolerance of the sun. 
Nevertheless, "-hai" might mean of the day, especially significant for trolls of normal stock who turned to stone in day. 

One last point here. If "-hai" meant men, wouldn't it be a derogatory term in black speech, but the Uruk-hai seem to take pride in the fact that they are called Uruk-hai and doesn't seem to be used in black speech as a derogatory term at all. Just trying throw a few curve balls. But do we know the word for men in black speech?


Cian,

Concerning the variant spelling of Uruk-hai as Urukhai, I don't think that black speech is really concerned with grammatic rules to begin with. Moreover, Khazad-dum is not spelled K-hazad-dum and yet it too is not a fricative palatal (Kh) but a voiceless palatal (k) followed by the aspirant (h). Dwarfs were surely more concerned with orthography and correct pronunciation than orcs who likely could not read anyway. And after all that, your point Cian still holds.


(Finally, I apologize for not having read all the posts, but the debate of Tar-Elenion was difficult to follow.)


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Bombadillodillo _
> *But do we know the word for men in black speech?*



Sure we do- it's 'Hai'!


----------



## Greenwood

Well, I see while I am off considering Bombadillo's hypothesis, he recants it.  

Aragil

I had not yet dismissed the possibility that -hai means men, I wanted to consider Bombadillo's suggestion for a while. As to whether or not the Uruk-hai were a blend of man and orc, I have always thought so. However, since this point was not central to my original question on this thread and since Tar-Elenion was insisting on purposely mixing the two seperate questions together in an apparent effort to confuse the issue, I had dropped discussion of the matter. I in fact agree with you that the case seems quite clear that the Uruk-hai were a blend of orcs and men.

Now I will go off and consider Aragil's arguments (which I have always found intelligent and well-thought out in the past).


(I am gratified that I am not alone in finding Tar-Elenion's posting style difficult to read. My apologies to the readers of this thread for adopting it for a few posts.)


----------



## Tar-Elenion

I shall now address the 'Snaga' issue.

There are two differerent Orcs referred to as 'Snaga' in LotR.

1) In the 'Uruk-hai' chapter Ugluk refers to one of his scouts as 'Snaga':
"'I know,' growled Ugluk. 'The cursed horse-boys have got wind of us. But that's all your fault, Snaga. You and the other scouts ought to have your ears cut off." 

2) In the 'Tower of Cirith Ungol' chapter one Orc is referred to as 'Snaga' several times:
"[Shagrat speaking]'You won't go again, you say? Curse you, Snaga, you little maggot!'"
"'They won't come, not before you're dead anyway,' answered Snaga surily." 
"'I'm not going down those stairs again,' growled Snaga, be you captain or no." 
"As far as Sam could see, Shagrat hunted Snaga round the roof...". 
"'All right,' growled Snaga. 'But I'll come and have a look at you all the same...'"


It has been suggested that since the word 'Snaga', 'Slave' is capitalized in these instances it is a proper name, particularly in the instance of its use in the 'Cirith Ungol' chapter. However, there are numerous instances of capalitization being used where it is not a proper name. Orcs refer to 'Big Bosses' and 'the Biggest' (presumably the Nazgul and Sauron), 'Sneak' (Gollum), 'Her Ladyship' (Shelob), 'Shriekers' (Nazgul), 'Higher Ups' (likely Nazgul) and there are Hobbits (and ruffians) referring to 'the Chief' (Lotho it was supposed) and 'Big Man' (Bill Ferny), 'Shirriff(s)' (the police), 'Shirriff-leader', 'Cheif Shirriff' as well as 'Shirriffing' and 'Bounders'. 

While taken by themselves it would seem that we have two different Orcs with the personal name 'Snaga' (though JRRT does not repeat any other personal Orc names in LotR). However, when taken in context with App. F (wherein it is noted that the word 'snaga' is Black Speech for 'slave', and that the lesser kinds of Orcs were called 'snaga' especially by the Uruk-hai), and in 'Quendi and Eldar' (wherein it is said that 'uruk' "... referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor. Lesser breeds seem to have been called snaga"), a different picture emerges. 

It has been suggested that 'Snaga' is merely a common orc name. However, this is not suggested by JRRT in either App. F or in Q&E. He says that that is how the lesser breeds were called by the greater.

It has been suggested that as only Saruman had Uruk-hai (an unproven contention), the use of 'Snaga' in the 'Uruk-hai' chapter along with the statement in App. F, allows for the use of 'Snaga' Ugluk to simply be calling the scout 'Slave', and is not a proper name at all. This is consistant. The capitalization is thus a narrative choice by JRRT in his role as 'translator'.

It has been suggested that the B.S. 'snaga' is merely a common Orc name in Mordor and is the proper name of the Orc referred to in the 'Tower' chapter, where it is capitalized, (and, it seems, is thus used to mean 'slave' only among Saruman's Orcs). Snaga is capitalized for both Orcs, any argument that it is a proper name based on this in only one case and but is not the other is inconsistant. In Q&E JRRT was referring specifically to Sauron's Orcs. There is no mention of Saruman's Orcs. Taken in context the Orcs of Mordor called the lesser kinds 'snaga'. JRRT defines the word, and says who used it and how it was used, there is no suggestion that this was simply a proper name among Orcs in Mordor (or in Isengard).

So taken in context, the use of 'Snaga' in LotR is that of the 'great soldier-orcs' calling those of the lesser breeds 'slave'.
The capitalization is, it seems, a function of JRRT acting in his role as 'translator' of the narrative.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Bombadillodillo _
> *
> But I would be interested in what you think of my translation of "-hai" as a collective suffix signifying breed.
> *



I would consider 'breed', in the same category as 'folk' or 'race' (that is roughly synonomous), in other words a 'group' of related 'people' . It can be used in what I noted as the fourth suggestion (I will perhaps 'edit' it in). In App. F JRRT noted that there were various 'breeds' of orcs. He also noted that the Olog-hai were a "troll-race" and they were called "Olog-hai".


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Why -hai might mean men....*

My apologies, I had to 'snip' parts of your post to get under the minimum length. I tried to keep them in context.

Thank you for explaining to me the way to use 'QUOTES', I will try it in this responce and see if I have got it.




> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Usage 1: Uruk-hai
> This of course is the usage most germaine to this thread, and so of course it has been the most often discussed. If hai meant 'men', then a direct translation of the term Uruk-hai would be orc-men. Tolkien applies the terms 'orc-men' and 'man-orcs' to the troops of Saruman in Morgoth's ring. Gamling refers to the troops of Saruman as 'goblin-men', and adds that they are tolerant to light. The troops of Saruman refer to themselves as 'Uruk-hai', and they also say that they are resistant to light. I think that the reference to sun tolerance pretty well links 'Uruk-hai' and 'goblin-men' to be the same creatures. 'Goblin-men' is reasonably close to 'orc-men', which is the name that Tolkien gives them in Morgoth's ring. I think that it would be fair to say that Tolkien often times uses such descriptive names as 'orc-men' when rendering proper nouns into their own language, so I think that 'orc-men' could be a translation of 'Uruk-hai'.




While 'Orc-men' and 'Man-orcs' are noted to have been produced by Saruman in MR, the term is applied to only _some_ of Saruman's troops, I do not think this applies to Saruman's Uruks. As has been noted, JRRT does not say that Saruman bred Men and Orcs to produce Uruk-hai, or even use the term Uruk-hai, in the essay. Gamling refers to _some_ of Saruman's troops as 'goblin-men' and 'half-orcs' and notes that "they will not quail at the sun", he also adds that "neither will the men of the hills". This close link between the two is interesting. Merry describes the marching of Saruman's troops: " 'He emptied Isengard. I saw the enemy go: endless lines of marching Orcs; and troops of them mounted on great wolves. And there were battalions of Men, too. Many of them carried torches, and in the flare I could see their faces. Most of them were ordinary men, rather tall and dark-haired, and grim but not particularly evil-looking. But there were some others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed."
Note that the 'goblin-faced men', are marching with the Men (Dunlendings). Saruman's Uruks do not seem to have been mustered in mixed companies with Men (though they do seem to enjoy Man-flesh  ). At Helm's Deep the Uruk-hai fight in their own units (and also in 'Fords of Isen', the Uruk battalions are seperate from those of the 'men' or 'orc-men' armed with axes). 
Indeed the only places where Men and Orcs seem to intermix are the actual attempted storming of the Deeping Wall, and the wolf-riders seem to ride with some Dunlending horsemen among them (I wonder what those horses were thinking?), though I suppose it is possible that they only came into close proximity when they started their attack on the Rohir horseherds. 

These are some reasons why I think Saruman's Uruk-hai are not actually the 'Orc-men' or 'Half-orcs' or 'goblin-men'. Hence I do not think 'hai' is translated as 'men'. 





> <snip>
> Back to Tolkien, in English there is a way to distinguish 'orc-men' and 'men-orcs', in Black Speech there might just be the term 'Uruk-hai' to cover both varieties. This would explain the passage in 'The fords of isen' in UT. Uruks would be a description of men-orcs, which we remember Tolkien describing as large and cunning (but probably still orcish, and probably descended from pure uruks), and then the orc-men wielding axes would be the other half of the equation from Morgoth's ring



Another explanation might be taken from Merry:
"Do you know, they [the 'men with goblin-faces' that marched with the Dunlendings] reminded me at once of that Southerner at Bree; only he was not so obviously orc-like as most of these were."

The 'Southerner' may be of the one type, and the 'goblin-faced men' and Orc-men of 'Fords' may be the other.





> Usage 2: Olog-hai
> This is referring to the creatures of Sauron that were sun-tolerant. For the sake of future contentions, here is the description of them from appendix F, which as far as I know is the only passage regarding this breed in all of Tolkien's works:
> 
> _But at the end of the Third Age a troll-race not before seen appeared in southern Mirkwood and in the mountain borders of Mordor. Olog-hai they were called in the Black Speech _(why oh why no translation here?)._ That Sauron bred them none doubted, though from what stock was not known. Some held that they were not Trolls but giant Orcs; but the Olog-hai were in fashion of body and mind quite unlike even the largest of Orc-kind, whom they far surpassed in size and power. Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master <snip>_



Why no translation? I look at the use of 'troll-race' in the passage.

An Olog-hai passage is given in PoME: "Some held that they were a cross-breed between trolls, and the larger Orcs; others that they were indeed not trolls at all but giant Orcs. Yet there was no kinship* from the beginning between the stone-trolls and the Orcs; while the Olg-hai** were in fashion of mind and body even the largest of Orc-kind...".
* An earlier version notes that an evil power had cross bred Orcs and Trolls, but this was, naturally, not kept in the later version.
**Originally Horg-hai.
When originally making the Appendices they were much longer, JRRT had to shorten them for reasons of space and cost. PoME gives some detail of how they were originally intended to read.



> The question here is wether or not this passage could reasonably be interpreted as having the possibility of Trolls crossed with men, in which case 'Olog-hai' could be translated as 'troll-men'. Tolkien says that they are Trolls, but this is to contradict the assertion that they are large orcs, with no troll-ish blood in them. It does not preclude them being a hybrid. Presumably he would then have to bring in outside blood to make these new trolls so different. I'll bring to your attention that here he says that Sauron _bred_ the olog-hai, which means he actively controlled what genetic material was going into subsequent generations. Saruman likewise _bred_ his orc-men, so I think that it is _possible_ that the Olog-hai were bred with men. Tolkien says that the stock from which the Olog-hai were bred was unknown, so I will not say that they definitely came from men, but given that they became sun tolerant, and that breeding with orcs and men produced sun tolerant orcs, I think that there is definitely the possibility that the Olog-hai had mannish blood in them.




A few problems with that. Orcs could be interbred with Men because, whether corrupted from Elves or Men they were biologically akin. Letter 151: "Elves and Men are evidently in biological terms one race, or they could not breed and produce fertile offspring." But if we accept that Trolls have no kinship with Orcs, there would be none with Men either.
Not being akin is also in keeping with what was written about Trolls in App. F: "In their beginning far in the twilight of the Elder Days, these were creatures of dull and lumpish nature and had no more language than beasts." 
As App F. says "Trolls they were".




> Usage 3: Oghor-hai
> Well, what do we know about this one? It was used by the orcs to describet the Druedain. The orcs probably associated them with men, since they were entirely unlike Elves and lacked the prominent facial hair of the Dwarves. That being said, it would not be surprising if the orcs called them some sort of insulting name like 'ogre-men'. In UT we learn that there is a great bit of enmity between the races of orcs and Druedain. Surrounding footnote 5 in the text is speculation that the wild-men contributed to the genetic materials of the orcs.
> _But some thought, nonetheless, that there had been a remote kinship, which accounted for their special enmity. Orcs and Drugs each regarded the other as rendegades._
> Of course, this is continued speculation by Tolkien on the origin of orcs, but it brings about a very interesting point.



There is also what the Eldar said "To the unfriendly who not knowing them well, declared that Morgoth most of bred Orcs from such a stock the Eldar answered: 'Doubtless Morgoth... bred Orcs from various kinds of Men, but the Druedain must have escaped his shadow; for their laughter and the laughter of Orcs are as different as is the light of Aman from the darkness of Angband."




> So here we have reasoned arguments as to how '-hai' might be interpreted as 'men', consistent with all three uses found in Tolkien's works. In my previous post I have shown how the Uruk-hai can reasonably be interpreted as being half-orc/half-men, and the invention of Saruman, distinct (but probably descended from) the uruks of Mordor.



And above I have posted some counters to the arguments. I think I have also respond in some measure to how the 'half-orcs/half-men' can be reasonably interpreted as something other than the Uruk-hai in this post above just under your first argument. I understand what you mean about spending large amounts of time composing posts, I dont type and it takes quite a while to put out these things.
Again thanks for the explanation on how to use the 'quote function, I am glad you said how. Perhaps Greenwood will be less annoyed now.

Whoohoo, it worked.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *Tar-Elenion
> <snip>
> UT does not correct an error in Appendix A. None of these kings were real people. (Or do you believe they were?) Reading the CT's note in UT makes it obvious what is involved here. An inconsistency in the Appendix was pointed out to JRRT by a reader. In a letter he suggested several possibilities for the origin of the inconsistency. JRRT clearly never felt it rose to the level of being important because he made no effort to resolve or elimnate the inconsistency in the second edition. In The Simarillion CT attempted to resolve the inconsistency by changing his father's manuscript before publication. He later decided that his change was not the best way to resolve the inconsistency and was now, in UT, offering yet another alternative to resolve the inconsistency. All of this demonstrates twwo things. One, the dangers of secondary sources and trying to rely on them -- now neither The Silamrillion not UT agree with LOTR. Two, CT admits to changing his fathers words when he sees fit (he did it in The Sil). Once again a demonstration of why I have said secondary sources are different than the primary source.
> 
> *



The simple fact is Ar-Adunakhor is listed as the nineteenth ruler in App. A. He later said to be the 20th. One or the other is wrong, hence an error. This is fully explained by CT. Anyone with the texts can read them and make up their own mind.
If you do not think that the error is corrected, that is your choice.

The context of why CT changed the words needs to be taken into consideration. He more than adequately explains. 

That you have a problem with 'secondary sources' is your concern. The 'secondary' sources can complement and clarify the 'primary', giving a vastly greater knowledge of what the intent of the author was. Your whole problem with the secondary sources seems to be that when they do not agree with *your personal interpretation* of something, you simply dismiss them. While this tactic is sometimes used in the field of Tolkien debate and discussion, it is not good scholarship. If a passage directly contradicts something in the 'canon' (LotR, RGEO, and arguably 'A Guide to Names', with secondary status given to the Hobbit and AoTB (since the context they were written and presented in needs to be taken into consideration), then it can likely be dissmissed (although not always), I could give some examples, and if you want to start another thread on the subject I _might_. However when it does not contradict LotR etc it should be carefully *considered and used*, particularly with the late works such as the 'Fords of Isen', which was actually written after the 2nd edition of LotR. Your dismissal of various texts simply because they do not agree with your personal position is irrelevant. Your attempts to 'frame' a debate in such a manner that your position can not be countered, is taking the easy way out.

As for 'word games', 'annoying', and other the such specious remarks that you keep directing at me, feel free to continue with them, if it makes you feel better. I will simply ignore them.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Exploring possibilities*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Just taking a few moments here to try to address UT, and bring possibilities into the larger context of the thread:
> 
> In Morgoth's ring, Tolkien says, regarding Saruman:
> 
> "Finally, there is a cogent point though horrible to relate. It became clear in time that undoubted Men could under the domination of Morgoth or his agents in a few generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning. There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile..."
> 
> I read from this passage that Saruman created two reasonably distinct offspring from his breeding program, men-orcs and orc-men. I would say that orc-men were mostly mannish, and they were probably useful as spies since they could blend in with men (think Bree and the scouring of the Shire). The other variety would be men-orcs, probably mostly orcish, who would be more disciplined than regular orcs, and would be sun-tolerant (if that did not already exist).*


*


While 'Orc-men' and 'Man-orcs' are noted to have been produced by Saruman in MR, the term is applied to only _some_ of Saruman's troops, I do not think this applies to Saruman's Uruks. As has been noted, JRRT does not say that Saruman bred Men and Orcs to produce Uruk-hai, or even use the term Uruk-hai, in the essay. 






Now, regarding the often-quoted passage from UT:

"In its van were some Dunlending horsemen and a great pack of the dreadful Orcish wolfriders, feared by horses. Behind them came two battalions of the fierce Uruks... The garrison of the east bank, surprised by the sudden assault of the massed Uruks was swept away... they were driven from the Fords... with the Uruks in pursuit". 
"As soon as the enemy had gained possession of the eastern end of the Fords there appeard a company of men or orc-men (evidently dispatched for the purpose), ferocious, mail-clad, and armed with axes... Theodred fell, hewn down by a great orc-man." 

Notice that the distinction here is the uruks and orc-men. Man-orcs are not mentioned, but uruks are. If man-orcs were bred from uruks (what other variety of orc would Saruman use, the whimpy kind?), it would (in my opinion) be fair to refer to them as uruks. If Tolkien distinguished between orc-men and men-orcs in Morgoth's ring, it would be fair to do so now. I believe this is exactly what he is doing here- the uruks are the 'men-orcs', and the orc-men are, well, the orc-men.

Click to expand...


But we also have two different types of possible crossbreeds mentioned in LotR those 'goblin-faced men' and the 'Southerner' who was less horrible looking (see my quote below). These could fall into the 'orc-man' and 'man-orc' catagories as well. Once again this leaves the Uruk-hai as distinct.




Are there passages in the LotR proper where uruks are equated with man-orcs? Yes- in Helm's Deep. Two passages follow:

"But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun."

and

"The Orcs yelled and jeered. 'Come down! Come down!' they cried. 'If you wish to speak to us, come down! Bring out your king! We are the fighting Uruk-hai. We will fetch him from his hole, if he does not come down. Bring out your skulking king!' 
" 'The king stays or comes at his own will,' said Aragorn. 
" 'Then what are you doing here?' they answered. 'Why do you look out? Do you wish to see the greatness of our army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai.' 
" 'I looked out to see the dawn,' said Aragorn. 
" 'What of the dawn?' they jeered. 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. .... "

Click to expand...


There is another passage from Flotsam and Jetsam:
Merry describes the marching of Saruman's troops: " 'He emptied Isengard. I saw the enemy go: endless lines of marching Orcs; and troops of them mounted on great wolves. And there were battalions of Men, too. Many of them carried torches, and in the flare I could see their faces. Most of them were ordinary men, rather tall and dark-haired, and grim but not particularly evil-looking. But there were some others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed. 
"'I thought of him too,' said Aragorn. We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep. It seems plain now that the Southerner was a spy of Saruman's...'".




Both of these passages are in reference to (or spoken by) the troops of Saruman. In one case we have a character in the story refering to Saruman's troops as half-breeds who can withstand the light of day, and in context it seems to be the peculiar property of half-breed orcs that they can withstand sunlight. It could be argued that Gamling is wrong -the creatures of Saruman aren't half breeds but Uruks who could ordinarily withstand sunlight. I would object by noting that Aragorn is right there. Aragorn definitely knows all about Uruks- he fought in Southern Gondor in his youth, he claims to know more about orc-kind than any man in Middle-Earth, and he recently fought Uruks in Moria (Gandalf gave the positive ID). The only way that Gamling would be wrong is if Tolkien were intentionally trying to mislead the reader by having Gamling speak out of ignorance, and then choosing to have Aragorn remain silent.

Click to expand...


However Gamling also states the obvious in that passage:
"But these creatures of Isengard, thes half-orcs and goblin-men, that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun... And neither will the men of the hills". Aragorn certainly knows that the hill men are not effected by the sun. Does Aragorn know about 'half-orcs' and 'goblin-men'? These are very recent 'creations'. Merry notes that 'goblin-faced men' marched from Isengard. And they did so seperately from Sauron's Orc troops.




Now, turning to the statements of the orcs, they say that both they are the Uruk-hai, and that they do not quail in the sunlight. There is no direct statement made here that they are orc-men or men-orcs. However, we can refer back to Gamling's statement. If 'normal' uruks could withstand the light of day, then Gamling would hardly need to narrate the fact that these orcs could withstand the light of day. Uruks were first seen in TA 2475, Rohan was established by Eorl in TA 2510. The whole history of Rohan occurs within the time that Uruks had been attacking Gondor. It would not only be reasonable to assume that Gamling was aware of Uruks, it would be unreasonable to assume that Gamling did not know of Uruks. By this line of logic I will now contend that the Uruk-hai are the same creatures that Gamling (and Treebeard, Aragorn, and Tolkien in Morgoth's ring) refers to as half-orcs.

Click to expand...


The 'half-orcs' or 'goblin-men', march with Saruman's mannish troops (see Merry's statement above). Saruman's Uruks do not seem to have been mustered in mixed companies with Men. At Helm's Deep the Uruk-hai fight in their own units (and also in 'Fords of Isen', the Uruk battalions are seperate from those of the 'men' or 'orc-men' armed with axes). 
Indeed the only places where Men and Orcs seem to intermix are the actual attempted storming of the Deeping Wall, and the wolf-riders seem to ride with some Dunlending horsemen among them, though I suppose it is possible that they only came into close proximity when they started their attack on the Rohir horseherds. 






From Gamling's quote we can infer that uruks probably were affected by the sun. So either the orcs were idly boasting and were about to cower in the sun, or else they were saying that they would not cower in the sun, and hence were Saruman's half-orcs. Of course they also say that they are the Uruk-hai, which can be interpreted as either meaning that they are uruks with the special distinctions of being half-orcs and sun-tolerant, or else it could mean that Uruk-hai is a term quite separate from Uruk, and refers to the traits of being both half-orc and sun tolerant.

Click to expand...


Try reading the what the Orcs are saying with a different emphasis. 'We are the FIGHTING Uruk-hai' (originally suggested by M. Read). 
With that emphasis that are boasting about being the elite fighters of Orc-kind.*


----------



## Greenwood

> That you have a problem with 'secondary sources' is your concern. The 'secondary' sources can complement and clarify the 'primary', giving a vastly greater knowledge of what the intent of the author was. Your whole problem with the secondary sources seems to be that when they do not agree with *your personal interpretation *of something, you simply dismiss them. While this tactic is sometimes used in the field of Tolkien debate and discussion, it is not good scholarship. If a passage directly contradicts something in the 'canon' (LotR, RGEO, and arguably 'A Guide to Names', with secondary status given to the Hobbit and AoTB (since the context they were written and presented in needs to be taken into consideration), then it can likely be dissmissed (although not always), I could give some examples, and if you want to start another thread on the subject I _might_. However when it does not contradict LotR etc it should be carefully considered and used, particularly with the late works such as the 'Fords of Isen', which was actually written after the 2nd edition of LotR. Your dismissal of various texts simply because they do not agree with your personal position is irrelevant. Your attempts to 'frame' a debate in such a manner that your position can not be countered, is taking the easy way out.



Tar-Elenion

Let me first thank you for adopting the style of posting used by nearly everyone else on the forum. It is much easier to read and follow. I must leave shortly for other commitments so I cannot spend a long time on this post so I will try to be brief. You say above that my "whole problem" with secondary sources is that if they do not agree with my "personal interpretation" I "simply dismiss them". I will state out again, I pointed out the limitations of secondary sources on other threads before this current discussion started and I believe I have been consistent in arguing within the stated limits. As to the characterization (given extra emphasis by you) that I am defending my "*personal interpretation*", this is of course true. But, so are you. The difference is that I am basing my "personal interpretation" on words that can be proven to be JRR Tolkien's. You are basing your interpretation on words that you cannot demonstrate are any more than Christopher Tolkien's interpretation of his father's words. The words you base your interpretation on, in fact may not be even an interpretation of JRRT's words, but may in fact be CT's alone or CT may have based his interpretation on someone elses interpretation. (This was your own suggestion which you now say was not a serious one, but you give no reason why it should not be given serious consideration.)

In regard to secondary sources, you further state that this "tactic is sometimes used in the field of Tolkien debate and discussion, it is not good scholarship". First, I object to the characterization of the limits of secondary sources as merely being a "tactic". Second, from your statement "is sometimes used in the field of Tolkien debate and discussion" I am not alone in pointing out the limitations of Tolkien's posthumously published works. Might it be that you dismiss these limitations because they cause you problems in defending *your interpretations*? We will return to the question of "good scholarship" in a moment. First, let me discuss your statement: "However when it does not contradict LotR etc it should be carefully considered and used,". I am not entirely sure what your "etc" is referring to, but this statement is exactly what I have been saying in refard to secondary sources all along. When they do not contradict the primary source (LOTR), they can be "considered and used". The emphasis here should be on "considered" when there is no contradiction. They can be considered, but they are not definitive. Since they are not definitive, they cannot be used to contradict the primary source.

Finally, let us move on to your "good scholarship" comment, especially in your reference to the example you gave from Appendix A. As you say there is an inconsistency in LOTR in the Appendices. CT quotes a letter from his father (in not 11 of the section The Line of Elros in UT) in which his father recognizes the inconsistency. JRRT gives two possible reasons for it and says he does not know how it occurred and cannot then resolve it. JRRT obviously never considered the inconsistency important enough to resolve since this letter was written a couple oy years before the second edition of LOTR came out and the inconsistency was not resolved in it. In introduction to The Silmarillion, CT describes the problems of working with his fathers manuscripts, particularly because of his father's habit of extensively emending them. CT says that at times one change changes another and it is not always obvious which is the latest. Therefore CT must do the best he can and make choices. For this reason consistency between The Silmarillion and his father's published work is not to be expected or looked for. Do you think this problem magically disappeared when CT came to the manuscripts that went into UT? As for The Line of Elros section, in the introduction CT says that "it is a fine manuscript in which the dates of the Kings and Queens of Numenor and of their reigns have been copiously and sometimes obscurely emended: I have endeavoured to give the latest formulation". Once again a statement of the difficulyies of working with Tolkien's manuscripts and an admission that CT has used his own judgement and interpretation in producing the published text. In CT's note 11 that explains the "correction" you cite, CT again says he is using his own judgement and interpretation in an effort to remove the inconsistency. In citing this example you seem to have ignored the last sentence of CT's note: "It may be that a more complex situation underlies the passage than a mere error of omission." In other words, the "correction" may not be correct! As I pointed out in my earlier post these are not real people being chronicled here. There is no absolute truth. In his note 1 to The Line of Elros, CT also points to things in the manuscripts that are in contradiction to LOTR, though the manuscripts he refers to he also calls "the latest writing", evidently done long after LOTR. Apparently JRRT was changing his mind about things. All of the above highlights the limitations I (and apparently others) have pointed to in regard to using Tolkien's posthumously published work, i.e. Tolkien's style of extensive emendation, the difficulty of reading it, the fact that the final published version is another person's interpretation (not JRRT's), the fact that there may be missing texts and of course the fact that JRRT is free to change is mind. All of these facts place limitations on the use of Tolkien's posthumously published work. When I point oit these limitations and refuse to allow them to be used to refute JRRT's own words in LOTR, you accuse me of not using "good scholarship". I would say the reverse is the case.

So much for being brief.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Let me first thank you for adopting the style of posting used by nearly everyone else on the forum. It is much easier to read and follow. I must leave shortly for other commitments so I cannot spend a long time on this post so I will try to be brief.



You are welcome. I am grateful that someone [aragil] saw fit to explain them in a manner that a computer illiterate could follow in reply to my request regarding your complaint. It is much more convenient for me as well.



> You say above that my "whole problem" with secondary sources is that if they do not agree with my "personal interpretation" I "simply dismiss them". I will state out again, I pointed out the limitations of secondary sources on other threads before this current discussion started and I believe I have been consistent in arguing within the stated limits.



I think the point here is that there are two alternative interpretations (if there were not there would be no debate). Nothing can be mutually resolved either way. One goes to the 'secondary' sources to clarify. For example one person can say Saruman's Uruk-hai are not Uruks. Another says they are and points to Appendix F. The responce might be that Uruks is not clearly used for Saruman's Uruk-hai. One then goes to the other sources in the Legendarium (preferably the latest, as this tends to show JRRT's final conception), such as 'Fords of Isen', and shows a clear use of 'Uruks' for Saruman's Uruk-hai. The limits stated seem to be those that you yourself have made. I did not agree to them. I see this as making an argument, saying 'prove me wrong', 'oh, by the way you can't actually use anything that proves me wrong'. The debate is either endless or pointless. An analogogy ws recently drawn for me: I challenge someone to a game of tennis. I have the best forehand in the world. I then say only forehand shots count (thanks G.). Loading the deck.



> As to the characterization (given extra emphasis by you) that I am defending my "*personal interpretation*", this is of course true. But, so are you. The difference is that I am basing my "personal interpretation" on words that can be proven to be JRR Tolkien's. You are basing your interpretation on words that you cannot demonstrate are any more than Christopher Tolkien's interpretation of his father's words. The words you base your interpretation on, in fact may not be even an interpretation of JRRT's words, but may in fact be CT's alone or CT may have based his interpretation on someone elses interpretation. (This was your own suggestion which you now say was not a serious one, but you give no reason why it should not be given serious consideration.)



My 'suggestion', was not intended to be serious, merely to show the lengths that someone might go to, to dismiss something that does not agree with them, and hopefully forestall any such attempt. I do not think they should be given serious consideration because they either make CT a liar (which no one here has called him), or a plagiarist (which no one here has called him). CT has been very forthright on what he has changed and why. This was one of the reasons he has published his father's writings. Other active 'Tolkien scholars' have access to these manuscripts. There has been no indication from them that CT made anything up.



> In regard to secondary sources, you further state that this "tactic is sometimes used in the field of Tolkien debate and discussion, it is not good scholarship". First, I object to the characterization of the limits of secondary sources as merely being a "tactic". Second, from your statement "is sometimes used in the field of Tolkien debate and discussion" I am not alone in pointing out the limitations of Tolkien's posthumously published works.



There are limitations. That is why it needs to be taken in context. Sometimes a secondary source simply contradicts, or is way to early to be taken seriously. Sometimes it clarifies. However when a 'secondary' source clarifies a 'primary' and it is then dismissed, this tends to be because it does not agree with a personal point of veiw. This is bad scholarship. This can be taken to an extreme. I do not believe Gandalf is an 'angelic' spirit (a Maia), prove to me that he is. Passages are cited from HoME, Letters, UT. I say 'you can not use those'. They are secondary sources. CT made them, JRRT did not publish them, they muddle LotR, LotR never says Gandalf is a Maia, JRRT could have changed his mind. You can only use LotR. 



> Might it be that you dismiss these limitations because they cause you problems in defending *your interpretations*? First, let me discuss your statement: "However when it does not contradict LotR etc it should be carefully considered and used,". I am not entirely sure what your "etc" is referring to, but this statement is exactly what I have been saying in refard to secondary sources all along. When they do not contradict the primary source (LOTR), they can be "considered and used". The emphasis here should be on "considered" when there is no contradiction. They can be considered, but they are not definitive. Since they are not definitive, they cannot be used to contradict the primary source.



The "etc" refers to the 'canon' statement (LotR, RGEO etc., see above post you are responding to).
What you seem to have also been saying is that for example 'Fords of Isen' is a secondary source that muddles 'LotR' which is otherwise perfectly clear. If it were perfectly clear there would be no debate. 'Fords of Isen' does not contradict LotR. It clarifies what is otherwise open to interpretation (see my 'uruks, urukhai' example above). Others on this thread have used 'Fords' with LotR to back up their points which I disagree with (for example Aragil), I do not dismiss the narrative, I counter with my own argument utilizing the available sources. I think you are the only one to have placed 'limitations' on the sources to be utilized. I do not consider 'limitations' such as: JRRT did not publish 'Fords', he could have changed his mind, CT may have written it or changed it, to be valid. Show me a direct contradiction to the primary source, and I may consider dismissing 'Fords'. Otherwise it is perfectly relevant.



> Finally, let us move on to your "good scholarship" comment, especially in your reference to the example you gave from Appendix A. <big snip of discourse>



I am well aware (and did not ignore) what CT noted about the App. A error.
Once again, App. A says Ar-Adunkhor is the 20th king. It lists him as the 19th. Problem? in my opinion, yes. (If someone else does not regard this as a problem, that is their choice). Solution, go to UT and PoME, see what happened. Make a decision, problem solved. What the decision could be could be debated. I have nothing more to say on this subject, here. As I suggested in my prior post, if you wish to start another thread on matters specifically relating to errors and contradictions, start one and I _may_ join in.




> Apparently JRRT was changing his mind about things. All of the above highlights the limitations I (and apparently others) have pointed to in regard to using Tolkien's posthumously published work, i.e. Tolkien's style of extensive emendation, the difficulty of reading it, the fact that the final published version is another person's interpretation (not JRRT's), the fact that there may be missing texts and of course the fact that JRRT is free to change is mind. All of these facts place limitations on the use of Tolkien's posthumously published work. When I point oit these limitations and refuse to allow them to be used to refute JRRT's own words in LOTR, you accuse me of not using "good scholarship". I would say the reverse is the case.



Again, I regard limitations such as 'JRRT kept changing his mind', 'it is somebody (CT's?) else's interpretation', JRRT may have changed his mind again' or 'missing texts' as irrelevant. CT has been very forthright in what he changed, how it was changed and why it was changed in HoME. This was one of his reasons for publishing it. Again various 'Tolkien scholars' have access to the originals, no major problems have been reported. Prove that 'Fords of Isen' was substantially altered by CT. CT has been very good about noting changes he made (in cases down to a very minute detail). Prove that 'Fords' is CT's own interpretation. If you believe 'Fords' contradicts LotR, prove it. If 'Fords' refutes JRRT's words in LotR, prove it. Just because you believe that to be the case does not make it so. If there is a missing text so what? It may be found, it may not. If it is and is published so much the better. If it further clarifies or adds new material great. Until then I work with what is available.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Sauron's Uruk-hai*

It has been contended that only Saruman had Uruk-hai, and that the 'great-soldier orcs' of Mordor are not Uruk-hai. This seems to be because in LotR 'Uruks' is (almost) always only used for the great Orcs from Mordor, and 'Uruk-hai' is (almost) always only used for the those of Isengard, and (almost) never the other way around.

There is one reference to 'Uruk-hai ' by Mordor Orcs that indicates that Sauron's Uruks are Uruk-hai as well and thus the terms are interchangible.


The passage is:
(Essentially two Orcs (a smaller tracker and a larger soldier) are hunting for Frodo and Sam (though they do not know it)).
The tracker speaking:
"'Garn! You don't even know what your looking for.'"
"'Whose blame's that?' said the soldier. Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together." 
"'Ar!' said the tracker. .They have lost their heads, that's what it is. And some of the bosses are going to lose there skins too, I guess, if what I here is true: Tower raided and all, and hundreds of your lads done in, and prisoner got away...'".

Now those who believe that Sauron's Uruks were not Uruk-hai say that 'rebel Uruk-hai' is referring to Saruman's great-soldier orcs and not to Mordor's.

Two theories seem to have been put forth.

One is that some of Saruman's Uruk-hai went to Mordor and joined up with Sauron after Saruman was defeated. Then some of those rebelled. The problems with this are:
Where did they come from:
Isengard was virtually emptied to assault Helm's Deep. At the end of the battle the Orcs fled into the waiting Huorns "...and from that shadow none ever came again." And we know that after the battle "No Orcs remained alive; their bodies were uncounted."
However there were still some in Isengard when the Ents attacked it. But Pippen says: "I don't think many orc-folk, of any size, escaped. Not from the Huorns: there was a wood full of them all round Isengard by that time, as well as those that had gone down the valley."
Given these statements it seems that all of Sarumans Orcs were killed. 
But it is possible that Pippen's statement allows for some few to have escaped. Let's say some did.
How did they get to Mordor? Morder is some distance away through enemy territory. It would be unlikely at the best that they mde it there. If they did, was there enough time for them to 'enlist' with Sauron, be trusted, be kept together, and then rebel in the ten days between the fall of Isengard and the trouble at Cirith Ungol? Slim at best.
And why would they go to Mordor at all.? Saruman's Orcs were not particularly friendly with Sauron's. Mordor is a long way off. The Misty Mountains are close by and good strong Uruk-hai could set themselves up like kings among the lesser Orcs therein.
No, the possibility of some of Saruman's Uruk-hai being in Mordor is none.

The other theory seems to be that the 'Higher Up' _believed_ that some of Saruman's Uruk-hai got to Mordor and were causing trouble but was wrong, just as he was wrong about the 'great Elf-warrior'.

But was the 'Higher Up' (a euphamism for the Nazgul), wrong? And would there be any reason for him to believe that somehow a pack of Uruk-hai from Isengard somehow travelled a huge distance through enemy territory and snuck into Mordor and killed everybody in Cirith Ungol? 

These Orcs have been sent out to track down the source of the trouble in Cirith Ungol. They have been dispatched by a 'Higher Up' who told them they may be looking for and Elf-warrior, a small dwarf-man, or rebel Uruk-hai.
How does the 'Higher Up' know what they should be looking for? He has been told. Shagrat dispatched messages from Cirith Ungol to let the 'Higher Ups' know about the capture of Frodo (a 'small dwarf-man'):
"Any trespasser found by the gaurd is to be held... Full description sent... Thats plain enough, and that's what I am going to do.". 
He must have also let the 'Higher Up' know what had happened in Shelob's lair. There the Orcs note that Shelob's cords have been cut, and Shelob herself stabbed, and something is loose. Shagrat asks what it is, and is told:
"By all the signs, Captain Shagrat, I'd say there's a large warrior loose, Elf most likely,, with an elf-sword anyway, and an axe as well maybe...".
So we know that the 'Higher Up' who dipatched the tarcker and soldier Orcs, must have been told about the 'Elf-warrior' (who was actually Sam) and the 'small dwarf-man' (Frodo). But there was no mention or sign of rebel Uruk-hai, so where does that come from?
Well lets see, in the 'Tower of Cirith Ungol' chapter we learn the Orcs of Gorbag and Shagrat have a battle and kill each other, Sam sees: "Beyond lay many more shapes; som singly as they had been hewn down or shot; others in pairs, still grappling one another, dead in the very throes of stabbing, throttling, and biting...
"Two liveries Sam noticed, one marked by the Red Eye, the other by a Moon disfigured with the gastly face of death...".
As Snaga notes: "Gorbag's swine got to the gate first and none of ours got out. Lagduf and Muzgash ran through, but they were shot... And they were the last." 
Shagrat is not happy and says "The Black Pits take that filthy rebel Gorbag!"
Shagrat is later able to flee from Cirith Ungol himself, with the mithril coat and Frodos other goods.
As Frodo and Sam leave the Tower "Out of the black sky there came dropping like a bolt a winged shape, rending the clouds with a ghastly shriek."
This is as we learn a Nazgul who lands on the walls and can see what happened. The Uruk-hai of Morgul and those of the Tower of Cirith Ungol have slain each other. 
Loyal Shagrat survives and lives to tell his tale (after which he is probably executed).

The 'Higher Up' sends out Orcs to look for a 'great Elf warrior, a 'small dwarf-man' or a 'pack of rebel Uruk-hai', OR all of them together.
The 'rebel Uruk-hai' are Gorbag's troops. 
Sauron and Saruman both have Uruk-hai.
'Uruks' is interchangable with 'Uruk-hai'.
'Uruks' is an Anglicization of 'Uruk-hai'


----------



## aragil

I still maintain that the passage from RotK can be taken to refer to Saruman's troops. In the case of the 'big-elf warrior', the report has the right number (an individual), but is entirely wrong in the description (Elf vs. Hobbit). In the case of rebel Uruk-hai, the report might also have the right number (a pack), but still be equally wrong in the qualitative description (Uruks of Cirith Ungol vs. Uruk-hai of Isengard). Imagine how galling it would be for one of the Nazgul (resident of M. Morgul) to say: 
'_Be on the look-out for troops of mine that I sent up to C. Ungol, who later annhilated the garrison there and aided in the escape of two spies. Be aware, my orcs should be considered heavily armed and dangerous, as I tended to give them better equipment than those of C. Ungol in the event that the two should fight_.'
It would be easier for the Mordor forces to assume that the attack was another one staged by Saruman in order to try and capture more Hobbits. Look at the similarities with the episode at the Emyn Muil- Hobbits captured, orcs of Mordor killed, no Hobbits brought to Barad-dur. In the case of the Emyn Muil Grishnakh was able to make it back to a Nazgul, report that the Uruk-hai (as they proudly called themselves) were making there way back to Isengard with orders to deliver halflings to Saruman. Grishnakh was awarded 2 score of orcs, which he led back to Ugluk's troop just in time to get them all killed. Meanwhile, the Nazgul was free to report back to Mordor about the rebellion of the Uruk-hai, which then would have been the talk of the land. How did Shagrat fare in his report? The little tracker orc confirms that he was removed from his post, and earlier Snaga had made some dicouraging remarks to Shagrat about what he could expect upon delivery of his report. Could Shagrat have tried to lie to make his position look better? Sure- '_We were attacked by more of those damned rebel Uruk-hai, just like Grishnakh's lads up at the Emyn Muil_', instead of '_I was unable to impress upon the Morgul orcs that we should follow orders, and subsequently lost my entire command due to infighting_'. Given the infinite realm of possibility here, I think that it is equally likely that 'rebel' refers to the troops of Isengard who were in open rebellion against Mordor, instead of the troops of Morgul who were disobeying orders, but by no means were marching against Cirith Ungol.


----------



## aragil

Why I still think that -hai might mean 'man':
(Specifically responding to Tar Elenion post http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=42958#post42958, which was in response to my own post http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=42725#post42725.)

Usage 1: Uruk-hai
The essence of my argument here is that we have definitive evidence that Saruman mixed men with orcs- from Tolkien himself, Merry, Aragorn, Gamling, and Treebeard. We have fairly definitive evidence that these half-breeds were the only orcs that felt comfortable in the sunlight. We also have orcs claiming to be Uruk-hai, and also claiming to be immune to sunlight. To me this means that the half-orcs that could withstand the sunlight were also the Uruk-hai, hence the translation of Uruk-hai as 'orc-men'. The fact that uruks were distinguished from 'orc-men' in the Isen chapter in UT does not bother me at all, since Tolkien himself distinguishes between 'orc-men' and 'men-orcs' in Morgoth's Ring. Anything more man-like (goblin-men, men with goblin faces) would be an orc-man, while anything more orcish would be a man-orc. I could also point out that while Tolkien clearly refers to 'men-orcs' in Morgoth's ring, he never seems to refer to them in the rest of the narrative- there are 'uruks' at the fords of Isen, and battalions of orcs at the battle of Helm's Deep. Why would Saruman go through the trouble of breeding men-orcs, and then consistently use plain orcs in his major battles? Well, why didn't Superman ever ask a smart journalistic-type like Clark Kent for help?

Usage 2: Olog-hai
First off, I don't think that 'Olog-hai' is translated as 'troll-race'. If this were the case, then stone trolls, cave trolls, and hill trolls would all be equally 'Olog-hai'.
What we do know about the Olog-hai is that they are tolerant of the sun. The only other instance of one of the dark races becoming tolerant of sun is from the crossing of orcs and men, producing sun-tolerant orcs. I believe that the same could be true of trolls. Otherwise you are combining different varieties of trolls, all sun-intolerant, and as a result of the mixing you somehow acquire sun tolerance. I don't see how this would work, hence the necessity of bringing in other genetic material. The same worked with orcs and men, why not trolls and men. The trolls don't need to 'breed' with the men, just somehow acquire human genetic material (TA gene-splicing?).

Usage 3: Oghor-hai
My point in this passage was not to say that the Druedain were actually related to orcs, but rather to look at their relationship with the orcs in order to infer what orcs might mean in labelling the Druedain as 'Oghor-hai'. I think that it is instructive here to look at all the names of the Druedain:
1: Drughu- self applied
2: Druedain- Sindarin, literally 'Dru-men'
3: Wose- modernization of old-English wasa, meaning 'Wild Man'
4: Wild-men- by the Rohirrim
5: Pukel-men- by the Rohirrim, from Anglo-Saxon meaning 'goblin/demon-men'
6: Oghor-hai- by the orcs, meaning unknown
In looking at the six examples above, the only way that #6 would be in agreement with #2-#5 (labels given to the Druedain by other peoples) would be if 'hai' meant 'men'. This might be an even stronger argument for 'hai' meaning 'men' than usage #1, but given the evidence as a whole for usages 1-3 (as opposed to coming up with different explanations in each case), I think that the evidence strongly supports the translation of 'hai' as 'men'.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> I still maintain that the passage from RotK can be taken to refer to Saruman's troops. In the case of the 'big-elf warrior', the report has the right number (an individual), but is entirely wrong in the description (Elf vs. Hobbit).



Wrong in the description, but for what reason? They have not seen Sam. They have seen his effects, and the effects of his weapon (an elf-sword). The assumption that it is an Elf running around (probably reinforced after fFrodo is found with the cloak and mail) is more than reasonable. 



> In the case of rebel Uruk-hai, the report might also have the right number (a pack), but still be equally wrong in the qualitative description (Uruks of Cirith Ungol vs. Uruk-hai of Isengard). Imagine how galling it would be for one of the Nazgul (resident of M. Morgul) to say:
> '_Be on the look-out for troops of mine that I sent up to C. Ungol, who later annhilated the garrison there and aided in the escape of two spies. Be aware, my orcs should be considered heavily armed and dangerous, as I tended to give them better equipment than those of C. Ungol in the event that the two should fight_.



So instead the Nazgul says: '_That filthy traitor Saruman sent a bunch of his Uruk-hai (you know, the big bad mean mothers that kick our butts all the time) here to hunt down these here little Hobbit creatures (what are they? never you mind, they are nothing important, oh and keep an eye out for them too, why? no reason we just got us some questions). Anyway they got up here to Cirith Ungol (whats that? how? well they fought there way through all those wimpy horsey boys, and managed to smash on through them there filthy tarks, I told you they were big bad mothers didnt I?) Anyways they attacked Cirith Ungol to get this here Hobbit (why yes it did take an awful lot of them to bust in here) so they killed all our boys (what's that? how did this big huge company of Uruk-hai get past me in Minas Morgul? well they are really sneaky) but we think some (what? why are they dressed up like Morgul Orcs? well they killed a bunch of my Orcs and took their weapons, they're bad like I said) so you have to (what? you thought I said they were sneaky, so I did not know they were around? well like I said they were bad, they fought across hundreds of miles took out my boys changed clothes launched an assault on Ungol killed everybody 'cept Shaggy) so we think some of them got away, and you got to go look for them (yes they are big bad and mean) (whats that, how come you recognize Joe and Pete and Chuck in the Morgul uniforms since they are Saruman's Uruk-hai, well you know every body has a twin) so you got to go look for them, but be careful they are big bad mean (whats that, you'd prefer a cushy job like fighting the tarks?)_

Imagine how foolish a Nazgul is going to look saying that not only didn't he know that a pack of Saruman' troops big enough to successfully storm Cirith Ungol had in slipped under his nose but also they had killed a bunch of Morgul Orcs and stolen their gear, and he did not know anything about it.

Too much 'mind reading' for me.
Besides the Nazgul was not from Minas Morgul (see below)



> It would be easier for the Mordor forces to assume that the attack was another one staged by Saruman in order to try and capture more Hobbits. Look at the similarities with the episode at the Emyn Muil- Hobbits captured, orcs of Mordor killed, no Hobbits brought to Barad-dur. In the case of the Emyn Muil Grishnakh was able to make it back to a Nazgul, report that the Uruk-hai (as they proudly called themselves) were making there way back to Isengard with orders to deliver halflings to Saruman. Grishnakh was awarded 2 score of orcs, which he led back to Ugluk's troop just in time to get them all killed. Meanwhile, the Nazgul was free to report back to Mordor about the rebellion of the Uruk-hai, which then would have been the talk of the land.



I disagree. I doubt anything was said about what happened with Grishnakh. Such matters would be kept quite secret. The only one who would know would be the Nazgul, and while he would tell Sauron and the other Nazgul I doubt they would commonly gossip.

Much easier to say Gorbag got greedy, Gorbag is dead. Some of his boys got away, go find them. Orcs fight amongst themselves all the time. No reason for Mordor forces to assume anything different.
Besides the Nazgul was not from Minas Morgul (see below)



> How did Shagrat fare in his report? The little tracker orc confirms that he was removed from his post, and earlier Snaga had made some dicouraging remarks to Shagrat about what he could expect upon delivery of his report. Could Shagrat have tried to lie to make his position look better? Sure- '_We were attacked by more of those damned rebel Uruk-hai, just like Grishnakh's lads up at the Emyn Muil_', instead of '_I was unable to impress upon the Morgul orcs that we should follow orders, and subsequently lost my entire command due to infighting_'. Given the infinite realm of possibility here, I think that it is equally likely that 'rebel' refers to the troops of Isengard who were in open rebellion against Mordor, instead of the troops of Morgul who were disobeying orders, but by no means were marching against Cirith Ungol.



Shagrat hated Gorbag (and calls him a rebel), wished him in the Black Pits and killed him. I doubt he felt any better about about those members of Gorbag's company that escaped. Any attempt to mislay the blame would merely end up protecting those he hated and I'm sure would like to have roasted slowly over a fire, or worse. I also don't think he would be able to get away with lying to the 'Big Bosses'.

But what it comes down to is that the Nazgul who arrived at Cirith Ungol (in responce to Shagrat's message) knew what happened. 
By the description given it was obvious that Morgul and Ungol Orcs had killed each other. There could be no mistaking it. There is no suggestion that the Nazgul tried to cover it up. The opposite in fact. He immediately started 'sending out his deadly cries'. It was realized there would quite soon be a responce. I dont think the Nazgul would climb on down and take care of getting rid of the bodies himself. Also the Nazgul that arrived was not from Minas Morgul. The messages Shagrat dispatched were "...sent to Lugburz at once, and to Lugburz _only." So it is not a case of a Nazgul trying to cover up that _his_ Orcs from Morgul were the rebel Uruk-hai. They were not his. In fact he could make himself look better in the eyes of his subordinates ('The Nazgul over there in Morgul he was weak, cant maintain discipline and order, I'm not. Things are going to be different around here *now*.')_


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> -------------
> Cian posted earlier:
> 
> Leave them at the door or not, the linguistic "opinions" from David and others regarding BS -hai (that I posted in the other thread) ... well let's just say that from my experience in reading David, Helge, Lisa Star, Carl Hostetter, are very familiar with Tolkiens world too
> --------------------
> 
> Cian,
> Do you know of any comments by Carl Hostetter on '-hai', and 'Uruks' as the 'anglicized' form of 'Uruk-hai'. It could be enlightening due to his access to the manuscripts.



I couldn't find anything further here Tar-E. He did give a response (not in a linguistic forum) on "-hai" back in 1993, before all of HoMe was published ("Soory" is so spelt purposely I'd say):

_"Soory, I've drawn a blank on this one, though I tend to favor the interpretation that it means "superior" (The Eldarin collective terms, i.e., -lim, -rim, -hoth, yield nothing that could reasonably be related to -hai)."_ C. Hostetter 1993

The other opinions on "hai" were:
David Salo ~ "people, group" 
Helge F. ~ "folk"
Lisa Star includes it in her (given in three parts) study of JRRT's collectives.

(well, to give all those opinions over here now )


----------



## Grond

Grond is back after reading the entirety of TT again and reading the Uruk-hai chapter a whopping four times. I have much more posting to do and will start later tomorrow. I also have come up with Richard's (Grond's) definition of -hai. It happens to mean "greater". I base this upon the repeated referral of Saruman's uruks as "greater orcs" in both the UT and the HoMe and, yes Greenwood, in the original text of the chapter Uruk-hai. Ironically this ties in with Cian's latest post where he finds it defined as "superior" by Hostetter. How this ties in to the Greater Uruks of Saruman and the Uruks (maybe greater) of Saruon.....well, you people will just have to wait.

More to follow and to you Cian, you were right..... I couldn't stay away; especially since an impasse has been reached where stubborness appears to have festered in the thread. I have seen entirely too many excuses from all sides and not enough "open-mindedness". That's all for now but as old Arnold said in the original "Terminator".....'I'll be back!!!'


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Why I still think that -hai might mean 'man':
> (Specifically responding to Tar Elenion post http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=42958#post42958, which was in response to my own post http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=42725#post42725.)
> 
> Usage 1: Uruk-hai
> The essence of my argument here is that we have definitive evidence that Saruman mixed men with orcs- from Tolkien himself, Merry, Aragorn, Gamling, and Treebeard. We have fairly definitive evidence that these half-breeds were the only orcs that felt comfortable in the sunlight. We also have orcs claiming to be Uruk-hai, and also claiming to be immune to sunlight. To me this means that the half-orcs that could withstand the sunlight were also the Uruk-hai, hence the translation of Uruk-hai as 'orc-men'. The fact that uruks were distinguished from 'orc-men' in the Isen chapter in UT does not bother me at all, since Tolkien himself distinguishes between 'orc-men' and 'men-orcs' in Morgoth's Ring. Anything more man-like (goblin-men, men with goblin faces) would be an orc-man, while anything more orcish would be a man-orc. I could also point out that while Tolkien clearly refers to 'men-orcs' in Morgoth's ring, he never seems to refer to them in the rest of the narrative- there are 'uruks' at the fords of Isen, and battalions of orcs at the battle of Helm's Deep. Why would Saruman go through the trouble of breeding men-orcs, and then consistently use plain orcs in his major battles? Well, why didn't Superman ever ask a smart journalistic-type like Clark Kent for help?



Yes, Saruman mixed Men with Orcs.
1a). We do not have definitive evidence that only the 'half-breeds', felt comfortable in sunlight. As has been mentioned, but still not addressed, in the Uruk-hai chapter there are three different groups of Orcs, Saruman's, Sauron's and the Northerners. _Only_ the 'Northerners' complain about the sun. Sauron's never once mention anything about having a problem with it. 
1b). As I have noted about the 'orc-man' and 'man-orc' previously, we also have the 'Southerner' in Bree who as Aragorn says, was plainly one of Saruman's spies. Merry says he was not so 'orc-like' as the 'half-orcs' who warched with the Dunlendings. Saruman used the one variety as soldiers, the other as spies among Men. This still has not been addressed.



> Usage 2: Olog-hai
> First off, I don't think that 'Olog-hai' is translated as 'troll-race'. If this were the case, then stone trolls, cave trolls, and hill trolls would all be equally 'Olog-hai'.
> What we do know about the Olog-hai is that they are tolerant of the sun. _The only other instance of one of the dark races becoming tolerant of sun is from the crossing of orcs and men, producing sun-tolerant orcs._ I believe that the same could be true of trolls. Otherwise you are combining different varieties of trolls, all sun-intolerant, and as a result of the mixing you somehow acquire sun tolerance. I don't see how this would work, hence the necessity of bringing in other genetic material. The same worked with orcs and men, why not trolls and men. The trolls don't need to 'breed' with the men, just somehow acquire human genetic material (TA gene-splicing?).



2a).The quoted portion I put in _italics_ has yet to be proven. In the Uruk-hai chapter, only the 'Northerners' have a problem with the sun. Saruman's do not mention anything about the sun. It has not been proven that the 'Uruk-hai' are 'half-orcs'.
2b).If we accept what JRRT said about the Olog-hai, that they did not come from Orcs that they were not akin to Orcs, and they were in fact "quite unlike" (in 'body, mind, size, and power') 'even the *largest* of Orc-kind' who would either be the Uruk-hai or the Men-orcs ('large and cunning') and if either of these came from Men, then Olog-hai would in fact be quite unlike them, they would have no common genetic material. If the Olog-hai came from Men, they they would not be 'quite unlike' those others, they would have common genetic material.
2c). I do not know when gene-splicing became possible for 'people'. I do not know what JRRT knew about 'gene-splicing'. I do not know if 'gene splicing' would work between two different complex beings that are not 'biologically akin'. I do know that JRRT said that scientific and biological difficulties were among his chief worries in the Legendarium (see Letter 153). I dont think there is any evidence for 'gene-splicing' within the Legendarium. If you have some I would be interested to see it.




> Usage 3: Oghor-hai
> My point in this passage was not to say that the Druedain were actually related to orcs, but rather to look at their relationship with the orcs in order to infer what orcs might mean in labelling the Druedain as 'Oghor-hai'. I think that it is instructive here to look at all the names of the Druedain:
> 1: Drughu- self applied
> 2: Druedain- Sindarin, literally 'Dru-men'
> 3: Wose- modernization of old-English wasa, meaning 'Wild Man'
> 4: Wild-men- by the Rohirrim
> 5: Pukel-men- by the Rohirrim, from Anglo-Saxon meaning 'goblin/demon-men'
> 6: Oghor-hai- by the orcs, meaning unknown
> In looking at the six examples above, the only way that #6 would be in agreement with #2-#5 (labels given to the Druedain by other peoples) would be if 'hai' meant 'men'. This might be an even stronger argument for 'hai' meaning 'men' than usage #1, but given the evidence as a whole for usages 1-3 (as opposed to coming up with different explanations in each case), I think that the evidence strongly supports the translation of 'hai' as 'men'.


3a). Your example 4 should actually read 'Wild Men' not Wild-men(see my quote from LotR below or UT)
3b). In your examples 3 and 4 they are just a 'translation' of one for the other (Wose, Woses; Wild Man, Wild Men), both used by the Rohirrim "You hear the Woses, the Wild Men of the Woods". 'Wose' is being used to represent the actual 'Rohirric' and Wild Man used to represent the 'Common Speech' translation (footnote 14 in UT, the Druedain). These should be put together. 
3c). Please note in UT the the Druedain section, footnote 4, which is specifically noted as an Author note it uses the term "Drug-folk". Also note in footnote 6 which is drawn from isolated notes 'when the Eldar discover that the Dru-folk are enemies of Morgoth they add the title Adan' and also " Drunos 'a family of the Dru-folk'" (nos, nosse, 'clan, family, house'), and "Druwaith 'the wilderness of the Dru-folk'" (waith, 'wilderness').
4c). Your second example "Druedain- Sindarin, literally 'Dru-men'", _well sort of_. (Bear with me Cian is better at this than I am, and should feel free to give additional insight). Literally '_adan_' (the singular) is an adaption to Sindarin of the Quenya '_atan_' (see WotJ, Quendi & Eldar). The plural Quenya name for Men _Atani_ literally means 'the Second Folk' (see Q&E) but is normally translated 'Men'. It comes from the Common Eldarin 'tata', 'atta' two.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *Grond is back after reading the entirety of TT again and reading the Uruk-hai chapter a whopping four times. I have much more posting to do and will start later tomorrow. I also have come up with Richard's (Grond's) definition of -hai. It happens to mean "greater". I base this upon the repeated referral of Saruman's uruks as "greater orcs" in both the UT and the HoMe and, yes Greenwood, in the original text of the chapter Uruk-hai. Ironically this ties in with Cian's latest post where he finds it defined as "superior" by Hostetter. How this ties in to the Greater Uruks of Saruman and the Uruks (maybe greater) of Saruon.....well, you people will just have to wait.
> *



The only problem with this is the 'Oghor-hai'. The Orcs did not like the Druedain. I do not know why they would name them 'greater' anything.


----------



## aragil

*Further defense*

Usage 1: Uruk-hai
1a) I realize that Tolkien never says 'The orc-men of Saruman, being a direct translation of Uruk-hai, were the only orcs to feel comfortable in the light of the sun.' We do have Gamlings quote, which implies that it is the half-orcs of Saruman who feel comfortable in the sun. He says nothing of true orcs. If true orcs could also fight well in the sun, then Aragorn (the self-proclaimed expert on orc-kind) was right there to say otherwise. I think therefore that though Tolkien does not explicitly say that only Saruman's troops were immune to sunlight, the most reasonable reading of this passage would be so.
1b) I did address the Southerner of Bree and Merry's quote. Orc-men hybrids which are more man-like fall into the category of 'orc-men', whether they are 'men with goblin faces', 'goblin-men', or 'that southerner from bree'. I don't think that orc-human hybridization produces the exact same level of 'orcishness' every time, it produces varying degrees, hence orc-men, men with goblin faces, and men-orcs.

Usage 2: Olog-hai
My defense of gene-splicing (or whatever the third age equivalent was) is that nothing in the troll genome had tolerance to sun. If 'breeding' was to produce a sun tolerant troll, that the genetic information for sun tolerance had to be introduced from an outside source. Men in Tolkien's world clearly had that trait, therefor they were an acceptable genetic donor.

Usage 3: Oghor-hai
3a & 3b: 'Woses' and 'Wild Men' were used on separate occasions by the Rohirrim, but if you like then we can condense them to a single name.
3c: I am well aware of the use of 'Dru-folk', and not that it is not a name given to the Druedain by another group of people, and so didn't include it in my list. It is in a note by the author, as you pointed out.
4c: Edain is the plural of adan, is Sindarin, and means 'men' for all practical purposes. This still leaves us with the Druedain being gifted with 4 names by other races, 3 of which unambiguously mean 'something-men', with me claiming that the fourth name also means 'something-men'.


----------



## Greenwood

> I think the point here is that there are two alternative interpretations (if there were not there would be no debate). Nothing can be mutually resolved either way. One goes to the 'secondary' sources to clarify. For example one person can say Saruman's Uruk-hai are not Uruks. Another says they are and points to Appendix F.



Tar-Elenion

The *point* is not that there are two alternative interpretations. The point is that the alternative interpretation that causes all the problems is from a secondary source. Evidently the first person to publicly state that uruks is an Anglicization of Uruk-hai and hence interchangeable, was Foster in his Tolkien compendium. (I am accepting your word for that Foster says this since I do not have Foster's book.) Where did this come from? We do not know. You theorize Foster got it from Tolkien's manuscripts, but you do not seem to know. Have you seen these manuscripts? You merely surmise that it must be in a Tolkien manuscript because Christopher Tolkien uses the same definition in Unfinished Tales. You throw around loaded words like "plagiarist" and "liar" at the suggestion that CT may have followed Foster for his "Anglicization" definition, but neither of these words is warranted. The various Tolkien companion volumes since Foster have used the "Anglicization" definition. Are they all "plagiarists" or "liars" for following Foster and CT? No one would suggest it. Such secondary sources routinely follow earlier published material. Plagiarism does not come into it. CT says he found Foster's work useful. Useful how? As a paper weight? If CT found Foster useful, it must mean he used it for something. How do you know it wasn't the "Anglicization" definition. It certainly isn't in LOTR. Where did it come from? CT does not say where it came from. I do not know where CT got it from. Neither do you. CT admits to using Foster, which has the "Anglicization" definition. The possibility exists CT got it from Foster. For you to summarily dismiss the possibility because you don't *think* so, I would not classify as bad scholarship. "Experts" follow each other all the time. To ignore the possibility when one author has already stated his familiarity with an earlier authors work I would classify as a lack of critical scholarship. You say that there is no conflict between the Fords of Isen manuscript where Saruman's elite orc troops are called Uruks and LOTR where these same troops are always called Uruk-hai. But the only reason you can make this argument is because of the Anglicization definition in UT. Without that definition there would be a conflict. How do you know CT didn't use Foster's definition so that the conflict could be avoided? In his notes on The Line of Elros, CT admits to changing his father's manuscript in The Silmarillion to remove a descrepancy. 

You counter with statements that "CT has been very forthright in what he changed, how it was changed and why it was changed in HoME." This is true, but we are not talking about HoME. We are talking about Unfinished Tales. Does the subject of uruks being an Anglicization of Uruk-hai come up anywhere in HoME? So far no one has produced any such citation. You accuse me of wanting to ignore Unfinished Tales because it goes against my interpretation, yet when I cite quotations from CT about the difficulties he had in working with his father's manuscripts, when I cite CT's own words that he had to use his own judgement to make the most coherent version, when I cite CT's own words that he at times changed his father's manuscript in an effort to resolve inconsistencies, your response is that this is all irrelevant. Who is doing the ignoring here? Your comparison to the question of Gandalf's nature is specious. LOTR leaves the question of the nature of the Istari unaddressed. LOTR does not say Gandalf is a Maia, but LOTR does not say he isn't either. If LOTR said the latter then you would indeed have a problem. Of course, you can look to the posthumously published material for clues. There is nothing in LOTR to contradict.

If the Anglicization definition did not exist in UT, would we even be having this discussion? I doubt it. 



> There is one reference to 'Uruk-hai ' by Mordor Orcs that indicates that Sauron's Uruks are Uruk-hai as well and thus the terms are interchangible.
> 
> " ..... First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together."
> "'Ar!' said the tracker. .They have lost their heads, that's what it is. ......."



Aragil and I have repeatedly given reasonable explanations for how this statement could be referring to Saruman's Uruk-hai. You dispute it and say that it is unreasonable for the "higher-ups" to believe Saruman's troops could be there causing trouble. I would say it is equally unreasonable for them to believe a great elf in bright armor could have slipped in. At best we have an ambiguous statement by a Mordor orc here. We do however, have a completely unambiguous statement by a Mordor orc earlier in the ROTK. Gorbag says: " .... I say something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks. ....." If the Mordor orcs consider themselves Uruk-hai, why doesn't Gorbag use the term? And why. later in ROTK does Tolkien refer to the large orcs in Mordor as uruks? Why not use one term throughout the text? Why create all this confusion if there is only one kind of large orc? 
You point to Appendix F: "Related. no doubt, was the word _uruk_ of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'." You say that this shows that uruks is equal to Uruk-hai. If this is the case why does Tolkien use the word uruk (no -s) in the first sentence but the word Uruk-hai in the second? Why not just use Uruk-hai in both sentences and avoid any confusion? You make it seem like Tolkien is intentionally trying to confuse his readers.


----------



## Grond

Well one can certainly infer that when the Orcs of Mordor refer to Rebel Uruk-hai, they are in fact meaning rebel Uruk-hai of Isengard. One can also certainly infer that they mean rebel Uruk-hai of Sauron.

In the Two Towers, Chapter Uruk-hai, Ugluk says, "...You seem to know a lot. More than is good for you I guess. Perhaps those in Lugburz might wonder how, and why. *But in the meantime, the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as usual...*" Now you have the Isengarders referring to themselves as Uruk-hai of Isengard. Of course, I'm sure that they were just announcing themselves as the exclusive Uruk-hai who are exclusively from Isengard. But, could they not mean a group of great orcs from Isengard as opposed to a group of great orcs from Cirith Ungol? Who's to say. Greenwood?? Your thoughts on this passage.


----------



## Cian

Bombadillodillo,
Since I quote David on his hyphen comment I'm just going to put a tag on it being given as a "possible" (as you note) and leave it at that. 
My own note: whether Black Speech -kh- represents a spirant or not (see Helge's comments on the question of Orc-names), it, if not in every instance where otherwise distinguished, is seen to represent ach-Laut in Tolkien's writings. Cheers.


----------



## Greenwood

> From The Tower of Cirith Ungol chapter in Return of the King we have the following passages:
> ".... An orc-voice rose in anger, and he [Sam] knew it again at once, harsh, brutal, cold. It was Shagrat speaking, Captain of the Tower.
> " 'You won't go again, you say? Curse you, Snaga, you little maggot! If you think I'm so damaged that it's safe to flout me, you're mistaken. ......'
> " 'They won't come, not before you're dead anyway,' answered Snaga surily. 'I've told you twice that Gorbag's swine got to the gate first, .....' "
> Two paragraphs later: " 'I'm not going down those stairs again,' growled Snaga, be you captain or no. ......' "
> On the next page: "As far as Sam could see, Shagrat hunted Snaga round the roof, until ducking and eluding him the smaller orc with a yelp darted back into the tower and disappeared. ...."
> A couple of pages further on: " 'All right,' growled Snaga. 'But I'll come and have a look at you all the same, and see what you're up to.' "



Tar-Elenion

When I quoted the above passages from LOTR and said that any reasonable reader would read assume Snaga was a proper name, you countered: "The capitalization is, it seems, a function of JRRT acting in his role as 'translator' of the narrative." and that because of the note in Appendix F Snaga had to mean slave rather than being a proper name. However, many languages have made proper names (surnames) from what was once a reference to a person's profession. Examples from English: Miller, Smith, Fisher, Taylor (with the i changed to a y), etc. Thus snaga can easily mean slave and still be a name depending on the context.

Also to return to my suggestion that -hai might have something to do with an ability to tolerate sunlight in a group that normally does not. We have the Uruk-hai, some form of orc that is openly disdainful of sunlight when we know that normal orcs avoid the sun. We have Olog-hai, a form of troll that can abide the sun when trolls are normally turned into stone by the sun. Finally we have the Oghor-hai which you say breaks the pattern because they are a form of men and men do not have any trouble with the sun. The Druedain are called by the orcs the Oghor-hai. We see in note 14 by Christopher Tolkien in The Druedain in Unfinished Tales that the term Pukel-men (another name applied to the Druedain) is derived from the Anglo-Saxon pucel which translates as goblin or demon. Evidently the Druedain were considered to be somewhat goblin like, presumably because of their short, squat stature. True goblins shun the sunlight, the Druedain though goblin-like are really men and have no problem with sunlight. Thus we now have a connection with an ability to tolerate sunlight in all three instances of the usage of the suffix -hai. NOTE: I am not violating my rules about the use of secondary sources. All the information about the Druedain come from the same secondary source, Unfinished Tales. None of this contradicts anything in LOTR. In fact, as you are fond of saying it clarifies a question from LOTR


----------



## Greenwood

> In the Two Towers, Chapter Uruk-hai, Ugluk says, "...You seem to know a lot. More than is good for you I guess. Perhaps those in Lugburz might wonder how, and why. But in the meantime, the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as usual..." Now you have the Isengarders referring to themselves as Uruk-hai of Isengard. Of course, I'm sure that they were just announcing themselves as the exclusive Uruk-hai who are exclusively from Isengard. But, could they not mean a group of great orcs from Isengard as opposed to a group of great orcs from Cirith Ungol? Who's to say. Greenwood?? Your thoughts on this passage.



Grond

It seems to me the simplest interpretation is that Gorbag is identfying himself (and his "boys") as being Uruk-hai and that they are from Isengard. Tar-Elenion has argued that the statement implies that there are other Uruk-hai from places other than Isengard. I think this is really stretching things. If I say: "I am John Smith from Tulsa" it does not automatically prove that there is another John Smith from somewhere else. There may be, but that is not the intention of my declaration and my declaration does not prove it. The statement is true even if I am the only John Smith in the world as long as my name is John Smith and I am from Tulsa. My declaration is simply to announce my name and my place of origin. (I intentionally picked a common name so I could not be accused of "stacking the deck".) To insist that the phrase "Uruk-hai of Isengard" automatically means there are Uruk-hai from places other than Isengard is to play word games. It reminds me of the old Groucho Marx line: "I shot an elephant in my pajamas! How he got in my pajamas I'll never know." Yes, you can argue that the first sentence implies the elephant was wearing the pajamas, but it is a stretch.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> Tar-Elenion
> The point is not that there are two alternative interpretations. The point is that the alternative interpretation that causes all the problems is from a secondary source. Evidently the first person to publicly state that uruks is an Anglicization of Uruk-hai and hence interchangeable, was Foster in his Tolkien compendium. (I am accepting your word for that Foster says this since I do not have Foster's book.) Where did this come from? We do not know. You theorize Foster got it from Tolkien's manuscripts, but you do not seem to know. Have you seen these manuscripts? You merely surmise that it must be in a Tolkien manuscript because Christopher Tolkien uses the same definition in Unfinished Tales.
> <snip>
> CT says he found Foster's work useful. Useful how? As a paper weight? If CT found Foster useful, it must mean he used it for something. How do you know it wasn't the "Anglicization" definition. It certainly isn't in LOTR. Where did it come from? CT does not say where it came from. I do not know where CT got it from. Neither do you. CT admits to using Foster, which has the "Anglicization" definition. The possibility exists CT got it from Foster. For you to summarily dismiss the possibility because you don't think so, I would not classify as bad scholarship. "Experts" follow each other all the time. To ignore the possibility when one author has already stated his familiarity with an earlier authors work I would classify as a lack of critical scholarship. You say that there is no conflict between the Fords of Isen manuscript where Saruman's elite orc troops are called Uruks and LOTR where these same troops are always called Uruk-hai. But the only reason you can make this argument is because of the Anglicization definition in UT. Without that definition there would be a conflict. How do you know CT didn't use Foster's definition so that the conflict could be avoided?*


*

There are two alternative interpretations. I first read LotR back in the 70's, before The Silmarillion even came out, much less any of the UT or HoME. I never thought that the Uruk-hai of Isengard were 'half-orcs'. I never thought that Sauron's 'great soldier-orcs' were not Uruk-hai. I have always thought them both to be Uruk-hai. I have always thought that 'Uruks' was an 'anglicization' of Uruk-hai. I have never thought that that the Black Speech plural of 'Uruk' would be 'Uruks'. I have always thought that 'rebel Urukhai' was refering to Sauron's Orcs. The first time I considered any of those other possibilities was when I first started reading the various Tolkien forums on the net and people were suggesting it, I did not buy it then and I do not buy it now. If none of the other sources had been published, and we were still debating this, I would still argue that the 'half-orcs' are not Uruk-hai, based simply on Merry's descriptions at Isengard (of course with the material that has been published I can further back up my argument). I would still argue that 'rebel Uruk-hai' is refers to Gorbag's Orcs (and note, I only used LotR, no outside sources (though I could have) to present my case).
I would still argue that 'Uruk-hai' is interchangeable with 'Uruks', based on App. F, and the 'rebel Uruk-hai' (of course I can now further back that up with other sources).
I think this is the first place I have ever seen it argued that 'Uruks' is not an 'anglicization'. The reason I can make the argument is because I dont think 's' is a BS plural, it is an English plural. 'Uruk' is a singular. Uruk-hai is not a singular ('I am the fighting Uruk-hai'? I dont think so). What you say I surmise is the only reasonable conclusion. That he made it up or he 'borrowed' it are not reasonable. There is absolutely no good reason for him to do either. Things that he altered in the Sil. he did for a reason and he has said what they were.
Why should CT be at all concerned about conflicting with Foster? He certainly did not spend 25 or 30 years of his life organizing researching and publishing his father's manuscripts so that they would not conflict with what Robert Foster wrote.




In his notes on The Line of Elros, CT admits to changing his father's manuscript in The Silmarillion to remove a descrepancy.

Click to expand...


And guess what. He has admitted the error, and corrected it in The Silmarillion.




You counter with statements that "CT has been very forthright in what he changed, how it was changed and why it was changed in HoME." This is true, but we are not talking about HoME. We are talking about Unfinished Tales. Does the subject of uruks being an Anglicization of Uruk-hai come up anywhere in HoME? So far no one has produced any such citation.

Click to expand...


It does not. Perhaps it does not because there is no need to correct it. It would be unnecessary to correct it if it is accurate. Do you expect CT to now start a whole new series of works going through everything he has published and saying this is correct, and this is correct...?





You accuse me of wanting to ignore Unfinished Tales because it goes against my interpretation, yet when I cite quotations from CT about the difficulties he had in working with his father's manuscripts, when I cite CT's own words that he had to use his own judgement to make the most coherent version, when I cite CT's own words that he at times changed his father's manuscript in an effort to resolve inconsistencies, your response is that this is all irrelevant. Who is doing the ignoring here?

Click to expand...


He does note the changes he made to various writings presented in UT. He does note those things that he changed to resolve inconsistancies. Now show me where he notes changes that he made to the 'Fords of Isen' narrative, and we might have something to discuss. Otherwise he is presenting his father's work. 




Your comparison to the question of Gandalf's nature is specious. LOTR leaves the question of the nature of the Istari unaddressed. LOTR does not say Gandalf is a Maia, but LOTR does not say he isn't either. If LOTR said the latter then you would indeed have a problem. Of course, you can look to the posthumously published material for clues. There is nothing in LOTR to contradict.

Click to expand...


LotR does not say Saruman's Uruk-hai are not Uruks. LotR even implies differently. Now I can go to the other sources and clarify. There is nothing in LotR to contradict. Thank you for making my case.

It is late I will address the rest of your post later.*


----------



## Cian

> Tar-Elenion:
> "I have always thought that 'Uruks' was an 'anglicization' of Uruk-hai. I have never thought that that the Black Speech plural of 'Uruk' would be 'Uruks'.



Agreed. UT index aside, _Uruks_ is an anglicization, just like "Silmarils", "Balrogs" ...

Anyone who disagrees (if so), please explain their alternative opinion for -s (in any of these examples really). 

Again, to "anglicize" is to make English in quality or characteristics.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> ... and should feel free to give additional insight). Literally '_adan_' (the singular) is an adaption to Sindarin of the Quenya '_atan_' (see WotJ, Quendi & Eldar). The plural Quenya name for Men _Atani_ literally means 'the Second Folk' (see Q&E) but is normally translated 'Men'. It comes from the Common Eldarin 'tata', 'atta' two.



Dúnedain would naturaly be given as "Western-men" as likely as Q. _Núnatani,_ but indeed adapted _adan_ hailed from a "second" sense in Q. _atan_. _Adan_ can be glossed "Man" or "one of the Second people, folk"

There's nothing much additional about that though  but thanks for the confidence vote.


----------



## Greenwood

> There are two alternative interpretations. I first read LotR back in the 70's, before The Silmarillion even came out, much less any of the UT or HoME. I never thought that the Uruk-hai of Isengard were 'half-orcs'. I never thought that Sauron's 'great soldier-orcs' were not Uruk-hai. I have always thought them both to be Uruk-hai. I have always thought that 'Uruks' was an 'anglicization' of Uruk-hai. I have never thought that that the Black Speech plural of 'Uruk' would be 'Uruks'. I have always thought that 'rebel Urukhai' was refering to Sauron's Orcs. The first time I considered any of those other possibilities was when I first started reading the various Tolkien forums on the net and people were suggesting it, I did not buy it then and I do not buy it now.



Tar-Elenion

I first read LOTR in the early 1960's, more than a decade before The Silmarillion or any of the other works were published. I never thought Sauron had Uruk-hai. I always accepted the clear statements that the Uruk-hai were from Isengard. I always accepted the statements that uruks were in Mordor. I never thought of them as equivalent. The Uruk-hai proudly boast that they laugh at the sun. Treebeard says orcs fear the sun except for Saurman's orcs. He then suggests Saruman blended men and orcs to produce this tolerance. Other characters also point out the ability of Saruman's orcs to withstand the sun and others point out orc-man blends. It never occurred to me not to put all these together. It never occurred to me that Tolkien would be so confusing to his readers.

In Appendix F uruk is stated as being Black Speech. Uruk-hai is also clearly Black Speech. I have no problem with uruks being an Anglicization of uruk. I see absolutely no justification for uruks being an Anglicization of Uruk-hai. Why doesn't Tolkien say in Appendix F that the Uruk-hai come from Mordor and Isengard? Why is Uruk-hai always capitalized by Tolkien, but uruk not and uruks only sometimes? Why would Black Speech have both the words uruk and Uruk-hai? You argue that Uruk-hai is the Black Speech plural form of uruk. Are you arguing that Black Speech creates plurals by adding the suffix -hai? Are you also arguing that Black Speech also always capitalizes its plurals or that for some reason Tolkien always capitalizes Black Speech plurals when he renders them into printed text? Why would Tolkien do this? Our knowledge of Black Speech is fairly limited, but you have presented no evidence that Black Speech creates plurals by adding the suffix -hai. Indeed, based on the various opinions Cian has presented there seems to be no consensus among the 'experts' as to what -hai means. If Uruk-hai and uruk are equivalent, why does Tolkien always have the Isengarders use the term Uruk-hai? Why doesn't Gorbag call himself a Uruk-hai? Why when Sam and Frodo are masquerading as orcs in Mordor does Tolkien as the narrator refer to the large soldier orcs as uruks (lower case)? Why doesn't he call them Uruk-hai? Why do Saruman's orcs make such a point of identifying themselves as Uruk-hai, that they are from Isengard and that they disdain the sun? Why is the only other use of the suffix -hai in LOTR for a form of troll that is distinguished from all other trolls by the ability to tolerate sunlight? You have pointed out the Oghor-hai from Unfinished Tales as men who should have no problem with sunlight, but I have shown in a recent post that the Druedain (Oghor-hai) were considered goblin-like apparently because of their appearance. Goblins cannot tolerate the sun, the Druedain can. Oghor-hai is Black Speech. We now have two uses of -hai where it clearly refers to sun-tolerant types of groups that normally do not like the sun. We have a third use of -hai where it is unclear what the usage of -hai is, but where a relationship to a sun-tolerance can be argued.

Your defintion of uruks = Uruk-hai leaves many questions of Tolkien's usage of the words in LOTR a mystery. My suggestion that they are not equivalent leaves far fewer unanswered questions. Clearly, neither of us is going to move the other. As I have said at various times to Grond, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Cian

The _Olog-hai_ were said to be sun-tolerant so long as the will of Sauron held sway over them, and as said: _"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master:..."_

That's as far as I need go into the mythic conception here.


----------



## Greenwood

> The Olog-hai were said to be sun-tolerant so long as the will of Sauron held sway over them, and as said: "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master:..."



Cian

Quite true. The key point here is that they were sun-tolerant, not what made them sun-tolerant. They were a different "form" of troll from other trolls, the key difference being their sun-tolerance.


----------



## Grond

Well, the arguments here are all over the place and all alternatives (even those offerred from Greenwood's acceptable texts) are being denied. 

Greenwood, you claim my interpretation of the Isengard Orcs pronouncing themselves as"the Uruk-hai of Isengard" to differentiate from other groups of Uruk-hai is a stretch. You say this even when it gains added credence when combined with the reference of rebel Uruk-hai in Cirith Ungol. I disagree with your premise that it is a stretch. It is just as plausible as your assertions and in and of itself is no more compelling than any other argument. It is when combined with my other premise that -hai means greater or superior that things begin to make sense. That is, they begin to make sense if you are open minded about the subject and haven't already formed an unchangeable opinion. If one uses the primary text for the core of your idea and then uses the posthumously published material to fill in detail, one can easily decide that the Uruk-hai are unique to Saruman or one can decide that they are simply "Greater Orcs" which both Sauron and Saruman have developed who are both bigger and more light resistent.

It might be helpful here to speak of Grishnakh. He was an orc of Mordor and appeared to have no problem with light tolerance. He was larger than the Misty Mountain Orcs but smaller than the group of Isengarders. I won't deny that Saruman appeared to have created a "Greater Orc" that was superior to anything that Sauron had created. But that is not the argument here. It is, are the Uruk-hai unique to Saruman. I feel that there is insufficient evidence in the LotR to make such a determination. When the alternate works are thrown into the mix, then my opinion would be the -hai means "Greater". And the alternate texts make it clear that Sauron had these "Greater Orcs".... just maybe not as great as Saruman's.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Cian
> Quite true. The key point here is that they were sun-tolerant, not what made them sun-tolerant. They were a different "form" of troll from other trolls, the key difference being their sun-tolerance.



My post was in reference to 'gene-splicing' and -hai possibly meaning "man". 

I'm aware of the point you are trying to make otherwise


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> It might be helpful here to speak of Grishnakh. He was an orc of Mordor and appeared to have no problem with light tolerance. He was larger than the Misty Mountain Orcs but smaller than the group of Isengarders.



What do you make of the larger and bolder Northerners who remained among the Isengarders "Grond-returned"


----------



## Greenwood

> Greenwood, you claim my interpretation of the Isengard Orcs pronouncing themselves as"the Uruk-hai of Isengard" to differentiate from other groups of Uruk-hai is a stretch. You say this even when it gains added credence when combined with the reference of rebel Uruk-hai in Cirith Ungol.



Grond

Ah, but you see, I do not accept that there are any Uruk-hai in Cirith Ungol. Therefore I do not see that there is any evidence of Uruk-hai in anyone's service but Saurman's.


----------



## aragil

*Some orcs don't mind the sun, some do*

"_He has taken up with foul folk, with the Orcs. Brm, hoom! Worse than that he has been doing something to them; something dangerous. For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, or has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!_"

This is Treebeard's statement, as reported earlier by Greenwood. Here Treebeard states quite clearly that orcs which are not the half-orcs of Isengard 'cannot abide the Sun'. The only alternative reading that we have is from a private communication in 'Letters' that says Treebeard is not all-knowing. By this logic, Tolkien is deliberately trying to mislead his readers with the statements of Treebeard. Apparently Tolkien knew that his private letters would later be published, so that the privileged owners of 'Letters' would get the 'heads-up' not to listen to Treebeard. Thus his deliberately misleading passage about orcs and sun tolerance would only mislead those of us who did not buy the publication of his private letters. That wily professor!!

Now, turning to the orcs of Mordor:
'_East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men (Olog-hai? I thought trolls could not be bred with men!) and Variags and Orcs that hated the sunlight._'
(from 'The Battle of the Pelennor Fields', p.150 of my edition of RotK)

For right now I'll ignore the reference to troll-men, and focus on what is happening to the orcs. These are the orcs of Mordor which were sent to besiege Minas Tirith. I think it is reasonable to assume that this huge army includes any sun-resistant strains which Sauron might have posessed. Yet here Tolkien mentions that they hate sunlight in the midst of their rout. Why? It seems by the very fact that he mentions it that the sun is having an effect on the orcs. I acknowledge that this is not as direct a statement as some would like, but I think that in the greater context of the works it indicates that Sauron's breeds do not do so well in the sun (as Treebeard stated above). Before anybody uses it against me, I am aware that Treebeard says Saruman's orcs hate the sun, and here Tolkien says that Sauron's troops also hate the sun. But to say this is evidence that the two breeds are the same is to totally ignore the context of the statements. At Helm's deep the Uruk-hai claim that they care not for the sun. The next morning they are routed, the sun is brightly shining (it is described glinting off the gear of the riders), but there is no indication that the sun is having any effect on the orcs. At the Pelannor fields the orcs are given a darkness by Sauron. When the darkness is blown aside, Tolkien says that they hate the sun as they are being routed. I think that I am supported by the text here when I say that the reason Tolkien mentions their hatred of the sun is because they are affected by it, whereas the troops of Isengard are not!!


----------



## aragil

*Troll-men*

'_East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men and Variags and Orcs that hated the sunlight._' 
(from 'The Battle of the Pelennor Fields', p.150 of my edition of RotK) 

Well now, what do we make of this? It seems my stubborness in clinging to 'Olog-hai' as 'Troll-men' has finally paid off. Does anybody care to debate that it is possible to breed trolls with men?
I'm just going to remark now that appendix F always caught me off guard with it's mention of the Olog-hai. I always wondered why Tolkien would bother giving this description of a race found no-where in his works. Should we give this the same argument as the men-orcs? Men-orcs (not to be confused with orc-men) are mentioned nowhere outside of Morgoth's Ring, while Uruk-hai are conspicuously absent in Morgoth's Ring. Troll-men are not mentioned in Appendix F, but another breed of sunlight-tolerant trolls is, which, coincidentally, bear the name of Olog-hai. Is anybody ready to concede that Olog-hai might reasonably be translated as 'troll-men', thus keeping the good Professor from bringing up two different sun-tolerant strains of trolls in completely isolated passages?


----------



## Grond

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *Grond
> 
> Ah, but you see, I do not accept that there are any Uruk-hai in Cirith Ungol. Therefore I do not see that there is any evidence of Uruk-hai in anyone's service but Saurman's. *


Dearest Greenwood, you fail to see my point, you simply make it for me.

YOu not only don't agree that there are any Uruk-hai in Cirith Ungol, you refuse to accept the possibility that there could be any. That is an impossible stance from the outset.... unless you've conducted a seance and have actually communicated with JRRT's spirit and he's instructed you on this, it is entirely possible that the rebel Uruk-hai being referred to are from Mordor. I'm not forwarding that argument either, simply accepting that it is a possibility. Just as the statement from the Isengarder that they are "The Uruk-hai of Isengard" could be said to distinguish them from another group of Uruk-hai. 

Greenwood, your apparent narrowmindedness on this matter is startling. Every logical argument made against your position on this thread is now being responded to in a very stubborn and dogged manner. I say this as no insult to you but to impress that you no longer appear to be thinking with reason. It is almost as you have taken this on as a personal cause and will prove the point regardless of evidence or cost. I continue to try to understand your fervor, but, alas, I can't. I will continue to try and reflect a voice of reason but even reason doesn't work when it is pitted against a brick wall.

Aragil, I've already responded in depth as to why I agree that Saruman had both Orc-men and Man-orcs but just as clearly answered why my opinion reflects that they are not the Uruk-hai. You may have already considered these posts and rejected them. If you haven't seen them, I encourage you to read them and see what your think. If you have read them and disagree with my assertions, I will again review both the thread and the works to construe a defendable response to you. If you would just give me a little time.


----------



## Greenwood

Grond

I have granted that the Cirith Ungol passage is open to interpretation. You and Tar-Elenion have your interpetation, which I do not agree with, but I am not demanding that you change. Aragil and I have our interpretation, which you and Tar-Elenion disagree with. I am not accusing either of you of stubborn, narrow-mindedness. I have repeatedly said that since we have two competing interpretations the Cirith Ungol passage is ambiguous and thus cannot be used to prove anything. Ignoring the Cirith Ungol passage I point to all the other times that Tolkien identifies Saruman's orc forces as Uruk-hai. Tolkien also has a number of opportunities to directly identify Mordor orcs as Uruk-hai and does not do so. He calls them Uruks.

I have yet to see any evidence to contradict the evidence I see in Tolkien's own words in LOTR.


----------



## aragil

By sun tolerant I mean that they didn't turn to stone like the ones in the hobbit. By 'endure the sun' I assume that meant that they didn't turn to stone. By 'East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men' I assume that meant that the troll-men were still moving, and thus hadn't been turned to stone. I agree that there are two alternative readings here, I just don't think that the two are equally valid:

Alternative 1: Tolkien mentions Olog-hai once in the appendix. Tolkien mentions Troll-men once in 'Battle of the Pelannor fields. The fact that neither breed turns to stone in sunlight is coincidence. Since they are mentioned separately, they are separate races.

Alternative 2: Tolkien would not mention Olog-hai in appendix F unless he were elaborating on a mention in the narrative proper. Troll-men appear to be sun-tolerant, as do Olog-hai. This is more than just coincidence, in the appendix Tolkien is further discussing Troll-men, but doing so under the Black Speech title of 'Olog-hai'.

Obviously I choose alternative 2, and given the contextual evidence I am puzzled as to why anybody would choose Alternative 1. I thought the main objection to Olog-hai being 'Troll-men' was that trolls couldn't breed with men.

(_Edited to take care of bone-headed blunder pointed out by Greenwood. Where have my editing skills gone?_)


----------



## Greenwood

> Alternative 2: Tolkien would not mention Olog-hai in appendix F unless he were elaborating on a mention in the narrative proper. Troll-men appear to be sun-tolerant, as do Olog-hai. This is more than just coincidence, in the appendix Tolkien is further discussing Troll-men, but doing so under the Black Speech title of 'Uruk-hai'.



Aragil

Before anyone jumps on it in a negative way I will point out that you clearly mistyped in the above and that the last word should be Olog-hai.


----------



## Grond

Greenwood, I must again apologize if it appeared my mind is made up. It is not! I have yet to make any final conclusion on this subject. I am leaning towards the Uruk-hai as meaning "greater orcs" based on descriptions within the Chapter Uruk-hai in the TT and the parallel Battle at the Fords of Isen in UT . It is still perplexing in the least to have the term so prevelant in this chapter and ignored throughtout the rest of the books.


----------



## aragil

Grond: 
I have read your theory regarding 'hai' meaning greater. Until recently this was my reading as well. This whole matter was first brought to my attention about 12 years ago when I was a little teenager interested in Role-Playing games. My favorite game was (naturally) Middle-Earth Role-Playing, by Iron Crown Enterprises. In the game there were several different types of Orc-races, one of which was the 'Uruks', which the game claimed to be soldiers of both Isengard and Mordor. I had always thought that 'Uruks' were the sole property of Isengard, so I first looked Rober Foster's guide, and then re-read most of the passages we are discussing here. The conclusion I came to then was that Sauron had Uruks, Saruman had Uruk-hai which were even bigger and meaner. What has become obvious in this debate is the aspect of sun-tolerance. Several characters remark on the ability of Saruman's troops to withstand sunlight- Gamling, Treebeard, and Saruman's troops themselves. Notably Gamling and Treebeard refer to the sunlight-tolerant troops as 'half-orcs', etc., while Saruman's troops refer to themselves as Uruk-hai. I believe that the easiest way to read this is that 'Uruk-hai' and 'half-orcs' are the same thing. If Sauron's orcs were also sun-tolerant, then Gamling and Treebeard would hardly need to remark on it. Similarly, why would Saruman embark on a program to breed orcs and men if he chose to only use them sparingly? Why not just use Dunlendings as spies (they'd blend in better than goblin-men) and orcs as soldiers? The best answer I can come up with (supported by numerous quotes from the text) is that orcs crossed with men fight better during the day than the orcs of Sauron.
Now, combine the use of 'hai' for orcs with that of Olog-hai: Olog-hai are apparently able to operate in the sun, as are 'troll-men'. Nothing says that these two are different races, so therefore they *could* be the same- hence Olog=troll, '-hai' maybe='men'.
Looking futher: Oghor-hai is a name given to the Druedain by unfriendlies (the orcs). Pukel-men and Wose are names given to the same people, also by fairly unfriendlies (the Rohirrim). Pukel comes from Old English, Wose comes from Anglo-Saxon, and Ogre comes from Middle Germanic. All three of these are languages that Tolkien knew intimately. It is not only possible that he would tie them together by adding 'man', it is likely. In fact, no outside race refers to the Druedain by anything but 'something-men', except for the possibility of the Orcs. If 'hai' is translated as anything other than 'men', then it becomes the exception in races giving names to the 'Druedain'. Why make an exception out of something we don't know the answer to?

Given this info, I think 'hai' translated as 'men' neatly applies to all three usages in Tolkien's works. 'Sunlight-tolerant' and 'Great' only do marginally well for the Woses, as the orcs would be unlikely to give them a compliment, and the orcs would also be unlikely to refer to other creatures as 'sun-tolerant', it would just be an odd usage.


----------



## Cian

*something from Helge*

Note Helge Fauskangers entry on _olog_ in which he writes a "variety" of Troll, and immediately follows with Olog-hai "_Olog_-people". 

Agree with HF or not on _-hai_, I thought it might be interesting to note that a trained lang-guy sees nothing awkward with slapping a collective to a "variety" of Troll.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Troll-men*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *'East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men and Variags and Orcs that hated the sunlight.'
> (from 'The Battle of the Pelennor Fields', p.150 of my edition of RotK)
> 
> Well now, what do we make of this? It seems my stubborness in clinging to 'Olog-hai' as 'Troll-men' has finally paid off. Does anybody care to debate that it is possible to breed trolls with men?
> I'm just going to remark now that appendix F always caught me off guard with it's mention of the Olog-hai. I always wondered why Tolkien would bother giving this description of a race found no-where in his works. Should we give this the same argument as the men-orcs? Men-orcs (not to be confused with orc-men) are mentioned nowhere outside of Morgoth's Ring, while Uruk-hai are conspicuously absent in Morgoth's Ring. Troll-men are not mentioned in Appendix F, but another breed of sunlight-tolerant trolls is, which, coincidentally, bear the name of Olog-hai. Is anybody ready to concede that Olog-hai might reasonably be translated as 'troll-men', thus keeping the good Professor from bringing up two different sun-tolerant strains of trolls in completely isolated passages? *




I am more than willing to argue it. Tolkien does give a description of this race elsewhere (10 or 11 paragraphs before the one you quote). This is what he is referring to when he says 'troll-men': "but Gothmog the lieutenant of Morgul had flung them [the reserves] in to the fray; Easterlings with axes,and Variags of Khand, Southrons in scarlet, and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues."

The so called 'half-trolls' are black men from the far south who are likened to the Black Trolls, but are smaller in stature (hence 'half'). The term 'troll-men' does not refer to the Olog-hai.
It is similar to the earlier description of some 'new sort' of Men that are noted as bearing a resmbalance to Dwarves "Not tall, but broad and grim, beard like dwaves, wielding great axes." From the Siege of Gondor.

Lunch time now.


----------



## Grond

Aagil, having been out of the argument (I don't use debate) for a few days, I am reviewing my research from the prior posts. As far as Half-orc is concerned, I will again reexamine the issue. I find it odd, though no one has mentioned it, that Grishnakh and his Sauron cronies had no problem with the sun. It seems the Northern Misty Mountain Orcs fled to the forest to avoid the Sun but Grishnakh and company jogged right on up with the Uruks of Isengard. The inconsistencies are what I have the greatest problem with. If you deem that Isengarders as half-orcs, wouldn't the troop of Grishnakh also fall into that category? How else do you explain *their* sun tolerance?


----------



## aragil

Grond- I choose to believe that the Mordor orcs fell behind the Isengarders because they were weaker in sunlight. Otherwise the 'plan' of Grishnakh's that Tolkien alludes to appears to be putting his own troops closer to the bows of the Rohirrim.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *I find it odd, though no one has mentioned it, that Grishnakh and his Sauron cronies had no problem with the sun. It seems the Northern Misty Mountain Orcs fled to the forest to avoid the Sun but Grishnakh and company jogged right on up with the Uruks of Isengard. *



I have mentioned it several times.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Grond- I choose to believe that the Mordor orcs fell behind the Isengarders because they were weaker in sunlight. Otherwise the 'plan' of Grishnakh's that Tolkien alludes to appears to be putting his own troops closer to the bows of the Rohirrim. *



Although what the book says is: "Either because they were quicker and hardier, or because of some plan of Grishnakh's, the Isengarders gradually passed through the Orcs of Mordor, and Grishnakh's folk closed in behind." 
I'm afraid it does not say anything about sunlight there.


----------



## aragil

*Troll-men revisited*

Tar-Elenion, I apologize for missing the earlier reference to half trolls. I was looking for a reference regarding Mordor orcs in the sun, and came across 'troll-men' by happy accident. So I guess the situation is thus:

Saruman had Uruk-hai, he also had half orcs/ half men. The half orcs were tolerant of sun, and this was considered worth remarking on by both Treebeard and Gamling. The Uruk-hai cared nothing for the sun, and claimed as much in a way which makes it sound like a property peculiar to their race. Yet these two races were undoubtedly different because Tolkien no where states 'Uruk-hai were half-men/half-orcs', thereby allowing us to ignore their mutual sun-tolerance.

Sauron bred Olog-hai- a sun-tolerant variety of trolls, but then decided to not use them in his siege of Gondor, as they doubtlessly would not have in any way aided his cause. Instead he uses the troll-like men of Far Harad. Of course, Tolkien would never say:
_The barricade was scattered *as if* by a thunderbolt_.(TT, p. 184)
to refer to an actual thunderbolt (magical or storm-related); nor would he say:
_And even at that moment the sun for a second faltered and was obscured, *as though* a dark wing had passed across it_. (RotK, p. 43)
to describe the wing of a creature ridden by a Nazgul actually cutting in front of the sun. Therefore it is impossible for 
_and out of Far Harad black men *like* half-troll with white eyes and red tongues_. (RotK, p. 148)
to refer to actual trolls (or half-trolls, which we know to be a genetic impossibility).

Finally, the Druedain are called by Elves and Men (except themselves) as _something_ followed by 'men'. Yet it is apparently impossible that Tolkien would have the Orcs refer to them in a similar manner, therefore 'Oghor-hai' can not be interpreted as 'ogre-men', and therefore it becomes the exception in naming the Dru-folk.


----------



## aragil

_Either because they were quicker and hardier, or because of some plan of Grishnakh's, the Isengarders gradually passed through the Orcs of Mordor, and Grishnakh's folk closed in behind_.

They were indeed stronger and hardier, but might this have anything to do with the sunlight?

_In the afternoon Ugluk's troop overtook the Northerners. They were flagging in the rays of the bright sun, winter sun shining in a pale cool sky though it was; their heads were down and their tongues lolling out_.

Of course, by the narrowest possible reading the Isengarders only overtook the Northerners because of the sun thing, not because the Isengarders were stronger and hardier (it never says the Isengarders were stronger and hardier). Likewise the Isengarders pulled ahead of the Mordor orcs only because the Isengarders were stronger and hardier (or because of a plan of Grishnakh's to get his own boys shot first), not because the Isengarders were more tolerant of the sun. What a strange mix of orcs!


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> 
> Tar-Elenion
> 
> I first read LOTR in the early 1960's, more than a decade before The Silmarillion or any of the other works were published. I never thought Sauron had Uruk-hai. I always accepted the clear statements that the Uruk-hai were from Isengard. I always accepted the statements that uruks were in Mordor. I never thought of them as equivalent. The Uruk-hai proudly boast that they laugh at the sun. Treebeard says orcs fear the sun except for Saurman's orcs. He then suggests Saruman blended men and orcs to produce this tolerance. Other characters also point out the ability of Saruman's orcs to withstand the sun and others point out orc-man blends. It never occurred to me not to put all these together. It never occurred to me that Tolkien would be so confusing to his readers.



Good, then we are in agreement. There are alternative interpretations to the potions of the 'primary' text under discussion. We both came to our seperate conclusions without use of any of the rest of the corpus.
When the other materials came out, it reinforced my interpretation, so I see no problem with using it, to me it does not contradict or confuse the 'primary' source.



> In Appendix F uruk is stated as being Black Speech. Uruk-hai is also clearly Black Speech. I have no problem with uruks being an Anglicization of uruk. I see absolutely no justification for uruks being an Anglicization of Uruk-hai. Why doesn't Tolkien say in Appendix F that the Uruk-hai come from Mordor and Isengard?



He does not need to. It is a given when he writes that 'uruk' is applied to both Mordor and Isengard Orcs. This is further reinforced when he says 'snaga' is used by the Uruk-hai (which word is referring back to 'uruk'), because it is used by both Mordor and Isengard Orcs. It is further reinforced by the fact that the Nazgul sends out Orcs to track down rebel Uruk-hai in Mordor, after the Morgul Orcs kill a bunch of Ungol Orcs, and allow for the escape of the prisoner. (It obviously can not be a reference to Saruman's Orcs which had nothing to do with the slaughter in Ungol, for at least one primary reason, Saruman's all got killed.





> You argue that Uruk-hai is the Black Speech plural form of uruk. Are you arguing that Black Speech creates plurals by adding the suffix -hai? Are you also arguing that Black Speech also always capitalizes its plurals or that for some reason Tolkien always capitalizes Black Speech plurals when he renders them into printed text? Why would Tolkien do this? Our knowledge of Black Speech is fairly limited, but you have presented no evidence that Black Speech creates plurals by adding the suffix -hai. Indeed, based on the various opinions Cian has presented there seems to be no consensus among the 'experts' as to what -hai means.



No I am not arguing that at all. In my post wherein I laid out the varrious propositions for '-hai', I noted for the fourth some thing to the effect of 'race, folk (a plural suffix)'. By this I mean it is not a singular it as a group, ie a 'people', not a 'person'. I do not think there are any instances of it being used for 'a person'. If there are any, the various linguists might like to know.

I have said nothing about Black Speech capitalization. If I am not mistaken, BS itself would have no 'capitals'. The script used for writing BS is the Tengwar, and it has no capitals. I don't think any of the writing systems JRRT came up with for his Legendarium use 'capitals'. Cian, any comments?



> Your defintion of uruks = Uruk-hai leaves many questions of Tolkien's usage of the words in LOTR a mystery. My suggestion that they are not equivalent leaves far fewer unanswered questions. Clearly, neither of us is going to move the other. As I have said at various times to Grond, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.



Okay.

Edited out the 'BOLD' script.


----------



## Greenwood

> When the other materials came out, it reinforced my interpretation, so I see no problem with using it,



Tar-Elenion

That a secondary source agreed with you does not make either of you right. For thousands of years experts agreed with each other that the sun circled the earth. Mere agreement means nothing. 



> He does not need to. It is a given when he writes that 'uruk' is applied to both Mordor and Isengard Orcs. This is further reinforced when he says 'snaga' is used by the Uruk-hai (which word is referring back to 'uruk'), because it is used by both Mordor and Isengard Orcs. It is further reinforced by the fact that the Nazgul sends out Orcs to track down rebel Uruk-hai in Mordor, after the Morgul Orcs kill a bunch of Ungol Orcs, and allow for the escape of the prisoner. (It obviously can not be a reference to Saruman's Orcs which had nothing to do with the slaughter in Ungol, for at least one primary reason, Saruman's all got killed.



If uruk and Uruk-hai are equivalent, why does Tolkien invent two such similar yet different words? Why would the Black Speech have two different words that mean the same thing? The text does not say snaga is used by the uruk. It says "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave." In the second sentence it is the "lesser kinds" that refers back to the previous sentence, contrasting the lesser kinds to the great soldier orcs. The two sentences do not make uruk and Uruk-hai equivalent. As for the Nazgul sending out troops, he hasn't a clue what he is looking for (".... First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together.") As for all of Saruman's orcs being dead, how would the Nazgul know this?



> I have said nothing about Black Speech capitalization.



Neither have I. I asked about Tolkien's capitalization. I asked why Tolkien as the narrator/translator always capitalizes Uruk-hai, but only sometimes capitalizes uruks? I also asked why as narrator/translator Tolkien always chooses to use the work Uruk-hai when Saruman's troops speak of themselves, but the one time a Mordor orc does (Gorbag) the word Uruks is used instead? Your only response is to dodge the question by repeating they are the same word and to then attempt to prove they are the same word by citing examples that are only true if you first assume the two words are the same.

We are never going to agree on this.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> 
> 
> Tar-Elenion
> 
> When I quoted the above passages from LOTR and said that any reasonable reader would read assume Snaga was a proper name, you countered: "The capitalization is, it seems, a function of JRRT acting in his role as 'translator' of the narrative." and that because of the note in Appendix F Snaga had to mean slave rather than being a proper name. However, many languages have made proper names (surnames) from what was once a reference to a person's profession. Examples from English: Miller, Smith, Fisher, Taylor (with the i changed to a y), etc. Thus snaga can easily mean slave and still be a name depending on the context.


Is 'slave' a profession?

Like I say, he is, it seems, acting in his role as translator. Do Hobbit's know BS?



> Also to return to my suggestion that -hai might have something to do with an ability to tolerate sunlight in a group that normally does not. We have the Uruk-hai, some form of orc that is openly disdainful of sunlight when we know that normal orcs avoid the sun. We have Olog-hai, a form of troll that can abide the sun when trolls are normally turned into stone by the sun. Finally we have the Oghor-hai which you say breaks the pattern because they are a form of men and men do not have any trouble with the sun. The Druedain are called by the orcs the Oghor-hai. We see in note 14 by Christopher Tolkien in The Druedain in Unfinished Tales that the term Pukel-men (another name applied to the Druedain) is derived from the Anglo-Saxon pucel which translates as goblin or demon. Evidently the Druedain were considered to be somewhat goblin like, presumably because of their short, squat stature. True goblins shun the sunlight, the Druedain though goblin-like are really men and have no problem with sunlight. Thus we now have a connection with an ability to tolerate sunlight in all three instances of the usage of the suffix -hai. NOTE: I am not violating my rules about the use of secondary sources. All the information about the Druedain come from the same secondary source, Unfinished Tales. None of this contradicts anything in LOTR. In fact, as you are fond of saying it clarifies a question from LOTR




What Greenwood wrote: "Evidently the Druedain were considered to be somewhat goblin like, presumably because of their short, squat stature."

What JRRT wrote: "In some ways they resembled rather the Dwarves: in build and stature...", (See UT, PoME). 

Note 14, hmm... "It seems that the term Pukel-men (...) was only used in Rohan of the images in Dunharrow."

What does it say in the narrative proper? "But in Rohan the identity of the statues of Dunharrow called "Pukel-men" with the "Wild Men" of the Druadan Forest was not recognized, neither was their "humanity"."

What did JRRT say specifically?: "Pukel-men. A Rohan name for the effigies of men of a vanished race." (See 'A Guide to Names in LotR: Things').

You may go ahead and present the next part of your argument (instead of me).


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Some orcs don't mind the sun, some do*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> "_He has taken up with foul folk, with the Orcs. Brm, hoom! Worse than that he has been doing something to them; something dangerous. For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, or has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!_"
> 
> This is Treebeard's statement, as reported earlier by Greenwood. Here Treebeard states quite clearly that orcs which are not the half-orcs of Isengard 'cannot abide the Sun'. The only alternative reading that we have is from a private communication in 'Letters' that says Treebeard is not all-knowing. By this logic, Tolkien is deliberately trying to mislead his readers with the statements of Treebeard. Apparently Tolkien knew that his private letters would later be published, so that the privileged owners of 'Letters' would get the 'heads-up' not to listen to Treebeard. Thus his deliberately misleading passage about orcs and sun tolerance would only mislead those of us who did not buy the publication of his private letters. That wily professor!!



No one is disputing that Saruman's Orc's can endure the sunlight. _That_ is Treebeard's statement.
The rest is Treebeard speculating. He is asking rhetorical questions. They are not statements. As for Letter 153, JRRT said what he said. Apparently some reader was misled by Treebeard's actual (other) statements on Orcs. JRRT did not seem overly concerned about it.



> Now, turning to the orcs of Mordor:
> '_East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men (Olog-hai? I thought trolls could not be bred with men!) and Variags and Orcs that hated the sunlight._'
> (from 'The Battle of the Pelennor Fields', p.150 of my edition of RotK)
> 
> For right now I'll ignore the reference to troll-men, and focus on what is happening to the orcs. These are the orcs of Mordor which were sent to besiege Minas Tirith. I think it is reasonable to assume that this huge army includes any sun-resistant strains which Sauron might have posessed. Yet here Tolkien mentions that they hate sunlight in the midst of their rout. Why? It seems by the very fact that he mentions it that the sun is having an effect on the orcs. I acknowledge that this is not as direct a statement as some would like, but I think that in the greater context of the works it indicates that Sauron's breeds do not do so well in the sun (as Treebeard stated above). Before anybody uses it against me, I am aware that Treebeard says Saruman's orcs hate the sun, and here Tolkien says that Sauron's troops also hate the sun. But to say this is evidence that the two breeds are the same is to totally ignore the context of the statements. At Helm's deep the Uruk-hai claim that they care not for the sun. The next morning they are routed, the sun is brightly shining (it is described glinting off the gear of the riders), but there is no indication that the sun is having any effect on the orcs. At the Pelannor fields the orcs are given a darkness by Sauron. When the darkness is blown aside, Tolkien says that they hate the sun as they are being routed. I think that I am supported by the text here when I say that the reason Tolkien mentions their hatred of the sun is because they are affected by it, whereas the troops of Isengard are not!!



Nobody said the two breeds were the same. I think those posting here have all noted differences. Yes the sun is shining when Sauron's troops are routed. But interestingly enough, the Sun is shining for quite some time before that. The sun starts shinnig when the Rohirrim charge and start routing the Mordorians. The sun is shinning when the Witch King comes to slay Theoden, and be slain (his arrival causes a great shadow). The sun is shing after he is slain, (Merry stands blinking in the sunlight). At mid-morning when the day begins to turn against Gondor the wind is blowing, the rain is flying the sun is shining and the air is clear. Mordor is winning, and all hope is lost because the watchmen see afar the Corsairs of Umbar coming. The hosts of Mordor are enheartened and come yelling to the onset. All this while the sun is shining. Only when the Mordorians realize that the Ships are filled with their enemy, do they become bewildered and filled with dread. It does not make any mention of the Orcs being cowed by the sun. The sun did not rout them, surprise and fear did. We know they hated it, and as you pointed out so do Saruman's. Still no proof that Sauron's Orcs were any more effected that Saruman's.


----------



## Greenwood

I just received my copy of The War of the Jewels and looked up uruk in Quendi and Eldar. The Quendi and Eldar is Tolkien's essay on the langauges of Middle Earth. In Appendix C there is the following passage: "The word _uruk_ that occurs in the Black Speech, devised (it is said) by Sauron to serve as a lingua franca for his subjects, was probably borrowed by him from the Elvish tongues of earlier times. *It referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of of the regiments of Mordor.* Lesser breeds seem to have been called _snaga_." (italics in original; emphasis added) In regard to the word snaga their is an editorial note from Christopher Tolkien in which he compares this to Appendix F in LOTR: "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, _snaga_ 'slave'."

Thus we have here a statement by JRRT in which he specifically refers the word uruk to the elite orc troops of Mordor. There is no mention of Isengard here. Christopher Tolkien says that the manuscriot for Quendi and Eldar dates from 1959/1960, after LOTR's publication. Thus at least at this point in time Tolkien appears to be restricting uruk to the elite orc troops of Mordor. Christopher Tolkien's editorial note is clearly drawing attention to a comparison of the use of the word snaga here and in the LOTR Appendix F. He is not drawing attention to the word Uruk-hai.

(Once again, please note: I am not violating my rules on secondary sources. I have alwasy said Tolkien's posthumously published work could be looked at for evidence to clarify questions in the primary material. The secondary source is not definitive, so it is most helpful when it agrees with or clarigies the primary. Since it is not definitive, it cannot definitively refute the primary.)


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Troll-men revisited*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Tar-Elenion, I apologize for missing the earlier reference to half trolls. I was looking for a reference regarding Mordor orcs in the sun, and came across 'troll-men' by happy accident.



No problem. There is a _lot_ of material. I came across an obscure reference the other day, that I had to provide (in the interest of 'full disclosure') in a debate elsewhere, that could be used to to re-enforce the other sides position.



> So I guess the situation is thus:
> Saruman had Uruk-hai, he also had half orcs/ half men. The half orcs were tolerant of sun, and this was considered worth remarking on by both Treebeard and Gamling. The Uruk-hai cared nothing for the sun, and claimed as much in a way which makes it sound like a property peculiar to their race. Yet these two races were undoubtedly different because Tolkien no where states 'Uruk-hai were half-men/half-orcs', thereby allowing us to ignore their mutual sun-tolerance.



Of course Gamling also seemed to feel it was necessary to remark that the Dunlendings (hill men) were tolerant of the sun too. And of course the 'half-orcs' (men with goblin faces) marched with the Dunlendings (which the Orcs did not)('Flotsam'). 
An aside: Does the suggest that Saruman was using the Dunlendings for his breeding projects? 



> Sauron bred Olog-hai- a sun-tolerant variety of trolls, but then decided to not use them in his siege of Gondor, as they doubtlessly would not have in any way aided his cause. Instead he uses the troll-like men of Far Harad.



He did not use them? I had always presumed that they were those 'mountain trolls' (they appeared in both southern Mirkwood and the _mountain borders of Mordor] wielding Grond. 





Of course, Tolkien would never say:
The barricade was scattered *as if* by a thunderbolt.(TT, p. 184)
to refer to an actual thunderbolt (magical or storm-related); nor would he say:
And even at that moment the sun for a second faltered and was obscured, *as though* a dark wing had passed across it. (RotK, p. 43)
to describe the wing of a creature ridden by a Nazgul actually cutting in front of the sun. Therefore it is impossible for 
and out of Far Harad black men *like* half-troll with white eyes and red tongues. (RotK, p. 148)
to refer to actual trolls (or half-trolls, which we know to be a genetic impossibility).

Click to expand...


The men were from Far Harad, the Olog-hai were not.

Cian had posted about the ability of the Olog-hai to withstand sunlight. The point he is trying to make is (if I may be so bold, Cian correct me if I am wrong, but in any event this is how I read it) that if it were do due to breeding with Men, it seems unlikely that it would only endure while Sauron held sway over them (the fate and nature of the Eruhini being the sole discretion of Iluvatar). This is evidently some use of his 'sub-creational faculties' . When Sauron is 'destroyed' this goes to._


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> I just received my copy of The War of the Jewels and looked up uruk in Quendi and Eldar. The Quendi and Eldar is Tolkien's essay on the langauges of Middle Earth. In Appendix C there is the following passage: "The word _uruk_ that occurs in the Black Speech, devised (it is said) by Sauron to serve as a lingua franca for his subjects, was probably borrowed by him from the Elvish tongues of earlier times. *It referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of of the regiments of Mordor.* Lesser breeds seem to have been called _snaga_." (italics in original; emphasis added) In regard to the word snaga their is an editorial note from Christopher Tolkien in which he compares this to Appendix F in LOTR: "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, _snaga_ 'slave'."
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I already mentioned the passage in my 'Snaga' post (1-26-02, 3:54pm).
Click to expand...


----------



## aragil

*Some people's narrow readings...*



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *The sun did not rout them, surprise and fear did. We know they hated it, and as you pointed out so do Saruman's. Still no proof that Sauron's Orcs were any more effected that Saruman's. *



My question is why are we informed here that the orcs hate the sun. What do you possibly think that Tolkien was doing here mentioning the sun? Was he trying to fill up a word quota that his editor gave him? Why else would he have even bothered mentioning it?

Tolkien picked what Treebeard said. We have two options here:
1)Treebeard was being used to give some insight to the readers into the nature of orcs.
2)Tolkien was deliberately misleading his audience.

Why are you bothering to cite a *private* letter of the good professor's, which was referring to a specific incident, to support option #2, and essentially negate anything that Treebeard might ever say? You are in effect saying that we can't reasonably infer anything about the world of Tolkien by anything that any character in the book might say. Perhaps Tolkien should have written the entire book in the narrative format without dialogue, since the sole purpose of dialogue is apparently to confuse the reader. I guess if you think you know more about orcs than Treebeard, then you're free to your opinion- just don't say it is supported by Tolkien's works. As for me, I'll take Treebeard's words at face value.


----------



## aragil

*Re: Re: Troll-men revisited*



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *The men were from Far Harad, the Olog-hai were not.*



The 'men' are confirmed as coming from Far Harad. The Olog-hai 'appear' in the late third age around Mirkwood and Mordor. We do not know where they came from, just that they were first bred and later deployed around Mordor and Dol Guldor.


I can't help but notice that by replying piece-meal to my theories you detract from one of their strong points- they are cohesive, and I do my best to make them apply to all uses of words, and to incorporate all of the works. It is easy to base a theory on the use of 'rebel Urukhai' in Mordor. It is much more difficult to make a theory which incorporates all of 'The Lord of the Rings', 'Morgoth's Ring', 'Unfinished Tales', 'Letters', and Webster's dictionary. I have done this. I would love to see a competing theory as complete, rather than having to respond to piece-meal detractions which tend to ignore the 'big picture'.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Tar-Elenion
> 
> That a secondary source agreed with you does not make either of you right. For thousands of years experts agreed with each other that the sun circled the earth. Mere agreement means nothing.



No, probobly not. But it sure does reinforce it. That a secondary source does not agree with your interpretation of the primary does not make the secondary wrong.

Sun circled the earth? Thats in the Legendarium too. 





> If uruk and Uruk-hai are equivalent, why does Tolkien invent two such similar yet different words? Why would the Black Speech have two different words that mean the same thing? The text does not say snaga is used by the uruk. It says "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave." In the second sentence it is the "lesser kinds" that refers back to the previous sentence, contrasting the lesser kinds to the great soldier orcs. The two sentences do not make uruk and Uruk-hai equivalent.



Tolkien invented alot of similar yet different words, he was a linguist. His Legendarium sprang out of his linguistic bent.



> As for the Nazgul sending out troops, he hasn't a clue what he is looking for (".... First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together.")



Except he is correct in each one. Gorbag etc. were 'rebel Uruk-hai',
Sam was an 'Elf' (or so it was reported), mithril mail was taken from Frodo, Hobbits are 'small dwarf-men'.



> As for all of Saruman's orcs being dead, how would the Nazgul know this?



The Nazgul was at Cirith Ungol. Gorbag's boys and Shagrat's had slaughtered each other. Their dead bodies were all over the place, still locked in combat. Shagrat escaped alive. All this evidence and it is going to be assumed that Saruman had sent a bunch of his Orcs into Mordor, to 'rescue' Frodo (who had just been captured), unseen, and none of them was killed in the process? I dont buy it.
What did the Nazgul know? What had been gotten from Pippen when he looked into the Palantir, what all did Aragorn reveal?




> Neither have I. I asked about Tolkien's capitalization. I asked why Tolkien as the narrator/translator always capitalizes Uruk-hai, but only sometimes capitalizes uruks? I also asked why as narrator/translator Tolkien always chooses to use the work Uruk-hai when Saruman's troops speak of themselves, but the one time a Mordor orc does (Gorbag) the word Uruks is used instead? Your only response is to dodge the question by repeating they are the same word and to then attempt to prove they are the same word by citing examples that are only true if you first assume the two words are the same.



Why did he sometimes choose to capitalize Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit, Orc, and sometimes not?



> We are never going to agree on this.



Probably not.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Re: Re: Troll-men revisited*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *
> I can't help but notice that by replying piece-meal to my theories you detract from one of their strong points- they are cohesive, and I do my best to make them apply to all uses of words, and to incorporate all of the works. It is easy to base a theory on the use of 'rebel Urukhai' in Mordor. It is much more difficult to make a theory which incorporates all of 'The Lord of the Rings', 'Morgoth's Ring', 'Unfinished Tales', 'Letters', and Webster's dictionary. I have done this. I would love to see a competing theory as complete, rather than having to respond to piece-meal detractions which tend to ignore the 'big picture'. *



I do not know what you mean by 'piece-meal'. I have attempted to respond to points made in your posts.
For example your post 'Troll-men' 01-28-02 10:34am, you wanted to know why JRRT never referred to these elsewhere and I showed you that he had. They were the men from Far Harad mentioned several paragraphs earlier. You responded with a post with several points ie Gamling found it necessary to say the 'half-orcs' could withstand the sun and etc. I pointed out he said the same about Dunlendings and etc.

You found it odd that Sauron did not use the Olog-hai at Gondor, I pointed out the 'mountain trolls' passage and that the Olog-hai resided in the mountains of Mordor.

You quoted some metaphors from JRRT and _seemed_ to posit that the Far Haradians were the Olog-hai again, and mentioned the genetic impossiblities I pointed out that they were from 'F.H.' and the Olgo-hai were not. I mentioned Cian's post and responded with what how Sauron might be effecting the Olog-hai, and why it would stop.

By competeing theory do you mean like my '-hai', 'Snaga', and 'Uruk-hai' posts? (Those take a _long_ time for me to type out and the work week makes it difficult).


----------



## Greenwood

> Is 'slave' a profession?
> 
> Like I say, he is, it seems, acting in his role as translator. Do Hobbit's know BS?



From my Webster's Dictionary: profession -- any vocation or business. also: vocation -- a particular occupation, business, or profession; a function or station. So yes, in the sense of a job slave is a profession. Once again, you resort to word games to hide the fact that you are ignoring the main point under discussion.
As for Tolkien, he is not the translator. He is the author. He wrote the entire book, he did not translate it. More words games on your part.




> What does it say in the narrative proper? "But in Rohan the identity of the statues of Dunharrow called "Pukel-men" with the "Wild Men" of the Druadan forest was not recognized, neither was their "humanity"."



In The Ride of the Rohirrim in ROTK we find the following passage: "Merry felt that he had seen him before somewhere, and suddenly he remembered the Pukel-men of Dunharrow. Here was one of those old images brought to life, or maybe a creature descended in true line through endless years from the models used by the forgotten craftsmen long ago." Clearly Tolkien is telling us the Woses or Druedain are the Pukel-men. Or is Tolkien misleading us again as you so often imply with your word games rather than deal with the topic under discussion.




> Yes I already mentioned the passage in my 'Snaga' post


Yes, you "mentioned" the passage, but you conveniently forgot to mention that Tolkien quite clearly says that uruk "referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of of the regiments of Mordor" with no reference to Isengard. We wonders, why my precious? Yes we wonders. Even now you do not address my points, but instead you play word and debating games.

It is also interesting that Christopher Tolkien sees fit to draw attention in an editorial note to the snaga definition in Appendix F of LOTR to compare and contrast it to the snaga definition in Quendi and Eldar? If, as you contend, the Uruk-hai are equivalent to the Uruks of Mordor why is CT think it is necessary to tell us to compare this use of the word snaga to the reference to snaga being used by the Uruk-hai (in Appendix F)? We wonders, yes, we wonders. You have repeatedly said that CT must have gotten his Anglicization definition of Uruk-hai that appears in the index of Unfinished Tales from his father's notebooks. This is the perfect place to put such a reference in an editorial note. Tolkien spends two pages in Quendi and Eldar discussing the derivation of the words orc and uruk, with nary a mention of the word Uruk-hai. If CT had some material of his father's that said "uruk is the Anglicization of Uruk-hai" why doesn't CT include it here? It is the perfect place for it. For that matter why doesn't CT cite the definition in the index of Unfinished Tales here? Once again, it is the perfect place for it. It seems a strange omission. CT frequently cites his other books in his editorial notes, Why not here when it seems directly applicable? Perhaps it is because the Anglicization definition doesn't appear in his fathers manuscripts? We wonders. I am sure you will now do one of your little word games and point to CT's introduction to Quendi and Eldar where he says: "for reasons of space my commentary is kept to a severe minimum". A minimum is one think. To completely ignore relevant JRR Tolkien notes that you claim must exist seems beyond believe. Unless those theorized notes in fact do not exist.




> Tolkien invented alot of similar yet different words, he was a linguist.



Yes, but he didn't invent them for no reason. And he didn't invent two different words in the same language and then say they meant the same thing. You are always implying that Tolkien took great pleasure in misleading his readers.




> Except he is correct in each one. Gorbag etc. were 'rebel Uruk-hai',
> Sam was an 'Elf' (or so it was reported), mithril mail was taken from Frodo, Hobbits are 'small dwarf-men'.



No, the Nazgul was wrong in each case. Sam was not a "great Elf in bright armour". In fact Sam never wore the mithril coat that you claim gave rise to this report. And if the Nazgul seriously thought it might be a "great Elf in bright armour", how did he think a bunch of orcs got this armour off the "great Elf". Sam was not a "small dwarf-man". Sam doesn't look anything like a man. And Gorbag's boys were not "Uruk-hai", they were Uruks as Gorbag himself called them. The Nazgul was wrong in every case and didn't have a clue what was going on. That a pack of Saruman's rebel Uruk-hai could have attacked is far more likely than that a "great Elf in bright armour" sneaked past Minas Morgul got up the stairs, wiped out the Cirith Ungol Uruks and Gorbags Uruks and then left his armour behind.


I am tired of wasting my time with you since you continue to play word games and play debating games rather than actually engage in discussion.


----------



## Greenwood

> Why are you bothering to cite a private letter of the good professor's, which was referring to a specific incident, to support option #2, and essentially negate anything that Treebeard might ever say? You are in effect saying that we can't reasonably infer anything about the world of Tolkien by anything that any character in the book might say. Perhaps Tolkien should have written the entire book in the narrative format without dialogue, since the sole purpose of dialogue is apparently to confuse the reader.





> I can't help but notice that by replying piece-meal to my theories you detract from one of their strong points- they are cohesive, and I do my best to make them apply to all uses of words, and to incorporate all of the works. It is easy to base a theory on the use of 'rebel Urukhai' in Mordor. It is much more difficult to make a theory which incorporates all of 'The Lord of the Rings', 'Morgoth's Ring', 'Unfinished Tales', 'Letters', and Webster's dictionary. I have done this. I would love to see a competing theory as complete, rather than having to respond to piece-meal detractions which tend to ignore the 'big picture'.



Aragil

Yes, I noticed and called attention sometime ago to Tar-Elenion's habit of implying that Tolkien loves to mislead his readers and Tar-Elenion's habit of piece-meal replies that obscure the fact he does not address your whole argument. I am tired of wasting my time with him.


----------



## Cian

> Greenwood:
> Yes, but he didn't invent them for no reason. And he didn't invent two different words in the same language and then say they meant the same thing. You are always implying that Tolkien took great pleasure in misleading his readers.



Are you referring to Uruk and Uruk-hai here? If so the general force of the argument simply offers a "word" with slapped on collective. As Tolkien invented _Nogoth_ and _Nogothrim_.

Stem *RUKU
ancient forms:
ruk-, rauk-, uruk-, urk(u), runk, rukut/s strengthened: gruk-, elaborated guruk-, ñguruk
CE: *rauku, *raukó
more "ancient": (uruk) urku/ó, adj. urká
Quenya: urko pl urqui (d.*urku or *uruku)
Sindarin: urug, orch (d. *urkó, adj. *úrká)
Adûnaic: urkhu, urkhu 

Generally speaking: what Tolkien did invent was a very real interelated history of langs, and in the context of "found" texts ... Tolkien even took pleasure in asterisking some of his own forms as if they were unattested  which they then are, in a historical sense, within the fantasy of translation.


----------



## Cian

*Re: Re: Troll-men revisited*



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> The men were from Far Harad, the Olog-hai were not. Cian had posted about the ability of the Olog-hai to withstand sunlight. The point he is trying to make is (if I may be so bold, Cian correct me if I am wrong, but in any event this is how I read it) that if it were do due to breeding with Men, it seems unlikely that it would only endure while Sauron held sway over them (the fate and nature of the Eruhini being the sole discretion of Iluvatar). This is evidently some use of his 'sub-creational faculties' . When Sauron is 'destroyed' this goes to.



Right  First: _"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: ..."_ and then it is said they could endure the sun so long as that will held sway over them.

I muchly like this idea from Tolkien, and see it as a component of the Dark Lord's "expenditure of will". I do not want to know the particulars of "how", and Tolkien does, naturally Imo, not digress. But the "mythic evidence" in this description at least, seems to be that the Olog-hai would lose what measure of sun-endurance they had following S's vanquishing (leading to a less mythic age).


----------



## Greenwood

> Generally speaking: what Tolkien did invent was a very real interelated history of langs, and in the context of "found" texts ... Tolkien even took pleasure in asterisking some of his own forms as if they were unattested which they then are, in a historical sense, within the fantasy of translation.



Cian

Yes. Tolkien did indeed do this in his fantasy etymologies such as Quendi and Eldar, and in appendices on etymology to make the languages appear to have thousands of years of history. He did not, however, invent similar appearing words and then use them interchangeably with no explanation in his story-telling, thus confusing his readers. This would be poor writing and no editor/publisher would have stood for it. Can you give me any examples (other than uruks and Uruk-hai) where in LOTR or The Hobbit, Tolkien uses two different made-up words to mean exactly the same thing and where he does not explain to the reader, in the narrative, why these words are different? Before anyone accuses me of trying to stack the deck by restricting the question to The Hobbit and LOTR, let me explain again one of the crucial differences between those published works and the posthumously pubished manuscripts. The Hobbit and LOTR had to pass the scrutiny of an editor/publisher, the unpublished manuscripts did not. Wholly misleading usages will get weeded out by the publisher's editors in the first case. The unpublished manuscripts have not been subjected to this step. To forestall any attempts to excise out of my above statement a minor portion of it and then pronounce "But, The Silmarillion, etc were edited by Christopher Tolkien and presumably his publisher's editors" I will point out that for the most part the posthumously published works are heavily foot-noted and have considerable appendices and commentary. (Cian, the above comments are *not* directed at you.


----------



## Greenwood

> Right First: "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: ..." and then it is said they could endure the sun so long as that will held sway over them.
> 
> I muchly like this idea from Tolkien, and see it as a component of the Dark Lord's "expenditure of will". I do not want to know the particulars of "how", and Tolkien does, naturally Imo, not digress. But the "mythic evidence" in this description at least, seems to be that the Olog-hai would lose what measure of sun-endurance they had following S's vanquishing (leading to a less mythic age).



Cian

But did all these trolls instantly turn to stone in the daylight when Sauron's will was withdrawn from them in that final battle of the Third Age before the Black Gates? That is the clear implication of this argument. Odd that there is no mention of it.


----------



## Cian

Greenwood, Tolkien says here that the Olog-hai could endure the Sun so long as the will of Sauron held sway over them.

I edited other (my) examples of similar phrasing here, as I think "so long" need not really be explained by example.

If someone wants to try and show my interpretation of this specific description somehow unreasonable, then they may give it a go. But that's a different thing than showing textual evidence of Olog-hai sunbathing  (or enduring, to use Tolkien's phrasing) after Sauron's fall. I mean, even if there were that 'evidence', it would yet seem (to me) contradictory to the phrasing in the Appendix as I read it. 

It has been theoretically put forth that the Olog-hai are, or may be, sun-tolerant due to mens-blood, and all I'm doing is pointing to a description of the Olog-hai in LotR which would seem to give other "reason" rather, to their sun-endurance (Sauron's will), & states simply to boot, "Trolls they were."


----------



## Grond

Greenwood, if the issue of Uruk-hai versus Uruk is so crystal clear from you interpretation of the references in the *Uruk-hai* chapter, why did you begin this thread? You ask the question, 


> Can you give me any examples (other than uruks and Uruk-hai) where in LOTR or The Hobbit, Tolkien uses two different made-up words to mean exactly the same thing and where he does not explain to the reader, in the narrative, why these words are different?


I respond with pretty much your same question. How is it that this subject is so hotly debated by people extremely knowledgeable in the works (myself included) and his linguistics (myself not included) while, all the while, the author never sees fit to give us any guidance in the matter? It is also ironic that his own son, who has worked closer with the author than anyone else, subscribes to the theory that Uruk-hai isn't what you feel it is. (That doesn't necessarily make him right, just closer to the subject and one would think more in tune with the true thoughts of JRRT.) 

This thread is dead. All sides needlessly put forth arguments which have substance but are routinely dissed by the other. Both sides appear so entrenched in their conviction that no definitive decision will be reached on this thread. In the last four of five pages few, if any have responded but Greenwood, Aragil, Cian, Tar-Elenion and myself. That ought to tell you something. Quit arguing. Each of you go from the thread with the determination that you have proven you're point. 

Cian, your arguments are the most compelling, as they should be, since you appear to have the best grasp of Tolkien's language that I've seen on the forum to date. (My opinion.) Everyone has put forth intelligent and well thought out arguments, responses and counter-responses. I don't think anymore can be asked from a thread. Maybe the time has come to let it rest. I know that I am going to do that and not get involved again. The Uruk-hai was an interesting chapter which has given us an interesting debate. In reading it for the fourth time in as many days last night, I came to the realization that one can just about read anything into it. The Uruk-hai were Orc-men. The Uruk-hai were Man-orcs. The Uruk-hai were Saruman's special elite force of Uruks. The Uruk-hai were Uruks of Mordor refined by Saruman to be greater than Sauron's. The Uruk-hai were something totally different that Saruman created as the elite of the elite and were Orcs but with something added. My greatest disappointment in rereading again, was the fact that the author didn't think it enough of an issue to address it in the chapter or address it ever again. His own son appears not to be confused by the issue and yet I am. Now, we may never know and I am unable to contact CT to find out. All avenues of contact are closed due to the movie uproar. I'll keep trying and start another thread if I am successful.


----------



## Greenwood

> If someone wants to try and show my interpretation of this specific description somehow unreasonable, then they may give it a go. But that's a different thing than showing textual evidence of Olog-hai sunbathing (or enduring, to use Tolkien's phrasing) after Sauron's fall. I mean, even if there were that 'evidence', it would yet seem (to me) contradictory to the phrasing in the Appendix as I read it.



Cian

I didn't mean to start a debate with you on the subject. I just meant to show the implications of the statement in the Appendix.

Grond

My question that started the thread was where in Tolkien's published writing was there a justufication for the "uruks is an Anglicization of Uruk-hai" definition found in various Tolkien dictionaries, etc. I hoped that someone more knowledgeable than I could point me to something. Cian has provided inciteful [that was supposed to be insightful -- later edit by Greenwood] posts on the fine points of language, you and others have provided passages from various books that I have at times been unaware of. This was what I hoped for (and appreciate), though in my opinion, few if any were directly relevant to the original question. Tar-Elenion has for the most part played word games and treated the discussion like a college debating competition where it doesn't matter what the topic is, the aim is to score debating points. Under his philosophy Tolkien was playing all sorts of word and head games with his readers. Barring my finding something new to add, as I said earlier I will no longer waste my time with this. As in other clashes of opinion, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Grond

Greenwood, I fear that my last post didn't serve its function. We neither agree nor disagree. I find both arguments compelling here. And rereading the text again last night did nothing to give me closure on this subject. The Uruk-hai appear to be referring to themselves as something totally unique and different. Not in a manner of "we are the Green Berets of Fort Bragg" but as in "we are the Green Berets and we're going to kick your butt." That _feeling_ in and of itself fully supports your case. You have argued your case in a scientific and logical manner. My opinion is not that you are wrong. My conclusion is that given just the text of the LotR alone, one could and possibly should conclude that the Uruk-hai are a unique breed of Orc bred specifically by Saruman. Clouding that issue are the arguments put forward by the other "debaters" on the thread which attack the premise both from a linguistic standpoint and from "some" potential inconsistencies in the text. (And by this I refer to the Uruk-hai of Isengard comment and the rebel Uruk-hai comment). Combine those minor inconsistencies with the author's failure to address the issue and his own son's different take on the matter and you have an unresolveable issue. 

My last post was meant to be a "I admire everyone's argument and wish everyone could be right" speech. Apparently it didn't come off quite as I'd hoped. So I'll say it more directly. 

"I admire everyone's opinion in this thread and feel that the issue is currently unresolveable due to a lack of any definitive statement on the part of the author." In conclusion, we may all interpret what we read in a personal way and come to our own conclusions as to what an author meant, but we can never know without his direct input. He appears never to have directly responded to this issue (which I find astounding). It is one of the few really confusing mysteries that JRRT left unresolved. He either thought that it was so apparent that it shouldn't be addressed or purposefully wanted there to be a few mysteries for the reader to sort out for himself. 

Greenwood, I do not disagree with you on this one and apologize if it appeared I did. Grond has been the ultimate in wishy-washy on this thread. My opinion has ebbed and flowed as the tide and in the final analysis has stopped dead cold 10 feet from the jetty, not knowing whether to suck back into the ocean or crash into the wall. Oh well, life's like that sometimes, isn't it?!!!


----------



## Cian

I'll probably bow out too then (but never say never, just in case )

This has been fun, and I hope much of my involvement so far has been taken in the light of testing the opinions of folk who know their Tolkien (whether we might disagree about X or not) and have done some obvious work to present argument. I've never been in this particular debate nearly so deep ... 

... anyway,
Cheers
Cian


----------



## Greenwood

*Oops!*

Cian

In my post the word was of course supposed to be insightful, *not* inciteful. That's what I get for posting in a hurry and not rereading what I typed.


----------



## Greenwood

I said that I was out of the thread barring finding anything new to add. In regard to whether Snaga is used in LOTR as a character's name I just found an editorial note by Christopher Tolkien on page 410 of the hardcover edition of The Treason of Isengard. Note 2 on this page says: "The Orc-names Snaga and Mauhur appear already in the preliminary draft." As I have said before, Christopher Tolkien is not JRRT, but it is interesting that he seems to believe that his father was using Snaga as a characters name in The Two Towers.

Bowing out again now.


----------



## aragil

Bowing out? Why is everybody leaving- there is still so much to discuss. I guess that if I'm the only one posting here than at least I'll have the gratification of having everybody else on the thread (i.e. myself) agreeing with me.


----------



## aragil

(I was going to post this earlier, but, as everybody was bowing out during it's composition, I decided to sit on it. I guess it will be edition one of posts to myself)



> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *It has been theoretically put forth that the Olog-hai are, or may be, sun-tolerant due to mens-blood, and all I'm doing is pointing to a description of the Olog-hai in LotR which would seem to give other "reason" rather, to their sun-endurance (Sauron's will), & states simply to boot, "Trolls they were." *



Cian- I don't see any conflict here with the 'sun-resistance' being a result of blending with men. In the context of Appendix F the "Trolls they were" statement is clearly meant to distinguish them from being a variety of Orc, and has no bearing on whether or not they might be hybrids. In fact, I can definitively say that they were not known to be 'just trolls', as Tolkien specifically says that the 'stock' from which the Olog-hai were bred was unknown. If mannish blood makes orcs (who can at least survive in the sunlight) function a little bit better in direct sunlight, then it might make trolls capable of not being turned into stone in the sunlight, provided their master is concentrating on them. This could be a matter of degree- orcs can ordinarily operate in the sunlight, but they do better with man-blood; trolls ordinarily turn to stone, but with man-blood and the will of their master, they can survive in sunlight. Again I point to the fact that these Trolls were bred, so they could be crossed with something, and that they had more 'sunlight tolerance' than regular trolls. How would breeding regular trolls ever evolve the ability to withstand sunlight, with or without the trolls' master? Conversely, if it is only the will of the master which confers the ability to withstand sunlight, then why can't Sauron just concentrate on his other breeds as well, making them all able to operate in daylight? Any variety of trolls would help his forces, and would prevent him having to send storm clouds to cover his forces.


----------



## aragil

*Varieties of Trolls (and the much maligned Troll-Men)*

In searching through Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit I can think of the following candidates for the Olog-hai:

1) Stone Trolls of the Hobbit: Unlikely, unless Sauron blinked when the trolls encountered Bilbo and Co.

2) Cave Troll(s) of the Fellowship of the Ring: Certainly possible- we know that the Olog-hai reside in Mordor, and that there has recently been a pack of Uruks sent from Mordor into Moria. The cave troll is also at home under the mountain, and the Olog-hai are said to reside in the Mountains of Mordor (as well as Dol-Goldur, but we have no other descriptions of trolls in the forest). Otherwise there is no evidence to support or refute it.

3) Mountain Trolls of Return of the King: Again possible- here we again have the Mountain Link and we have forces coming from Mordor.

4) Hill-Trolls of Return of the King: Originally my favorite candidate for Olog-hai, they seem to be the shock-troops that Sauron unleashes to wipe out the captains of the West. These Trolls come from Gorgoroth, which qualifies as the 'Mountains of Mordor' in my book. But again we have nothing else to support/refute their link to the Olog-hai.

5) Olog-hai: The only thing saying that Olog-hai can't be their own breed of trolls, separate from any breed appearing in the narrative, is that this would just be odd. Tolkien has done odd things before (Tom Bombadil). Of course, accepting the Olog-hai as their own anomolous entry takes the fun out of speculating where they might come from.

6) Troll-Men of Far Harad: My new favorite for the Olog-hai. They are problematic, because they are not 'unambiguously' declared to be trolls, but rather have the curious phrase 'black men like half-trolls' attached to them (if we believe that these are the same creatures as the troll-men a few pages later. Of course, we don't always believe that half-orcs doing fine in the sunlight refer to Uruk-hai who also do fine in the sunlight when those entries are separated by a few pages.). Yet I have no problem with Tolkien's use of the word 'like' here. He uses the phrases 'as if', 'as though', and 'like' throughout his works to refer to things that really *are* the way they seem. You can almost open the book to a random page to find him using this technique. There is definite controversy over whether or not these are indeed trolls. Yet, if we for a moment look beyond the controversy, we see that these are the only 'troll-like' creatures that Tolkien ever describes as unambiguously operating in the sun. Why would Tolkien mention the ability to operate in the sun in appendix F if he never intended to describe trolls operating in sunlight? 
The men are described as coming from Far Harad, and the Olog-hai are described as having '_appeared_ in Southern Mirkwood and in the mountain borders of Mordor'. Here again we have no problem unless we want one. Southern Mirkwood is home to Dol-Goldur, the mountains of Mordor are home to Barad-dur. If Sauron wanted to find a place to breed trolls with men, then he could scarcely come up with a better place than his two strongest fortresses, which doubtlessly had pits for breeding (I'm sure there's a mention of these pits somewhere).
Also, troll-men seem (obviously) different enough from the other varieties to get their own mention in the appendix. We are given no obvious descriptive differences between Stone, Cave, Mountain, or Hill trolls, so none of them are inherently better candidates for the Olog-hai then the others. Troll-men are better candidates for getting their own mention because they would (if they really existed) be so different from other varieties. 
We also know that the blood of men provide some sort of enhanced ability to deal with the sun to the 'evil things that came in the Great Darkness' (unless we consider Treebeard to be a liar). The Olog-hai can withstand sunlight when the will of their master is upon them. This is better than 'the older race of the Twilight'. No matter how we choose to read this passage, the fact is that Olog-hai could withstand the sun, while other trolls could not. If Sauron bent his will towards any of the older races of trolls, they still turned to stone in the sun. Therefore the will of Sauron is not the only player here. Not only must Sauron bend his will towards the Olog-hai for them to operate in sunlight, *but also something must be different about the Olog-hai themselves for them to be able to respond to the force of his will* (for lack of a better phrase). Troll-men (if they really are trolls) would provide an obvious substrate- human blood carries the ability to withstand the sunlight. 
Finally Olog-hai would fit a theory on the usage of the term 'hai'. Olog means troll, a theory for the word 'hai' is that it means men, so Olog-hai would mean troll-men. It is unclear how 'troll-folk', or 'greater-trolls', or any of the other theories for 'hai' (except for 'sun tolerant only when the will of their master is upon them') could be applied to any of the other varieties of trolls. If you accept that Tolkien could say 'men *like* half-trolls' to refer to actual trolls, then I think that Troll-men become the most likely candidate for the Olog-hai, though of course there is a world of difference between 'most likely candidate' and 'only candidate'.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> From my Webster's Dictionary: profession -- any vocation or business. also: vocation -- a particular occupation, business, or profession; a function or station. So yes, in the sense of a job slave is a profession. <snip>As for Tolkien, he is not the translator. He is the author. He wrote the entire book, he did not translate it. More words games on your part.



You are correct, JRRT wrote the entire book (i.e. external).
There is nothing to suggest that JRRT considered that he was presenting himself (acting in the 'role') as a 'translator' of the 'Red Book of Westmarch' ('compiled' by one B.B. Baggins and "as seen by the Little People; being the memoirs of Bilbo Frodo...") (i.e. internal).

"In presenting the matter of the Red Book, as a history for people of today to read, the whole linguistic setting has been translated as far as possible into terms of our own times. Only the languages alien to Common Speech have been left in their oroginal forms, but these appear mainly in the names of persons and places.
"The Common Speech, as the language of the Hobbits and their narratives, has inevitably been turned into modern English...".
LotR Appendix F (II): On Translation.





> In The Ride of the Rohirrim in ROTK we find the following passage: "Merry felt that he had seen him before somewhere, and suddenly he remembered the Pukel-men of Dunharrow. Here was one of those old images brought to life, or maybe a creature descended in true line through endless years from the models used by the forgotten craftsmen long ago." Clearly Tolkien is telling us the Woses or Druedain are the Pukel-men.<snip>



Quite, sort of.



> Yes, you "mentioned" the passage, but you conveniently forgot to mention that Tolkien quite clearly says that uruk "referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of of the regiments of Mordor" with no reference to Isengard.<snip>



If you say so.
But I find this odd: The paragraph I posted (1-26-02 3:54pm) containing the cite from Q&E:



> While taken by themselves it would seem that we have two different Orcs with the personal name 'Snaga' (though JRRT does not repeat any other personal Orc names in LotR). However, when taken in context with App. F (wherein it is noted that the word 'snaga' is Black Speech for 'slave', and that the lesser kinds of Orcs were called 'snaga' especially by the Uruk-hai), and in 'Quendi and Eldar' _(wherein it is said that 'uruk' "... referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor. Lesser breeds seem to have been called snaga")_, a different picture emerges.



Quite clearly has: 'wherein it is said that 'uruk' "... referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor.' Which you say I 'conveniently forgot to mention'.
You are right, no mention of Isengarders at all. Probably because JRRT here is writing about Sauron's Orcs, who seem to have called lesser breeds 'snaga'.



> No, the Nazgul was wrong in each case. Sam was not a "great Elf in bright armour". In fact Sam never wore the mithril coat that you claim gave rise to this report. And if the Nazgul seriously thought it might be a "great Elf in bright armour", how did he think a bunch of orcs got this armour off the "great Elf". Sam was not a "small dwarf-man". Sam doesn't look anything like a man. And Gorbag's boys were not "Uruk-hai", they were Uruks as Gorbag himself called them. The Nazgul was wrong in every case and didn't have a clue what was going on. That a pack of Saruman's rebel Uruk-hai could have attacked is far more likely than that a "great Elf in bright armour" sneaked past Minas Morgul got up the stairs, wiped out the Cirith Ungol Uruks and Gorbags Uruks and then left his armour behind.



The importance is what was 'reported'. The Orcs seemed to believe that there was an "large warrior loose, Elf most likely, with an elf-sword any-way...", Sam even "grimly smiled at this description of himself". That Frodo had 'bright armour' might lead the Orcs to believe that the 'Elf-warrior' had 'bright armour', and report that too (and Elf-warriors often wore 'bright armour'). But then Sagrat would not include any of this in his 'report'.

Yes, I am sure you are correct. Sam, the Hobbit, does not look anything like a man.
"Hobbits on the other hand were in nearly all respects normal Men, but of very short stature." (PoME, Dwarves and Men). 
"The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically human race...". (Letter 131).
"I am in fact a Hobbit (in all but size). I like gardens, trees..." (Letter 213).
He probably wasn't a 'dwarf-man' either.

Yes, it is far more likely that that a pack of Saruman's Uruks (who were decimated a few days earlier) slipped hundreds of miles through enemy territory, and assaulted Cirith Ungol, to seize Frodo, killed everybody in the tower (except Shagrat (who got away, with a bright mail coat, an elf-cloak etc, and reported), and a few others), then made it look like Gorbag's and Shagrat's troops had killed each other.



> Once again, you resort to word games to hide the fact that you are ignoring the main point under discussion.
> [and]
> Or is Tolkien misleading us again as you so often imply with your word games rather than deal with the topic under discussion.
> [and]
> We wonders, why my precious? Yes we wonders. Even now you do not address my points, but instead you play word and debating games
> [and]
> I am tired of wasting my time with you since you continue to play word games and play debating games rather than actually engage in discussion.


Yawn.


----------



## aragil

*Why 'hai' might mean 'man'*

Again, the three usages of Black Speech 'hai'

Usage 1: Uruk-hai
These are the orc soldiers who are definitely from Isengard, and who are also possibly from Mordor. The Uruk-hai of Isengard definitely are resistant to the sun (they brag about it at the Battle of Helm's Deep). We don't know about the 'Uruk-hai of Mordor', because nobody ever refers to themselves as such. Treebeard states (not to be confused with speculates) that 'evil things that came in the Great Darkness ... cannot abide the sun', implying that older species of orcs cannot abide the sun. He also states that 'these Isengarders (orcs, not Dunlendings) are more like wicked men'. This is not speculation on Treebeard's part, this is a statement. *Later* Treebeard speculates that the Isengarders might be orcs crossed with men (not much of a stretch, given the above statements), but this should not be confused with him speculating that orcs generally can not abide the sun. Tolkien in Morgoth's Ring indeed confirms that Saruman crossed men with orcs. What do you know? Treebeard wasn't lying after all, and his speculation about Saruman crossing orcs and men was dead-on! At Helm's deep Gamling remarks that the the half-orcs of Saruman will do fine in the sunlight. Later on, Orcs claiming to be Uruk-hai also say that they will do fine in the sunlight. The men of Dunland also did fine in the sunlight. I tend to think that if I were there, than I too would have been a-ok when the dawn came. Either Tolkien was merely wasting our time as readers by remarking at what a non-issue the dawn was, or else he was clueing us in that the half-orcs were related to the Uruk-hai by their mutual tolerance of the sunlight, which Treebeard tells us (not to be confused with 'speculates that this') was not the norm for orcs. Finally, drawing attention to the fact that Tolkien describes Saruman's troops as 'Orc-men', it does not seem too great of a stretch that Uruk-hai (Uruk being Black Speech for 'Orc') who are also sun tolerant, might be translated as 'orc-men', thereby giving Saruman only a single variety of sun-tolerant orcs, rather than 2 (which really would have made Treebeard look bad).

Usage 2: Olog-hai
Well, this was addressed in my post above. We know very little about the Olog-hai. They are bred by Sauron, so there was some control as to what genetic material went into them. Normal trolls could not withstand daylight, but Olog-hai could, which indicates that some of the genetic material probably came from a source other than trolls, since none of the extant breeds could withstand sunlight. Treebeard thinks that crossing orcs with men creates sun-tolerant orcs, I have no reason to believe that crossing trolls with men wouldn't have a similar effect. As Cian has pointed out, Sauron's will had to be directed towards the Olog-hai for them to be able to withstand daylight. As I addressed in my previous post, the direction of Sauron's will can not logically be the only necessary ingredient, else Sauron could also just focus his will on all his other trolls and to hell with breeding Olog-hai. It is therefore a requirement that the Olog-hai have something about them that is different from all of the other trolls- something which would combine with Sauron's will to make them sun-tolerant. Men's blood helps the orcs with sunlight, it could help the Olog-hai with sunlight. Crossing trolls with men would produce a race known as 'troll-men'. Olog is black speech for troll, so if 'hai' meant 'men' then 'Olog-hai' would be a direct translation of 'troll-men'. Appropriately enough, Tolkien refers to a group in the battle at Pelannor as 'troll-men', and these are the only 'troll-like' creatures that Tolkien ever describes as operating in the sun in his narrative. Earlier he also refers to 'black men like half-trolls'. It is reasonable to believe that these two creatures are the same ones (although it's amusing that this theory was originally proposed by a member unwilling to ever accept that 'goblin men resistant to sunlight' might be the same people as 'Uruk-hai resistant to sunlight', though the two passages are only separated by a page). However, Tolkien perfuses his narrative with descriptions of 'like', 'as though', and 'as if' meaning, collectively, 'they were'. It is therefore not impossible that 'black men like half-trolls' might actually refer to *real* half-trolls. If it does refer to real half-trolls, then troll-men would also be a valid name for them. 'Hai' translated as men would then give the Olog-hai as troll-men, thus combining the only two 'troll-like' creatures Tolkien ever describes as operating in sunlight into a single race.

Usage 3: Oghor-hai
This one is getting easier every time I type it. I'll start with the names that other races have applied to the 'dru-folk'.
1) Druedain- given by the Sindar, literally 'Dru-men'
2) Pukel-men, given by the Rohirrim to refer to the effigies of the 'dru-folk' (although Tolkien uses the term to refer to the actual people on pp.400-401 of UT), literally 'goblin/demon-men'
3) Wose, only used once by the Rohirrim, otherwise translated by the narrator to 'wild men', which is it's literal translation.
Clearly the *only* way that Oghor-hai could be rendered to remain consistent with the other three names of the 'dru-folk', would be to have 'hai' mean 'men'. The nice thing here is that nobody is arguing that the 'dru-folk' are men, they really are. Therefore I don't see any way that 'hai' translated as 'men' in this case could be controversial, unless perhaps because it strengthens my arguments for 'Olog-hai' and 'Uruk-hai' meaning 'troll-men' and 'orc-men', respectively. To further belabor the point, Wose, Pukel, and Ogor all have related roots in Anlo-Saxon/Ancient Germanic languages. These are of course the speciality of our good professor, and it is beyond coincidence that he would use three such related words to refer to the same race. I'll just remind everybody that the suffixes to these same three names are 'men', 'men', and 'hai', respectively.

In brief summary.
Tolkien describes orc-men, who are apparently tolerant of sunlight. Tolkien describes Uruk-hai, who are apparently tolerant of sunlight. Other orcs are moderately intolerant of sunlight. Uruk-hai could be a literal translation of 'orc-men'.
Tolkien mentions 'troll-men' operating in sunlight. Tolkien mentions that the 'Olog-hai' are capable of operating in sunlight. Other trolls are completely incapable of operating in sunlight. Olog-hai could be a literal translation of 'troll-men'.
Tolkien describes the dru-folk as men. The Rohirrim and the Sindar both give the dru-folk names with 'men' in the names. The orcs could be doing the same, saying 'Oghor-hai' to mean 'Ogre-men' (Note, Oghor does not need to be translated as Ogre to make the above point valid. Please do not post saying that "Oghor might not mean Ogre, therefore 'hai' translated as 'men' is utter nonsense.")


----------



## Greenwood

I came across another interesting passage in my reading. In Sauron Defeated there is the following editorial note by Christopher Tolkien. In them he is discussing the changing names of orcs on the various drafts of The Tower of Kirith Ungol chapter in ROTK. 

"The name of the sole survivng orc beside Shagrat is Radbug in both C and D (Snaga in R[OT]K; see L[OT]R Appendix F, p 409), Radbug being retained in the final story as the name of an orc whose eyes Shagrat says that he had squeezed out (R[OT]K p. 182); in C the orcs whom Sam saw running from the gate and shot down as they fled are Lughorn and Ghash > Muzgash (Lugduf and Muzgash in D, as in R[OT]K). Where in RK Snaga declares that 'the great fighter' (Sam) is 'one of those bloody-handed Elves ..........."

Thus we see, again, that Christopher Tolkien reads the word Snaga as being used in ROTK as the actual name of an orc. A reading completely in keeping with what any reasonable person would conclude from reading the chapter in ROTK. Earlier I pointed to an editorial note of Christopher Tolkien's in The Treason of Isengard. I will repeat that editorial note here: "The Orc-names Snaga and Mauhur appear already in the preliminary draft." Thus Christopher Tolkien also believes that Snaga was being used as an orc's name in The Two Towers. 

Tar-Elenion has insisted on pointing to Appendix F of ROTK in which Tolkien says that "snaga" means slave and that therefore the uses of Snaga in The Two Towers and in Return of the King cannot be an orc's name but just means slave. In response I pointed out that in many languages a word that once described a person's profession had become a persons name (i.e. Miller, Smith, Fisher, Taylor, etc.). Tar-Elenion's only response was a snide comment "Is slave a profession?" thus, as is his habit, deflecting attention from the main argument. Tar-Elenion then threw in a comment about the capitalization of the word snaga in the account merely being a result of Tolkien "acting in his role as translator". When I pointed out that Tolkien was the author of the LOTR, Tar-Elenion agreed (how could he not?) and then said "There is nothing to suggest that JRRT considered that he was presenting himself (acting in the 'role') as a 'translator' ..... ". Of course it was Tar-Elenion who had dodged the capitalization issue on the word Snaga by saying Tolkien was "acting in his role as translator" and now Tar-Elenion dodges the actual topic even further and in the process dodges his own dodge!

Returning again to the word snaga and whether it can mean slave and also be used as a character's name I point to Christopher Tolkien's first editorial note above in which he reports that in one manuscript his father named an orc Ghash. We also found out when the Fellowship was in Moria that ghash means fire. Thus JRRT (at least at one point in time) seemed to have no problem with using a Black Speech word as both a name of a creature and a name of a thing.

Now obviously this question about the word/name Snaga is an exceedingly minor point in the vast scheme of the LOTR and is pretty minor even in the context of the discussion on this thread. I have only gone through all of the above to once again demonstrate the extreme lengths to which Tar-Elenion will resort to avoid actually discussing the meat of an issue an to avoid ever admitting that someone else's viewpoint might have merit, much less that, Heaven forbid!, Tar-Elenion could be wrong about anything. I expect that Tar-Elenion will have some profound and deeply thought-out response such as his last one: "Yawn".

As I said earlier, I will no longer waste my time arguing with Tar-Elenion, but I thought it worth my time to demonstrate to other readers the hollowness of Tar-Elenion's debating techniques.


----------



## Ged

Can I make a small and perhaps not particularly erudite contribution to this discussion?

It seems clear to me that both Sauron and Saruman, at various times, engaged in orc breeding. This is stated in many places. Therefore, because they presumably did not work in open partnership, Sauron's breeds and Saruman's breeds will be different in some way.

Now, here is my question: if they are different breeds of orcs, would Tolkien have given them different names or at least have implied that difference in his texts? I believe he would (he was a bit of a stickler for attention to detail wasn't he). That being accepted, what name did Tolkien use for Saruman's "best" orcs? If it is not Uruk-hai then what is it?

If I have understood the arguments correctly, it seems to me that Greenwood's view is entirely compatible with the available writings, especially LoTR (though I think he might take a few lessons in humility).


----------



## Greenwood

> Now, here is my question: if they are different breeds of orcs, would Tolkien have given them different names or at least have implied that difference in his texts? I believe he would (he was a bit of a stickler for attention to detail wasn't he). That being accepted, what name did Tolkien use for Saruman's "best" orcs? If it is not Uruk-hai then what is it?



Ged

I agree.  



> (though I think he [Greenwood] might take a few lessons in humility).



If by that you mean I have exhibited exasperation and some annoyance over spending a not inconsiderable number of hours engaged in dealing with Tar-Elenion's legalistic word games and dodges rather than actually discussing the topic, I will accept your characterization and plead guilty. If you refer to my refusal to treat Tolkien's posthumously published work as being on an equal footing with what he himself published in his own lifetime, I humbly disagree.


----------



## aragil

*Intallment 4 in posts to myself*

Why 'Rebel Urukhai' seems so ambiguous:

The Return of the King, p. 247:
_"Garn! You don't even know what you're looking for."
"Whose blame's that?" said the soldier. "Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour. Then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Urukhai; or maybe it's all the lot together."
"Ar!" said the tracker. "They've lost their heads, that's what it is."_

A few things to look at here:
1) The Orcs think the bosses have '_lost their heads_.' They clearly do not believe that these alternatives are likely. They think the bosses are grasping at straws, hence '_then it *must* be a pack of rebel Urukhai; or maybe it's all the lot together_'. The whole context of this passage is that both Orcs are upset at their orders, which do not give the Orcs something clear or even likely to find. Clearly, whatever the 'rebel Urukhai' are, they need not be the 'likeliest' option, as the orcs themselves don't seem to feel that they any of the options are likely.

2) The Higher Ups got it wrong on 'dwarf-man' and 'great Elf'. Frodo is not a dwarf-man, he is a Hobbit (or Halfling as Ugluk correctly identifies them in Two Towers). The Nazgul are infinitely aware of what Hobbits are, having just vacationed in the Shire the previous fall. If they knew what they were looking for, and wanted to give a good description, they would have said 'look for a halfling', just as Ugluk was apparently told to 'look for a halfling'.
Similarly, Sam is in no way a 'great Elf'. We're not asking what the Orcs might think Sam is. We're asking what he is. Is he a 'great Elf'? No, he is a Hobbit. The Higher Ups again have it wrong.
If we now assume that Gorbag's lot really were Uruk-hai, then this would be the only case where the Higher-Ups were right. It would then become the exception in their list, since they were wrong about the dwarf-man and great Elf. If we are to say that 'Frodo is almost like a dwarf-man', or 'they might think Sam is a great Elf', then we can equally say 'the Uruks of Gorbag are almost like the Uruk-hai of Isengard.' But, of course, the fact is Frodo is not a dwarf-man and Sam is not a great Elf, they are Hobbits. Therefore the troops of Gorbag *are not necessarily* actual Uruk-hai. In fact, if they were actual Uruk-hai then *they would be the exception* in the list of 'dwarf-man, great Elf, and rebel Urukhai' as the only thing that actually existed in Mordor at that time.

3) The hyphenation issue. In my two copies of Return of the King (one copy from 1973, the year of Tolkiens death- 46th printing of 1st Ballantine edition; one copy from 1983- 71st printing of 1st Ballantine edition) the orc in question says 'rebel Urukhai', which might be different than 'rebel Uruk-hai'. I say might because it might just be a printing error. Apparently it has since been amended to 'rebel Uruk-hai', but this was clearly done after the death of the author. Either someone found a note written by him saying 'change Urukhai to Uruk-hai', or else they were assuming this passage was erroneous throughout the 46 printings that occurred during the lifetime of the author (I'm assuming that editions earlier than mine also said 'Urukhai', I'd be interested to hear otherwise). The orc that makes this statement was earlier described as '_a big fighting-orc, like those of Shagrat's company_'. This is certainly a Uruk speaking. Yet Tolkien (either intentionally or not) has the Orc mis-represent Uruk-hai as Urukhai. Perhaps Tolkien is showing us that this Orc is unfamiliar with the term, which would be the case if Uruk-hai were strictly soldiers of Isengard and a new breed. I'm not saying this *definitively* makes 'rebel Urukhai' soldiers of Isengard because the Mordor Orc 'spells' it wrong'. I am saying that the spelling in the book adds to the ambiguity of this, the only passage of a Mordor Orc referring to the Uruk-hai.

The point I am trying to underscore here is that 'rebel Urukhai' is an ambiguous passage. We do not know whether it refers to Orcs of Mordor or Isengard, although we certainly know that Mordor Orcs regard Isengarders (including Saruman) to be rebels after the Grishnakh-Ugluk episode. To take this ambiguous passage to be an exception to the otherwise consistent use of 'Uruk-hai', and then to try and say that this is *proof* that Sauron also deployed Uruk-hai is bad reasoning. If it were just an exception in the usage the reasoning would not be that bad, but since it is an *ambiguous* exception (and hence possibly not an exception at all), it is ridiculous to use it to contradict the other, clearer usages. The goal here is not to prove that there is only one interpretation of Uruk/Uruk-hai (there are clearly several different readings). It is to determine which usage is most likely out of several options.


----------



## Greenwood

> 3) The hyphenation issue. In my two copies of Return of the King (one copy from 1973, the year of Tolkiens death- 46th printing of 1st Ballantine edition; one copy from 1983- 71st printing of 1st Ballantine edition) the orc in question says 'rebel Urukhai', which might be different than 'rebel Uruk-hai'. I say might because it might just be a printing error.



Aragil

I believe the lack of hyphenation is a printer's error. The version I typed in the first post on this thread (with hyphenation) is how it appears in my Houghton Mifflin hardcover volume of ROTK purchased in the 1960s. (I do not have the volume at hand so I can not tell you which edition or printing it is.) Every time I have ever seen Uruk-hai printed (LOTR, HoME, etc.) it was always hyphenated. Until Cian asked about hyphenation I was unaware that it had ever appeared anywhere without the hyphen.

You have been much more articulate than I in explaining why the mention of "rebel Uruk-hai" by an orc in Mordor is at best ambiguous and hence can be ignored when looking at the overall usage of Uruk-hai in LOTR.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Tar-Elenion has insisted on pointing to Appendix F of ROTK in which Tolkien says that "snaga" means slave and that therefore the uses of Snaga in The Two Towers and in Return of the King cannot be an orc's name but just means slave. In response I pointed out that in many languages a word that once described a person's profession had become a persons name (i.e. Miller, Smith, Fisher, Taylor, etc.). Tar-Elenion's only response was a snide comment "Is slave a profession?"



Although I'm sure there have been snide comments, this one wasn't, as I thought the 'smiley'  (which was (as happens) left out of your quote) was supposed to indicate.



> thus, as is his habit, deflecting attention from the main argument. Tar-Elenion then threw in a comment about the capitalization of the word snaga in the account merely being a result of Tolkien "acting in his role as translator". When I pointed out that Tolkien was the author of the LOTR, Tar-Elenion agreed (how could he not?) and then said "There is nothing to suggest that JRRT considered that he was presenting himself (acting in the 'role') as a 'translator' ..... ". Of course it was Tar-Elenion who had dodged the capitalization issue on the word Snaga by saying Tolkien was "acting in his role as translator" and now Tar-Elenion dodges the actual topic even further and in the process dodges his own dodge!



Of course the quote from 'App. F (II), On Translation', which I provided means nothing in the _context_ of my responce (posted 1-29-02, 6:09pm) to the query . Probably because it disagrees with a position held by Greenwood. 



> As I said earlier, I will no longer waste my time arguing with Tar-Elenion, but I thought it worth my time to demonstrate to other readers the hollowness of Tar-Elenion's debating techniques.
> [and]
> You have been much more articulate than I in explaining why the mention of "rebel Uruk-hai" by an orc in Mordor is at best ambiguous and hence can be ignored when looking at the overall usage of Uruk-hai in LOTR.



With my 'hollow debating techniques' and continuous 'dodging' of your 'relevant' questions, and your dismissal of any 'secondary sources' which disagree with your position (and even the 'primary source' can be declared 'ambiguous' (ambiguous?, would JRRT try to 'intentionally mislead his reader'?) and 'ignored', when it disagrees with your position), we make quite a pair.
As Sam might say, 'A nice pickle we have landed ourselves in, Mr. Greenwood!'

In any event, I will stand by my points and join Cian and Grond.


----------



## JeffF.

*"Rebel Uruk-Hai" at Cirith Ungol*

The term "rebel Uruk-Hai" used by the two orcs pursuing Frodo and Sam does not refer to Isengarders. The mithril mail shirt, barrow sword, and elf-cloak were all carried off by Shagrat after the orc battle and Frodo's rescue by Sam. These same items were later shown by the Mouth of Sauron to Gandalph and Aragorn at the parley near the Black Gate. Shargrat must have reported the capture of the hobbits and the attempt by Gorbag and his Uruks to capture the prizes. Gorbag and his Uruk-Hai band are the "rebel" Uruks referred to. Thus the term Uruk-Hai being used by Morder Orcs about Uruks infers that the term cannot be unique to Saruman's. Therefore Uruk-Hai and Uruks are interchangeable and synonymous.


----------



## Greenwood

> Gorbag and his Uruk-Hai band are the "rebel" Uruks referred to. Thus the term Uruk-Hai being used by Morder Orcs about Uruks infers that the term cannot be unique to Saruman's. Therefore Uruk-Hai and Uruks are interchangeable and synonymous.



Gorbag and his boys cannot be the "rebel Uruk-hai" referred to. Gorbag and his boys were all dead, as Shagrat well knew since he killed Gorbag himself and saw all Gorbag's boys killed. Presumably the Nazgul that arrived at Cirith Ungol could also see this. 

As for the Mouth of Sauron, when he displayed the various items at the parley before the Black Gates he also said they had "the spy". They did not know there were two intruders in Mordor (Frodo and Sam) and hadn't a clue what was going on back at Cirith Ungol.


----------



## Grond

*I'm back... just couldn't stay away.*



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *Gorbag and his boys cannot be the "rebel Uruk-hai" referred to. Gorbag and his boys were all dead, as Shagrat well knew since he killed Gorbag himself and saw all Gorbag's boys killed. Presumably the Nazgul that arrived at Cirith Ungol could also see this.
> 
> As for the Mouth of Sauron, when he displayed the various items at the parley before the Black Gates he also said they had "the spy". They did not know there were two intruders in Mordor (Frodo and Sam) and hadn't a clue what was going on back at Cirith Ungol. *


First we have this quote from TT, chapter The Choices of Master Samwise, Gorbag is speaking to Shagrat and says,* "...Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks..."* So clearly Gorbag is an Uruk (Great-orc). 

Secondly we have this quote from the Movie Cover RotK, The Tower of Cirith Ungol, page 191, where Shagrat states,* "Then you must go. I must stay here anyway. But I'm hurt. The Black Pits take that filthy rebel Gorbag!..." * 

The referenced conversation occurs later when one of Shagrat's troops (who apparently wasn't at the fight says, *"Whose blame's that? Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. (Shagrat? or Nazgul?) First they say it's a great Elf in bright armor (Frodo?), then it's a sort of small dwarf-man (Samwise?), then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai (Gorbag?); or maybe it's all the lot together."*

The conversation being spoken of was between one of Shagrat's company and a tracker orc. They are trying to track Samwise and it would be very logical for this Uruk to have said it came from higher up (meaning Shagrat). Especially if this Orc had not been at the fight but was following subsequent orders by Shagrat.

Greenwood, I fail to see anything that would suggest that "Gorbag and his boys cannot be...". That is a definitive and one that you haven't presented evidence to support. I have still not decided this issue but, in keeping an open mind, had to respond to what I consider to be an inaccurate statement made on your part.

It might be wise to cease and desist from using definitives where they aren't warranted. You say cannot and that is an opinion. My reading of the text of these two chapters (again this morning) do not support your comment. If anything, these tidbits I've cited, support the notion that the rebel Uruk-hai are in fact Gorbag's troops." I am still looking at this situation with an open mind. Maybe you need to reread the last chapter of TT and the first chapter of RotK to get a fresher perspective.


----------



## JeffF.

*To Greenwood's last*

No, when you list all the 'enemy reports' Shagrat received in none of them is it clear that all of Gorbag's band are dead. You have mistaken what the reader knows from what the character knows. Remember he sent out his last subordinate orc to do a 'recon' and that orc refused to go out again and was killed for his insubordination. It is also clear that on his last patrol (the subordinate orc) that his comrades were killed and that he is unsure if there are more of Gorbag's band out there. Plus as Tolkein, a veteran of war, would know. The enemy situation is NEVER what your reports (or the compilation of those reports) say it is. 

My interest in this is NOT really whether Uruks = Uruk Hai but rather the logic and LOTR passages that lead either side to come to their conclusion. My point here is that the rebel Uruk-Hai referred to in the Cirith Ungol incident is NOT ambigious but clear. Of course, totally aside from that is the unexplained detail of how such a pack of Isengarders would get past the Rohirrim, the Men of Gondor and the armies and patrols of the Dark Lord

Anyway, it's not something I'll continue to debate on (the original debate is all sematics to me), just wanted to interject my view on the logic.

Have fun, I'm going back to wondering if good orcs and trolls fought with the Last Alliance at Dagorland ;-)


----------



## Greenwood

Grond and JeffF.

I do not have the books with me where I am, but I have read these chapters several times of late.  The sequence the Tower of Cirith Ungol chapter (as I remember it) is that Sam hears Shagrat talking to his underling Snaga, who has already encountered Sam and run from him because of the hidden power of the Ring. Shagrat says he killed the last of Gorbag's boys but was wounded in the process. Snaga tells Shagrat that all of their lads are dead. That is why Shagrat tells Snaga that he [Snaga] must go. Snaga refuses and Shagrat chases Snaga around the base of the upper tower before Snaga ducks into the tower and disappears. Shagrat ceases the chase, goes to the ramparts and looks over and calls, while he stares down into the lower courtyard Sam notices one of the apparently dead orcs reaching for a sword to stab Shagrat. Shagrat hears the hiss of breath of this orc and leaps on him and finishing off. Shagrat says something along the lines of "Not dead yet Gorbag?" as he kills him. Shagrat then becomes aware of Sam and his sword Sting. Shagrat, who is holding the bundle with the mithril coat deflects Sam with it and makes his getaway. After starting after Shagrat, Sam remembers Snaga and that he still hasn't found Frodo. After going to the top of the tower Sam encounters Snaga [skipping details here], Snaga trips on a ladder, falls and breaks his neck. Thus the only orc to leave the tower of Cirith Ungol was Shagrat and he knew that all the others (except for Snaga) were dead, most especially Gorbag since he killed Gorbag himself. Based on this I said "Gorbag and his boys cannot be the 'rebel Uruk-hai' " because Gorbag and his boys are all dead and Shagrat knows it. We (the readers) witnessed Shagrat being told this and witnessed Shagrat killing Gorbag.

As for the question of how could a pack of Isengard's troops have gotten into Mordor, the question is not relevant. The "higher-ups" are totally confused and have no idea of what is going on. That is the point of the conversation between the tracker orc and the soldier orc. If we are going to ask how could a pack of Isengard troops hae gotten there than why don't we ask, as I said in an earlier post, how could "a great Elf in bright armour" have gotten in? If such an elf warrior existed, how would Shagrat get his armour from him, while the elf warrior kills all the orcs in Cirith Ungol and gets away? As Aragil has said the point of the conversation between the tracker and soldier orc is that the "higher-ups" haven't c clue as to what is going on or what the tracker should be looking for. It could be anything?


----------



## JeffF.

*Rebel Uruk-Hai*

Greenwood,

Your memory is, as usual near impeccable. but we are talking about what Sauron was probably told not Shagrat. Sauron would have been told that Gorbag's band attacked thus would be the origin of any rebels referred to later by Mordor orcs. 

Another item. If Uruk-Hai meant Saruman's uruks why would a Mordor orc say "rebel Uruk-Hai?" It's redundant. If the term meant Saruman's Uruks only then it would have been sufficient to just say "Uruk-Hai."

I realize by reading the posts that neither side will be swayed by any flow of logic presented by the opposition. Just wondering why a debate is held under those conditions in the first place. Anyway I knew it was probably a mistake for me to chime in and would probably earn me enemies that I didn't intend on making. I just couldn't resist what I saw as a flaw in logic.

No really I mean it...this time I'm going ;-)

Respects to all my fellow Middle Earth comrades

JeffF.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

As Snaga notes: "Gorbag's swine got to the gate first and none of ours [Shagrat's] got out. Lagduf and Muzgash ran through, but they were shot... And they were the last."
Who did the shooting?


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *As Snaga notes: "Gorbag's swine got to the gate first and none of ours [Shagrat's] got out. Lagduf and Muzgash ran through, but they were shot... And they were the last."
> Who did the shooting? *



Return of the King, p. 217 '_Sam was about half way down the path when out of the dark gateway into the red glow there came two orcs running. They did not turn towards him. They wer making for the mai road; but even as they ran they stumbled and fell to the ground and lay still. Sam had seen no arrows, but he guessed that *the orcs had been shot down by others on the battlements or hidden in the shadow of the gate*_.'

I guess they were shot by the Orcs of Gorbag's which made it to the gates. Did Gorbag's archers at the gate later escape?

Return of the King, p. 219 '_Sam strode forward _(he has just entered the Fortress and can be assumed to be at the gates)_. The courtyard lay in deep shadow, but he could see that the pavement was strewn with bodies. Right at his feet were *two orc-archers* with knives sticking in their backs._'

Guess Gorbag's lot was pretty well taken care of.


----------



## aragil

*Tar Elenion*

Tar Elenion:
Greenwood and I are arguing that this passage is not very clear. We think it is ambiguous. What are you, arguing? 
1)That it is not ambiguous, and that without a doubt the Uruk-hai refer to the Uruk-hai of Mordor, which are mentioned nowhere else in the narrative. Or... 
2)That it is ambiguous, but the most likely Orcs to be in Minas Morgul were the Orcs of Gorbag.

If 1: Let's assume there are Uruk-hai in both Isengard and Mordor. This then explains why Tolkien has Ugluk and the troops at Helm's Deep say 'Uruk-hai of Isengard'. Stating where the Uruk-hai are from removes the ambiguity. By not stating where the Orcs are from this passage becomes ambiguous. Now let us assume that the Uruk-hai come only from Isengard. It is now no longer necessary to state where the Uruk-hai are from, so the passage is now no longer ambiguous. Which do you want: A completely unambiguous passage, in which case there are no Uruk-hai in Mordor; or an ambiguous passage, where it is unclear whether the Uruk-hai are from Isengard or Mordor (if the second possibility exists)?

If 2: The Uruk-hai need not refer to the most likely troops. If Hobbits were the most likely things in Mordor, then the Higher-Ups were not picking the most likely troops by *guessing* a dwarf-man and a great Elf. If a great Elf and dwarf-man were the most likely thing in Mordor, then the higher ups were wrong, and need not be correct about the 'Uruk-hai'.

Jeff F: As I mentioned above, Greenwood and I are not arguing about how 'Isengarders taking out Cirith Ungol' is more logical than Gorbag's group doing this. As to whether or not rebel Uruk-hai would be redundant in the case of Isengarders, I couldn't agree more. Likewise, Saruman and treacherous would be redundant coming from an Orc of Mordor, but that doesn't stop Grishnakh from saying ''Saruman is a fool, and a dirty treacherous fool.' In fact, if you would like to read the entire trilogy again, I'm sure you would find even MORE redundant passages. Doesn't make Tolkien any less of an author, and doesn't really bear on the present debate. Also, the soldier Orc and tracker were not the results of a report by Shagrat. He did not report to Barad-dur until March 17th, the same day that Sam and Frodo come across the pair of Orcs. Unless Sauron was dispatching Orcs via a working teleporter system, these Orcs were not responding to a report of Shagrat's, who at any rate could have ID'd Sam and Frodo better than 'a dwarf-man and a great Elf'. Further more, if the Higher-Ups were supposed to be so accurate in picking the rebel Uruk-hai, why did they blow it on Frodo and Sam? Clearly, dwarf-man (wrong), great Elf (wrong), and Uruk-hai of Isengard (wrong) is a better match than dwarf-man (wrong), great Elf (wrong), and Uruk-hai of Minas-Morgul (right). Why are we allowing them to be wrong for dwarf-man and great Elf, and then constraining them to be right with the Orcs?


----------



## aragil

*What sort of an orc is Grishnakh?*

The Two Towers, p.20 '_And Aragorn looked on the slain, and he said: "Here lie many that are not folk of Mordor. Some are from the North, from the Misty Mountains, if I know anything of Orcs and their kinds. And here are others strange to me. Their gear is not after the manner of Orcs at all!" ..."S is for Sauron," said Gimli. "That is easy to read." "Nay!" said Legolas. "Sauron does not use the Elf-runes." "Neither does he use his right name, nor permit it to be spelt or spoken," said Aragorn. "And he does not use white. The Orcs in the service of Barad-dur use the sign of the Red Eye."_'

I have recently re-read this passage after having been clued in to deeper meaning by the 'Saruman's Military Intelligence' thread. Having re-read several times, and now typed it out here, it is becoming clearer to me that there are no Orcs of Mordor described here. The first umpteen times I read it I took 'here lie many that are not folk of Mordor' to mean 'in addition to those of Mordor, here are many others.' However, looking closer at the passage, there is no mention of any Orcs from Mordor. In fact, if there had been Orcs of Mordor present, then Gimli is hardly likely to have mistook an S for Sauron, as he would have been looking at the token of the Red Eye as he spoke. Additionally, Aragorn could have illustrated his point by saying 'This is the token of Sauron' while pointing to one of their helms. However, he seems to resort to describing the token without showing an example to Gimli, which seems to imply that there is no example at hand. I think this explains why Grishnakh is so easily driven off. He is initially a messenger of Mordor, trying to get the Moria Orcs to bring the captives to Mordor. However, the Uruk-hai take over the band, and Grishnakh has to cross the Anduin before he can come back with troops loyal to Mordor. Perhaps Grishnakh is one of the Orcs sent by Mordor to Moria, referring to pages 421 and 445 of Fellowship of the Ring? Anyway, with regard to this thread, I think it is interesting to speculate as to what sort of Orc Grishnakh might be. He is described later:

The Two Towers, p.62 '_In the twilight he saw a large black Orc, probably Ugluk, standing facing Grishnakh, a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground. Round them were many smaller goblins._'

A thing to note here: Grishnakh is shorter than Ugluk, but is large compared to the Orcs of Moria, hence 'many smaller goblins.' The description here of Grishnakh is echoed when he finally brings his troops back to join Ugluk:

The Two Towers, p. 68 '_From that direction there now came hoarse cries, and there was Grishnakh again, and at his back a couple of score of others like him: long-armed crook-legged Orcs. They had a red eye painted on their shields._'

Clearly Grishnakh is not one-of-a-kind. In fact, he commands troops just like him, and here we see the token of the red eye that was missing from the slain at Amon hen. I have often wondered what sort of troops Sauron would send to intercept the Fellowship, when Saruman sent his best: the Uruk-hai. Surely Sauron would likewise send his best- and here they are, with crooked legs and long arms. Does Tolkien ever describe other such Orcs?

The Two Towers, p. 441 '_"As I said, the Big Bosses, ay," his voice sank almost to a whisper, "ay, even the Biggest, can make mistakes. Something nearly slipped, you say. I say, something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks."_

This is Gorbag addressing Shagrat. The whispering implies that Gorbag only intends to be heard by himself and Shagrat. This implies that the "we've" of "we've got to look out." is in reference to himself and Shagrat. Which in turn implies that Uruks is also a reference to himself and Shagrat. Unfortunately we never get much of a physical description of Gorbag, but we do get one of Shagrat:

The Return of the King, p. 223 '_Behind him came Shagrat, a large orc with long arms that, as he ran crouching, reached to the ground._'

This passage is especially interesting when considering it with the descriptions of Grishnakh and his boys: '_a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground_', and '_a couple of score of others like him: long-armed crook-legged Orcs._' What springs out from this passage of course is the repeated mention of long arms. From the Ugluk - Shagrat conversation we can resonably infer that Shagrat is a Uruk (what other sort of Orc would be captain of an entire tower?). I think from the similarity in descriptions it would be reasonable to infer that Grishnakh and Shagrat are the same variety of Orc- Uruks. It could be argued that all Orcs have long arms, but the Orcs of Moria are never described as such. Neither are the Uruk-hai:

The Two Towers, p. 20 '_There were four goblin-soldiers of greater stature, swart, slant-eyed, with thick legs and large hands. They were armed with short broad-bladed swords, not with the curved scimitars usual with Orcs; and they had bows of yew, in length and shape like the ows of Men._'

The Two Towers, p. 67 '_The hobbits were left with the Isengarders: a grim band, four score at least of large, swart, slant-eyed Orcs with great bows and short broad-bladed swords._'

Again Tolkien seems to be repeating himself to link up a group of Orcs in our memories. If the Uruk-hai were really the same as the Uruks, here would be the optimal place to describe them similarly. Yet he does not: thrice he refers to the 'long arms' of the Uruks, twice he refers to the swarthiness and slant-eyes of the Isengarders. I am resigned to the fact that we will never have a 100% clear answer as to whether the Uruks are the same as the Uruk-hai, but surely this description is _reasonable_ evidence that they were different.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *
> 
> I guess they were shot by the Orcs of Gorbag's which made it to the gates. Did Gorbag's archers at the gate later escape?
> [two dead archers described]
> Guess Gorbag's lot was pretty well taken care of. *



Good, now next part of question.
Why were the archers left at the gates?
(Remember Gorbags boys got there first).


----------



## aragil

*The Uruk-hai are Orc-Human hybrids*

Well, I've tried this one many times before, but perhaps one last go:

The Two Towers, p. 96 "_He has taken up with foul folk, with the Orcs. Brm, hoom! Worse than that he has been doing something to them; something dangerous. For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, or has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!_" 

The Two Towers, p. 180 "_But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun," said Gamling. "And neither will the wild men of the hills. Do you not hear their voices._" 

The Two Towers, p. 184 "_The Orcs yelled and jeered. 'Come down! Come down!' they cried. 'If you wish to speak to us, come down! Bring out your king! We are the fighting Uruk-hai. We will fetch him from his hole, if he does not come down. Bring out your skulking king!' 
" 'The king stays or comes at his own will,' said Aragorn. 
" 'Then what are you doing here?' they answered. 'Why do you look out? Do you wish to see the greatness of our army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai.' 
" 'I looked out to see the dawn,' said Aragorn. 
" 'What of the dawn?' they jeered. 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. .... _" 

The Two Towers, p. 32 '_"Surely even Orcs must pause on the march?" said Gimli. "Seldom will Orcs journey in the open under the sun, yet these have done so," said Legolas._'

Morgoth's Ring, page unknown '_Finally, there is a cogent point though horrible to relate. It became clear in time that undoubted Men could under the domination of Morgoth or his agents in a few generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning. There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs *large and cunning*, and Orc-men treacherous and vile..._' 

The Two Towers, p.20 '_He searched in the pile and on the ground about and found not a few that were undamaged and *longer in shaft than such arrows as the Orcs were accustoned to use.* He looked at them closely. And Aragorn looked on the slain, and he said: "Here lie many that are not folk of Mordor. Some are from the North, from the Misty Mountains, if I know anything of Orcs and their kinds. And here are others strange to me. *Their gear is not after the manner of Orcs at all*!" There were four goblin-soldiers *of greater stature*, swart, slant-eyed, with thick legs and large hands. *They were armed with short broad-bladed swords, not with the curved scimitars usual with Orcs; and they had bows of yew, in length and shape like the bows of Men*._' 

The Two Towers, p. 67 '_The hobbits were left with the Isengarders: a grim band, four score at least of *large*, swart, slant-eyed Orcs with *great bows and short broad-bladed swords*._' 

Orcs generally do not go around in the day. The Uruk-hai do. Gamling covers all of 'these creatures of Isengard' with his description of 'half orcs and goblin men .... and neither will the wild men of the hills.' He does not say that 'normal Orcs will quail' because there are no normal Orcs at Helm's deep. Tolkien describes the men-orcs of Isengard (not to be confused with Orc-men wielding large axes) as being larger than normal orcs. He also describes the Uruk-hai as being large and using arrows longer than those used by normal Orcs, bows as long as those used by men, and straight swords rather than the curved scimitars of Orcs. He doesn't say that Men also use straight swords here, but I have a hard time imagining Anduril as a scimitar. Clearly the Uruk-hai use larger weapons because they are bigger than normal orcs. They also use 'human-like' weapons. Curiously, Tolkien specifically says that breeding men with orcs produced a larger variety of Orcs. And here we have Isengard Orcs who are larger than normal Orcs, who use 'man-like' weapons, and who are tolerant of the sun. Is it really so much of a stretch to say that these Uruk-hai are orc-human hybrids?


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *
> 
> Good, now next part of question.
> Why were the archers left at the gates?
> (Remember Gorbags boys got there first). *



I'm not sure what you are saying here (or why you are pursuing this tangent instead of addressing my other, more relevant posts), but here's (I hope) the answer you are looking for. The two Orcs that Sam sees shot are Cirith Ungol Orcs, Lagduf and Musgash as they are later identified. They are shot by archers of Gorbag's who got to the gates first. Gorbag's troops are not trying to escape, they are trying to make sure none of Shagrat's boys escape to raise the alarm. Unfortunately for the pair of archers at the gate, someone was able to knife them. Perhaps Radbug, in a last heroic act. Who knows, ask Tolkien. Lagduf and Musgash (not to be confused with Snaga and Snaga) are clearly shot from the gate, which is where Snaga says the boys of Gorbag went. The archer-boys of Gorbag are equally clearly knifed, so none of Gorbag's boys got out. Pointless for this thread, because even if Gorbag's boys did get out it would have nothing to do with Uruks or Uruk-hai. It's Shagrat's lot that would spread the alarm, and it is a Shagrat-like Orc with the tracker that complains about 'rebel Uruk-hai'. If we want to discuss tangents let's make them their own thread, and not try to side-step the issue here.


----------



## aragil

*Why the Uruks belong in Morrrdorrr, while the Uruk-hai reside in Isengard:*

Contention 1: The Orcs of Isengard always identify themselves as 'Uruk-hai', never as 'Uruks', or 'Us plain-old-Orcs'

The Two Towers, p. 61 "_We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here ..... _" 

The Two Towers, p. 67 "_Leave them to me then! No killing, as I've told you before; but if you want to throw away what we've come all the way to get, throw it away! I'll look after it. Letting the fighting Uruk-hai do the work, as usual. ..... _" 

The Two Towers, pp. 68-69 _"You seem to know a lot. ... More than is good for you I guess. Perhaps those in Lugburz might wonder how, and why. But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as usual. ...."_

The Two Towers, p 184 '_The Orcs yelled and jeered. "Come down! Come down!" they cried. "If you wish to speak to us, come down! Bring out your king! We are the fighting Uruk-hai. We will fetch him from his hole, if he does not come down. Bring out your skulking king!" "The king stays or comes at his own will," said Aragorn. "Then what are you doing here?" they answered. "Why do you look out? Do you wish to see the greatness of our army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai." "I looked out to see the dawn," said Aragorn. "What of the dawn?" they jeered. 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. .... "_' 

We only have one definite Uruk ID himself, and he does so as:
The Two Towers, p. 441 '_"As I said, the Big Bosses, ay," his voice sank almost to a whisper, "ay, even the Biggest, can make mistakes. Something nearly slipped, you say. I say, something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks."_' 

Funny how consistently the Uruk-hai call themselves the Uruk-hai, yet the one chance an Orc of Mordor gets to do the same, he uses the term Uruks. Hmmm.....


Contention 2: The Uruk-hai are sun-tolerant, which is something strange for Orcs
This is something we are told from the Silmarillion, through the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Even Orcs which appear to be Sauron's elite Uruks are not as fearless as the Uruk-hai demonstrate themselves to be in the full sunlight. When our good professor spends so much time telling us how much Orcs hate the sun, and then suddenly begins to describe sun-tolerant Orcs, there is a good chance he is doing it on purpose.

1)The Silmarillion, p. 127 '_At the uprising of the great light the servants of Morgoth fled into Angband, and Fingolfin passed unopposed through the fastness of Dor Daedeloth while his foes hid beneath the earth._'
This is the first ever reaction of Orcs (and Balrogs) to the sun, and as near as I can discover, it was fairly typical of their reaction right up until TA 3019.

2)Unfinished Tales, p. 285 '_The red rim of the sun gleamed out from the clouds as it went down behind the mountains. ... The Dunedain had gone scarcely a mile when the Orcs moved again. This time they did not charge, but used all their forces. They came down on a wide front, which bent into a crescent and soon closed into an unbroken ring about the Dunedain._'
I wonder why the Orcs waited until dark for their second assualt, and if it might have to do with why the second assault was successful.

3)The Hobbit, p. 100 "_We must be getting on at once, now we are a little rested," he said. "They will be out after us in hundreds when night comes on; and already shadows are lengthening._"
Here we have Gandalf urging the Dwarves (and Hobbit) to get away from the Goblin holes before night, which is when the Goblins will come out looking for them.

4)The Fellowship of the Ring, p. 433 "_The Sun sinks early. The Orcs will not, maybe, come out till after dusk, but we must be far away before nightfall._"
Of course there were Uruks in Moria, but still the Orcs did not come after the party until nightfall. Can anyone imagine Ugluk and his boys waiting until night to follow the Fellowship?

5)The Two Towers, pp. 64-65 '_"But what are we going to do at sunrise?" said some of the Northerners. "Go on running," said Ugluk. "What do you think? Sit on the grass and wait for the Whiteskins to join the picnic?" "But we can't run in the sunlight." "You'll run with me behind you," said Ugluk._'
Here we see Ugluk and the Uruk-hai succeeding where the Uruks in Moria failed. Not only do the Uruk-hai come out at night, but they drive the runts of Moria out too.

6)The Two Towers, p. 69 "_Then he saw that the sun was sinking, falling behind the Misty Mountains; shadows reached over the land. The soldiers of Mordor lifted their heads and also began to put on speed_.
These soldiers of Mordor are Uruks (see post http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=45589#post45589). Yet they clearly do better when the sun is off their backs (or is it mere coincidence that they run faster the moment Tolkien describes the sun going down). The Uruk-hai of Isengard do equally well with sun or no (they care not for the sun).

7)The Return of the King, p. 138 '_For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; now darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them._'
Does anybody believe that Sauron would not send Uruks to the battle of Pelannor? Yet here all of the hosts of Mordor are fleeing, Uruk, normal Orc, and Man (and troll-men) alike, just after the mention of that pesky sun. Do the men in the group ever save face?

8)The Return of the King, p. 148 '_But wherever the mumakil came there the horses would not go, but blenched and swerved away; and the great monsters were unfought, and stood like towers of defence, and the Haradrim rallied about them._'

9)The Return of the King, p. 151 '_Hard fighting and long labour they had still; for the Southrons were bold men and grim, and fierce in despair; and the Easterlings were strong and war hardened and asked for no quarter._'
Apparently the men do regain their composure, and go down fighting. Surely there is another mention of the Orcs, especially if the Uruks are sun tolerant like the Uruk-hai?

10)The Return of the King, p. 150 '_East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men and Variags and orcs that hated the sunlight._'
Bah! Cowards until the end. Could it be beyond coincidence that Tolkien mentions that the Orcs of Mordor hate the sunlight? I don't recall any such passage during the carnage at Helm's Deep.


Contention 3: The Uruk-hai are referred to as a new breed with strange un-orcish qualities, the Uruks have been around since TA 2475 (544 years by the time of Helm's Deep), so the two are unlikely to be the same breed.

The Two Towers, p. 20 '_He searched in the pile and on the ground about and found not a few that were undamaged and longer in shaft than such arrows as the Orcs were accustoned to use. He looked at them closely. And Aragorn looked on the slain, and he said: "Here lie many that are not folk of Mordor. Some are from the North, from the Misty Mountains, if I know anything of Orcs and their kinds. And here are others strange to me. Their gear is not after the manner of Orcs at all!" There were four goblin-soldiers of greater stature, swart, slant-eyed, with thick legs and large hands. They were armed with short broad-bladed swords, not with the curved scimitars usual with Orcs; and they had bows of yew, in length and shape like the bows of Men._' 

The Two Towers, p. 32 '_"Surely even Orcs must pause on the march?" said Gimli. "Seldom will Orcs journey in the open under the sun, yet these have done so," said Legolas._'

The Two Towers, p. 48 "_And others, too, came out of the forest. Great Orcs, who also bore the White Hand of Isengard: that kind is stronger and more fell than all others._"

The Two Towers, p. 180 '_"But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun," said Gamling._' 


Contention 4: Uruks of Grishnakh are clearly described in opposition to the Uruk-hai of Ugluk

please see: 
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=45589#post45589


Conention 5: Uruk-hai are half-orcs, which nobody has ever accused the Uruks of being (that *is* one of Ugluk's faults

please see: 
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=45605#post45605


Not 100% proof, but pretty convincing IMO Please note that these quotes stand together. One or two of them may be somewhat ambiguous *alone*, but taken together they seem to give a fairly clear meaning.

Further posts to look at on this issue:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=44669#post44669
Which describes what the term 'Uruk-hai' might mean linguistically, and why it would be different than plain 'Uruk'

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=44573#post44573
Which describes other creatures which might gain sun-tolerance through hybridization with humans

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=44923#post44923
Which describes why the only use of Uruk-hai which might apply to Mordor Orcs is so darned ambiguous. Strike point number 3 on this one. Damn! I liked that one.

and finally:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=42280#post42280
Which addresses the passage in UT which differentiates Uruks (of Saruman) from Orc-men.


----------



## Greenwood

> In any case if olog refers to a variety of Troll, it is yet not odd from a linguistic standpoint that they (can) be collectively referred to as "Olog-folk".



Cian

The above argument depends on -hai meaning "folk". This is an unproven assumption.

Aragil

You are far more articulate than I.   

Now it is off to work.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Cian, the above argument depends on -hai meaning "folk". This is an unproven assumption.



Well, my comment to Aragil simply includes that the door is not "closed" to that linguistic point, or possibility, that _-hai_ can still mean "folk". Ok it may be an obvious enough statement considering (can) as in my comment, but the context seemed to allow its tossing in  where I tossed it.


----------



## aragil

*Further illumination on the above post:*

Because of constraints on number of words in a post, I was not able to conclude my above post with the extended babbling that is my want. Please consider this post a the conclusion of the above.

I am well aware that an example of one is not persuasive at all, that a *single* quote is not persuasive is the reason that post
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=45629#post45629
contains *19* quotes from the text, ranging from the sun tolerance of the Uruk-hai, to the _seeming_ difference in use of self-reference with Uruks and Uruk-hai, to ways that the Uruk-hai are described as something new, whilst Uruks have been around for 543 years. In the above post I also give links to posts in which I attempt to explain why Uruks might be used in the Fords of Isen (beyond the fact that Tolkien was dead when the passage was published, and hence never had to explain to an editor why Uruks in one instance, Uruk-hai in another), and posts in which I reasonably (IMO) relate the orc-men of Morgoth's Ring to the Uruk-hai. Not a single one of these is definitive proof *by itself*. It is when taken together that all of these various issues come to a (seemingly) singular conclusion- *Uruks are one variety of Orcs: crook-legged, long armed, and no more sun-tolerant than the next; while Uruk-hai are another (though doubtlessly related) breed: large, thick-legged, swart, slant eyed, using man-like weapons, and especially tolerant of the sun!!!* I have yet to see an argument to the contrary which *cohesively* covers all of the above evidence.

ps Cian- I have since struck my hyphenation argument, despite the fact that I liked it so much. Apparently in Greenwood's edition (original Houghton Mifflin version predating my Ballantine versions) the hyphen was included. Oh well, I really did like my argument, even if no-one else buys it.


----------



## Grond

Aragil and Greenwood, no one can accuse either of you of not putting up a logical and massive volume of evidence to support your case. No one can accuse either of you of not reaching a logical conclusion based upon the interpretation of your evidence. I applaud both of your efforts to make your case. Good job!!

PS I'm still not convinced either way!!


----------



## im_lost

*What exactly are Orcs & Uruk-Hai?*

How were the Uruk-Hai made and what exactly _are_ the orcs?


----------



## Beorn

I doubt whether I can answer this fully, but I will attept to:

Orcs....Well....they're orcish...hehe.... Anyway, they are believed to be corrupted elves from the First Age of Middle Earth. No one really knows the truth, but often in the First age, elves would go out exploring, and never come back...I can't really explain what they looked like because I can't explain something that ugly. Sigh... Orcs were the servants of Sauron and Saruman. Most orcs (see below) are blinded by sunlight, so they prefer dark holes...

Uruk-hai. They are a breed of orcs, as a comparison Alaskan Huskies of Orcs if the above were Labradors. The Uruk-hai endured a lot. They could run in the sunlight. The could probably run faster in sunlight than normal orcs could in darkness. The Uruk-hai, some say, were orcs bred with men, then inbred to make the Alaskan Husky...


----------



## Beleg Strongbow

> _Originally posted by Mike B _
> *I doubt whether I can answer this fully, but I will attept to:
> 
> Orcs....Well....they're orcish...hehe.... Anyway, they are believed to be corrupted elves from the First Age of Middle Earth. No one really knows the truth, but often in the First age, elves would go out exploring, and never come back...I can't really explain what they looked like because I can't explain something that ugly. Sigh... Orcs were the servants of Sauron and Saruman. Most orcs (see below) are blinded by sunlight, so they prefer dark holes...
> 
> Uruk-hai. They are a breed of orcs, as a comparison Alaskan Huskies of Orcs if the above were Labradors. The Uruk-hai endured a lot. They could run in the sunlight. The could probably run faster in sunlight than normal orcs could in darkness. The Uruk-hai, some say, were orcs bred with men, then inbred to make the Alaskan Husky... *





Yeah it is pretty much that. There was whole thread on uruk-hai versus orcs earlier in this forum if you want more info! They were taken (orcs) from the elves corrupted and bread with other creatures untill they looked hideous and mean. Uruk hai is a later development of the orcs. In brief. Very brief. Aigght.


----------



## aragil

If im_lost would like to become im_more_lost, then all you need do is turn to http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2146&perpage=15&pagenumber=1
Here you will find (among other interesting tidbits) why Treebeard is not to be trusted, why 'Uruk-hai resistant to sunlight' are in no way related to 'half-orcs resistant to sunlight', and finally how 'rebel Uruk-hai' unambiguously refers to Uruk-hai of Mordor, when such creatures are never mentioned in any writing by Tolkien!


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> 
> I'm not sure what you are saying here (or why you are pursuing this tangent instead of addressing my other, more relevant posts), but here's (I hope) the answer you are looking for.



Because this is relevant.




> The two Orcs that Sam sees shot are Cirith Ungol Orcs, Lagduf and Musgash as they are later identified. They are shot by archers of Gorbag's who got to the gates first. Gorbag's troops are not trying to escape, they are trying to make sure none of Shagrat's boys escape to raise the alarm. Unfortunately for the pair of archers at the gate, someone was able to knife them. Perhaps Radbug, in a last heroic act. Who knows, ask Tolkien. Lagduf and Musgash (not to be confused with Snaga and Snaga) are clearly shot from the gate, which is where Snaga says the boys of Gorbag went. The archer-boys of Gorbag are equally clearly knifed, so none of Gorbag's boys got out. Pointless for this thread, because even if Gorbag's boys did get out it would have nothing to do with Uruks or Uruk-hai. It's Shagrat's lot that would spread the alarm, and it is a Shagrat-like Orc with the tracker that complains about 'rebel Uruk-hai'.



"I've told you twice that Gorbag's swine got to the gate first and none of ours [Shagrat's] got out. Lagduf and Muzgash ran through, but they were shot... And they were the last." 

Snaga's implication is clear. 'None of ours got out'. Not 'none got out'. The archers were left behind to cover the escape of the rest 'Gorbag's swine', which got to the gate first and fled through. These are the 'rebel Uruk-hai'.






> If we want to discuss tangents let's make them their own thread, and not try to side-step the issue here.



This is a mis-characterization.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Tar Elenion*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Tar Elenion:
> Greenwood and I are arguing that this passage is not very clear. We think it is ambiguous. What are you, arguing?
> 1)That it is not ambiguous, and that without a doubt the Uruk-hai refer to the Uruk-hai of Mordor, which are mentioned nowhere else in the narrative. Or...
> 2)That it is ambiguous, but the most likely Orcs to be in Minas Morgul were the Orcs of Gorbag.



Number one, that it is not ambiguous. 



> If 1: Let's assume there are Uruk-hai in both Isengard and Mordor. This then explains why Tolkien has Ugluk and the troops at Helm's Deep say 'Uruk-hai of Isengard'. Stating where the Uruk-hai are from removes the ambiguity. By not stating where the Orcs are from this passage becomes ambiguous. Now let us assume that the Uruk-hai come only from Isengard. It is now no longer necessary to state where the Uruk-hai are from, so the passage is now no longer ambiguous. Which do you want: A completely unambiguous passage, in which case there are no Uruk-hai in Mordor; or an ambiguous passage, where it is unclear whether the Uruk-hai are from Isengard or Mordor (if the second possibility exists)?




There are Uruk-hai in Mordor. 



> If 2: The Uruk-hai need not refer to the most likely troops. If Hobbits were the most likely things in Mordor, then the Higher-Ups were not picking the most likely troops by *guessing* a dwarf-man and a great Elf. If a great Elf and dwarf-man were the most likely thing in Mordor, then the higher ups were wrong, and need not be correct about the 'Uruk-hai'.



The 'Higher Up' was not simply guessing. Shagrat had sent reports. A Nazgul came to Cirith Ungol and could tell that Gorbag's troops and Shagrat's had slaughtered each other.




> <snip>
> Also, the soldier Orc and tracker were not the results of a report by Shagrat. He did not report to Barad-dur until March 17th, the same day that Sam and Frodo come across the pair of Orcs. Unless Sauron was dispatching Orcs via a working teleporter system, these Orcs were not responding to a report of Shagrat's, who at any rate could have ID'd Sam and Frodo better than 'a dwarf-man and a great Elf'.



Shagrat had sent reports to Barad-dur before hand. He states he has his orders and intends on foolowing them in the 'Choices of...', the Nazgul showed up in responce to these.



> Further more, if the Higher-Ups were supposed to be so accurate in picking the rebel Uruk-hai, why did they blow it on Frodo and Sam? Clearly, dwarf-man (wrong), great Elf (wrong), and Uruk-hai of Isengard (wrong) is a better match than dwarf-man (wrong), great Elf (wrong), and Uruk-hai of Minas-Morgul (right). Why are we allowing them to be wrong for dwarf-man and great Elf, and then constraining them to be right with the Orcs?



They did not blow it.

Elf-warrior:
As pointed out previously, the Orcs assumed it was an Elf-warrior that stuck Shelob, and cut her webs. Frodo was noted as looking 'elvish', by these Orcs, and was wearing an elf-cloak.

Dwarf-man:
"Hobbits on the other hand were in nearly all respects normal Men, but of very short stature." (PoME, Dwarves and Men). 
"The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically human race...". (Letter 131). 
"I am in fact a Hobbit (in all but size). I like gardens, trees..." (Letter 213). 
Hobbit, a 'sort of small dwarf-man'. Which is probably how Shagrat described Frodo in his report: 'Hey Boss, we captured us a some sort of small dwarf-man, kind of elvish looking but undersized, where a shiney mail coat, it looks like some Elf-warrior is here too. Shelob's webs have been cut and Her Ladyship got stuck, with an elf-sword. Anyways Boss, you need to get somebody down here. Gorbag and them Morgul boys is getting all grabby wanting to have sport with the little fellow, and take his gear, they seem specially interested in the pretty shirt'.
Your loyal Shagrat, Captain of ....

Or: _ Small dwarf-man captured. [Full description here]. Elf-warrior on the loose. Shelob stabbed, webs cut. Gorbag and his troops present, and want to spoil captive. Captive secure for now. Need orders. Send reply fast._


----------



## aragil

*As long as we're pursuing tangents...*

In the spirit of debate, I'm going to respond to this one:
Why are Gorbag's boys running out of Cirith Ungol? If they are running out, why are they going into Mordor, instead of out towards the wider lands. Surely going into Mordor would be the surest chance of getting caught. Are Gorbag's boys really that stupid? For that matter, if some did escape (I don't think any did), why didn't Sam see them? Why would 'the rest' of Gorbag's boys bolt with just 2-3 of Shagrat's boys left, rather than finishing the job and then hiding the evidence?
Again I ask the question, what exactly are we debating here? I have never said that rebel Uruk-hai does not refer to Gorbag's orcs. Of course it does, as they were the one's who slaughtered the garrison of the tower. The problem is that the term 'rebel Uruk-hai' *is erroneously used to refer to Gorbag's boys*, just as 'dwarf-men' erroneously refers to Frodo, and 'great Elf' erroneously refers to Sam.
The report is clearly in error, and suffers by the fact that Shagrat himself has no input on it. Look very closely at your appendix and tell me when Shagrat delivers the goods to Barad-dur. It is on March 17th. Now tell me when Sam overhears the conversation of the Orcs. It is either on March 16th or March 17th (the escape from C. Ungol occurs on the 15th, I believe), either way there is no possibility that they are sent out as a result of Shagrat giving a report. The Nazgul arrived after every Orc in the tower was either gone or dead. There was no Orc there to say '_Gorbag's boys attacked us. On a related note, a great Elf wandered in past the Watchers and wandered out again with the dwarf-man we were holding prisoner._' Remember, after the fighting started *none* of Shagrat's boys escaped (see your own quote, above). If any Orc had been around to say such things, wouldn't the Higher Ups have sent separate parties out to search for Gorbag's lot (a minor annoyance) and the great Elf and dwarf-men (a serious security issue)? No, the Higher Ups were confused as to what they were looking for, with each possibility being equally unlikely. The confusion of the Higher Ups explains why there were only two Orcs out looking for Sam and Frodo, rather than every Orc ever spawned which would have been the case had the Higher Ups had any clue what was actually going on.
For that matter, why are we even still considering Uruk-hai in Mordor. I have posted above that Uruks and Uruk-hai are described very differently. Shagrat (as well as Grishnakh and his boys) are Uruks- they have crooked legs and long arms; Uruk-hai are large, thick legged, swart-faced, bearing man-size weapons and are tolerant of the sun. Tolkien has provided these differences in descriptions so that we wouldn't confuse 'Uruks of Mordor' with their hybridized off-shoots in Isengard- the Uruk-hai. Are we now arguing that there are two types of Uruk-hai, the long-armed apes of Lugburz who are only referred to in the narrative as 'uruks', and the large Orcs from Isengard?
Where is there even any mention of Uruk-hai being troops of Mordor? This single passage *does not* state that the rebel Uruk-hai are residents of Mordor. Before this passage can even be applied to Uruk-hai of Mordor, you first have to assume that such creatures exist. Where is there *any* mention of Uruk-hai serving Mordor. We've been over this repeatedly- there *is no* mention of Uruk-hai serving Mordor. Why should we all of the sudden invent Uruk-hai of Mordor for this one singular passage?
Turning to the oft-quoted passage from the Appendix:
'_Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'._' 
Nowhere in this passage does it say that the Orcs of Isengard were called Uruks. What it says is that the *word* uruk was applied to the soldier-orcs of Isengard, probably referring to the fact that the term 'Uruk-hai' contains the word uruk. It is necessary for Tolkien to say this because the word 'uruk' means 'orc' in Black Speech, but is not used to refer to all orcs. The passage goes on to say that the Uruk-hai refer to lesser kinds of orc as snaga, meaning slave. It does not say that the Uruk-hai of Isengard and Mordor collectively refer to lesser breeds as slave, so still we have no mention of Mordor Uruk-hai.


----------



## aragil

*Re: Re: Tar Elenion*



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *
> There are Uruk-hai in Mordor
> *



Well, this is to the point. How do you know that there are Uruk-hai in Mordor? I thought this is what we were debating, because as far as I know there is no reference to Uruk-hai specifically being from Mordor. Perhaps you'd be so kind to show us the passage stating that there were Uruk-hai in Mordor, after which you can tell us why you've been hiding said passage for so long.

ps. Letters written 14 years before the publication of the Lord of the Rings can hardly be expected to refer to words with the same connotation as these words had at the time of publication, as Tolkien freely admits that Middle-Earth was a continuously changing concept for him.


----------



## Bill the Pony

And to add even more to the confusion, it seems that there is no consensus on whether orcs were bred from elves or men either. See for example here


----------



## Greenwood

> _Quote by Tar-Elenion_
> 
> The archers were left behind to cover the escape of the rest 'Gorbag's swine', which got to the gate first and fled through. ....
> 
> Shagrat had sent reports to Barad-dur before hand. He states he has his orders and intends on foolowing them in the 'Choices of...', the Nazgul showed up in responce to these. ....
> 
> Which is probably how Shagrat described Frodo in his report: 'Hey Boss, we captured us a some sort of small dwarf-man, kind of elvish looking but undersized, where a shiney mail coat, it looks like some Elf-warrior is here too. Shelob's webs have been cut and Her Ladyship got stuck, with an elf-sword. Anyways Boss, you need to get somebody down here. Gorbag and them Morgul boys is getting all grabby wanting to have sport with the little fellow, and take his gear, they seem specially interested in the pretty shirt'.



There is no evidence that Shagrat got any message off other than what he took himself when he ran from Sam. In 'The Choices of Master Samwise' Shagrat says: "I have my orders. ..... Any trespasser found by the guard is to be held at the tower. Prisoner is to be stripped. Full description of every article, garment, weapon, letter, ring, or trinket is to be sent to Lugburz at once, and to Lugburz only. ...." Clearly any report is to include the list of items taken from the prisoner during the strip search. It is during this strip search that the mithril coat is found and the fighting breaks out between Gorbag and Shagrat and their respective troops. It makes no sense for Gorbag to wait until after Shagrat sends word to Lugburz to make a grab for the mithril coat. He would try to convince Shagrat not to report the existence of the mithril coat. There is also a witness to the fact that no orcs got away from the fort during the fighting. Sam is outside the fortress of Cirith Ungol and hears the fighting among the orcs. The only two orcs Sam sees leave the gate are shot down by arrows. When he enters the gates he sees the orc archers lying dead with knifes in the backs (as Aragil has already pointed out). To say that the archers were left to cover the escape of Gorbag's lads makes no sense. Why would they leave when the fighting was still going on and when Shagrat was still alive and in possession of the mithril coat that precipitated the fighting? It makes no sense for Gorbag's troops to have left and Sam saw only two orcs leave, both of whom are immediately killed. Snaga reports to Shagrat that none of their people got out.

So why does the Nazgul appear just as Sam and Frodo leave the fortress? It is not in response to any report of Shagrat's. In 'The Choices of Master Samwise' Gorbag tells Shagrat that the report was that the Nazgul were uneasy and that is why he and his troop were ordered to search the stairs. After Shagrat's escape and Snaga's death Sam searches the tower of Cirith Ungol for the orc disguises that he and Frodo put on. When Sam returns to Frodo with the disguises he tells him: "I think this place is being watched. I can't explain it, but well: it feels to me as if one of those foul flying Riders was about, up in the blackness where he can't be seen." When they left the fortress Sam had to call upon the power of the vial of Galadriel to get them past the Silent Watchers at the gate. When they did that the wall above the gate crumbled, a bell rang in the tower and a "high and dreadful wail" went up from the watchers. "Far up above in the darkness it was answered. Out of the black sky there came dropping like a bolt a winged shape, rending the clouds with a ghastly shriek." The Nazgul was on a sort of air patrol over the border of Mordor and dropped from the sky in response to the alarm from the watchers at the gate. The Nazgul was not there in response to any message of Shagrat's.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: As long as we're pursuing tangents...*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> In the spirit of debate, I'm going to respond to this one:
> Why are Gorbag's boys running out of Cirith Ungol? If they are running out, why are they going into Mordor, instead of out towards the wider lands. Surely going into Mordor would be the surest chance of getting caught. Are Gorbag's boys really that stupid? For that matter, if some did escape (I don't think any did), why didn't Sam see them? Why would 'the rest' of Gorbag's boys bolt with just 2-3 of Shagrat's boys left, rather than finishing the job and then hiding the evidence?



Were they were going into Mordor? Perhaps they thought they would be safer there ('the enemies don't love us any more than they love Him') and would be more confortable on 'home ground', Gorbag seemed to have some suspicion that the War might not be going so well, or perhaps they wanted to escape out to the east. Perhaps those that are implied to have escaped did not go into Mordor. The two Orcs that were hunting need not have been the only ones. If some did escape (and I think Snaga's statement implies this) perhaps they did so before Sam got there. Why would the two archers remain at the Gate instead of fleeing if they had no reason to remain? Why would Gorbag's boys bolt? Are they stupid enough to stick around with Shagrat safely locked in the highest chamber, with the small dwarf-man prisoner, and wait for a Nazgul to show up? Kind of hard to hide that kind of evidence. And are the Nazgul stupid enough to buy the hidden evidence or could any of Gorbag's boys kept it from them under Questioning? And if none escaped (which is possible though I think Snaga's statement implies some thing different) how does the Nazgul know that, considering that the prisoner is gone as well? May be the great Elf-warrior rescued him, maybe the rebel Uruk-hai seized him and left.



> Again I ask the question, what exactly are we debating here? I have never said that rebel Uruk-hai does not refer to Gorbag's orcs. Of course it does, as they were the one's who slaughtered the garrison of the tower. The problem is that the term 'rebel Uruk-hai' *is erroneously used to refer to Gorbag's boys*, just as 'dwarf-men' erroneously refers to Frodo, and 'great Elf' erroneously refers to Sam.



Is the Nazgul that stupid, that it could not recognize that Gorbag's boys and Shagrat's had fought each other, presumably over the disposition of the small dwarf-man it had come to pick up?



> The report is clearly in error, and suffers by the fact that Shagrat himself has no input on it. Look very closely at your appendix and tell me when Shagrat delivers the goods to Barad-dur. It is on March 17th. Now tell me when Sam overhears the conversation of the Orcs. It is either on March 16th or March 17th (the escape from C. Ungol occurs on the 15th, I believe), either way there is no possibility that they are sent out as a result of Shagrat giving a report. The Nazgul arrived after every Orc in the tower was either gone or dead. There was no Orc there to say '_Gorbag's boys attacked us. On a related note, a great Elf wandered in past the Watchers and wandered out again with the dwarf-man we were holding prisoner._' Remember, after the fighting started *none* of Shagrat's boys escaped (see your own quote, above). If any Orc had been around to say such things, wouldn't the Higher Ups have sent separate parties out to search for Gorbag's lot (a minor annoyance) and the great Elf and dwarf-men (a serious security issue)? No, the Higher Ups were confused as to what they were looking for, with each possibility being equally unlikely. The confusion of the Higher Ups explains why there were only two Orcs out looking for Sam and Frodo, rather than every Orc ever spawned which would have been the case had the Higher Ups had any clue what was actually going on.



I am well aware of the timeline for Shagrat leaving Cirith Ungol and arriving in Barad-dur. The report I am talking about is the one that caused the Nazgul to be sent to (or had received while he was doing his 'observing' of) Cirith Ungol (the one that Shagrat says he is going to send and that Gorbag does not want him to). Is it ever suggested that only two Orcs were out looking for them? Most of Mordor had already been mobilized and sent to the front (or was on the way there). If there had been any conception that Frodo had the Ring and was going to destroy it, you are right, every Orc would have been sent after them (and a good number of other things. But Sauron could not fathom that any would destroy it, and IIRC was under some sort of assumption that Aragorn had it. 



> For that matter, why are we even still considering Uruk-hai in Mordor. I have posted above that Uruks and Uruk-hai are described very differently. Shagrat (as well as Grishnakh and his boys) are Uruks- they have crooked legs and long arms; Uruk-hai are large, thick legged, swart-faced, bearing man-size weapons and are tolerant of the sun. Tolkien has provided these differences in descriptions so that we wouldn't confuse 'Uruks of Mordor' with their hybridized off-shoots in Isengard- the Uruk-hai. Are we now arguing that there are two types of Uruk-hai, the long-armed apes of Lugburz who are only referred to in the narrative as 'uruks', and the large Orcs from Isengard?
> Where is there even any mention of Uruk-hai being troops of Mordor? This single passage *does not* state that the rebel Uruk-hai are residents of Mordor. Before this passage can even be applied to Uruk-hai of Mordor, you first have to assume that such creatures exist. Where is there *any* mention of Uruk-hai serving Mordor. We've been over this repeatedly- there *is no* mention of Uruk-hai serving Mordor. Why should we all of the sudden invent Uruk-hai of Mordor for this one singular passage?



It has already been noted (even by me, early on this thread) that the great soldier-orcs have different physical characteristics. The Uruk-hai are the great soldier-orcs of both Sauron and Saruman. That Saruman bred his differently does not change this. The Uruk-hai of Sauron and Saruman can be differant from each other, and be great soldier-orcs, which appeared in the later Third Age, and are different than the 'snaga' or lesser Orcs, that had been around a lot longer. If there were not Uruk-hai in Mordor, why would the Nazgul send Orcs out looking for some that seem to have gone rebel and may have seized Frodo and taken off with him? Why would Tolkien use this term? It could be to confuse the reader, the reader knows that Saruman's are all dead. 



> Turning to the oft-quoted passage from the Appendix:
> '_Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'._'
> Nowhere in this passage does it say that the Orcs of Isengard were called Uruks. What it says is that the *word* uruk was applied to the soldier-orcs of Isengard, probably referring to the fact that the term 'Uruk-hai' contains the word uruk. It is necessary for Tolkien to say this because the word 'uruk' means 'orc' in Black Speech, but is not used to refer to all orcs. The passage goes on to say that the Uruk-hai refer to lesser kinds of orc as snaga, meaning slave. It does not say that the Uruk-hai of Isengard and Mordor collectively refer to lesser breeds as slave, so still we have no mention of Mordor Uruk-hai.



_At this time_ (late in the Third Age) 'uruk' was used to refer to the great soldier-orcs of Sauron and Saruman. 'Uruks' is an anglicization. 'S' is the English plural. Are you going to argue that it is the Black Speech plural? One Uruk, two Uruks (anglicized). 'Uruk-hai' is a plural form. Is it ever used in the singular? Would you pluralize it as 'Uruk-hais'? Uruk-hai is refering back to the great soldier-orcs of Mordor and Isengard. This refers back to the word 'uruk'. I have already supplied a quote from Q&E which is speaking just about Sauron's Orcs no mention of Saruman's, and it says the lesser kinds were called snaga, see my intial 'Snaga' post for fuller reference.


----------



## Greenwood

> Is the Nazgul that stupid, that it could not recognize that Gorbag's boys and Shagrat's had fought each other, preumably over the disposition of the small dwarf-man it had come to pick up?



The Nazgul was not there to pick up prisoners. It was flying 'air patrol' and responded to the alarm of the Silent Watchers when Sam and Frodo left the fortress.



> 'Uruks' is an anglicization. 'S' is the English plural. Are you goiung to argue that it is the Black Speech plural? One Uruk, two Uruks (anglicized). 'Uruk-hai' is a plural form. Is it ever used in the singular? Would you pluralize it as 'Uruk-hais'? Uruk-hai is refering back to the great soldier-orcs of Mordor and Isengard. This refers back to the word 'uruk'.



There is no evidence other than Foster's and Christopher Tolkien's unproven assertion that Uruks is an Anglicization of Uruk-hai (and there is no evidence that CT was not just following Foster). You have presented no evidence that Black Speech pluralizes by adding the suffix -hai. You also do not know that Uruk-hai cannot be used as both a plural and single noun (i.e. fish and other such words.) Gorbag does not use the word Uruk-hai when he refers to himself and his kind, he uses the word Uruks. Gandalf also uses the word Uruks when identifying large orcs from Mordor. In Appendix F says the word _uruk_ is from the Black Speech. It does not say that Uruk-hai refers directly to the great soldier orcs of both Mordor and Isengard. You continually assume your argument is true and then use the results of that unproven assumption to try to prove the assumption. It is circular.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> There is no evidence that Shagrat got any message off other than what he took himself when he ran from Sam.
> [and]
> The Nazgul was not there to pick up prisoners. It was flying 'air patrol' and responded to the alarm of the Silent Watchers when Sam and Frodo left the fortress.*


*

"Sam looked up towards the orc-tower, and suddenly from its narrow windows lights stared out like small red eyes. He wondered if they were some signal."

Sam does not 'feel' the Nazgul presence until after 'rescuing' Frodo, even when he is wearing the Ring. 
Shagrat sends message. Barad-dur sends Nazgul. Nazgul scouts area. Alarm goes off. Nazgul lands.






There is no evidence other than Foster's and Christopher Tolkien's unproven assertion that Uruks is an Anglicization of Uruk-hai (and there is no evidence that CT was not just following Foster).

Click to expand...


What was said re the UT index by CT has already been posted.
Believe what you want. I choose not to believe CT is a plagiarist (this in no way is to be taken to imply that you are calling CT a plagiarist).





You have presented no evidence that Black Speech pluralizes by adding the suffix -hai. You also do not know that Uruk-hai cannot be used as both a plural and single noun (i.e. fish and other such words.)

Click to expand...


I hacve not said BS pluralizes by adding the suffix '-hai'. What have said is that 'hai' is a plural form. As in 'people' not 'person'. Whike it is possible that Uruk-hai could be used as a singular or plural, I would first like to have a citation of it being used in the singular.




Gorbag does not use the word Uruk-hai when he refers to himself and his kind, he uses the word Uruks. Gandalf also uses the word Uruks when identifying large orcs from Mordor. In Appendix F says the word uruk is from the Black Speech. It does not say that Uruk-hai refers directly to the great soldier orcs of both Mordor and Isengard. You continually assume your argument is true and then use the results of that unproven assumption to try to prove the assumption. It is circular.

Click to expand...


'Uruk-hai' is refering back to both, just as 'uruk' refers to both. If you don't choose to believe that, be my guest. It does not change what the passage says. You continually assume your position is correct, and dismiss anything that disagrees with it as irrelevant or ambiguous.*


----------



## aragil

*Dodging the issue...*

For the last time Tar Elenion:
1) Was Sam a Hobbit which was *mistaken* as a great Elf?
2) Was Frodo a Hobbit which was *mistaken* as a dwarf-man?
3) Could Orcs of different breeds (i.e. Uruks vs. Uruk-hai) be *mistaken* for eachother (could an Orc really mistake Sam and Frodo for fellow Orcs)?

ps. Still waiting for you to produce a statement saying there were Uruk-hai based in Mordor. Before you do this there is no reason to wonder who 'rebel Uruk-hai' refers to- it refers to the Isengarders, as they are the only Uruk-hai mentioned in the text.

pps. Thank you Greenwood for explaining why the Nazgul was not responding to any message of Shagrat's.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion_
> *If there were not Uruk-hai in Mordor, why would the Nazgul send Orcs out looking for some that seem to have gone rebel and may have seized Frodo and taken off with him? Why would Tolkien use this term? It could be to confuse the reader, the reader knows that Saruman's are all dead.*



As I imagine you know well, if there were no Uruk-hai based in Mordor, then rebel Uruk-hai could only refer to the Uruk-hai in Isengard. This would not confuse the reader, because there is only one type of Uruk-hai ever mentioned in the books, and they proudly announce that they belong to Isengard at every opportunity. The reader would realize that since the report *mistakenly* lists a non-existant great Elf and a non-existant dwarf-man, that Uruk-hai must be a case of the Higher Ups *mistakenly* referring to the now dead Uruk-hai of Isengard. The only thing that becomes confused when there is no Uruk-hai of Mordor is your argument that the terms Uruks & Uruk-hai are equivalent. Doubtless this is the reason that you insist the 'rebel Uruk-hai' passage unambiguously refers to Uruk-hai of Mordor. This is not quite the same level of confusion Tolkien would generate by intentionally having Treebeard make mis-leading statements about the abilities of Orcs in the sunlight, is it?



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion_
> *Is the Nazgul that stupid, that it could not recognize that Gorbag's boys and Shagrat's had fought each other?*



Remind me where the books say that the Nazgul could see that well, please. All I can recall is Strider saying:
"_For the black horses can see, and the Riders can use men and other creature as spies, as we found at Bree. They themselves do not see the world of light as we do, but our shapes cast shadows in their minds, which only the noon sun destroys; and in the dark they perceive many signs and forms that are hidden from us: then they are most to be feared._"
Perhaps the fell beasts are articulate enough to tell the Nazgul that the Orcs are Uruk-hai, not snaga? Or perhaps they merely tell the Nazgul that some of the dead Orcs wear the livery of Morgul? What was it the fell beast at Pelannor said? Oh yes:
'_Again it leaped into the air, and then swiftly fell down upon Eowyn, shrieking, striking with beak and claw_'
I'm sure that the fell beast was shrieking to say: 
'_"This woman with the sword looks dangerous. And watch your back, there is a Hobbit bearing the tokens of Rohan, looking to stab you in the back of the...." Wathunk! As Eowyn prevents the fell beast from disclosing Merry's presence to the otherwise blind Witch King with a quick swipe of her sword._'

Let's just say I'm glad my entire theory doesn't rest on the visual acuity of Ringwraiths, nor the abilities of the fell beasts to describe different breeds of Orcs!


----------



## aragil

*Here we go again...*



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *'Uruk-hai' is refering back to both, just as 'uruk' refers to both. If you don't choose to believe that, be my guest. It does not change what the passage says. You continually assume your position is correct, and dismiss anything that disagrees with it as irrelevant or ambiguous. *



Tar-Elenion, by now you doubtlessly realize you are being argumentative. Greenwood and I don't _assume_ our position is correct. We *produce* facts from the text which support our position. You seem to respond by 'trusting CT', rather than actually quoting from the texts under discussion. The soldier-Orcs of Mordor are repeatedly described as crook-legged with long arms. The soldier-Orcs of Isengard are described as large, swart, slant-eyed, thick legged, bearing man-like weapons, and most importantly being tolerant of the sun, of which the soldier-Orcs of Mordor are clearly described as being non-tolerant.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *It has already been noted (even by me, early on this thread) that the great soldier-orcs have different physical characteristics. *



I'm glad you finally acknowledge the facts, but you seem to only pay lip service. In what way is sun-tolerance a 'physical characteristic'? If something like this doesn't distinguish breeds, then what does?



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *While it is possible that Uruk-hai could be used as a singular or plural, I would first like to have a citation of it being used in the singular. *



Well, while it is possible that Uruk-hai refers to Orcs of Mordor and Isengard, we'd like to see a reference to the 'Uruk-hai of Mordor' before we assume it exists. How about if you supply us with an instance of 'Uruk-hai of Mordor' as we've continually asked? Then we'll supply you with an example of Uruk-hai used in the singular. Wait a moment, that would just debunk my theory of 'hai' meaning 'men'! Perhaps if you just provide us with the 'Uruk-hai of Mordor' quote, we can decide where to go from there.


----------



## Greenwood

> _Quote by Tar-elenion_
> "Sam looked up towards the orc-tower, and suddenly from its narrow windows lights stared out like small red eyes. He wondered if they were some signal."
> 
> Sam does not 'feel' the Nazgul presence until after 'rescuing' Frodo, even when he is wearing the Ring.
> Shagrat sends message. Barad-dur sends Nazgul. Nazgul scouts area. Alarm goes off. Nazgul lands.



Sam wondering if the red light in the windows is a signal does not make it a signal. There are a number of problems with this. First there is the fact that everytime these windows are seen there is a red light in them. In The Two Towers, in The Stairs of Cirith Ungol, when Frodo and Sam first see the top of the tower of Cirith Ungol: "The horn upon the left was tall and slender; and in it burned a redlight, or else the red light in the land beyond was shining through a hole. He [Frodo] saw now: it was a black tower poised above the outer pass." Later, in the chapter Shelob's Lair: "Turning his [Sam's] eyes away from the shadow behind and the deep gloom beneath the cliff upon his left. he looked ahead, and he saw two things that increased his dismay. He saw the sword which Frodo still held unsheathed was glittering with blue flame; and he saw that though the sky behind was now dark, still the window in the tower was glowing red." In The Choices of Master Samwise: "Now the orc-tower was right above him [Sam], frowning black, and in it the red eye glowed." Thus every time the windows are described there is a red light in them. Is there constant signaling going on? Please do not bother to respond to this alone without responding at the same time to the following points.

Next problem with the red light being a signal to Barad-dur, the windows face the wrong way! In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Tower of Cirith Ungol: "He [Sam] ran forward to the crown of the climbing path, and over it. At once the road *turned left* and plunged steeply down." It is after Sam makes this turn that he first sees the Ephel Duath and in the distance the glow of Orodruin. Based on the map of Mordor and this left turn, the windows in question must be facing south. Who is there to signal that way? Minas Morgul is west, hidden by the mountains, and Barad-dur is north-northeast. The windows face the wrong way for signaling to either of them. 

Finally, Barad-dur is simply too far away. Based on the scale on the map of Mordor in the back of my copy of The Return of the King, Barad-dur is approximately eighty miles from Cirith Ungol. No signal of red light is going to carry that far. Or is Sauron employing some Middle Earth version of a laser signaling system? (This would explain the red color.  ) This also ignores the problem of the curvature of the earth over a distance of eighty miles; Barad-dur should be below the horizon. Or is Middle Earth flat? We also have the problem of speed and time. If the Nazgul was despatched from Barad-dur then its steed would have to have flown at speeds of approximately 100 mph or more to get there in time. If the Nazgul came from Minas Morgul (which solves the time and speed problem) why is he wasting his time "scouting" the area. Wouldn't he land as soon as he arrived over Cirith Ungol and take possession of the prisoner he has been sent to retrieve?



> _Quote by Tar-Elenion_
> While it is possible that Uruk-hai could be used as a singular or plural, I would first like to have a citation of it being used in the singular.



It is true that Tolkien never uses Uruk-hai in the singular. It is for this reason that we do not know if the singular is different from the plural. Before you waste all our time by typing a request for examples of Tolkien using the same word in LOTR as both a plural and singular noun I will refer to the word Nazgul. It is repeatedly used both ways throughout LOTR. Example: the Lord of the Nazgul speaking to Eowyn at the battle of Pelennor Fields -- "Come not between the Nazgul and his prey!" Thus we have Nazgul being used here as both a singular and plural noun.


----------



## Grond

I must interject here that neither side in this argument has given any thing _definitive_. I presented a scenario a few pages ago that would completely have undone the theory that the Uruk-hai are strictly Saruman's. It hinged on one (and only one) factor, Shagrat getting a message to "Higher ups", or, in fact, being the "hugher up" himself. If that happened, then clearly the "rebel Uruk-hai" spoken of would have been Gorbag's Uruk-hai and all arguments to the contrary are shot to hades. 

Guess what??? There is no absolute evidence to that effect. We are left not knowing to whom the "higher ups" comment is referring to, thus we have no proof one way or another. We are left with the "lion's share" of references of Uruk-hai referring to Saruman's Greater-orcs. Guess what??? There is no absolute evidence to that effect either. There is no resolution to this argument because there are potential scenarios as I've outlined above. If the scenario in my first paragraph were true, the whole Saruman exclusivity argument is shot.

For my own personal resolution to this issue, I go back to the first time I ever read the Two Towers some 28 years ago. My impression then, when reading the Chapter _Uruk-hai_ was that Saruman had developed a Super-orc that was far superior to anything in Sauron's aresenal. I also think that my first impressions are generally the correct ones.....but I could be wrong.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Dodging the issue...*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *For the last time Tar Elenion:
> 1) Was Sam a Hobbit which was mistaken as a great Elf?
> 2) Was Frodo a Hobbit which was mistaken as a dwarf-man?
> 3) Could Orcs of different breeds (i.e. Uruks vs. Uruk-hai) be mistaken for eachother (could an Orc really mistake Sam and Frodo for fellow Orcs)?*


*

For the last time aragil, the importance is in what the Orcs believed. 
1)They did not see Sam and believed an Elf warrior was loose, based on the evidence available to them.
2)Yes, Frodo the Hobbit was a dwarf-man. I have already provided quotes backing this up. Hobbits are Men, but are much shorter. Hence 'dwarf-man'.
3)Anything is possible,(considering that it happened, certainly).




ps. Still waiting for you to produce a statement saying there were Uruk-hai based in Mordor. Before you do this there is no reason to wonder who 'rebel Uruk-hai' refers to- it refers to the Isengarders, as they are the only Uruk-hai mentioned in the text.

Click to expand...


You are more than entitlted to your opinion. 





The reader would realize that since the report mistakenly lists a non-existant great Elf and a non-existant dwarf-man, that Uruk-hai must be a case of the Higher Ups mistakenly referring to the now dead Uruk-hai of Isengard. The only thing that becomes confused when there is no Uruk-hai of Mordor is your argument that the terms Uruks & Uruk-hai are equivalent. Doubtless this is the reason that you insist the 'rebel Uruk-hai' passage unambiguously refers to Uruk-hai of Mordor. This is not quite the same level of confusion Tolkien would generate by intentionally having Treebeard make mis-leading statements about the abilities of Orcs in the sunlight, is it?

Click to expand...


Have I said that Treebeard made mis-leading statements about the abilities of Orcs in the sunlight? Has anyone said that? Perhaps you need to reread what it was I said about Treebeard's 'statement'.






Remind me where the books say that the Nazgul could see that well, please. All I can recall is Strider saying:
"For the black horses can see, and the Riders can use men and other creature as spies, as we found at Bree. They themselves do not see the world of light as we do, but our shapes cast shadows in their minds, which only the noon sun destroys; and in the dark they perceive many signs and forms that are hidden from us: then they are most to be feared."
<snip>
Let's just say I'm glad my entire theory doesn't rest on the visual acuity of Ringwraiths, nor the abilities of the fell beasts to describe different breeds of Orcs!

Click to expand...


Good thing it was dark, when the Nazgul came. Of course he also sent out signals too. Their were horsemen rushing and orc-feet running toward the Tower, in answer to the signal. I wonder if they could see what happened, and report to the Ringwraith.*


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Here we go again...*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Tar-Elenion, by now you doubtlessly realize you are being argumentative. Greenwood and I don't assume our position is correct. We produce facts from the text which support our position. You seem to respond by 'trusting CT', rather than actually quoting from the texts under discussion. The soldier-Orcs of Mordor are repeatedly described as crook-legged with long arms. The soldier-Orcs of Isengard are described as large, swart, slant-eyed, thick legged, bearing man-like weapons, and most importantly being tolerant of the sun, of which the soldier-Orcs of Mordor are clearly described as being non-tolerant.




Yes, you two produce facts which support your position. When other facts are produced that do not support your position, they tend to be dismissed as contradictory or ambiguous, and thus irrelevant. Unfortunately I do not accept this dismissal on the say so of you two.
That I do not quote from the text is again a mischaracterization, I have provided any number of quotes. Of course those quotes tend to be declared 'ambiguous', 'contradictory' or 'irrelevant' when they do not agree with a certain position.





> I'm glad you finally acknowledge the facts, but you seem to only pay lip service. In what way is sun-tolerance a 'physical characteristic'? If something like this doesn't distinguish breeds, then what does?



That 'I _finally_ acknowledge the facts'? Yet again, another specious mischaracterization. I stated there were differences quite early on in this thread. I will adress the rest, when I address your 'Contentions' post.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Sam wondering if the red light in the windows is a signal does not make it a signal. There are a number of problems with this. First there is the fact that everytime these windows are seen there is a red light in them. In The Two Towers, in The Stairs of Cirith Ungol, when Frodo and Sam first see the top of the tower of Cirith Ungol:
> <snip>
> Thus every time the windows are described there is a red light in them. Is there constant signaling going on?
> 
> Next problem with the red light being a signal to Barad-dur, the windows face the wrong way!<snip>
> 
> Finally, Barad-dur is simply too far away. Based on the scale on the map of Mordor in the back of my copy of The Return of the King, Barad-dur is approximately eighty miles from Cirith Ungol. No signal of red light is going to carry that far.<snip>
> We also have the problem of speed and time. If the Nazgul was despatched from Barad-dur then its steed would have to have flown at speeds of approximately 100 mph or more to get there in time. If the Nazgul came from Minas Morgul (which solves the time and speed problem) why is he wasting his time "scouting" the area. Wouldn't he land as soon as he arrived over Cirith Ungol and take possession of the prisoner he has been sent to retrieve?



That Sam sees a light suddenly flaring and considers that it may be a signal, lends credence to the fact that it may be a signal along with the stated intention of good loyal Shagrat to send messages to Barad-dur (this is the evidence that you said was not there:
"There is no evidence that Shagrat got any message off other than what he took himself when he ran from Sam." 
That the windows same saw 'were facing the wrong way' does not mean that there were not others facing the right way. 
It was hard for a signal to go from Rohan to Minas Tirith (distance and all that), but it did.
When was the Nazgul dispatched? How many messages had Shagrat sent? When did he send his first? Frodo was taken on the 13th, rescued on the 14th. Quite some time had passed. How much time passed between the 'signal' Sam noted and the arrival of the Nazgul. Sam 'sat down' for a while. He crept along for a time. He was moving with care. It seems there was enough time to me. Perhaps the Nazgul felt something was wrong and wanted to observe what it was, before landing.



> It is true that Tolkien never uses Uruk-hai in the singular. It is for this reason that we do not know if the singular is different from the plural. Before you waste all our time by typing a request for examples of Tolkien using the same word in LOTR as both a plural and singular noun I will refer to the word Nazgul. It is repeatedly used both ways throughout LOTR. Example: the Lord of the Nazgul speaking to Eowyn at the battle of Pelennor Fields -- "Come not between the Nazgul and his prey!" Thus we have Nazgul being used here as both a singular and plural noun.



I had no intention of making such a request, so the mis-characterization is unnecessary, I am well aware of the use of Nazgul in both the singular and plural. My request for the use of 'Uruk-hai' in the singular was intended to be serious. We both seem to agree that it does not exist.


----------



## Greenwood

> _Quote by Tar-Elenion_
> Yes, you two produce facts which support your position. When other facts are produced that do not support your position, they tend to be dismissed as contradictory or ambiguous, and thus irrelevant. Unfortunately I do not accept this dismissal on the say so of you two.



Yes, Aragil and I produce facts. You present only your interpretations and claim they are facts. Our facts are in the form of passages from LOTR: an entire chapter titled "The Uruk-hai" about Merry and Pippin in the clutches of Saruman's troops in which these said troops repeatedly call themselves Uruk-hai, Saruman's troops at Helm's Deep again calling themselves Uruk-hai, Gandalf referring to "Uruks from Mordor", a Mordor orc calling himself and compatriots Uruks, etc. Tolkien in the Seige of Gondor chapter refers back to Pippin's captivity and calls Saruman's troops Uruk-hai. These are indeed all facts. You present interpretations and claim they are facts: the statement of the tracker orc is "rebel Uruk-hai", *not* "rebel Mordor Uruk-hai". The latter would be a fact; claiming that the former equals the latter is an interpretation on your part. You claim that some of Gorbag's troops escaped Cirith Ungol, but you present no facts to prove this, just interpretations. You claim Shagrat sent messages before leaving the fortress, but you present no facts, just your speculations. Appendix F does not say "the great soldier orcs of Mordor and Isengard are called Uruk-hai". That would be a fact, but the text does not say it. The text says: "Related. no doubt, was the word _uruk_ of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'." Your claim that uruk and Uruk-hai in these two sentences are equivalent is your interpretation, not a fact.

Our arguments are based on facts and yes, some interpretations based on those facts. Your arguments are based on your interpretations which you then try to treat as facts.


----------



## aragil

*An apology*

All right, Tar-Elenion I'm sorry that my recent posts have become snippy, especially if I have been mis-representing your arguments. I just can't believe that we're still arguing this, as your arguments have seemed to become more speculative and less quote-based recently. Greenwood and I have come up with five contentions regarding why Uruk-hai are a different breed from the Uruks. These contentions are backed up with numerous quotes from the books. I'm sure that each quote is somewhat ambiguous, so if you want to use your usual habit of responding to each quote separately while ignoring the rest I'm sure you'll be able to do it. *The problem is that we've never tried to say that beyond all doubt Uruk-hai are a different breed than Uruks. What we've said is that given all of the evidence in the texts, it is most likely that Uruk-hai are a different breed than Uruks*. We've done our best to keep all of the evidence on the table in our arguments. You seem to be focusing on 'rebel Uruk-hai', and at least temporarily ignoring the rest of the arguments.


> *Originally posted by aragil:
> 3) Could Orcs of different breeds (i.e. Uruks vs. Uruk-hai) be mistaken for eachother (could an Orc really mistake Sam and Frodo for fellow Orcs)?*
> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion:
> 3)Anything is possible, (considering that it happened, certainly)._


(I assume the paranthesis refers to the 'Frodo and Sam as Orcs mistake', not the 'rebel Uruk-hai' mistake) 
It *is* indeed possible that the term 'Uruk-hai' is mistakenly applied to Gorbag's Uruks. Frodo is not a 'sort of dwarf-man', he is a hobbit. Hobbits are '_smaller than Dwarves: less stout and stocky that is, even when they are not actually much shorter._' Frodo did not have a beard, dwarves were bearded as a rule. Frodo could have been described as a 'dwarf-man', but this description would have been inaccurate because Frodo was a slim, beardless, *Hobbit*. Gorbag's Orcs could have been described as 'rebel Uruk-hai', but *there is nothing* that indicates this description was accurate either. Once we realize that 'rebel Uruk-hai' *might* be a mistaken label, it behooves us to look at the rest of the text. What does the rest of the text say? No mention of Uruk-hai belonging to Mordor (unless you've found one and are refusing to enlighten us). So here is what we have:
1)'rebel Uruk-hai' is used in a list of mistaken identities, so it *might* be a mistaken usage (as you acknowledge, anything is possible).
2)Nowhere in the text does Uruk-hai refer to Mordor Orcs.
Examining the above evidence it seems that the *most likely* result of this passage is that Gorbag's Orcs were mistaken for 'rebel Uruk-hai', just as Frodo and Same themselves are later mistaken for Orcs.


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion_
> *Have I said that Treebeard made mis-leading statements about the abilities of Orcs in the sunlight? Has anyone said that? Perhaps you need to reread what it was I said about Treebeard's 'statement'. *


'_He has taken up with foul folk, with the Orcs. Brm, hoom! Worse than that he has been doing something to them; something dangerous. For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, ir has he blended the races of Orcs and Men?_'
"_'What of the dawn?' they jeered. 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. .... "_' 

"_But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun," said Gamling. "And neither will the wild men of the hills. Do you not hear their voices._"

'_Finally, there is a cogent point though horrible to relate. It became clear in time that undoubted Men could under the domination of Morgoth or his agents in a few generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning. There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile..._' 


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion, http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2146&perpage=15&pagenumber=2_
> *As you note, Treebeard does not specifically refer to the Uruk-hai.
> And as JRRT said of Treebeard (and Treebeard's reference to Orcs): "Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot that he does not know or understand."*


Treebeard does not need to say Uruk-hai, the other quotes imply that he is speaking of the Uruk-hai. As you well know Tolkien's letter #153 to Mr. Hastings (a devout Catholic) is regarding whether or not Treebeard attributed the power of creation to Morgoth, not whether Orcs could always endure sunlight. Again I'm sorry if we've mis-characterized your argument here. Even without Treebeard's statement the above quotes give us the following:
1) Saruman's Orcs (the Uruk-hai as they call themselves) 'endure the sun'.
2) Saruman has crossed the breeds of Orcs and Men.
3) Crossing Orcs and Men makes the result (Orc-men, Men-orcs, half-orcs, whatever you'd like to call them) sun-tolerant.
I have assumed your problem with Treebeard was that he was speculating about orcs enduring sunlight. As we look back at the statement it is clear that he is speculating about *how Saruman got sun-enduring Orcs*: did Saruman cross Orcs and Men? As Professor Tolkien later states, Saruman *did* cross orcs and men; and as Gamling says, crossing Orcs with men *does* make the orcs sun-tolerant, so our arboreal friend can be excused for his speculation. If you agree that Treebeard was correct when he said Saruman's Orcs could endure the sun (as the claim of the Uruk-hai implies), then I guess we need never bring up Treebeard's trustworthiness again.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion_
> *What was said re the UT index by CT has already been posted.
> Believe what you want. I choose not to believe CT is a plagiarist (this in no way is to be taken to imply that you are calling CT a plagiarist).*


Are you saying that by giving Foster credit in assistance and then using an idea of his CT becomes a plagiarist? Wouldn't giving his father credit for *parts* of the index and using those parts in his own index be equally plagiarizing by your definition? I have the utmost respect for CT in giving us an idea of how his father invented Middle-Earth. If CT has had to use other's ideas to help him along that does not in any way diminish CT's accomplishments, as he has presented himself with an absolutely monumental task (I'm sure Greenwood agrees with me here). But unless CT is the Almighty, then there is certainly the possibility that his ideas are not in accord with his father's, especially on a subject that is as small in detail as what we are here discussing. Again this in no way reflects poorly on CT, unless you constrain him to be perfect in everything he does.



> _Originally posted by aragil:
> ps. Still waiting for you to produce a statement saying there were Uruk-hai based in Mordor. Before you do this there is no reason to wonder who 'rebel Uruk-hai' refers to- it refers to the Isengarders, as they are the only Uruk-hai mentioned in the text._
> *Originally posted by Tar-Elenion:
> You are more than entitled to your opinion.*


You seem to be implying here that you are under no burden of proof to show that there are Uruk-hai from Mordor when you speculate about the likelihood of 'rebel Uruk-hai' applying to such creatures. I say *seem* because I don't want to be accused of mis-representing your argument. The problem here is that I could say that there were purple dinosaurs in Mordor with yellow polka-dots, nobody could stop me. However, if I wanted others to take my suggestion seriously then I better show some evidence for said creatures, otherwise I'm just blowing smoke.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Why the Uruks belong in Morrrdorrr, while the Uruk-hai reside in Isengard:*

I had to snip for sake of length. I tried to keep the context correct. Refer to initial posts by Aragil for full context.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Contention 1: The Orcs of Isengard always identify themselves as 'Uruk-hai', never as 'Uruks', or 'Us plain-old-Orcs'



We agree, noting the narrative identifies them as Orcs.



> Contention 2: The Uruk-hai are sun-tolerant, which is something strange for Orcs
> This is something we are told from the Silmarillion, through the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Even Orcs which appear to be Sauron's elite Uruks are not as fearless as the Uruk-hai demonstrate themselves to be in the full sunlight. When our good professor spends so much time telling us how much Orcs hate the sun, and then suddenly begins to describe sun-tolerant Orcs, there is a good chance he is doing it on purpose.
> 1)The Silmarillion, p. 127
> 2)Unfinished Tales, p. 285




Both examples take place before the great-soldier orcs (which appeared late in the Third Age) were bred. When the good professor never says that the great soldier-orcs of Mordor are effected by the sun, while saying that the 'Northerners' with them are, could he be doing it on purpose?



> 3)The Hobbit, p. 100



These are lesser Orcs. (Not to mention the external history).



> 4)The Fellowship of the Ring, p. 433 "_The Sun sinks early. The Orcs will not, maybe, come out till after dusk, but we must be far away before nightfall._"
> Of course there were Uruks in Moria, but still the Orcs did not come after the party until nightfall. Can anyone imagine Ugluk and his boys waiting until night to follow the Fellowship?



There were "...Orcs, very many of them... and some are large and evil: black Uruks of Mordor." Some were from Mordor, most were lesser Orcs who we both agree did not like to be out in the sun. Those who eventually pursued all seem to have been lesser Orcs.




> 5)The Two Towers, pp. 64-65 '_"But what are we going to do at sunrise?" said some of the Northerners. "Go on running," said Ugluk. "What do you think? Sit on the grass and wait for the Whiteskins to join the picnic?" "But we can't run in the sunlight." "You'll run with me behind you," said Ugluk._'
> Here we see Ugluk and the Uruk-hai succeeding where the Uruks in Moria failed. Not only do the Uruk-hai come out at night, but they drive the runts of Moria out too.



The 'Moria runts' were not Uruks. They were the lesser Orcs.



> 6)The Two Towers, p. 69 "_Then he saw that the sun was sinking, falling behind the Misty Mountains; shadows reached over the land. The soldiers of Mordor lifted their heads and also began to put on speed_.
> These soldiers of Mordor are Uruks (see post http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=45589#post45589). Yet they clearly do better when the sun is off their backs (or is it mere coincidence that they run faster the moment Tolkien describes the sun going down). The Uruk-hai of Isengard do equally well with sun or no (they care not for the sun).



This is the passage I have been waiting for someone to provide. 
This passage could support your interpretion that they are effected by the sun. However it is said that the 'Northerners were flagging in the rays of the bright sun', not the Mordorians. The Isengarders also put on a burst of speed at this time too. But why are they (all alike) putting on speed? Is it because the sun is going down? Or is it because the 'Whiteskins were coming, riding swiftly, far behind but gaining on the Orcs, like a tide over the flats on folk straying on quicksand'. They run faster, not because the sun is setting, but because of the Rohirrim.



> 7)The Return of the King, p. 138 '_For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; now darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them._'
> Does anybody believe that Sauron would not send Uruks to the battle of Pelannor? Yet here all of the hosts of Mordor are fleeing, Uruk, normal Orc, and Man (and troll-men) alike, just after the mention of that pesky sun. Do the men in the group ever save face?



All of them fleeing? Just because the sun started shining?
Or were they fleeing in terror because unexpectedly, without warning and unchallenged, 6000 heavy cavalry were charging down on them. I rather think the later.



> 8)The Return of the King, p. 148



This passage is refering specifically to those Eomer and his Riders were fighting against (the Southrons and (slightly later) the reserves). The orcs had earlier been driven to the River.



> 9)The Return of the King, p. 151
> Apparently the men do regain their composure, and go down fighting. Surely there is another mention of the Orcs, especially if the Uruks are sun tolerant like the Uruk-hai?



You cited it below in your 10th point. The earlier passage notes that orcs (along with some of the resrves) were driven away by the knights of Dol Amroth. 



> 10)The Return of the King, p. 150 '_East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men and Variags and orcs that hated the sunlight._'
> Bah! Cowards until the end. Could it be beyond coincidence that Tolkien mentions that the Orcs of Mordor hate the sunlight? I don't recall any such passage during the carnage at Helm's Deep.



Thse same Orcs were fighting in the sunlight the whole morning through. That they hated the sunlight is different than the sunlight greatly effected their ability to fight.



> Contention 3: The Uruk-hai are referred to as a new breed with strange un-orcish qualities, the Uruks have been around since TA 2475 (544 years by the time of Helm's Deep), so the two are unlikely to be the same breed.



It has already been acknowledged (by me very early on in this thread) that there were differences between the two. Both varieties were still 'great soldier-orcs'.



> The Two Towers, p. 20 '_<snip>And Aragorn looked on the slain, and he said: "Here lie many that are not folk of Mordor. Some are from the North, from the Misty Mountains, if I know anything of Orcs and their kinds. And here are others strange to me. Their gear is not after the manner of Orcs at all!" There were four goblin-soldiers of greater stature, swart, slant-eyed, with thick legs and large hands. They were armed with short broad-bladed swords, not with the curved scimitars usual with Orcs; and they had bows of yew, in length and shape like the bows of Men._'



Sauron's use short broad bladed swords as well. Sam takes one from among the Orcs at Cirith Ungol and arms Frodo with it. As for the bows, Saruman's tended to be larger in stature, and thus more suited to use the larger bows.



> The Two Towers, p. 32
> The Two Towers, p. 48
> The Two Towers, p. 180



No disagreement with what these passages say here. 



> Contention 4: Uruks of Grishnakh are clearly described in opposition to the Uruk-hai of Ugluk
> please see:
> http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=45589#post45589
> [some portions of the post quoted here]
> The Return of the King, p. 223 'Behind him came Shagrat, a large orc with long arms that, as he ran crouching, reached to the ground.'
> 
> This passage is especially interesting when considering it with the descriptions of Grishnakh and his boys: 'a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground', and 'a couple of score of others like him: long-armed crook-legged Orcs.' What springs out from this passage of course is the repeated mention of long arms.



What also is interesting is that while Grishnakh is 'short', Shagrat is 'large'. Why can't there be different 'breeds' of 'great soldier-orcs' (i.e. Uruk-hai)? They don't all have to be the same. 



> From the Ugluk - Shagrat conversation we can resonably infer that Shagrat is a Uruk (what other sort of Orc would be captain of an entire tower?). I think from the similarity in descriptions it would be reasonable to infer that Grishnakh and Shagrat are the same variety of Orc- Uruks. It could be argued that all Orcs have long arms, but the Orcs of Moria are never described as such. Neither are the Uruk-hai:
> The Two Towers, p. 20
> The Two Towers, p. 67
> If the Uruk-hai were really the same as the Uruks, here would be the optimal place to describe them similarly. Yet he does not: thrice he refers to the 'long arms' of the Uruks, twice he refers to the swarthiness and slant-eyes of the Isengarders.



'Swarthy'= dark skinned. Like the 'black Uruks of Mordor'. Like the 'huge orc-cheiftain, almost man-high, clad in black mail, his broad flat face swart'.




> Conention 5: Uruk-hai are half-orcs, which nobody has ever accused the Uruks of being (that *is* one of Ugluk's faults
> please see:
> http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=45605#post45605



Gamling refers to 'half-orcs and goblin-men' (alomg with the hill men). He _could_ be referring to the Uruk-hai of Saruman (whom I have noted earlier may well have Man blood). Aragorn uses the term 'half-orc' in reference to the 'man-high goblin faced creatures' that Merry speaks of at Isengard and which reminded him of the 'Southerner'. These are not Uruk-hai. They march with the Men, the Uruk-hai do not.
In 'Scouring of the Shire' thse same appear again, 'large ill favoured Men, squint-eyed and sallow-faced' (Sam and Merry liken them to the 'Southerner'and the 'goblin faced men' at Isengard). Pippen cals them 'half-orcs and ruffians'. Merry kills the leader who was 'a great squint-eyed brute like a huge orc'. But thse 'half-orcs' are referred to as Men, not as Orcs nor as Uruk-hai.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Yes, Aragil and I produce facts. You present only your interpretations and claim they are facts.



Read it how you will.



> Our facts are in the form of passages from LOTR: an entire chapter titled "The Uruk-hai" about Merry and Pippin in the clutches of Saruman's troops in which these said troops repeatedly call themselves Uruk-hai, Saruman's troops at Helm's Deep again calling themselves Uruk-hai, Gandalf referring to "Uruks from Mordor", a Mordor orc calling himself and compatriots Uruks, etc. Tolkien in the Seige of Gondor chapter refers back to Pippin's captivity and calls Saruman's troops Uruk-hai. These are indeed all facts. You present interpretations and claim they are facts: the statement of the tracker orc is "rebel Uruk-hai", *not* "rebel Mordor Uruk-hai". The latter would be a fact; claiming that the former equals the latter is an interpretation on your part.



I disagree. Saruman's Uruk-hai are dead. The Uruk-hai here refers to great soldier-orcs of Mordor, specifically those who wrought havoc in the Tower. Even Sam notes that wearing the Morgul gear after what happened in the Tower 'wouldn't do'.



> You claim that some of Gorbag's troops escaped Cirith Ungol, but you present no facts to prove this, just interpretations.



I presented what Snaga said. His statement implies that some got out. Even if none did Orcs were sent out looking for them in case some did. Thes are the 'rebel Uruk-hai'.



> You claim Shagrat sent messages before leaving the fortress, but you present no facts, just your speculations.



I presented what was said in the text. If you don't like it thats your choice.



> Appendix F does not say "the great soldier orcs of Mordor and Isengard are called Uruk-hai". That would be a fact, but the text does not say it. The text says: "Related. no doubt, was the word _uruk_ of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'." Your claim that uruk and Uruk-hai in these two sentences are equivalent is your interpretation, not a fact.



Then you are welcome to dismiss it because it does not agree with your interpreation. It seems obvious to me that Uruk-hai is referring back to the 'great soldier-orcs of Mordor and Isengard'. You interpret it differently. That's your choice. Others can make up their own minds, as to which interpretation is more reasonable. 



> Our arguments are based on facts and yes, some interpretations based on those facts. Your arguments are based on your interpretations which you then try to treat as facts.



Believe what you want. I stand by my position


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: An apology*

The 'quote' function does not seem to be working properly, I have endeavored to keep what I am repying to in context.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> All right, Tar-Elenion I'm sorry that my recent posts have become snippy, especially if I have been mis-representing your arguments. I just can't believe that we're still arguing this, as your arguments have seemed to become more speculative and less quote-based recently.



Apology accepted.
I have provided any number of quotes and citations. I do not care to continuously retype them out (I do not type and do those things takes a long time).



> Greenwood and I have come up with five contentions regarding why Uruk-hai are a different breed from the Uruks. These contentions are backed up with numerous quotes from the books. I'm sure that each quote is somewhat ambiguous, so if you want to use your usual habit of responding to each quote separately while ignoring the rest I'm sure you'll be able to do it. *The problem is that we've never tried to say that beyond all doubt Uruk-hai are a different breed than Uruks. What we've said is that given all of the evidence in the texts, it is most likely that Uruk-hai are a different breed than Uruks*. We've done our best to keep all of the evidence on the table in our arguments. You seem to be focusing on 'rebel Uruk-hai', and at least temporarily ignoring the rest of the arguments.
> [and]
> You seem to be implying here that you are under no burden of proof to show that there are Uruk-hai from Mordor when you speculate about the likelihood of 'rebel Uruk-hai' applying to such creatures. <snip>



The 'rebel Uruk-hai' (and App F.) seem to be the crux of the debate.
I have not seen any (what I would consider) reasonable explanation for the 'rebel Uruk-hai' being something other than Mordor Orcs. I don't consider it reasonable or even possible that it was believed that pack of Saruman's snuck into Mordor.

I think Saruman's Uruk-hai were a different breed than Sauron's. Both were still 'great soldier-orcs'. Even some of Saurons 'great soldier-orcs' seem to have been of different 'breeds' from each other. But they were all 'Uruk-hai', great soldier-orcs. Different 'breeds' within a 'race'

About my 'usual habit', that is how I am used to responding. I personally don't see any point to responding to things I agree with (at least not any more than to say I agree). I think if you look at those quotes that I do respond to, if they are tied in together I respond similarly to them (for example in my above post regarding the effect of sunlight on Sauron's Orcs, you supplied some quotes from the 'Uruk-hai', 'Ride of the Rohirrim' and 'Pelennor Fields' chapters implying that Sauron's Orcs were directly effected by the sun. In these circumstance however, it seems to me that it is more likely that they were effected by forces of the good guys charging down on them), or try to address them together.



> (I assume the paranthesis refers to the 'Frodo and Sam as Orcs mistake', not the 'rebel Uruk-hai' mistake)
> It is indeed possible that the term 'Uruk-hai' is mistakenly applied to Gorbag's Uruks. Frodo is not a 'sort of dwarf-man', he is a hobbit. Hobbits are 'smaller than Dwarves: less stout and stocky that is, even when they are not actually much shorter.' Frodo did not have a beard, dwarves were bearded as a rule. Frodo could have been described as a 'dwarf-man', but this description would have been inaccurate because Frodo was a slim, beardless, Hobbit. Gorbag's Orcs could have been described as 'rebel Uruk-hai', but there is nothing that indicates this description was accurate either. Once we realize that 'rebel Uruk-hai' might be a mistaken label, it behooves us to look at the rest of the text. What does the rest of the text say? No mention of Uruk-hai belonging to Mordor (unless you've found one and are refusing to enlighten us). So here is what we have:
> 1)'rebel Uruk-hai' is used in a list of mistaken identities, so it might be a mistaken usage (as you acknowledge, anything is possible).
> 2)Nowhere in the text does Uruk-hai refer to Mordor Orcs.
> Examining the above evidence it seems that the most likely result of this passage is that Gorbag's Orcs were mistaken for 'rebel Uruk-hai', just as Frodo and Same themselves are later mistaken for Orcs.



Re the parenthesis. Yes, in that context.
Frodo is a 'sort of dwarf-man'. He is a Hobbit. Hobbits are Men. Hobbits are smaller than both Men and Dwarves (and dont have beards). Hence a 'sort of small dwarf-man' seems an entirely apt description of them. It might have been more accurate if the Orc's were told to look for a 'Hobbit', but the Orcs do not know what a 'Hobbit' is.
I don't consider it reasonable that Gorbag's Orcs were mistaken for 'rebel Uruk-hai' (*I will presume that the context you are using this in means Isengarders*). There have been great pains taken to point out that Saruman's Uruks looked different than Sauron's. Even Sam notes that it would be dangerous to be seen in Morgul gear after what happened in the Tower.



> I have assumed your problem with Treebeard was that he was speculating about orcs enduring sunlight. As we look back at the statement it is clear that he is speculating about how Saruman got sun-enduring Orcs: did Saruman cross Orcs and Men? As Professor Tolkien later states, Saruman did cross orcs and men; and as Gamling says, crossing Orcs with men does make the orcs sun-tolerant, so our arboreal friend can be excused for his speculation. If you agree that Treebeard was correct when he said Saruman's Orcs could endure the sun (as the claim of the Uruk-hai implies), then I guess we need never bring up Treebeard's trustworthiness again.



I have not said they could not endure the sunlight. IIRC the point I was making in those posts was that Treebeard was speculating on their origins. This was as I recall in reference to them being 'half-orcs'. I have said early on in this thread that it is likely that Saruman used Men in breeding his Uruk-hai. What I dont agree with is that the Uruk-hai are actually the 'half-orcs'. The 'half-orcs' are seperately described by Merry and Aragorn ('goblin faced men', the 'Southerner' and, at least, some of the 'ruffians').



> Are you saying that by giving Foster credit in assistance and then using an idea of his CT becomes a plagiarist? Wouldn't giving his father credit for parts of the index and using those parts in his own index be equally plagiarizing by your definition? I have the utmost respect for CT in giving us an idea of how his father invented Middle-Earth. If CT has had to use other's ideas to help him along that does not in any way diminish CT's accomplishments, as he has presented himself with an absolutely monumental task (I'm sure Greenwood agrees with me here). But unless CT is the Almighty, then there is certainly the possibility that his ideas are not in accord with his father's, especially on a subject that is as small in detail as what we are here discussing. Again this in no way reflects poorly on CT, unless you constrain him to be perfect in everything he does.



If CT 'borrowed' that from Foster, and did not credit him, then yes I would say that is plagiarism. (He refers the reader to Foster to find references elswhere (e.g. in LotR and Sil.) if needed so he does not have to supply constant reference to them himself; he does not say that he borrowed from Foster). There has been no reasonable suggestion of why he would 'borrow' that from Foster. I do not consider suggestions that he did not want to disagree with Foster to be reasonable. He did not spend a couple of decades of his life preparing and publishing his father's manuscripts to make sure they were in accord with what is in RF's guide.
No, I would not consider it to be plagiarism, to not give individual and specific credit to his father for each entry. He explains the index adequately. He states that he used for it part of his fathers original index for LotR. If he did not base that on his fathers index, why would he make it up. If he did simply make it up why does he not note it, if not in the index, then elsewhere? If he was going to make up things, why did he not make up an entry specifically defining '-hai' in the index (or Oghor-hai)? Because his father did not provide such a definition? He says that he 'has added notes on the meaning of hitherto untranslated names'. Where did these 'notes' come from? I don't think he made them up. 
The most reasonable explanation is that he drew that entry from his father's index. It is not contradicted by the corpus.
If this is not a reasonable explanation to you, I would like to see a more reasonable explanation.


----------



## aragil

*Approaching a conclusion?*

We seem to nearly agree on contention 1. You note that the narrative identifies the Uruk-hai as Orcs. I agree, and further note that Treebeard identifies the sun-tolerant troops of Saruman as Orcs. Furthermore the narrative later identifies Pippin in the clutches of the Uruk-hai, but always refers to the slave driving orcs and the orcs from Barad-dur (the column slamming into F&S's column) as Uruks.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion to contention 2_
> *Both examples take place before the great-soldier orcs (which appeared late in the Third Age) were bred. When the good professor never says that the great soldier-orcs of Mordor are effected by the sun, while saying that the 'Northerners' with them are, could he be doing it on purpose?
> These are lesser Orcs. (Not to mention the external history).*


The quotes from Silmarillion, UT, and Hobbit were not intended to address the soldier Orcs of Mordor. They are intended to back up Treebeard's statement that older creatures could not abide the sun. This increases our awareness of his comment that the orcs (as he calls them) of Saruman (not Saruman and Sauron) could endure the sun. The Soldier Orcs of Mordor are addressed below.


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion to contention 2_
> *There were "...Orcs, very many of them... and some are large and evil: black Uruks of Mordor." Some were from Mordor, most were lesser Orcs who we both agree did not like to be out in the sun. Those who eventually pursued all seem to have been lesser Orcs.
> *


I would say that the Orcs that survive Lorien seemed to all be lesser Orcs except for Grishnakh. Still, this begs the question, why didn't the Uruks in Moria immediately pursue, when the Uruk-hai of Isengard moved no matter what the sun was doing? The Uruks of Moria were sent to intercept the Fellowship, and they indeed pursued them after nightfall right into the Golden Wood. Wouldn't it have been in their interest to follow in the daylight, if they were capable of it?


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion to contention 2_
> *The 'Moria runts' were not Uruks. They were the lesser Orcs. *


Absolutely. But the Uruks in Moria could not drive the Moria runts into the sun, nor did they find it necessary to come out themselves until it was dark. The Uruk-hai of Isengard do both of these things.


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion to contention 2_
> *The Isengarders also put on a burst of speed at this time too. But why are they (all alike) putting on speed? Is it because the sun is going down? Or is it because the 'Whiteskins were coming, riding swiftly, far behind but gaining on the Orcs, like a tide over the flats on folk straying on quicksand'. They run faster, not because the sun is setting, but because of the Rohirrim.*


The timeline runs thus: Isengarders put on speed, Tolkien describes sun going down, Mordor Orcs put on speed. Earlier (sun up) we note that the Isengarders move faster than the Mordor orcs b/c they are hardier and stronger, and they move faster than the Moria orcs because of the sun. Is it impossible to believe that the Isengarders are stronger and hardier *because* they're more tolerant of the sun? What is Tolkien doing throwing out all of these sun references if not to convince us of this fact? Why do the Uruk-hai say they aren't worried about the dawn at Helm's Deep, and why does Treebeard seem so perplexed about the sun-tolerance of Saruman's orcs? Maybe Tolkien thought if he put enough of these references in his books it would be a more subtle way of getting the point across than a direct statement. Too subtle, apparently.


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion to contention 2_
> *All of them fleeing? Just because the sun started shining?
> Or were they fleeing in terror because unexpectedly, without warning and unchallenged, 6000 heavy cavalry were charging down on them. I rather think the later.
> This passage is refering specifically to those Eomer and his Riders were fighting against (the Southrons and (slightly later) the reserves). The orcs had earlier been driven to the River.
> You cited it below in your 10th point. The earlier passage notes that orcs (along with some of the resrves) were driven away by the knights of Dol Amroth.
> Thse same Orcs were fighting in the sunlight the whole morning through. That they hated the sunlight is different than the sunlight greatly effected their ability to fight.
> *


Of course they were running because of *both* the morning (unexpected disintegration of Sauron's clouds) *and* the arrival of the Rohirrim, which is probably why Tolkien chooses to describe Sauron's clouds disintegrating. The interesting thing is that the *men* are later described as rallying, but the *orcs* are never mentioned fighting again, just being routed *and* hating the sunlight. The Orcs are driven into the river on p. 150, the Haradrim are earlier rallying on p. 148. Men were able to rally, before the orcs are driven into the river. The Orcs were not, they were too preoccupied with the sun. 
The Orcs were not fighting all morning in the sunlight, they were being driven to the river in a rout, unless you can produce a quote from the text saying that they were fighting (I've already produced two saying they were routing all day). 
Saying that the Orcs hate sunlight while they are being routed is the _subtle_ way of saying that the sun is affecting their fighting ability.


On Contention 3 we largely seem to agree, in any case most of the points here are covered in other contentions. However, I notice that Strider does say that the gear of the Isengarders is different from the gear of other Orcs in his experience. In his youth he fought in Southern Gondor within 80 years of the Uruk attacks on Ithilien, surely he has encountered Mordor Soldiers before? Perhaps his remarks have to do with the fact that the Isengarders bear weapons normally only men could bear, and men are larger than orcs. How did the Isengarders get so large- see contention #5.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion to contention 4_
> *What also is interesting is that while Grishnakh is 'short', Shagrat is 'large'. Why can't there be different 'breeds' of 'great soldier-orcs' (i.e. Uruk-hai)? They don't all have to be the same.*


Grishnakh is described as short in relation to Ugluk. However, the other Orcs around him are described as being even smaller. Shagrat is described as large in relation to Snaga (the only other Orc around). They could be exactly the same height, which reminds me why it is useful to pay attention to the context of the quote. Why can't there be different breeds of great soldier-orcs? I believe that is what Greenwood and I are contending. We think that the different breeds even have different names- Uruk instead of Uruk-hai.


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion to contention 4_
> *'Swarthy'= dark skinned. Like the 'black Uruks of Mordor'. Like the 'huge orc-cheiftain, almost man-high, clad in black mail, his broad flat face swart'.*


The Uruk-hai were described in a similar way to the Chieftan from Moria because they were originally conceived to *be* the orcs from the Moria, see HoME V. 7, p. 347, note 18. Black skin is not requisite for being a Uruk, the tracker of RotK is described as '_black-skinned, with wide and snuffling nostrils._' Is he also a 'great soldier-Orc'?




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion to contention 5_
> *Gamling refers to 'half-orcs and goblin-men' (along with the hill men). He _could_ be referring to the Uruk-hai of Saruman (whom I have noted earlier may well have Man blood). Aragorn uses the term 'half-orc' in reference to the 'man-high goblin faced creatures' that Merry speaks of at Isengard and which reminded him of the 'Southerner'. These are not Uruk-hai.*


What Gamling does not refer to is plain 'orcs'. Yet the context of his statement indicates that 'half-orcs', 'goblin-men', and 'hill-men' is inclusive of all of Saruman's forces. Tolkien in Morgoth's Ring refers to 'orc-men' and 'men-orcs' as different entities. I would say that 'goblin-men', 'men with goblin faces', 'southerner at Bree', and 'ruffians in the Shire' fall into the category of 'orc-men', who apparently are sallow-faced and slant-eyed. Where do we see the 'men-orcs'? Why, they would be the 'half-orcs' of Gamling, or the 'Uruk-hai', as they call themselves. They are large (and cunning), with swarthy skin and squint eyes. Pretty neat- The Uruk-hai and the goblin-men lie on a continuum from the 'Black Uruks of Mordor' to the (presumably) white-skinned Dunlanders! Skin color in this case must be an indicator of the amount of Orc blood. However, if you really do admit that the Uruk-hai of Isengard might have some mannish blood, then our differences of opinion on this contention seem merely cosmetic.



I guess it's now worth noting that you agree that the Soldier Orcs of Mordor might be a different breed from the Soldier Orcs of Isengard, and further that the breed from Isengard might be enhanced with 'mannish' blood. I guess your main problem is whether or not these different breeds have different names. Shouldn't your biggest problem be with contention 1? Yet you agree that the Isengarders call themselves Uruk-hai, while Gorbag calls himself a Uruk. Why are we still debating (or are we)?


----------



## Grond

You know, there are a lot of interesting threads in this Forum. This one is unresolveable. Ain't no body gonna move and everyone is wasting everyone else's time. But if WM got the space..... keep on!!


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Approaching a conclusion?*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> I would say that the Orcs that survive Lorien seemed to all be lesser Orcs except for Grishnakh. Still, this begs the question, why didn't the Uruks in Moria immediately pursue, when the Uruk-hai of Isengard moved no matter what the sun was doing? The Uruks of Moria were sent to intercept the Fellowship, and they indeed pursued them after nightfall right into the Golden Wood. Wouldn't it have been in their interest to follow in the daylight, if they were capable of it?
> [and]
> Absolutely. But the Uruks in Moria could not drive the Moria runts into the sun, nor did they find it necessary to come out themselves until it was dark. The Uruk-hai of Isengard do both of these things.




Perhaps they were disconcerted at the death of the Balrog and took time to organize. Maybe there were to few Moria Uruks left to force the lesser Orcs to go out into the sun, and too few to seriously attempt pursuing the Fellowship near Lorien by themselves. 
However, were _Uruks_ of Moria actually sent out to pursue the Fellowship? The 'Northerners' say they 'came to kill and avenge their folk'. There are no mentions of 'Uruks' with them. Grishnakh comes from across the 'Great River', not from Moria.




> The timeline runs thus: Isengarders put on speed, Tolkien describes sun going down, Mordor Orcs put on speed. Earlier (sun up) we note that the Isengarders move faster than the Mordor orcs b/c they are hardier and stronger, and they move faster than the Moria orcs because of the sun. Is it impossible to believe that the Isengarders are stronger and hardier because they're more tolerant of the sun? What is Tolkien doing throwing out all of these sun references if not to convince us of this fact? Why do the Uruk-hai say they aren't worried about the dawn at Helm's Deep, and why does Treebeard seem so perplexed about the sun-tolerance of Saruman's orcs? Maybe Tolkien thought if he put enough of these references in his books it would be a more subtle way of getting the point across than a direct statement.




The passage reads thus:
[Isengarders jeer at the Northerners that the Whiteskins are coming and will kill them. Grishnakh, sighting the horsemen, cries out. They were swftly riding down the Orcs]
"The Isengarders began to run with a redoubled pace that astonished Pippin. a terrific spurt it seemed for the end of a race. Then he saw the sun was sinking, falling behind the Misty Mountains; shadows reached over the land. The soldiers of Mordor lifted their heads and also began to put on speed. The forest was dark and close. [Orcs start to enter the forest]... but the Orcs did not halt. Both Ugluk and Grishnakh shouted, spurring them on to a last effort."
I dont read any appreciable time difference here. The Isengarders pick up the pace and only then does Pippin note the sun is setting. The Mordor Orcs also put on speed. 
I dont read it that: 'The Isengarders put on speed. Time elapses. Pippin sees that the sun is setting. Mordor orcs put on speed'.
That this is all happening virtually simultaneously, is how I read it.
If Tolkien wants to say that the Mordor Orcs are greatly effected by the sun, why does he not say so? Why does he only directly note the effect on the lesser Orcs? 




> Of course they were running because of both the morning (unexpected disintegration of Sauron's clouds) and the arrival of the Rohirrim, which is probably why Tolkien chooses to describe Sauron's clouds disintegrating. The interesting thing is that the men are later described as rallying, but the orcs are never mentioned fighting again, just being routed and hating the sunlight. The Orcs are driven into the river on p. 150, the Haradrim are earlier rallying on p. 148. Men were able to rally, before the orcs are driven into the river. The Orcs were not, they were too preoccupied with the sun.
> The Orcs were not fighting all morning in the sunlight, they were being driven to the river in a rout, unless you can produce a quote from the text saying that they were fighting (I've already produced two saying they were routing all day).
> Saying that the Orcs hate sunlight while they are being routed is the subtle way of saying that the sun is affecting their fighting ability.



After the initial rout by the Rohirrim, and the death of the Witch-king, it is stated that men from the City drove against the legions of Morgul that were gathered in strength at the south walls, these had not been routed until they were attacked (though the sun was shining). Then the Enemy's reserves are sent in. Now the tide is turning again. Then the Corsairs are seen. A great press of Eomers 'first foes' are between him and Harlond, while 'new foes' cut Eomer off from Imrahil. It is realized that the 'Corsairs' are actually allies. Imrahil then charges into those that cut him off and they include Orcs along with Variags and the troll-men.



> On Contention 3 we largely seem to agree, in any case most of the points here are covered in other contentions. However, I notice that Strider does say that the gear of the Isengarders is different from the gear of other Orcs in his experience. In his youth he fought in Southern Gondor within 80 years of the Uruk attacks on Ithilien, surely he has encountered Mordor Soldiers before? Perhaps his remarks have to do with the fact that the Isengarders bear weapons normally only men could bear, and men are larger than orcs. How did the Isengarders get so large- see contention #5.



Yes, and you previously noted about the short broad bladed swords. I pointed out that Sam armed Frodo with a short broad bladed sword that he got from the Orcs at Cirith Ungol. What we have no instance of is Mordor Orcs using longbows. But they tend to be shorter in stature than the Isengarders. 





> Grishnakh is described as short in relation to Ugluk. However, the other Orcs around him are described as being even smaller. Shagrat is described as large in relation to Snaga (the only other Orc around). They could be exactly the same height, which reminds me why it is useful to pay attention to the context of the quote. Why can't there be different breeds of great soldier-orcs? I believe that is what Greenwood and I are contending. We think that the different breeds even have different names- Uruk instead of Uruk-hai.



Sam notes a large dead orc on the threshold.
The huge Orc in Moria that spears Frodo is noted as 'almost Man-high'.
Do you think the Uruk-hai of Isengard are this tall as well?

I am contending that the 'great soldier-orcs' are in the Black Speech collectively referred to as Uruk-hai (and singularly as Uruk). There are different breeds among the Uruk-hai.




> The Uruk-hai were described in a similar way to the Chieftan from Moria because they were originally conceived to be the orcs from the Moria, see HoME V. 7, p. 347, note 18. Black skin is not requisite for being a Uruk, the tracker of RotK is described as 'black-skinned, with wide and snuffling nostrils.'



In your original statement...
(aragil wrote
"If the Uruk-hai were really the same as the Uruks, here would be the optimal place to describe them similarly. Yet he does not: thrice he refers to the 'long arms' of the Uruks, twice he refers to the swarthiness and slant-eyes of the Isengarders."

...you seemed to imply that you thought the one of the differences of the Isengarders was their 'swarthiness'. I pointed out non-Isengarders that were 'swarthy' as well. 
Note 18 does not say they were from Moria. It says they were from the Misty Mountains, and bear Merry and Pippen to Isengard, but see also pages 378-9, both lesser Orcs and greater were present.
A better reference to the Uruks in Moria is pg 205, n.5.




> What Gamling does not refer to is plain 'orcs'. Yet the context of his statement indicates that 'half-orcs', 'goblin-men', and 'hill-men' is inclusive of all of Saruman's forces. Tolkien in Morgoth's Ring refers to 'orc-men' and 'men-orcs' as different entities. I would say that 'goblin-men', 'men with goblin faces', 'southerner at Bree', and 'ruffians in the Shire' fall into the category of 'orc-men', who apparently are sallow-faced and slant-eyed. Where do we see the 'men-orcs'? Why, they would be the 'half-orcs' of Gamling, or the 'Uruk-hai', as they call themselves. They are large (and cunning), with swarthy skin and squint eyes.
> <snip>
> However, if you really do admit that the Uruk-hai of Isengard might have some mannish blood, then our differences of opinion on this contention seem merely cosmetic.



I would posit that the Men-orcs (large and cunning) refer to the goblin faced men, while the Orc-men (treacherous and vile) refer to those used as spies like the Southerner (who was less Orc-like), and these are the 'half-orcs'. Both may have been present in the Shire. Pippen cals some of those in the Shire half-orcs, while Aragorn calls the goblin faced men 'half-orcs'.

Do you think the Uruk-hai are of 'man-height'?

I have already noted that the Isengarders might have 'man-blood' much earlir in the thread.





> I guess it's now worth noting that you agree <snip>



I have noted these very early in this thread, or they have been addressed elsewhere in this post.
If you wish to continue please do so.


----------



## Greenwood

> _Quote by Tar-Elenion_
> That Sam sees a light suddenly flaring and considers that it may be a signal, lends credence to the fact that it may be a signal along with the stated intention of good loyal Shagrat to send messages to Barad-dur (this is the evidence that you said was not there:
> "There is no evidence that Shagrat got any message off other than what he took himself when he ran from Sam."
> That the windows same saw 'were facing the wrong way' does not mean that there were not others facing the right way.
> It was hard for a signal to go from Rohan to Minas Tirith (distance and all that), but it did.
> When was the Nazgul dispatched? How many messages had Shagrat sent? When did he send his first? Frodo was taken on the 13th, rescued on the 14th. Quite some time had passed. How much time passed between the 'signal' Sam noted and the arrival of the Nazgul. Sam 'sat down' for a while. He crept along for a time. He was moving with care. It seems there was enough time to me. Perhaps the Nazgul felt something was wrong and wanted to observe what it was, before landing.



The question of Gorbag's orcs escaping and Shagrat's alledged messages is somewhat of a side issue on this thread, but since you like to look at evidence from sources outside LOTR, let us see what the HoME has to say on these issues. On p. 24 of the hardcover printing of Sauron defeated we find the following outline of Tolkien's quoted by CT: "Sam kills the orc and the other runs off yelling for Shagrat. ...... Sam follows. He overhears the orc reporting to Shagrat. Shagrat iks lying wounded by dead body of Gorbag. All Gorbag's men have been killed, but they have killed all Shagrat's but these two." On the same page, after an editorial note by CT we have: "Shagrat has in vain tried to get messages away to Baraddur. The Quarrel arose about the treasures. ....." Thus we see that when he was planning the chapter Tolkien meant for all Gorbag's orcs to be killed and he meant for no messages from Shagrat to have gotten out. Now as I have always said, these are secondary materials and Tolkien was free to change his mind in the final version, but there is no evidence except for your suppositions that Tolkien did chnage his mind. The final version contains nothing that contradicts the basic outline above (except that Sam doesn't kill an orc). In your argument you do your usual tactic of pointing to an ambiguous passage in the text, in this case Sam seeing a light and wondering if it is a signal, you state that this "lends credence to the fact that it *may* be a signal" and then you proceed on from there as if your contention is a proven fact, when it is merely your supposition with no hard evidence to prove it. As for the window itself, I have shown that the window Sam saw the light in faces the wrong way. Your only response is that maybe there were others facing the right way. First you have no evidence for these other alledged windows and second, if they did exist why is the supposed signal being flashed from the wrong window. Sam may have just seen the light of a torch being carried past the window. If you can posit the existence of windows that are not mentioned in the text, I can suggest torches being carried past windows. As for invoking the difficulty of getting a signal between Minas Tirith and Rohan, we are told in the text how this is done: relays of messenger riders and signal towers on heights. There is no evidence for either of these existing in Mordor.

As for the time period you invoke as allowing lots of time for Shagrat to send a message, one of the things that is quite clear when reading the first two chapters of Sauron Defeated ('The Story of Frodo and Sam in Mordor' and 'The Tower of Kirith Ungol') is how much Tolkien wrestled with his timeline for Frodo and Sam at Cirith Ungol and in Mordor. Tolkien kept adding and shifting events between days to get things to match up with events in other parts of the story in Rohan and Gondor. In the end he seems to have done the best he could and relegated the timeline to the appendix where it is not obvious that parts of it just do not fit the narrative. The timeline given in Appendix B for the events around Cirith Ungol is as follows: March 12 - Gollum leads Frodo into Shelob's lair, March 13 - Frodo captured by the orcs of Cirith Ungol, March 14 - Sam finds Frodo in the tower, March 15 - Frodo and Sam escape and begin their journey north along the Morgai. Even if you have Gollum leading Frodo and Sam into Shelob's lair a little before midnight on March 12 and Frodo and Sam escaping early on March 15 it seems impossible to stretch the described events at Cirith Ungol into the more than 48 hours you need to fit this timeline. Tolkien finessed it by having Sam knock himself senseless for an undetermined amount of time at the lower gate into the Tower, but you would have to have Sam unconscious down there for well over 24 hours to fit the above timeline. I wonder how many readers ever thought that Sam was knocked out for something like a day and a half down there in the tunnels?


----------



## Grond

Why won't anyone admit that Shagrat himself could have delivered a message to a subordinate to pass on to some Superior or Nazgul? He could have run into another Ungol Orc (surely all of the Orcs of Cirith Ungol were not killed) and simply told him to report to the Nazgul of Gorbag's rebellion. It would be called rebellion since he tried to pinch the coat against orders that nothing was to be taken. Shagrat wouldn't have hung around, he wanted to get the "spoils" to Mordor himself and get his just reward.

I'm not sure that happened, but for Greenwood and Aragil continuing to deny the possibility is beyond me. I still adhere to my opinion of the Uruk-hai as Uruks of Insengard exclusively, but feel you two are being blinded by your devotion to your convictions. It is time to admit that it could have happened and stand by your original opinions; but, allow that Tar-Elenion and Cian may be right.... just not in your opinion.

Closed-mindedness never leads to productive dialogue or conclusions.


----------



## Greenwood

> Why won't anyone admit that Shagrat himself could have delivered a message to a subordinate to pass on to some Superior or Nazgul?



Grond

If by the above you mean that Shagrat may have made a second-hand report to the "higher-ups" after he left Cirith Ungol with the mithril coat, I have no problem with that. (I cannot speak for Aragil.) 



> surely all of the Orcs of Cirith Ungol were not killed



It is clearly stated in the chapter 'The Tower of Cirith Ungol' by Snaga that all of Shagrat's orcs were killed.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

In the outlines contained in Sauron Defeated (pgs 8-10) we can note several instance of JRRT 'changing his mind'.
Outline III notes that Shagrat persuades Gorbag not to send messages at once, then several lines later Frodo is rescued and Shagrat sends a message to Baradur.(JRRT seems to have not made up his mind at this point which name should go with which Orc). He also posits that the message may be sent by signal. A Nazgul arrives and takes Frodo's gear.
Outline IV is similar, no message is sent for some time, Shagrat and Gorbag fight, Gorbag (Master of the Tower) wins and sends two men to Barad-dur. Later in that outline it is again said a message is sent.
Outline V notes that Gorbag send a swift runner to Barad-dur and a Nazgul is sent to Ungol in return, and finds the 'Tower full of dead and the prisoner flown'.
In a description of the Tower (draft A, pg. 20) we note that windows stated over the plains of Lithlad and Gorgoroth with black blank eyes. We also read that some of the windows formed a line of red lit holes.
What you quoted above is found on an isolated slip of paper that CT notes is very likely a continuation of the next outline (Draft B), and Shagrat put things together to send to Lugburz.
After that CT notes that his father began the Chapter again with 'D' on the basis of A and B but differening only slightly from RotK (draft C was 'barely comprehensible' but D 'closely followed' it in 'fair copy').

Various timelines are also noted in SD.

Please refer to SD for full context, I am only (all to) briefly outlining the passages. There is other commentary to be had from the book.

In any event interpret it how you want.


----------



## aragil

Grond- I'm happy to explore any possibility, I just think that possibilities with support from the book should be considered 'closer to what Tolkien intended' than possibilities which are not supported by the book.
Having recently purchased the History of the Lord of the Rings, I'm still learning exactly how Tolkien laid out his story, and how he was continually updating it. Having said that, I think that the information which the tracker and soldier discuss was probably a result of one of the earlier drafts. By all indications, none of Shagrat's party made it out of the tower between the time Frodo was discovered, and the time the fighting broke out. The only Orc of any sorts implicated to leave the tower after the fighting broke out was Shagrat. If Shagrat delivered the report while running to Barad-dur, I tend to think he would have given a better description of Sam (who he had encountered and thwarted in combat) than a 'great Elf', and he could have given a better description of Frodo than a 'dwarf-man'. Grishnakh and Ugluk both seemed to be familiar enough with 'Halflings', and Gorbag, Shagrat, the soldier, and the tracker all seemed to be familiar with Gollum. I also think that had Shagrat reported along the way he wouldn't have given a damn about whatever leaderless pack of Gorbag's boys might have escaped. They posed no further threat to Mordor, while spies which had found their way into Mordor would have posed an enormous threat, and would have been hunted in far greater numbers than we have evidence for in the text. I believe that if Shagrat had been the origin of the rumors, then they would have had much more accurate descriptions. If the Nazgul had gotten wind of anything resembling 'dwarf-man', I'm sure they would have figured it to be a Hobbit, especially if they heard 'beardless dwarf-man'. I feel relatively sure that a Nazgul hearing of a Hobbit would have reported immediately to the 'Biggest Boss', and again we would have had a horde of Orcs, Trolls, Nazgul, Men, Variags, what have you descending immediately upon our poor Hobbits.
This brings about the salient point of the argument- the two Orcs have no idea what they are looking for! *The entire passage is about how dis-satisfied the two Orcs are with the descriptions given by the Higher-Ups!!* The tracker ends up becoming so sick of the orders that he kills the soldier. If the Higher Ups were getting reliable information on what was going on then 'every Orc ever spawned' would have been pursuing Frodo and Sam right up to the cracks of doom. Fortunately, the Higher Ups were apparently getting confusing reports, and for that reason the orders that they sent out were confusing to the tracker and Soldier which Sam overheard. I will allow that perhaps Shagrat might have got off some sort of message prior to the fight. What I won't allow is that Shagrat absolutely, positively ID'd Gorbag's band, while not caring to give a good description of the two spies which he saw quite clearly with his own eyes. Gorbag's band was not planning to invade and conquer Mordor, Shagrat knew this so I don't think he'd characterize them as 'rebel Uruk-hai'. He certainly wouldn't have given the 'disciplining' of whatever Orcs of Gorbag's which might have escaped the same sense of urgency as catching the two spies which he knew were now running around Mordor!
The fact of the matter is that the report of a 'great Elf', and a 'dwarf-man' was unreliable. Therefore, 'rebel Uruk-hai' *does not need* to accurately describe Gorbag's Orcs. I have seen no more evidence that Gorbag commanded Uruk-hai than I have seen to suggest that Sam is in fact a 'great Elf' in disguise. I have repeatedly allowed Tar-Elenion latitude in personal interpretation. I just don't think that a lot of his interpretation is supported by the texts. 

For the argument that 'rebel Uruk-hai' unambiguously refers to Gorbag's troops you need the following four items from the text:
1)Examples of Uruk-hai which are soldiers of Mordor (satisfied if Gorbag's troops are proved to be Uruk-hai)
2)A reliable report to the Higher Ups saying that Gorbag's troops are rebelling against Mordor
3)The reliable report reaching the Higher Ups in time for the response to include the soldier and tracker

If #1 was correct then this thread would not exist. There is no evidence that Sauron employed Uruk-hai, or that Gorbag's boys were Uruk-hai. Gorbag says that he is a Uruk, but never claims to be a Uruk-hai. The only Orcs which ever claim to be Uruk-hai are Saruman's. The only Orcs the narrator ever describes as Uruk-hai are Saruman's troops. The narrator always refers to soldier Orcs of Mordor as Uruks. You can not assume that #1 is true to prove this passage refers to Uruk-hai of Mordor, then say that this passage proves that there were Uruk-hai of Mordor. That would be circular (infuriatingly so). First you need to show that there were Uruk-hai soldiers in Mordor, *then* this passage can refer to them. Until then this passage refers to the only Uruk-hai which Tolkien ever describes: the Uruk-hai of Isengard. The report of Shagrat would definitely satisfy #2, but runs afoul of #3 because Shagrat does not reach Barad-dur until March 17th, the day after Sam overhears the Soldier and Tracker (subsequent to which I agree with Tar-Elenion, Shagrat was probably executed for all his troubles in spite of the fact that he did everything he could in sevice of the Dark Lord). It is undeniable that a report occurs before the Tracker and Soldier were sent out, so the question becomes 'How reliable was this report?' The fact that Sam is referred to as a 'great Elf' is compelling evidence that the report recieved by the Higher Ups is decidedly *un*reliable. But, since I can't even convince Tar-Elenion that Frodo is in fact a Hobbit, and not a dwarf-Man, I doubt I will ever convince him that the information is unreliable. Perhaps I can convince him that the 'great Elf' sent the 'rebel Uruk-hai' into Mordor, as I have as much evidence for Uruk-hai in the service of a great Elf as he has evidence for Uruk-hai in the service of Mordor.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

Gorbag on Frodo:
"Lugburz wants it, eh? What is it, d'you think? Elvish it looked to me but undersized. What's the danger in a thing like that?"
Shagrat responds:
"Don't know till we've had a look."
"Oho! So they haven't told you what to expect?..."

Other descriptions:
"Got him? Got who? This little fellow?"
"Nar - this little filth, he'll wake up, in a few hours..."


Shagrat on Gollum:
"You must have seen him: little thin fellow; like a spider himself, or perhaps more like a starved frog."


----------



## Grond

I'm not really arguing with you logic Aragil. I'm just saying it isn't definitive. I always thought the great Elf in bright armor referred to Frodo (superb mithril coat) and that Sam would have been deemed the small dwarf-man (seems to fit my mental image of Sam). I am sure that Shagrat despoiled Frodo and would have known just what he looked like. Frodo was fair in face and could easily have been taken for a small Elf. Great Elf could have referred to his bearing and not his stature. And he saw Sam for only a second. Sam had his Elven-cloak on and was bearing Sting. I would imagine he looked pretty fierce but was beardless.... hence, the description of dwarf-man. I also have a problem with anyone considering rebel Uruk-hai of Isengard actually seeking to invade Mordor. As a great war is beginning to be engaged, there are rebel Uruk-hai of Isengard presumably roaming about trying to get into Mordor. Whassup up with that? That is the most unbelievable argument of all and one that beats me on the head as I still try to keep my initial feeling towards the Uruk-hai as being exclusively Isengarders. JRRT just wouldn't have thrown that in. It is too far fetched to believe. 

You speak of arguments being circular. It is maddenly circular that the Great-orcs of Saruman refer to themselves as the "Uruk-hai of Isengard". Why not just say as before, "we are the mighty Uruk-hai."

This whole dissertation has me more confused than when I began. There is no definitive answer and argue as we will, no answer is in sight. I still think -hai means greater. That is my opinion. I also believes it applies to Saruman's greater-orcs only but am not positive. I do not think it means man... but that's just me. I've combed the books with all of you and think everyone has a valid opinion. Now..... I hope I'm done but who knows? I hope to live happily in my blissful ignorance.


----------



## Greenwood

> I also have a problem with anyone considering rebel Uruk-hai of Isengard actually seeking to invade Mordor.



Grond

You are falling into the pitfall of thinking that there has to actually be a real possibility of Saruman's troops in Mordor for the tracker's statement to refer to. As Aragil has pointed out all the possibles listed by the tracker orc are outlandish and wrong. There is no great elf warrior or dwarf-man. If we are restrictling these things to actual possibilities how can they be talking about a great elf in bright armour? Shagrat has carried off the mithril armour. Was this mithril coat the elf's spare armour? And by size alone it is obvious it wasn't worn by any "great" elf. As for dwarf-man, have we ever heard of any dwarf-men in Middle Earth? If there really were a "pack of rebel Uruk-hai" (or Uruks) would one tracker and a single soldier orc be able to take care of them when these "rebels" had already wiped out Shagrat's entire command at Cirith Ungol? If the "rebel Uruk-hai" are any of Gorbag's boys why doesn't Tolkien have the tracker call them "rebel Uruks"? Tolkien has already had Gorbag call himself and his boys Uruks. Why should Tolkien change the designation to Uruk-hai if he meant us to think that it referred to Gorbag's boys? Tolkien is showing by the tracker's report that the "higher-ups" are totally confused and haven't a clue what is going on. None of the possibilities make any real sense and we (the readers) know it.


----------



## JeffF.

*Sorry couldn't resist*

from previous post.

If the "rebel Uruk-hai" are any of Gorbag's boys why doesn't Tolkien have the tracker call them "rebel Uruks"? Tolkien has already had Gorbag call himself and his boys Uruks. Why should Tolkien change the designation to Uruk-hai if he meant us to think that it referred to Gorbag's boys?

Why? because Tolkien means for the terms to be interchangeable!


----------



## Greenwood

> Why? because Tolkien means for the terms to be interchangeable!



JeffF

You have a quote from Tolkien to prove this contention? It would have saved us all lots of time if you had produced this Tolkien quote earlier.


----------



## Grond

No, JeffF has an opinion based upon the evidence he has seen presented in this thread as we all have and we have all come up with our own conclusions. It is already admitted by all that there is no such quote, just ****opinion of Grond**** many ambiguious uses of the term which do not provide "definitive clarity" on the issue.


----------



## Greenwood

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *No, JeffF has an opinion based upon the evidence he has seen presented in this thread as we all have and we have all come up with our own conclusions. It is already admitted by all that there is no such quote, just ****opinion of Grond**** many ambiguious uses of the term which do not provide "definitive clarity" on the issue. *



The point that Aragil and I have been making is that there are *not* "many ambiguious uses of the term". In fact there are many perfectly clear uses. In all other instances in LOTR it is obvious that the term Uruks is used for Mordor orcs and Uruk-hai for Saruman's orcs. When looked at in conjunction with all these other times the words are used, the tracker orc's comments are not ambiguous.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

Curiosity makes me ask:
Why is it difficult to accept that Hobbits can be described as "a sort of small dwarf-man"?


----------



## aragil

Hobbits are not Dwarves. Hobbits are short, Dwarves are short. Hobbits like tobacco, Dwarves like tobacco. Hobbits are among the 'good peoples' of ME, so are Dwarves (for the most part). These are the only similarities I can think of between the two. But I've never said that Hobbits could not be described as 'a sort of small dwarf-man'. I don't doubt that the soldier was referring to a Hobbit when he used that phrase. It's just not accurate as per Tolkien's Middle-Earth, because Hobbits have nothing to do with Dwarves, as far as I know. It would be interesting if the soldier Orc knew something about the origin of Hobbits that I (as a reader) don't. I'd have to say, if he knew so much why didn't he just say a 'Hobbit'. 
I think that Sam could have been described as a 'great Elf'. But I think that this is even less accurate than referring to a Hobbit as a 'dwarf-man'. The fact is, given the discussion between Gorbag and Shagrat at the end of The Two Towers, most readers will recognize that 'great Elf' and 'dwarf-man' refer to Hobbits, but not _accurately_. The reader reads this, smiles to themself and thinks 'those bad guys don't really know what's going on.'
I also think that Gorbag's Orcs could be described as 'rebel Uruk-hai'. I just don't think that this description needs to be accurate. I think that there is less similarity between Hobbits and Orcs in general then there is between the 'great Soldier Orcs' of Mordor and Isengard'. Yet a fellow Orc mistakes Frodo and Sam for Orcs. How much easier then to mistake the soldier Orcs of Mordor for those of Isengard, especially when Isengard has recently become hostile. As far as I know battalions of Mordor Orcs don't generally attack other battalions of Mordor Orcs in Mordor, especially not when they're all at open war with the Tarks. I'm not saying that given enough time a Mordor Orc could not tell Gorbag's lot from Ugluk's, I'm saying that the Higher Up's orders were not based on 'reliable intelligence'. The Higher Ups report was inaccurate with 'dwarf-man' and 'great Elf', and it appears to me that it was likewise inaccurate with 'rebel Uruk-hai'. I think that a reliable description would have been 'a Halfling, a second Halfling, and whatever Horseboys of Yashgoi as escaped Cirith Ungol alive'. That description would have made me scared for Frodo and Sam. 'Dwarf-man', 'great Elf', and 'rebel Uruk-hai' each make me relieved, because I realize that the Higher Ups are confused, and that Frodo and Sam still have a chance to make it to Mount Doom. 

Hope I've satisfied your curiousity, Tar-Elenion


----------



## Grond

Aragil, from the descriptions in the text, I have always imagined Frodo as being extremely fair. He is closer to Elvish, I think than all the other Hobbits. Sam, on the other hand, has always been described as short and squat and more, well..... dwarvish. That is why I always thought that the small dwarf-man referred to him.....even before our debate here started. But that is just my internal visualization of him.


----------



## aragil

*Re: Sorry couldn't resist*



> _Originally posted by JeffF._
> *from previous post.
> Why? because Tolkien means for the terms to be interchangeable! *



All right, this sort of statement bothers me. Do we really think that Tolkien uses these two terms interchangeably? Well, we can test the usage according to statistics (any statisticians please help me along here- I'm definitely not a statistics expert).

I count the following usages of the Orcs referring to themselves as either Uruks or Uruk-hai:
Isengarders calling themselves Uruk-hai: 6 (TT p. 61, p. 67, p. 68, p. 184, p. 184, p. 184)
Isengarders calling themselves Uruks: 0
Mordor Orcs calling themselves Uruk-hai: 0
Mordor Orcs calling themselves Uruks: 1 (TT p. 441)

Well, there's not that many intstances here, but let's see what we find. I'm going to assume that Uruks and Uruk-hai are interchangeable for the sake of this exercise. Since they are interchangeable, they will have an equal opportunity of being used: 1/2. Each reference to the 'great soldier Orcs' is going to be considered as a separate trial, with equal probability that the term 'Uruk' or 'Uruk-hai' is used. As far as I can tell, this follows a Bernoulli distribution, with p=0.5, and q=0.5. For the Isengard Orcs, the probability turns out to be 1/64- six 'trials', all of which use the term 'Uruk-hai'. For the Mordor Orcs the probability turns out to be 1/2- one 'trial', which used the term 'Uruk'. The total probability that Tolkien would use the terms as he has in these seven instances, if Uruk and Uruk-hai were truly interchangeable, is 1/128. If Tolkien were to write these chapters 128 times, only once would we expect him to come up with Isengarders always calling themselves 'Uruk-hai', Mordor Orcs calling themselves 'Uruks'. This is not 100% proof of how Tolkien intended to use the terms, especially not by the high standards we've come to expect on this thread. So let's broaden the experiment out again- after all, there are other characters in the books, and there's the narrator.

Additional uses:
Narrator or other character calling Isengarders Uruk-hai: 1 (RotK, reference to Pippin in their clutches) 
Narrator or other character calling Isengarders Uruks: 0
Narrator or other character calling Mordor Orcs Uruk-hai: 0
Narrator or other character calling Mordor Orcs Uruks: 6 (FotR p. 421, RotK p. 255, RotK p. 255, Rotk p.256, RotK p.414, RotK p.461)

(Please note I don't have my books here for page numbers- the narrator refers to Pippin in the clutches of the Uruk-hai is from chapter 6 of RotK, 'The Siege of Gondor') The probabilities for this usage of Uruk-hai is then 1/2, and probability for this usage of Uruks is then 1/64. These are still not all that convincing, so let's look at the total probabilities for these 14 usages- 7 times referring to Isengarders as Uruk-hai, 7 times referring to Mordor Orcs as Uruks, no other usages of either terms (that I'm aware of): *The chances for these usages is 1/16384*. Poor Professor Tolkien would have to write the books 16383 more times before we'd expect to see another such instance of these terms, *assuming they're equally likely, i.e. interchangeable*. The astute reader will note that one usage of Uruk-hai has been left out- the infamous 'rebel Uruk-hai' passage of RotK p.147, the apple of Tar-Elenion's eye. Being the fearless user of statistics that I am, I will now assume (for the purposes of this calculation only) that 'rebel Uruk-hai' refers to troops of Mordor. The chances of this outcome (assuming the two terms to be interchangeable) is now 15/32768, or 0.046%. If Tolkien were to write the books ten-thousand times, we'd expect 4.6 of those writings to have the same usage as what he actually wrote. If he were 'only' to write the books 100 times, we would not expect to see this usage. In case anybody is interested if 'rebel Uruk-hai' is a mistake by the Higher Ups (as I believe it is), then the probability becomes 1/32768. Again I have to ask: Does anybody here really believe that Tolkien was using these two terms interchangeably? If there is another reason besides the possibility that 'Uruk' and 'Uruk-hai' were different names referring to different breeds of soldier Orc, I'd be interested to hear it.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *Aragil, from the descriptions in the text, I have always imagined Frodo as being extremely fair. He is closer to Elvish, I think than all the other Hobbits. Sam, on the other hand, has always been described as short and squat and more, well..... dwarvish. That is why I always thought that the small dwarf-man referred to him.....even before our debate here started. But that is just my internal visualization of him. *



Well, reverse the descriptions above and my point still holds. I also remember that Sam is described wearing a shapeless felt bag as a hat, making him look like a _beardless_ dwarf as he left Rivendell. He's also stubborn like a Dwarf. And agreed, Faramir says there's something Elvish about Frodo, and he's certainly described as an Elf-friend (and fairer of face than most by Gandalf to Barliman). Then again, it is Sam who flatters himself as he's attacking Cirith Ungol by saying that he's the great Elf warrior, and the Orcs seem to attribute Sam's attack on Shelob as the deed of a great Elf. 
Anyway, my point is that both dwarf-man and great Elf can be applied to either of the hobbits, but these are colorful descriptions, and are not 100% correct according to the racial descriptions that Tolkien gives us for Hobbits. Why can't 'rebel Uruk-hai' be a likewise colorful description of Gorbag's troops, without constraining it to be 100% racially correct (mistaking one breed of great Soldier Orcs for another)?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Re: Sorry couldn't resist*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> I count the following usages of the Orcs referring to themselves as either Uruks or Uruk-hai:
> Isengarders calling themselves Uruk-hai: 6 (TT p. 61, p. 67, p. 68, p. 184, p. 184, p. 184)
> Isengarders calling themselves Uruks: 0
> Mordor Orcs calling themselves Uruk-hai: 0
> Mordor Orcs calling themselves Uruks: 1 (TT p. 441)
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough we do not know exactly what Gorbag called them, we only know what Sam _heard_. It is quite unlikely that he _actually_ said 'Uruks'.
Click to expand...


----------



## aragil

*Re: Re: Re: Sorry couldn't resist*



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Interestingly enough we do not know exactly what Gorbag called them, we only know what Sam heard. It is quite unlikely that he _actually_ said 'Uruks'. *



This holds equally true for the 6 instances in which the Isengarders claim to be 'Uruk-hai', and just emphasizes my point. It is completely improbable that Tolkien as narrator would use the term in the fourteen ways that he did if he intended them to be interchangeable. He meant to call the soldier Orcs of Mordor Uruks, and he meant to call the Orcs of Isengard Uruk-hai, unless you believe that Tolkien 'accidently' produced the usage which was published, a 1/16384 chance.


----------



## Greenwood

> _Quoted by Tar-Elenion_
> Interestingly enough we do not know exactly what Gorbag called them, we only know what Sam heard. It is quite unlikely that he _actually_ said 'Uruks'.




"Gorbag" didn't say anything. "Sam" didn't hear anything. Neither of these two characters ever existed. *Tolkien* invented and wrote it all. *Tolkien* chose to have his Isengarders always call themselves Uruk-hai. *Tolkien* chose to call his Isengarders Uruk-hai. *Tolkien* chose to use his invented word Uruks when referring to his Mordor orcs. Tar-Elenion seems to have lost touch with reality.


----------



## Grond

The four of us, Greenwood, Grond, Tar-Elenion and Aragil need to get together with a medium and have a seance. We will summon the spirit of JRRT and get his answer on this once and for all.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

The ad hominem attacks are unnecessary, but if it makes you feel better keep on going.

Actually we do know what was actually said by the Isengarders, and by the soldier and tracker orcs in Mordor. They were speaking, for the most part, (debased) Westron, the Hobbits could understand them.

However Shagrat and Gorbag were, it seems, speaking Black Speech, and Sam did not know that tongue. The Ring seems to have 'translated' for him.

In LotR 'Choices' it is written: "He heard them both clearly, and he understood what they said. Perhaps the ring gave understanding of tongues, or simply understanding, especially of the servants of Sauron its maker, so that if he gave heed, he understood and translated the thought to himself."


----------



## aragil

First off, an apology- I posted my 'probability' bit without my books. There seems to be only one reference to the slave-drivers of RotK p. 255 as Uruks, not two as I had imagined. With this in mind, the chances of usage become thus: 
Chances that Tolkien randomly came by his usages (w/o considering 'rebel Uruk-hai'): 1/8192
Chances that Tolkien randomly came by his usages (assuming 'rebel Uruk-hai' refers to Mordor Uruk-hai): 14/16384
Chances that Tolkien randomly came by his usages (assuming 'rebel Uruk-hai' refers to Isengarders): 1/16384
Probability Tolkien would have used the usages he did if Uruk was the name for Mordor soldiers while Uruk-hai was the name for Isengarders: 100%
(The Pippin in the clutches of the Uruk-hai came from RotK p. 118)

Tar-Elenion, I guess I am completely confused by your above 2 posts. You have always said that 'Uruk-hai' would be the Black speech way to say 'Uruks' (or more properly Uruk-folk), and that Uruks was the anglicized version. The one time an Orc might be speaking black speech and we listen in, Tolkien decides to translate it 'Uruks'. When Orcs are speaking debased Westron (Ugluk, Helm's Deep, Soldier saying 'rebel U-h'), Tolkien always chooses to translate it 'Uruk-hai'. Is this what you were trying to point out? I thought Tolkien always translated Westron so that it was anglicized. Shouldn't he then have had the Orcs speaking Westron say 'Uruks' (the anglicized version of Uruk-hai), while having Gorbag speaking Morbeth translated as 'Uruk-hai' in Sam's mind? Was Tolkien mistaken in his role as translator? Now I'm really confused by your argument!
If you are trying to attack the probabilities, then even without Gorbag's usage (or 'rebel U-h') the chances of our text coming from random choices of Uruk/Uruk-hai is 1/4096. Still not exactly betting odds, and you seem to be doing harm to your argument by suggesting that Gorbag's usage would be different based on the language he's speaking.

Grond- If I could only seance with JT (as I call him) I would in a heart-beat.


----------



## Greenwood

> First off, an apology- I posted my 'probability' bit without my books. There seems to be only one reference to the slave-drivers of RotK p. 255 as Uruks, not two as I had imagined.



Aragil

You were right the first time. There are two. First to the slave-driver uruksand then about two pages later when the orcs Sam and Frodo are traveling with, a company of heavily armed uruks runs into their column and in the confusion Sam and Frodo make their escape.

Tar-Elenion

You keep switching back and forth between calling Tolkien a writer and a translator. It seemed fair to make tongue-in-cheek note of it.


----------



## aragil

I thought that there were 3 mentions of Uruks in pages 255-256: two of the slave drivers being uruks, one of the uruk column from barad-dur. Turns out slave-drivers are only referred to once. Oh well, I was pretty close.


----------



## JeffF.

*Appendix F ROTK*

"...orch. Related, not doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especialy by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave"

p. 511 of the 1977 Ballantine paperback edition.

In the very first post of this long discussion. excerpts of this quote are used as one of 12 quotes concluded to be ambigious.

This quote is not ambigous. In it JRRT clearly states that Uruks are from BOTH Mordor and Isengard. The Uruk-hai are clearly stated to refer to lesser orcs as 'snaga' (slave) and the only example of this in LOTR is in Return of the King when the tracker and Uruk are puseuing Frodo and Sam. It is clear that JRRT uses the terms interchangeably.

quote from Greenwood's post (just before my previous response)

If the "rebel Uruk-hai" are any of Gorbag's boys why doesn't Tolkien have the tracker call them "rebel Uruks"? Tolkien has already had Gorbag call himself and his boys Uruks. Why should Tolkien change the designation to Uruk-hai if he meant us to think that it referred to Gorbag's boys? 

If JRRT called them called the only "rebel uruks" then it would just further the anbigouity of the statement regarding /Uruks/uruk-hai. The fact that he does call them rebel Uruk-hai supports the contention that the terms are interchangeable (i.e. he calls the rebel uruk-hai because it means the same thing as Uruks).


----------



## aragil

Jeff F- I realize that this thread is overly-long, so I'm not too angry that you missed the following post:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=46418#post46418
At the very bottom of the post I address the entry from appendix F:

What appendix F says (bolds are mine):
'_Related, no doubt, was *the word uruk* of the Black Speech, though *this* was *applied* as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especialy by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'_' 

What appendix F does not say:
'Uruk was the name of the soldier Orcs of Mordor and Isengard'.

I've never argued against the word 'uruk' being applied to Isengard Orcs. Uruk can very easily be proved to apply to Isengard Orcs, as in 'Uruk'-hai, meaning (I hope) Orc-men. But the passage does not say that Uruk was the name of the soldier-Orcs of Isengard. It says *the word* uruk was applied to them. A whole thread full of differences in that little nuance. If you still think Tolkien used the two words interchangeably, please see:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=48014#post48014
I think that you'll find you are either mistaken or a thrill-seeking gambler.


----------



## Grond

I'm surprised at you Aragil attacking a clearly subjective argument from a statistical viewpoint. It is an untenable stance. If JRRT was using the term interchangeably as is argued, he could use Uruks exclusively throughout the book and only use Uruk-hai on the last page. Your statistics would be as absolutely meaningless in that case as it is in this one. We are arguing the intent of the writer, and statistical analysis has no relevance.


----------



## aragil

Grond- the argument I was attacking was that the words 'Uruk' and 'Uruk-hai' are interchangeable. In a thread where nobody seems to want to agree with anybody (except for Greenwood and I with eachother), it is nice to be able to *show* anything, so please forgive me for resorting to statistics. What statistics *can* show is that Tolkien elected to not use Uruk and Uruk-hai interchangeably. Maybe they were interchangeable, but if so Tolkien chose to use them differently. Tar-Elenion and Jeff F are sort of glazing by the usage, implying that it's not that significant. They are free to do so, I just want to make sure everybody here knows the probability that Tolkien's differentiation of Isengarders as 'Uruk-hai' and Mordor Orcs as 'Uruk' arose from chance. I think that the statistics have shown this to be very unlikely, regardless of whether 'rebel Uruk-hai' refers to Mordor Orcs or those of Isengard. This is useful, and exceedingly germaine to this thread. Tar-Elenion has agreed that *maybe* the Isengarders were a slightly different breed of soldier-Orc, *possibly* having human blood. All other arguments are now pointless. The only thing in contention is whether or not 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' can be equally applied to soldier Orcs of Mordor as well as Isengard. The statistical analysis was done so that everybody here is aware of what we are arguing, so I am not sorry I used it. There will still be discussion about whether or not the words were interchangeable, and (for instance) perhaps the Isengarders preferred to use the formal phrase 'Uruk-hai' while the Mordor Orcs resorted to the anlicized 'Uruks'. As I pointed out to Tar-Elenion, that would be interesting because the Isengarders generally speak Westron (the 'anglicized' language of Middle-earth), while Grishnakh and Shagrat were presumably speaking Morbeth, which would have been more appropriately rendered as 'Uruk-hai', rather than resorting to the 'anglicized' version- Uruks.


----------



## JeffF.

"this (Uruks) was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard."


The enclosure (Uruks) being mine. This statment clearly states exactly what you said Appendix F faile to mention that is that Uruks is the name for both the great soldier orcs that issued from Mordor and Isengard. Plus the fact that App. F states that the term 'snaga'
was used by the Uruk-hai as a derogatory term for the lsesser ocs and the only time this happens is when a Mordor Uruk uses it.

It seems to me that it would not matter if you did find a direct quote by JRRT "Oh by the way Uruks and Uruk-hai are interchageable" because the thin logic used to decry the previous eviddence would be applied to a clear cut statment ast that. "Oh but he didn't say the Uruks of Mordor are the same as the Uruk-hai of Isengard, not that statment didn't say that at all. It was completely different."

A


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> As I pointed out to Tar-Elenion, that would be interesting because the Isengarders generally speak Westron (the 'anglicized' language of Middle-earth), while Grishnakh and Shagrat were presumably speaking Morbeth, which would have been more appropriately rendered as 'Uruk-hai', rather than resorting to the 'anglicized' version- Uruks.



For clarity, English is not Westron. Off topically  where does the term _Morbeth_ come from? I don't remember it.


----------



## aragil

Cian- I was hoping you could come up with a reputable origin for it. I heard (saw) Pontifex using it, and remembered the term from my 'Middle-Earth Role Playing' Days. It was supposed to be the name for Black Speech, but I couldn't remember if it came from Iron Crown Enterprises or from Tolkien. If you've never heard of it, then I'd have to lean towards the former.
As for Westron- I thought that Tolkien's notes on translation said that he translated Westron to English. To me this indicates that 'Uruks' would be more likely to be used (i.e. transcribed by Tolkien) by a Westron speaker than a Black Speech (Morbeth) speaker. Conversely, Uruk-hai would be more likely to come from a Black speech user than from a Westron user. Interestingly, it is the exact reverse usage that we see in the books. Welcome back to the thread, although I must say that it hasn't become any friendlier than when you were last here. Witness, as I turn my wrath towards...

Jeff F- please read your appendix F again. Here it is:


> _Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especialy by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'_



What preceeds 'this' in the above passage is 'the word uruk', not 'the name uruk'. You are inserting your own view into this reading. The word uruk is applied to the Isengarders throughout the text in the phrase 'Uruk-hai'. It is never applied to the Isengarders by itself, and the above passage does not say that it was.


----------



## Cian

Aragil, you are correct on Tolkien rendering Westron into English almost everywhere. My "clarity" was for "anyone" who might be confuzzled really (apologies. I should've added _that_ parenthetically and been clearer myself ) ... my response only stems from a recent post (on another MB) about "Dwarrowdelf" as relating to the Westron word, so I'm just in a mode here I guess.

Anyway, yeah I don't remember _Morbeth_ in Tolkien's corpus. Sindarin _peth_ means "word" I note (lenited _beth_) Hmmm.

I'm still readin' in here anyway.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

I dont think Gorbag 'said' 'Uruks'. 'Uruks' (an anglicization) is what was used to translate what Sam actually _heard_ him say through the Ring (taking into account the internal history presented (see App. F and Prolouge)).


> He heard them both clearly, and he understood what they said. Perhaps the Ring gave understanding of tongues, or simply understanding, especially of the servants of Sauron its maker, so that if he gave heed, he understood and translated the thought to himself.



What Sam may have heard _through_ the Ring was _*URUKIN_, This is may be the same word that Gandalf used in Moria. The tracker and soldier Orc are speaking Westron (being of different breeds they used that tongue, App. F) but both know the word 'Uruk-hai' so there is no need for that to be rendered into Westron.

(Asterisk '*' edited in, 02/08/02)


----------



## aragil

Tar-Elenion- As far as I know nothing was translated into Westron. In fact, everything was written in English (originally). In places the Good Professor decided to use words from his invented languages. Gorbag and Shagrat were speaking the Black Speech if you like. Tolkien was not constrained to translate 'what Sam heard'. He was free to translate exactly what he invisioned it was that the Orcs spoke. If he had wanted Gorbag to say 'Uruk-hai', then he would have Gorbag say 'Uruk-hai'. What he wanted Sam to hear has nothing to do with what he wrote on paper. This bears directly on your (and other notable scholars') theory that Uruk is an anglicized version of Uruk-hai. The language of Middle-Earth which Tolkien has decided to 'translate' as English is Westron. According to the 'anglicization theory', the best translation would have had Westron speakers using the 'anglicized' form, i.e. Uruk. Similarly, users of the Black Speech would have used the term from that language- 'Uruk-hai'. I find it instructive that we find the exact opposite usage in the books. I am incredibly confused by your argument for Gorbag using the term 'Uruk'. The passage you quote does not say that the ring 'tranlated their language to Westron'. It says that he *understood* what they were saying. In the passage from The Two Towers, Tolkien does not characterize the narrative as being what 'Sam heard'. He characterizes it as being what Gorbag and Shagrat were actually saying. I think that you are trying too hard here to explain why Gorbag calls himself and Shagrat 'Uruks'. I think the simplest explanation here is the most likely- Gorbag called himself a Uruk because he is a Uruk. Tolkien used the term 'Uruk' because that is how he envisions Gorbag. He used the term Uruk-hai when Ugluk was speaking because it was a different name, and it applied to Ugluk and his cronies from Isengard. The contention that Gorbag's words were understood by Sam, and should then be more accurately translated into the 'anglicized' version has not improved your argument in my opinion. It has made me aware of the fact that all Westron-speaking Orcs in the books say 'Uruk-hai', all Black Speech speaking (Black Speeching?) Orcs in the books say 'Uruk'. This is just further textual evidence that Tolkien uses the terms differently, probably to refer to different breeds of Soldier-Orcs.


----------



## Grond

YOu guys will never give up and we'll be no closer to the answer now than we will be in a month. Darn, I just wish I could get an address for Christopher Tolkien. He's the only person on the face of the earth who could possibly shed some insight into the mix. Of course, I'm not sure Greenwood would accept his opinion on the matter, but any new blood would be better than this constant rehashing.


----------



## ShagratU

*The ring as translator.*

Having discussed this with Tar-elenion on another forum, and by e-mail, I would like to make some points regarding the ring's "translation" of Gorbag and Shagrat's conversation.

As Tar-elenion has pointed out, Tolkien states that the reason Sam could understand Gorbag and Shagrat was because of the ring. Finding a plausible reason for the heroes to be able to understand Orcs is clearly something that exercised Tolkien during the writing of LotR, as the HoME series indicates. Here, his solution is that the ring either acts as a translation device for Sam, or conveys the Orcs' thoughts directy into his head. That is how he is able to understand them.

It therefore follows that the words that Tolkien uses for the Orcs' speech will all be words that Sam can understand. He would presumably be able to understand nothing of their "untranslated" conversation.

Via the ring-translation, Gorbag's words appear as "poor Uruks". Uruk is a word that Sam understands; Gandalf provided a definition for it in Moria;"There are Orcs...and some of them are very large and evil' black Uruks of Mordor." Sam therefore knows that Uruks are a large kind of Orc.

Sam doesn't, of course, know what "Uruk-hai" means (he might be able to guess, however). A careful analysis of the text will reveal that the word has never been used in his presence before he enters Mordor. Therefore, Tolkien could not possibly have used the Black Speech "Uruk-hai" here. Sam doesn't know any Black Speech (except perhaps "ghash").

This doesn't mean that Gorbag didn't use the word however. Unless Black Speech, or whatever Black Speech-derived Orcish dialect Gorbag was speaking, uses "s" to indicate a plural - and it doesn't appear to -, then he must have used a word other than "Uruks". It's a fair bet that this word was "Uruk-hai."

When Tolkien has Frodo (with the ring) and Sam (without) encounter the soldier-orc and the tracker, he can fall back on his earlier explanation of why Orcs can be understood; they are of different breeds. These two Orcs are evidently speaking the Common Speech. The soldier uses "Uruk-hai", which is Black Speech, and the tracker evidently understands. Frodo and Sam, of course, have never heard this term before - unless they have heard amid Black Speech/Orcish talk that they could not understand.

It's a fair guess that both the tracker and the soldier understand "Uruk-hai" because as a fairly recent Black Speech coinage, it is a constant in both of their dialects.

Once Gorbag's statement is recognized as a "translation", and not his actual words, it appears that no Orc ever uses "Uruks" (rather than something that _means_ ¡°Uruks¡±. We know for certain, however, that Orcs from both Isengard and Mordor use "Uruk-hai".


----------



## ShagratU

*Re: Re: Sorry couldn't resist*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *
> Narrator or other character calling Isengarders Uruks: 0
> *



There are two instances in LotR of the Isengarders being called "Uruks". One, in Appendix F on "Orcs and the Black Speech", has already been mentioned; 

"Related, no doubt, was the word _uruk_ of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard."

But we also have, in the Appendices:

"Orcs began to raid in the eastern regions and slay or steal horses. Others also came down from the Misty Mountains,* many being great uruks in the service of Saruman*, though it was long before that was suspected." 

So whatever the Isengarders are, they are also "Uruks" in LotR. This of course ties in perfectly with the usage in "The Battles of the Fords of the Isen".

It's well worth noting that the only time the narrator uses "Uruk-hai" is from Pippin's point of view, when he recalls his time in their clutches, and where he of course heard the word several times.

Otherwise, the narrator, and non-Orcish characters use "Uruks", naturally enough if that is the "Anglicization", i.e. the form in which it has come into Westron. Gorbag, translated via the ring for a listener who doesn't know "Uruk-hai" is represented as using the Anglicized form. But when Orcs are speaking "untranslated", they use "Uruk-hai", it appears.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by JeffF. _
> *"this (Uruks) was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard."
> 
> 
> The enclosure (Uruks) being mine. This statment clearly states exactly what you said Appendix F faile to mention that is that Uruks is the name for both the great soldier orcs that issued from Mordor and Isengard.*



This is quite correct, as is the "great uruks in the service of Saruman", also from the Appendices.



> _Originally posted by JeffF. _
> * Plus the fact that App. F states that the term 'snaga'
> was used by the Uruk-hai as a derogatory term for the lsesser ocs and the only time this happens is when a Mordor Uruk uses it.*



This is not quite correct. Ugluk refers to a scout as "Snaga" in "The Uruk-hai"


----------



## ShagratU

*Are the Uruk-hai of Isengard the same as the Uruk-hai of Mordor?*

A seperate issue from the linguistic ones is whether the Uruks of Isengard are the same breed as the Uruks of Mordor. I think it's quite clear that they are not, although Uruk-hai and Uruks would appear to be interchangeable terms for either sort.

The key thing about the Isengard Uruks is that they are _remarkable_. Several characters remark on their unusual nature; Aragorn, Legolas, Treebeard, Eomer and Gamling.

Aragorn is surprised by the equipment of the dead Isengarders; Legolas notes that 'Seldom will Orcs journey in the open under the sun. yet these have done so,'; Treebeard remarks on the Isengarder's indifference to the sun; Eomer states that the Isengarders are "stronger and more fell than all other kinds" of Orc; Gamling refers to "these creatures bred by the foul craft of Saruman, these half-orcs and goblin-men", and it's clear from the context that his comments at least in part refer to the Uruks of Isengard.

Now, one character's opinion might well be wrong; Tolkien says that Treebeard is wrong about some things in a letter. However, we get a consensus from no fewer than five characters, all of whom are either experienced Orc-fighters or extremely long-lived, that the Isengard Orcs are different from other kinds.

The main difference appears to be that the Isengarders are completely indifferent to sunlight. Equipment aside, the Isengarders seem to be completely Orcish in appearance. They are certainly large for Orcs, but they don't appear to be totally off the scale of Orcishness; Ugluk, "a large black Orc" doesn't sound as imposing as "a huge orc-chieftain, almost Man-high".

The Isengard Uruks are also certainly shorter than Men. When Merry speaks of the half-orcs (who are described as horrible "Men", not as Orcs, as the Uruk-hai are passim.), he contrasts their "goblin-faces" with their "Man-height". This visual contrast, coming after almost all the Uruks of Isengard have trooped past, would be impossible if the Uruk-hai generally approached the height of Men. Also, Gimli's comments at Helm's Deep make it clear that the Isengard Orcs were much easier for him to deal with than the Dunlendings, and that height was the main factor in this.

Tolkien also tells us that the Isengarders have long arms ("Helm's Deep") and that they run with bowed backs ("The Uruk-hai"). Both Uruks of Mordor and of Isengard are described as "squat". Like other Uruks, the Isengarders are "black" or "swart"; their distinguishing physical features, if any, appear to be stronger, thicker legs. We might therefore infer that they are even stockier and heavier in build (on average) than other Uruks, and perhaps sometimes a little taller. But generally, I would imagine that both kinds of Uruk would be around Dwarf-stature, with the lesser kinds being more akin to Hobbits in height.

From their Orcish appearance, their sunlight-indifference and also the mention of both "Men-Orcs" and "Orc-Men" in _Morgoth's Ring_, I would conclude that the Isengard Uruks are crossbred, but that the proportion of Man-blood is less than the "Orc-Men", who are visually identifiable as hybrids. Perhaps the Isengard Uruks are about 3/4 Orc, or perhaps the Man-strain in them is even smaller.


----------



## Cian

And this must be the Shagrat(O,U) I quoted earlier here (ahh ... hope you don't mind actually ). I've noted your orc-commentary in several MB's I think ... welcome to our longish go at this.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *And this must be the Shagrat(O,U) I quoted earlier here (ahh ... hope you don't mind actually ). *



No worries! 

It's good to see a discussion run and run like this!


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Tar-Elenion-
> <snip>
> This bears directly on your (and other notable scholars') theory that Uruk is an anglicized version of Uruk-hai. The language of Middle-Earth which Tolkien has decided to 'translate' as English is Westron. According to the 'anglicization theory', the best translation would have had Westron speakers using the 'anglicized' form, i.e. Uruk.<snip>



This is a mis-characterization of my position (I thought you were going to stop that). Uruk is not an 'anglicized' version of Uruk-hai. Uruk is Black Speech and likely the singular. 'Uruks' with an *S* is anglicized. I have never said Uruk is anglicized. 
No one here is willing to argue that the plural marker in Black Speech is 's', and there is no evidence that it is (and I and I am sure Cian would like to see someone argue that and provide evidence). 'Uruks' is anglicized because it is a Black Speech word ('uruk') using an English plural marker ('s') to denote more than one Uruk. Is that clear?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Re: Re: Sorry couldn't resist*



> _Originally posted by ShagratU _
> But we also have, in the Appendices:
> "Orcs began to raid in the eastern regions and slay or steal horses. Others also came down from the Misty Mountains,* many being great uruks in the service of Saruman*, though it was long before that was suspected."
> 
> So whatever the Isengarders are, they are also "Uruks" in LotR. This of course ties in perfectly with the usage in "The Battles of the Fords of the Isen".



Yes!
Hello, Shagrat.
The quote provided above is from App. A, II (House of Eorl), 'Kings of the Mark', 'Third Line'.
Perhaps Greenwood needs to revise his original 'thesis' (ie the first post on the thread) to include this use of the word.
Greenwood?


----------



## aragil

Tar-Elenion- I meant Uruks. Uruks is the usage in question by Gorbag, not Uruk.

Shagrat- Welcome to the forum, might I suggest you try the 'best Orc pentathlete' thread? You're in the running, but currently trailing both Ugluk and Grishnakh.
Doubtless your 'great Uruk' quote is a triumph for Tar-Elenion, but I plan to argue against it when I have the time. Grond should also be pleased, as he maintains that 'hai' should be translated 'great', hence great Uruk = Uruk-hai (or hai Uruk).


----------



## aragil

Cian- I guess 'Morbeth' was the Sindarin term for Black Speech, apparently- Mor:black as in Mordor=Black Land
beth:some derivative of peth=word?

Of course you probably recognized the mor=black before. Oh well, I didn't. I still don't know if Tolkien coined the word, though.


----------



## Cian

Yep, I did recognise the first part, seemingly standing for "black"  thanks for responding btw, even if we haven't sourced it. [aside: Sindarin adj. _morn_ "black, dark" ~ _Mordor_ > morn-dor (<- David Salo) corresponding to Q. morna, -ndore (-ndóre)]. 

On the seeming second element, as I say, _beth_ may be someone thinking either that this is the normal form for "word" (actually the lenited form: "lenition" is a form of mutation seen in Sindarin (and Welsh)). Or someone may be using _peth_ and considering it the second element of a compound, which can mutate similarly ~ like _Nindalf_ <> _nîn_ + _talf_.

Tolkien did have Elvish words for "language, tongue", _lam, lambë,_ so I was just wondering about the source. I've seen Quenya offering _Mornalambë_ for "Black Speech" from David S.

Oh well ... back to the main here.


----------



## ShagratU

*"-hai"*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Doubtless your 'great Uruk' quote is a triumph for Tar-Elenion, but I plan to argue against it when I have the time. *



What is there to argue against? 



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Grond should also be pleased, as he maintains that 'hai' should be translated 'great', hence great Uruk = Uruk-hai (or hai Uruk). *



Of course, the quotation says "great uruk*s*". If "hai" is translated as "great", we get "Uruk-great", which doesn't fit, unless we conclude that Black Speech has no plurals. Languages which have no plurals generally use counters ("_ash_ nazg"?) and group qualifiers ("-hai"?) to indicate whether a singular or plural state is implied.

Throughout the text of LotR, "Uruk-hai" clearly indicates a plural state. It is never, ever used as a singular. The obvious inference, backed up by UT and by Appendix F, is that "Uruk" is the singular, and "Uruk-hai" is either a simple plural qualifier or a word meaning "race" or "folk". 

Thus if "-hai" is something like, say, the Chinese _-men_ ("comrade" = _tongzhi_, "comrades" = _tongzhi-men_) or its Russian equivalent, or the Japanese _-tachi_, everything fits. 

If "-hai" simply means "folk" or "race", everything fits again. If "-hai" is a plural qualifier, then _the_ Uruk-hai would mean "the Uruk-folk" by default.


----------



## aragil

OK, 'argue' was a poor choice of words. How about '_I look forward to meaningfully discussing the implications of the passage from Appendix A with you in the future_'.
As for hai meaning great, that is Grond's theory. I was saying to him 'good for you, your stubborness looks to be paying off' (stubborness intended to be an endearing term). The 'pluralifying' is for him to work out, as 'hai'='great' is not my theory.
My theory is that 'hai' means 'men' (English 'men', not Chinese 'men'). The devious (and wonderful) thing about my theory is that usage would be in much the same manner as 'folk' or 'people', and it is possible that it fits in the usages 'Olog-hai' and 'Ogor-hai' as well as with our goodly Uruks. Or is that Uruk-hai? I get confused. Anyway, I laid out the groundwork for how 'hai' might mean 'men' in http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=44669#post44669
I am not overly concerned about the Appendix referring to Isengarders as Uruks. This does have some bearing on my 'probability' post, but even there the odds will still be overwhelmingly against 'Uruks' vs 'Uruk-hai' being used equivalently. In my opinion calling Saruman's troops 'Uruks' is much the same as calling them Orcs (it literally the same BS uruk=orc, but that's not what I meant), which Tolkien does throughout the narrative. I would bet money that Saruman bred his Orc/human hybrids from Uruks, so they would be an off-shoot of that breed, and could equally be called in the general sense 'uruks' or 'orcs', but there most-specific name might be 'Uruk-hai'. I said as much in: http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=42280#post42280
Tar-Elenion, I will speak for Greenwood here by pointing out that he has already ammended his first post to include a 13th quote (reference to slave-driving _uruks_ in the Durthang line), so I'm sure he'd be happy to include a 14th quote. I wonder if we have missed any other quotes?- I'd begun to take it for granted that we had found them all. Anyway, Greenwood does not need to change his thesis either- he already acknowledged that Saruman's Orcs could be referred to as 'Uruks', several times actually:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=38500#post38500 (in note to Wildcat)
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=40576#post40576
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=41330#post41330
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=41637#post41637

Back to Shagrat: As for Gorbag's '_uruks_' statement, I disagree on two counts.
1)Tolkien does not say that the ring 'translated' for Sam, Tolkien says that the ring allowed him to 'understand' what was said by the two Orcs. People who are bilingual do not translate one language to the other in their heads. Instead they 'understand' the meanings of words from both languages in their heads- no translation necessary. By the passage quoted, it appears that the ring could equally allow Sam such an understanding, rather than necessarily 'translating' all the words into Westron (or English, or Kuduk, or whatever other language might use the word Uruks).
2)Tolkien as narrator (or translator) is not constrained to print words as the characters in his story heard or understood them. Tar-Elenion loves to point to the usage of the Black-Speech word 'snaga': (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=43996#post43996). Sam would not have understood any of the conversation between Shagrat and Snaga unless the ring were still giving him 'power of understanding', nor would he have understood the word 'snaga' to mean slave. Yet Tolkien has no problems putting these in the text. Why should he treat Gorbag differently?
Sadly, I also disagree with your (and Jeff F's) reading of the entry for Uruk in Appendix F. It says that *the word* uruk was applied to soldier-Orcs of Isengard. It does not say that Uruk was *the name* for them. If the theory of the reader is that Uruk and Uruk-hai refer to the same creatures, then to that reader the above passage will imply that the soldier Orcs of Saruman were named Uruks. But I don't believe that Uruk-hai and uruk refer to the same creatures, so I get a different reading. Both readings are equally valid in relation to the passage.
As for your analysis of Saruman's Orcs vs. Sauron's Orcs, I pretty much agree completely (and enthusiastically). My take has always been that anything Saruman created which was over 1/2 man was an 'orc-man' (orc-men wielding axes, the Southerner in Bree, goblin-men, men with goblin faces, what have you); while anything over 1/2 orc was a 'man-orc': Saruman took an orc, gave it a little man's blood (not to drink), and by doing so he made 'it' larger and more cunning (and openly disdainful of the sun). However, in the latter case the 'it' would still refer to an orc- which is how Saruman's troops are referred to for the most part in the narrative- Helm's Deep, etc. I don't think that goblin-men were the likeliest candidate for the man-orcs, as per Tar-Elenion's suggestion. Goblin men sound like men with Orc blood to me, which would make them orc-men, like the Southerner and all other _men_ with varying degrees of 'orc-blood' in them. 
My one disagreement comes from the fact that I _do_ believe that the Orcs of Saruman were larger than the Uruks of Mordor. First of all, I believe that Grishnakh and his band were Uruks. Members of Ugluk's group _seem_ to be described as larger than those of Grishnakh's, althought the only direct comparison we see is between Ugluk and Grishnakh. However, when Ugluk calls up his mates they are described as being almost the same size as Ugluk. Who knows, maybe Saruman sent all of his biggest Orcs on such an important mission. But in the departure of Boromir the slain Isengard Orcs are definitely described as using bows after the manner of men. I don't think Orcs of Dwarvish stature could do this. And after all, Morgoth's ring does say that the 'men-Orcs' were bred to be large. I assume this means that they were larger than whatever stock Saruman started with (i.e. most likely Uruks like Grishnakh).

So the funny thing here is that we both agree that the Isengarders are different from the Mordor Uruks, but we do two different things with this idea. From a linguistic standpoint you seem to say that Uruks is an anglicization, probably of Uruk-hai. Therefore, though the Orcs of Saruman are peculiarly different than those of Mordor, they are both 'Uruk-hai'.
I, on the other hand, say that the Orcs of Saruman are very different from those of Sauron. They are crossed with men (in however small a percentage), and therefore they are sufficiently different to deserve their own name. I have not seen any instance where 'Uruk-hai' is (unambiguously) applied to Mordor Orcs, so I assume that the name Uruk-hai *is* the name that seperates Saruman's Orcs from those of Sauron. Looking at other usages of the BS word 'hai', it appears to me likely that the word 'hai' means 'men'. If Saruman were to call his Orcs 'Uruk-men', this would differentiate them from the Uruks of Mordor in exactly the way that Saruman's troops are different from those of Mordor- they have some men's blood running in their veins. Perhaps this is how Tar-Elenion and I disagree too, although he has tended to counter every point I have ever tried to make on this thread, so I have assumed that our differences are deeper.
I am not saying either way of resolving Uruk/Uruk-hai is better in and of itself, just noting the different uses of what is basically the same observation.
Anyway, welcome again to the thread and forum, Shagrat. We've been eagerly awaiting your arrival since http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=40523#post40523 some 18 pages ago. And like I said before, you better do something if you want win the laurels as 'best Orc pentathlete'. I put in a good word for you, but nobody seems to have responded with votes.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *
> My theory is that 'hai' means 'men' (English 'men', not Chinese 'men'). The devious (and wonderful) thing about my theory is that usage would be in much the same manner as 'folk' or 'people', and it is possible that it fits in the usages 'Olog-hai' and 'Ogor-hai' as well as with our goodly Uruks. Or is that Uruk-hai? I get confused. Anyway, I laid out the groundwork for how 'hai' might mean 'men' in http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=44669#post44669*



It seems that the "-hai = Men" theory falls down for a number of reasons. Some of these, I think, have already been pointed out, but I'll just shamelessl rehash them if I may.

Firstly, _nothing_ links the Olog-hai to Men. They don't look like Men; Tolkien says that some wondered if they were giant Orcs; and they're not Men (or giant Orcs); "trolls they were." That's fairly conclusive.

Secondly, as Tar-Elenion has pointed out (perhaps on this thread, but certainly elsewhere), Tolkien seems to have concluded at the time of LotR that trolls and Orcs - and thus biologically equivalent Men - could not interbreed. One can reasonably infer that there would be something of a physical incompatibility problem that even sorcery might struggle to overcome! 

Thirdly, we know that Mordor Orcs understand ¡°Uruk-hai¡±. It is a term that is used and understood by different breeds of Mordor Orc, as the passage with the soldier-orc and the tracker demonstrates. If ¡°Uruk-hai¡± means ¡°Orc-men¡±, then we would have expected Grishnakh to comment on it! But instead we get a real sense of ¡°pan-Orcishness¡± as Ugluk insists, ¡°Aye, we must stick together!¡± and Grishnakh says he¡¯s come back to help some of Ugluk¡¯s ¡°stout fellows.¡± It appears to be all Orcs together against Men.

Grishnakh insults Ugluk, but he never once accuses him of being part ¡°Whiteskin¡± or whatever. He accuses Ugluk of being a cannibal, but not of being part-Man. Given the disdain that the Isengarders show for the ¡°Whiteskins, it¡¯s highly unlikely that they are actually boasting of their Mannish origin!



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *I am not overly concerned about the Appendix referring to Isengarders as Uruks. This does have some bearing on my 'probability' post, but even there the odds will still be overwhelmingly against 'Uruks' vs 'Uruk-hai' being used equivalently. In my opinion calling Saruman's troops 'Uruks' is much the same as calling them Orcs (it literally the same BS uruk=orc, but that's not what I meant), which Tolkien does throughout the narrative. I would bet money that Saruman bred his Orc/human hybrids from Uruks, so they would be an off-shoot of that breed, and could equally be called in the general sense 'uruks' or 'orcs', but there most-specific name might be 'Uruk-hai'. I said as much in: http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=42280#post42280*



Remember, though that the "great uruks" quote shows exactly how the word "uruk" was applied to the Isengarders; as Appendix F suggests, in the same way as the it was to the great soldier-orcs of Moria. If we consider the "black Uruks" of the "Battles of the Fords of the Isen", we can see that "Uruk" is equally applicable to Isengarders as it is to "Mordorians".

It's also well worth noticing _how_ "uruks" is used in the Appendix; it's emphatically _not_ just the same as calling them "Orcs", because the term is used to distinguish the great soldier-orcs in Saruman's service from their lesser relations in the Misty Mountains.




> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *
> Back to Shagrat: As for Gorbag's 'uruks' statement, I disagree on two counts.
> 1)Tolkien does not say that the ring 'translated' for Sam, Tolkien says that the ring allowed him to 'understand' what was said by the two Orcs. People who are bilingual do not translate one language to the other in their heads. Instead they 'understand' the meanings of words from both languages in their heads- no translation necessary. By the passage quoted, it appears that the ring could equally allow Sam such an understanding, rather than necessarily 'translating' all the words into Westron (or English, or Kuduk, or whatever other language might use the word Uruks).*



¡°He heard them both clearly, and he understood what they said. Perhaps the ring gave _understanding of tongues_, or simply understanding, especially of the servants of Sauron its maker, so that if he gave heed, he understood and _translated_ the thought to himself¡±

The text pretty much says that the ring acted as a simultaneous translator/interpreter, either by giving Sam understanding of the Orc-language, or enabling him to ¡°translate it to himself¡±. Either way, what the Orcs said was rendered into a form that Sam could understand. That rules out the (un-translated) Black Speech ¡°Uruk-hai¡±. So it couldn¡¯t have appeared here whatever Gorbag actually said. If Tolkien had included it, he would be leaving a chunk of un-translated Orc-speech in the middle of a ¡°translation¡±.

We can be certain that Gorbag didn¡¯t actually say the word ¡°Uruks¡±. What we can be certain of is that he said a word that _translates_ as ¡°Uruks¡±. From all the linguistic evidence, Black Speech and its Orcish derivatives don¡¯t use ¡°s¡± to indicate a plural. Gorbag must have said a word containing the element ¡°Uruk¡±, but he can¡¯t have just said ¡°Uruks¡±. He wasn¡¯t speaking Westron. If ¡°Uruks¡± is indeed the ¡°Anglicized¡± form of ¡°Uruk-hai¡±, as Christopher Tolkien thinks, then it¡¯s highly likely that Gorbag actually said ¡°Uruk-hai.¡±



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Tolkien as narrator (or translator) is not constrained to print words as the characters in his story heard or understood them. *



In this case, he is!  The whole point of the ring-translation effect is that Gorbag¡¯s words are conveyed in a way that Sam can understand. What we hear is what Sam effectively hears. Sam doesn¡¯t speak Black Speech or any of its Orcish derivatives, so it is impossible for ¡°Uruk-hai¡± to feature in the ¡°translation¡±. ¡°Uruk-hai¡± is un-translated Black Speech.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Sam would not have understood any of the conversation between Shagrat and Snaga unless the ring were still giving him 'power of understanding', nor would he have understood the word 'snaga' to mean slave. Yet Tolkien has no problems putting these in the text. Why should he treat Gorbag differently?*



It seems clear to me that ¡°Snaga¡± is, to all intents and purposes, that particular Orc¡¯s name. It¡¯s what he answers to, and it¡¯s his identity. It doesn¡¯t appear to be used as an insult or a title, but simply as a name. Therefore it¡¯s translated as a name, because that¡¯s how Shagrat was using it. ¡°Shagrat¡± probably means something too, but that isn¡¯t translated either.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Sadly, I also disagree with your (and Jeff F's) reading of the entry for Uruk in Appendix F. It says that the word uruk was applied to soldier-Orcs of Isengard. It does not say that Uruk was the name for them. If the theory of the reader is that Uruk and Uruk-hai refer to the same creatures, then to that reader the above passage will imply that the soldier Orcs of Saruman were named Uruks. But I don't believe that Uruk-hai and uruk refer to the same creatures, so I get a different reading. Both readings are equally valid in relation to the passage.*



But that other pertinent passage, the ¡°great uruks¡± reference from elsewhere in the Appendices _completely _ invalidates your reading! We know for certain that ¡°uruks¡± was used to describe Saruman¡¯s great soldier-orcs. If any further evidence is needed, we can point to ¡°The Battle of the Fords of the Isen¡± in UT, which post-dates LotR.

The UT description is particularly interesting, of course, because it describes Uruks that we already know very well ¨C Ugluk¡¯s band. In UT, they are unequivocally described as ¡°Uruks¡±.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *As for your analysis of Saruman's Orcs vs. Sauron's Orcs, I pretty much agree completely (and enthusiastically). My take has always been that anything Saruman created which was over 1/2 man was an 'orc-man' (orc-men wielding axes, the Southerner in Bree, goblin-men, men with goblin faces, what have you); while anything over 1/2 orc was a 'man-orc': Saruman took an orc, gave it a little man's blood (not to drink), and by doing so he made 'it' larger and more cunning (and openly disdainful of the sun). However, in the latter case the 'it' would still refer to an orc- which is how Saruman's troops are referred to for the most part in the narrative- Helm's Deep, etc. I don't think that goblin-men were the likeliest candidate for the man-orcs, as per Tar-Elenion's suggestion. Goblin men sound like men with Orc blood to me, which would make them orc-men, like the Southerner and all other men with varying degrees of 'orc-blood' in them. *



Yes, I think the ¡°Men-Orcs¡± must be creatures that are described as ¡°Orcs¡± rather than ¡°Men¡±, which rules out all other candidates except the Isengard Uruk-hai.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *My one disagreement comes from the fact that I do believe that the Orcs of Saruman were larger than the Uruks of Mordor.*



So do I, but not very much larger.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * First of all, I believe that Grishnakh and his band were Uruks.*



I completely agree. J



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Members of Ugluk's group seem to be described as larger than those of Grishnakh's, althought the only direct comparison we see is between Ugluk and Grishnakh. However, when Ugluk calls up his mates they are described as being almost the same size as Ugluk.*



Note that Ugluk is not actually said to be larger than Grishnakh. They are grouped together for comparison with the smaller Orcs around them, which suggests that they were closer in size (if not shape) to each other than they were to the Northerners.

Grishnakh is described as ¡°short¡±, but he¡¯s also ¡°very broad¡±. I would conclude from this that he¡¯s actually rather large too. It¡¯s perfectly possible to be both short and large, as many international prop-forwards demonstrate! Also, Grishnakh is clearly very, very strong ¨C he runs with a Hobbit under each arm. He also has large hands, much like the Isengarders, and long arms, which the Isengarders had too.

But overall, I agree that he is probably somewhat smaller than Ugluk, and certainly shorter.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Who knows, maybe Saruman sent all of his biggest Orcs on such an important mission. But in the departure of Boromir the slain Isengard Orcs are definitely described as using bows after the manner of men. I don't think Orcs of Dwarvish stature could do this. And after all, Morgoth's ring does say that the 'men-Orcs' were bred to be large. I assume this means that they were larger than whatever stock Saruman started with (i.e. most likely Uruks like Grishnakh).*



I imagine the Isengard Uruks to be larger _on average_ than the Mordor Uruks, but not remarkably so. They certainly use long bows (though I doubt these are _longbows_), but remember that they also have long arms and (presumably) broad chests; they are described as ¡°squat and broad¡± at Helm¡¯s Deep. Those features would facilitate the use of a longer bow than whatever Orcs customarily used.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *the funny thing here is that we both agree that the Isengarders are different from the Mordor Uruks, but we do two different things with this idea. From a linguistic standpoint you seem to say that Uruks is an anglicization, probably of Uruk-hai. Therefore, though the Orcs of Saruman are peculiarly different than those of Mordor, they are both 'Uruk-hai'.
> I, on the other hand, say that the Orcs of Saruman are very different from those of Sauron. They are crossed with men (in however small a percentage), and therefore they are sufficiently different to deserve their own name. I have not seen any instance where 'Uruk-hai' is (unambiguously) applied to Mordor Orcs, so I assume that the name Uruk-hai is the name that seperates Saruman's Orcs from those of Sauron. Looking at other usages of the BS word 'hai', it appears to me likely that the word 'hai' means 'men'. If Saruman were to call his Orcs 'Uruk-men', this would differentiate them from the Uruks of Mordor in exactly the way that Saruman's troops are different from those of Mordor- they have some men's blood running in their veins.*



It¡¯s very odd then, that other Orcs treat them as Orcs, and not as ¡°half-Men¡± or whatever. The Isengarders appear all-orcish, and not even Grishnakh accuses them of being anything less than Orcs. It¡¯s therefore highly unlikely that their name indicates that they are only part Orc!



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Anyway, welcome again to the thread and forum, Shagrat. We've been eagerly awaiting your arrival since http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=40523#post40523 some 18 pages ago. *



Thanks! I wouldn¡¯t wait for my rambling and convoluted contributions, though!


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by ShagratU _
> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Originally posted by aragil
> Sam would not have understood any of the conversation between Shagrat and Snaga unless the ring were still giving him 'power of understanding', nor would he have understood the word 'snaga' to mean slave. Yet Tolkien has no problems putting these in the text. Why should he treat Gorbag differently?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> It seems clear to me that ¡°Snaga¡± is, to all intents and purposes, that particular Orc¡¯s name. It¡¯s what he answers to, and it¡¯s his identity. It doesn¡¯t appear to be used as an insult or a title, but simply as a name. Therefore it¡¯s translated as a name, because that¡¯s how Shagrat was using it. ¡°Shagrat¡± probably means something too, but that isn¡¯t translated either.



I disagree here. Shagrat and Snaga are speaking Westron. Sam is not wearing the Ring, and Snaga is one of the lesser breeds. I think Shagrat is actually calling him 'snaga' (slave) and using the BS word which they would both be familiar with.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> I am not overly concerned about the Appendix referring to Isengarders as Uruks. This does have some bearing on my 'probability' post, but even there the odds will still be overwhelmingly against 'Uruks' vs 'Uruk-hai' being used equivalently. In my opinion calling Saruman's troops 'Uruks' is much the same as calling them Orcs (it literally the same BS uruk=orc, but that's not what I meant), which Tolkien does throughout the narrative. I would bet money that Saruman bred his Orc/human hybrids from Uruks, so they would be an off-shoot of that breed, and could equally be called in the general sense 'uruks' or 'orcs', but there most-specific name might be 'Uruk-hai'.


This is interesting. You think the Orc/human hybrids came from Uruks while Shagrat thinks Uruks came from the hybrids. Is that inference (on my part) accurate guys? 


> Tar-Elenion, I will speak for Greenwood here by pointing out that he has already ammended his first post to include a 13th quote (reference to slave-driving _uruks_ in the Durthang line), so I'm sure he'd be happy to include a 14th quote. I wonder if we have missed any other quotes?- I'd begun to take it for granted that we had found them all. Anyway, Greenwood does not need to change his thesis either- he already acknowledged that Saruman's Orcs could be referred to as 'Uruks', several times actually:


That is not what I meant by 'change his thesis'. You were more correct
in your initial sentence. And yes.


> As for your analysis of Saruman's Orcs vs. Sauron's Orcs, I pretty much agree completely (and enthusiastically). My take has always been that anything Saruman created which was over 1/2 man was an 'orc-man' (orc-men wielding axes, the Southerner in Bree, goblin-men, men with goblin faces, what have you); while anything over 1/2 orc was a 'man-orc': Saruman took an orc, gave it a little man's blood (not to drink), and by doing so he made 'it' larger and more cunning (and openly disdainful of the sun). However, in the latter case the 'it' would still refer to an orc- which is how Saruman's troops are referred to for the most part in the narrative- Helm's Deep, etc. I don't think that goblin-men were the likeliest candidate for the man-orcs, as per Tar-Elenion's suggestion. Goblin men sound like men with Orc blood to me, which would make them orc-men, like the Southerner and all other _men_ with varying degrees of 'orc-blood' in them.


I dont think that was my suggestion. My suggestion has been that the 'Men-orcs large and cunning' are the 'goblin-faced Men' that Merry spoke of at Isengard, while the 'Orc-men treacherous and vile' are those like the 'Southerner' (though the variety of terms does get confusing). Shagrat has a different theory.


----------



## aragil

Of course, I'd argue that Shagrat and Snaga (or the Orc formerly referred to as a snaga) are speaking Black Speech (BS-ing, as it were), and that Sam 'understands' what they are saying in the same way that he 'understands' the conversation of Gorbag and Shagrat. But I'm not going to argue too much here, because I don't feel that Tolkien is constrained to type exactly what Sam heard. At this point in the narrative the readers are reasonably familiar with the term Uruk-hai, and if Tolkien were to have used it in the text rather than Uruks, I doubt that the reader would have found this usage problematic. I do not believe that whatever word Gorbag used was Uruk-hai. As Tar-Elenion pointed out, Westron had a much more intuitive (at least for us Westerners) way of 'pluralacizing' (don't know the correct word here)Uruk: Urukin. Likewise, in _Sauron Defeated_ on p. 436 we learn how Adunaic makes the word Uruk plural, although I don't have my books handy so I can't recall exactly how that is done. The point here, is that Gorbag did not necessarily say 'Uruk-hai', and there might be another BS word out there that makes Uruk plural in a similar manner to Adunaic and Westron, without resorting to the use of 'hai'. Again I don't have my books handy, but I thought a lot of the BS words were derived from Sindarin (BS uruk from S yrch, BS olog from S torog), which was also the base language for Adunaic and Westron. I could be wrong here, but that's how I remember it. Perhaps Cian or somebody knows how Sindarin 'pluralicizes'?


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *This is interesting. You think the Orc/human hybrids came from Uruks while Shagrat thinks Uruks came from the hybrids. Is that inference (on my part) accurate guys?
> *


This is certainly correct for my theory- Saruman's Orc/human hybrids used Sauron's older Uruk strain, as well as some sort of men (maybe Dunlendings?). I'd be surprised if Shagrat's theory was the reverse, but I'll let him speak for himself. I just think that Uruks appeared in TA 2475, long before Saruman was in Isengard, or had displayed any truly 'evil' tendencies.

Sorry if I inferred you were telling Greenwood to give up his argument.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *I dont think that was my suggestion. My suggestion has been that the 'Men-orcs large and cunning' are the 'goblin-faced Men' that Merry spoke of at Isengard, while the 'Orc-men treacherous and vile' are those like the 'Southerner' (though the variety of terms does get confusing). Shagrat has a different theory. *


Sorry if I was attributing the wrong hybrid to your 'orc-men' theory. Even with Goblin-faced men, my point still holds. Goblin-faced men sound like men with goblin blood (and faces), not goblin with men's blood. Goblin-faced seems to be an adjective describing men, in English. Of course, I don't think that BS needs to follow the same rule, so my theory of Uruk-hai as 'Orc-men' is actually meant to apply to the creatures Tolkien refers to as 'men-Orcs'. Anyway, as I've said before, I think that Saruman produced a continuum of hybrids, ranging from the barely-orcish (but still noticeably Goblin-featured) Southerner at Bree, to the barely-human (but still large and sun-tolerant) Ugluk. I think that Tolkien has broadly classified this continuum into 'men-orcs' and 'orc-men', intending these two classes to contain all manner of orc/men hybrids, including his Uruk-hai.

Shagrat- I've got a message brewing to further discuss with you, but it will have to wait until after work.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Of course, I'd argue that Shagrat and Snaga (or the Orc formerly referred to as a snaga) are speaking Black Speech (BS-ing, as it were), and that Sam 'understands' what they are saying in the same way that he 'understands' the conversation of Gorbag and Shagrat. But I'm not going to argue too much here, because I don't feel that Tolkien is constrained to type exactly what Sam heard.



I will have to disagree here. Sam can understand Shagrat and Gorbag because he is _wearing_ the Ring. When he overhears Shagrat and Snaga he is _not_ wearing the Ring. Shagrat and Snaga are different breeds and of different breeds used Westron for communication (see App. F). Many BS words were in widespread use among the Orcs.



> As Tar-Elenion pointed out, Westron had a much more intuitive (at least for us Westerners) way of 'pluralacizing' (don't know the correct word here)Uruk: Urukin.



Please note that I should have asterisked (***) 'urukin'. Accept my apologies and and please think of it as '*urukin'. I am going to edit my original post to make it clear.


fixed 'Quote' function error 2-2-03


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> This is certainly correct for my theory- Saruman's Orc/human hybrids used Sauron's older Uruk strain, as well as some sort of men (maybe Dunlendings?). I'd be surprised if Shagrat's theory was the reverse, but I'll let him speak for himself. I just think that Uruks appeared in TA 2475, long before Saruman was in Isengard, or had displayed any truly 'evil' tendencies.


Yes. App. A notes the race of Uruks appeard ca 2475. Saruman 'took' Isengard in 2953 (though he had been dwelling there as warden since 2759) and 'soon' started sending out spies and agents. Saruman's Uruks start apearing ca. 2995. Saruman first turns traitor to the White Council by 'allying' with Sauron in ca. 3000. But he has been 'acting against' (withholding things) the Council from as late as 2939 and possibly even earlier. I will reasearch some more and see if I can tie anything done. It might be interesting to discuss when he first started his 'breeding' experiments. 


> Sorry if I inferred you were telling Greenwood to give up his argument.


No problem. Just wanted to clarify.  


> Sorry if I was attributing the wrong hybrid to your 'orc-men' theory.


Again, no problem. I have been getting a little confused with all the 'half goblin orc men' things and just wanted to clarify my theory.


> Even with Goblin-faced men, my point still holds. Goblin-faced men sound like men with goblin blood (and faces), not goblin with men's blood. Goblin-faced seems to be an adjective describing men, in English. Of course, I don't think that BS needs to follow the same rule, so my theory of Uruk-hai as 'Orc-men' is actually meant to apply to the creatures Tolkien refers to as 'men-Orcs'. Anyway, as I've said before, I think that Saruman produced a continuum of hybrids, ranging from the barely-orcish (but still noticeably Goblin-featured) Southerner at Bree, to the barely-human (but still large and sun-tolerant) Ugluk. I think that Tolkien has broadly classified this continuum into 'men-orcs' and 'orc-men', intending these two classes to contain all manner of orc/men hybrids, including his Uruk-hai.


I think this is similar to Shagrat's theory. 
I think the 'goblin-faced men' were more man like than orc like as well, I just think the 'Southerners' type were even less 'orclike' and may have been the 'treacherous and vile' and not the 'large and cunning', if you get my drift. But I think yours is just as valid.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *
> I think this is similar to Shagrat's theory.
> I think the 'goblin-faced men' were more man like than orc like as well, I just think the 'Southerners' type were even less 'orclike' and may have been the 'treacherous and vile' and not the 'large and cunning', if you get my drift. But I think yours is just as valid. *






Yeah i think so to.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *
> I disagree here. Shagrat and Snaga are speaking Westron. Sam is not wearing the Ring, and Snaga is one of the lesser breeds. I think Shagrat is actually calling him 'snaga' (slave) and using the BS word which they would both be familiar with.*



This must be correct - I'd forgotten that Sam was wearing the ring when he got the translation effect. What you say makes perfect sense.

On the issue of what Shagrat means by using "Snaga", I suspect that a lesser orc assigned to an Uruk garrison would be known as "Snaga" beyond the conscious derogatory sense. I doubt that the Uruks (such as Shagrat) had anything else to call him; I can't imagine that they knew his real name (if he had one).

In other words, I get the feeling that Shagrat is not _consciously_ deriding Snaga when he uses the term, it's just the only name he had for "Snaga" (which of course arises from derision initially).


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *
> I dont think that was my suggestion. My suggestion has been that the 'Men-orcs large and cunning' are the 'goblin-faced Men' that Merry spoke of at Isengard, while the 'Orc-men treacherous and vile' are those like the 'Southerner' (though the variety of terms does get confusing). Shagrat has a different theory. *



Indeed.  I would point out that the "goblin-faced Men" are identified _with_ the Southerner at Bree by Merry and by Aragorn.

Moreover,the half-orc ruffians in the Shire are indentified with both the Southerner and the "horrible" Men who trooped out of Isengard:

"When they reached The Green Dragon, the last house on the Hobbiton side, now lifeless and with broken windows, they were disturbed to see half a dozen large ill-favoured Men lounging against the inn-wall; they were squint-eyed and sallow-faced."
'Like that friend of Bill Ferny's at Bree,' said Sam.
'Like many that I saw at Isengard,' muttered Merry."

I think these quotes make it fairly clear that all of these Man-height creatures are the same sort of thing, albeit with variation in their degree of Orcishness.

Also, in Morgoth's ring, we have this passage just before the description of Saruman's "Men-Orcs" and "Orc-Men":

"Finally, there is a cogent point, though horrible to relate. It became clear in that time that undoubted Men could under the domination of Morgoth or his agents in a few generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning."

Note that this decription refers to new breeds of _Orc_; Men would not become larger or more cunning through an infusion of Orc-blood.

The "Men-orcs" are described in _exactly the same terms_: "Men-orcs large and cunning". That, along with the designation, "Men-_orcs_", seems to make it clear that these creatures are classed as Orcs rather than Men. The only candidates for this creature are thus Saruman's Uruks.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by ShagratU _
> On the issue of what Shagrat means by using "Snaga", I suspect that a lesser orc assigned to an Uruk garrison would be known as "Snaga" beyond the conscious derogatory sense. I doubt that the Uruks (such as Shagrat) had anything else to call him; I can't imagine that they knew his real name (if he had one).



I can't imagine they even cared. 

Snaga is somewhat equivocal about his status. While he refers to Shagrats swine as 'ours', he also seems to draw a distinction by saying "I've fought for the Tower against those stinking Morgul rats...", which seems to imply that he was not really part of the Tower. If you get my drift.

As an aside I have been rereading some of the old threads at the 'Inklings'. I was very entertained by the 'Strength in Arms' thread with my referring to posts as 'utter rubbish' and you calling them 'sheer nonsence' (or words to that effect).


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by ShagratU _
> "Finally, there is a cogent point, though horrible to relate. It became clear in that time that undoubted Men could under the domination of Morgoth or his agents in a few generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning."
> Note that this decription refers to new breeds of _Orc_; Men would not become larger or more cunning through an infusion of Orc-blood.



True. This could be the source of Sauron's Uruk-hai. But this all before Saruman.



> The "Men-orcs" are described in _exactly the same terms_: "Men-orcs large and cunning". That, along with the designation, "Men-_orcs_", seems to make it clear that these creatures are classed as Orcs rather than Men. The only candidates for this creature are thus Saruman's Uruks.



This seems quite likely.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

I found another reference to Saruman and his Orcs. In an Author Note in the Palantir section of UT it says:
"The Council seems to have been unaware, since for many years Isengard had been closely gaurded, of what went on within its Ring. The use, and possibly special breeding, of Orcs was kept secret, and cannot have begun much before 2990 at the earliest. The Orc-troops seem never to have been used beyond the territory of Isengard before the attack on Rohan. Had the council known this they would, of course, at once realized that Saruman had becom evil." 
Endnote 7, The Palantiri. The 'essay' dates from 1966 when JRRT was preparing the revised edition of LotR.
The narrative time reference is to 2953, when Saruman seized Isengard for his own after the last meeting of the White Council.
This could give us further reference as to when Saruman may have started his breeding programs (it is interesting to note that JRRT is referring (in 1966!) to the 'special breeding' of Orcs as a possibilty). By 2953 Saruman had been keeping Isengard closely gaurded for many years. This suggests he started laying the basis for his breeding program before 2953, and only started getting his completed results in 2990. This is about that time Saruman's Uruks first started going into Rohan, though it was not suspected that they were his for a long time (App. A).


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *
> 
> I can't imagine they even cared. *



No, probably not!



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Snaga is somewhat equivocal about his status. While he refers to Shagrats swine as 'ours', he also seems to draw a distinction by saying "I've fought for the Tower against those stinking Morgul rats...", which seems to imply that he was not really part of the Tower. If you get my drift.*



Yes. The description of the soldier-orc with the tracker implies that all the rest of Shagrat's company were big Uruks.

I wonder whether the Snaga who was scouting for Ugluk and co. in Rohan was an Isengarder, or one of the Northerners who had been forced into the role. 



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *As an aside I have been rereading some of the old threads at the 'Inklings'. I was very entertained by the 'Strength in Arms' thread with my referring to posts as 'utter rubbish' and you calling them 'sheer nonsence' (or words to that effect).  *



Yes, that was quite an amusing thread! There's another one, called "Saruman's breeding programmes", in which I post utter rubbish as well (not having looked at the texts for years at that stage). Incidentally, in that thread, I also tried to make the same distinction between "Men-Orcs" and "Orc-Men" that you propose - but then abandoned that position as untenable !


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *True. This could be the source of Sauron's Uruk-hai. But this all before Saruman.
> *



But remember that this is stated to be the method that Saruman "rediscovered" "long afterwards in the Third Age".

Now, Sauron's Uruk-hai had been around for a few centuries when Saruman bred his, but the "rediscovered","long afterwards in the Third Age" and the mention of "Morgoth or his agents" imply very strongly that this was something that had been done in the First Age, and not just a few centuries earlier by Sauron.

Also, the statement that Saruman's cross-breeding was his "wickedest deed" suggests that it was something that had not been done for along time. If Sauron had been using the same "recipe" fairly recently, Saruman's act would seem less shocking.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally Posted by ShagratU_
> *The "Men-orcs" are described in exactly the same terms: "Men-orcs large and cunning". That, along with the designation, "Men-orcs", seems to make it clear that these creatures are classed as Orcs rather than Men. The only candidates for this creature are thus Saruman's Uruks.*


Or Uruk-hai, as it were. But I seem to agree with ShagratU completely here. And I was even going to say that bit about men not becoming larger and more cunning by crossing with Orcs. Honest. 
Anyway, now that I am free from the evil clutches of work (and have access again to my preciousss books), I can at last respond to Shagrat's 2 posts to me (way above). I know everybody is dying to hear. Honest.



> Firstly, nothing links the Olog-hai to Men.


Well, for a while on this thread that was the case. I just sat here stating that 'hai' was probably 'men', so Olog-hai were troll men. What was my evidence? Well, when Sauron concentrates on them, the Olog-hai can endure the sun. This is a most peculiar distinction among trolls, who generally seem to 'die' in quick fashion when confronted with sunlight. It seems to me that if Sauron concentrates on the other breeds of trolls, they will not be able to endure the sun. Because of this it seems to me that the Olog-hai have non-trollish blood in them, specifically some sort of genetic material which would make them more able to endure sunlight. This does not link Olog-hai to men, but it does not preclude them either. What else distinguishes this breed from other trolls? Well, they are described as '_strong, agile, fierce and cunning, but harder than stone._' Strong and harder than stone seem to be a given for trolls- I can't imagine a weak, soft troll. Fierce might be a characteristic of Trolls, but I tend to think of them as rather slow and ambivalent, rather than fierce. Agile and cunning strike me as decidedly un-trollish. I imagine trolls such as the Huggins', the Cave Troll of Fellowship, and the Mountain Trolls of Pelannor as being rather large and lumbering, not agile. The Hill-Trolls of the Morannon seem to be more beastlike- fierce and striding, but not cunning. They bellow, and roar like beasts. Again, agility and cunning do not link the Olog-hai with men, but men are decidedly sun-enduring, as well as being cunning and agile relative to more 'conventional' Trolls. So I was still insisting that the Olog-hai were troll men when I stumbled on the following passage by happy circumstance:
From RotK, The Battle of the Pelannor Fields. '_East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men and Variags and orcs that hated the sunlight._'
Here at last we appear to have my beloved troll-men, called as such, and clearly operating in the sunlight. Of course, nothing is perfect, and it was not long before Tar-Elenion pointed out the following passage:
From RotK, The Battle of the Pelannor Fields. '_He (the witch king) now was destroyed; but Gothmog the lieutenant of Morgul had flung them into the fray; Easterlings with axes, and Variags of Khand, Southrons in scarlet, and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues._'
Well, once we have them as 'men like half-trolls', and once as 'troll-men', which is correct (or are they both correct)? Does the phrase 'like' mean that they are definitively not half-trolls? Throughout his works, Tolkien uses the phrases 'as though', 'as if', and 'like' to either refer to things that 'are', or else to give the reader an glimpse into the meaning of the events described. Witness Sam's account of the encounters between Frodo and Gollum outside the Cracks of Doom and at the Emyn Muil, Legolas' account of the confrontation between Aragorn and Eomer when they first met, or Pippin's accounts of the contests of will between Gandalf and Denethor. Also, there is the point from _Minas Tirith_ where Beregrond and Pippin are disturbed by the sun being obscured '_as though a dark wing had passed across it._' The sun obstructor turns out to be a Nazgul on a fell beast, so it is likely that a dark wing did indeed pass across the sun. Clearly it is not beyond the language of Tolkien to refer to _real_ half-trolls as 'men like half-trolls'. I am not alone in my opinion, apparently. In the index to HoME volume 8, the above creatures are found in the entry for trolls, specifically called 'half-trolls of Far Harad', and they appear in the narrative as "the Variags of Khand, and the black 'half-trolls' of Far Harad." So CT also refers to them as half-trolls, although his usage of the quotes makes this reference somewhat ambiguous.
Turning now back to the Olog-hai, we see in HoME v. 12, p. 80 the passage that Tar-Elenion uses to claim that Trolls can not breed with Orcs. This passage is most interesting because it was the *only* part of the discussion of Olog-hai which was later changed in the final printing. In the printed version of Appendix F he does not say that Orcs (and biologically equivalent Elves and Men) could not breed with Trolls. That was certainly an early idea of his, but it did not make it into his final draft. We cannot presume to know why Tolkien later omitted this portion of the passage, but there is the distinct possibility that he changed his mind on the subject. 
Finally, we note when Tolkien added the reference to Olog-hai. Apparently he did this at the same time as when he added notes covering _mumak_, Variags, and Khand. These notes would have been in reasonably close proximity- _mumak[.I], Variags and Khand appearing at the end of the 'men' section, a single page of Hobbits, (Ents?) followed by Orcs and Trolls. Again this is hardly definitive evidence, but it is definitely interesting to notice that Tolkien decides to mention the Olog-hai at the same time he decides to elucidate the nature of the Variags. As noted in the above two passages from RotK, Variag and troll-men only appear twice each, and they occur together. The fact that Variag was added to the Appendix at the same time as the mysterious Olog-hai makes me inclined to believe that Tolkien was addressing some of the creatures from Pelannor which he decided needed further discussion- the mumakil, the Variags, and the Troll-men. Other people do not need to agree that this was the case (I'm sure they won't), but I certainly do not see how this relationship is impossible. Mannish blood would certainly give the Olog-hai the requisite abilities distinct from other Trolls- agility, cunning, and sun-endurance. The 'trolls they were' passage I read as refuting the possibility that the trolls were just large. Gone is the bit about the Olog-hai not being cross-breeds. In fact, the Appendix makes a point of stating that Sauron 'bred' them, but from unknown stock. Since the stock is so definitively labeled as 'unknown', I think it is presumptious to say that it 'could not be men'. Certainly men are not the only candidates for the extra stock in the Olog-hai, but I would say that it is certainly possible (even likely considering the mention of 'troll-men') that the Olog-hai could have had mannish blood.

I will address the Uruk-hai usage in another post (alas, the limit on post length is ever my enemy)

As for Snaga being a name, the ring being a translator, whether or not the ring does this when held (as opposed to being worn), or whether a proud captain like Shagrat would let an orc in his service address him in Westron (rather than in proper BS) for umpteen years in Mordor; I will leave that to you and Tar-Elenion to hash out. As long as we agree it is possible that there are other ways to make 'uruk' plural, besides adding 'hai', then I won't argue the point. Now that I do have my books handy, p. 436 of Sauron defeated has Adunaic 'pluraling' uruk as (normal) urik and (subjective) urkim. Understandably, this is not Black Speech, but it is a Middle-earth model for how languages might form the plural of uruk (as is Tar-Elenion's now-asterisked '*urukin').

And finally, 'rambling and convoluted contributions' are the norm here. Harad suggests that we all get this thread collected, bound, and published, and of course I agree with him._


----------



## aragil

Why I still think Uruk-hai is separate from Uruk, probably meaning Orc-men (or more properly men-Orcs):

Firstly, I never meant to say that Tolkien was simply calling the Isengarders Orcs by using the Black Speech word 'Uruks'. What I meant is that the Isengarders are certainly descended from Uruks and (slightly) from men. They are a subset of the broader class 'Uruks'. Likewise, the Uruks are a subset of the broader class 'Orcs'. However, not all Orcs are Uruks, and I do not believe that all Uruks are also Uruk-hai. We have Tolkien calling the Isengarders Orcs, uruks, and Uruk-hai. I claim that the last two are different, and are applied to the Isengarders in different senses.



> Given the disdain that the Isengarders show for the Whiteskins, it's highly unlikely that they are actually boasting of their Mannish origin!



Well, I hate to try to get into Orcish psychology, especially in the realm of which characteristic of an individual is most deserving of an insult. Grishnakh certainly insults Ugluk often enough (witness Grishnakh's edge in this category in the 'Orc Pentathlete' thread). Does he have to insult him specifically for being part man? It seems that most of Ugluk's problems are with the Rohirrim (Whiteskins), not men in general (he certainly seems to like man-flesh as a delicacy). What little mannish blood Ugluk has is almost certainly not of Rohirric origin, it's probably Dunlendish. How do the Uruk-hai feel about the Dunlendings? Well, they're able to march in the Dundlendings general vicinity without attacking them- that's pretty tolerant by Orc standards.

Now, the $10,000 question: Would Ugluk (and other Isengarders) brag about being mannish when they say that they are Uruk-hai?

The Two Towers, p. 61 "_We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat._"

I like the layout of this passage: we=fighting Uruk-hai=slayers of the great warrior=takers of prisoners=servants of Saruman. Of course, the passage doesn't have to be read this way. All of the other things they say might be equivalent to 'we' but not to eachother. In particular, though they say 'We are the fighting Uruk-hai' and 'We are the servants of Saruman', it isn't necessarily the case that all Uruk-hai are the servants of Saruman. However, if there were ever an example of Uruk-hai of Mordor, then assuredly Ugluk is addressing him here: silver medalist in the Orc Pentathlon, Grishnakh the Great. Yet Grishnakh says nothing here. Doesn't it seem that Ugluk is boasting about how he is a Uruk-hai and his audience is not? Wouldn't that be an odd usage if Grishnakh was equally a Uruk-hai, and standing right in front of him?
Anyway, what else is Ugluk bragging about here? The slaying of Boromir. What allowed the Uruk-hai to slay Boromir? The 'bows of yew, in length and shape like the bows of Men.' These are the instruments of Boromir's demise since we know he was shot to death, and the Isengarders are claiming to be the shooters. Also, these are amongst the gear that Aragorn claims as being 'not after the manner of Orcs at all!' Indeed, these bows are probably one of the things that sets the Isengarders apart from the Mordor Orcs- the greater stature of the Isengarders allows them to use these longer bows, and here we have the Isengarders bragging about their battle prowess (use of bows) in a way which makes it particular to the Uruk-hai, and which is also particular to having mannish blood. Not defitive proof, but a statement such as it is. A much better statement comes from Helm's Deep:
The Two Towers, p 184 "_What of the dawn?" they jeered. 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. .... _" 
My reading of this is that the Uruk-hai are unaffected by the sun. This is a mannish quality, not posessed by the Uruks of Mordor. They are bragging about being 'part mannish', and equating it to being Uruk-hai. I don't call this definitive proof, but I do call it compelling evidence.
What being a hybrid Orc of Isengard means is that the Orc is larger than a normal Uruk (we agree here, though you seem to be reluctant to give Isengarders much of an advantage), more cunning than a normal Uruk, and capable of tolerating sun to a greater extent than a normal Uruk. These are very braggable qualities, even in the Orc world. And we mustn't forget that human DNA might have the slightest effect on the Orc brain. Isengarders have higher morale, they hang together for the longest during the Rohirrim assault by Eomer, and they almost escape. They have a certain espirit d'corps that other Orcs don't seem to have. I'm sure that the Isengarders are proud of their enhanced abilities, and would brag about them to lesser Orcs. If I were bigger, smarter and more sun-tolerant than fellow Orcs, I certainly would not be so embarrased by the source of these abilities that I would keep them quiet. I do not think it at all unlikely that the Isengarders are in a sense saying 'look at the effects man-blood has had on us, we are the fighting Uruk-hai!' In fact this seems to me to be exactly what they are bragging about. As for other Orcs treating them as 'Orcs', well, Grishnakh calls them the 'muck-rakers of a dirty little wizard.' I'm sure that if the Uruk-hai were not completely dominant in combat, then the other Orcs would have treated them as 'human-filth', and bad-mouthed their breeding, etc. As it was, bad-mouthing the Uruk-hai was probably a death-sentence for the lesser Orcs, and doubtless Ugluk intended to kill Grishnakh for his 'muck-raker' comment before the 'ape of Lugburz' slunk off. The other Orcs definitely did not like the Isengarders, witness:
The Two Towers, p. 59: '_Curse the Isengarders! Ugluk u bagronk sha pushdug Saruman-glob bubhosh skai!_' 
By this the Orc of course meant : Ugluk to the cesspool, sha! the dungfilth; the great Saruman-fool, skai! Again, I don't pretend to understand Orc insults, but this seemed a dig at the Isengarders and Saruman, and the Orc which made this statement was dead in two short pages. Perhaps this is the sort of reason we don't see more racial slurs coming out of the mouths of the Moria Orcs.


----------



## Goro Shimura

aragil--

Nice post. You speak my mind.

I haven't studied this issue... but you've definitely got it the way I've always "read" it.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

I will leave the 'metaphors' and 'similes' for Shagrat. He has seemed to enjoy that elsewhere. 


> _Originally posted by aragil _
> In the index to HoME volume 8, the above creatures are found in the entry for trolls, specifically called 'half-trolls of Far Harad', and they appear in the narrative as "the Variags of Khand, and the black 'half-trolls' of Far Harad." So CT also refers to them as half-trolls, although his usage of the quotes makes this reference somewhat ambiguous.



The usage in the 'narrative' of HoME 8 is CT refering to the rewriting of the overall passage which seems to have reached the form taken in LotR.



> Turning now back to the Olog-hai, we see in HoME v. 12, p. 80 the passage that Tar-Elenion uses to claim that Trolls can not breed with Orcs. This passage is most interesting because it was the *only* part of the discussion of Olog-hai which was later changed in the final printing. In the printed version of Appendix F he does not say that Orcs (and biologically equivalent Elves and Men) could not breed with Trolls. That was certainly an early idea of his, but it did not make it into his final draft. We cannot presume to know why Tolkien later omitted this portion of the passage, but there is the distinct possibility that he changed his mind on the subject.



Not only was the 'no kinship' portion left out, but this part as well:
"some held that they were a cross between trolls and the larger Orcs".

The reason for the omission from LotR (of both portions) is important. It does not necessarily imply that JRRT changed his mind at the time or rejected it. Much of the info contained in the later drafts of the Appendices presented in PoME were left out of the LotR Appendices because of length and cost, not because of rejection. JRRT had to 'truncate and compress' the Appendices for publication and found that very unsatisfactory.
When 'compressing' this passage for publication he left out the 'crossbreed' supposition and thus there was no need to keep the 'no kinship' statement. This is still implied in the published text by noting that though some held they were 'giant Orcs' they were 'in fashion of body and mind quite unlike even the largest of Orcs', as well as noting that trolls were in origin 'creatures of dull and lumpish nature', which Orcs were not.



> Finally, we note when Tolkien added the reference to Olog-hai. Apparently he did this at the same time as when he added notes covering _mumak_, Variags, and Khand. These notes would have been in reasonably close proximity- _mumak[.I], Variags and Khand appearing at the end of the 'men' section, a single page of Hobbits, (Ents?) followed by Orcs and Trolls. Again this is hardly definitive evidence, but it is definitely interesting to notice that Tolkien decides to mention the Olog-hai at the same time he decides to elucidate the nature of the Variags.
> [and]
> The fact that Variag was added to the Appendix at the same time as the mysterious Olog-hai makes me inclined to believe that Tolkien was addressing some of the creatures from Pelannor which he decided needed further discussion- the mumakil, the Variags, and the Troll-men._


_

Your apparent 'timeframe' seems incorrect.
Variag and Khand were added to the sentence: "Of the speech of the Men of the East and allies of Sauron all that appears is mumak, a name of the great elephant of the Harad." Which was added to the text discussing the origin of Westron in the F4 manuscript (or rather Variag and Khand were added to a carbon). The text about the trolls is part of the original F4 draft. Variag, Khand, and mumak (and discussion of the 'eastern speech' did not make it into App. F (which is unfortunate, but possibly due to 'compression' as well).





The 'trolls they were' passage I read as refuting the possibility that the trolls were just large.

Click to expand...


I am not clear on what you are saying here. Please clarify.
I read the 'trolls they were' as just that. They were trolls.

fixed 'quote' problem 2-2-03_


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by aragil_
> *The 'trolls they were' passage I read as refuting the possibility that the trolls were just large.*



Dangit, this should have read: 
'..I read as refuting the possibility that the trolls were just large *Orcs*.' 
Don't know how I missed the end (and point) of my sentence. Anyway, 'Trolls they were' in the passage seems to be rejecting the theory that the Olog-hai were just large Orcs with no Trollish blood. I don't read it as nixing the possibility of a hybrid. We all seem to agree that the Uruk-hai of Saruman had some mannish blood, but for the most part they were referred to in the narrative as 'orcs'. Orcs they were, in spite of the fact that they had a little human blood. I think that the same could hold for the Olog-hai, and of course according to my theory, the Olog-hai would be named similarly to the Uruk-hai because of the shared trait of mannish blood. They would be considered as Trolls and Orcs respectively, but they would have a small amount of mannish blood which would simultaneously distinguish them from 'conventional' Trolls and Orcs and earn them both the epithet '-hai'.

I have recognized that CT's passage from HoME 8 is ambiguous. I just wanted to point out that if you wanted to find the 'half-trolls' in the index, you'd have to look under Trolls. This does not prove that CT thought of them as actual 'trolls', but apparently he thought that this would be where people would look for it in the index.

As for Tolkien changing his mind on the Olog-hai not being half-orcs, I just mentioned that it *could* have been omitted because he changed his mind, not that he definitely did. I note, however, that the half-breed sentence was fairly short, and if Tolkien had considered the passage crucial to the origin of the Olog-hai, then he could have left it in without seriously lengthening the appendices.

Tar Elenion- I'm unclear to your objection to my last paragraph. As I read it, F4 was a draft. Variag, Khand, and Mumak were added in this version of the draft. We do not see F3, but in F2 the 'troll and orc' section did not mention Olog-hai. It seems to me that CT says that the Olog-hai entry first appears in the F4 draft, which is also when Variag and Khand appear. Is a carbon of a draft considered different than the actual draft? I'm genuinely confused to this objection. All I am trying to say is that Tolkien was thinking about adding Olog-hai while he was also thinking about adding Variag. The Variags are only seen in the narrative with the 'half-trolls' of Far Harad. Maybe Tolkien was thinking about Variags and Olog-hai at the same time because he intended the 'half-trolls' to be the Olog-hai. This is certainly not definitive evidence that the two creatures were the same. I'm justing pointing out that 'half-trolls' and Variags were linked in the narrative, and as I read PoME, the Olog-hai and Variags were added to the appendix at the same time.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Tar Elenion- I'm unclear to your objection to my last paragraph. As I read it, F4 was a draft. Variag, Khand, and Mumak were added in this version of the draft. We do not see F3, but in F2 the 'troll and orc' section did not mention Olog-hai. It seems to me that CT says that the Olog-hai entry first appears in the F4 draft, which is also when Variag and Khand appear. Is a carbon of a draft considered different than the actual draft? I'm genuinely confused to this objection. All I am trying to say is that Tolkien was thinking about adding Olog-hai while he was also thinking about adding Variag. The Variags are only seen in the narrative with the 'half-trolls' of Far Harad. Maybe Tolkien was thinking about Variags and Olog-hai at the same time because he intended the 'half-trolls' to be the Olog-hai. This is certainly not definitive evidence that the two creatures were the same. I'm justing pointing out that 'half-trolls' and Variags were linked in the narrative, and as I read PoME, the Olog-hai and Variags were added to the appendix at the same time.



I will see if I can be clearer. The F4 draft was 'complete'. On the F4 draft he added the sentence about the mumaks. If it had been included in LotR it seems it was to go into the Men section of App. F (end of 4th paragraph). But the draft was already 'complete' including the Troll section. On a carbon of the F4 draft at a later time JRRT put Variag and Khand with Mumak (likely he was recalling that these other 'eastern' words also occurred). These are 'later' than the Troll section and seperated by other sections. What may be confusing you is that CT put them close together in PoME, but this is not an indication that they were written at the same time. I hope this is clearer.


----------



## aragil

This is slightly clearer, but I am still confused. By F4 being complete, do you mean it was the first version submitted to Haughton-Mifflin, subject only to 'compressing'? Or do you mean that it was completed on it's own, prior to the addition of Variag, and before the beginning of a possible F5 which was submitted to H-M?
I still feel that Variag was added during the same 'drafting' as Olog-hai, whether this was done minutes or months later. F4 (with or without Variags) is different from F3 and the version which was published. I agree that F4a with Olog-hai was earlier than F4b with Olog-hai and Variags, but they still fall into F4- the same basic drafting, taking place at basically the same time.
In the published version, the 'Words of the Easterlings and Dunlendings' is at the end of the 'Languages of Men Section', before the ~1 page note on Hobbits. Following this is a section on Ents, and then we get the Orcs and Trolls (Black Speech) section. I don't know if the Ent and Hobbit sections were extant at the time of F4, so Variags might have been in relative proximity to Olog-hai, although this is less important than the issue of time-disparity between F4a and F4b.
I hope that CT begins publishing photocopies of his father's notes, so that I can glean more and speculate less. It is especially frustrating (for this debate) when he says stuff in HoME v 7, _The Uruk-hai_, to the effect of: 'The rest of the draft is very similar to what is published.' Of course, it is the exact differences which are most interesting to us for this debate. It appears that CT didn't have us in mind while writing HoME.


----------



## ShagratU

*The Olog-hai*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *
> Well, for a while on this thread that was the case. I just sat here stating that 'hai' was probably 'men', so Olog-hai were troll men. What was my evidence? Well, when Sauron concentrates on them, the Olog-hai can endure the sun. This is a most peculiar distinction among trolls, who generally seem to 'die' in quick fashion when confronted with sunlight. It seems to me that if Sauron concentrates on the other breeds of trolls, they will not be able to endure the sun. *



I would agree with this. And with that, I will note that the hill-trolls of Gorgoroth appear in daylight at the Morannon. If, as we agree, other trolls would not be able to endure the sun even with the will of Sauron behind them, then these creatures must be the Olog-hai. At the Morannon, of course, the reek of Orodruin partially obscures the sun ¨C but not completely. We know of course that the first rays of dawn are enough to kill non-Olog-hai trolls.

In this connection, it might be pertinent to note that in the second chapter of LotR Tolkien says:

"Trolls were abroad, no longer dull-witted, but cunning and armed with dreadful weapons." 

Appendix F introduces the Olog-hai thus:

¡±But at the end of the Third Age a troll-race not before seen appeared in southern Mirkwood and in the mountain borders of Mordor. ¡°

and goes on to describe them thus:

¡°Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race, strong, agile, fierce and cunning, but harder than stone. ¡°

So we have two points of identification between the trolls of ¡°The Shadow of the Past¡± and the Olog-hai; the time of their appearance, and their cunning.

There is also the interesting point that these new trolls were ¡°armed with dreadful weapons.¡± The hill-trolls of Gorgoroth appear to be the only trolls in Tolkien¡¯s work who are described as carrying weapons; the cave troll appears to be unarmed, as are the trolls of ¡°The Hobbit.¡± But the hill-trolls at the Morannon ¡°bore round bucklers huge and black and wielded heavy hammers in their knotted hands.¡± It seems quite clear, therefore, that they are the new, ¡°improved¡± kind of troll. Nothing about these trolls suggests that they have Man-blood.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Because of this it seems to me that the Olog-hai have non-trollish blood in them, specifically some sort of genetic material which would make them more able to endure sunlight. This does not link Olog-hai to men, but it does not preclude them either. *



It seems to me that the description of the Olog-hai generally excludes a ¡°genetic¡± explanation for their sun-resistance:

¡°Unlike the older race of the Twilight they could endure the Sun, _so long as the will of Sauron held sway over them._¡±

The sun-endurance is dependent on Sauron¡¯s will, not on genetics. Magic, rather than blood, would appear to be the factor here. Of course, it would also appear that these trolls are not made from stone, that they are not ¡°counterfeits¡± as the Stone Trolls are, but real creatures. But this very point would exclude them from being traditional trolls with Man-blood; traditional trolls aren¡¯t real creatures, and so presumably could not ¡°breed¡± with anything.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *What else distinguishes this breed from other trolls? Well, they are described as 'strong, agile, fierce and cunning, but harder than stone.' Strong and harder than stone seem to be a given for trolls- I can't imagine a weak, soft troll. Fierce might be a characteristic of Trolls, but I tend to think of them as rather slow and ambivalent, rather than fierce. Agile and cunning strike me as decidedly un-trollish. I imagine trolls such as the Huggins', the Cave Troll of Fellowship, and the Mountain Trolls of Pelannor as being rather large and lumbering, not agile. The Hill-Trolls of the Morannon seem to be more beastlike- fierce and striding, but not cunning. They bellow, and roar like beasts.*



Well, we know that the Olog-hai ¡°spoke little, and the only tongue that they knew was the Black Speech of Barad-dur.¡± We shouldn¡¯t be expecting a display of verbal pyrotechnics from them!  We see them in a battle, fighting, and they ¡°roar¡± and ¡°bellow¡±. That seems quite appropriate behaviour for a battle, and not indicative of any lack of cunning. As it was probably quite terrifying, it seems the clever thing to do!

The hill-trolls also appear quite agile: they ¡°sprang into the pools¡±, which implies more agility than we would expect from the traditional sort of troll.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *From RotK, The Battle of the Pelannor Fields. 'East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men and Variags and orcs that hated the sunlight.'
> Here at last we appear to have my beloved troll-men, called as such, and clearly operating in the sunlight. Of course, nothing is perfect, and it was not long before Tar-Elenion pointed out the following passage:
> From RotK, The Battle of the Pelannor Fields. 'He (the witch king) now was destroyed; but Gothmog the lieutenant of Morgul had flung them into the fray; Easterlings with axes, and Variags of Khand, Southrons in scarlet, and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues.'
> Well, once we have them as 'men like half-trolls', and once as 'troll-men', which is correct (or are they both correct)? Does the phrase 'like' mean that they are definitively not half-trolls? [snip]
> Clearly it is not beyond the language of Tolkien to refer to real half-trolls as 'men like half-trolls'. I am not alone in my opinion, apparently. In the index to HoME volume 8, the above creatures are found in the entry for trolls, specifically called 'half-trolls of Far Harad', and they appear in the narrative as "the Variags of Khand, and the black 'half-trolls' of Far Harad." So CT also refers to them as half-trolls, although his usage of the quotes makes this reference somewhat ambiguous.*



I agree there is room for ambiguity as to what these troll-men actually were (though personally I think they were just Men). However, nothing about these creatures indicates that they are to be identified with the Olog-hai.

First, they are described ambiguously. The troll-part is uncertain, while the man-part is not, as they are introduced as men ¡°like half-trolls¡±. This does not fit at all with the unambiguous ¡°Trolls they were¡± in Appendix F.

Secondly, they clearly _look_ like Men, not like ¡°giant Orcs.¡± We know that the Olog-hai were held by some to be giant Orcs, so we would expect them to resemble Orcs in some way. But there is nothing Orcish about the description of these Men. We can reasonably conclude that their proportions are Man-like, not Orc-like.

Thirdly, we are told that the Olog-hai ¡°were in fashion of body and mind quite unlike even the largest of Orc-kind, whom they far surpassed in size and power.¡± Note that the objection is principally one of _size_. The people of Far Harad are introduced as Men, and we know that the very largest of Orc-kind can be ¡°almost Man-high¡±, which probably indicates a height of 5¡¯ or so. To ¡°far surpass¡± ¡°almost Man-high¡±, I submit that the Olog-hai would have to be greater than Man-size, and thus cannot be creatures that are described as ¡°men¡±. Of course, we are told that the daytime hill-trolls of Gorgoroth are ¡°taller and broader than Men,¡± so they fit where the Far Haradrim do not.

Fourthly, there is a strong geographical objection. The men at Pelennor are from Far Harad. The Olog-hai, we are told, appeared in Mirkwood and Mordor. That pretty much rules out the Far Haradrim as Olog-hai. It might also be worth noting that Sauron was resident in Dol Guldor and then Barad-dur, and so Mirkwood and Mordor appear to be natural areas for his new type of troll to appear. Far Harad appears a bit, well, _far_.

Finally, a separate objection; Tolkien tells us of the Olog-hai:

¡°That Sauron bred them none doubted, though from what stock was not known.¡±

If ¡°-hai¡± means ¡°men¡±, then it would be perfectly obvious what Olog-hai were bred from; Gandalf, Elrond and the like can understand Black Speech. There would be no mystery. If they _were_ the Men of Far Harad, for instance, it would be quite clear that they were of Man-stock. But it¡¯s not, and so, I submit, they are not.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *And finally, 'rambling and convoluted contributions' are the norm here. *



And a good thing too!


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *This is slightly clearer, but I am still confused. By F4 being complete, do you mean it was the first version submitted to Haughton-Mifflin, subject only to 'compressing'? Or do you mean that it was completed on it's own, prior to the addition of Variag, and before the beginning of a possible F5 which was submitted to H-M?*


*

By 'complete' I mean that F4 was complete within itself (it may well have been in the same essential form as we read App. F1, though with differences in wording and such). There were other typescripts done before sending a final typescript to the printer, but the only difference that CT specifically notes of these is the translation of Grishnakh's curse that appears in one of them, and says these other versions were not all complete. Other differences do not seem to have been remarkable enough to be specially noted. 
Yes, F4 was completed on its own prior to the addition of the words 'Variag' and 'Khand' which are added to a carbon copy of the F4 typescript (which was fully extent) and they are associated with the mumak sentence which if it had been in the published version would likely have come at the end of the fourth paragraph on Men. 




In the published version, the 'Words of the Easterlings and Dunlendings' is at the end of the 'Languages of Men Section', before the ~1 page note on Hobbits. Following this is a section on Ents, and then we get the Orcs and Trolls (Black Speech) section. I don't know if the Ent and Hobbit sections were extant at the time of F4, so Variags might have been in relative proximity to Olog-hai, although this is less important than the issue of time-disparity between F4a and F4b.

Click to expand...



What you are terming F4a and F4b is just F4. What you are terming F4b is a carbon copy. It was typed up at exactly the same time as what you are terming F4a. At some point after typing F4 the words Variag and Khand were added to the carbon copy.





I hope that CT begins publishing photocopies of his father's notes, so that I can glean more and speculate less.

Click to expand...


Not likely, he has pretty much retired.  
There are a number of things I wopuld like to see copies especially the 1959 genealogies*


----------



## Tar-Elenion

I have remembered. We actually have a Black Speech word for 'man'.
'sharku' - 'old man'. *shar, '*old'; *ku , '*man'.
Cian please give further insight as necessary.


----------



## aragil

Well, Olog-hai has always been my hardest sell for 'hai' being 'men' (again not Chinese 'men'). Nobody ever argues with Oghor-hai; and Uruk-hai of course is the discussion of this thread. I guess this proves that your argument is never stronger than its weakest point.
It's also hard for me to argue against the Hill Trolls of the Morannon, as I had always thought of them as the Olog-hai too, until I started debating possible meaning for the word 'hai'. In fact to really back me up here, I remember wondering if the Hill Trolls might be the same as the half-trolls of Far Harad back in my younger days, before I forgot that the 'half-troll' passage existed.
Anyway, to prevent rehashing some previous material, here are the links to my older assertions regarding the Olog-hai:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=44573#post44573
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=42725#post42725 (with passage from Appendix F)
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=44517#post44517

Now, to actually respond to Shagrat-
The Hill-trolls might be operating in the sun, which is why I always try to say that the troll-men are the only trollish creatures ever 'unambiguously' described operating in the sun. Sauron's Orcs don't like the sun, yet they were present at the Morannon, which has always made me think that there were 'storm of Mordor clouds' present. These clouds were good enough for the Mountain Trolls weilding Grond back at the Pelannor, maybe they're good enough for Hill Trolls too.

I have to assume that the troll-men are also bearing weapons, even if they are not described as doing so. Otherwise their presence in battle stems only from their Troll-ish nature, which might help my argument as well. Remember, it is only an inference (a good one) that links Olog-hai to the trolls abroad both 'cunning and armed with dreadful weapons.' Weapons are not described in the Olog-hai passage, so I won't require my Troll-men to be described with such either.

Of course, while your reading of the passage excludes genetics, my reading necessitates it. Again if Sauron's will was all that was necessary, why couldn't Sauron also concentrate on his other trolls? Something must be different about the Olog-hai themselves. If magic was all that was necessary, why was Saruman messing around with Men and Orcs? Why not just use Orcs and magic?
I am confused by your mention of Stone Trolls from Stone. I thought that Tolkien refused to give the powers of creation (i.e. gift of life and independent thought) to Morgoth, Sauron, or Aule. Weren't the Trolls some sort of perversion of the Ents (made in mockery of them as the Orcs were a mockery of Elves)? Anyway, your description of 'non-Trollish' Trolls sounds at least as radical as my theory of mannish-Trolls.

Well enough bashing of the Hill Trolls. Like I said, I used to favor them as Olog-hai, particularly because I could never determine whether the battle of the Morannon occured under a full spread of Mordor Clouds or not. Also, I always thought about how Tolkien describes his troops becoming witless as he only concentrates on the Nazgul catching Frodo. I wondered if that was some indication that the 'will of their master' had left the Hill Trolls, and they suddenly became vulnerable to the sun. Anyway, on to the defense of my beloved Troll-men:

Could the Troll-men pass for Giant Orcs? I'm not going to require them to look too Orcish, as the Olog-hai are 'in fashion of body and mind quite unlike even the largest of Orc-kind.' But let's see if the Far Haradrim were Orcish enough to at least fool people into speculating them to be Giant Orcs. Well, first they're described as men with *black* skin, red tongues (are there other kinds?) and white eyes. I always took the white eyes to be white pupils, giving the half-trolls a sort of demon appearance. The Orc Chieftain of Moria was a largish (not giant) Orc, being almost man height, with *black* skin and eyes like coals. If the coals were white-hot, he might have looked something like the troll-men. If a larg-ish Orc is almost man-height, how much taller does a Giant Orc have to be? The Numenoreans were 'just' Men, and they were 7' tall. Harad of these very boards claims to be 7' something. Perhaps the Far Haradrim were very tall, tall enough to be considered Giant Orcs. Where's my proof? Well, what else could 'like half-trolls' be implying, if not great size and strength? If the Far Haradrim are large and strong enough to be described as 'like half trolls', then I submit that they also surpass the largest of Orc-kind 'in size and power.'

The Geographical objection is a good one. As I stated in one of my earlier, posts, all I can say is that the Olog-hai 'appear' in the Mountains of Mordor and Southern Mirkwood. The troll-men originate in Far Harad. My somewhat convoluted explanation is that the man stock comes from Far Harad, but the Troll-men are actually bred in the pits of Barad-dur and Dol-Guldur, from whence they are then deployed. This would be my explanation for why the Far Haradrim do not accompany the rest of the Southrons in the battle at Pelannor.

Well the final objection, regarding Elrond's and Gandalf's knowledge of the Black Speech, is a slippery business. We certainly know that they could read the inscription of the ring, but that should be common knowledge to members of the White Council. Gandalf also knows 'gash' to be fire, but then again, fire is his business. I will, however, agree that these lore-masters probably had a working knowledge of Black Speech. However, would they know that the Olog-hai were called such? The Hill Trolls don't proudly boast to be 'Olog-hai' like Ugluk and co. do, and the Troll-Men are never acknowldged as speaking either. Which brings me to a good point: Does anybody know that BS Olog is equivalent to Sindarin Torog=troll? I've been operating under that assumption, and it seems sort of obvious, but is anybody certain?

Anyway, if the Hill Trolls were the Olog-hai, shouldn't 'hai' mean 'hill'? How does that fit in with Oghor-hai and Uruk-hai? If 'hai' doesn't mean 'hill', then why are the Hill Trolls called *Hill* Trolls, instead of by the English equivalent of whatever 'Olog-hai' means in the Black speech? I've argued that this is the case for the Uruk-hai (also called men-Orcs) and Oghor-hai (also called Pukel-men, or Dru-men, or Wild Men).

Ah, nothing like the back and forth of a good debate! Anyway, Shagrat, I've noticed a lot of strange characters in your posts, like i+/-, and i-(degree o). I'm thinking that you might be trying to italicize in the same manner that you do on another board. If so, here are the tips I gave Tar-Elenion for _these_ boards:


> ps. Tar-Elenion- if you'd like to further differentiate quotes from other text, simply surround it with the {QUOTE} and {/QUOTE} tags- but using square brackets rather than the curlies. You can further distinguish it with {B} and {/B} (bold type), or {I} and {/I} (italic type) tags (again use square brackets).


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> 
> In the published version, the 'Words of the Easterlings and Dunlendings' is at the end of the 'Languages of Men Section', before the ~1 page note on Hobbits. Following this is a section on Ents, and then we get the Orcs and Trolls (Black Speech) section...



Do we have different versions? My versions all have Dunlendings and Wild Men (the Druedain) and the words resembling Easterling are Eorlings (Rohirrim) and Eilenach (a mountain) but no Easterlings.

Oh and about Shagrat's strange characters, this sometimes happens when he posts on other boards. I think it may have something to do with him posting from China. I think he is studying in Beijing currently. But he can correct this if I am wrong.


----------



## aragil

I was conjecturing where the note on Variags, Khand, and _mumak_ might have gone. I did not have my books with me (still don't), but I remember the last bit from the section on men being a mention of Dunnish _Forgoil_. This was in a discussion of non-Westron languages, so I assumed that this is where Variag, etc, would have been placed on the carbon of F4. The only passages between 'non-Westron' and 'Black Speech' are a note on Hobbits and Entish. I don't know if these two notes were in F4 (if it was the draft submitted to H-M then they probably *were* there), so it's possible that Variag was closely followed by the entry for Olog-hai. Anyway, physical closeness is not the point of my argument. The main thing for me is how long was it after the typing of F4 that Tolkien added the notes on Variag and Khand. If these were added relatively soon afterwards, then it could (pure unabashed speculation here) have been a result of him reading over the Olog-hai entry (which might be intended to augment the ambiguous entry of 'troll-men' at Pelannor), and also realizing that he left his Variags pretty well unexplained also.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

My own thought on where 'mumak, Variag and Khand' might have gone had they been included stems from the note that the 'mumak sentence' was added following the 'There [at Pelargir] Adunaic was spoken...' which is quite similar to the last sentence in the fourth paragraph of App. F(I), 'Of Men'. 'Variag and Khand' were added to the 'mumak sentence' on the carbon.

My own take (supposition) on the F4 typescript is that it was in essentially the same form and structure as the published App. F. CT notes of the 4 following typescripts that they were not all complete. I would presume that when JRRT sent his final typescript to the publisher it was based off of the F4 with emendation from the 'incomplete' typescripts (which could well be just rephrasings of what is found in F4 add editing for the constraints of space, some manner of this can be seen by comparing the 'There [at Pelargir] Adunaic was spoken...' sentence published in PoME with the 'final' version published as the last sentence in the fourth paragraph of App. F(I), 'Of Men').


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Well, Olog-hai has always been my hardest sell for 'hai' being 'men' (again not Chinese 'men'). Nobody ever argues with Oghor-hai; and Uruk-hai of course is the discussion of this thread.*



I would argue with the "-hai" in Oghor-hai being "men", I'm afraid. 

The most obvious point is that we know that "Uruk" can describe a member of the Uruk-hai. Therefore, "Oghor" would appear to describe a member of the "Oghor-hai". This suggests that the "-hai" has something to do with a group, either as a plural suffix or as a suffix indicating a group noun.

Moreover, a plausible definition of "Oghor" is needed to show what sort of "-men" the Druedain might be expected to be. "Ogre", which you suggested, sounds very unlikely, as the ogres mentioned in "The Hobbit" and BoLT are giant creatures, which the Druedain certainly are not. If "Oghor" is simply an Orcish word for the stumpy woses, then no such difficulty arises.

But more than anything else, your argument that "-hai" means "men" doesn't fit with either what we know of the Black Speech or the descriptions of the Olog-hai and Uruk-hai themselves.

You are suggesting that "Uruk-hai" means "Orc-men". Of course, the Uruk-hai are frequently described as Orcs, and _never_ as Men. Therefore, you have suggested that "Uruk-hai" means "Men-Orcs". This requires "-hai" to be adjectival. But the fragments of Black Speech that we have don't work like that. Instead, adjectival elements go at the front, as in English. Thus the ringwraiths, "ring-" being adjectival, are "nazgul", from "nazg", ring, and "gul", wraith. So if we accepted your usage, we would expect "hai-uruk" and "hai-olog." Of course, if "-hai" means "folk", "race" or "people", the word order fits perfectly.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *It's also hard for me to argue against the Hill Trolls of the Morannon, as I had always thought of them as the Olog-hai too, until I started debating possible meaning for the word 'hai'.*



So you're looking for textual support to fit your argument, rather than drawing your argument from the text, right? 



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *The Hill-trolls might be operating in the sun, which is why I always try to say that the troll-men are the only trollish creatures ever 'unambiguously' described operating in the sun. *



The hill-trolls are operating during the day, and the sun is present - it is described as "gleaming" twice during the battle. We know that Stone Trolls turn to stone as soon as "the sun comes over the hill", so it's a fair inference that the slightest hint of daylight would spell their ruin.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Sauron's Orcs don't like the sun, yet they were present at the Morannon, which has always made me think that there were 'storm of Mordor clouds' present. *



But Sauron's Orcs can fight and generally operate in the sun. It makes them physically uncomfortable, and they hate it, but they have no problem in fighting in it. Cloud cover would ease the discomfort on the Orcs, but I doubt it would be enough to protect the old sort of troll, particularly with the sun gleaming through.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * These clouds were good enough for the Mountain Trolls weilding Grond back at the Pelannor, maybe they're good enough for Hill Trolls too.*



I would assume that the Mountain Trolls are also Olog-hai. How else could they have got to the Pelennor in the first place?



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * I have to assume that the troll-men are also bearing weapons, even if they are not described as doing so. *



Yes, but they are never described as "trolls". The hill-trolls are, and seem unique among trolls in that they fight with weapons and shields.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Remember, it is only an inference (a good one) that links Olog-hai to the trolls abroad both 'cunning and armed with dreadful weapons.' *



As an inference, it's pretty much a direct match! A cunning sort of troll appears late in the Third Age - and cunning trolls _bred by Sauron and called Olog-hai_ appear late in the Third Age.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Of course, while your reading of the passage excludes genetics, my reading necessitates it. Again if Sauron's will was all that was necessary, why couldn't Sauron also concentrate on his other trolls? Something must be different about the Olog-hai themselves.*



Yes, I wasn't very clear there. Let me attempt to clarify. Tolkien says that the Stone Trolls are just "counterfeits" rather than "rational incarnates", as the Orcs are. (He says this in the letter where he points out that Treebeard was wrong about the Orcs being mere counterparts). But he says that there are other types of troll, "for which other origins are suggested."

So as the Stone Trolls aren't really alive but are made of "animated" stone, it is highly unlikely that they can breed with anything. Moreover, Tolkien says that the other kind(s) of troll have _different origins_. If the Olog-hai were bred from Stone Trolls and Men, they would have _common_ origin with the Stone Trolls. But they don't.

So what I meant was that the Olog-hai are clearly not crossbred Stone Trolls, but trolls made in an entirely different sort of way. I think Tolkien even suggests that they might have been made from some "primitive" human stock (neanderthals?), but they clearly aren't made from the Stone Trolls.

But whatever the Olog-hai were made from, they are unambiguously trolls. They're not "like half-trolls" or "troll-men", but "trolls". In his letters, when he discusses different sorts of troll, Tolkien never uses "half-trolls" or "troll-men"; the new sort of troll may have been bred from some sort of Men, but they are definitely full trolls, and always described as such.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * I am confused by your mention of Stone Trolls from Stone. I thought that Tolkien refused to give the powers of creation (i.e. gift of life and independent thought) to Morgoth, Sauron, or Aule. Weren't the Trolls some sort of perversion of the Ents (made in mockery of them as the Orcs were a mockery of Elves)?*



Tolkien essentially says that the Stone Trolls aren't really alive, and don't have independent thought. But the Trolls are definitely not a "perversion of the Ents". Being made "in mockery" of something is very different from being made _from_ that thing. Trolls "mock" Ents because they are big strong giants, not because they were bred from Ents. Tolkien is quite clear that they were made from stone, not Ents.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Well enough bashing of the Hill Trolls. Like I said, I used to favor them as Olog-hai, particularly because I could never determine whether the battle of the Morannon occured under a full spread of Mordor Clouds or not.*



It doesn't, because the sun's gleam is mentioned twice. 



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Also, I always thought about how Tolkien describes his troops becoming witless as he only concentrates on the Nazgul catching Frodo. I wondered if that was some indication that the 'will of their master' had left the Hill Trolls, and they suddenly became vulnerable to the sun.*



I think so too. But they don't turn to stone, but instead run around like Orcs. That's surely proof that they are "rational incarnates" like the Orcs, rather than stone "puppets" like the old sort of troll. Thus they are the Olog-hai. If they weren't, they couldn't have been fighting in the daytime, and would certainly have turned into stone when Sauron was overthrown.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Could the Troll-men pass for Giant Orcs? I'm not going to require them to look too Orcish, as the Olog-hai are 'in fashion of body and mind quite unlike even the largest of Orc-kind.'*



But that objection in context is one of size; we can infer that both trolls and orcs shared a monstrous experience; Tolkien says somewhere that some Elves had one name for both creatures.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * If the Far Haradrim are large and strong enough to be described as 'like half trolls', then I submit that they also surpass the largest of Orc-kind 'in size and power.'*



Surpass, but "far surpass"? Remember that Orcs are clearly immensely strong; think of the Moria chieftain throwing Boromir to the ground, or of Grishnakh running with a Hobbit under each arm. Uruks, I would argue, appear to be stronger than Men in general, so I doubt that these Men of Far Harad would far surpass Uruks in power.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * The Geographical objection is a good one. As I stated in one of my earlier, posts, all I can say is that the Olog-hai 'appear' in the Mountains of Mordor and Southern Mirkwood. The troll-men originate in Far Harad. My somewhat convoluted explanation is that the man stock comes from Far Harad, but the Troll-men are actually bred in the pits of Barad-dur and Dol-Guldur, from whence they are then deployed. This would be my explanation for why the Far Haradrim do not accompany the rest of the Southrons in the battle at Pelannor.*



But these Men are explicitly described as being "out of Far Harad". If they had been bred in the pits of Barad-dur and Dol Guldor, they would never have been to Far Harad in their lives! I think the geographical objection is insurmountable.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Well the final objection, regarding Elrond's and Gandalf's knowledge of the Black Speech, is a slippery business. [snip] However, would they know that the Olog-hai were called such?*



If the Olog-hai were indeed the Men of Far Harad, how could there be any doubt as to what they were bred from? They appear as "men" and "troll-men". If indeed they are not just large, strong men of unusual aspect (to the men of Gondor), how could anyone doubt that they are not at least part man, given their appearance?



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Does anybody know that BS Olog is equivalent to Sindarin Torog=troll? I've been operating under that assumption, and it seems sort of obvious, but is anybody certain?*



I don't think anyone knows for sure. However, "r" and "l" are interchangeable sounds in several languages, and initial consonants often disappear from words, so "Torog" and "Olog" sound like they might be etymologically connected.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Anyway, if the Hill Trolls were the Olog-hai, shouldn't 'hai' mean 'hill'? How does that fit in with Oghor-hai and Uruk-hai? *



No. "Olog-hai" are trolls. Whether the narrator calls them Hill Trolls or Mountain Trolls doesn't affect what they are called in the Black Speech. If "Uruk-hai"'s Anglicization is a good example, then "Olog-hai" would just be one word in English, not two.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * If 'hai' doesn't mean 'hill', then why are the Hill Trolls called Hill Trolls, instead of by the English equivalent of whatever 'Olog-hai' means in the Black speech? *



Because "Hill Trolls" isn't a translation of "Olog-hai", but just a description of these creatures in Westron. 



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Ah, nothing like the back and forth of a good debate! *



Indeed!


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Anyway, Shagrat, I've noticed a lot of strange characters in your posts, like i+/-, and i-(degree o). I'm thinking that you might be trying to italicize in the same manner that you do on another board. If so, here are the tips I gave Tar-Elenion for these boards:
> *



I think Tar-Elenion's explanation is right. I'm in Beijing (not studying though, alas!), and am following the correct _italicization_ procedure, which appears to work fine via a Chinese browser. My posts (and yours) look fine from here, although some characters right at the top of the board screen appear as random _hanzi_ to me, as do accented characters which I have seen Cian use on occasion.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *We have Tolkien calling the Isengarders Orcs, uruks, and Uruk-hai. I claim that the last two are different, and are applied to the Isengarders in different senses.*



That of course puts you at variance with Christopher Tolkien, who states that "Uruks" is an Anglicization of "Uruk-hai." Now, Christopher Tolkien may not be an absolute authority, but he has had access to everything, and may (as Tar-Elenion has suggested) be drawing on an actual statement of his father's.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *What little mannish blood Ugluk has is almost certainly not of Rohirric origin, it's probably Dunlendish. *



Right. But while I agree that Ugluk has a little man-blood, is he even aware of it? I don't imagine that either Ugluk _pere_ or _mere_ was particularly mannish in appearance, if he ever knew them! 



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *How do the Uruk-hai feel about the Dunlendings? Well, they're able to march in the Dundlendings general vicinity without attacking them- that's pretty tolerant by Orc standards.*



It's worth noting, however, that the Uruk-hai march out of Isengard first, with the Dunlendings and Orc-men following in different columns.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Yet Grishnakh says nothing here. Doesn't it seem that Ugluk is boasting about how he is a Uruk-hai and his audience is not? Wouldn't that be an odd usage if Grishnakh was equally a Uruk-hai, and standing right in front of him?*



Nobody is "a Uruk-hai" because "Uruk-hai" is clearly plural (or a group noun); _every_ usage of it in the book is plural. The singular appears to be "uruk", following Appendix F.

Note also that every boast of Ugluk's has "Uruk-hai" qualified by something; "we are the _fighting_ Uruk-hai"; "the Uruk-hai _of Isengard_".

The only time that the Isengarders don't qualify "Uruk-hai" with another phrase is at Helm's Deep (although they do qualify it the first couple of times), when they are speaking to non-Orcs.




> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *My reading of this is that the Uruk-hai are unaffected by the sun. This is a mannish quality, not posessed by the Uruks of Mordor. They are bragging about being 'part mannish', and equating it to being Uruk-hai. I don't call this definitive proof, but I do call it compelling evidence.*



If they were bragging about being part-mannish to Men, they would surely use language that Men can understand. If they said, for example, "We are the Men-Orcs of Saruman", the defenders would get the point. But they don't. It seems much more likely that the Uruks are just using the Black Speech term for their race, not trying to eliptically convey their origins to the Rohirrim and Aragorn.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *What being a hybrid Orc of Isengard means is that the Orc is larger than a normal Uruk (we agree here, though you seem to be reluctant to give Isengarders much of an advantage), more cunning than a normal Uruk, and capable of tolerating sun to a greater extent than a normal Uruk.*



I don't give the Isengarders much of a size advantage over other Uruks, because Tolkien doesn't appear to. The Isengarders are no doubt a tough bunch, but Ugluk doesn't appear to be as imposing as the Moria chieftain, and the Isengarders are certainly small enough to be convenient opponents for Gimli.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *I do not think it at all unlikely that the Isengarders are in a sense saying 'look at the effects man-blood has had on us, we are the fighting Uruk-hai!' In fact this seems to me to be exactly what they are bragging about.*



If that's what they're saying, they are doing it in a very roundabout way, especially as Ugluk appears to ascribe their superiority to training; he disparages the "maggots" for being "only half-trained."

And then you have the "Orcish solidarity" that both Ugluk and Grishnakh express.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * As for other Orcs treating them as 'Orcs', well, Grishnakh calls them the 'muck-rakers of a dirty little wizard.' I'm sure that if the Uruk-hai were not completely dominant in combat, then the other Orcs would have treated them as 'human-filth', and bad-mouthed their breeding, etc. *



Grishnakh suggests that the Isengarders are cannibals; another Mordor-Orc calls Ugluk "dungfilth" (in his own language). Grishnakh also calls Ugluk an "ape". It's doesn't seem at all likely that they would miss such an obvious insult given how rude they already are.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Perhaps this is the sort of reason we don't see more racial slurs coming out of the mouths of the Moria Orcs. *



Unlikely, given that Grishnakh is undeterred from making other insults. It seems incomprehensible that Grishnakh would not use such a source of ammunition to sway the Northerners (who are on the point of attacking Ugluk at one stage).


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by ShagratU _
> *But more than anything else, your argument that "-hai" means "men" doesn't fit with either what we know of the Black Speech or the descriptions of the Olog-hai and Uruk-hai themselves.
> You are suggesting that "Uruk-hai" means "Orc-men". Of course, the Uruk-hai are frequently described as Orcs, and never as Men. Therefore, you have suggested that "Uruk-hai" means "Men-Orcs". This requires "-hai" to be adjectival. But the fragments of Black Speech that we have don't work like that. Instead, adjectival elements go at the front, as in English. Thus the ringwraiths, "ring-" being adjectival, are "nazgul", from "nazg", ring, and "gul", wraith. So if we accepted your usage, we would expect "hai-uruk" and "hai-olog." Of course, if "-hai" means "folk", "race" or "people", the word order fits perfectly. *



I don't know about adjectival. I always think of it as being similar to a specific epithet. It's applied to the end of a genus name- in the case of 'hai' any of the 'genera' of Uruk, Olog, or the mysterious Oghor. In this case the word order also fits perfectly. I'm not suggesting that Tolkien was using Taxonomics as the basis for Black Speech; he was a philologist, not a biologist after all. I continually point out that 'people' in our world applies only to humans, as there are no Orcs, etc. that need to be distinguished from. I am not a linguist, so it is difficult for me to say what exactly I think 'hai' means beyond a specific epithet which also bears a similarity to terms like 'people'. I agree that a member of the Uruk-hai can be referred to as a Uruk, just as a wolf or domestic dog could be referred to as a canid. However, to me the 'hai' in Uruk-hai seems to refine 'Uruk' beyond just saying Uruk-people. Uruk-hai are Uruks which are larger, more cunning, and can tolerate the sun better, as shown in:
The Two Towers, p 184 "_What of the dawn?" they jeered. "We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. .... _"
That the Orcs referred to in the chapter _The Uruk-hai_ were Orcs with mannish blood we both seem to agree on. That they were at least a little larger, more cunning, and could tolerate sunlight better we also seem to agree on. Where we seem to disagree is whether Tolkien bothered to give a different name to these uber-Orcs. I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't, as Saruman's Orcs had qualities so distinct from the other Orcs in Tolkien's universe. In a similar manner, we both agree that the Olog-hai have qualities beyond those of the old guard, the 'Ologs' (anglicized), if you will. Olog-hai are Ologs which are more agile, more cunning, and can tolerate the sun better, as shown in the passage from Appendix F. Perhaps I have done myself a dis-service by insisting that the Olog-hai are the 'troll-men' of Pelannor. 10 pages of posts ago, when I first found the passage, I was beset with the argument that Trolls had nothing to do with humans, and therefore there was no possibility that the traits of greater agility, cunning, and sun tolerance came from human genes.


> _Originally posted by ShagratU _
> *But whatever the Olog-hai were made from, they are unambiguously trolls. They're not "like half-trolls" or "troll-men", but "trolls". In his letters, when he discusses different sorts of troll, Tolkien never uses "half-trolls" or "troll-men"; the new sort of troll may have been bred from some sort of Men, but they are definitely full trolls, and always described as such.*


A statement like this completely changes what I'm arguing against. That the Olog-hai could have acquired their special traits from 'humans' has always been my argument, and this theory of mine was opposed on these boards with some vehemence. However, it seems that you agree with me that the Olog-hai might have obtained some human DNA, and perhaps you even have some statements by the author to back this up. If that is the case, then I suggest that we put 'troll-men' behind us. Luckily for me I mentioned that I liked the Hill Trolls as Olog-hai before you showed up, so stepping around this issue (hopefully) does not look as bad for me as it otherwise might.
As for other matters:
Oghor as Ogre- The other names for the Druedain include Wose and Pukel(-men). Ogre, Wose and Pukel share a common germanic origin of which I am sure that Tolkien was aware. I had forgotten the mentions of Ogre in Lost Tales and The Hobbit. However, the Ogres of Lost Tales seem to be abandoned in the later writing of the Silmarillion. It seems that many of the mythical creatures of the Hobbit were also changed as Tolkien's concept for his world changed. The Hobbit was a children's fairy story, after all. As well as Ogres, The Hobbit had the Storm Giants playing some sort of Rugby, which is what drove the Dwarves into the Goblin lair of the Misty Mountains. Germaine to this thread, The Hobbit also had Stone Trolls (which we agree upon as the most primitive variety) using language at least as intelligently as the Orcs of LotR, having sleeves to wipe their mouths on, pants with pockets to hold their talking wallets, stony boots to leave paths in the wilderness, beer kegs, skewers and knives, sacks with cords, caves with proper doors and keyholes, and any number of qualities that don't fit in with the later mythology. In particular, I doubt that Tolkien would have kept the concept of turning into stone upon the glimpse of sunlight for the trolls, but this is pure speculation on my part. The point being that Tolkien's concept for creatures in his mythos changed between the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. Some creatures that remained were changed- goblins became Orcs, and 'the orcs of the north' (which had arms reaching almost to the ground as they ran) became Uruks; trolls became less intelligent- even the Oghor-hai do not display such refined taste as beer out of barrels and using utensils to eat with. It appears to me that the Ogres and Storm Giants were abandoned as inhabitants of Middle-Earth, so Tolkien was free to bring in the Druedain as 'ogre-men' so many years later.

Oops, my better half is 'encouraging' me to go now. Will have to leave further discussion for later.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by aragil_
> *Oops, my better half is 'encouraging' me to go now. Will have to leave further discussion for later.*



Strangely enough, I am experiencing the same situation here.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> I have remembered. We actually have a Black Speech word for 'man'. 'sharku' - 'old man'. *shar,'*old'; *ku , '*man'. Cian please give further insight as necessary.



I wouldn't call it further insight from me, but Craig Daniel certainly agrees with you Tar-E. From his analysis of the BS ("A second Opinion On the Black Speech" ... now available at local _Ardalambion_ outlets ), Craig concludes a breakdown of either _Shar-kû_ or _Shark-kû,_ in any event _Kû_ meaning "man". 

Craig offers his comments on 'debasement' in his work. Helge's wordlist includes parenthetical (DBS?) DBS for "Debased Black Speech".


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Does anybody know that BS Olog is equivalent to Sindarin Torog=troll? I've been operating under that assumption, and it seems sort of obvious, but is anybody certain?



I dunno myself. ShagratU has commented already to this. My only bleak addition might be that a Sindarin word _*olog_ is possible, itself worked up by David Salo from a _theoried_ stem note ('theoried' as far as I know, but I haven't looked everywhere! and as far as he knew when he wrote it anyway) stem *ULUK ... Eldarin _*uluko, *uluka_ yielding S. _*ulug, *olog._ The general meaning here might be "evil" (Sindarin _Torog_ itself theoried from *turuka).

That's pure speculation about more speculation. I will say, for the amount of actual corpus we have of the Black Speech to date, we see '-hai' relatively frequently. 

Somewhere in this thread you mentioned the _uruk_ borrowing (into BS): that's probably borrowed from the Elvish tongues of earlier times, according to the Prof.


----------



## Cian

ShagratU, if it helps any I'll try and post (in this thread) any long vowels (acute accented) as double from now on, so as not to confuse what you see (if I remember, and if I post again that is ) I dunno if this for Ku^ helps any, regarding the circumflex.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *I wouldn't call it further insight from me, but Craig Daniel certainly agrees with you Tar-E. From his analysis of the BS ("A second Opinion On the Black Speech" ... now available at local Ardalambion outlets ), Craig concludes a breakdown of either Shar-kû or Shark-kû, in any event Kû meaning "man".
> 
> Craig offers his comments on 'debasement' in his work. Helge's wordlist includes parenthetical (DBS?) DBS for "Debased Black Speech". *



However, this use of man seems to be in the sense of 'old male' rather than 'old human'. I've been arguing that Men-Orcs are orcs (etc) with human qualities, not male Orcs. This is why I say it gets confusing with Uruk-hai being Orc-people. In our world saying Orc-people is equivalent to saying Orc-humans, but that is clearly not the case in Middle-Earth. I guess I still can't state exactly what I think 'hai' is, beyond the fact that it modifies Uruk to say that Uruk-hai have (hu)manish qualities, and is used in the sense of a specific epithet. Black speech being such a wonderfully subtle and elegant language, perhaps it has it's own grammatical structure which improves upon all other languages Tolkien invented. After all, that Sauron fellow was pretty clever as a linguist....

_Ash kû durbatulûk, Ash hai gimbatul_ ...


----------



## ShagratU

*Trolls and Men*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *
> A statement like this completely changes what I'm arguing against. That the Olog-hai could have acquired their special traits from 'humans' has always been my argument, and this theory of mine was opposed on these boards with some vehemence. However, it seems that you agree with me that the Olog-hai might have obtained some human DNA, and perhaps you even have some statements by the author to back this up. *



The key point here is that Tolkien doesn't say or imply that trolls were crossed with Men to make the sun-resistant sort, but that the sun-resistant type(s) were created in a completely different way. That is, the newer type of troll ¨C the Olog-hai ¨C was not a hybridized version of the earlier sort, but a completely different kind of creature.

It's very clear that the Stone-trolls were just stone that was somehow animated. Tolkien's views on _how_ the trolls were animated appear to have changed over time. At one point he notes that trolls were stone forms inhabited by "goblin-spirits". At other times, he seems to imply (if I remember correctly) that Morgoth animated them by infusing them with some of his will. Whatever the source of their animation, Tolkien seems clear that these trolls are not "rational incarnates", but "counterfeits", something like robots or the golem of Jewish folklore.

The new kind of troll, however, seems to have been something more like an Orc, in that these trolls were real living beings. They may not have been ¡°rational incarnates¡±, but were perhaps more like animals taught to speak (which was one of Tolkien¡¯s orc theories). On the other hand, they may have indeed been made from some sort of ¡°rational incarnate¡±, such as Men. But the essential point is that they were not hybrids, not part-troll and something else. ¡°Trolls they were¡±, though apparently without biological connection to the (rather un-biological) Stone-trolls. 



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * If that is the case, then I suggest that we put 'troll-men' behind us. *



I think we should. 

I think there are many objections to your ¡°-hai¡± = ¡°men¡± theory.  These include the linguistic (the way that epithets appear to work in Black Speech, the existence of another word for Men ¨C and another Orcish word for one sort of Men that doesn¡¯t include ¡°-hai¡±, _tarks_ ¨C and the precedent of ¨Crim, -lai etc.), the situational (other Orcs treat the Isengarders as Orcs and don¡¯t comment on them being anything else), and the fact that getting the Olog-hai and Oghor-hai to fit the pattern is rather difficult.

However, the most compelling objection to your argument is surely that Tolkien hadn¡¯t made up his mind on what the Uruk-hai and Olog-hai were when he published LotR (and the Black Speech ¡±-hai¡±). Given that Tolkien generally proceeded from the language first (this is well documented), it seems incredibly unlikely that he gave these creatures a name that defined what they were ¡°made¡± from when he hadn¡¯t decided. As Tar-Elenion has pointed out, Tolkien was still talking about Saruman¡¯s ¡°possible special breeding of Orcs¡± long after the publication of LotR. With the Olog-hai, Tolkien tells us that no-one knows what they were made of in LotR ¨C despite the name ¨C and in his letters, he only _speculates_ as to what the new sort of troll might have been made from. If he had already labelled the Uruk-hai and the Olog-hai ¡°Men-Orcs¡± and ¡°Men-trolls¡±, he would have no need to speculate! 

Therefore I believe your ¡°men¡± stance is untenable! 


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Oghor as Ogre- The other names for the Druedain include Wose and Pukel(-men). Ogre, Wose and Pukel share a common germanic origin of which I am sure that Tolkien was aware.*



No! 

Tolkien would have been very aware that "ogre" does not have Germanic origins. The word comes into English via French (the main reason Tolkien abandoned it, I suspect). There is dispute over its etymology. The three main schools of thought are: that the term was invented by Charles Perrault, the 17th century French fairy-tale writer; that it comes from "hongre" (Hungarian), or less probably, from "Oguz", the name of a Dark Age Turkic people; that it comes from Italian "orco", "ogre", which comes in turn from Latin "Orcus" (Hades).

Tolkien didn't like Romance language words, or at least didn't consider them appropriate for his "mythology". I think that one reason that he used "goblin" less in LotR was because of its Romance origins - he states this somewhere if I am not much mistaken. I may be misremembering, but I think he also expressed dislike for Perrault, and he certainly was not a fan of French language and culture. Therefore, "Oghor" is extremely unlikely to mean "ogre".

As Tar-Elenion has observed, "Oghor" was originally "Hor", which indicates that it was not even inspired by the sound of "ogre".



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Germaine to this thread, The Hobbit also had Stone Trolls (which we agree upon as the most primitive variety) using language at least as intelligently as the Orcs of LotR, having sleeves to wipe their mouths on, pants with pockets to hold their talking wallets, stony boots to leave paths in the wilderness, beer kegs, skewers and knives, sacks with cords, caves with proper doors and keyholes, and any number of qualities that don't fit in with the later mythology. In particular, I doubt that Tolkien would have kept the concept of turning into stone upon the glimpse of sunlight for the trolls, but this is pure speculation on my part.*



But he does appear to have kept it - he goes to some length in his letters to explain what Stone-trolls are and why they turn to stone again in the daytime. Remember also that while the conversations of the Trolls, and some of their domestic details, can be dismissed as Bilbo's embellishments, the story of them being turned to stone certainly fits in with LotR - it is _part_ of LotR, if you are not "forgetting your family history." 



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * The point being that Tolkien's concept for creatures in his mythos changed between the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. Some creatures that remained were changed- goblins became Orcs, and 'the orcs of the north' (which had arms reaching almost to the ground as they ran) became Uruks;*



I don't see this change; Ugluk, Grishnakh, the dead Isengarders and other Orcs are all referred to as "goblins" in LotR. They don't "become" Orcs; they already were in "The Hobbit", where Tolkien says that "goblin" is a translation of "orc". Tolkien seems to have come to dislike "goblin" because of its Romance connotations, but he was stuck with it, and acknowledged this in the text of LotR.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * It appears to me that the Ogres and Storm Giants were abandoned as inhabitants of Middle-Earth, so Tolkien was free to bring in the Druedain as 'ogre-men' so many years later. *



Firstly, as above, Tolkien disliked Romance-language terms, and seems to be shying away from them in LotR. He cuts down on "goblin"; it would seem unlikely that he would introduce the French-derived "ogre."

Secondly, the two chief characteristics of "ogres" are that they eat people, and that they are of giant stature. Neither of these attributes fit the Druedain, even from an Orc's perspective. 

Thirdly, "ogre" is a close equivalent to "troll". As Tolkien would have known, the English translators of the Eddas and the Icelandic sagas often use "ogre" to translate "troll" and various other Norse words for giant, monstrous beings. It therefore seems doubly unlikely that he would reintroduce the term into his "mythology" having excised it earlier.


----------



## Greenwood

I have been out of town for the last week and I see another use of the word uruks has turned up. I am reproducing below the list from my post that started this thread. In the case of example 12 I have included more of the sentences that precede the use of the words uruk and Uruk-hai. I have also added examples 13 and 14 which have turned up during the course of this thread.

1) In the chapter The Uruk-hai in The Two Towers, Ugluk says: "We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here ..... " 

2) Later in the same chapter, Ugluk again speaking: "Leave them to me then! No killing, as I've told you before; but if you want to throw away what we've come all the way to get, throw it away! I'll look after it. Letting the fighting Uruk-hai do the work, as usual. ..... " 

3) On the next page, Ugluk again: "You seem to know a lot. ... More than is good for you I guess. Perhaps those in Lugburz might wonder how, and why. But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as usual. ...." 

4) This is not exactly a quote, but in The Two Towers, Tolkien titles his chapter "The Uruk-hai", he does not call it "The Uruks". 

5) In The Two Towers in the chapter Helm's Deep, as Aragorn looks out for the dawn there is the following passage: 

"The Orcs yelled and jeered. 'Come down! Come down!' they cried. 'If you wish to speak to us, come down! Bring out your king! We are the fighting Uruk-hai. We will fetch him from his hole, if he does not come down. Bring out your skulking king!' 

" 'The king stays or comes at his own will,' said Aragorn. 

" 'Then what are you doing here?' they answered. 'Why do you look out? Do you wish to see the greatness of our army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai.' 

" 'I looked out to see the dawn,' said Aragorn. 

" 'What of the dawn?' they jeered. 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. .... " 

6) In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Seige of Gondor there is the following sentence: "No hours so dark had Pippin known, not even in the clutches of the Uruk-hai." 

7) In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Land of Shadow, Sam and Frodo overhear two orcs talking and one says: ".... First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together." 

8) In The Fellowship of the Ring, in the chapter The Bridge of Khazad-dum, Gandalf says: "There are Orcs, very many of them .... And some are large and evil: black Uruks of Mordor. ...." 

9) In The Two Towers, in the chapter The Choices of Master Samwise, Gorbag says: " .... I say something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks. ....." 

10) In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Land of the Shadow, Sam and Frodo are overtaken on the road by troops of orcs and there is the following description of the troops: "Beside them, running up and down the line, went two of the large fierce _uruks_, cracking lashes and shouting." (Italics in original.) 

11) In The Return of the King, in Appendix A it says: "In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475 they swept across Ithilien and took Osgiliath." 

12) In The Return of the King, in Appendix F it says: "Orc is the form of the name that other races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan. In Sindarin it was _orch_. Related. no doubt, was the word _uruk_ of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, _snaga_ 'slave'." (Italics in the original.)

13) In The Return of the King, at the end of the chapter The Land of the Shadow, while Sam and Frodo are masqerading as orcs: "A troop of heavy-armed _uruks_ from Barad-dur charged into the Durthang line and threw them into confusion." (Italics in the original.)

14) In The Return of the King, in Appendix A it says: "In 2989 Theodwyn married Eomund of Eastfold, the chief Marshal of the Mark. Her son Eomer was borm in 2991, and her daughter Eowyn in 2995. At that time Sauron had arisen again, and the shadow of Mordor reached out to Rohan. Orcs began to raid in the eastern regions and slay or steal horses. Others also came down from the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman, though it was long before that was suspected."


I have listed all the usages again because there has been a great tendency among the people arguing that Uruk-hai and Uruks are interchangeable to pick and choose individual cases and ignore the total usage in LOTR. Now lets look at the words and how they are used. The word "Uruk-hai" is used ten times (examples 1 - 7 and 12; note: the word is used 3 times in example 5) and it is always capitalized as if it is a proper name. In eight of the instances (examples 1 - 6), it is clearly used to refer to Saurman's elite orc troops. In two instances (examples 4 and 6), Tolkien as the narrator of the story is unambiguously choosing to refer to Saruman's elite orc troops as "Uruk-hai". Example 7 has been the subject of much debate here, so it is at best ambiguous, but Aragil and I argue that in the light of the eight earlier instances the weight of evidence is on example 7 also referring to Saruman's troops. The final example (12) has also been the subject of considerable debate here. I have expanded the quotation given to show the full context of the usage. It seems clear to me that "_uruk_" is being referred back to _orch_ in discussing the derivation of the word. The subject of the last sentence is the word _snaga_, not "Uruk-hai" and in no way does it imply that "Uruk-hai" and "_uruk_" are equivalent as some have argued. If that were the case than it would mean that "Uruk-hai" was a singular noun, which it clearly is not in all the uses in LOTR. As for the argument that "Uruk-hai" is always a plural noun so we can therefore assume uruk is it singular form, there is nothing to support this. Tolkien never tells us how to refer to one individual member of the "Uruk-hai", so we don't know what the singular form would be. The singular form might be "Uruk-hai", just as the singular form of Nazgul is Nazgul. (I will return to example 12 below.)

The use of the word "uruks" is more complex. The word "uruk" (no 's') is only used once (example 12) where it is lowercase and italicized. It is clear that Tolkien in this example is giving the etymology of the base word (uruk). There are two instances (examples 8 and 9) of the word "Uruks" (capitalized and with an 's') and in both cases it is clearly referring to large Mordor orcs and the capitalization makes the usage appear to be a proper name for a group. We are left with four instances (examples 10, 11, 13 and 14) of the use of the word "uruks" (lower case). In examples 10 and 13 the word is also italicized. I do not think it is an accident that Tolkien uses the lowercase in these instances. In these cases Tolkien is using the word "uruks" as a general (generic) term for all large soldier orcs (this also explains example 12). These large soldier orcs are in the service of both Sauron (the "Uruks" proper) and Saruman (a new breed, the "Uruk-hai"). Both Tar-Elenion and ShagratU seem to have conceded that Saruman has a new breed of orc in his employ. What is so odd about their having their own designation? I could further argue that the uruks in Saruman's service in example 14 are indeed true Uruks and that they date from a time before Saruman developed his Uruk-hai. The passage refers to them as coming from the Misty Mountains and clearly places them at a time 25 - 30 years before LOTR. Saruman had to have some base stock to develop his Uruk-hai from. It seems to me that the above explanations of these words simply and clearly explain all their usages in LOTR without resorting to elaborate arguments about when characters are hearing translations and when they are not and various other convoluted explanations. To sum up orc is the broadest general category (all Uruks and Uruk-hai are orcs); uruks (lowercase) is a more restricted category and refers to large soldier orcs (all Uruks and Uruk-hai are uruks); but Uruks and Uruk-hai (uppercase) are each sub-categories of uruks belonging to Sauron and Saruman, respectively.

As to the related, but seperate, discussion of the meaning of the suffix "-hai", I still suggest that it is in some way related to a tolerance of sunlight in creatures that might normally be expected to dislike the sun. Saruman's Uruk-hai boast of their disdain for the sun when most orcs do not like the sun. The Olog-hai are a form of trolls that tolerate the sun when normal trolls cannot tolerate the sun. We are left with the Oghor-hai from Unfinished Tales. We are told in UT that Oghor-hai is the orc's name for the Druedain. We are also told that another name for the Druedain is Pukel which means goblin (=orc), so we have the Druedain being considered somewhat goblin-like (orc-like) in appearance, but they can tolerate the sun because they are not true goblins, but are indeed men. Thus we can make a sun connection for all three uses of the suffix "-hai".


----------



## aragil

*Agreement with Greenwood*

I'm sure it is no surprise that I agree with Greenwood here (for the most part). What can I add to the above post? Not that much, really. I re-iterate that I see 'hai' being applied in the sense of a specific epithet. The general grouping is 'uruks', and Saruman's Orcs are differentiated by adding 'hai'. Doubtless Greenwood and I see this in part due to our common background in Biology. If we were to extend this in the full sense of taxonomics, then Sauron's great soldier Orcs would be _uruk Uruks_, while those of Saruman could be either _uruk Uruk-hai_ or _uruk Hai_. Of course, these are reversing the normal capitalizations, where the genus is capitalized and the specific epithet is left uncapitalized. But, as I've said before, Tolkien was not a Taxonomist in the strict sense, he was a Philologist. A third possibility would be to follow the naming of Gorillas. This is no doubt inspired on my part by the fact that Grishnakh calls Ugluk an ape, and Ugluk refers to the 'apes of Lugburz'. Anyway, gorillas have the same name for both genus and species, _Gorilla gorilla_. This reminds me of the apes of Lugburz, who (following Tolkien's capitalization procedures) seem to be _uruk Uruk_. However, the Mountain Gorillas are a slightly different breed, and their naming reflects that they are only found in a secluded region. They are named _Gorilla gorilla beringei_. Although in the same species as the more common lowland gorilla, the mountain gorilla has had _beringei_ added to the name to indicate that it is a slightly different breed with different characteristics. In my mind, the 'hai' of Uruk-hai is analogous to the _beringei_ in the above example. Hai modifies Uruk to inform us that the Uruk-hai are larger, more cunning, and more sun-tolerant than the Uruks of Mordor. Ugluk and comrades say as much:

"_We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here ....._"

Who are the 'we' in the above sentence? 'We' refers to the Uruk-hai. What are the qualities of the Uruk-hai? They are 'fighting', they slew Boromir, they took the prisoners, they serve Saruman the Wise, they eat man's-flesh, and they come out of Isengard. The Uruks of Mordor are certainly 'fighting', but they did not slay Boromir, they did not take the Hobbits as prisoners, they probably eat man's flesh when they can, but they most emphatically *do not* serve Saruman or come from Isengard. I would say that this is pretty good textual evidence that the name Uruk-hai refers to something other than the Uruks of Mordor. Ugluk and company do not say that they are _some_ of the Uruk-hai, or that they are they 'that branch of the Uruk-hai which comes from Isengard'. They use the term Uruk-hai to be all-inclusive. 'We are the Uruk-hai', the Uruk-hai 'come from Isengard'. If there were other varieties of Uruk-hai, then Grishnakh would be one of them. Yet he does not object to Ugluk using 'Uruk-hai' in the all-inclusive sense, nor does he mind that Ugluk says that 'the Uruk-hai' 'come from Isengard'.
Further examples confirm that 'Uruk-hai' refers to something distinct from the Uruks of Mordor:

'_"What of the dawn?" they jeered. "We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm."_'

The Uruk-hai are not bothered by the light of day. We have no direct statement about the Uruks of Mordor, but I have posted evidence that the Orcs of Mordor are adversely affected by the sun. Grishnakh's Uruks fall behind the Uruk-hai and have their heads down until the sun goes down, when they begin to put on speed. The moment the clouds are blown away and the Rohirrim attack at the Pelannor the Orcs and Men of Mordor begin to route. While the Men regain their composure and later put up a fight, the Orcs are only further described as being routed into the river in the midst of hating the sun. Finally, there is the quote of Treebeard- *stating* that all Orcs other than Saruman's dislike the sun and *speculating* that the Isengarders' acquisition of sun tolerance might be due to crossing with humans. In Morgoth's ring we learn that Saruman did indeed cross Men with Orcs, and that by so doing the offspring acquired the traits of being larger and more cunning than the 'pure' orcs which they were descended from. Sauron _could_ have done the same thing with his Uruks and so made them sun-tolerant, but then the following problems arise:
1) Treebeard's statement becomes one made out of ignorance. He does not know about other sun-tolerant orcs, so his statement that Saruman's Orcs alone could withstand the sunlight becomes misleading, especially since his speculation that Saruman was crossing Orcs with Men turns out to be true.
2) The statement of Tolkien's that crossing Orcs with Men was Saruman's 'wickedest deed' becomes confusing. If Sauron was already doing the same thing, then Saruman's breeding of Orcs with Men wouldn't be any more wicked than employing the crossbreeds of Sauron.
3) All of the mentions of sunlight during the final march across Rohan and the battle of the Pelannor become superfluous. Tolkien certainly had a 'descriptive' manner of writing, but the way in which sunlight is mentioned in these passages makes me think that it was affecting Sauron's Orcs.
If we all agree that Saruman's Orcs were more sun-tolerant than Sauron's, then it behooves us to look again at the above passages: '_We are *the* fighting Uruk-hai_' by Ugluk and '_We are *the* Uruk-hai_' by the Orcs at Helm's Deep. Neither of these passages make me think that the Isengarders are a select group of Uruk-hai, with characteristics different from other groups of Uruk-hai. Both of these passages seem to be defining Uruk-hai, in the one case as the Orcs of Saruman, and in the other as sun-tolerant Orcs. Unless there are Uruk-hai that don't fight, then both of these passages are devoid of what has been termed 'qualifiers'. Looking at the other passages, it appears to me that rather than qualifiers we are seeing synonymous adjectives. 'Of Isengard', and 'rebel' appear to fall into this category. The only way that these become qualifiers is if you first assume that the Uruks of Mordor are also Uruk-hai, without any proof of this. Particularly important to this is example 9 from Greenwood's post. Gorbag is speaking in a similar sense to Ugluk and co. He is intending to be inclusive about a breed of Orcs- who puts slips right? *The* Uruks. What he does not say is The Uruk-hai. The only way to make these two statements equivalent is to argue that the ring was translating into Westron for Sam's benefit, and Tolkien was translating from Westron into English for our benefit. Yet we know the English 'translation' for Uruks- it's 'Orcs', or as it's more properly applied, 'large Soldier Orcs'. The word 'Uruk' is not a Westron word, so it is unlikely that the ring would 'prefer' this as a 'translated' word, especially as Sam has only heard it once before, and that in the heat of battle when he could easily have missed it or later forgotten it. What the 'ring as translator' theory neglects is that Tolkien would have been a poor story-teller by employing such a trick. If he wants us to think of the Soldier-Orcs of Mordor and of Isengard as both having the name 'Uruk-hai', then this would be the place to do it, regardless of how fluent Sam is in Black Speech. In the chapter _The Uruk-hai_ Tolkien clearly describes Grishnakh's Uruks as different from Ugluk's Uruk-hai. Ugluk and co. consistently refer to themselves as *the* Uruk-hai. If Tolkien wants us to think of Uruks and Uruk-hai as referring to the same creatures, then as a story-teller he should show us that Mordor Uruks are also Uruk-hai, and Gorbag's quote is the ideal time to do this, rather than making us worry about which Black Speech term Sam did or did not know. I don't think that Tolkien is a bad story-teller. I think there is a reason that he describes Ugluk's troops differently from Grishnakh's. I think there is a reason that he only uses Uruk-hai to refer to Isengard Orcs. I think the reason is that the Orcs of Isengard are a different (possibly derivative) breed than the Uruks of Mordor, and that this different breed has a different name: Uruk-hai.


----------



## Greenwood

Just to expand on my earlier post, my view that uruks (lowercase) is used by Tolkien as a broader group name, while Uruks (uppercase) refers to a specific group is based on both the standard usage in my own field of study (ornithology) and standard usage in English. Taking English first: if I write "the Nile River and the Amazon River are among the longest in the world", than the word "River" is capitalized because it is part of a proper name. If I rewrite the above phrase as "the Nile and Amazon rivers are among the longest in the world", than the word "rivers" is in lowercase because it refers to a category and is no longer treated as a proper name. Moving to my own field (and in fact basing the example in Britain, Tolkien's home) we have a number of individual species of birds: Gannet, Cormorant, Shag, Bittern, Spoonbill, Oystercatcher, Cuckoo, Jay, Wren, etc. (I could add more). All of these names when capitalized refer to a particular species of bird. (You would of course refer to multiple individuals of each species by making a plural in the normal way by adding an "s".) Each of these species of birds are however members of families of birds that include other species. When referring to these groups, the above names would not be captilalized. Thus if I wrote: "I study the breeding biology of Shags.", it means I am studying a particular species (scientific name _Phalacrocorax aristotelis_). But I wrote: "I study the breeding biology of shags.", it means I am studying the breeding biology of a number of the smaller species of the family Phalacrocoracidae. It appears to me that Tolkien is using Uruk-hai vs. Uruks vs. uruks in a like manner in LOTR. Uruk-hai and Uruks each refer to a specific type of orc (in this case I would argue that from a scientific standpoint they are subspecies rather than full species, and yes distinctive subspecies are at times given their own names), while uruks is a group name for all large soldier orcs.


Grond

A quick comment on Aragil's use of statistics in this discussion. There is nothing wrong with the use of statistics in literary research. To give just one example, literary scholars have used the statistics of word usage when trying to decide if a text purportedly written by Shakespeare fit the word usage commonly found in undisputed Shakespeare texts.


----------



## JeffF.

*Uruks*

For me it is clear that the remark made by the hunting orc shile pursuing Frodo and Sam was clearly tlaking about Mordor Uruk-hai. The arguments against that seem to be emotional. The main claim is that the reports from Cirith Ungol are unreliable citing the report of an 'elf-warrior' when the readers know there is not one. By a thin line of logic they conclude that Uruk-hai from Isengard is no greater an aberration. The problem is the report of the elf-warrior IS credible from a military intelligence sense. After a career studying enemy spot reports and tactical intelligence my view is the enemy would view them as very accurate. That is not to say it is true, the readers know it is not, but from the Dark Lord's view. There was an elf-blade captured and from the Enemy's view the most likely source of this weapon is logically an elf. More it is of the rare sort of sword used by the Noldor (the kind that light upo when evil is near) making it likely that this possible elf warrior is a High Elf and not Sindar or Silvan. The Enemy would learn from the Nazgul that took over Cirith Ungol that there was a rebellion of Uruk-hai attempting to steal the items captured from Frodo. 

On immunity to sunlight. Another fact would be the appearance of Uruks in the time of Denenthor. Why would such an event be noteworthy unless these Uruks could tolerate the sun. They would simply be large orcs.

On the comment "Uruk-hai of Isengard." if all Uruk-hai were from Isengard why say "of Isengard?' There has been many comments saying that these must be the 'man orcs' referred to in the descriptions of Isengard forces yet we could easily hold another discussion debating that. There are no statements in LOTR saying Uruk-hai are man-orcs or half-orcs. In my view the distinguishing feature of Isengard Urus was their equipment. They apparently did not use the 'bent swords' and scimitars of the other orcs. They also used Yew bows. This equipment alone does not mean they are of mannish origin. Their near man height alone could be responsible for their iuse of mannish equipment.


----------



## Grond

*Re: Uruks*



> _Originally posted by JeffF. _
> *...The main claim is that the reports from Cirith Ungol are unreliable citing the report of an 'elf-warrior' when the readers know there is not one. By a thin line of logic they conclude that Uruk-hai from Isengard is no greater an aberration. The problem is the report of the elf-warrior IS credible from a military intelligence sense. After a career studying enemy spot reports and tactical intelligence my view is the enemy would view them as very accurate. That is not to say it is true, the readers know it is not, but from the Dark Lord's view. There was an elf-blade captured and from the Enemy's view the most likely source of this weapon is logically an elf. More it is of the rare sort of sword used by the Noldor (the kind that light upo when evil is near) making it likely that this possible elf warrior is a High Elf and not Sindar or Silvan. The Enemy would learn from the Nazgul that took over Cirith Ungol that there was a rebellion of Uruk-hai attempting to steal the items captured from Frodo.*


I have been watching this argument ebb and flo for awhile and have been content to watch.... but JeffF, I must point out your error before others bash in. There was no elf blade recovered in Mordor. The blade recovered was Sam's blade of Westernesse made in Arnor. Your argument is still sound though because the mithril coat of armour, though forged by Dwarves, was unmistakably one made for an Elven princeling. And your argument would also be sound that a mithril coat of such value would belong to a high elf and not one of the Green Elves.


----------



## aragil

Jeff F- I thought that everyone here agreed that the Isengarders had a little mannish blood. First off there is the quote by Treebeard that Orcs other than Saruman's could not handle the sun that well. Then there is speculation by Treebeard that Saruman's Orcs got their sun-tolerance through breeding with men. Then there's Tolkien's quote from Morgoth's ring that Saruman did breed his orcs with men. Then there is Gamling's conversation with Aragorn. Gamling assumes that Aragorn is looking forward to the dawn because Orcs are generally cowed by the sun. Gamling says that this won't be the case with Saruman's troops:Goblin-men, Half-orcs, and Dunlendings. This statement is all inclusive, it does not neglect the Uruk-hai but includes them in the category of Half-orcs. The entire history of Gamling's nation (Rohan) has occurred during the reign of Uruks. If Uruks of Mordor were sun-tolerant, then it would hardly be worth Gamling's time to remark that *Saruman's* creatures were not effected by the dawn. Then we have a side by side comparison between Ugluk's Uruk-hai and Grishnakh's Uruks. During the day Grishnakh's Uruks fall behind Ugluk's troops, and they are running with their heads down. They do not lift their heads until the sun is up. Then we have the entire battle of the Pelannor, where Sauron's Orcs (we can assume he sent Uruks) begin routing the moment that the sun pokes out and Theoden charges, and there is no textual evidence that the Orcs ever stop routing. Uruks were noteworthy because they had great strength. If they also were immune to sunlight, we can assume Tolkien would have at least _mentioned_ that fact in the appendix.
As for the distinguishing features of the Isengarders- there was really 2. One was that they didn't use Orcish equipment. Two was that they used equipment which was specifically desribed as 'mannish'. Mannish equipment was generally too large for Orcs to use (even the huge Orc chieftain in Moria was not quite man-height). Tolkien specifically states that one of the consequences of breeding Orcs with Men is that the Orcs became larger, presumably large enough to begin using 'bows of yew, in *length* and shape like the bows of Men.' You seem to be a military type, and are probably aware of the effect that English longbows had on French knights. Do you think the Orcs used shorter bows to give their enemies a better chance? Where the Uruk-hai then less sporting, using longer bows only because they didn't feel like giving their enemies an advantage? Remember when Aragorn says that the bows of Orcs didn't have the range to span the Anduin? Perhaps the Uruk-hai use the longer bows (not necessarily longbows) because they are large enough to use them, while the other Orcs of Aragorn's experience are not.
Finally, regarding 'rebel Uruk-hai'. I agree with you, Mordor Orcs in Mordor is far more likely than Isengard Orcs in Mordor. Unfortunately, Mordor did not have Uruk-hai. If you can show me where Mordor Orcs are referred to as Uruk-hai, then I'll gladly agree with you that 'rebel Uruk-hai' refers to Mordor Orcs. However, since I have seen no reference to Mordor Orcs as 'rebel Uruk-hai', we'll have to assume that Sauron's military intelligence was bad, and he therefore made a bad choice from bad intelligence. He did not know that there was a Mithril Coat until the 17th, the day after the 'rebel Uruk-hai' statement was made. He was therefore going off some other intelligence to determine 'great Elf'. Perhaps his military look-up book also said: 'any time Orcs attack Mordor Orcs leading to Halfling escape, the enemy Orcs are Isengarders'. We need only look at the Ugluk episode (the only other instance of this happening), and then Sauron's logic was apparently sound.


----------



## Greenwood

> The Enemy would learn from the Nazgul that took over Cirith Ungol that there was a rebellion of Uruk-hai attempting to steal the items captured from Frodo.



This is the same circular reasoning that keeps being used over and over in this discussion. You are assuming Gorbag and his boys as Uruk-hai and then using this definition to prove the tracker's statement refers to Uruk-hai. But you have nothing to prove your initial assumption.



> On the comment "Uruk-hai of Isengard." if all Uruk-hai were from Isengard why say "of Isengard?'



It is merely an older, more formal style of speech. To say that the phrase "Uruk-hai of Isengard" implies there are "Uruk-hai of Somewhere Else" is reaching. If you write "Julius Ceasar of Rome" or Cleopatra of Egypt does that imply that there are other Julius Ceasars or Cleopatras out there? Julius Ceasar of Athens? Cleopatra of Babylon? The phrasing is merely a somewhat archaic way saying where the speaker is from.


----------



## Ged

Greenwood,

This is not really relevant to the subject of this thread, but I thought it so unusual I had to post it. 

Saruman "created" the Uruk-hai. In the movie the "leader" of the Uruk-hai was named Lurtz.

The character Lurtz was acted by Laurence Makoare.

Laurence Makoare was born in the town of "Orakai" in New Zealand.

Wierd, or what???


----------



## Grond

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> It is merely an older, more formal style of speech. To say that the phrase "Uruk-hai of Isengard" implies there are "Uruk-hai of Somewhere Else" is reaching. If you write "Julius Ceasar of Rome" or Cleopatra of Egypt does that imply that there are other Julius Ceasars or Cleopatras out there? Julius Ceasar of Athens? Cleopatra of Babylon? The phrasing is merely a somewhat archaic way saying where the speaker is from. *


Just thought I'd jump back in to say that all of you are using circular logic to attempt to prove something that can't be proven. Your statement, Greenwood, that the phrase "Uruk-hai of Isengard" is simply a more formal style of speech is as circular as anything anyone else has said. How would you presume to know the mind of JRRT when he wrote that? 

That is the problem in this thread. The author didn't adequately explain the usage of the term Uruk-hai and we are left to speculate. Great arguments have been made all the way around. We have the linguists who line up behind the author's son Chrisopher's assertion that Uruk-hai is simply the black speech pluralization of the BS word Uruk. It also appears that most of the Tolkien scholars appear to believe this. And, of course they would... if CT said it and they want to continue to have the cooperation of the Tolkien Estate, they darn well better support his assertions. The same question keeps coming back to me again and again concerning this subject. I've posted it before and I'll post it again. If this was an issue, why wasn't it addressed? It wasn't addressed because it wasn't an issue, at least not to JRRT or his estate. It is apparent that CT, the closest person to the author concerning his works, feels that Uruk-hai is simply the BS plural form of Uruk. 

Unfortunately, it's kind of like the Battle of the Last Alliance we're discussing on another thread. With the author gone, we'll never really know what he meant for sure. All we can do is speculate and come up with our own opinions, which are different, one from the other and which may or may not be right.


----------



## daisy

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

See the resemblance?

AAAAAHHHHHH This thread will never die!!! It will go on and on and the aliens who land here on earth in a million years will find a huge vault full of the posts from this thread!!!

What is your final answer???
Uruk=Uruk-Hai
Or Uruk not=Uruk-Hai
Or Uruk=Kathie Lee Gifford.

Which is it???


----------



## ShagratU

*disagreeing with Greenwood*



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Example 7 has been the subject of much debate here, so it is at best ambiguous, but Aragil and I argue that in the light of the eight earlier instances the weight of evidence is on example 7 also referring to Saruman's troops.*



The problem is that nothing in the context suggests that it is a reference to Saruman¡¯s troops. All the rumours that the soldier-orc mentions are highly consistent with the information that Shagrat had to report, and which he seems to have reported not only to Barad-dur, but to Orc positions close to Cirith Ungol. ¡°7¡± is _ambiguous_, but in context, a reference to Uruks of Mordor seems much more likely than a reference to Isengarders.

Of course, if we accept Christopher Tolkien¡¯s view that ¡°Uruks¡± is just an Anglicization of ¡°Uruk-hai¡±, then no problem arises, and the reference is almost certainly to the ¡°filthy rebel¡± Gorbag and his troop.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * The final example (12) has also been the subject of considerable debate here. I have expanded the quotation given to show the full context of the usage. It seems clear to me that "uruk" is being referred back to orch in discussing the derivation of the word. The subject of the last sentence is the word snaga, not "Uruk-hai" and in no way does it imply that "Uruk-hai" and "uruk" are equivalent as some have argued. If that were the case than it would mean that "Uruk-hai" was a singular noun, which it clearly is not in all the uses in LOTR. *



The argument is that Uruk-hai here sounds like a collective or plural term for uruks. When the passage is read in the context of Appendix F, it appears to indicate that ¡°Uruk-hai¡± was the racial name for the great soldier-orcs of Isengard and Mordor. If ¡°Uruk-hai¡± applied only to the Isengarders, one would expect a definition in this section on ¡°Orcs and the Black Speech.¡± The silence is deafening!



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *As for the argument that "Uruk-hai" is always a plural noun so we can therefore assume uruk is it singular form, there is nothing to support this.*



Except that the term is only used in a plural or collective sense, and that most, if not all, of Tolkien¡¯s invented languages contain plural or collective tags (-rim, -lai, -r, etc.) at the end of words. Olog-hai and Oghor-hai are also only ever used in a plural or collective sense. Also, the way in which the Appendix F section reads is highly suggestive, particularly in light of the description of the Olog-hai a few paragraphs later.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *Tolkien never tells us how to refer to one individual member of the "Uruk-hai", so we don't know what the singular form would be. The singular form might be "Uruk-hai", just as the singular form of Nazgul is Nazgul. (I will return to example 12 below.)*



All we can say with ¡°Nazgul¡± is that it clearly wasn¡¯t ¡°Anglicized¡± as ¡°Uruks¡± was, most likely because there were hordes of Uruks and only 9 ringwraiths. Uruks were doubtless commonplace for those areas on the receiving end of Orc raids, whereas the Nine were not.

I think it¡¯s quite possible that there are no plurals in Black Speech, but in that case, the language would almost certainly require collective tags, for which ¡°-hai¡± seems a likely candidate.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *The use of the word "uruks" is more complex. The word "uruk" (no 's') is only used once (example 12) where it is lowercase and italicized. It is clear that Tolkien in this example is giving the etymology of the base word (uruk). There are two instances (examples 8 and 9) of the word "Uruks" (capitalized and with an 's') and in both cases it is clearly referring to large Mordor orcs and the capitalization makes the usage appear to be a proper name for a group. We are left with four instances (examples 10, 11, 13 and 14) of the use of the word "uruks" (lower case). In examples 10 and 13 the word is also italicized. I do not think it is an accident that Tolkien uses the lowercase in these instances. *



There are three hefty objections to this argument. The first is that Tolkien is remarkably inconsistent in his use of capitalization; we get both ¡°Orcs¡± and ¡°orcs¡±, for instance. So drawing a distinction between ¡°uruks¡± and ¡°Uruks¡± seems no more reasonable than drawing a conclusion between ¡°Orcs¡± and ¡°orcs¡±, or ¡°Dwarves¡± and ¡°dwarves¡±.

Secondly, in the post-LotR text, ¡°The Battles of the Fords of the Isen¡±, Tolkien uses the capitalized ¡°Uruks¡± to refer to Saruman¡¯s uruks on several occasions. Of special note is the fact that one group of ¡°Uruks¡± described therein is Ugluk¡¯s band.

Thirdly, the italicization is inconsistent. In lower case, ¡°uruks¡± is sometimes italicized and sometimes not. No plausible reason other than oversight presents itself. Therefore, we should probably conclude that capitalization and italicization are just minor editorial inconsitencies.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * In these cases Tolkien is using the word "uruks" as a general (generic) term for all large soldier orcs (this also explains example 12). These large soldier orcs are in the service of both Sauron (the "Uruks" proper) and Saruman (a new breed, the "Uruk-hai").*



Except of course that ¡°Uruks¡± is used to describe Saruman¡¯s Uruk-hai in UT.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Both Tar-Elenion and ShagratU seem to have conceded that Saruman has a new breed of orc in his employ.*



Throughout this discussion, I¡¯ve always maintained that Saruman¡¯s Uruk-hai have a hint of Man-blood. So there¡¯s no concession involved. 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * It seems to me that the above explanations of these words simply and clearly explain all their usages in LOTR without resorting to elaborate arguments about when characters are hearing translations and when they are not and various other convoluted explanations.*



Of course the ¡°elaborate arguments¡± that you refer to are exactly the sort of thing that exercised Tolkien during the writing of LotR. When Tolkien explicitly tells us that a character is hearing a translation, then we can be sure he _is_ hearing a translation. There¡¯s nothing convoluted about that.

However, an argument that relies on Tolkien¡¯s demonstrably inconsistent use of capitalization, and which then cannot be reconciled with some of his usages, does involve a certain amount of convolution!



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * To sum up orc is the broadest general category (all Uruks and Uruk-hai are orcs); uruks (lowercase) is a more restricted category and refers to large soldier orcs (all Uruks and Uruk-hai are uruks); but Uruks and Uruk-hai (uppercase) are each sub-categories of uruks belonging to Sauron and Saruman, respectively.*



So what about Ugluk and his followers, who are explicitly described as both ¡°Uruk-hai¡± and ¡°Uruks¡±?



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *As to the related, but seperate, discussion of the meaning of the suffix "-hai", I still suggest that it is in some way related to a tolerance of sunlight in creatures that might normally be expected to dislike the sun. Saruman's Uruk-hai boast of their disdain for the sun when most orcs do not like the sun. The Olog-hai are a form of trolls that tolerate the sun when normal trolls cannot tolerate the sun. We are left with the Oghor-hai from Unfinished Tales. We are told in UT that Oghor-hai is the orc's name for the Druedain. We are also told that another name for the Druedain is Pukel which means goblin (=orc), so we have the Druedain being considered somewhat goblin-like (orc-like) in appearance, but they can tolerate the sun because they are not true goblins, but are indeed men. Thus we can make a sun connection for all three uses of the suffix "-hai". *



This doesn¡¯t hold up to scrutiny. There is no indication that ¡°Pukel¡± or ¡°Oghor¡± mean ¡°Orc¡± in Tolkien¡¯s work. Unless you can prove that it does, your theory is baseless.

Moreover, asking the monosyllable ¡°-hai¡± to mean ¡°resistant to sunlight when not normally expected to be so¡± is asking a lot. To fit your theory, you have to find a way of cramming a minimum of two unrelated concepts into one syllable. This is very unlikely.

Finally, we have the precedent for Black Speech epithets and adjectives. They come before the noun that is modified. ¡°Nazgul¡± and ¡°Sharku¡± bear this out. The definition of ¡°-hai¡± as ¡°-folk¡± or ¡°-race¡± is the only one so far proposed that fits the available linguistic evidence.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> 7) In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Land of Shadow, Sam and Frodo overhear two orcs talking and one says: ".... First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together."
> Example 7 has been the subject of much debate here, so it is at best ambiguous, but Aragil and I argue that in the light of the eight earlier instances the weight of evidence is on example 7 also referring to Saruman's troops.



In light of what the Orc is referring to, (the events taking place at Cirith Ungol) wherein it was presumed based on the available evidence that an Elf-warrior was on the loose and, in fact, a "sort of small of dwarf-man" was held prisoner and escaped, and in fact a troop of rebel Uruk-hai (Gorbag's boys) attacked the Cirith Ungol garrison, then it sure does not seem ambiguous to me. Of course it may be ambiguous to those who wish to engage in "elaborate arguments" and "convoluted explanations" of why it must be referring to Saruman's Uruk-hai.



> Both Tar-Elenion and ShagratU seem to have conceded that Saruman has a new breed of orc in his employ.



Yes, finally we have been convinced. Never mind that Shagrat has maintained this position for a very long time in other forums and I noted very early on in this thread that it was likely. 



> As to the related, but seperate, discussion of the meaning of the suffix "-hai", I still suggest that it is in some way related to a tolerance of sunlight in creatures that might normally be expected to dislike the sun. Saruman's Uruk-hai boast of their disdain for the sun when most orcs do not like the sun. The Olog-hai are a form of trolls that tolerate the sun when normal trolls cannot tolerate the sun. We are left with the Oghor-hai from Unfinished Tales. We are told in UT that Oghor-hai is the orc's name for the Druedain. We are also told that another name for the Druedain is Pukel which means goblin (=orc), so we have the Druedain being considered somewhat goblin-like (orc-like) in appearance, but they can tolerate the sun because they are not true goblins, but are indeed men. Thus we can make a sun connection for all three uses of the suffix "-hai".



I think I will use your earlier suggestion of explaining words "simply and clearly" and instead of engaging in "elaborate arguments" and "convoluted explanations" suggest that 'hai'= 'folk', 'race' etc. 

Good to have you back, I am sure Shagrat has been looking forward to it.


----------



## ShagratU

*Re: Agreement with Greenwood*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *I re-iterate that I see 'hai' being applied in the sense of a specific epithet.*



But strangely, not in the way that epithets are applied in the other Black Speech examples we have! 



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * The general grouping is 'uruks', and Saruman's Orcs are differentiated by adding 'hai'. Doubtless Greenwood and I see this in part due to our common background in Biology.
> [snip]
> 
> But, as I've said before, Tolkien was not a Taxonomist in the strict sense, he was a Philologist.*



This last sentence is the real point, isn't it? 

I think you and Greenwood may be being slightly mislead by your scientific backgrounds. You are trying to impose a pattern on Tolkien's usages that actually doesn't exist, and which would even be rather inappropriate in the context of a "mythological" tale. The capitalization evidence simply doesn't fit with what you propose (Ugluk's bands being both "Uruk-hai" and "Uruks")



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *This reminds me of the apes of Lugburz, who (following Tolkien's capitalization procedures) seem to be uruk Uruk.*



Well, they seem to be "uruk uruk", "uruk Uruk", "uruk _uruk_" and "uruk Uruk-hai"! 



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * However, the Mountain Gorillas are a slightly different breed, and their naming reflects that they are only found in a secluded region. They are named Gorilla gorilla beringei. Although in the same species as the more common lowland gorilla, the mountain gorilla has had beringei added to the name to indicate that it is a slightly different breed with different characteristics. In my mind, the 'hai' of Uruk-hai is analogous to the beringei in the above example. Hai modifies Uruk to inform us that the Uruk-hai are larger, more cunning, and more sun-tolerant than the Uruks of Mordor. Ugluk and comrades say as much:*



It seems much more likely that the Uruks are saying "We are the fighting Uruk-folk" than the equivalent of "We are the fighting _Gorilla gorilla beringei_! Are they expecting the Rohirrim to reply, "We are the horse-riding _homo sapiens_"? 



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Who are the 'we' in the above sentence? 'We' refers to the Uruk-hai.*



Well, "Uruk-hai" is always modified by "fighting" or "of Isengard" when the Isengarders talk to other Orcs. It is only once used unmodified (at Helm's Deep), and then after it has been used twice with the "fighting" modifier.




> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Ugluk and company do not say that they are some of the Uruk-hai, or that they are they 'that branch of the Uruk-hai which comes from Isengard'. They use the term Uruk-hai to be all-inclusive.*



Actually, they don't, as noted above.


> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * If there were other varieties of Uruk-hai, then Grishnakh would be one of them. Yet he does not object to Ugluk using 'Uruk-hai' in the all-inclusive sense, nor does he mind that Ugluk says that 'the Uruk-hai' 'come from Isengard'.*



But Ugluk never uses "Uruk-hai" in an unmodified (thus all-inclusive) sense. Nor does he say that "the Uruk-hai" come from Isengard. He says "We are the fighting Uruk-hai", and "the Uruk-hai of Isengard". That's very different to what you allege.




> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *The Uruk-hai are not bothered by the light of day. *



The Uruk-hai of _Isengard_ are not bothered by the light of day.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * We have no direct statement about the Uruks of Mordor, but I have posted evidence that the Orcs of Mordor are adversely affected by the sun. Grishnakh's Uruks fall behind the Uruk-hai and have their heads down until the sun goes down, when they begin to put on speed. The moment the clouds are blown away and the Rohirrim attack at the Pelannor the Orcs and Men of Mordor begin to route. While the Men regain their composure and later put up a fight, the Orcs are only further described as being routed into the river in the midst of hating the sun. Finally, there is the quote of Treebeard- stating that all Orcs other than Saruman's dislike the sun and speculating that the Isengarders' acquisition of sun tolerance might be due to crossing with humans. *



I agree with all this.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *If we all agree that Saruman's Orcs were more sun-tolerant than Sauron's, then it behooves us to look again at the above passages: 'We are the fighting Uruk-hai' by Ugluk and 'We are the Uruk-hai' by the Orcs at Helm's Deep. Neither of these passages make me think that the Isengarders are a select group of Uruk-hai, with characteristics different from other groups of Uruk-hai. Both of these passages seem to be defining Uruk-hai, in the one case as the Orcs of Saruman, and in the other as sun-tolerant Orcs. Unless there are Uruk-hai that don't fight, then both of these passages are devoid of what has been termed 'qualifiers'.*



This logic doesn't hold. If a group of football fans chant, "We are the English", it doesn't mean that they are _all_ the English. It seems perfectly natural for a group of Uruk-hai fighting Men to shout "We are the Uruk-hai". The presence of other Uruk-hai doesn't make this at all unlikely.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *. Gorbag is speaking in a similar sense to Ugluk and co. He is intending to be inclusive about a breed of Orcs- who puts slips right? The Uruks. What he does not say is The Uruk-hai. The only way to make these two statements equivalent is to argue that the ring was translating into Westron for Sam's benefit, and Tolkien was translating from Westron into English for our benefit. Yet we know the English 'translation' for Uruks- it's 'Orcs', or as it's more properly applied, 'large Soldier Orcs'.*



Sam knows "Uruks", and Uruks is an Anglicized word, the Anglicization indicating that it has been absorbed into Westron. It's quite the appropriate word to use in the context.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *What the 'ring as translator' theory neglects is that Tolkien would have been a poor story-teller by employing such a trick. If he wants us to think of the Soldier-Orcs of Mordor and of Isengard as both having the name 'Uruk-hai', then this would be the place to do it, regardless of how fluent Sam is in Black Speech.*



Except that would be linguistically unacceptable. Tolkien was a linguist first and foremost. Linguistic consistency was clearly the most important thing for him. He is also extremely careful about POV throughout the story.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * I think there is a reason that he only uses Uruk-hai to refer to Isengard Orcs. I think the reason is that the Orcs of Isengard are a different (possibly derivative) breed than the Uruks of Mordor, and that this different breed has a different name: Uruk-hai. *



It is only speculation that he only uses Uruk-hai to refer to Isengarders; the soldier-orc's comments do not appear to be in reference to Isengarders. 

Another pertinent point is that "Uruk-hai" is Black Speech, and Black Speech comes from Mordor. Saruman does not appear to use Black Speech, and his Orcs speak a dialect that is evidently incomprehensible to Mordor Orcs. We know, however, that Mordor Orcs of different breeds understand "Uruk-hai". The term would therefore appear to stem from Mordor, not Isengard. Most likely, it is simply what Uruks call themselves, and has been preserved by Saruman's Uruks through his "tampering" with them.


----------



## Greenwood

*response to ShagratU*



> The problem is that nothing in the context suggests that it is a reference to Saruman¡¯s troops.



In your opinion. 



> All the rumours that the soldier-orc mentions are highly consistent with the information that Shagrat had to report, and which he seems to have reported not only to Barad-dur, but to Orc positions close to Cirith Ungol



How does a mithril coat that would only fit an elf child make one think there is a great elf warrior on the loose? Saruman and all his orc minions would be considered rebels by everyone in Mordor.



> Of course, if we accept Christopher Tolkien¡¯s view that ¡°Uruks¡± is just an Anglicization of ¡°Uruk-hai¡±, then no problem arises, and the reference is almost certainly to the ¡°filthy rebel¡± Gorbag and his troop.



The point is some of us do not except CT's view. We think he got it wrong. I have looked fairly carefully through CT's index in UT. I cannot find another case of anything being defined as an Anglicization of another word. In fact, I can't even find another instance of a word included in the index that is not in the text of UT which is the case with Uruk-hai. The only time Uruk-hai appears in UT is in CT's index.



> The argument is that Uruk-hai here sounds like a collective or plural term for uruks. When the passage is read in the context of Appendix F, it appears to indicate that ¡°Uruk-hai¡± was the racial name for the great soldier-orcs of Isengard and Mordor. If ¡°Uruk-hai¡± applied only to the Isengarders, one would expect a definition in this section on ¡°Orcs and the Black Speech.¡± The silence is deafening!



Appendix F does not say that Uruk-hai was the name for the great soldier orcs of Isengard and Mordor, much as you would like it to say that. It says the word uruk was applied to these troops. What is deafening is not Tolkien's silence, but the fact that he wrote an entire chapter about Saruman's troops and called it "The Uruk-hai" and at every opportunity when referring to Saruman's troops Tolkien calls them Uruk-hai (examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). Why doesn't Gandalf use the term Uruk-hai (example 8)? We have no problems about translation effects of the Ring here. Why doesn't Tolkien use the term Uruk-hai when he is clearly referring to Mordor orcs (examples 7, 8, 10, 11, 13)? I would say Tolkien's usage is what is deafening.



> Olog-hai and Oghor-hai are also only ever used in a plural or collective sense.



Olog-hai is used exactly two times (only in Appendix F) and Oghor-hai is not mentioned at all in LOTR, but only once in UT. Hardly a great deal of usage to base any argument on.



> There are three hefty objections to this argument. The first is that Tolkien is remarkably inconsistent in his use of capitalization



I will have to look through LOTR carefully to see if this is really true. I do not know if Tolkien is as inconsistent as you say.



> Secondly, in the post-LotR text, ¡°The Battles of the Fords of the Isen¡±, Tolkien uses the capitalized ¡°Uruks¡± to refer to Saruman¡¯s uruks on several occasions. Of special note is the fact that one group of ¡°Uruks¡± described therein is Ugluk¡¯s band.



The Battles of the Fords of Isen is not in LOTR, but was an unpublished manuscript of Tolkien's. If the HoME has shown us anything it is Tolkien's continual rewriting and changing of drafts. If Tolkien had ever made an attempt to include this narrative in an edition of LOTR I can assure you that any editor worth the name would have said: "Hey, John Ronald, how come you use Uruks here but Uruk-hai everywhere else when you talk about Saruman's troops?" As for your special note, I do not remember any mention of Ugluk's band in The Battle of the Fords of Isen. I cannot find him mentioned in the index. If you are referring to the band of orcs that disappear during the night of Theodred's fall, they cannot be Ugluk's group which waylaid the Fellowship at Parth Galen the next day.



> So what about Ugluk and his followers, who are explicitly described as both ¡°Uruk-hai¡± and ¡°Uruks¡±?



Where and when?



> There is no indication that ¡°Pukel¡± or ¡°Oghor¡± mean ¡°Orc¡± in Tolkien¡¯s work. Unless you can prove that it does, your theory is baseless.



See Christopher Tolkien's editorial note 14 in "The Druedain" chapter in UT: 'Pukel-men' represents Anglo-Saxon 'pucel' = goblin, demon. We already know that Tolkien uses goblin and orc interchangeably.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> The point is some of us do not except CT's view. We think he got it wrong. I have looked fairly carefully through CT's index in UT. I cannot find another case of anything being defined as an Anglicization of another word. In fact, I can't even find another instance of a word included in the index that is not in the text of UT which is the case with Uruk-hai. The only time Uruk-hai appears in UT is in CT's index.



Interesting, this would be the same index that CT put together using his fathers original rough draft index for LotR. The one that CT used for 'some tranlations and definitions'. And Uruk-hai is not used in UT? Why would CT feel the need to put that in his UT index for a word not included in UT? And where would he come up with it? From his fathers draft index for LotR?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: response to ShagratU*



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> See Christopher Tolkien's editorial note 14 in "The Druedain" chapter in UT: 'Pukel-men' represents Anglo-Saxon 'pucel' = goblin, demon. We already know that Tolkien uses goblin and orc interchangeably.



How about we use JRRT's own words for it:
"Púkel-men. A Rohan name for the effigies of men of a vanished race. It represents Old English púcel (still surviving as puckle), one of the forms of the puk- stem (widespread in England, Wales, Ireland, Norway and Iceland) referring to a devil, or to a minor sprite such as Puck, and often applied to ugly misshapen persons. The púkel-men are adequately described, and the element púkel may be retained-or replaced by some word of similar (possibly related) form and sense. The Dutch version has de Púkel-mensen, the Swedish Pukel-männen."

From 'A Guide to Names in LotR', which are notes JRRT made to assist people translating LotR into other languages.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> In your opinion. *



So what _in the context_ suggests that the reference is to the Isengarders? If one abandons preconceptions, and assumes only that "Uruk-hai" here refers to large soldier-orcs of some sort, what makes one think of the Isengarders here?



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * How does a mithril coat that would only fit an elf child make one think there is a great elf warrior on the loose? *



It doesn't. But there is much else that does:

"By all the signs, Captain Shagrat, I'd say there's a large warrior loose, Elf most likely, with an elf-sword anyway, and an axe as well maybe: and he's loose in your bounds, too, and you've never spotted him. Very funny indeed! "

"For what it saw was not a small frightened hobbit trying to hold a steady sword: it saw a great silent shape, cloaked in a grey shadow, looming against the wavering light behind; in one hand it held a sword, the very light of which was a bitter pain, the other was clutched at its breast, but held concealed some nameless menace of power and doom."

"- Yes! The Elf-warrior is loose! - he cried. - I'm coming. Just you show me the way up, or I'll skin you!"

"He told you more than once that the most dangerous of these spies was still loose, and you wouldn't listen. And you won't listen now. Gorbag was right, I tell you. There's a great fighter about, one of those bloody-handed Elves, or one of the filthy tarks. He's coming here, I tell you. You heard the bell."

"He was no longer holding the Ring, but it was there, a hidden power, a cowing menace to the slaves of Mordor; and in his hand was Sting, and its light smote the eyes of the orc like the glitter of cruel stars in the terrible elf-countries, the dream of which was a cold fear to all his kind."




> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * The point is some of us do not except CT's view. We think he got it wrong. I have looked fairly carefully through CT's index in UT. I cannot find another case of anything being defined as an Anglicization of another word. In fact, I can't even find another instance of a word included in the index that is not in the text of UT which is the case with Uruk-hai. The only time Uruk-hai appears in UT is in CT's index. *



Which perhaps indicates that Tolkien _fils_ was drawing on some of the writings of Tolkien _pere_, as Tar-Elenion has suggested.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Appendix F does not say that Uruk-hai was the name for the great soldier orcs of Isengard and Mordor, much as you would like it to say that. It says the word uruk was applied to these troops. What is deafening is not Tolkien's silence, but the fact that he wrote an entire chapter about Saruman's troops and called it "The Uruk-hai" and at every opportunity when referring to Saruman's troops Tolkien calls them Uruk-hai (examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). Why doesn't Gandalf use the term Uruk-hai (example 8)? We have no problems about translation effects of the Ring here. Why doesn't Tolkien use the term Uruk-hai when he is clearly referring to Mordor orcs (examples 7, 8, 10, 11, 13)? I would say Tolkien's usage is what is deafening.*



The essential point seems to be that non-Orcish characters don't use Black Speech. The narrator uses "Uruk-hai" once, from Pippin's point of view, after he has heard the term from Orcish mouths. Otherwise, only Orcs appear to use "Uruk-hai". Given that we don't know what Gorbag actually said (it may well have been "Uruk-hai"), we seem to have a general rule that the narrator (writing in "Westron") and non-Orcish characters use the "Anglicized" term.

Reluctance to use a pure Black Speech term fits very well with reactions to the Black Speech in Rivendell.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * The Battles of the Fords of Isen is not in LOTR, but was an unpublished manuscript of Tolkien's. If the HoME has shown us anything it is Tolkien's continual rewriting and changing of drafts. If Tolkien had ever made an attempt to include this narrative in an edition of LOTR I can assure you that any editor worth the name would have said: "Hey, John Ronald, how come you use Uruks here but Uruk-hai everywhere else when you talk about Saruman's troops?"*



Of course, such an editor would be wrong, as Tolkien describes Saruman's troops as "great uruks" in LotR, and as "Orcs" passim. Saruman's troops call _themselves_ "Uruk-hai". The narrator doesn't, except when Pippin (who heard the term several times from the Orcs) recollects.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * As for your special note, I do not remember any mention of Ugluk's band in The Battle of the Fords of Isen. I cannot find him mentioned in the index. If you are referring to the band of orcs that disappear during the night of Theodred's fall, they cannot be Ugluk's group which waylaid the Fellowship at Parth Galen the next day. *



Why not?



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * See Christopher Tolkien's editorial note 14 in "The Druedain" chapter in UT: 'Pukel-men' represents Anglo-Saxon 'pucel' = goblin, demon. We already know that Tolkien uses goblin and orc interchangeably. *



Here you are confusing _real_ words and their meanings with Tolkien's invented mythology. "Pucel", which is related to Shakespeare's "Puck", means "goblin" or "demon" in Old English, _not_ in Tolkien's mythology. By comparison, "orc" means "Hell" or "demon-" in Old English, but not in Tolkien's mythology.

In Tolkien's writings, "Pukel" does not mean "Orc". Therefore your point is invalid.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *
> As for the distinguishing features of the Isengarders- there was really 2. One was that they didn't use Orcish equipment. Two was that they used equipment which was specifically desribed as 'mannish'.*



Only the bows of the Isengarders are described as being Mannish.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Mannish equipment was generally too large for Orcs to use (even the huge Orc chieftain in Moria was not quite man-height).*



This statement is textually unfounded. We do not know whether Orcs could use Mannish equipment or not. And note that description of the huge orc-chieftain implies very strongly that he is _bigger_ than Ugluk and co.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Tolkien specifically states that one of the consequences of breeding Orcs with Men is that the Orcs became larger, presumably large enough to begin using 'bows of yew, in length and shape like the bows of Men.' *



Given that uruks of all kinds seem to have been broad and squat with long arms, the use of such bows would not appear to have been beyond them.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Perhaps the Uruk-hai use the longer bows (not necessarily longbows) because they are large enough to use them, while the other Orcs of Aragorn's experience are not.*



Or because they don't have a plentiful supply of suitable wood in Mordor or the Misty Mountains. It seems to me that the Isengarder bows are evidence of their contact with Men, and hint at their Mannish "taint", but that they don't really tell us much about how big an Isengarder Uruk was compared to a Mordor Uruk.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Finally, regarding 'rebel Uruk-hai'. I agree with you, Mordor Orcs in Mordor is far more likely than Isengard Orcs in Mordor. Unfortunately, Mordor did not have Uruk-hai.*



Your reasoning is entirely circular here.  All any of us know for sure is that "Uruk-hai" refers to large orcs. All the previous uses of the term have been in reference to Isengarders; however, this citation must be taken on its own merits. If it doesn't appear to refer to Isengarders, then one can reasonably infer that the Uruks of Mordor were also called "Uruk-hai".



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *However, since I have seen no reference to Mordor Orcs as 'rebel Uruk-hai', we'll have to assume that Sauron's military intelligence was bad, and he therefore made a bad choice from bad intelligence. He did not know that there was a Mithril Coat until the 17th, the day after the 'rebel Uruk-hai' statement was made. He was therefore going off some other intelligence to determine 'great Elf'.*



I don't think Sauron really comes into the picture here. Shagrat evidently commanded more Orcs than just those in the Tower, and presumably made initial reports to Orc positions close at hand. The Orc conversation overheard by Sam and Frodo indicates this. The intelligence that the two Orcs have is very close to the beliefs that Shagrat would have been able to convey; that there was a large warrior, probably an Elf, loose (that's what the Orcs thought), that there was a dwarf-man (indeed there was), and, if we leave pre-conceptions aside, that insubordinate soldier-orcs were also part of the problem.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Perhaps his military look-up book also said: 'any time Orcs attack Mordor Orcs leading to Halfling escape, the enemy Orcs are Isengarders'. We need only look at the Ugluk episode (the only other instance of this happening), and then Sauron's logic was apparently sound. *



You are forgetting something  :

"Then when they had laid their fallen comrades in a mound and had sung their praises, the Riders made a great fire and scattered the ashes of their enemies. So ended the raid, and no news of it came ever back either to Mordor or to Isengard"


----------



## Greenwood

*Response to Tar-Elenion and ShagratU*

You both continually point to Christopher Tolkien's index in UT and treat it as if it was equivalent to JRRT himself. It is not. It is copyrighted by CT himself as are his Introduction and Commentary in UT. All he says is that he used his father's notes for *some* definitions, he does not tell us which. The Anglicization definition first appears in print in Foster's guide to Middle Earth that appeared before UT. You have no proof that CT (who admits to finding Foster's book useful) did not just use Foster's definition, perhaps thinking it was such a trivial thing why not? All your arguments are based on assumptions you cannot prove. You assume the Anglicization definition comes from JRRT himself, but you have no proof. You assume in all your arguments about usage in LOTR that the Anglicization definition is true and then use the results of that assumption to prove the assumption itself.



> So what in the context suggests that the reference is to the Isengarders? If one abandons preconceptions, and assumes only that "Uruk-hai" here refers to large soldier-orcs of some sort, what makes one think of the Isengarders here?



One thinks of Isengarders because they are the only ones in the books who are referred to as Uruk-hai.



> The essential point seems to be that non-Orcish characters don't use Black Speech. The narrator uses "Uruk-hai" once, from Pippin's point of view, after he has heard the term from Orcish mouths. Otherwise, only Orcs appear to use "Uruk-hai". Given that we don't know what Gorbag actually said (it may well have been "Uruk-hai"), we seem to have a general rule that the narrator (writing in "Westron") and non-Orcish characters use the "Anglicized" term.
> 
> Reluctance to use a pure Black Speech term fits very well with reactions to the Black Speech in Rivendell.



Your argument does not hold up. It is the narrator (Tolkien) who chooses the title "The Uruk-hai" for the chapter in TTT (example 4) and it is the narrator who uses Uruk-hai in example 6. The sentence does not read "Pippin thought 'I haven't known times this dark since my captivity with the Uruk-hai' ". And as for a reluctance to use Black Speech, Gandalf shows little such reluctance. The reaction to Black Speech was by the elves in Rivendell. Elrond says that none have dared use that tongue *in* Rivendell before. He does not admonish Gandalf to never use that tongue, just not in Rivendell. We also know from Appendix F that uruk is from Black Speech, so why would Uruks be allowed to be spoken but not Uruk-hai? If your response is that Uruks is an Anglicization and not pure Black Speech than you are falling back on your usual style of argument of assuming your Anglicization theory is correct in order to prove it is correct. If "-hai" is how nouns are turned into plurals in Black Speech why does Snaga when talking to Shagrat in ROTK say "one of the filthy tarks"? Why not "tark-hai"? Sam is not wearing the Ring when he overhears this exchange so your "Ring as imperfect translator" theory doesn't work here.

As for the orc troops that disappear from the battle at the fords of Isen in UT, I take it you are saying that they were Ugluk and his boys. I repeat that they cannot be if we accept Tolkien's chronology in Appendix B of ROTK. There we have Theodred falling in battle on February 25 and the orcs disappearing sometime that night. Ugluk and his band (with orcs from the Misty Mountains and Grishnakh and orcs from Mordor) attack the Fellowship above Rauros sometime during the day on February 26 and then start hot-footing it back across Rohan. By my map in TTT it is between 250 and 300 miles as the crebain flies from the fords to Rauros. How could Ugluk and his boys do that in half a day?



> Here you are confusing real words and their meanings with Tolkien's invented mythology. "Pucel", which is related to Shakespeare's "Puck", means "goblin" or "demon" in Old English, not in Tolkien's mythology. By comparison, "orc" means "Hell" or "demon-" in Old English, but not in Tolkien's mythology.
> 
> In Tolkien's writings, "Pukel" does not mean "Orc". Therefore your point is invalid.



So Tolkien chooses to use words that all mean "demon" or "goblin" and Tolkien tells us that goblin = orc, but all of this is irrelevant?

The only thing that really is relevant here is that Tolkien never tells us what he meant when he used the suffix "-hai" so we are all just theorizing in the dark.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Response to Tar-Elenion and ShagratU*



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _You both continually point to Christopher Tolkien's index in UT and treat it as if it was equivalent to JRRT himself. It is not. It is copyrighted by CT himself as are his Introduction and Commentary in UT. All he says is that he used his father's notes for *some* definitions, he does not tell us which. The Anglicization definition first appears in print in Foster's guide to Middle Earth that appeared before UT. You have no proof that CT (who admits to finding Foster's book useful) did not just use Foster's definition, perhaps thinking it was such a trivial thing why not? All your arguments are based on assumptions you cannot prove. You assume the Anglicization definition comes from JRRT himself, but you have no proof. You assume in all your arguments about usage in LOTR that the Anglicization definition is true and then use the results of that assumption to prove the assumption itself.



Your first sentence is a mis-characterization.

You have no proof that CT plagiarized from Foster. You have no proof that CT would consider it trvial. You have no proof that 'hai' in any way relates to 'sunlight resistance' which is based on your own convoluted reasoning. We do have proof that CT had access to and used his fathers notes, and specifically used definitions for some of the words in that index. 




> So Tolkien chooses to use words that all mean "demon" or "goblin" and Tolkien tells us that goblin = orc, but all of this is irrelevant?




I will again suggest:
How about we use JRRT's own words for defining 'pukel': 
"Púkel-men. A Rohan name for the effigies of men of a vanished race. It represents Old English púcel (still surviving as puckle), one of the forms of the puk- stem (widespread in England, Wales, Ireland, Norway and Iceland) referring to a devil, or to a minor sprite such as Puck, and often applied to ugly misshapen persons. The púkel-men are adequately described, and the element púkel may be retained-or replaced by some word of similar (possibly related) form and sense. The Dutch version has de Púkel-mensen, the Swedish Pukel-männen." 

'Often applied to ugly misshapen persons'. Kind of like the Druedain? No mention in JRRT's notes that it was applied to Orcs.


----------



## ShagratU

*Re: Response to Tar-Elenion and ShagratU*



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *You both continually point to Christopher Tolkien's index in UT and treat it as if it was equivalent to JRRT himself. It is not. It is copyrighted by CT himself as are his Introduction and Commentary in UT. All he says is that he used his father's notes for some definitions, he does not tell us which. The Anglicization definition first appears in print in Foster's guide to Middle Earth that appeared before UT. You have no prove that CT (who admits to finding Foster's book useful) did not just use Foster's definition, perhaps thinking it was such a trivial thing why not?*



The point is that Christopher Tolkien is the best-placed person to know what "Uruk-hai" actually means. When he makes a definitive statement (as he does in UT), there's likely a very good reason for it. We know that JRRT used "Uruk-hai" in letters to his son; it's more than likely that he also used it in conversation. In short, Christopher Tolkien is the living person most likely to know exactly how the term was used. Given that there is no evidence that he is wrong in this case, I am inclined to believe him.




> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *One thinks of Isengarders because they are the only ones in the books who are referred to as Uruk-hai. *



So your argument is entirely circular. Given that it's possible that there are other Uruk-hai than the Isengarders, I would suggest that it is better to consider whether the two Orcs are likely to be referring to Isengarders or not before reaching a conclusion as to what the term means.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *Your argument does not hold up. It is the narrator (Tolkien) who chooses the title "The Uruk-hai" for the chapter in TTT (example 4) and it is the narrator who uses Uruk-hai in example 6. The sentence does not read "Pippin thought 'I haven't known times this dark since my captivity with the Uruk-hai' *



However, Tolkien's attention to POV is one of the more remarkable features of LotR, particularly when dealing with the Hobbit characters. That particular sentence is certainly written with Pippin's POV - it describes his thoughts - and Pippin had heard Ugluk describe his folk as "Uruk-hai".



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *We also know from Appendix F that uruk is from Black Speech, so why would Uruks be allowed to be spoken but not Uruk-hai? If your response is that Uruks is an Anglicization and not pure Black Speech than you are falling back on your usual style of argument of assuming your Anglicization theory is correct in order to prove it is correct.*



"Uruks" is plainly an "Anglicization" ("Westronization"), in that it uses an "s" plural which does not appear in Black Speech. I would imagine that the main reason that non-orcish characters (including the hobbit "narrators") tend to use "Uruks" is simply because it's easier and more natural to use a word that has been adapted to your own lexicon than to use a foreign term. Think, for example, of how an English speaker pronounces "croissants", and how the French word of the same spelling is pronounced.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *If "-hai" is how nouns are turned into plurals in Black Speech why does Snaga when talking to Shagrat in ROTK say "one of the filthy tarks"? Why not "tark-hai"? Sam is not wearing the Ring when he overhears this exchange so your "Ring as imperfect translator" theory doesn't work here. *



"Tark" is not Black Speech, but an Orcish term used in debased Westron. Tolkien is quite clear on that point in Appendix F. 

I don't think, incidentally, that "-hai" is a plural tag, though it is possible (a much better fit than "men" or "sun resistant when not normally expected to be so"). I think "-hai" means "-folk".



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *So Tolkien chooses to use words that all mean "demon" or "goblin" and Tolkien tells us that goblin = orc, but all of this is irrelevant?*



Yes - utterly irrelevant. You are confusing real world terms with words that Tolkien derived from them for use in Middle Earth.

"Elf" and "troll" can both describe demons in English, but they don't mean "demon" in Middle Earth. Indeed, "elf", "goblin" and "troll" can all be synonyms in English, but they are not synonymous in Tolkien's world.

Tolkien delighted in giving new meanings to words that he took from real languages. "Orc" is a good example. Its real world definition would appear to be "Hell", but it doesn't mean the Void, or Utumno in Middle Earth.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *The only thing that really is relevant here is that Tolkien never tells us what he meant when he used the suffix "-hai" so we are all just theorizing in the dark. *



We do have plenty of linguistic evidence, however, particularly in the form of parallels. "-folk" appears by far the most likely definition in light of this evidence.

I'm still interested to hear how you think a monosyllable can convey "sun resistant when sun resistance is not usally expected"!


----------



## ShagratU

That's a very pertinent quote, Cian. 

It might also be worth noting that Black Speech was specifically the language of Mordor. The very fact that "Uruk-hai" is pure Black Speech is indicative of it originating in Mordor. This would also suggest that the Uruk-hai ultimately originated in Mordor.

It seems evident that Saruman infused Man-blood into his Uruks; however, their name suggests that their group identity was forged at an earlier stage, when they were first bred in Mordor.


----------



## Cian

Tolkien states that the BS was: _"... never used willingly by any other people,"_ (other people than those we would expect it from of course, captains of Mordor & etc ...)

note: I chose to restate my post without the full quote ShagratU is referring to, but his point remains  Man you guys are fast!


----------



## Greenwood

> You have no proof that CT plagiarized from Foster. You have no proof that CT would consider it trvial. You have no proof that 'hai' in any way relates to 'sunlight resistance' which is based on your own convoluted reasoning. We do have proof that CT had access to and used his fathers notes, and specifically used definitions for some of the words in that index.



Tar-Elenion

I have never accused CT of plagiarism though you keep leveling that charge at me. If CT followed Foster's defintion (and you were the first one on this thread to raise that possibility) it would not constitute plagiarism. I have never said that I have proof about the suffix "-hai" is related to sun-tolerance. It is merely a suggestion that I freely admit is my own; you may dismiss it if you wish as I dismiss your defintions for "-hai". We all know that CT had access to his father's notes, but CT does not say in UT that *all* the definitions in his index are taken from his father's notes, merely that some are. You have absolutely no evidence which definitions are and which are not JRRT's. Until you can prove the Uruks defintion is from JRRT's own hand I am free to consider the possibility it is CT's (or Foster's) rather than JRRT's.



> The point is that Christopher Tolkien is the best-placed person to know what "Uruk-hai" actually means. When he makes a definitive statement (as he does in UT), there's likely a very good reason for it. We know that JRRT used "Uruk-hai" in letters to his son; it's more than likely that he also used it in conversation. In short, Christopher Tolkien is the living person most likely to know exactly how the term was used. Given that there is no evidence that he is wrong in this case, I am inclined to believe him.



ShagratU

All you have are possibilities, not proofs. You accept CT's view on this matter. I (and evidently Aragil) do not. You say there is no evidence CT is wrong. I consider the 14 examples I have cited as evidence that CT is wrong. What we have is a disagreement on the interpretation of evidence. Clearly we are never going to reach agreement on the issue without new evidence being found. I am perfectly willing to "agree to disagree" on the matter.



> So your argument is entirely circular. Given that it's possible that there are other Uruk-hai than the Isengarders, I would suggest that it is better to consider whether the two Orcs are likely to be referring to Isengarders or not before reaching a conclusion as to what the term means.



I see no evidence in LOTR that there are "other Uruk-hai than the Isengarders". You do. Aragil and I do not.



> I'm still interested to hear how you think a monosyllable can convey "sun resistant when sun resistance is not usally expected"!



All "-hai" has to mean is light or sunlight. The contrast comes when the suffix is place in conjunction with another word. Thus Uruk-hai becomes something like "sunlight-orc", Olog-hai becomes "sunlight-troll" and Oghor-hai becomes "sunlight-goblinlike man". My suggestion is that Tolkien was having some fun creating oxymorons. It is merely a suggestion. I have no proof for it, as you have no proof for your suggestions. I do not demand that anyone else accept the idea. Aragil clearly has other views about the meaning of the suffix "-hai". Tolkien has given us very little Black Speech to work from and most (all?) of that is said to be debased words from other languages.

As Grond as said, barring contacting JRRT by seance or CT making a clearer statement of what his father's notes exactly say on this subject (in other words is the Anglicization definition JRRT's own or not?) this whole question will remain unresolvable. Aragil and I find your arguments unconvincing, as you find ours unconvincing.


----------



## Aldanil

although I must opine, as a semi-interested observer and without the wish to disparage any who have joined in this most erudite debate, that the entire thread has long since come to resemble a medieval scholastic's hair-splitting wrangle over how many goblins can dance on the point of a scimitar...


----------



## Harad

And that is exactly its charm.


----------



## aragil

Well, it's nice to see that we have outside observers, even if they're not always posting. Almost makes me embarrased about titling five posts as 'posts to myself'. But it doesn't. Between Greenwood, ShagratU, Tar-Elenion, and myself (and Grond and Cian), we are evidently entertained by this debate. Personally, I am enjoying myself, and think that the issue has further rammifications (ability of Saruman as an Orc breeder vs abilities of Sauron and Morgoth, depth of Saruman's treachery to both White Council and Sauron, linguistics of Black Speech and how it compares with other ME languages, etc). Plus, I think that I am right on something that most ME experts are wrong on (I'm not alone in my thinking- Greenwood agrees with me). There is the slightest chance that we could be adding a tiny grain of knowledge to the conventional wisdom of Middle-Earth, which would be nice to do considering how much pleasure I have derived from reading about Middle-Earth. I guess what I am saying is that I don't feel like we're going in circles, or that our debate is pointless. I know more about the issue than I did 30 posts ago, and I definitely know much more about the issue than I did at the beginning of this thread. The fact that I still believe the same thing as when I first posted on the issue does not mean that the thread is pointless at all. In fact, I gleaned tons of new information this morning, and I plan to write it down as my next post as soon as I get home from work. And it won't be a waste of my time, even if for no other reason than the fact that I am going to enjoy typing it out!


----------



## Greenwood

> _Originally posted by Aldanil _
> *although I must opine, as a semi-interested observer and without the wish to disparage any who have joined in this most erudite debate, that the entire thread has long since come to resemble a medieval scholastic's hair-splitting wrangle over how many goblins can dance on the point of a scimitar... *



It depends on whether the scimitar was made for the Uruk-hai or the Uruks. Ones made for the Uruk-hai are bigger.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Re: Response to Tar-Elenion and ShagratU*



> _Originally posted by ShagratU _
> "Tark" is not Black Speech, but an Orcish term used in debased Westron. Tolkien is quite clear on that point in Appendix F.



And even further is 'borrowed' from the Quenya: Tarkil from (IIRC) 'tar', 'high' and (CE) 'khil-', 'follow'(followers, Men).


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Well, it's nice to see that we have outside observers, even if they're not always posting. Almost makes me embarrased about titling five posts as 'posts to myself'. But it doesn't. Between Greenwood, ShagratU, Tar-Elenion, and myself (and Grond and Cian), we are evidently entertained by this debate.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> It depends on whether the scimitar was made for the Uruk-hai or the Uruks. Ones made for the Uruk-hai are bigger.   *



Of course, if you believe that the Uruk-hai used scimitars, you appear to be accepting that the Uruks of Mordor are also Uruk-hai. The Isengarders did not use scimitars....


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> All you have are possibilities, not proofs. You accept CT's view on this matter. I (and evidently Aragil) do not. You say there is no evidence CT is wrong. I consider the 14 examples I have cited as evidence that CT is wrong.*



To prove Christopher Tolkien wrong, you have to apply his theory and see if it works. If we accept, for the purposes of testing the theory, that "Uruks" is merely an Anglicized version of "Uruk-hai", where is the evidence that Christopher Tolkien is wrong? 

Please indicate specifically where problems arise if we accept Christopher Tolkien on the issue! 




> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> All "-hai" has to mean is light or sunlight. The contrast comes when the suffix is place in conjunction with another word. Thus Uruk-hai becomes something like "sunlight-orc", Olog-hai becomes "sunlight-troll" and Oghor-hai becomes "sunlight-goblinlike man".*



Two major objections here. First, other Black Speech words place the adjectival element in front; _nazgul_, _sharku_. Word order is very important linguistically; consider how different French and English are on the placement of adjectival elements.

The second objection is that there is _nothing_ to suggest that "Oghor" means "goblin-like man". There is considerable evidence to suggest that it doesn't. If "Oghor" meant "goblin-like man", we would expect it to include Black Speech elements for "goblin" and "man". But that would give us "Urukku", which is a far cry from Oghor. 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * I have no proof for it, as you have no proof for your suggestions.*



But I (and others) have evidence _against_ your idea. You have yet to put forward an argument indicating why you believe that "-hai" as "-folk" cannot fit. 




> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Tolkien has given us very little Black Speech to work from and most (all?) of that is said to be debased words from other languages.*



And all that we have conforms to linguistic rules that your interpretation (and aragil's) would violate. 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Aragil and I find your arguments unconvincing, as you find ours unconvincing. *



But neither of you have shown _why_! Why would "-hai" as "-folk" not fit with Tolkien's usage?


----------



## Greenwood

> Please indicate specifically where problems arise if we accept Christopher Tolkien on the issue!



Aragil and I have done so repeatedly. That is why this thread is 25 pages long. The fact that you and Tar-Elenion do not agree with us does not mean we haven't done it.  



> Two major objections here. First, other Black Speech words place the adjectival element in front; nazgul, sharku. Word order is very important linguistically; consider how different French and English are on the placement of adjectival elements.
> 
> The second objection is that there is nothing to suggest that "Oghor" means "goblin-like man". There is considerable evidence to suggest that it doesn't. If "Oghor" meant "goblin-like man", we would expect it to include Black Speech elements for "goblin" and "man". But that would give us "Urukku", which is a far cry from Oghor.



Do you have any other examples of Black Speech words that use hyphenated suffixes? Do you have any other examples (except for the three under discussion) of the use of "-hai"? Tolkien has given us damn little to work with here. How do you know the rules for hyphenated suffixes are the same as for word elements in an unhypenated word? As for Oghor, there seems to be little to suggest what it means. We do know from other names that Tolkien applied to the Druedain that tghere was evidently something goblinlike about them. Bit as I have said repeatedly in earlier posts on this thread, the meaning of "-hai" is irrelevant to the central question of the thread. Afterall, Aragil and I agree about the central question of Uruk-hai vs. Uruks, but have different views on "-hai".



> But neither of you have shown why!



We have shown why. Repeatedly. That you do not accept our arguments is not the same thing as our not giving arguments.


----------



## Grond

As an objective outside observer I can say that the entire case indicating that the Uruk-hai are strictly a Saruman hybrid rests solely on the repeated reference to them in The Two Towers. The only concrete evidence presented in the argument is the absence of the term appearing to refer to Mordor Uruks except for the "rebel Uruk-hai" comment made by a Mordor Uruk and the Isengarders themselves referring to themselves as "Uruk-hai of Isengard". All of the other arguments are simply rhetoric and interpretations of great-orc, man-orc, orc-men and the like.

The linguists have presented their argument based on their understanding of the linguistics of the Black Speech and other experts in Tolkien's languages. 

I disagree with your assertion Greenwood that either you or Aragil has shown why the linguistic term Uruk-hai doesn't work. All you've done is repeated emphasized the references of Uruk-hai in the chapter of the same name and the other references in the Helm's Deep chapter while conveniently interpreting the "Uruk-hai of Isengard" and "rebel Uruk-hai" references to your own definition of the term. Neither of you have offerred any evidence as to why -hai would not work as folk. I also find it interesting that you so quickly discount the input of CT who assuredly would know more than any other living person about the worlds of Middle-earth. I think everyone discounts his involvement in the works and assumes he only began working on his father's works after JRRT's death. This is not true. It was CT who made many of the maps that we use in arguments in many different topics. Since the maps weren't made by JRRT, does that mean we can't trust them. Surely he reviewed them and approved them. I cannot believe that CT would not have known exactly and precisely what the term Uruk-hai meant; yet, his interpretation must be completely discounted in order for Uruk-hai to work as a Saruman exclusive breed. That is the most disconcerting thing in this argument. CT's opinion is being totally discounted as coming from an unrelated third party. 

As an aside, I have sent a letter to CT, in care of both Houghton-Mifflan and HarperCollins asking them to forward it to him. Maybe, just maybe he will respond over the next few months and give us his input. I feel that will be the only way this argument may be put to rest. And I'm not even sure that will do it.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Aragil and I have done so repeatedly. That is why this thread is 25 pages long. The fact that you and Tar-Elenion do not agree with us does not mean we haven't done it. *



I really don't think you have. 

On review of the entire thread, your early standpoint appears to have been that the terms "Uruk-hai" and "Uruks" refer to separate classes of being. In this light, you claimed that the UT Isen text was inconsistent with LotR. At one point (page 3), you even asserted that:

"Nowhere in LOTR are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks." 

Now, of course, we would now all agree that this statement is patently false. 

You also wrote (on page 4) that:

"And if uruks is an Anglicization, why does an orc of Mordor use it? Is he just back from a jaunt to Merrie Olde England?"

Well, we know why now!  He (Gorbag) doesn't actually use the term, the ring translates it for Sam (who knows the "Anglicized" Uruks).

Your position at the start of the thread would appear to be that "uruks" are quite distinct from "Uruk-hai", and you and aragil's attempts to define "-hai" as "-sun" or "-men" seem to arise from this position. Of course, we know now that Saruman's Uruk-hai are described as "Uruks" or "uruks" by Tolkien.

It seems to me, therefore, that you are now fighting something of a rearguard action, your earlier position having been demolished. 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * We have shown why. Repeatedly. That you do not accept our arguments is not the same thing as our not giving arguments. *



I have yet to see those arguments (and I have just reviewed the thread). Be so kind as to summarize them for me!

As far as I can see, "-hai" as "folk" fits perfectly well.

We have Ugluk describing his people as "the fighting Uruk-folk" and "the Uruk-folk of Isengard" when talking to other Orcs.

We have the Isengarders themselves saying, "We are the fighting Uruk-folk!" and "We are the Uruk-folk" when talking to Men.

We have Pippin recalling his despair "in the clutches of the Uruk-folk".

And then we have our soldier-orc talking about "a pack of rebel Uruk-folk".

Finally, in Appendix F, we have:

"Related. no doubt, was the word _uruk_ of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-folk, snaga 'slave'." 

For comparison, we have "Olog-folk" and "Oghor-folk", referring to a new kind of troll (Ologs?), and to the Druedain (Oghor=wose?).

The usage fits perfectly!


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> We do know from other names that Tolkien applied to the Druedain that tghere was evidently something goblinlike about them. *



Here you are persisting in confusing the "external" (real world) with the "internal" (Middle Earth).

"Pucel", the Old English word from which Tolkien derived his _Pukel_ can mean "demon" or "goblin". It can also mean "elf".

"Elf", which Tolkien uses to mean an immortal man-like being, can also mean "demon" or "goblin".

"Hobgoblin", which Tolkien uses to denote a large kind of Orc ( Orcs are "rational incarnates" corrupted by diabolic forces in Middle Earth), can mean "demon" or "elf". It can also mean a _small_ kind of "goblin".

"Goblin", which Tolkein uses to denote a member of the race of rational incarnates" corrupted by diabolic forces in Middle Earth, can mean "elf" or "demon".

"Orc", which Tolkien uses to denote a member of the race of rational incarnates" corrupted by diabolic forces in Middle Earth, can mean "Hell" or "Hellish", or perhaps "demonic" in the real world.

As the above examples demonstrate, it is sheer folly to try to take an "external" meaning of a word that Tolkien adopts for "internal" use, and try to apply it to the "internal" situation.

To persist in doing so rather undermines your case!


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Do you have any other examples of Black Speech words that use hyphenated suffixes? Do you have any other examples (except for the three under discussion) of the use of "-hai"? Tolkien has given us damn little to work with here. How do you know the rules for hyphenated suffixes are the same as for word elements in an unhypenated word?



'Saruman-glob', attested to as 'Saruman-fool'. 
Also, as has been noted, JRRT himself did not always hyphenate Urukhai, see Letter 66 ("Well, there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai.") and Letter 78 ("Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker.").

Interesting, that use of 'folk', considering that 'uruk' was 'borrowed' from the Elvish, which are from stems that yield 'terrible' and 'horrible' (ie _bad_) and applied to creatures of the Enemy that inspired fear(Cian can give more linguistic insight). Hmm... 'urukhai' - *bad-folk . 

And both Cian and I own editions of LotR where it is not always hyphenated.





> As for Oghor, there seems to be little to suggest what it means. We do know from other names that Tolkien applied to the Druedain that tghere was evidently something goblinlike about them.



Other words?
I will again suggest: 
How about we use JRRT's own words for defining 'pukel': 
"Púkel-men. A Rohan name for the effigies of men of a vanished race. It represents Old English púcel (still surviving as puckle), one of the forms of the puk- stem (widespread in England, Wales, Ireland, Norway and Iceland) referring to a devil, or to a minor sprite such as Puck, and often applied to ugly misshapen persons. The púkel-men are adequately described, and the element púkel may be retained-or replaced by some word of similar (possibly related) form and sense. The Dutch version has de Púkel-mensen, the Swedish Pukel-männen." 

'Often applied to ugly misshapen persons'. Kind of like the Druedain? No mention of 'goblinlike'.



> Bit as I have said repeatedly in earlier posts on this thread, the meaning of "-hai" is irrelevant to the central question of the thread.



Irrelevant to your position, but quite relevant to ours.


----------



## Greenwood

> *Quote by ShagratU*
> On review of the entire thread, your early standpoint appears to have been that the terms "Uruk-hai" and "Uruks" refer to separate classes of being. In this light, you claimed that the UT Isen text was inconsistent with LotR. At one point (page 3), you even asserted that:
> 
> "Nowhere in LOTR are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks."
> 
> Now, of course, we would now all agree that this statement is patently false.



I have never said they were "separate classes of being". They are of course related to each other, both being large, soldier orcs, with Saruman's Uruk-hai being derived from Uruks. There is also nothing wrong (as you seem to imply with your phrasing "your early standpoint") with refining one's position over time. Indeed this is a normal and useful outgrowth of any discussion. Your comments also conveniently ignore the fact that I made it quite clear in my first post that I was asking other members of the forum for help in finding other instances of the use of the words Uruks and Uruk-hai in LOTR and I have not been disappointed. A couple of such usuages have been found and I have included them in the expanded list of examples a few pages back. As for my earlier statement (that you quote above) being patently false, I disagree. The only instance that has been produced of orcs in Saruman's service being referred to in LOTR as uruks is in Appendix A. I freely admit that I was unaware of the quote when I made my earlier statement and it does require me to clarify my statement. First, my statement should have spelled Uruks with a capital "U". Second, as I pointed out earlier the quotation in Appendix A refers to a time 25 - 30 years before the time of LOTR; a time when Saruman may not have developed his Uruk-hai from the original uruks stock.



> Well, we know why now! He (Gorbag) doesn't actually use the term, the ring translates it for Sam



The only thing we "know now" is your rationalization for the usage of Uruks in Gorbag's statement. Tolkien, as the author of the piece chose to use Uruks here instead of Uruk-hai when a Mordor orc spoke of himself, just as Tolkien chose to always use Uruk-hai whenever one of Saruman's elite orcs spoke of himself. Aragil and I do not think this is coincidence, nor do we accept you convoluted explanations. (My apologies to Aragil if I have misrepresented his views at any point in this post.)



> Your position at the start of the thread would appear to be that "uruks" are quite distinct from "Uruk-hai", and you and aragil's attempts to define "-hai" as "-sun" or "-men" seem to arise from this position. Of course, we know now that Saruman's Uruk-hai are described as "Uruks" or "uruks" by Tolkien.



As I have said above, positions have been refined during the course of the discussion (just as you and Tar-Elenion have apparently changed and/or dropped side issues), there is nothing wrong with this. I will let Aragil speak for himself, but I have stated, repeatedly that my suggestion about "-hai" was merely that, a suggestion. It is not central to the main topic under discussion. Saruman's Uruk-hai have never been described as Uruks.

Tar-Elenion contended, and may still contend though he has dropped it from the discussion, that Snaga in the Tower of Cirith Ungol chapter is not the proper name of a specific orc (I do not remember; you may also accept his position.) Just about everyone else, including Christopher Tolkien, treats it as a character's name. I could now make blanket pronouncements that "we now know" Snaga is a name in this instance and Tar-Elenion is therefore wrong though I think he has probably not changed his view.

You have contended that the orcs that disappeared from the fords of Isen after Theodred fell were Ugluk and his boys. I have shown from the timing of events in the story that this is a physical impossibility. I could say "we now know ShagratU was wrong", as a way of attacking all your arguments. On second thought, I would probably be better off arguing that you are right and that Tolkien did mean these orcs to be Ugluk and his boys. The physical impossibility caused by the timing of events in LOTR still stands and proves my arguments about why Tolkien's posthumously published writings are secondary sources in comparison to LOTR and cannot be used to definitvely refute things in LOTR.



> We have Ugluk describing his people as "the fighting Uruk-folk" and "the Uruk-folk of Isengard" when talking to other Orcs. [etc., etc.]



I could also retype Tolkien's words into my own. It proves nothing but your ability to type. 



> *Quote by Tar-Elenion]
> And both Cian and I own editions of LotR where it is not always hyphenated.*


*

That you both have editions with typographical errors proves nothing but that typographical errors exist. That Tolkien might omit the hyphen in a personal (war-time?) letter to his son, where such niceties would of course be of no concern to him also proves nothing.*


----------



## Greenwood

Grond

If Christopher Tolkien says that "Uruks is an Anglicization of Uruk-hai" is his father's definition, found in his father's writings, I will accept that. What bothers me is that the first time this definition appears anywhere in print is apparently in Robert Foster's book which predates Christopher Tolkien's index in Unfinished Tales. CT has said he found Foster's work useful. That indicates to me that CT must have used Foster's work for something more important than as a paperweight for his father's papers.  While we have discussed this issue for weeks, I can easily see CT considering it a trivial item when he was preparing his index for UT and just adopting Foster's definition. Contrary to Tar-Elenion's repeated characterizations, this would not be plagiarism. If it were then every Tolkien encyclopedia and companion volume ever published would be plagiarism and the Tolkien estate would have hauled them all into court. As I pointed out in an earlier post, this definition doesn't even fit the style of the other definitions in the UT index. No other word is defined as an Anglicization. Is Uruks the only Anglicization in Tolkien? As far as I can tell it is the only defintion that defines a word, Uruk-hai, that is not even in UT.

In an earlier exchange with Tar-Elenion I gave quotes from CT showing that he says he has at times changed his father's writing to eliminate inconsistencies (this is before the HoME series), even in one case saying how a change he made brought his father's writing in line with Foster. Yes, CT said in that same editorial note that he had now found additional writings of his father's that caused him to change things back, but he also said that this latest change did not solve everything and that it could itself be wrong. The point here is that just because something has been published by CT does not automatically make it equivalent to JRRT.

I long ago learned that "experts" make mistakes, even those who know more about their chosen field than anyone else. I do not automatically accept an "expert's" opinion just because they are supposed to be an expert, particularly when the opinion does not make sense to me.

I agree with you that barring new evidence turning up neither side in this discussion is going to change their opinions. (And perhaps not even then.  )


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *There is also nothing wrong (as you seem to imply with your phrasing "your early standpoint") with refining one's position over time. Indeed this is a normal and useful outgrowth of any discussion. *



Agreed, and there was no implication of "wrongness" in my post! I was merely suggesting that you appear to have retreated somewhat from your original position.





> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *The only thing we "know now" is your rationalization for the usage of Uruks in Gorbag's statement. Tolkien, as the author of the piece chose to use Uruks here instead of Uruk-hai when a Mordor orc spoke of himself, just as Tolkien chose to always use Uruk-hai whenever one of Saruman's elite orcs spoke of himself. Aragil and I do not think this is coincidence, nor do we accept you convoluted explanations. *



But there is nothing "convoluted" about my explanation! Tolkien says quite clearly that Gorbag and Shagrat's words were translated by the ring. It therefore is patently obvious that Black Speech words that the ringbearer had never heard before would be translated in the text. Where's the convolution? 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *Saruman's Uruk-hai have never been described as Uruks. *



Yes they have. In UT. I may be wrong in suggesting that the some of these Uruks are Ugluk's band, but Tolkien quite clearly describes Saruman's elite Orcs as Uruks in this post-LotR text.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *I could also retype Tolkien's words into my own. It proves nothing but your ability to type. *



What it proves is that the interpretation of "-hai" as "-folk" works perfectly well. When I asked you why you thought "-hai" didn't work, you said:



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *We have shown why. Repeatedly. *



I have found no evidence that you have. Therefore, I will ask you again. Please explain why "-hai" as "-folk" does not work in the context of Tolkien's writings.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> What bothers me is that the first time this definition appears anywhere in print is apparently in Robert Foster's book which predates Christopher Tolkien's index in Unfinished Tales. CT has said he found Foster's work useful. That indicates to me that CT must have used Foster's work for something more important than as a paperweight for his father's papers. While we have discussed this issue for weeks, I can easily see CT considering it a trivial item when he was preparing his index for UT and just adopting Foster's definition.



So naturally he 'borrows' the 'defintion' from RF? This is absolutely absurd. CT had access to his father's materials, and no need to 'borrow' any defintions from Foster. He had no need to bring his father's works into line with Foster. The statement is completely specious.




> As I pointed out in an earlier post, this definition doesn't even fit the style of the other definitions in the UT index. No other word is defined as an Anglicization. Is Uruks the only Anglicization in Tolkien? As far as I can tell it is the only defintion that defines a word, Uruk-hai, that is not even in UT.



In the Eorlings entry, the Anglo Saxon plural is noted.
And as for Uruk-hai not being in UT it further reinforces the case that the defintion came from his father's writings. There would be no need to include it otherwise.




> In an earlier exchange with Tar-Elenion I gave quotes from CT showing that he says he has at times changed his father's writing to eliminate inconsistencies (this is before the HoME series), even in one case saying how a change he made brought his father's writing in line with Foster.



You are going to need to refresh my memory on this. _CT_ has said that he made a change to bring his fathers writings in line with Foster? Where does this occur? Please provide the citation and quote.



> Yes, CT said in that same editorial note that he had now found additional writings of his father's that caused him to change things back, but he also said that this latest change did not solve everything and that it could itself be wrong. The point here is that just because something has been published by CT does not automatically make it equivalent to JRRT.




Which editorial note are you speaking of?
And if Fords of Isen was inconsistant with LotR why didn't he alter it?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> Greenwood wrote:
> Tar-Elenion contended, and may still contend though he has dropped it from the discussion, that Snaga in the Tower of Cirith Ungol chapter is not the proper name of a specific orc (I do not remember; you may also accept his position.) Just about everyone else, including Christopher Tolkien, treats it as a character's name. I could now make blanket pronouncements that "we now know" Snaga is a name in this instance and Tar-Elenion is therefore wrong though I think he has probably not changed his view.



You are correct, I have not changed my veiw. The App. F and Q&E both note that the lesser breeds were called 'snaga'. That is what Shagrat is calling this lesser breed Orc. POV is important.



> That you both have editions with typographical errors proves nothing but that typographical errors exist. That Tolkien might omit the hyphen in a personal (war-time?) letter to his son, where such niceties would of course be of no concern to him also proves nothing.



Sure it does. It proves that JRRT himself, the one who invented the words, and put them together, used them with out a hyphen. You are of course at liberty to dismiss it, but it proves exactly that.
In any event we still have 'Saruman-glob' attested to as 'Saruman-fool'.


----------



## Greenwood

> *Quote by ShagratU *
> But there is nothing "convoluted" about my explanation! Tolkien says quite clearly that Gorbag and Shagrat's words were translated by the ring. It therefore is patently obvious that Black Speech words that the ringbearer had never heard before would be translated in the text. Where's the convolution?



Actually, Tolkien does not say "quite clearly that Gorbag and Shagrat's words were translated by the ring". Tolkien merely suggests the *possibility*. What Tolkien says in the book is: "He heard them both clearly, and he understood what they said. *Perhaps* the Ring gave understanding of tongues, or simply understanding, especially of the servants of Sauron its maker, so that if he gave heed, he understood and translated the thought to himself." [Emphasis added.] This is hardly a definitive statement that the Ring is acting as a translator. Perhaps the orcs were speaking a version of "ordinary language" as did the orcs that captured Merry and Pippin. Sam is not wearing the Ring later when he overhears Shagrat and Snaga talking, but still he understands them. Neither Frodo nor Sam are wearing the Ring when they overhear the tracker orc and the soldier orc talking, yet they understand them. Again when Frodo and Sam are overtaken in Mordor by orc troops the uruk driver speaks to them and they have no trouble understanding, but neither is wearing the Ring. You have latched on to what was suggested by Tolkien as a possibility (a possibility that doesn't fit with all the later instances in LOTR) to argue that Gorbag may have really said Uruk-hai when Tolkien has in fact written in the text that Gorbag said Uruks. I call that explanation "convoluted". Especially when you then have to give a different explanation for Gandalf referring to the "Uruks of Mordor" (example 8) and when the large soldier orcs of Mordor are referred to as uruks by Tolkien on three other occasions in LOTR (examples 10, 11 and 13). Never does Tolkien unambiguously refer to Mordor soldier orcs as Uruk-hai.



> In UT. I may be wrong in suggesting that the some of these Uruks are Ugluk's band, but Tolkien quite clearly describes Saruman's elite Orcs as Uruks in this post-LotR text.



Unfinished Tales is a collection of manuscripts. One of the major things the HoME series shows us is how much Tolkien rewrote and tinkered with his texts. I cannot but restate that all of Tolkien's posthumously published material is secondary to LOTR. You and Tar-Elenion continue to blindly ignore that fact.



> What it proves is that the interpretation of "-hai" as "-folk" works perfectly well.



And so might other interpretations. And even if I accepted "-hai" as "-folk" (which I have not), it would not change the fact that in LOTR, Tolkien applies it to Saruman's elite orc troops, not Sauron's.



> * Quote by Tar-Elenion *
> CT had access to his father's materials, and no need to 'borrow' any defintions from Foster.



You don't know this. CT said *some* of the definitions came from his father. He did not say *all*. The definitions that didn't come from his father came from somewhere. Either he made them up himself or perhaps he merely followed someone else. The point is we do not *know*. That you insist this defintion came from JRRT himself does not make it so.



> And as for Uruk-hai not being in UT it further reinforces the case that the defintion came from his father's writings.



That is pulling an argument out of thin air. It reinforces nothing. I could make up anything I want, point out that it isn't included in something and therefore it proves my point. And you try to characterize my arguments as specious? I would say your arguments are desperate.



> It proves that JRRT himself, the one who invented the words, and put them together, used them with out a hyphen. You are of course at liberty to dismiss it, but it proves exactly that.



In a war-time letter to his son where orthography would be of trivial importance to him. For that matter, since we know that the hyphen has been omitted in typographical error in published versions of LOTR how do you know the editor of the book of Tolkien's letters didn't make a similar typographical error? Have you seen the originals? I am not stating here that there is a hyphen in the original letter, just that you don't know for sure and even if there isn't (and there probably isn't), it doesn't prove a thing. You continue to be blind to the difference between published material that an author prepared for publication (LOTR) and unpublished and private material which an author never expected anyone but close friends and/or family to see in that form.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> <snip>
> Sam is not wearing the Ring later when he overhears Shagrat and Snaga talking, but still he understands them. Neither Frodo nor Sam are wearing the Ring when they overhear the tracker orc and the soldier orc talking, yet they understand them. Again when Frodo and Sam are overtaken in Mordor by orc troops the uruk driver speaks to them and they have no trouble understanding, but neither is wearing the Ring. You have latched on to what was suggested by Tolkien as a possibility (a possibility that doesn't fit with all the later instances in LOTR) to argue that Gorbag may have really said Uruk-hai when Tolkien has in fact written in the text that Gorbag said Uruks. I call that explanation "convoluted".



It fits in perfectly with all the other instances. As is noted in App. F Orcs of different breeds speak Common to each other, Black Speech was the 'language of Barad-dur and the captains of Mordor'. The explanation is not convoluted, it is provided by the author. 



> Especially when you then have to give a different explanation for Gandalf referring to the "Uruks of Mordor" (example 8) and when the large soldier orcs of Mordor are referred to as uruks by Tolkien on three other occasions in LOTR (examples 10, 11 and 13). Never does Tolkien unambiguously refer to Mordor soldier orcs as Uruk-hai.



"...rebel Uruk-hai" is unambiguously refering to Mordor soldier orcs. 
Your explanations to make it seem ambiguous are what I call "convoluted".






> Unfinished Tales is a collection of manuscripts. One of the major things the HoME series shows us is how much Tolkien rewrote and tinkered with his texts. I cannot but restate that all of Tolkien's posthumously published material is secondary to LOTR. You and Tar-Elenion continue to blindly ignore that fact.



And you continue to blindly ignore the fact that Fords of Isen is fully compatible with LotR. You dismiss it out of hand because it does not support your position.






> And so might other interpretations. And even if I accepted "-hai" as "-folk" (which I have not), it would not change the fact that in LOTR, Tolkien applies it to Saruman's elite orc troops, not Sauron's.



Except when he does not apply it to Saruman's troops, ie "rebel Uruk-hai", oh wait, I forgot, with "convoluted explanations" we can declare it "ambiguous", and 'safely ignore' it. 






> You don't know this. CT said some of the definitions came from his father. He did not say all. The definitions that didn't come from his father came from somewhere. Either he made them up himself or perhaps he merely followed someone else. The point is we do not know. That you insist this defintion came from JRRT himself does not make it so.



No, he did not say that Greenwood. No matter how many times you suggest that CT made them up or used other peoples explantions, it does not make it true. He said he got some of the definitions from the draft index for LotR his father made. The other 'definitions' to his father's words he got from elsewhere in his father's writings. He had no need to make them up himself or 'borrow' from others.



> That is pulling an argument out of thin air. It reinforces nothing. I could make up anything I want, point out that it isn't included in something and therefore it proves my point. And you try to characterize my arguments as specious? I would say your arguments are desperate.



LOL
Desperate is dismissing texts simply because they do not agree with your position. Desperate is attempting to declare passages ambiguous because they do not aggree with you belief. Desperate is suggesting CT simply made up defintions to his father's words or 'borrowed' them from other people because it does not agree with your position. Desperate is dismissing JRRT's own use of words.




> In a war-time letter to his son where orthography would be of trivial importance to him. For that matter, since we know that the hyphen has been omitted in typographical error in published versions of LOTR how do you know the editor of the book of Tolkien's letters didn't make a similar typographical error? Have you seen the originals? I am not stating here that there is a hyphen in the original letter, just that you don't know for sure and even if there isn't (and there probably isn't), it doesn't prove a thing. You continue to be blind to the difference between published material that an author prepared for publication (LOTR) and unpublished and private material which an author never expected anyone but close friends and/or family to see in that form.



Trival hmm. Where did JRRT say it orthography was trivial to him in any situation? Can you provide a quote or citation to back up your assertion? Your questions are specious, unless or until you can prove that the original letters had hyphens, I am going to accept that they were published as written. I understand, it does not agree with a position you hold, so it should be dismissed, but I don't dismiss texts etc. as easily as you.
However it is beside the point. We have 'Saruman-glob' attested to as 'Saruman-fool'. Word order is important, 'uruk-hai', 'sunlight-orc', does not work. What does work is Orc-folk, especially when we take into account Letter 78 ("Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker."). 

Interesting, that use of 'folk', considering that 'uruk' was 'borrowed' from the Elvish, which are from stems that yield 'terrible' and 'horrible' (ie _bad_) and applied to creatures of the Enemy that inspired fear (Cian can give more linguistic insight, I think he mentioned 'evil'). Hmm... 'urukhai' - *bad-folk .


----------



## Greenwood

> *Quote by Tar-Elenion*
> It fits in perfectly with all the other instances. As is noted in App. F Orcs of different breeds speak Common to each other, Black Speech was the 'language of Barad-dur and the captains of Mordor'. The explanation is not convoluted, it is provided by the author.



So Gorbag, who serves in Minas Morgal, and Shagrat, who serves in Cirith Ungol, (in other words orcs from two different commands), they speak to each other in Black Speech that the Ring must translate for Sam. However, Shagrat and his underling Snaga, both of whom have apparently served together in the service of Cirith Ungol for some time, they conveniently speak Westron to each other so that Sam can understand them, as do all other orcs in Mordor. Yes, I see. There is nothing convoluted about your explanations at all. It is just that there appears to be a different explanation for each occurrence.



> "...rebel Uruk-hai" is unambiguously refering to Mordor soldier orcs.
> Your explanations to make it seem ambiguous are what I call "convoluted".



The phrase "rebel Uruk-hai" does not "unambiguously" refer to Mordor orcs. Taken in context it is clear that the tracker orc is saying the higher-ups haven't a clue what is going on or what they are looking for. There is no "great Elf" runnning around Mordor. There is no "dwarf-man" running around Mordor. In fact, in the context of Middle Earth, what is a dwarf-man? In Middle Earth, Dwarves and Men are seperate races and no where (at least that I can recall) is there a mention of hybrids between men and dwarves. But I suppose this is another special case of Tolkien the translator putting things in words we the reader would understand, but when he uses Uruk-hai in the same sentence, a word that he has exclusively used in the book until this point in reference to Saruman's troops, Tolkien has stopped being a translator. For that matter I take it that Tolkien the story-teller has decided that despite the fact that until this point in the trilogy he has used Uruk-hai for Saruman's orcs and Uruks for Mordor orcs he is now going to take this opportunity to throw a hint to his readers that they have misunderstood his usage all along. No, the reader should cease reading the story at this point and jump ahead to read all the fine print in Appendices A and F to discover that the reader has misunderstood all along. And oh, by the way, Snaga back at Cirith Ungol wasn't really named Snaga. Snaga means slave. Thus when Tolkien wrote: "Shagrat hunted Snaga round the roof ...." we should have been reading: "Shagrat hunted slave round the roof ...". Instead of: "He cared no longer for Shagrat or Snaga or any other orc that was ever spawned.", we should have read: "He cared no longer for Shagrat or slave or any other orc that was ever spawned." Likewise instead of: "Snaga thrust the ladder upwards ... ", we should have read: "Slave thrust the ladder upwards .... ". Yes, I see now how all of this makes much more sense than accepting Tolkien's words as written. Silly of me to ever have thought that Tar-Elenion's explanations were just a tad convoluted.  



> He said he got some of the definitions from the draft index for LotR his father made. The other 'definitions' to his father's words he got from elsewhere in his father's writings. He had no need to make them up himself or 'borrow' from others.



What Christopher Tolkien wrote was: "In the event there was no index to _The Lord of the Rings_ until the second edition of 1966, but my father's original rough draft has been preserved. From it I derived the plan of my index to _The Silmarillion_, with translations of names and brief explanatory statements, and also, both there and in the idex to this book, *some* of the translations and the wording of *some* of the 'definitions'." [emphasis added] No where does CT say that the other defintions came from elsewhere in his father's writings. That is your contention. I point out again that the book Unfinished Tales is copyrighted to the Tolkien estate, except for the Introduction, Commentary, *Index* and Maps, which are copyrighted to CT. The Index is CT's, not his father's.

In your zeal to claim equivalent weight for Tolkien's posthumously published work you continually overlook his son's own warnings and caveats about the books CT has produced. The first paragraph of CT's Introduction to Unfinished Tales reads: "The problems that confront one given responsibility for the writings of a dead author are hard to resolve. Some persons in this position may elect to make no material whatsoever available for publication, save perhaps for work that was in a virtually finished state at the time of the author's death. In the case of the unpublished writings of J. R. R. Tolkien this might seem at first sight the proper course; *since he himself, peculiarly critical and exacting of his own work, would not have dreamt of allowing even the more completed narratives in this book to appear without much further refinement.*" [emphasis added] Further on in his Introduction, CT says, in regard to his father's manuscripts: "*When the author has ceased to publish his works himself, after subjecting them to his own detailed criticism and comparison, the further knowledge of Middle-earth to be found in his unpublished writings will often conflict with what is already 'known'; and new elements set into the existing edifice will in such cases tend to contribute less to the history of the invented world itself than to the history of its invention.*" [emphasis added] These two quotes exactly summarize the reasons Aragil and I have repeatedly given as to why Tolkien's posthumously published works are secondary sources and cannot be given equal weight with material JRRT published himself during his lifetime. I expect that you will point out the following sentence by CT that follows the above quotation in the same paragraph: "I have made no alterations for the sake of consistency with published works, but rather drawn attention throughout to conflicts and variations." and argue that CT does not point out any conflict between the Fords of Isen manuscript and LOTR. The fallacy in that argument, however, is that CT's definition of Uruks being an Anglicization of Uruk-hai has defined the conflict out of existence, thus there is nothing for CT to draw attention to, at least in his mind. Without the definition, which is the very thing under discussion here, there would be a difference between the two texts.

As to CT's use of Foster's work we have the following statement in the CT's Introduction to Unfinished Tales: "I have, however, included short defining statements with almost all the primary entries in the Index, in the hope of saving the reader from constant reference elsewhere. If I have been inadequate in explanation or unintentionally obscure, Mr. Robert Foster's _Complete Guide to Middle-earth_ supplies, as I have found through frequent use, an admirable work of reference." *Note*, CT does not say that his "short defining statements" all come from his father's writing. CT does explicitly state that he used Foster's work frequently. I repeat, I doubt it was merely as a paperweight.  I find it interesting (and suggestive) that CT has the same definition for Uruks as an Anglicization of Uruk-hai as Foster and consider it possible that CT merely adopted it. Yes, I have no proof of this. You counter that they both have the same definition because they both found it in some unpublished piece of JRRT's writing. You also have no proof for your contention. That you and ShagratU try to dismiss Aragil's and my arguments by labeling them specious and absurd does not in any way constitute proof of your contentions.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> So Gorbag, who serves in Minas Morgal, and Shagrat, who serves in Cirith Ungol, (in other words orcs from two different commands), they speak to each other in Black Speech that the Ring must translate for Sam. However, Shagrat and his underling Snaga, both of whom have apparently served together in the service of Cirith Ungol for some time, they conveniently speak Westron to each other so that Sam can understand them, as do all other orcs in Mordor. Yes, I see. There is nothing convoluted about your explanations at all. It is just that there appears to be a different explanation for each occurrence. *



There is nothing convoluted about this if one follows Tolkien's writings on the matter. You appear reluctant to do so. 

Tolkien says that Orcs of different breeds spoke to each other in Westron, because their dialects were mutually unintelligible. He also says that the captains of Mordor spoke Black Speech.

Shagrat and Gorbag are plainly both uruks. It should be no surprise that they speak together in their own language. As they are captains, it would also seem likely that that language is Black Speech. Tolkien suggests that Sam can understand them because he is wearing the ring.

Snaga and Shagrat are plainly of different breeds. The tracker and the soldier-orc are plainly of different breeds. The uruk overseer and his charges are plainly of different breeds. All of the exchanges between these orcs are intelligible to Sam and Frodo when they are not wearing the ring. They are thus plainly speaking Westron.

Therefore, Tolkien's statement on Orcs and language holds perfectly true. Why do you take issue with it?


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> Actually, Tolkien does not say "quite clearly that Gorbag and Shagrat's words were translated by the ring". Tolkien merely suggests the possibility. What Tolkien says in the book is: "He heard them both clearly, and he understood what they said. Perhaps the Ring gave understanding of tongues, or simply understanding, especially of the servants of Sauron its maker, so that if he gave heed, he understood and translated the thought to himself." [Emphasis added.] This is hardly a definitive statement that the Ring is acting as a translator.*



It's a pretty definitive statement, actually. Tolkien presents only two options - that the ring gives "understanding of tongues", or that the ring gives "understanding, especialy of the servants of Sauron". Either option resulsts in the understanding being "translated"




> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Perhaps the orcs were speaking a version of "ordinary language" as did the orcs that captured Merry and Pippin.*



You're clutching at straws here.  If the Orcs were speaking Westron, why would Tolkien suggest otherwise? The Orcs that captured Merry and Pippin were speaking Westron because they were of different breeds and tribes.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * You have latched on to what was suggested by Tolkien as a possibility (a possibility that doesn't fit with all the later instances in LOTR) to argue that Gorbag may have really said Uruk-hai when Tolkien has in fact written in the text that Gorbag said Uruks. *



The "possibility" fits precisely with what Tolkien tells us of Orcs and their language; that different breeds and tribes cannot understand each other's language, and have to speak Westron to each other. Gorbag and Shagrat are clearly both Uruks (as well as old friends). HoME shows the thought Tolkien gave to the language issue, and, along with the text of LotR, demonstrates that he resolved it in this instance by utilizing the ring's power.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> And so might other interpretations. And even if I accepted "-hai" as "-folk" (which I have not), it would not change the fact that in LOTR, Tolkien applies it to Saruman's elite orc troops, not Sauron's.
> *



I sense another retreat here.  A little earlier in this debate you were saying that you and aragil had "repeatedly" demonstrated why "-hai" as "-folk" doesn't work. I still await examples.

You say other interpretations might work. Well, which are they?

"sun", which you suggest doesn't work, firstly because adjectival elements in Black Speech compounds go at the front, not as suffixes, and secondly, because it is used to describe the Druedain, who are not a people specially bred to resist the sun, or whom one would expect to have a problem with the sun.

"-men" doesn't work, because it has to be adjectival to describe the uruks, and doesn't apply to the Olog-hai, who are quite plainly not men. Moreover, it gives a specific origin to both the Uruk-hai and the Olog-hai, when Tolkien had clearly not decided their origins at that stage (he never did regarding the Olog-hai, as far as we know). Again, we have the problem of the Oghor-hai, who _are_ men, and thus unlikely to have "men" used adjectivally in their description. Finally, we have a Black Speech word for "man", and it is nothing like "-hai."

So what are these mysterious viable alternatives for the meaning of "-hai"?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> The phrase "rebel Uruk-hai" does not "unambiguously" refer to Mordor orcs.



Yes, it does. The only way it becomes ambiguous is if those "convoluted explanations" you seem to dislike are engaged in.



> Taken in context it is clear that the tracker orc is saying the higher-ups haven't a clue what is going on or what they are looking for. There is no "great Elf" runnning around Mordor. There is no "dwarf-man" running around Mordor. In fact, in the context of Middle Earth, what is a dwarf-man? In Middle Earth, Dwarves and Men are seperate races and no where (at least that I can recall) is there a mention of hybrids between men and dwarves.



Taken in context, it is well known that Sam was thought to be a 'great Elf-warrior', based on the evidence available. You are right, there is no 'dwarf-man' running around Mordor. There is however a 'sort of small dwarf-man' running around Mordor. And that more than adequately describes Hobbits especially to those who do not know what a Hobbit is. Dwarf-man in the context given has nothing to do with hybrids. The suggestion that it does is specious.


> And oh, by the way, Snaga back at Cirith Ungol wasn't really named Snaga. Snaga means slave. Thus when Tolkien wrote: "Shagrat hunted Snaga round the roof ...." we should have been reading: "Shagrat hunted slave round the roof ...". Instead of: "He cared no longer for Shagrat or Snaga or any other orc that was ever spawned.", we should have read: "He cared no longer for Shagrat or slave or any other orc that was ever spawned." Likewise instead of: "Snaga thrust the ladder upwards ... ", we should have read: "Slave thrust the ladder upwards .... ". Yes, I see now how all of this makes much more sense than accepting Tolkien's words as written. Silly of me to ever have thought that Tar-Elenion's explanations were just a tad convoluted.



Quite. But of course since App F. does not support your conclusion we should dismiss it. Or label it "ambiguous" and thus 'safely ignore' it. Once again POV is very important. 




> What Christopher Tolkien wrote was: "In the event there was no index to _The Lord of the Rings_ until the second edition of 1966, but my father's original rough draft has been preserved. From it I derived the plan of my index to _The Silmarillion_, with translations of names and brief explanatory statements, and also, both there and in the idex to this book, *some* of the translations and the wording of *some* of the 'definitions'." [emphasis added] No where does CT say that the other defintions came from elsewhere in his father's writings. That is your contention. I point out again that the book Unfinished Tales is copyrighted to the Tolkien estate, except for the Introduction, Commentary, *Index* and Maps, which are copyrighted to CT. The Index is CT's, not his father's.



That's because CT put the index together for UT. What CT does not say is that he made up the definitions or (euphamistically) 'borrowed' them from someone else. As I have said before you are at liberty to dismiss it because it does not agree with your interpretation, but to suggest that he simply made the up the definitions or borrowed them from others is specious, and I find lacking crediblity. 



> In your zeal to claim equivalent weight for Tolkien's posthumously published work you continually overlook his son's own warnings and caveats about the books CT has produced.
> <snip>
> I expect that you will point out the following sentence by CT that follows the above quotation in the same paragraph:
> <snip>



Yes thank you for presenting a good counter argument for me. 



> The fallacy in that argument, however, is that CT's definition of Uruks being an Anglicization of Uruk-hai has defined the conflict out of existence, thus there is nothing for CT to draw attention to, at least in his mind. Without the definition, which is the very thing under discussion here, there would be a difference between the two texts.




No there would not. JRRT uses Uruks for Uruk-hai in LotR. And yes you can dismiss it as 'ambiguous' or try to otherwise offer some 'convoluted explanation' as to why it does not apply, but the fact is JRRT did exactly that, and Fords of Isen does not contradict LotR, and is quite relevant to it. 



> As to CT's use of Foster's work we have the following statement in the CT's Introduction to Unfinished Tales: "I have, however, included short defining statements with almost all the primary entries in the Index, in the hope of saving the reader from constant reference elsewhere. If I have been inadequate in explanation or unintentionally obscure, Mr. Robert Foster's _Complete Guide to Middle-earth_ supplies, as I have found through frequent use, an admirable work of reference." *Note*, CT does not say that his "short defining statements" all come from his father's writing. CT does explicitly state that he used Foster's work frequently. I repeat, I doubt it was merely as a paperweight.  I find it interesting (and suggestive) that CT has the same definition for Uruks as an Anglicization of Uruk-hai as Foster and consider it possible that CT merely adopted it. Yes, I have no proof of this. You counter that they both have the same definition because they both found it in some unpublished piece of JRRT's writing. You also have no proof for your contention.



You only wish to dismiss it or suggest that CT 'borrowed' it because it does not agree with your interpretation. I think you should be able to come up with a better argument than CT made it up or 'borrowed' it. You have already given 'proof' of my contention (CT had access to his fathers writings and thus no need to make it up or 'borrow' it), what you do not have, as you admit above, is proof of your contention. 



> That you and ShagratU try to dismiss Aragil's and my arguments by labeling them specious and absurd does not in any way constitute proof of your contentions.



I dont think Shagrat has labelled any of your aguments specious or absurd. You are much to ready to dismiss or to declare ambiguous anything that disagrees with your position.

Earlier:


> Greenwood wrote:
> In an earlier exchange with Tar-Elenion I gave quotes from CT showing that he says he has at times changed his father's writing to eliminate inconsistencies (this is before the HoME series), even in one case saying how a change he made brought his father's writing in line with Foster.



I responded:
You are going to need to refresh my memory on this. _CT_ has said that he made a change to bring his fathers writings in line with Foster? Where does this occur? Please provide the citation and quote.


----------



## Greenwood

> There is however a 'sort of small dwarf-man' running around Mordor. And that more than adequately describes Hobbits especially to those who do not know what a Hobbit is. Dwarf-man in the context given has nothing to do with hybrids. The suggestion that it does is specious.



But in Middle-earth dwarf refers to a specific race of beings, unlike in the real world where dwarf merely means small. For the orc in question to be using dwarf the way we use dwarf would mean he is engaging in modern English usage. 



> That's because CT put the index together for UT. What CT does not say is that he made up the definitions or (euphamistically) 'borrowed' them from someone else. As I have said before you are at liberty to dismiss it because it does not agree with your interpretation, but to suggest that he simply made the up the definitions or borrowed them from others is specious, and I find lacking crediblity.



What CT does not say is that the definitions are all his father's. He specifically says that only some are. Where did the rest come from and which are they? We do not know and you have provided no evidence other than your categorical and unproven statements that they come from JRRT's unpublished writings.

Very clever the way you just type <snip> and thus ignore Christopher Tolkien's own words in which he warns against people doing what you continually do with JRRT's posthumously published work.



> You are going to need to refresh my memory on this. _CT_ has said that he made a change to bring his fathers writings in line with Foster? Where does this occur? Please provide the citation and quote.



Go back and read the thread. It's there.


----------



## Grond

A brief summary of the last ten or so posts.

"You're wrong!"..."Am not, you're the one that's wrong!"..."No way! You're definately wrong."..."Not in a million years. You have no basis for your argument!".. "You're wrong!"..."No, you!"..."Forget it! You keep quoting the same stuff!"..."No, that would be you!"..."You're taking everything I say out of context!"..."No! You are!"

After all these arguments I can tell you the difference between Uruks and Uruk-hai. Last night I had seven margaritas. When I got home, I had to go directly to the commode to throw up. The first time I heaved it sounded just like "URUK-HAI!!!!". The next one sounded just like "URUKS!!!". So the first barf after a really good drunk is Uruk-hai and the second one is Uruks.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> But in Middle-earth dwarf refers to a specific race of beings, unlike in the real world where dwarf merely means small. *



In the real world, of course, "dwarf" doesn't merely mean small. It also means "a small legendary manlike being who is usually misshapen and ugly and skilled as an artificer". Etymologically speaking, this is the original meaning, with other uses being derived from it.

In Middle-Earth, of course, dwarves are real. But it may be that other uses have derived from the term just as they have in English. We don't know.

In any case, "a sort of dwarf-man" is a very good description of a hobbit. Hobbits are small like Dwarves, but generally resemble Men. The soldier-orc's information is thus highly accurate.


----------



## lilhobo

i cant believe this thread still is going lol!!!

-hai means foul folk ok 

-hrim means good folks, eg. galadhrim, gil galad's folk


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> What CT does not say is that the definitions are all his father's. He specifically says that only some are. Where did the rest come from and which are they? We do not know and you have provided no evidence other than your categorical and unproven statements that they come from JRRT's unpublished writings.



No Greenwood, he says that only some of the defintions came from his fathers rough draft index for LotR. 



> Very clever the way you just type <snip> and thus ignore Christopher Tolkien's own words in which he warns against people doing what you continually do with JRRT's posthumously published work.



Very clever of you to mis-characterize what I did. I snipped it out for length, I did not ignore it. You will also note I snipped out the argument for it as well. You of course are at liberty to continue mis-characterize me, I hope it makes you feel better. 



> Go back and read the thread. It's there.



I have read the thread. I did so before I asked the first time. I found no statement to that effect. How about providing the citation and quote, please?


----------



## Aldanil

*Hail the Hammer's Wordly Wisdom! Let lilhobo's Lore Avail!*

The semi-interested passerby briefly posting in again:

By far the most illuminating and etymologically entertaining contributions to this so looong and winding thread of late are surely those of Bauglir's Baleful Battle-Banger and the collective-providing concise lilhobo; yet notice, alas, how little heed to their laughter and linguistic learning has either shrill side in this tiresome word-quibble given!


----------



## Greenwood

ShagratU

If word order bothers you so much, I can translate Uruk-hai as “large orc of the light” and Olog-hai as “troll of the light”. As for the Oghor-hai, or Druedain, in the essay “The Druedain” in Unfinished Tales, we have the following editorial note 5: “To the unfriendly who, not knowing them well, declared that Morgoth must have bred the Orcs from such a stock the Eldar answered: “Doubtless Morgoth, since he can make no living thing, bred Orcs from various kinds of Men, but the Druedain must have escaped his Shadow; for their laughter and the laughter of Orcs are as different as is the light of Aman from the darkness of Angband.’ But some thought, nonetheless, that there had been a remote kinship, which accounted for their special enmity. Orcs and Drugs each regarded the other as renegades. [Author’s note.]” So here is another indication that to some the Druedain were related to the orcs or at least “orc-like”. The orcs and the Druedain it is suggested had a particular hatred for each other because of this possible relationship. We do not know what Oghor means. Perhaps it is orcish for something like “orcish being”?

As for Christopher Tolkien’s definition of Uruks as the Anglicization of Uruk-hai, it is interesting that he never repeats it in the HoME series. Both terms are in the index to The Treason of Isengard and though they are treated as related (which they clearly are) they are not treated or defined as equivalent. We find the same thing in the index to The War of the Jewels. Indeed in the essay Quendi and Eldar in The War of the Jewels we have Tolkien writing the following: The word _uruk_ that occurs in the Black Speech, devised (it is said) by Sauron to serve as a lingua franca for his subjects, was probably borrowed by him from the Elvish tongues of earlier times. It referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor. Lesser breeds seem to have been called _snaga_.” The similarity to the phrasing in Appendix F *but without the reference to Isengard* is striking. Indeed, CT, in an editorial note, asks the reader to compare this Appendix F, but CT stresses that Appendix F restricts the use of the word snaga as slave to the Uruk-hai. (The editorial note reads: “Cf. Appendix F to _The Lord of the Rings_, p. 409: ‘The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, _snaga_ “slave”.’ ") If, as you keep contending, Appendix F makes Uruks and Uruk-hai equivalent, what is CT drawing attention to? It looks to me as if CT is pointing out that in this formulation snaga is used as the word slave applied to all lesser breeds, but in Appendix F only the Uruk-hai use snaga to mean slave.


----------



## Greenwood

> After all these arguments I can tell you the difference between Uruks and Uruk-hai. Last night I had seven margaritas. When I got home, I had to go directly to the commode to throw up. The first time I heaved it sounded just like "URUK-HAI!!!!". The next one sounded just like "URUKS!!!". So the first barf after a really good drunk is Uruk-hai and the second one is Uruks.



Grond

After seven margaritas I wouldn't even be able to find the commode, much less remember what things sounded like.  

Hey, I have offered to agree to disagree. The other side keeps swinging.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *ShagratU
> 
> If word order bothers you so much, I can translate Uruk-hai as “large orc of the light?and Olog-hai as “troll of the light?*



But you have no precedent for such a translation. All the pertinent Black Speech examples have the adjectival element at the front. You can't get around this by using a different _English_ form. 

A second observation would be that there is nothing to suggest that "Olog" simply means "troll". "Uruk", in usage set out by Tolkien, doesn't simply mean "orc", although it is connected to words that mean simply "orc", and may have meant that at one stage. But the "Uruk" element alone in "Uruk-hai" indicates an "improved" type of goblin. It seems very likely that "Olog" alone indicates an "improved" type of troll. There is no basis for assuming that it simply means "troll".

With "Oghor", of course, we are not looking at an "improved" kind of anything.




> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *So here is another indication that to some the Druedain were related to the orcs or at least “orc-like? The orcs and the Druedain it is suggested had a particular hatred for each other because of this possible relationship. We do not know what Oghor means. Perhaps it is orcish for something like “orcish being?*



If "Oghor" means "Orc", we would expect it to sound like one of the many forms of that word that Tolkien provides. But it doesn't.

If I am not much mistaken, Tolkien also rules out an Orcish connection to the Druedain at one stage.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *The similarity to the phrasing in Appendix F but without the reference to Isengard is striking. Indeed, CT, in an editorial note, asks the reader to compare this Appendix F, but CT stresses that Appendix F restricts the use of the word snaga as slave to the Uruk-hai. (The editorial note reads: “Cf. Appendix F to The Lord of the Rings, p. 409: ‘The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga “slave??") If, as you keep contending, Appendix F makes Uruks and Uruk-hai equivalent, what is CT drawing attention to? It looks to me as if CT is pointing out that in this formulation snaga is used as the word slave applied to all lesser breeds, but in Appendix F only the Uruk-hai use snaga to mean slave. *



And who uses "Snaga" more than anyone? Shagrat, of course.

I suppose that Christopher Tolkien is pointing out that JRRT has shifted the emphasis to the lesser breeds being called "snaga" generally to the larger breeds calling the lesser sort "snaga." It's a subtle shift, but it makes sense.


----------



## Greenwood

> And who uses "Snaga" more than anyone? Shagrat, of course



Of course Shagrat uses Snaga more than anyone. That is the name of his underling. What else would he call Snaga? Fred?


----------



## ShagratU

One point that has been hardly raised in this debate, but which, I feel, is extremely important, is the simple fact that "Uruk-hai" is Black Speech.

Black Speech comes from Mordor, and is an invention of Sauron's. Tolkien tells us that Sauron's attempts to create a common language for his creatures were unsuccessful, although some words were retained in the many Orcish dialects.

(In this connection and as an aside, one of the most jarring parts of the recent film version of LotR was when Saruman "dubs" his creation "my fighting Uruk-hai." This rang false (to me at least) because there seemed to be no reason for Saruman to use Black Speech when he was otherwise talking in "Westron". Given that the film (apparently) combined the half-orcs and Uruks into one breed of Man-sized Orc, it would have been far better for Saruman to simply call them "half-orcs" or "goblin-men".)

Now, given that Black Speech was not a success as a language, and gave way to Orcish dialects except amongst the captains of Mordor, it seems extremely unlikely that Black Speech _coinages_ would crop up far from Mordor. Saruman's Uruks appear to have been bred differently from Sauron's, through the addition of a Mannish strain, but it seems unlikely in the extreme that a pure Black Speech term was _coined_ in Isengard or the Misty Mountains for this new variation on the Uruk pattern.

It seems even stranger that this pure Black Speech coinage would match perfectly with the nomenclature used for Sauron's new strain of troll.

On top of that, it seems very unlikely that an Isengard coinage would be used and understood by Mordor Orcs of different breeds.

Of course, if "Uruk-hai" was coined in Mordor, and applies to all Uruks, these objections vanish.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> Of course Shagrat uses Snaga more than anyone. That is the name of his underling. What else would he call Snaga? Fred?  *



And is "Snaga" also the name of the Orc that Ugluk addresses in Rohan?

Or is it simply that these smaller Orcs are addressed as "Slave" by the Uruks? 

Given Tolkien's fidelity to the POV of his "eyewitness" characters, and the note in Appendix F, it would seem perfectly clear that the appellation is not a personal name, but a derogatory appellation. Of course, the hobbit "witnesses" do not know this. As only one such small Orc appears to be present at Cirith Ungol, it seems that the derogatory appellation serves as a personal name as well. However, the Orc's mother probably didn't call him "Snaga". 

It's notable that the narrative of LotR rarely adopts an "omniscient" perspective, especially when a hobbit character is involved in the events described. On the other hand, the authorial voice in the Appendices is largely omniscient. In short, the "voice" of the Appendices knows things which the "voice" of the narrative does not.

It is surely no coincidence that there are two characters bearing this "name" addressed in derogatory fashion by Uruks, and that Tolkien observes that "snaga" was a term used by the Uruk-hai to describe their smaller kin.


----------



## Greenwood

> And is "Snaga" also the name of the Orc that Ugluk addresses in Rohan?



No. As Tolkien says in Appendix F Saruman's Uruk-hai use the word snaga to mean slave. Christopher Tolkien treats Snaga at Cirith Ungol as a character's name. Your argument has always been that CT knows what his father's intentions were. Or is this yet another one of your special cases?


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * No. As Tolkien says in Appendix F Saruman's Uruk-hai use the word snaga to mean slave.*



You don't strengthen your case by misrepresenting the text.  Tolkien says that the "Uruk-hai" use "snaga" to mean slave, not "Saruman's Uruk-hai". 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Christopher Tolkien treats Snaga at Cirith Ungol as a character's name. Your argument has always been that CT knows what his father's intentions were. Or is this yet another one of your special cases? *



From the point of view of the Hobbit narrators of LotR, "Snaga" is the character's name. It's an appellation that is used to identify the character; Shagrat calls him it and he answers to it. It's thus perfectly understandable that Christopher Tolkien calls treats "Snaga" as his name. It clearly _is_ his name in the context of the story as seen by Sam, and it's what the Uruk Shagrat calls him, just as the scout in Rohan is named "Snaga" by the hobbit narrator. The Appendix suggests that it wasn't the _personal_ name of either, however.

The distinction that you draw between the two "Snagas" is very odd. What in the text supports it? 

Both Ugluk and Shagrat address lesser Orcs as "Snaga." In each case, the hobbit narrator of the Red Book of Westermarch presents it as a personal name - as it must have seemed to the hobbit witnesses. However, in the Appendix, the "omniscient" authorial voice tells us that the Uruk-hai generally used the term "snaga" to describe lesser sorts of Orc. The identical usages by Shagrat and Ugluk suggests that they are both members of the "Uruk-hai."


----------



## ShagratU

*"Curse the Isengarders!"*

It's interesting that no other Orc ever addresses or describes the Uruk-hai of Isengard as "the Uruk-hai" in the chapter of that name. 

We get "Curse the Isengarders!", but we don't get "Curse the Uruk-hai!". Along with the fact that "Uruk-hai" is always qualified by "fighting" or "of Isengard" when the Isengarders address the other Orcs, this is highly suggestive.

If Grishnakh's men are also Uruk-hai, it is of course only natural that they would not say "curse the Uruk-hai!"


----------



## aragil

What I note is that Ugluk is directly responding to Grishnakh when he says: 
_"We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard ..."_
If any of these things did not apply to the Uruk-hai in general, and Grishnakh really was a Uruk-hai, then wouldn't he have objected to this usage? I find Grishnakh's lack of objection to this statement far more telling than his lack of insults with the words Uruk-hai.

It's also curious that 'fighting' is considered a qualifier for Uruk-hai. If the only Uruk-hai are that of isengard, then all Uruk-hai are 'fighting Uruk-hai' because both Ugluk's statement and those of the Uruk-hai at Helm's Deep (the only self-labeled Uruk-hai in the books) identify themselves as fighting. If Uruk-hai includes the Uruks of Mordor, then it seems odd that some of them don't fight. What does Appendix F say? That the word uruk was applied to the *soldier* Orcs of Mordor and Isengard. Do some of these Soldier Orcs hold down desk jobs, so that they do not fight? Are there older Uruk-hai, who are making a living off the Mordor Pension Plan so that they no longer have to fight? Is this why fighting is a qualifier? From what I have read the word fighting would not serve as a qualifier for either the Uruks or the Uruk-hai, as both breeds (if they are different breeds) are clearly bred _for_ fighiting (i. e. to be soldiers).

Also interesting is the fact that neither 'Oghor' nor 'hai' are pure Black Speech words, but were clearly derived from 1st age Orcish languages. Sauron devised the Black Speech during the Dark Years, which Tolkien tells us occurred during the Second Age. From the UT narrative 'The Druedain' it becomes apparent that the Orcs of Beleriand referred to the Druedain of Doriath as Oghor-hai. Since Doriath no longer existed when Sauron devised his Black Speech, it is highly unlikely that his 'hai' preceded the usage in Orcish Oghor-hai. Therefore I would say that the term 'hai' did not spring from Mordor but from Orcish, and Saruman (or Sharkey as his boys called him) would be as free to apply it to his Uruks as Sauron would have been.


----------



## aragil

*A round of apologies*

First off, I'd like to apologize for posting several times in succession. However, as I have not posted on this thread for some time I think it is only my right.

Now I'd like to start replying to earlier (much earlier) posts. This post was originally drafted on Thrusday February 24th, and so refers to posts on page 25 of this thread (assuming 15 posts per page).

My first contention is with those who posted that the narrator and the Westron-speaking characters in the book do not use the Black Speech. I would agree that characters do not generally make sentences entirely in Black Speech, but they are certainly not afraid to use names from the Black Speech. The word Nazgul immediately pops to mind. This is as much a name as Uruk-hai, and I think it is ridiculous to try and make an exception of it along the lines of: 'The characters can refer to the Nazgul in the Black Speech because there are only 9 Nazgul, but they could not refer to the Uruk-hai as such because there are more than 9 Uruk-hai'.
In fact, Nazgul is so commonly used that it is worth investigating. First off, we see that there is an anglicization for Nazgul- Ringwraiths. In fact, if we look at our indices in RotK, we see that under 'Ringwraiths' we are directed to Nazgul, under 'Black Rider(s)' we are directed to Nazgul, under 'Black Captain' we are directed to Nazgul, and under 'the nine' we are directed to Nazgul. It seems that if Uruks was an equivalent anglicization of Uruk-hai, then under Uruks we should also be directed to Uruk-hai. Yet, stare as I might at the index, Tolkien never says that Uruks are equivalent to Uruk-hai. In fact, they each get their own separate index entry, which I would say is in direct opposition to CT's entry in UT.
But I am not yet finished with the poor Nazgul. Looking at the entry in Appendix B for SA 2251 we see that when Tolkien introduces the Nazgul to us, he identifies them as both Nazgul and Ringwraiths, lest we might think that the two are different. Looking at an equivalent introduction in Appendix A, the stewards, we find that the race of uruks first appear out of Mordor in TA 2475, during the reign of Denethor I. Why would Tolkien give us a BS name and equivalent anglicization for Nazgul, yet neglect to say that Uruks is but an Anglicization for Uruk-hai? In fact, we can go to the same source as the Ringwraith-Nazgul passage: Appendix B, the tale of years. Here we see that it is owing to the attacks of Uruks of Mordor in TA 2901 that Ithilien is finally deserted. And yet again we do not see that Tolkien equates Uruks with Uruk-hai. If I didn't know any better I'd swear that they are different names referring to different breeds.
As for a character such as Gandalf being reluctant to use the BS name for Uruks (theoretically Uruk-hai), we have:
FotR p. 336, Gandalf naming the Nazgul as he recounts his meeting with Radagast
TT p. 129, Gandalf again naming the Nazgul, this time while talking to Strider, Gimli, and Legolas.
TT p. 256, Gandalf twice naming the Nazgul in haste, much as he named the Uruks of Mordor in Moria. We also have Gandalf describing the Nazgul as 'messengers of Mordor' so that we don't confuse them with the Nazgul who are messengers of Isengard. Much as Ugluk says that he is one of the fighting Uruk-hai of Isengard, not to be confused with the fighting Uruk-hai of Mordor, or the non-fighting Uruk-hai of Isengard.
RotK p. 112 Gandalf telling Denethor that the Lord of the Nazgul has come.
RotK p. 280 Gandalf telling Gwaihir that he must fly faster than the Nazgul. To the best of my knowledge this is the last time the Nazgul are mentioned in the narrative, and they are mentioned using their Black Speech name, by the same character who identifies Orcs in Moria as 'black Uruks of Mordor'.
I'd say that the characters in the novel are free to refer to the Nazgul using the Black Speech handle whenever they feel like it, as is the narrator. Perhaps the characters don't use the term 'Uruk-hai' because they've never heard it. Well, to examine this question, let's look at a probable history for the Uruk-race, as can be gleaned from the appendices as well as HoME v. 12:
TA 2460: Sauron re-establishes Dol-Guldur and gets busy with business, which presumably includes designs for a stronger Orc Race- the Uruks.
TA 2475: Uruks are first seen by the free peoples, as they drive Gondorians out of Ithilien, but are later repulsed by Boromir I.
TA 2480: Orcs begin re-populating the Misty Mountains, and creatures of Sauron begin to fill up Moria. Which Orcs and which of Sauron's folk? Probably the Uruks, which Sauron has just bred and which are very tough fighters.
TA 2509: Celebrian, the wife of Elrond, is captured by Orcs at the Redhorn pass. Which Orcs? Probably the ones which were just recently bred and sent to Moria- the Uruks. These Orcs are later hunted down by Elladan and Elrohir- so now Elrond has probably heard of the Uruk-folk.
TA 2510: Northern Gondor is over-run by the Orcs of the Misty Mountains and Easterlings. Cirion sends for Eorl, who comes down and erradicates the Orcs and Men, thus earning the land of Rohan. So you could say that the History of Rohan is wound up with the Uruk-folk, or at least that the Rohirrim are familiar with the Uruks. In an interesting side-note, Tolkien originally had Elladan and Elrohir also attacking the Orcs at the Field of Celebrant, further associating these Orcs with those of TA 2509 (see HoME v 12).
TA 2740: Orcs of the Misty Mountains are apparently recovered to the point that they can resume attacks into Eriador.
TA 2747: Orcs under the command of Golfimbul attack the Shire, and are repulsed by Bandobras 'bull-roarer' Took. Well the Uruk-folk are probably now known to the Rangers and the Shire-folk. The Uruks also seem to be resurgent after the set-back at Celebrant. What will stop them?
TA 2766-2769: War of the Dwarves and Orcs. Included in the combat are Azog and his guard, which were great Orcs that were agile and strong. It appears as if the Dwarves now know of the Uruk-folk as well, and that most of them have been temporarily erradicated from the Misty Mountains. Still, something tells me that they'll be back.
TA 2901: Uruks of Mordor attack Ithilien yet again, this time ruining it during the reign of Turgon, Grandfather of Denethor.
TA 2933: Orcs slay Arathorn while he rides with Elladan and Elrohir. We've already seen that the twins are particularly vindictive against the Uruks, so it's a good bet that it was Uruks that slew Arathorn. Again the Dunedain and Elves of Rivendell are aware of the Uruk-folk.
TA 2940: 171 years after the death of his old man (who says Orcs had short lives), Bolg and his bodyguard (goblins of great size with scimitars of steel) lead the resurgent Uruks of Gundabad and the Misty Mountains (as well as many lesser Orcs) into the battle of five armies, where they are annhilated. This again allows a brief respite from Orc attacks in the North.
TA 3000: Saruman begins using the Palantir, and becomes a full traitor to the White Council, probable beginning of his recruitment of Orcs from the Misty Mountains. We are told that some of the Uruks of the Misty Mountains were in the service of Saruman. I doubt that these were the same ilk as Ugluk and the Orcs of Helm's Deep, as Saruman had not yet the time to breed in the quality of sun-tolerance. In other words, they were probably an older breed than the one which later claims to be Uruk-hai.

Well, there you have it. The Uruks had been around for 544 years by the time Gandalf spots them in Moria. In those 544 years they have had probable military engagements with Gondor, Rohan, the Dwarves, the Dunedain, the Elves of Rivendell, the Elves of Mirkwood, and even the Hobbits. All of the Free-Peoples from the Lord of the Rings have had contact with them in war-time. If the Uruks were the same as the Uruk-hai, then we could assume that they proudly boasted to be Uruk-hai like the Orcs of Helm's Deep. This would mean that the Westron Speakers of Middle Earth would have become quite familiar with the term Uruk-hai by TA 3018, and would be as likely to say 'Uruk-hai' as they were to say 'Nazgul'. Yet the Westron speakers seem decidedly unfamiliar with the term Uruk-hai and exceedingly familiar with the term Uruks. I would say that this is evidence that the Uruks were not the same as the Uruk-hai, a name which only appears in the index/narrative during the year 3019, 544 years after the advent of the Uruk.


----------



## Greenwood

> *Quote by ShagratU *
> It's interesting that no other Orc ever addresses or describes the Uruk-hai of Isengard as "the Uruk-hai" in the chapter of that name.
> 
> We get "Curse the Isengarders!", but we don't get "Curse the Uruk-hai!". Along with the fact that "Uruk-hai" is always qualified by "fighting" or "of Isengard" when the Isengarders address the other Orcs, this is highly suggestive.



Yes. It is suggestive. It is suggestive that Isengarders orcs = Uruk-hai.

No. Uruk-hai is not always qualified. In the last usage in my example 5 it is merely: "We are the Uruk-hai". In example 6 it is merely "in the clutches of the Uruk-hai". In example 4, the chapter title is merely "The Uruk-hai", no qualifiers. Oh, I see you are arguing that the qualifiers are used when the Uruk-hai name themselves when talking to other orcs. In other words yet another special case. Your arguments seem to be filled with special cases, one for each occasion.



> From the point of view of the Hobbit narrators of LotR, "Snaga" is the character's name. It's an appellation that is used to identify the character; Shagrat calls him it and he answers to it. It's thus perfectly understandable that Christopher Tolkien calls treats "Snaga" as his name. It clearly is his name in the context of the story as seen by Sam, and it's what the Uruk Shagrat calls him, just as the scout in Rohan is named "Snaga" by the hobbit narrator. The Appendix suggests that it wasn't the personal name of either, however.



I marvel at the way you keep switching your arguments back and forth as to who the narrator is to suit your argument in each case. The narrator/author is JRR Tolkien and he has chosen to call the orc in Cirith Ungol by the name of Snaga in at least four instances: "growled Snaga", "Shagrat hunted Snaga", a second "growled Snaga", and "Snaga thrust the ladder". There is no evidence that JRRT was such an incompetent storyteller, or so liked to confuse his readers (evidently including his son), that he did not mean Snaga to be the name of this particular orc.



> The distinction that you draw between the two "Snagas" is very odd. What in the text supports it?
> 
> Both Ugluk and Shagrat address lesser Orcs as "Snaga." In each case, the hobbit narrator of the Red Book of Westermarch presents it as a personal name - as it must have seemed to the hobbit witnesses. However, in the Appendix, the "omniscient" authorial voice tells us that the Uruk-hai generally used the term "snaga" to describe lesser sorts of Orc. The identical usages by Shagrat and Ugluk suggests that they are both members of the "Uruk-hai."



The distinction is based on what is evidently one of your favorite passages in LOTR, my example 12 from Appendix F which says that the Uruk-hai use the word snaga to mean slave. Ugluk is indisputedably Uruk-hai. The word snaga is not used the same way in the Uruk-hai chapter as it is in the Cirith Ungol chapter. It is clearly an orc's name in Cirith Ungol and based on Appendix F it is a form of address when used by Ugluk. Further evidence that Shagrat is not a Uruk-hai, but in fact one of the Uruks, as Gorbag calls him.

I suggest you try rereading this thread.  Tar-Elenion and I have already had this discussion and I have already pointed out the many instances in which the name of a job/profession/thing is also used as a proper name: farmer/Farmer, miller/Miller, sawyer/Sawyer, smith/Smith, fisher/Fisher, stone/Stone, etc. (just to give a few examples from English). I suspect examples could be put forth from almost any language one chose to look at. There is no evidence that this apparently near universal tendency did not also take place in Middle-earth (cotton/Cotton, helm/Helm, strider/Strider, underhill/Underhill come to mind as a few obvious examples).


----------



## Tar-Elenion

Greenwood wrote:


> In an earlier exchange with Tar-Elenion I gave quotes from CT showing that he says he has at times changed his father's writing to eliminate inconsistencies (this is before the HoME series), even in one case saying how a change he made brought his father's writing in line with Foster.



I responded:
You are going to need to refresh my memory on this. _CT_ has said that he made a change to bring his fathers writings in line with Foster? Where does this occur? Please provide the citation and quote. 

Greenwood wrote:


> Go back and read the thread. It's there.



In post 01-26-02 Greenwood wrote (in part, see post for full context):


> In The Simarillion CT attempted to resolve the inconsistency by changing his father's manuscript before publication. He later decided that his change was not the best way to resolve the inconsistency and was now, in UT, offering yet another alternative to resolve the inconsistency. All of this demonstrates twwo things. One, the dangers of secondary sources and trying to rely on them -- now neither The Silamrillion not UT agree with LOTR. Two, CT admits to changing his fathers words when he sees fit (he did it in The Sil).



This is the only post I have fond that seems to be what Greenwood is referring to. 

Greenwood, you seem to have asserted that CT says he changed his fathers writings to bring them in line with Foster. When I asked for the citation and quote to back your assertion up, you seemed reluctant to provide it. The above post from 01-26-02 is the only post I have found that seems to be what you were speaking of. It did not provide any quote from CT saying he changed his fathers writings to bring them in line with Foster.
I ask again, please provide the citation and quote from CT saying that he did any such thing.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

JRRT wrote in Letter 78:


> I don't think you are in the least likely permanently to decline upon the worse; and I should say that you need a little thickening of the outer skin, if only as a protection for the more sensitive interior; and if you acquire it, it will be of permanent value in any walk of later life in this tough world (which shows no signs of softening). And of course, as you already discover, one of the discoveries of the process is the realization of the values that often lurk under dreadful appearances. *Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker;* and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable (though I fear it must be admitted that there are human creatures that seem irredeemable short of a special miracle, and that there are probably abnormally many of such creatures in Deutschland and Nippon - but certainly these unhappy countries have no monopoly: I have met them, or thought so, in England's green and pleasant land).


[emphasis added]

The use of Urukhai and Uruks here is clealy synonymous, showing that JRRT used them in the same way, with 'Uruks' being an 'anglicization'. It is also interesting to note how he defines his 'figure of speech': "*folk* made bad...", and we know that 'uruk' is derived from roots relating to terrible and horrible.


----------



## ShagratU

*"The fighting Uruk-hai"*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *
> If any of these things did not apply to the Uruk-hai in general, and Grishnakh really was a Uruk-hai, then wouldn't he have objected to this usage? *



Of course, "Uruk-hai" is never used in the singular, so it is extremely unlikely that _anyone_ is "a Uruk-hai". 

Why would Grishnakh object? Nothing that Ugluk says is untrue. Grishnakh seems far more interested in challenging Ugluk's authority than engaging in a debate over the Isengarders' self-definition.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *It's also curious that 'fighting' is considered a qualifier for Uruk-hai. If the only Uruk-hai are that of isengard, then all Uruk-hai are 'fighting Uruk-hai' because both Ugluk's statement and those of the Uruk-hai at Helm's Deep (the only self-labeled Uruk-hai in the books) identify themselves as fighting. If Uruk-hai includes the Uruks of Mordor, then it seems odd that some of them don't fight. What does Appendix F say? That the word uruk was applied to the soldier Orcs of Mordor and Isengard. Do some of these Soldier Orcs hold down desk jobs, so that they do not fight? Are there older Uruk-hai, who are making a living off the Mordor Pension Plan so that they no longer have to fight? Is this why fighting is a qualifier? From what I have read the word fighting would not serve as a qualifier for either the Uruks or the Uruk-hai, as both breeds (if they are different breeds) are clearly bred for fighiting (i. e. to be soldiers).*



You are forgetting that Ugluk also says, "we are the fighters."  Does this mean that the Northerners and Grishnakh's troop are not fighters? I think not! 

Clearly, all of the Orcs in the raiding party are fighters; Ugluk, however, consistently disparages their ability and their discipline. He described them as "rabble", and the Northerners as "mountain-maggots" who are only "half-trained."

With Ugluk's consistent emphasis on the superior training and fighting prowess of the Isengarders, the use of "fighting" to qualify "Uruk-hai" does appear rather significant. Ugluk never tells another orc that "we are the Uruk-hai"; instead he always qualifies it with either their allegiance or their perceived ability as warriors.


----------



## Harad

Without getting into anything deeper:

If you asked a Notre Dame footballer, he would call himself one of the "Fighting Irish." This is a badge of honor, however he would also answer to the name of "The Irish." Obviously the Uruk-Hai esprit de corps is quite high, and they are very much in the National Championship hunt, at least in their own pea brains.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Harad _
> *Without getting into anything deeper:
> 
> If you asked a Notre Dame footballer, he would call himself one of the "Fighting Irish." This is a badge of honor, however he would also answer to the name of "The Irish." Obviously the Uruk-Hai esprit de corps is quite high, and they are very much in the National Championship hunt, at least in their own pea brains. *



A very good point. And of course, there are other Irish than the "Fighting Irish".


----------



## ShagratU

*Anglicization*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *First off, I'd like to apologize for posting several times in succession. However, as I have not posted on this thread for some time I think it is only my right.*



Absolutely! No apology necessary! 



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *The word Nazgul immediately pops to mind. This is as much a name as Uruk-hai, and I think it is ridiculous to try and make an exception of it along the lines of: 'The characters can refer to the Nazgul in the Black Speech because there are only 9 Nazgul, but they could not refer to the Uruk-hai as such because there are more than 9 Uruk-hai'.*



That isn't the point. The point is that Uruks are a commonplace, while the Nazgul are rare (and thus rarely spoken of). Words tend to get Anglicized (or adapted for whatever language) when they are commonly used. Words that are seldom used tend to remain intact. "Uruk-hai" is more of a mouthful than "Uruks", and thus a natural candidate for Anglicization to the latter.




> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *In fact, Nazgul is so commonly used that it is worth investigating. First off, we see that there is an anglicization for Nazgul- Ringwraiths.*



"Ringwraiths" is most definitely _not_ an Anglicization; it's a translation. There is a huge difference between the two.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *In fact, they each get their own separate index entry, which I would say is in direct opposition to CT's entry in UT.*



Of course, CT's entry in UT entirely concords with his father's synonmous use of "Urukhai" and "Uruks" in his letter to CT. 



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Looking at an equivalent introduction in Appendix A, the stewards, we find that the race of uruks first appear out of Mordor in TA 2475, during the reign of Denethor I. Why would Tolkien give us a BS name and equivalent anglicization for Nazgul, yet neglect to say that Uruks is but an Anglicization for Uruk-hai? *



As I have pointed out, he doesn't give an Anglicization of Nazgul. There doesn't appear to be one!  Your parallel fails, because Tolkien doesn't give the Black Speech term for "Uruks", which, I think we would all agree, cannot be pure Black Speech (because of the -s marker).



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Well, there you have it. The Uruks had been around for 544 years by the time Gandalf spots them in Moria. In those 544 years they have had probable military engagements with Gondor, Rohan, the Dwarves, the Dunedain, the Elves of Rivendell, the Elves of Mirkwood, and even the Hobbits. All of the Free-Peoples from the Lord of the Rings have had contact with them in war-time. If the Uruks were the same as the Uruk-hai, then we could assume that they proudly boasted to be Uruk-hai like the Orcs of Helm's Deep. This would mean that the Westron Speakers of Middle Earth would have become quite familiar with the term Uruk-hai by TA 3018, and would be as likely to say 'Uruk-hai' as they were to say 'Nazgul'. Yet the Westron speakers seem decidedly unfamiliar with the term Uruk-hai and exceedingly familiar with the term Uruks. I would say that this is evidence that the Uruks were not the same as the Uruk-hai, a name which only appears in the index/narrative during the year 3019, 544 years after the advent of the Uruk. *



The fact that Uruks have been around and in action for hundreds of years is presumably why their name has been Anglicized (which it undoubtedly has; witness the "-s" marker). No character refers to them by their Black Speech name (except Gorbag - but we don't get his Black Speech words), unless it is in fact "Uruk-hai", which would explain the soldier-orc's comment. No character in the narrative of LotR ever refers to the Isengarders as "Uruk-hai", though the narrator does once from Pippin's persepctive. In the Appendix, the Isengarders are referred to as "uruks", and, in UT, a post-LotR text, they are referred to as "black Uruks."


----------



## aragil

*Origin of the Terms Uruk and Uruk-hai*

I think that it would be useful in this discussion to look chronologically at where Tolkien begins to use our two favorite terms, 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai'.

Uruk-hai: 
Chronologically this is the first usage of either term. Ugluk claims to be Uruk-hai in chapter #XXI, an Orc Raid (HoME VII, p.409). CT does not give us the exact usage, but does mention that Ugluk claims '_we are the servants of the old Uthwit and the White Hand_'. This seems to me to be indicative that Ugluk claimed to be of the (fighting) Uruk-hai here in the same sense as in TT p.6 (Quote number 1 in Greenwood's list on p.23). The next usage of the term apparently comes in Helm's Deep, in the passage analogous to Greenwood's Quote #5 (HoME VIII p.22, TT p.184). Interspersed with this are the descriptions of the Orcs of Saruman (HoME VII p.82 with TT p.20, and HoME VII p. 401 with TT p.48). At this point in the writing, Tolkien has only given one set of soldier Orcs a special name, he calls the Orcs of Isengard Uruk-hai, and he attests that they are larger than normal Orcs and that they are equiped with 'great bows, greater than their (goblins') custom.' From the info that CT gives us it is very difficult to date this passage. The best I can say is that Humphrey Carpenter's biography states that Tolkien finished 'Flotsam and Jetsam' in December 1942. This corresponds to page 230 of TT, so the first use of the term Uruk-hai was 169 printed pages before December 1942, whatever that means. 1942 was a productive year, so I would place the first usage of Uruk-hai during the summer of 1942, when CT was 17. This is important, because prior to turning 18 in the summer of 1943, CT was helping his father in the writing, and so was privy to most of his thoughts. Once CT went to South Africa, most of his correspondence with his father was via letters, which we can all read in the book of that name. If for instance, JRRT had told CT that he planned for the Uruk-hai of Isengard to be humans that Saruman had ruined in crossbreeding with Orcs, it would be fair for him to write on 12 August 1944 "_There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker_". This would apply only to the troops of Saruman, as he had made folk (human-folk) bad intentionally by crossing them with Orcs. It could not apply to Mordor Orcs, as he had not yet given a name to them (as we shall see), nor were the later uruks of Mordor made to be any more 'bad' than the original Orc-stock they came from. The term 'uruks' he uses in the letters can safely be assumed to be an anglicization made up on the spot, as it has not appeared anywhere in the narrative up to this point, nor will it appear again for several years. We know at what stage of the writing Tolkien was at at this point, because he alludes to it in the letter. During the Spring of 1944 he had been writing about Sam and Frodo, and by May he had brought them all the way up to Cirith Ungol. From May until August 12th he had written virtually nothing, and he had probably not amended his usage of Uruk-hai since it was originally written back in summer 1942. His earlier letter of May 6th, 1944 also uses the term Urukhai, and like the later letter it is also unhyphenated. I don't know if the lack of hyphen actually occured in the writing of LotR- CT has given it in both instances with the hyphen (this probably is a moot point, as Greenwood points out that he was under no requirement from his son to make private letters conform to what he was trying to publish). But it becomes clear that when Tolkien makes this statement in the letter he is referring to the episode of Merry, Pippin, and Ugluk, which CT was around for back in 1942, which was strictly in reference to Isengard Orcs.

Uruks:
The word uruks does not appear in the text until long after Tolkien's letters to his son. CT speculates that his father picked up Frodo and Sam during a retreat in the summer of 1948 (HoME IX, p.12). This would be in the 'Tower of Cirith Ungol', and it is not long until an interesting quote appears. The two slave drivers who mistake Frodo and Sam for fellow Orcs earn the distinction of being the first Goblins Tolkien labels as 'uruks'. This is the passage of RotK p.255, HoME IX p.34, note 4. This is 6 years since the appearance of the term Uruk-hai, and four years since the use of the term uruks in letters to his son. In this time 'Trotter' becomes 'Strider', so it is not beyond reasoning that Tolkien's concept for 'uruks' has changed. In fact, it has demonstrably changed, as the letter used both Uruk-hai and uruks in reference to Saruman's troops. The one million dollar question is: did Tolkien intend that both Saruman's and Sauron's Orcs were uruks (expanded definition of uruks), or that now it was Sauron's Orcs who were uruks while Saruman's troops retained the older label of Uruk-hai (changed definition of uruks)? Of course, bar a seance with JRRT (how's that coming Grond?) we will never know the answer. The best I can do is look at where Tolkien went back and changed earlier references to Mordor Orcs to the term 'uruks'. The first, and most interesting usage, is the first one which appears in the text: The black Uruks of Mordor encountered in Moria. This comes from FotR p.421, and is given alternately in HoME VI p.437 and HoME VII p.193 and p.205 note 5. 
In HoME VI p.437 it's '_Gandalf says there are goblins- of very evil kind, larger than usual, real orcs._'
In HoME VII p.193 it's '_There are goblins: very many of them,' he said. 'Evil they look and large: black Orcs._'
In HoME VII p.205 note 5 CT informs us that the above passage originally had 'veritable Orcs' in place of 'black Orcs'. The reason for this can be seen in HoME VI p.437 note 35, p.443, and page 462 note 2. Tolkien was still in his habit from the Hobbit of referring to the garden-variety Goblins, and the large soldiers were then 'veritable Orcs'. Of course, when he started referring to the garden-variety as Orcs, he had to come up with a new name for the soldiers. It appears to me that he didn't do this until the summer of 1948, when he came up with uruks for Mordor Orcs. He then had to go back and change the earlier references, especially this one. Most interesting is a usage which slipped in just before the summer of 1948. In the fall of 1947, Tolkien was vexing about how to link the Hobbit with the Lord of the Rings. While sending in a list of revisions to Allen & Unwin he included a list of 'suggestions' which would help him link his two tales (letters 111, 21 September, 1947). Most of the suggestions involved the Riddle-Game between Gollum and Bilbo, but there was one tiny nugget regarding Orcs on page 93: 
'_A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones,' thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, go along at a great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground._' (http://www.ringgame.net/riddles.html#93 for comparison with the 1937 version of the Hobbit).
The above description immediately brings to mind several passages from the LotR:
The Two Towers, p.62 '_In the twilight he saw a large black Orc, probably Ugluk, standing facing Grishnakh, a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground. Round them were many smaller goblins._' 
The Two Towers, p. 68 '_From that direction there now came hoarse cries, and there was Grishnakh again, and at his back a couple of score of others like him: long-armed crook-legged Orcs. They had a red eye painted on their shields._'
The Return of the King, p. 223 '_Behind him came Shagrat, a large orc with long arms that, as he ran crouching, reached to the ground._' 
The common thread in these four passages is that the larger creatures have arms reaching almost to the ground. It is beyond coincidence that Tolkien would use this same phrase four times to apply to four un-related Orcs. *I would say that this is evidence that Tolkien had already concieved of the appearance of the uruks in September 1947, nearly a full year before summer 1948 wehn he actually applied the term 'uruks' to these creatures!* The concept of 'uruks' actually preceeds use of that term, which occurs 6 years after the term Uruk-hai was applied to Saruman's Orcs.
With this in mind, I again say that we should look at the usages in 'The Uruk-hai' and Helm's Deep:


----------



## aragil

Well damnit! Who can say anything in less than 10000 characters? Does anybody else feel that the webmaster is forcing us to work under too stringent of conditions?
TT p. 61 '_"We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here ....."_' 
As I've said before, 'fighting' is not a qualifier for soldiers. It is colorful, but it does not allow us to differentiate between one group of Uruk-hai and the next, as they are all fighters, even if the Uruks of Mordor are also Uruk-hai. Ugluk here says that "We are the fighting Uruk-hai" with a definite article. This means that all Uruk-hai are defined by 'we'. This means that the Uruk-hai are the servants of Saruman, and that the Uruk-hai came out of Isengard. If Grishnakh were a Uruk-hai, then all of the Uruk-hai would be servants of Saruman and would come out of Isengard. This would make Ugluk's statement objectionable to Grishnakh. But I agree with ShagratU here, Grishnakh does not object because everything that Ugluk just said was true. The reason is because there are no Uruk-hai of Mordor, so all Uruk-hai do serve Saruman and all Uruk-hai do come out of Isengard.
TT p.184 '_"What of the dawn?" they jeered. "We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. .... "_' 
This is also usage with a definite article (this time without the 'qualifier' fighting), indicating that all of the Uruk-hai do not stop the fight for night or day. Mordor Uruks are demonstrably affected by the light of day. The only way for the above statement to be true is if it is intended to not include the soldier orcs of Mordor. This would indicate that the uruks of Mordor do not go by the name of Uruk-hai.
Also, we have models for how Uruk could be made plural. In Adunaic singular _uruk_ becomes plurak _urik_. In Sindarin the singular _orch_ (which Tolkien says is related to uruk, making Eldarin uluk=evil unlikely to be the root of uruk) becomes plural _yrch_. Tar-Elenion even offered the Westron plural, which was urukin.
None of these plurals is reminiscent of uruk-hai, which means that there could easily be other ways of making uruk plural than adding -hai. This makes me think that 'hai' probably means something more than simply 's'. Again I remind everybody that Tolkien gives completely separate index entries in LotR to Uruk-hai and uruks, with no cross-referencing between the two. When terms referred to the same beings, as in Nazgul and Ringrwaiths, Tolkien cross-referenced them. To me this indicates that the two terms did not refer to the same creatures. It's late, I have class in 5 hours, so I'm done posting for tonight, but I'll have much more to say regarding UT tomorrow (sigh).


----------



## Greenwood

> Greenwood, you seem to have asserted that CT says he changed his fathers writings to bring them in line with Foster. When I asked for the citation and quote to back your assertion up, you seemed reluctant to provide it. The above post from 01-26-02 is the only post I have found that seems to be what you were speaking of. It did not provide any quote from CT saying he changed his fathers writings to bring them in line with Foster.



Tar-Elenion

I never said "CT says he changed his fathers writings to bring them in line with Foster", that is your mischaracterization! As for reluctance, I was reluctant to do your work for you, particularly since the entire exchange back on page 8 of this thread was the result of one of your early red-herrings in this discussion.  I see that I was right in my assumption that you could find the relevant point under discussion in the thread. 

You have misrepresented what I said in my post to Grond. I did not say: "CT ... changed his fathers writings to bring them in line with Foster" as you claim. What I said was: "I gave quotes from CT showing that he says he has at times changed his father's writing to eliminate inconsistencies (this is before the HoME series), even in one case saying how a change he made brought his father's writing in line with Foster. Yes, CT said in that same editorial note that he had now found additional writings of his father's that caused him to change things back, but he also said that this latest change did not solve everything and that it could itself be wrong. The point here is that just because something has been published by CT does not automatically make it equivalent to JRRT." This is very different from your characterization of it. I specifically said that CT says he has changed his father's writing (which he has) *to eliminate inconsistencies*. I did not say that CT said he made the changes *in order to bring his father's writings in line with Foster*, but that CT *changed his father's writings to eliminate an inconsistency* and that this brought it in line with Foster. This is quite different from your quote. Also it is quite clear that the important thing in this particular point under discussion is that CT has admitted to changing his father's writing on occasion (at least prior to HoME). Now to the specifics of the case. As you are well aware since you found my earlier post, it refers to an editorial note of CT's in UT in The Line of Elros essay in that book (note 14). In that editorial note CT points out an inconsistency in the the listing of the kings of Numenor in Appendix A of LOTR. CT furthers draws attention to the fact that Foster had made calculations on the date of death of Tar-Calmacil which he presented in his The Complete Guide to Middle-earth, but that these did not take into account the inconsistency. CT now pointed out the inconsistency and admitted that when he prepared The Silmarillion for publication he changed his father's writings to eliminate the inconsistency. No, CT does not specifically say that this brought The Silmarillion in line with Foster (and I never claimed that CT said Foster was the reason for the change), but that certainly was one result of the change. CT goes on to say that he has now found additional notes of his father's that make him think that his (CT's) change in The Silmarillion was perhaps wrong and he is now making another change, resulting in a difference from what was presented in The Silmarillion. This means that the death date given by Foster for Tar-Calmacil, now gets assigned to Tar-Ardamin. No, Foster is not mentioned again here in the note, but that is irrelevant. However, CT ends the note by pointing out that even this latest change does not solve all the apparent inconsistencies and may not be the final answer, but that the whole situation may be more complex.

In his editorial note CT could have presented the entire story of the inconsistency in Appendix A of LOTR and the changes he (CT) made in The Silmarillion without ever mentioning Foster. It was CT who brought Foster into the discussion. There was no need to explain Foster's inconsistency with what is now presented in UT. You keep going into paroxyms of outrage when I suggest that CT may have adopted his Uruks definition in the UT index from Foster, but here we have CT going out of his way to bring Foster's work into one of his editorial discussions in UT. 

As I pointed out in my post to Grond, the important thing is CT's admission that he did change his father's writings to eliminate an inconsistency. This change did indeed bring The Silmarillion in line with Foster's writing, but that was not the specific reason CT made the change and I never claimed it was as you kept implying I did.


----------



## Greenwood

> *Quoted by ShagratU*
> One point that has been hardly raised in this debate, but which, I feel, is extremely important, is the simple fact that "Uruk-hai" is Black Speech.



This is not a "simple fact". The only statement that Uruk-hai is pure Black Speech is that same disputed definition in UT. You are once again engaging in circular reasoning, attempting to use the assumption that what is under discussion is true to prove that it is true. Appendix F says "the word _uruk_ of the Black Speech". It does not say that Uruk-hai is of the Black Speech. Uruk-hai is clearly a derived word from _uruk_, perhaps the only thing we can agree on, but the Appendix does not say Uruk-hai is Black Speech. That is your unproven assumption.

Yes, Appendix F says Olog-hai was Black Speech, but Oghor-hai, which you always want to bring in, is not stated in UT to be from the Black Speech. UT says Oghor-hai is the name applied to the Druedain by the orcs. Another part of your argument has been that the orcs have their own language, that Blach Speech is spoken by Sauron and his captains. Therefore, following your own arguments Oghor-hai is not Black Speech.  So we are left with three words that use the suffix "-hai", only one of which, Olog-hai, is clearly labeled by Tolkien as Black Speech. A second, Oghor-hai, is called an Orc word, which by your own reasoning would mean it is not Black Speech. And finally, our disputed word Uruk-hai, which is not defined by Tolkien as Black Speech. But I guess everything will once again come down to another one of your special cases.


----------



## Grond

Greenwood, just a casual comment from a casual observer. By your own admission, Olog-hai is pure black speech. By your own admission Uruk is also pure black speech. How in the wide, wide world of sports can you come to the conclusion that Uruk-hai is not pure black speech? My consternation has nothing to do with any assumption as to the uruk versus uruk-hai issue. My consternation comes from you reaching an impossible conclusion that Uruk-hai is not pure black speech. Olog = black speech. -hai = black speech. Uruk = black speech. -hai does not = black speech???? That's just a crazy assumption. 

Oghar-hai would follow the same line of logic. If -hai is in fact black speech (and we can certainly conclude that it is based on the Olog-hai example) then Oghar must be too. Your logic doesn't appear circular here, it just appears totally illogical.


----------



## aragil

Oghor-hai is a first age term, used by the Orcs of Beleriand to refer to the Druedain who made stone statues at the crossing of the Teiglin. Since the term was used in the first age, it cannot have originated from the black speech, which Sauron did not devise until the second age (dark years). Since it was first used before Sauron made his language, the Black Speech 'borrowed' the term from 1st age Orcish. So it is an Orcish term originally, not a term developed by Sauron.


----------



## Greenwood

Grond

No where is "-hai" defined as Black Speech. The only one of the three words that use the suffix "-hai", that is defined by Tolkien as Black Speech is Olog-hai. Just because it has the suffix "-hai" does not automatically make "-hai" Black Speech. We know that Black Speech takes things from other languages. Perhaps it took "-hai". Under ShagratU's arguments Oghor-hai is not Black Speech. Unfinished Tales say it is the name given by the orcs to the Druedain and ShagratU says orcs do not use Black Speech except for the Captains of Mordor. My point is that ShagratU and Tar-Elenion come up with special case arguments for each use of the words under discussion in LOTR and that their special case arguments then don't even work coherently with each other. 

Examples of special case arguments: 1) When Gandalf says "Uruks of Mordor" in Moria, it is because he doesn't want to utter a Black Speech word -- something that Gandalf has not shyed away from on other occasions. 2) When Gorbag refers to himself and Shagrat as Uruks, we don't really know what he actually said and Tolkien uses Uruks because Sam has never heard the term Uruk-hai. In fact Gorbag and Shagrat seem to be the only two characters in LOTR who ever engage in a Black Speech conversation, but it is conveniently translated for us. 3) When the tracker says "rebel Uruk-hai", now Tolkien has no problem with Sam and Frodo hearing a term they are unfamilar with. Additionally though the "higher-ups" are wrong about Sam being a "mighty elf" (we know he isn't) and Frodo being a "dwarf-man" (he is a hobbit) the higher-ups are right about the "rebel Uruk-hai" (Gorbag's boys). As Aragil has pointed out, the "mighty elf" is based on a report of Sam, but it is not correct; the "dwarf-man" is based on a report of Frodo, but it is not correct; and the "rebel Uruk-hai" is based on Gorbag and his boys fighting Shagrat, but it is just as incorrect as the earlier two reports. 4) Tolkien uses the word Uruk-hai in the Siege of Gondor chapter, but it is not because he is calling Saruman's elite troops Uruk-hai, but because he is reporting Pippin's thoughts. 5) Despite the fact that Tolkien clearly use Snaga as the name of a particular orc at the Tower of Cirith Ungol (Christopher Tolkien also refers to it as a name), no, it isn't really a name, but the hobbit author's didn't know it meant slave so they wrote the book treating it as a name. 6) The phrase "Uruk-hai of Isengard" is not a simple statement that they are called Uruk-hai and that they are from Isengard, but instead implies that there are Uruk-hai from places other than Isengard. 7) Enough. I could go on and on. Everything is a special case or some sort of narrow legalistic definition. Prior to this discussion with Tar-Elenion and ShagratU it never occurred to me that I should have submitted LOTR to a team of lawyers to be sure that I was truly understanding Tolkien's wonderful adventure/fantasy.

I will happily give up the arguments advanced in my last post if ShagratU and Tar-Elenion will also give up their various special case arguments and legalistic word splitting. But, if they are allowed special case arguments and legalistic interpretations than Aragil and I should be allowed such arguments too. As I have said before if they wish to simply "agree to disagree" as you and I have amicably done on occasion, that is also fine with me.


----------



## ShagratU

*Snaga and Snaga*



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * I marvel at the way you keep switching your arguments back and forth as to who the narrator is to suit your argument in each case. *



The key concept here is again the distinction between the "internal" and the "external". 

In the "internal" conceit, the "Red Book", the narrators are Bilbo, Frodo and Sam, and draw on the eyewitness accounts of their friends. Point of view is integral to the narrative.

The narrative voice in Appendix F, however, is clearly "external" (with its notes on the "translation" into English), and is generally omniscient. It is Tolkien's voice rather than that of his characters.

The authorial voice in the Appendix knows that the Uruk-hai call the lesser orcs "snaga", meaning "slave". The hobbit narrators of the main narrative don't know this, which is why "snaga" appears to be a personal name, "Snaga", in both "The Uruk-hai" and "The Tower of Cirith Ungol."



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * The narrator/author is JRR Tolkien and he has chosen to call the orc in Cirith Ungol by the name of Snaga in at least four instances: "growled Snaga", "Shagrat hunted Snaga", a second "growled Snaga", and "Snaga thrust the ladder". There is no evidence that JRRT was such an incompetent storyteller, or so liked to confuse his readers (evidently including his son), that he did not mean Snaga to be the name of this particular orc. *



You are confusing authorship with the narrative voice.  The narrative voice of LotR (that of the hobbit authors of the Red Book) is not omniscient.

Far from being an incompetent storyteller, Tolkien adds depth to his story through linguistic details such as the use of "Snaga." Snaga _is_ the name of the small Orc in "The Tower of Cirith Ungol", just as it is the name of the Orc scout in "The Uruk-hai." Both names are capitalized, and treated by the hobbit narrators as proper names.

Appendix F adds depth to the story by explaining that "Snaga" is not in fact just a popular _prenom_ amongst Orcs, but actually the Black Speech term for "slave", "snaga".



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> The distinction is based on what is evidently one of your favorite passages in LOTR, my example 12 from Appendix F which says that the Uruk-hai use the word snaga to mean slave. Ugluk is indisputedably Uruk-hai. The word snaga is not used the same way in the Uruk-hai chapter as it is in the Cirith Ungol chapter. It is clearly an orc's name in Cirith Ungol and based on Appendix F it is a form of address when used by Ugluk. *



Your distinction is quite unfounded.  In both cases, "Snaga" is used as a proper name by the hobbit "authors" of the Red Book. The Appendix indicates that it is not in fact a proper name.

That the narrative voice also uses "Snaga" in "The Tower of Cirith Ungol" is quite unremarkable. The hobbit "authors" quite naturally believe it to be a proper name. Are you really suggesting that the narrative voice would not have denoted the scout in Rohan thus if he had played a further part in the story?



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Further evidence that Shagrat is not a Uruk-hai, but in fact one of the Uruks, as Gorbag calls him.*



We of course have two direct uses of "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai" as synonyms, from Tolkien's letters and from UT. We also have Saruman's orcs described as "uruks" and as _uruk_. You are drawing a distinction that Tolkien himself does not appear to draw. 

And Gorbag's words are of course translated. 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * I suggest you try rereading this thread.  *



Your re-reading suggestions have proved somewhat unadvisable. You recommended that I re-read the thread to find examples of you and aragil demonstrating how "-hai" could not mean "-folk". I found a grand total of none, and am still awaiting your arguments on this matter.

What are they?


----------



## ShagratU

*Re: Origin of the Terms Uruk and Uruk-hai*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *I think that it would be useful in this discussion to look chronologically at where Tolkien begins to use our two favorite terms, 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai'.*
> 
> You have provided a great deal of interesting information here. Many thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *If for instance, JRRT had told CT that he planned for the Uruk-hai of Isengard to be humans that Saruman had ruined in crossbreeding with Orcs, it would be fair for him to write on 12 August 1944 "There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker". This would apply only to the troops of Saruman, as he had made folk (human-folk) bad intentionally by crossing them with Orcs.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One problem with this point is that Tolkien does not appear to have finally decided that the Uruk-hai did have Man-blood until long after the completion of LotR. In a post-LotR letter, as Tar-Elenion has pointed out, he is still talking about the "possible special breeding of orcs."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * It could not apply to Mordor Orcs, as he had not yet given a name to them (as we shall see), nor were the later uruks of Mordor made to be any more 'bad' than the original Orc-stock they came from.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, the Uruks term is _subsequently_ applied to both Isengarders and Mordor-orcs. Also, all uruks (being orcs) are inherently "people made bad".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * The term 'uruks' he uses in the letters can safely be assumed to be an anglicization made up on the spot, as it has not appeared anywhere in the narrative up to this point, nor will it appear again for several years.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is interesting as speculation about the _genesis_ of the term "Uruks"; however, its final retention and use is surely the important thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * In fact, it has demonstrably changed, as the letter used both Uruk-hai and uruks in reference to Saruman's troops. The one million dollar question is: did Tolkien intend that both Saruman's and Sauron's Orcs were uruks (expanded definition of uruks), or that now it was Sauron's Orcs who were uruks while Saruman's troops retained the older label of Uruk-hai (changed definition of uruks)? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's a fairly easy one million dollars!  We have the evidence of Appendix A, Appendix F and UT to demonstrate that Tolkien applied "_uruk_", "uruks" and "Uruks" to Saruman's great soldier-orcs in the final form of LotR and afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *
> 'A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones,' thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, go along at a great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground.' *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an interesting passage. However, it's well worth noting that "orcs" may be entirely synomous with "goblins" in that passage. If one substitutes, say, "Men" and "humans", for the two terms (or vice-versa), the passage would still make sense (although the description of running stooped would be inappropriate of course!). If we reverse the usage, we get:
> 
> '"A bit low for orcs, at least for the big ones," thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the goblins of the mountains, go along at a great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground.'
> 
> The point is that if one reads the terms as synonyms (which they certainly were in Tolkien's _final_ conception), the sentence works perfectly well. The point may be that the big ones come from the mountains, rather than the big ones being called "orcs". It is quite possible that Tolkien inserted the term later simply to get "orc" used more in the text, thus easing the transition from the first book to the second.
> 
> In this regard, it's interesting to note that "orc" and "goblin" certainly were synonyms even in the first version of "The Hobbit", where "Orcrist" translates as "Goblin-cleaver."
> 
> Also, the introduction - which I believe dates to the earliest edition, though I may be wrong - states that "goblin" is a translation for "orc". I'm going on memory here, but I believe that Tolkien says that "orc" is only used once in the introduction, while in the revised version it occurs twice (the additional use of the term being the one you have mentioned above).
> 
> The original use of "orc" is in Gandalf's description of the slopes of the Grey Mountains being "stiff with goblins, hobgoblins and orcs of the worst description". Given the statement in the introduction that "goblin" and "orc" are synonymous terms, this at first appears a little odd. However, in the context of a children's story, I think it's probably just use of a literary technique often used in children's stories, where synomyous terms (or near synonyms) are listed for effect. (There is probably a name for this technique, which was widely used by classical authors, but if I once knew it, I have forgotten it.) An example would be saying,"brigands, footpads and bandits." "Brigands" and "bandits" are exact synonyms, with "footpads" hear analogous to "hobgoblins" as a subset. The technique simply adds colour to a descriptive passage. Tolkien would certainly have been aware of its use by classical writers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * The common thread in these four passages is that the larger creatures have arms reaching almost to the ground. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would draw a slight distinction here. Grishnakh's arms reach to the ground when he is standing. His followers are like him, with "long arms". Shagrat and the "orcs of the mountains" have long arms that hang close to the ground when they run (stooped over). My inference would be that Grishnakh is an orc of unusually exaggerated appearance.
> 
> It's also worth noting that the Isengarders have long arms too, and also run with bowed backs. There are two descriptions of the Isengarders having long arms; one in "The Uruk-hai" and one at "Helm's Deep". The appearance of different sorts of uruk may not be terribly different; what appears to distinguish the Isengarders more than anything else is their resistance to the sun, and their unusual equipment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * It is beyond coincidence that Tolkien would use this same phrase four times to apply to four un-related Orcs. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if one takes all the mentions of long-armed orcs in LotR, we have to add in two descriptions of the Isengarders. Long arms and a hunched running style appear to be generic orcish traits.
Click to expand...


----------



## Greenwood

> *Quote by ShagratU*
> Far from being an incompetent storyteller, Tolkien adds depth to his story through linguistic details such as the use of "Snaga." Snaga is the name of the small Orc in "The Tower of Cirith Ungol", just as it is the name of the Orc scout in "The Uruk-hai." Both names are capitalized, and treated by the hobbit narrators as proper names.
> 
> Appendix F adds depth to the story by explaining that "Snaga" is not in fact just a popular prenom amongst Orcs, but actually the Black Speech term for "slave", "snaga".



Appendix F tells us that snaga is used for the word slave among the Uruk-hai. And the Uruk-hai are clearly Saruman's elite orc troops in the context of LOTR, just as you admit Snaga is clearly the name of the orc at the Tower of Cirith Ungol. 



> We of course have two direct uses of "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai" as synonyms, from Tolkien's letters and from UT. We also have Saruman's orcs described as "uruks" and as uruk. You are drawing a distinction that Tolkien himself does not appear to draw.



And I can come up with quite a few changes between various drafts as demonstrated quite well by CT in the HoME series.  What is important is the usage in LOTR, not the various secondary sources you keep bringing into it.  The distinction that Tolkien draws in LOTR seems quite clear to me and Aragil and evidently also to the screenwriters of the movie and apparently the Tolkien linguists they had consulting on the film.  

Gee, putting little smiley faces all through my posts is quite fun. I think I will do it all the time from now on.


----------



## aragil

ShagratU, I would argue that we do *not* have two instances of Uruk-hai and Uruks being synonymous in reference to soldier Orcs of Mordor and Isengard. The letter of JRRT to CT of August 1944 was written before the term Uruks was ever applied to Mordor Orcs, and the context in which it is used indicates that both Uruks and Uruk-hai apply only to Isengard Orcs. Tolkien says 'folk made bad', which to me sounds like a reference to Saruman taking 'good' human-folk, and making them 'bad' by crossing them with Orcs. The Uruks of Mordor were never supposed to come from any 'good' stock, so 'folk made bad' would not seem to apply to them. Four after this letter Tolkien decided to apply the term 'uruks' to troops of Mordor, so the usage of the term demonstrably changed from the writing of the letter until the time of publication. The interesting thing is that the concept of 'uruks' existed before Tolkien decided to apply the term to them. In my mind this is an example of an existing species of soldier orc being defined by an existing name. In other words, whatever notions Tolkien had about the word 'uruks' in August 1944 were probably changed by the time he used the words in the text, in the summer of 1948.
As for the other example of equated use, this comes from _a_ Tolkien, but not _JRR_ Tolkien. Christopher Tolkien is the person who embelished the UT index entries to include definitions. He says that he does this so that the reader need not look into countless references for definitions. This is very helpful, yet unfortunately his own definition in the index for UT appears to be at odds with his father's index for LotR. The index in LotR has Uruks and Uruk-hai with separate entries. None of the indexed passages under Uruks correspond with Orcs in the indexed passages under Uruk-hai. Further, every instance of Uruk-hai in the index refers to Orcs of Isengard (lumping in 'rebel Uruk-hai here'), every instance of Uruks in the index refers to Orcs of Mordor, at least in the three editions I have access to.
A further pillar of the Uruks=Uruk-hai theory is at odds with ShagratU (and perhaps Tar-Elenion). Robert Foster's guide claims that uruks of both Isengard and Mordor were bred to be sun-tolerant, which seems to be at odds with Treebeard's oft-quoted statement on these boards. Treebeard believes that Orc sun-tolerance is a result of crossing Orcs with Men. I think that if Foster had special access to Tolkien's notes on this matter, he would have done a better job in the definition. As it is, his statement that Mordor Orcs such as Shagrat and Gorbag were sun-tolerant seems to be at odd with the books, and makes me more skeptical of his equating of the terms Uruks and Uruk-hai.

A final note: I think that CT and Robert Foster have done a fantastic job in making the writings of JRR Tolkien accessible to a wide audience. They have struggled through thousands of pages in order to try and make thousands of different entries as consistent as possible. No matter how good they are, it is possible that they have goofed on one or two entries. The only one I am aware of as a possibility is Uruks/Uruk-hai. I do not think that their probable error on this entry reflects poorly on either of them. To the contrary, it just reminds me of the vast number of notes they had to go through, and what a stellar job they did on their respective projects as a whole.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Ugluk here says that "We are the fighting Uruk-hai" with a definite article. This means that all Uruk-hai are defined by 'we'. This means that the Uruk-hai are the servants of Saruman, and that the Uruk-hai came out of Isengard. *



This is patently false logic, I'm afraid. Ugluk also says, "we are the fighters." This doesn't mean that all the fighters in Middle Earth are servants of Saruman and came out of Isengard!


----------



## aragil

Well, I don't know. 'The fighters' does not seem to be used as a proper noun. 'The Uruk-hai' is a proper noun, and hence carries more connotation with it. 'The fighters' is a common noun, and so it is understood that Ugluk is saying that he and his lads are the fighters within the group he is addressing. Since the Uruk-hai is a specific race, it means something different when Ugluk attaches that ol' pesky definite article, though admittedly I did not make a very good point of this in my previous post.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> Examples of special case arguments: 1) When Gandalf says "Uruks of Mordor" in Moria, it is because he doesn't want to utter a Black Speech word -- something that Gandalf has not shyed away from on other occasions.*



The argument would be that Gandalf uses the Anglicization because he is talking in Westron, which is represented as English in LotR.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * 2) When Gorbag refers to himself and Shagrat as Uruks, we don't really know what he actually said and Tolkien uses Uruks because Sam has never heard the term Uruk-hai. In fact Gorbag and Shagrat seem to be the only two characters in LOTR who ever engage in a Black Speech conversation, but it is conveniently translated for us.*



Which is just as well, otherwise neither we as readers, nor Sam, would be able to understand what they say. Tolkien evidently spent some time considering how this understanding was to be effected, and settled on the ring-as-transaltor. What's your point?



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * 3) When the tracker says "rebel Uruk-hai", now Tolkien has no problem with Sam and Frodo hearing a term they are unfamilar with. *



Yes (although it's the soldier that speaks). Neither is wearing the ring, and so they have no "translation device" working.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Additionally though the "higher-ups" are wrong about Sam being a "mighty elf" (we know he isn't) and Frodo being a "dwarf-man" (he is a hobbit) the higher-ups are right about the "rebel Uruk-hai" (Gorbag's boys). As Aragil has pointed out, the "mighty elf" is based on a report of Sam, but it is not correct;*



The report is of course accurate when compared to the information that Shagrat had to report. You seem to require omniscience on the part of all characters in the tale; that would not have made for a very good story! 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * the "dwarf-man" is based on a report of Frodo, but it is not correct;*



"A sort of small dwarf-man" is a perfectly good description of a hobbit. There can be no complaint about the accuracy of this one.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * and the "rebel Uruk-hai" is based on Gorbag and his boys fighting Shagrat, but it is just as incorrect as the earlier two reports. *



i.e. highly consistent with the information Shagrat had to report! 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * 4) Tolkien uses the word Uruk-hai in the Siege of Gondor chapter, but it is not because he is calling Saruman's elite troops Uruk-hai, but because he is reporting Pippin's thoughts.*



It's clearly both. Again, what is your objection?



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 5) Despite the fact that Tolkien clearly use Snaga as the name of a particular orc at the Tower of Cirith Ungol (Christopher Tolkien also refers to it as a name), no, it isn't really a name, but the hobbit author's didn't know it meant slave so they wrote the book treating it as a name. *



Obviously. The hobbit "authors" didn't speak Black Speech. You omit to mention that they also treat the "Snaga" in Rohan as a name. 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * 6) The phrase "Uruk-hai of Isengard" is not a simple statement that they are called Uruk-hai and that they are from Isengard, but instead implies that there are Uruk-hai from places other than Isengard. *



Rather, the phrase very much leaves open the possibility that there are Uruk-hai from elsewhere.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * 7) Enough. I could go on and on. Everything is a special case or some sort of narrow legalistic definition. *



To put it another way, it's important to examine the use of words in their proper literary and linguistic context.


----------



## aragil

*Re: Re: Origin of the Terms Uruk and Uruk-hai*



> _Originally posted by ShagratU _
> *One problem with this point is that Tolkien does not appear to have finally decided that the Uruk-hai did have Man-blood until long after the completion of LotR. In a post-LotR letter, as Tar-Elenion has pointed out, he is still talking about the "possible special breeding of orcs." *


I would say that the use of the word 'possible' by JRR Tolkien was with a wink. In the published version we have the Orc-men in the Shire, the constant reference to hybrids by Aragorn, Merry, and Gamling, and the speculation by Treebeard that Saruman has crossed men with Orcs. Nothing in any further publication refutes this, so I would say that the special breeding was beyond possible and as certain as we can ever hope to be on this thread. Further, the letter was written in 1944. JRRT attributed human-length bows to the Uruk-hai in 1942. Another interesting note is that in the draft of 1942 Ugluk used the term _old Uthwit_ in reference to Saruman. Uthwit is an old English term, the language Tolkien chose to use for the language of the Rohirrim. I would say that this is an indication Tolkien thought that at least Ugluk came from Rohirric stock, and proves ironic given the ultimate fate of Ugluk.



> _Originally posted by ShagratU _
> *Of course, the Uruks term is subsequently applied to both Isengarders and Mordor-orcs. Also, all uruks (being orcs) are inherently "people made bad".*


But again here we are running into folk/people being human or otherwise. Tolkien is writing to his son in the real world, where the terms _folk_ and _people_ are only applied to humans. From what I can glean from Morgoth's Ring at the time of writing the letter in question, Tolkien was still leaning towards the Elves as the origin of the Orcs. These were indeed made bad, but by Morgoth, not by Sauron. Sauron (or the Ringwraiths, if we are to believe HoME 12) were the makers of the Uruks, and the Uruks were made to be no more 'bad' than the stock they came from. The Isengarders were made to be more 'bad' than their original stock (the mannish bit anyway), and they were 'made bad' with the 'intent' of Saruman, which exactly matches the sentiment of the letter. This makes the uruks and uruk-hai equivalence in the letter trivial, as at the time uruks was not intended to include orcs from Mordor. Once Tolkien started applying the term uruks to Mordor Orcs, we stop seeing the two terms used interchangeably in LotR (see below).



> _Originally posted by ShagratU _
> *Well, it's a fairly easy one million dollars! We have the evidence of Appendix A, Appendix F and UT to demonstrate that Tolkien applied "uruk", "uruks" and "Uruks" to Saruman's great soldier-orcs in the final form of LotR and afterwards. *


Well, the evidence from these appendices is not all that clear cut. From my calculations on when Saruman began his breeding program 'great uruks from the Mountains in the service of Saruman' are just that. TA 3002 (or whenever it was) is too early for the great uruks to be offshoots of Saruman's breeding program. We are claiming that the offshoots of the breeding program have sole rights to being called Uruk-hai, the older variety from the mountains do not. As I have said before, Appendix F does not say that the *name* 'uruks' was applied to the Isengarders, but that the *word* uruk was. I have been reminded several times on this thread that uruk and uruks are not the same thing. I have no problem with uruk being applied to Isengarders as in 'Uruk-hai', my problem arises with the Uruk-hai being equated with the Uruks of Mordor. This leaves us with the gratuitous use of 'Uruks' in UT, but unfortunately I'm going to leave that to my next 'big post', as I promised last night.



> _Originally posted by ShagratU _
> *But if one takes all the mentions of long-armed orcs in LotR, we have to add in two descriptions of the Isengarders. Long arms and a hunched running style appear to be generic orcish traits. *


My recollection of the reference to the Isengarders is that they have long arms as they are groping for Eomer (or perhaps Aragorn) at Helm's Deep (I do not recall the long-arms reference in 'The Uruk-hai', but unfortunately I don't have my books right now). This is not as striking to me as the matching descriptions for Grishnakh & co. and Shagrat in that the arms reach almos to the ground, as do those of the 'orcs' of the mountains. Grishnakh and co. are being described as Pippin is first seeing them, after being alone with the Isengarders for the better part of the afternoon. In this sense (the Hobbit POV as you like to call it), Grishnakh's lads are being described in their difference to Ugluk's troops. If the Isengarders, Moria Maggots, and Grishnakh's lads all had equivalently long arms, then Pippin (or the narrator, as it were) would hardly remark to the fact. Similarly, Sam in Mordor was comparing Shagrat (not to be confused with you, ShagratU) with Snaga and the other Orcs of his experience. In this comparison, Sam found Shagrat to be an Orc with long arms, meaning longer than the other Orcs Sam was aware of. The striking thing about the Hobbit passage is that Tolkien uses Orcs and Goblins in the same sense as how he originally used them in Moria. In Moria Gandalf originally sees Goblins, with some veritable Orcs among them. It is not until after the revision of the Hobbit (1947) that Tolkien makes the larger creatures in Moria Uruks, and the lesser creatures Orcs. My main point here is that Shagrat, the Orcs of Moria, the Hobbit orcs, and Grishnakh's lads were all described as a breed relatively different from the Uruk-hai of Isengard, and all of this was done before the term Uruks was applied to them in the text.


----------



## aragil

*Re: Re: Origin of the Terms Uruk and Uruk-hai*



> _Originally posted by ShagratU _
> *However, in the context of a children's story, I think it's probably just use of a literary technique often used in children's stories, where synomyous terms (or near synonyms) are listed for effect. (There is probably a name for this technique, which was widely used by classical authors, but if I once knew it, I have forgotten it.) An example would be saying,"brigands, footpads and bandits." "Brigands" and "bandits" are exact synonyms, with "footpads" hear analogous to "hobgoblins" as a subset. The technique simply adds colour to a descriptive passage. Tolkien would certainly have been aware of its use by classical writers. *


Unless I am mistaken, this is exactly how Greenwood and I are saying that 'Uruk-hai of Isengard' and 'rebel Uruk-hai' should be taken.

Anyway, to reiterate my point about the passage from The Hobbit, this passage was written long after the other passage with reference to orcs. This passage is written when there was an extant passage from Moria (HoME VI p.437) contrasting Orcs with Goblins. Interestingly, the Orcs of The Hobbit p.93 are described similarly to creatures labeled as Uruks in the published LotR. This is evidence to me that Tolkien had to apply the term Uruks to his original Orcs, when he decided that his original Goblins were to become Orcs. This all happened 6 years after the labelling of Isengarders as Uruk-hai, and so it seems to be relatively independent of that concept. The word uruk ties the two together, and later we see that they are indeed related. 'Great uruks from the mountains in the service of Saruman' were surely the original stock from which the Wizard later created his hybrid race.


----------



## ShagratU

*Re: Re: Re: Origin of the Terms Uruk and Uruk-hai*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *My recollection of the reference to the Isengarders is that they have long arms as they are groping for Eomer (or perhaps Aragorn) at Helm's Deep (I do not recall the long-arms reference in 'The Uruk-hai', but unfortunately I don't have my books right now). This is not as striking to me as the matching descriptions for Grishnakh & co. and Shagrat in that the arms reach almos to the ground, as do those of the 'orcs' of the mountains.*



The point with Shagrat and the orcs of the mountains is that their arms are hanging almost to the ground when they run in a hunched orcish fashion (indeed "The Hobbit" text doesn't really imply that the orcs have especially long arms, but that they run in an extremely stooped position). One could make a good case for similarity between the orcs of the mountains and the Isengarders, who run with "bowed backs" and have "long arms."



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Grishnakh and co. are being described as Pippin is first seeing them, after being alone with the Isengarders for the better part of the afternoon. In this sense (the Hobbit POV as you like to call it), Grishnakh's lads are being described in their difference to Ugluk's troops. If the Isengarders, Moria Maggots, and Grishnakh's lads all had equivalently long arms, then Pippin (or the narrator, as it were) would hardly remark to the fact.*



Yes, that's a good point. Grishnakh seems to be of exceptionally grotesque proportions, perhaps more so than his followers, but they are described as "long-armed" orcs, so the logical inference is that they have long arms even by orcish standards.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Similarly, Sam in Mordor was comparing Shagrat (not to be confused with you, ShagratU) with Snaga and the other Orcs of his experience. In this comparison, Sam found Shagrat to be an Orc with long arms, meaning longer than the other Orcs Sam was aware of.*



I'm not so sure here. I think Tolkien is just describing the characteristic Orcish running style. I imagine Shagrat's proportions would be rather similar to the "big fighting orcs" of his garrison.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * The striking thing about the Hobbit passage is that Tolkien uses Orcs and Goblins in the same sense as how he originally used them in Moria. In Moria Gandalf originally sees Goblins, with some veritable Orcs among them. It is not until after the revision of the Hobbit (1947) that Tolkien makes the larger creatures in Moria Uruks, and the lesser creatures Orcs.*



On the other hand, if Tolkien had published the "real Orcs" part, he would have been contradicting "The Hobbit", which tells us that "goblin" and "Orc" are synonyms. I suspect that he was probably dissatisfied with the "real Orcs" usage from the outset because of this linguistic anomaly.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * My main point here is that Shagrat, the Orcs of Moria, the Hobbit orcs, and Grishnakh's lads were all described as a breed relatively different from the Uruk-hai of Isengard, and all of this was done before the term Uruks was applied to them in the text. *



I think this point is something of a stretch, especially when you include the "orcs of the mountains", those in Moria, and Shagrat, who are not described as being terribly different from the Isengarders. If _I_ run with a bowed back, my arms get pretty close to the ground, and the Isengarders are specifically said to have long arms as well as running with bowed backs!  I think the "orcs of the mountains" description would thus fit the Isengarders fairly well.

On a related note, I seem to remember that at one point in the drafting, Tolkien had the Isengarders in Moria. Were these, I wonder, originally the "real Orcs"?


----------



## ShagratU

*Re: Re: Re: Origin of the Terms Uruk and Uruk-hai*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *
> Unless I am mistaken, this is exactly how Greenwood and I are saying that 'Uruk-hai of Isengard' and 'rebel Uruk-hai' should be taken.*



I think you are!  My point is that Tolkien's use of "orcs" and "goblins" side by side in "The Hobbit" is not necessarily in contradiction to his statement that "Orc" and "goblin" are in fact synonyms. 

I think I see what you mean though; you think that the qualifications may not be significant. That's a possibility; but the explanation offered by Christopher Tolkien fits far better with the facts. The tracker and the soldier are pretty well-informed (according to the information that Shagrat had to report), and so a reference to Isengarders seems entirely out of place.

If you acknowledge the possibility that "Uruk-hai" _may_ in fact just mean "Uruk-folk" (and I have not seen anything from you to rule out that possibility ), and that Christopher Tolkien _could_ be right, then the soldier-orc's words are easily explicable. The "Isen" passage from UT then falls into line also. 

Where exactly does the "-folk"/Anglicization thesis fail? 



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Anyway, to reiterate my point about the passage from The Hobbit, this passage was written long after the other passage with reference to orcs. This passage is written when there was an extant passage from Moria (HoME VI p.437) contrasting Orcs with Goblins. Interestingly, the Orcs of The Hobbit p.93 are described similarly to creatures labeled as Uruks in the published LotR. This is evidence to me that Tolkien had to apply the term Uruks to his original Orcs, when he decided that his original Goblins were to become Orcs*



But remember that according to the introduction of "The Hobbit", and Elrond's translation at Rivendell, Tolkien's goblins were already Orcs.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Well, I don't know. 'The fighters' does not seem to be used as a proper noun. 'The Uruk-hai' is a proper noun, and hence carries more connotation with it. 'The fighters' is a common noun, and so it is understood that Ugluk is saying that he and his lads are the fighters within the group he is addressing. Since the Uruk-hai is a specific race, it means something different when Ugluk attaches that ol' pesky definite article, though admittedly I did not make a very good point of this in my previous post. *



It's a proper noun that's always used with a qualification when Ugluk speaks. There is no substantive difference between saying "we are the fighting Uruk-hai" to other Uruk-hai, and saying, "we are the fighters" to other fighters!


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *As for the other example of equated use, this comes from a Tolkien, but not JRR Tolkien. Christopher Tolkien is the person who embelished the UT index entries to include definitions. He says that he does this so that the reader need not look into countless references for definitions. This is very helpful, yet unfortunately his own definition in the index for UT appears to be at odds with his father's index for LotR.*



Yet his father's use of "Uruks" in UT to describe Saruman's Uruk-hai seems to prove the UT Index definition correct, whether it came from JRRT or CT.

Given that UT is a post-LotR text, it seems unlikely in the extreme that Tolkien would use a term to describe the Isengarders that was _incorrect_ and inconsistent with the published work. However, there is nothing in LotR that shows Tolkien's usage in UT to be wrong. Indeed, Appendix F can be read to support his usage.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *I do not think that their probable error on this entry reflects poorly on either of them. To the contrary, it just reminds me of the vast number of notes they had to go through, and what a stellar job they did on their respective projects as a whole. *



Of course, for Christopher Tolkien to be in error, JRR Tolkien also has to be "in error" in UT. And this seems most unlikely.

I agree, however, that there is nothing to support the theory that Mordor Uruks were as sun-resilient as Isengard Uruks.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Tar-Elenion
> I never said "CT says he changed his fathers writings to bring them in line with Foster", that is your mischaracterization!



'Mischaracterization'... hmm...

Thank you for responding to my _query_ (_?_):
_CT_ has said that he made a change to bring his fathers writings in line with Foster? Where does this occur? 

And thank you for clarifying what I said ('you seem to have asserted that CT says he changed his fathers writings to bring them in line with Foster') you _seemed_ to be asserting.

The clarification of what you were stating is appreciated.


----------



## Greenwood

> *Quote by ShagratU*
> One point that has been hardly raised in this debate, but which, I feel, is extremely important, is the simple fact that "Uruk-hai" is Black Speech.
> 
> Black Speech comes from Mordor, and is an invention of Sauron's. Tolkien tells us that Sauron's attempts to create a common language for his creatures were unsuccessful, although some words were retained in the many Orcish dialects.
> 
> ....
> 
> Now, given that Black Speech was not a success as a language, and gave way to Orcish dialects except amongst the captains of Mordor, it seems extremely unlikely that Black Speech coinages would crop up far from Mordor. Saruman's Uruks appear to have been bred differently from Sauron's, through the addition of a Mannish strain, but it seems unlikely in the extreme that a pure Black Speech term was coined in Isengard or the Misty Mountains for this new variation on the Uruk pattern.
> 
> It seems even stranger that this pure Black Speech coinage would match perfectly with the nomenclature used for Sauron's new strain of troll.
> 
> On top of that, it seems very unlikely that an Isengard coinage would be used and understood by Mordor Orcs of different breeds.
> 
> Of course, if "Uruk-hai" was coined in Mordor, and applies to all Uruks, these objections vanish.



As pointed out earlier, Uruk-hai is apparently not a pure Black Speech coinage. Together Aragil and I have pointed out that Oghor-hai is an Orcish term, apparently from a time before the invention of Black Speech. That means "-hai" (whatever it means) is Orcish, not Black Speech. Thus it would be perfectly reasonable for the results of Saruman's breeding experiments to receive an Orcish modification to the Black Speech word _uruk_, especially if they were developed from Uruks as seems likely. It also seems quite clear that Saruman has developed his own breed of orc troops. Why should they refer to themselves with a Black Speech term? You say Black Speech was a failure as a language and was only spoken by the Captains of Mordor. So why should one of Saruman's lieutenants (Ugluk) call himself by a Black Speech term when he has shown such contempt for Grishnakh and his Mordor lads. The same goes for Saruman's troops at Helm's Deep. It makes no sense for troops loyal to Saruman, bred by Saruman, to use a name for themselves that comes from the language of their rivals in Mordor. It makes far more sense for them to take the name of their progenitors, _uruk_ and modify it in an orcish way to distinguish themselves from their Mordor cousins. The result is the Uruk-hai of Isengard and the Uruks of Mordor.

As for Mordor orcs knowing the word there is nothing strange there. Even if, though it is unlikely, Mordor had never heard of Saruman's Uruk-hai before Ugluk's raid, word of a new breed of large orcs who did not care about sunlight and who did not serve Mordor (rebels if you will  ) was likely to spread like wildfire through the troops of Mordor after Grishnakh's report.


----------



## Greenwood

> * Quote by Tar-Elenion *
> 'Mischaracterization'... hmm...
> 
> Thank you for responding to my _query_ (_?_):
> _CT_ has said that he made a change to bring his fathers writings in line with Foster? Where does this occur?
> 
> And thank you for clarifying what I said ('you seem to have asserted that CT says he changed his fathers writings to bring them in line with Foster') you _seemed_ to be asserting.
> 
> The clarification of what you were stating is appreciated.



Nice tactical retreat.  Especially since it ignores the main point that CT has admitted that he has changed his father's writing at times.


----------



## Greenwood

> *Quote by ShagratU*
> To put it another way, it's important to examine the use of words in their proper literary and linguistic context.



I agree.  The problem is that you are also requiring readers to read LOTR as if it was a legal document and consider every possible narrow alternative reading of Tolkien's words instead of reading it as an adventure tale. You argue for a legalistic reading of phrases like "Uruk-hai of Isengard" implying that there are Uruk-hai from places other than Isengard, and from a strict legalistic standpoint point you may have an argument, but that does not mean the argument is correct. Far simpler is to read it as one normally would, the Uruk-hai come from Isengard. If someone read a history book that refered to the "Kamikaze of Japan during World War II" or the "Samurai of Japan", your argument would lead to the reader believing that countries other than Japan had Kamikaze in World War II or that there werer Samurai in countries other than Japan. That interpretation would be wrong, even though from a legalistic standpoint it is defendable. 

The simplest interpretation, and the one that fits with everything in LOTR is that the Uruk-hai are merely identifying where they come from.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> As pointed out earlier, Uruk-hai is apparently not a pure Black Speech coinage. Together Aragil and I have pointed out that Oghor-hai is an Orcish term, apparently from a time before the invention of Black Speech. That means "-hai" (whatever it means) is Orcish, not Black Speech. *



Of course, Tolkien's published sources indicate that "-hai" is Black Speech.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Thus it would be perfectly reasonable for the results of Saruman's breeding experiments to receive an Orcish modification to the Black Speech word uruk, especially if they were developed from Uruks as seems likely. It also seems quite clear that Saruman has developed his own breed of orc troops. Why should they refer to themselves with a Black Speech term?*



Most likely because their "Uruk-hai" identity (that of a superior military caste) was forged in Mordor and reinforced in the Misty Mountains. A smattering of man-blood would be unlikely to damage this, but likely to reinforce it still further



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * You say Black Speech was a failure as a language and was only spoken by the Captains of Mordor. So why should one of Saruman's lieutenants (Ugluk) call himself by a Black Speech term when he has shown such contempt for Grishnakh and his Mordor lads. The same goes for Saruman's troops at Helm's Deep. It makes no sense for troops loyal to Saruman, bred by Saruman, to use a name for themselves that comes from the language of their rivals in Mordor. It makes far more sense for them to take the name of their progenitors, uruk and modify it in an orcish way to distinguish themselves from their Mordor cousins. The result is the Uruk-hai of Isengard and the Uruks of Mordor.*



But given that "-hai" is demonstrably Black Speech ("Olog-hai"), and Uruk-hai thus combines a Black Speech element with another Black Speech element in a Black Speech element, we have to ask ourselves _why_ the Isengarders go by a Black Speech appellation. The obvious answer is that their "Uruk-hai" ethnicity stems from Mordor, and has survived, or been enhanced by, Sarumanic tampering.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * As for Mordor orcs knowing the word there is nothing strange there. Even if, though it is unlikely, Mordor had never heard of Saruman's Uruk-hai before Ugluk's raid, word of a new breed of large orcs who did not care about sunlight and who did not serve Mordor (rebels if you will  ) was likely to spread like wildfire through the troops of Mordor after Grishnakh's report.  *



Except of course that we are explicitly told that no news of the Orc-raid ever came back to Mordor.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> I agree.  The problem is that you are also requiring readers to read LOTR as if it was a legal document and consider every possible narrow alternative reading of Tolkien's words instead of reading it as an adventure tale.*



Not at all. LotR has a linguistic depth, which distinguishes it from a mere adventure tale. You seem, if I read your arguments correctly, to be reluctant to take Tolkien's word on issues such as orcs of different breeds using Common Speech to communicate. But it is this sort of linguistic depth that distinguishes LotR from a mere adventure tale. Appreciation of these subtleties is linguistic, not legalistic. 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * You argue for a legalistic reading of phrases like "Uruk-hai of Isengard" implying that there are Uruk-hai from places other than Isengard, and from a strict legalistic standpoint point you may have an argument, but that does not mean the argument is correct. Far simpler is to read it as one normally would, the Uruk-hai come from Isengard. If someone read a history book that refered to the "Kamikaze of Japan during World War II" or the "Samurai of Japan", your argument would lead to the reader believing that countries other than Japan had Kamikaze in World War II or that there werer Samurai in countries other than Japan. That interpretation would be wrong, even though from a legalistic standpoint it is defendable. *



You're tilting at straw men here.  My argument is not that "Uruk-hai of Isengard" _implies_ that there are other Uruk-hai, but that it leaves open the possibility. The implications come from elsewhere, and in the light of those implications, it is interesting that Ugluk never claims simply that "we are the Uruk-hai."



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * The simplest interpretation, and the one that fits with everything in LOTR is that the Uruk-hai are merely identifying where they come from. *



It's not the simplest interpretation. It's simpler to assume that Uruks and Uruk-hai are synomyms. That clears up the problem of why Shagrat's report is translated into two accurate rumours and one utterly wild one, instead of three fairly accurate ones.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> Nice tactical retreat. *



While we're on the subject of tactical retreats, I'm still waiting for your explanation of why "-hai" as "-folk" doesn't work.  

You said that you had repeatedly argued why earlier in the thread, but no evidence of this is apparent.  Please clarify!


----------



## Greenwood

> * Quoted by ShagratU*
> Of course, Tolkien's published sources indicate that "-hai" is Black Speech.



Where? Appendix F of LOTR says _uruk_ is Black Speech, it does not say Uruk-hai is Black Speech. The Druedain essay in UT has Oghor-hai being used by orcs before Black Speech was invented by Sauron. That means "-hai" as a word element predates Black Speech. Therefore, Uruk-hai is not pure Black Speech.

You have argued that because of the final "s" Uruks must be an Anglicization. If that is accepted than what is it an Anglicization of? The simplest would be that it is an Anglicization of uruk. Where does that lead us? It leaves us with Aragil and my arguments about the usage of the words in LOTR perfectly reasonable with Tolkien use the Anglicization of a Black Speech word for the Mordor orcs and Uruk-hai used for Saruman's orcs. And it leaves virtually all of your and Tar-Elenion's arguments about how the words are used in LOTR also reasonable.  Gandalf in Moria use an Anglicization of a Black Speech word to refer to Mordor orcs in Moria. Gorbag's words are translated into an Anglicization that refers to Mordor orcs. The only problem remaining is the soldier-tracker orc exchange which can easily be interpreted as Aragil and I have said.  This interpretation also explains the seperate entries in the LOTR index for Uruks and Uruk-hai that Aragil has pointed out. We are left with the Uruks in the Fords of Isen chpater in UT, but CT has told us not to look for full consistency between LOTR and the posthumously published materials of his father. 



> That clears up the problem of why Shagrat's report is translated into two accurate rumours and one utterly wild one, instead of three fairly accurate ones.



No. All three rumors are wild, as we the readers are well aware.  



> Except of course that we are explicitly told that no news of the Orc-raid ever came back to Mordor.



No news of the results of the raid went back to Mordor, but Grishnakh left Ugluk's band to get reinforcements. Word presumably got back at that time. And even if it did not at that time, Saruman has been breeding his own orcs into Uruk-hai for sometime and there is no reason to belief that word could not have reached Mordor prior to this particular raid.



> While we're on the subject of tactical retreats, I'm still waiting for your explanation of why "-hai" as "-folk" doesn't work.
> 
> You said that you had repeatedly argued why earlier in the thread, but no evidence of this is apparent.



Because Uruks and Uruk-hai are not equivalent as we have demonstrated repeatedly.


----------



## Greenwood

> *Quote by ShagratU*
> My argument is not that "Uruk-hai of Isengard" implies that there are other Uruk-hai, but that it leaves open the possibility. The implications come from elsewhere, and in the light of those implications, it is interesting that Ugluk never claims simply that "we are the Uruk-hai."



But at Helm's Deep, Saruman's elite troops do say "We are the Uruk-hai" (no qualifiers)!  And Tolkien does not qualify his chapter title, it is just "The Uruk-hai"!  And in the Siege of Gondor chapter the reference is once again simply "the Uruk-hai" (no qualifiers)!  

So you admit that the phrase "Uruk-hai of Isengard" does not automatically imply there are other Uruk-hai from places other than Isengard! (Hey, Grond, did you catch that?) Therefore that argument only works if you believe there are other Uruk-hai and thus the argument is as circular as I have repeatedly pointed it out to be. 

You have already conceded that Saruman's soldier orcs are genetically different from Sauron's soldier orcs.  What is so hard about believing that they would have a different name to distinguish them.

As I said above, if we accept your lingistic argument that Uruks is an Anglicization, but make it an Anglicization of uruk instead of Uruk-hai, we are left with a simple explanation that explains all uses in LOTR!  End of debate.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by ShagratU _
> *While we're on the subject of tactical retreats, I'm still waiting for your explanation of why "-hai" as "-folk" doesn't work.
> You said that you had repeatedly argued why earlier in the thread, but no evidence of this is apparent.  Please clarify!  *



Well, my earliest statements in this thread (starting as the fourth post on the first page) was that it is hard to distinguish between people/folk in terms of humans, or in terms of plural from another species:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=38314#post38314
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=41400#post41400
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=42023#post42023
I still say that folk/people is difficult to distinguish from *human* folk/people. Tolkien's letter of 8/1944 is a case in point. I will maintain that by 'folk made bad', he was referring to human folk- the Uruk-hai of Saruman. Having posted on the history of the term Uruk-hai, I think that Tolkien originally intended for Uruk-hai to be a plural term. On the other hand, I think that I have demonstrated that he came up with this _denotation_ at least 6 years before he ever thought of applying the term 'uruks' to Mordor Orcs. As you point out, he was not entirely satisfied with differentiating between goblin and orc. I think this had to do more with his growing dislike for the term goblin rather than any loyalty he felt for his usage in the Hobbit, which he ammended with a new riddle-game. (look at HoME VI p.437 and HoME VII p.193 and p.205 note 5 for further info- there's another reference to 'Shadow of the Past' I think where CT describes how his father went from the predominance of 'goblin' in The Hobbit to 'orc' in LotR). Anyway, back to my point: the connotation of uruks and Uruk-hai changed drastically when Tolkien decided to exchange the term 'veritable orcs' with 'uruks'. Up until this point Uruk-hai was the only term used in the narrative, and it referred only to the sunlight-tolerant crossbreeds of Saruman. The creatures that were originally goblins became orcs, the creatures that were originally orcs became uruks. While this was happening the creatures that were originally Uruk-hai remained Uruk-hai. From the moment of their conception (when Aragorn examines their equipment at Amon Hen) they were fundamentally different from any of the other orcs Tolkien wrote about- they were consistently large enough to use bows of the same length as those used by men. From Morgoth's Ring, we know that breeding Orcs with men made Orcs larger. I think that Tolkien describes the Orcs' bows as being the same length as men's bows (as opposed to just being longer than Orcs' bows) for a reason- he's establishing their link with men. He further establishes it with their sun-tolerance (Legolas, Treebeard, and Gamling all remark on this), he originally has Ugluk use an Old English term (the language of the Rohirrim), and the Uruk-hai are consistently described as large relative to other Orcs, which Tolkien points out as one of the consequences of crossing Orcs with Humans. The Orcs of Mordor do not share any of these characteristics- they never use a mannish tongue (other than Westron), they never bear bows as long as those of the Isengarders, they never exhibit signs of sun-tolerance, and they certainly have never been cross-bred with humans. They are fundamentally different from the original Uruk-hai, and this distinction remains throughout the narrative of the LotR. I would say that the fact that he was calling the later uruks 'veritable orcs' for six years, while calling the later Uruk-hai 'Uruk-hai' should be evidence enough of this.
Well, I don't have my books with me, but I think that I'll take a stab at the passage in UT now. The Fords of Isen narrative in UT comes from the same period as essays in 'late writings' in HoME v. 12. CT specifically addresses the style of these essays in his introduction to that section. These writings were done on a typewriter (Tolkien only used two fingers to type), and were done _ab initio_. Tolkien never scrawled out these thoughts before hand, and after initially typing them in a single draft, he never returned to edit them. This is particularly obvious for the Isen passage, as it ends tantalizingly in mid-sentence. CT acknowledges that there are inconsistancies between these writings and those of his father's earlier published works. In both the introduction to UT and in the intro to 'late writings' CT says that he has made an effort to point out these inconsistencies, which become increasingly glaring in Tolkien's last essays- those concerning Cirdan and Glorfindel. CT relates that his father admitted his thoughts were becoming increasingly confused at this late point in his life. The Isen narrative was written some time after 1969, and the essays on Cirdan and Glorfindel were written some time in 1970. The Good Professor passed away in August 1973, so these narratives came from the very end of his career. It appears to me to be the case that Tolkien either accidentally used the term Uruks for Uruk-hai, or he intentionally used the term uruks as shorthand and later meant to go back and expand it to 'Uruk-hai' but never did, which is entirely plausible since we know that there was only one draft for this piece. CT himself was apparently confused on the matter, which is why he might have put a definition for Uruk-hai in the index of a book which did not contain that term. While writing HoME v. 9 (p. 34 note 4) CT notes that it is strange that this is the first appearance of uruks in the narrative, coming six years after the appearance of the term Uruk-hai. This means that in all of his draftings, Tolkien never referred to Uguluk and co., nor those of Helm's Deep as 'uruks'. That term was apparently reserved for uruks of Mordor and uruks of the mountains (some of which came into the service of Saruman). That CT might have missed the inconsistency in his father's usage, and then made a mistake himself is hardly impossible. After all, there is the letter of 1944 which equates the two terms. But it is very important to stress that the letter was written before Tolkien ever used Uruks in reference to Mordor Orcs. 

So this is what I think happened: Tolkien invented the name Uruk-hai to describe the human/orc hybrids of Saruman (both Orc-men and men-Orcs). This _might_ have meant uruk-people, with 'people' then having the double meaning of a plural and indicating the human origin of the species. Tolkien probably intended that these hybrids were descended from the 'veritable orcs' of Moria and Mordor. During the writing of LotR Tolkien decided not to use the term 'goblin', and instead opted for 'orc' (for the most part). Having done this, he then decided to call the former 'veritable orcs' 'uruks' (ca 1948). The term is related to the term 'Uruk-hai', and indicates the relatedness of the two (separate) breeds. However, the two terms are not synonymous, as evidenced by the fact that they have separate entries in the Index of LotR. Twenty years after the completion of the LotR Tolkien wrote the narrative Fords of Isen in a single draft, and in that essay he used Uruks in a manner inconsistant with how he used it in the LotR. CT (who noted that UT contained inconsistencies with the earlier published works) missed this inconsistency- perhaps because of the letter to him which predated the application of uruks to Mordor Orcs. I can't find fault with either CT for making this error (can't think of too many others he made in all of his 1000s of published pages), or with the Good Professor for making an inconsistency in an essay he never had the chance to revise before publication.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Nice tactical retreat.  Especially since it ignores the main point that CT has admitted that he has changed his father's writing at times.



So my polite way of pointing out that I was asking questions and using qualifiers for my inference is a 'tactical retreat'? Interesting.

It does not ignore the "main point". The "main point" is that, I was asking questions about what you had posted. 

CT having made changes has already been addressed. He even points out the changes he made.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> Where? Appendix F of LOTR says uruk is Black Speech, it does not say Uruk-hai is Black Speech. The Druedain essay in UT has Oghor-hai being used by orcs before Black Speech was invented by Sauron. That means "-hai" as a word element predates Black Speech. Therefore, Uruk-hai is not pure Black Speech. *



Here of course, you are breaking your own rules by using an unpublished source to contradict the published work. "Uruk-hai" is paralleled by "Olog-hai". 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * You have argued that because of the final "s" Uruks must be an Anglicization. If that is accepted than what is it an Anglicization of? The simplest would be that it is an Anglicization of uruk. Where does that lead us? It leaves us with Aragil and my arguments about the usage of the words in LOTR perfectly reasonable with Tolkien use the Anglicization of a Black Speech word for the Mordor orcs and Uruk-hai used for Saruman's orcs. And it leaves virtually all of your and Tar-Elenion's arguments about how the words are used in LOTR also reasonable. Gandalf in Moria use an Anglicization of a Black Speech word to refer to Mordor orcs in Moria. Gorbag's words are translated into an Anglicization that refers to Mordor orcs. The only problem remaining is the soldier-tracker orc exchange which can easily be interpreted as Aragil and I have said.*



Unfortunately, your explanations for the soldier-tracker exchange are unconvincing. If "-hai" means "-folk" or "people", in common with other suffixes in Tolkien's languages, then the soldier-tracker exchange fits in perfectly well.

As Tar-Elenion has pointed out, the possibility exists that Christopher Tolkien is using a definition of his father's in the UT index. We may never know which of the entries came direct from JRRT, but the possibility certainly exists that the "Uruks" definition did. We should therefore see if the definition fails on any count. It does not appear to.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * This interpretation also explains the seperate entries in the LOTR index for Uruks and Uruk-hai that Aragil has pointed out. We are left with the Uruks in the Fords of Isen chpater in UT, but CT has told us not to look for full consistency between LOTR and the posthumously published materials of his father.*



CT's caveat is obviously a wise one, but what we are seeing in UT is not necessarily an inconsistency. It's a post-LotR text, and is dealing with "events" on the fringe of the LotR narrative. It seems incredibly unlikely that Tolkien would make a "mistake" on the nomenclature of Saruman's troops. Inconsistencies of chronology or geography (such as the apparent anomaly in the reference to the Uruks who break away) are far more likely than linguistic inconsistencies, given the linguistic underpinning of the whole "world."

The use of "Uruks" in "The Battles of the Fords of the Isen" fits perfectly well with LotR and Appendix F, and with Tolkien's letters. That it doesn't fit with your theory is surely grounds for questioning the theory rather than questioning Tolkien's writing.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Because Uruks and Uruk-hai are not equivalent as we have demonstrated repeatedly.  *



But you haven't. Tolkien uses both terms to describe Saruman's elite orcs. He appears to use both terms to describe Sauron's elite orcs. He uses the terms as synonyms in letters. There can be no _demonstration_ that the terms are not equivalent; what can be demonstrated is that the terms were certainly equivalent to Tolkien in 1944 and in 1969.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * No. All three rumors are wild, as we the readers are well aware.*



Gorbag and Snaga tell Shagrat that a dangerous warrior, likely an Elf, is loose. Tolkien tells us that Sam's appearance was distorted to the Orcs, making him appear large and menacing. Hence the soldier-orc's mention of an Elf warrior fits perfectly with the information that Shagrat had to report. So the rumour is accurate.

Frodo is a hobbit; most people far from the Shire do not know what a hobbit is. "A sort of small dwarf-man" is a perfectly accurate description for a being of dwarvish stature but Mannish appearance. The rumour is again accurate.

Then we have "rebel Uruk-hai." We know that Gorbag and co. were Uruks. We know that Shagrat described Gorbag as a "rebel". From a reading of the text and Appendix, it is perfectly possible that "Uruk-hai" does not refer solely to Isengarders, but means "Uruk-folk". If so, we have a third accurate rumour. If not, we have an extremely wild one which is out of kilter with the other two. The first possibility seems much more probable. 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * No news of the results of the raid went back to Mordor, but Grishnakh left Ugluk's band to get reinforcements. Word presumably got back at that time.*



The "it" at the end of "The Uruk-hai" can only logically and grammatically refer to the "raid", not its result. 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * And even if it did not at that time, Saruman has been breeding his own orcs into Uruk-hai for sometime and there is no reason to belief that word could not have reached Mordor prior to this particular raid. *



It is unlikely in the extreme that an Isengard coinage would be understood by Mordor orcs of two different breeds. The soldier and tracker seem quite familiar with "Uruk-hai", which indicates that it is Black Speech, and refers to the soldier-orcs of Mordor as well. If "-hai" simply means "-folk", like many of Tolkien's other suffixes, then this makes perfect sense.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Well, I don't have my books with me, but I think that I'll take a stab at the passage in UT now. The Fords of Isen narrative in UT comes from the same period as essays in 'late writings' in HoME v. 12. CT specifically addresses the style of these essays in his introduction to that section. These writings were done on a typewriter (Tolkien only used two fingers to type), and were done _ab initio_. Tolkien never scrawled out these thoughts before hand, and after initially typing them in a single draft, he never returned to edit them.



CT is refering specifically to the 'historical-philological' essays in PoME (specifically 'Dwarves and Men' and 'Shibboleth' (a brilliant work I might add)), not those from the same general time period in UT. 



> This is particularly obvious for the Isen passage, as it ends tantalizingly in mid-sentence. CT acknowledges that there are inconsistancies between these writings and those of his father's earlier published works. In both the introduction to UT and in the intro to 'late writings' CT says that he has made an effort to point out these inconsistencies, which become increasingly glaring in Tolkien's last essays- those concerning Cirdan and Glorfindel. CT relates that his father admitted his thoughts were becoming increasingly confused at this late point in his life. The Isen narrative was written some time after 1969, and the essays on Cirdan and Glorfindel were written some time in 1970. The Good Professor passed away in August 1973, so these narratives came from the very end of his career.



What CT says about the dating of 'Fords of Isen' et. al.:
"It is a great convenience in this so largely dateless history that my father received from Allen and Unwin a quantity of their waste paper whose blank sides he used for much of his late writing; for this paper consisted of publication notes, and many of the pages bear dates: some from 1967, the great majority from 1968, and some from 1970. These dates provide, of course, only a terminus a quo: in the case, for instance, of a long essay on the names of the rivers and beacon-hills of Gondor (extensively drawn on in Unfinished Tales) pages dated 1967 were used, but the work can be shown on other and entirely certain grounds to have been written after June 1969. This was the period of The Disaster of the Gladden Fields, Cirion and Eorl, and The Battles of the Fords of Isen, which I published in Unfinished Tales."

What CT says about the dating of the 'Last Writings' (Cirdan, Glorfindel etc) chapter of PoME is:
"There is a small collection of very late manuscripts, preserved together, closely similar in appearance, and all written on the blank sides of publication notices issued by Allen and Unwin. Most of these are copies of the same notice dated 19 January 1970 (used also by my father for his late work on the story of Maeglin, XI.316), but one of these writings was stated by him to be developed from a reply to a correspondent sent on 9 December 1972, and another is dated by him 20 November 1972. I think it very probable that the whole collection belongs to that time, the last year of his life: he died on the second of September, 1973, at the age of eighty-one. There are clear evidences of confusion (as he said at one point, 'my memory is no longer retentive'); but there are elements in them that are of much interest and should be recorded."

It is interesting that CT dates the UT narratives and 'D&M', 'Shibboleth' and 'Ros' to '67-70'. It is also interesting that CT mentions his father's 'confusion' only in the editorial comments pertaining to the 'Last Writings' (Glorfindel, Cirdan) not those earlier writings in UT or in PoME ('Isen', 'Shibboleth' etc), and that CT also dates these (the 'Last Writings') not to 1970, but to last year of his fathers life.



> It appears to me to be the case that Tolkien either accidentally used the term Uruks for Uruk-hai, or he intentionally used the term uruks as shorthand and later meant to go back and expand it to 'Uruk-hai' but never did, which is entirely plausible since we know that there was only one draft for this piece.



Reading the various essays of this time period (67-70), JRRT seems to have been very deliberate.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> But at Helm's Deep, Saruman's elite troops do say "We are the Uruk-hai" (no qualifiers)!  And Tolkien does not qualify his chapter title, it is just "The Uruk-hai"!  And in the Siege of Gondor chapter the reference is once again simply "the Uruk-hai" (no qualifiers)!  *



Of course, at Helm's Deep, the Uruks are not talking to other Uruks. They do, of course, use qualifiers earlier in their boast. The title of "The Uruk-hai" could easily have been "The Orcs" (it was originally "The Orc-Raid") or "The Uruk-folk" (which it may well be ), so its usage tells us nothing. If you replace Pippin's "in the clutches of the Uruk-hai" with "in the clutches of the Orcs", you can see that that would also serve perfectly. 

All we can conclude is that when the Uruk-hai of Isengard talk to other Orcs, they never simply describe themselves as "the Uruk-hai". This makes it perfectly possible that other orcs are also "Uruk-hai".



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *So you admit that the phrase "Uruk-hai of Isengard" does not automatically imply there are other Uruk-hai from places other than Isengard! (Hey, Grond, did you catch that?)*



I have never argued that it does. What it certainly does do is leave open the possibility that Grishnakh's troop are also "Uruk-hai".



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Therefore that argument only works if you believe there are other Uruk-hai and thus the argument is as circular as I have repeatedly pointed it out to be. *



The argument that Ugluk's words neither rule out nor rule in other Uruk-hai is perfectly valid. That is the only argument I have advanced in this connection.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * You have already conceded that Saruman's soldier orcs are genetically different from Sauron's soldier orcs.  What is so hard about believing that they would have a different name to distinguish them.*



I can hardly "concede" a contention which I have held to long before this debate began. 

The difficulty in beliving that "Uruk-hai" is a different name stems from the fact that "Uruk-hai" appears to be equivalent with "Uruks" in at least three texts. Of course, Saruman's troops do have distinguishing titles; the "Uruk-hai of Isengard", the "Isengarders" (which is how the Mordor-orc describes them), and (to themselves, reflecting their pride in their martial prowess) the "fighting Uruk-hai."



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * As I said above, if we accept your lingistic argument that Uruks is an Anglicization, but make it an Anglicization of uruk instead of Uruk-hai, we are left with a simple explanation that explains all uses in LOTR!  End of debate. *



This explanation, however, leaves oddities such as the soldier-orc's comments and the "Isen" passages from UT. We also have to struggle for a meaning for "-hai" that does not contradict what we know about Black Speech. If we accept "-hai" as "-folk", there are no inconsistencies at all. It therefore appears to be much the better fit.


----------



## aragil

*Word of the Raid*

ShagratU- word of the raid did get back to Mordor. Grishnakh reported to the Nazgul after he runs away from Ugluk the Superior. The Nazgul grants Grishnakh the 40 Uruks with which he catches up to Ugluk at the northward bend of the Entwash. Later, (in the White Rider? I read it yesterday but don't have books handy) Gandalf says that a report stating that Ugluks troops took off with the halflings *did* reach Mordor, and that they Eye would be turned to Isengard. Since Ugluk the Magnificent proudly boasted that they were the Uruk-hai, and that they served Saruman, this is a perfectly logical opportunity for the term to reach Mordor.
As for the Soldier and Tracker, I've always thought of the Orcs as gossippy. Somehow the Tracker has heard that the head Nazgul bites the bullet at Pelannor (does the timing work out on that?), and if he can hear this, certainly he could have heard of the Uruk-hai absconding with the halflings at Amon-hen.
The point about the three rumors being wild is underscored by the Tracker and the Soldier. They are *complaining* about how unlikely the possibilities are: elf, dwarf-man, and Uruk-hai. They think that the higher ups have 'lost their heads' to come up with such an unlikely list. Efforts to make the list accurate fly completely in the face of the context surrounding the list.

Regarding 'fighting' as a qualifier. I thought we agreed that 'Uruk-hai of Isengard' and 'rebel Uruk-hai' could be sort of repetitive synonymous language, just as 'orcs, goblins, and hobgoblins'. Surely this goes doubly so for 'fighting', as according to everybody's theories here the Uruk-hai are bred to be soldiers, and so all Uruk-hai are fighting.

Regarding the Fords of Isen, if anybody would like quotes backing up my statements in the above post, I will be happy to provide them as soon as I'm home. The fact of the matter is, CT himself points out inconsistencies in the UT narratives. The fact that he doesn't point out Uruks is just a case of him not recognizing the inconsistency, in my opinion.


----------



## aragil

Tar-Elenion:
I believe that the only thing in your last post which contradicts anything from my post is what the 'ab-initio' statement refers to. I took CT's statement to mean that it pertained to linguistic and historical essays at the time, which certainly covers the Fords of Isen, Disaster at Gladden, etc. My comments about dating were that Isen was written after 1969 (just as your passage confirms), and that Glorfindel and Cirion were written after 1970 (again just as it says in your passage). My passage about inconsistencies was to all of the 'late writings', but as you pointed out CT was only referring to 'last writings'. I'd say that there was an inconsistency in Isen as well, which we don't know if he wrote in June 1969 or January 1970, only that he wrote it after June of 1969. We also don't know that he ever tried to revise it, which seems unlikely giving that it trails off in mid-sentence.
Other than that, I'm unsure of how to take your post, unless you are actually agreeing with me. Perhaps you were just clarifying, since I did not have my books and was unable to provide the passages? If so, then thanks!


----------



## Tar-Elenion

Aragil, your comments were "The Isen narrative was written some time after 1969, and the essays on Cirdan and Glorfindel were written some time in 1970." 
I was clarifying what was written by CT in responce to this.

The June '69 comment is specifically referring to "a long essay on the names of the rivers and beacon-hills of Gondor" (which is a very interesting essay by the way). The 'period' referred to for the other essays is the '67-70'.

CT posits that the Cirdan and Glorfindel essays come from late 72 or later.

You also wrote:
"CT acknowledges that there are inconsistancies between these writings and those of his father's earlier published works."

Would you clarify what you meant by "earlier published works", please.

You are welcome for the passages, I did note that you mentioned not having your books.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *
> I still say that folk/people is difficult to distinguish from human folk/people. Tolkien's letter of 8/1944 is a case in point. I will maintain that by 'folk made bad', he was referring to human folk- the Uruk-hai of Saruman. *



I'm not sure - _all_ orcs are "folk made bad" - although Tolkien could never appear to finally decide what sort of folk. This indecision leaves certain contradictions and questions all the way through the "mythos", including _Morgoth's Ring_.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Having posted on the history of the term Uruk-hai, I think that Tolkien originally intended for Uruk-hai to be a plural term. *



The term is never used in the singular. Given his linguistic rigour, Tolkien would be very unlikely to have made a clearly plural term singular. If we follow that letter, the singular form of "Uruk-hai" would be "Uruk."



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * As you point out, he was not entirely satisfied with differentiating between goblin and orc. I think this had to do more with his growing dislike for the term goblin rather than any loyalty he felt for his usage in the Hobbit, which he ammended with a new riddle-game. (look at HoME VI p.437 and HoME VII p.193 and p.205 note 5 for further info- there's another reference to 'Shadow of the Past' I think where CT describes how his father went from the predominance of 'goblin' in The Hobbit to 'orc' in LotR). *



It's surely significant, however, that Tolkien continues to use "goblin" as a synonym for "orc" in LotR, and that he applies it to the Isengard Uruks, thus making it clear that even very large orcs are still goblins. It seems to me that he is reinforcing consistency with "The Hobbit" here, however much it may have irked him to have used a Romance-derived word.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * Anyway, back to my point: the connotation of uruks and Uruk-hai changed drastically when Tolkien decided to exchange the term 'veritable orcs' with 'uruks'. Up until this point Uruk-hai was the only term used in the narrative, and it referred only to the sunlight-tolerant crossbreeds of Saruman. The creatures that were originally goblins became orcs, the creatures that were originally orcs became uruks. While this was happening the creatures that were originally Uruk-hai remained Uruk-hai.*



But as you have pointed out, these creatures were also originally "Uruks". They are Uruks in the letter in the 40s, and they are Uruks in the "Isen" narrative in the late 60s. The logical conclusion is that they remained Uruks all the way through. 




> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * From the moment of their conception (when Aragorn examines their equipment at Amon Hen) they were fundamentally different from any of the other orcs Tolkien wrote about- they were consistently large enough to use bows of the same length as those used by men. From Morgoth's Ring, we know that breeding Orcs with men made Orcs larger. I think that Tolkien describes the Orcs' bows as being the same length as men's bows (as opposed to just being longer than Orcs' bows) for a reason- he's establishing their link with men. He further establishes it with their sun-tolerance (Legolas, Treebeard, and Gamling all remark on this), he originally has Ugluk use an Old English term (the language of the Rohirrim), and the Uruk-hai are consistently described as large relative to other Orcs, which Tolkien points out as one of the consequences of crossing Orcs with Humans.*



Remember though, that the Uruk-hai of Isengard appear remarkable more for their equipment than for their physical appearance. They are very large, but so are the Uruks in Moria. The Isengard Uruks are still small enough to be greatly preferable targets for Gimli at Helm's Deep when compared to Men. Ugluk does not appear to be as large as the huge chieftain in Moria. We would probably agree that the Isengarders have the largest average size of any orc group.



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * The Orcs of Mordor do not share any of these characteristics- they never use a mannish tongue (other than Westron), they never bear bows as long as those of the Isengarders, they never exhibit signs of sun-tolerance, and they certainly have never been cross-bred with humans. *



Remember, though, that the Isengarders don't speak any mannish tongue but Westron in the final conception. Tolkien abandoned their use of Rohirric. 

What might be more significant in this regard is the fact that the Isengarders do appear to use Westron _with each other_, as when the two guards grumble about "old Ugluk." This, however, reinforces the likelihood of the term "Uruk-hai" being part of their legacy from Mordor (in the "internal history", not the "external"! )



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * They are fundamentally different from the original Uruk-hai, and this distinction remains throughout the narrative of the LotR. I would say that the fact that he was calling the later uruks 'veritable orcs' for six years, while calling the later Uruk-hai 'Uruk-hai' should be evidence enough of this.*



My suspicion would be that Tolkien decided to give Sauron Uruks/Uruk-hai because of a sense that he was the greatest evil, and that Saruman was merely an imitator. One might argue that this sense ultimately muddied the picture and even reduced its aesthetic impact, but there you go.




> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * It appears to me to be the case that Tolkien either accidentally used the term Uruks for Uruk-hai, or he intentionally used the term uruks as shorthand and later meant to go back and expand it to 'Uruk-hai' but never did, which is entirely plausible since we know that there was only one draft for this piece. *



I find both your theories on this rather unconvincing. A linguistic mistake seems rather unlikely given Tolkien's starting point for his work. For it to be a mistake, we must infer that Tolkien abandoned the equivalence between "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai" that evidently existed earlier. But there is simply no proof that he did so. A continuous equivalence (the Anglicization theory) seems more likely than an equivalence that existed in the 40s and the 60s, but disappeared in the 50s.

The shorthand theory seems quite untenable. Firstly, all other names in the text are given in full. Secondly, Tolkien uses the term "black Uruks", which is identical to the usage in Moria. Like the _uruks_ who crash into the Durthang line, these Uruks are heavily armed. He also alludes to the special training of these orcs, and we know that elsewhere he mentioned the special training of both the Isengarders and the Uruks of Mordor. What I think we are seeing here is just an extension of the narrative principles generally followed in LotR, where "Uruk-hai" is a term used by the Orcs themselves, with the narrator using "uruks". The only exceptions are Pippin's POV in the narrative - he had heard the term from the mouths of Orcs - and Gorbag's, which is translated. In UT, Tolkien, writing in English, uses the Anglicized term. That seems clear and plausible. 




> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * CT himself was apparently confused on the matter, which is why he might have put a definition for Uruk-hai in the index of a book which did not contain that term.*



Alternatively, he was very clear on the matter, perhaps due to conversation with his father or reference to JRRT's definitions.






> _Originally posted by aragil _
> * So this is what I think happened: Tolkien invented the name Uruk-hai to describe the human/orc hybrids of Saruman (both Orc-men and men-Orcs). This might have meant uruk-people, with 'people' then having the double meaning of a plural and indicating the human origin of the species. *



Note that "Uruk-hai" is _never_ applied to the "Orc-Men", who are never described as "Orcs" but always as "Men".

The double meaning, "people/Men" seems unlikely in the extreme - Tolkien generally uses "people" and "folk" to describe any of the races of Middle-Earth. 

A more plausible conclusion might be that Tolkien invented the word "Uruk" at first to describe the improved Orcs of Isengard, but then decided that Sauron, Saruman's "model", should have these improved Orcs too. No distinction between the terms "Uruk-hai" and "Uruks" originally existed, and nor was one introduced, as the "Isen" text would appear to confirm.

What was retained was the notion, presented as speculation, that Saruman's Uruks might have been further improved by the tampering of the White Hand.


----------



## Greenwood

> *Quote by ShagratU*
> Here of course, you are breaking your own rules by using an unpublished source to contradict the published work. "Uruk-hai" is paralleled by "Olog-hai".



I am not contradicting a published source with an unpublished source. Appendix F of LOTR says "the word _uruk_ of the Black Speech", it does *not* say Uruk-hai is Black Speech. I am pointing to the posthumously published work, The Druedain, which clearly states that orcs called the Druedain Oghor-hai at a time before Black Speech was invented. This does not contradict anything in LOTR. By your own linguistic type of analysis, this makes it impossible for "-hai" to be Black Speech, but instead it must be an Orcish speech element. You are the one ignoring your own wish to use the posthumously published material by ignoring this. You are now apparently trying to pick and choose which bits of linguistic history you like. BTW, if Ugluk is speaking Westron when he talks to Grishnakh (which is clearly stated in the text), why does he use a Black Speech word, Uruk-hai? (If that is, Uruk-hai is a Black Speech word as you claim.) Why does he not use the Westron equivalent, Uruks? The same question applies to Saruman's orcs at Helm's Deep. They are clearly speaking Westron to Aragorn. Why don't they use Uruks? If Uruk-hai is pure Black Speech, as you say, why is this the only Black Speech word they use? Especially, if as you say Black Speech is only spoken by the Captains of Mordor. 



> If "-hai" means "-folk" or "people", in common with other suffixes in Tolkien's languages, then the soldier-tracker exchange fits in perfectly well.
> 
> As Tar-Elenion has pointed out, the possibility exists that Christopher Tolkien is using a definition of his father's in the UT index. We may never know which of the entries came direct from JRRT, but the possibility certainly exists that the "Uruks" definition did. We should therefore see if the definition fails on any count. It does not appear to.



Your arguments are filled with "ifs" and "possibilities". These are not proofs. You and Tar-Elenion constantly use ifs and possibilities and then treat the results as facts. You then use these dubious "facts" to proof your initial "ifs" and "possibilities", but your entire argument remains a house of cards built on "ifs" and "possibilities".



> CT's caveat is obviously a wise one, but what we are seeing in UT is not necessarily an inconsistency.



Yes, CT's caveat is a wise one and it is one that you and Tar-Elenion like to avoid paying any attention to. You say "what we are seeing in UT is *not necessarily* an inconsistency" [emphasis added]. Does this mean you admit that there may be an inconsistency? Of course, there is an inconsistency. The inconsistency is that Saruman's elite orc troops during LOTR are referred to as Uruk-hai but called Uruks in UT. This is clearly an inconsistency, a possibility that CT warned us of.



> Gorbag and Snaga tell Shagrat that a dangerous warrior, likely an Elf, is loose. Tolkien tells us that Sam's appearance was distorted to the Orcs, making him appear large and menacing. Hence the soldier-orc's mention of an Elf warrior fits perfectly with the information that Shagrat had to report. So the rumour is accurate.



But we (the readers) know that Sam is anything but an Elf warrior. This is even more true of the hobbit narrators of the story (Your internal story, remember? You seem to be confusing your arguments again by saying "Tolkien tells us". Please try to stick to one POV please.) We most defintely know Sam is not a warrior elf and hence this rumor is wildly inaccurate.



> Frodo is a hobbit; most people far from the Shire do not know what a hobbit is. "A sort of small dwarf-man" is a perfectly accurate description for a being of dwarvish stature but Mannish appearance.



But we (the readers), and the hobbit narrators (POV again, remember), know that Frodo is not a dwarf-man. It is another wildly inaccurate rumor. 



> Then we have "rebel Uruk-hai." We know that Gorbag and co. were Uruks. We know that Shagrat described Gorbag as a "rebel". From a reading of the text and Appendix, it is perfectly possible that "Uruk-hai" does not refer solely to Isengarders, but means "Uruk-folk". If so, we have a third accurate rumour. If not, we have an extremely wild one which is out of kilter with the other two. The first possibility seems much more probable.



Yes, indeed we have "rebel Uruk-hai" and the only Uruk-hai that have ever been mentioned in LOTR have been Saruman's. You say: "From a reading of the text and Appendix", but from the POV of your hobbit narrators there is no Appendix, there is only the narrative of the LOTR in which Uruk-hai has only been used in reference to Saruman's troops. Thus we have a third wild rumor, just like the other two. And as Aragil has pointed out, it is quite clear from the text that the two orcs are complaining about the fact that the "higher-ups" don't know what is going on. The clincher tip-off is the fourth possibility the soldier orc mentions. The fourth possibility mentioned is: "maybe it's all the lot together". Certainly the suggestion that a "warrior Elf" and a bunch of orcs have teamed up is an even wilder possibility than that some of Saruman's troops had slipped in to Mordor! Or are you suggesting that this last possibility is an "accurate rumor"?  



> It is unlikely in the extreme that an Isengard coinage would be understood by Mordor orcs of two different breeds. The soldier and tracker seem quite familiar with "Uruk-hai", which indicates that it is Black Speech, and refers to the soldier-orcs of Mordor as well. If "-hai" simply means "-folk", like many of Tolkien's other suffixes, then this makes perfect sense.



But the Isengard coinage would be perfectly understandable to any orc who knew the suffix "-hai" (whatever it means) that comes from the Orc language. And the first time any Mordor orc heard of Saruman's own breed of orc, named Uruk-hai, he certainly would have asked about the term if he didn't immediately understand it. And as I said it is entirely likely that Saruman's breeding of his own orcs would have taken some time and word would have filtered back to Mordor long since. That the two Mordor orcs know the term is no proof it is a Black Speech term. For that matter, you point out that orcs of different breeds speak Westron to each other, not Black Speech. In that case, why doesn't the soldier orc use the Westron word Uruks? Why does he use the supposed Black Speech word Uruk-hai?  



> The title of "The Uruk-hai" could easily have been "The Orcs"



So what? We all agree the Uruk-hai are some kind of orc breed. What does this prove? It is not called "The Orcs" or "The Orc Raid". It is called "The Uruk-hai", which you claim is a pure Black Speech word. You also claim ordinary folk in Middle-earth do not use Black Speech, but here we have your hobbit authors (your internal POV again, remember  ) using what you claim is a pure Black Speech word as a chapter title. Once again, your arguments are inconsistent. 



> If you replace Pippin's "in the clutches of the Uruk-hai" with "in the clutches of the Orcs", you can see that that would also serve perfectly.



Once again, so what? The narrator wrote Uruk-hai, not orc, and once again we have what you claim is a pure Black Speech term being used by someone you also claim does not use Black Speech. As mentioned above, your arguments are internally inconsistent.  



> This explanation, however, leaves oddities such as the soldier-orc's comments and the "Isen" passages from UT.



But there is nothing odd about the soldier orc's comments. What is odd is your interpretation of them.  



> We also have to struggle for a meaning for "-hai" that does not contradict what we know about Black Speech.



Once again, so? Are you saying there are no questions left in Tolkien's writings?  BTW, you are once again unjustifiably assuming "-hai" is Black Speech.



> Tolkien would be very unlikely to have made a clearly plural term singular.



You mean such a word as Nazgul?


----------



## aragil

Tar-Elenion: Thank you for the elucidation.

ShagratU:
In the letter to his son Tolkien was writing in the real world. In the real world 'folk' means humans. Tolkien is saying that there are no people (humans, folk, human beings, what have you) made bad with the intention of their creator, by which Tolkien meant God I'm sure. But you've already agreed with me that at this point Tolkien only meant for 'uruks' and 'uruk-hai' to apply to Saruman's Orcs.
When I said that 'Tolkien originally intended for Uruk-hai to be a plural term' the natural conclusion was that Uruk was the singular, so I hope you don't think you're arguing with me. 
As for goblin and orc being not quite equivalents, that is not my idea, that is CT's. HoME VI, p.437, note 35:


> This is not the first use of the word _Orcs_ in the LR papers: Gandalf refers to 'orcs and goblins' among the servants of the Dark Lord, pp.211, 364; cf. also pp. 187, 320. But the rarity of the usage at this stage is remarkable. The word _Orc_ goes back to the _Lost Tales_, and had been pervasive in all my father's subsequent writings. In the _Lost Tales_ the two terms were used as equivalents, though some times apparently distinquished (see II.364, entry _Goblins_). A clue may be found in a passage that occurs in both the earlier and the later _Quenta_ (IV .82, V.233): 'Goblins they may be called, _but in ancient days they were strong and fell.'_ At this stage it seems that 'Orcs' are to be regarded as a more formidable kind of 'Goblin'; so in the preliminary sketch for 'The Mines of Moria' (p. 443) Gandalf says 'there are goblins - of very evil kind, larger than usual, _real orcs.'_- It is Incidentally notable that in the first edition of _The Hobbit_ the word _Orcs_ is used only once (at the end of Chapter VII 'Queer Lodgings'), while in the published LR _goblins_ is hardly ever used.


My point from the revised Hobbit was that Tolkien was writing differently then in the original version- he specifically changed the wording from goblins to orcs to describe 'the big ones'. Please see http://www.ringgame.net/riddles.html#93 for a side by side comparison of the two versions.
As I have continuously tried to point out, the letter from 1944 does not use the word _uruks_ in the same sense as how it is used in the narrative. Between the letter writing in 1944 and the UT passage in the late 1960's, there was a change in connotation. This has been the point of this whole thread, I believe. We never see the term uruks applied to Ugluk and co. or the Helm's Deep crew at any point during the writing of the LotR. This only happens in UT, which means it was (intentionally or no) a break from the use of this term in LotR proper.
We do agree that Saruman's Orcs were on average larger than any other breed (I am counting my blessings). I think that it is revealing that Tolkien associates this increase in size with the ability to use larger (mannish) weapons, specifically the bows. If Tolkien had simply said that the slain Orcs at Amon Hen had 'large' equipment that would be one thing. But he specifically states 'their gear is not all of goblin-make' in the first draft, and 'they had bows of yew, in length and shape like the bows of Men' later. This to me is associating the Uruk-hai early on (at their first description) with men.
I agree completely that Tolkien abandoned Ugluk's use of Rohirric (Ugluk later calls them 'Whiteskins' and seems to generally despise them). My point is that from the beginning Tolkien wrote the Isengarders with mannish elements- their language and their gear. This association of the Isengarders with something mannish had not changed with the writings in Morgoth's Ring. From the inception of the term, 'Uruk-hai' has referred to something fundamentally different than the troops of Sauron, which were called first Orcs and then Uruks.
As for the external origin of the Isengarders, you were on the right track a couple of days ago. From HoME VII, p.347 note 18 (this is in the chapter 'The Story Forseen from Lorien'):


> Black orcs of Misty Mountains capture Merry and Pippin, bear them to Isengard.


 This is Tolkien's first conception of Merry and Pippin's capture at the Orc raid (he had earlier just had Merry and Pippin wander off from Amon-hen, eventually bumping in to Treebeard). We see that the large Orc-chieftain in Moria was originally akin to Ugluk and co (perhaps a putative Lurtz?). This is echoed in the later narrative by your passage from Appendix A, the House of Eorl, where it is great uruks of the Misty Mountains which Saruman eventually uses to create his hybrids.
As for Tolkien gifting a stronger breed to Sauron, in order to keep him competitive (but still clearly inferior) to Saruman in Orc-breeding: Tolkien had always given Sauron tougher troops than the run of the mill guys. This concept ran back before the concept of Saruman's Uruk-hai (see extended quote from HoME VI, above). The point is, they used to be called Orcs, then later they were called Uruks. They were not called Uruks to equate them to Saruman's (IMO), they were called Uruks because they could no longer be called 'veritable Orcs' after Tolkien dropped frequent use of the term goblins.
I think that there was evidence that the equivalence between uruks and Uruk-hai disappeared in the 1950's- there is the Index to LotR, at least. Hobbits, Halflings, Holbytlan, and Perrianath are all equated in the Index. Black Captain, Black Riders, Morgul-King, Morgul-Lord, Nazgul, the Nine, Ringwraiths, Winged Messenger, Witch Lord of Angmar, and Wraiths are all equated in the index. Even _gorgun_ and Orcs are equated, after only one usage of _gorgun_ in the text. There are three references for Uruks, and three for Uruk-hai in the index. This is a total of 6 references, none of which correspond to a group in both categories. Furthermore, the index does not cross-reference the two terms. Given there proximity, it is hard to imagine that Tolkien would forget to do this if he intended for the terms to be equivalent. Incidentally, this also implies to me that CT did *not* get his UT index entry from his father's original rough draft for the index of LotR.
As for mistake vs. shorthand, I prefer to say shorthand, as this gets away from the unsavory notion that our Good Professor was slowly beginning to muddle his terms, an occurence which surely did not spring up of a sudden in 1972. The shorthand theory is at least supported by the fact that Tolkien often used initials in manuscripts for names which he would later fill in. If he did this for notes he was handwriting, then he might have done it as well while typing (remember he only used two fingers). We do not know which names were given in full in the actual manuscript- CT says


> and except in minor details such as shifts in nomenclature (where retention of the *manuscript form* would lead to disproportionate confusion or disproportionate space in elucidation) I have made no alterations for the sake of consistency with published works;


 This certainly leaves the door open that CT might have replaced initials with words. Since CT is not JRRT there is the possibility that the former filled in a different name than the latter would have, had he ever revised the UT text or published it himself.
CT *was* startled that the first use of uruks appeared so late in the narrative, if I can read anything in his published words. HoME IX, p. 34, note 4:


> A few such details from the earliest form of the conclusion of the chapter may be mentioned. The orc 'slave-drivers' are called 'two of the large fierce _uruks_, the fighting-orcs (I told you fighting was synonymous with both Uruks and Uruk-hai -aragil)', and this seems to be the first time that the word was used (though the name _Uruk-hai_ had appeared long since, VII.409, VIII.22 see also p. 436);


It seems to me that CT thinks it odd that uruks is used so long after the term Uruk-hai has popped up, which is of course understandable since we know he equates the two terms in his mind. It is largely in consideration of this passage that I have been looking at earlier uses of 'veritable orcs', etc lately.
Finally, regarding Uruk-hai and it's application to men-orcs and orc-men. Doubtless you smell the resurgence of my 'hai' as men theory, which has been shelved for the past few days. Well, do we know for certain that the orc-men weren't joining the men-orcs at Helm's Deep in a rousing chorus of 'We are the fighting Uruk-hai'? Having recently re-read Robert Foster's definition of Uruk-hai, I note that he speculates that the southerner of Bree and the Chief's men of the Shire might have been Uruk-hai. Clearly I think Foster's definition as a whole is in error, but I wonder if he might not be on to something there. Were Orcish derivative languages (BS if you like) really subtle enough to distinguish between orc-men and men-orcs? Could 'hai' mean 'people' in terms of a group with a common civilization and ancestry? Did Saruman truly intend to get two distinct types of hybrids, or did he (by accident or otherwise) produce a continuum from 99.9% Orc to 99.9% Human, a continuum which could have been collectively labeled Uruk-hai?


----------



## aragil

*Gossiping abilities of Mordor Orcs:*

TT, p. 128:


> No tidings of the battle will come to Mordor, thanks to the horsemen of Rohan; but the Dark Lord knows that twwo hobbits were taken in the Emy Muil and borne away towards Isengard against the will of his own servants.


An excellent opportunity for the Dark Lord to learn of a new term. Grishnakh probably mentioned: 'They call themselves the fighting Uruk-hai', and claim that they serve Saruman'. How would the tracker and soldier have heard of this? Well, the soldier/tracker conversation comes from March 16th. The Head Nazgul passed away on March 15th, and the tracker alludes to this as well. Apparently Tolkien gives the Orcs pretty superlative powers of Gossip, and allows them access to all manner of information that their superiors would not want them to hear.


----------



## Greenwood

Just to add a liitle more timescale to Aragil's above post, Grishnakh left Ugluk and his band to make his report on the evening of February 26, twenty days before the conversation between the tracker and the soldier orc overheard by Sam and Frodo on March 16. Grishnakh could not have made his report directly to Sauron and still caught up with Ugluk with Mordor reinforcements. (Unless he used a palantir we have never been told about.  ) So Grishnakh's report would have to have gone by some form of messenger. With messengers presumably going back and forth at a great rate as war nears, twenty days would seem to be enough time for every orc in Mordor to hear the (for them) incredible news that Saruman had his own breed of orcs who refused to obey orders from Lugburz (clearly rebels!), if they did not already know about Saruman's Uruk-hai. We also have the following from the chapter "The Palantir": Pippin is asking Gandalf questions after his use of the palantir while Gandalf takes him on Shadowfax to Minas Tirith, Pippin is afraid that the Nazgul that passed overhead just after he looked in the palantir might have been sent for him. Gandalf replies: "Of course not. ... It is two hundred leagues or more in straight flight from Barad-dur to Orthanc, and even a Nazgul would take a few hours to fly between them. But Saruman certainly looked in the Stone *since the orc-raid*, and more of his secret thought, I do not doubt, has been read then he intended. A messenger has been sent to find out what he is doing. And after what has happened tonight another will come, I think, and swiftly. So Saruman will come to the last pinch of the vice that he has put his hand in. He has no captive to send. He has no Stone to see with, and cannot answer the summons. Sauron will only believe that he is witholding the captive and refusing to use the Stone. It will not help Saruman to tell the truth to the messenger. For Isengard may be ruined, yet he is still safe in Orthanc. So whether he will or no, *he will appear a rebel*." [emphasis added] Thus we (the readers) are being told that Saruman (and by extension his troops) will be considered *rebels* in Mordor. This is on March 5, eleven days before Frodo and Sam overhear the conversation between the orcs in Mordor. 

A rhetorical question. Could/would Sauron keep the news of Saruman's rebellion against Mordor and the existence of orcs loyal to Saruman secret? As Aragil has already pointed out the Mordor orcs seem to already know of the defeat in front of Minas Tirith only the day before, so we have evidence of the efficiency of the orc grapevine. And why would Sauron keep Saruman's rebellion secret? If Sauron doesn't tell his armies of Saruman's rebellion then Saruman could easily slip spies into Mordor by their pretending to still be serving both Saruman and Sauron. 

BTW, if you are going to argue that the efficient orc grapevine would have also brought word that Saruman's Uruk-hai had been destroyed at Helm's Deep: 1) it is one thing to have an efficient grapevine based on messages being passed back and forth within Mordor and from troops retreating from the defeat in front of Minas Tirith -- it is quite another for your grapevine to function over a couple of hundred leagues, much of it in enemy hands; 2) as Gandalf points out, Saruman is still safe in Orthanc; how can Mordor know that any reports of his armies being totally destroyed are really true and not a trick by Saruman; 3) there is no reason that Saruman could not have sent some Uruk-hai on a secret, rebellious mission to Mordor before his army is defeated at Helm's Deep (if it was). One thing about creatures prone to treachery -- they also tend to see treachery in all others.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> The term is related to the term 'Uruk-hai', and indicates the relatedness of the two (separate) breeds. However, the two terms are not synonymous, as evidenced by the fact that they have separate entries in the Index of LotR.



That there are separate entries in the index to LotR evidences that the words "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai" are different  but seperate entries itself does not speak to anglicization, or that both words might refer to the great soldier-orcs of Isengard and Mordor.

The index is helpful for what page X can be found at. Like in my edition:



> Free Folk, 298
> Free Peoples, 293



Two separate entries, immediately following (but not cross referencing) each other. Or another example of two slightly different indexes: in which I have an older edition with "Nine Walkers" and "Nine Companions" entered following "Nine, the", (no cross referencing); and another, post seventies example where both are entered under "Nine, the" rather, indented now, and as Companions, Walkers along with Riders and etc.; for ease to find some terms begining with nine of course.

In my edition entry Mithlond doesn't ref. Grey Havens, nor the other way round. And one would have to look/read elsewhere, outside of simply looking at the LotR index, to find out that Grey Havens is a translation of Mithlond. 

Like if one wanted to know about 'anglicization' for example, regarding two separate entries for Uruks and Uruk-hai


----------



## aragil

My objection here is that a person could look up the pages for 'Mithlond' and 'Grey Havens', and see from context that they are synonyms. The same would go for 'free folk'/'free people' and 'nine walkers'/'nine companions'. But these are singular instances in the text, and appear to be the exception to the rule as far as cross-referencing goes. We get three instances of Uruks, three of Uruk-hai. None of these instances refer to a group from the other 'category'. Tolkien made numerous cross-references for the Nazgul and the Hobbits, which were specific races. Why would he make an exception of Uruks and Uruk-hai, other than to show that they actually are different creatures?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

To further what Cian wrote: There are seperate entries for Elf (with Elves as a sub-entry), Elf-kindred, and Elven-folk.
Interestingly enough in the Index entry for Orcs, it (after listing usages) notes 'App. F' and 'See also Yrch'. App. F where we see that 'uruk' applies to both the Mordoreans and the Isengarders, and that the lesser breeds are called 'snaga' by the Uruk-hai (and we have both Isengarders and Mordoreans who call a lesser breed orc 'Snaga' in the narrative).
The Index then lists:
'Orcs of the Eye',
'of Mordor',
'of the Mountains',
'of the White Hand,... called Isengarders'.
Interesting, no specific cross reference to Uruks, or Uruk-hai.

But something that is very interesting is the Index entry Snaga.
"Snaga (slave), 441, 885-8, (_see_ 1105)"
The Index treats both uses of Snaga in the narrative proper as the same, and the refers the reader to pg. 1105, which is App. F in the edition I have at hand. This would be App. F where we learn that the Uruk-hai call lesser Orcs 'snaga'. A single entry for Snaga, with its uses treated exactly the same and the reader is referred to App. F for clarification of who it is used for and who uses it. Textual evidence that both Sauron's and Saruman's great soldier-Orcs are Uruk-hai.

Greenwood: regarding '-hai' and the B.S.
JRRT wrote in App. F that "Olog-hai they were called in the Black Speech" (and also the "only tongue that they knew was the Black Speech of Barad-dur").

Aragil, you are welcome.


----------



## Greenwood

Tar-Elenion

What edition are you working from? It sounds like you have an edition where some later editor has done extensive modifications to the Index. I have my copy of the US Balantine paperback edition of RTOK open in front of me (I recently purchased it because my hardcover copies of the first edition does not contain an index.  ) This book is clearly labeled on the copyright page as the 113th printing of the first Ballantine edition dated October 1965 (during Tolkien's lifetime). It also says that this edition is published "by arrangement with Houghton Mifflin", Tolkien's American publisher. Given all of the above I assume the index in this edition is the index Tolkien himself approved since it was published during his lifetime.

Getting to the index: 1) there are *no* seperate entries for Elf, Elf-kindred and Elven-folk as in your edition. 2) under Orcs there is *no* listing of usages and *no* notes about Appendix F or "See also Yrch". (Under Yrch, it does say "see Orcs") 3) Under Orcs there is ---, of the Eye, etc., but after "of the White Hand", it does *not* say "called Isengarders". 4) Under the entry for Snaga there is *no* mention of slave and no reference to the Appendix.

Thus whatever edition you have seems to have an Index that differs from the one Tolkien saw. Apparently it was revised by someone who was familiar with the Uruks = Uruk-hai theory, but it apparently was not JRRT. You might try checking the copyright page and any introductory material in your edition for information on who actually prepared or modified the Index.  

Re: the great Snaga debate. Appendix F does indeed say that the Uruk-hai use the word snaga to mean slave and this does tell us that Ugluk, unquestionably a Uruk-hai, was calling his scout "Slave". This clearly differentiates this usage from the chapter in RTOK where the orc in the service of the tower of Cirith Ungol is named Snaga (as Christopher Tolkien also recognizes.)  



> JRRT wrote in App. F that "Olog-hai they were called in the Black Speech" (and also the "only tongue that they knew was the Black Speech of Barad-dur").



So? The Druedain essay in UT clearly states orcs called the Druedain Oghor-hai. This was at a time before Sauron devised Black Speech. This does not contradict anything in LOTR. You have championed the use of Tolkien's posthumously published material as well as linguistic analysis. That is what I am doing here. The term Oghor-hai predates Sauron's invention of Black Speech. That means the suffix "-hai" is of Orcish derivation, though apparently Sauron borrowed it for Black Speech, at least for Olog-hai. In that case Uruk-hai can also be of Orcish derivation. Appendix F, much as you try to twist it, says "the word _uruk_ of the Black Speech". It does not say "Uruk-hai of the Black Speech".


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Tar-Elenion
> What edition are you working from? It sounds like you have an edition where some later editor has done extensive modifications to the Index.



Ah, I see, so now we seem to have 'editors' modifying JRRT's work in LotR. Interesting.



> I have my copy of the US Balantine paperback edition of RTOK open in front of me (I recently purchased it because my hardcover copies of the first edition does not contain an index.  ) This book is clearly labeled on the copyright page as the 113th printing of the first Ballantine edition dated October 1965 (during Tolkien's lifetime). It also says that this edition is published "by arrangement with Houghton Mifflin", Tolkien's American publisher.



Yes, I have that edition too, though from a much earlier printing.



> Given all of the above I assume the index in this edition is the index Tolkien himself approved since it was published during his lifetime.



Well the one I was specifically using was the Houghton Mifflin 'One-Volume' paperback edition. The books in it are copywrited to 1966. This version is often considered the most authoritative.

However the same index is found in my HM hardcover (cloth) edition with a 1965 copywrite.
It also notes that: "The text of this edition incorporates all corrections and revisions intended by its author and constitutes an authoritative edition of Lord of the Rings, uniform with that published in Great Britain by HarperCollinsPublishers."
We can also go to my red leather bound cloth collectors edition in the red slip case which incorporates the same note I quoted above.

There is also the 'Note to the Text' in the 'Collectors Edition' and the HM paperback One Volume edition. In that 'Note on the Text' it states that JRRT first received the Ballantine edition (the one you have) in Jan '66, and found a number of errors in it particularly noting the Appendices. It notes that of the revised edition text that I am holding first appeared in Great Britain (issued by Allen and Unwin) in Nov. 1966. It notes that the text of this edition is slightly different than that of the Ballantine text "perhaps due to closer attention to Tolkien's direction for revision". It also notes of the Ballantine text that JRRT's "revisions were sometimes sloppily incorporated or simply overlooked", and makes note of the "errant Ballantine branch of revision". For the Allen and Unwin 1966 edition the "appendices were reset to include Tolkien's extensive revisions and the index". This introduced some typographical errors, which JRRT corrected and these were then added to the second impressions in 1967. It notes that in all HM editions derives from the '67 A&U edition. The Collector's Edition that I am holding is a 'photo off-set' of that three volume British edition, which had been "the most authoritative text available". It goes on to state "The present text, then, is the most faithful to the author's intent".



> Getting to the index: 1) there are *no* seperate entries for Elf, Elf-kindred and Elven-folk as in your edition. 2) under Orcs there is *no* listing of usages and *no* notes about Appendix F or "See also Yrch". (Under Yrch, it does say "see Orcs") 3) Under Orcs there is ---, of the Eye, etc., but after "of the White Hand", it does *not* say "called Isengarders". 4) Under the entry for Snaga there is *no* mention of slave and no reference to the Appendix.



The index you have does not contain those things yes. But it is from an earlier errant and sloppy revision. The index I have, on the other hand, is from a later revision that more carefully followed JRRT's directions (the Brit's were doing it right) and had overseen further corrections to the text implemented as per JRRT's directions and notes. As it notes:
"The text of this edition incorporates all corrections and revisions intended by its author and constitutes an authoritative edition of Lord of the Rings, uniform with that published in Great Britain by HarperCollinsPublishers."



> Thus whatever edition you have seems to have an Index that differs from the one Tolkien saw. Apparently it was revised by someone who was familiar with the Uruks = Uruk-hai theory, but it apparently was not JRRT. You might try checking the copyright page and any introductory material in your edition for information on who actually prepared or modified the Index.



The one you have does not even have 'Isengarders, Orcs of Saruman'. And yours has that 'mis-spelling' of 'Galadhrim' (it leaves out the 'h').

Thus your edition is 'sloppy' and JRRT wanted things about it corrected. My edition was 'apparently' revised by JRRT and in accord with _his_ instructions and with attention paid there to and with later corrections of typographical errors and misprints from. Apparently JRRT did not like the one he saw in the Ballantine edition, and revised it further.

So once again:
But something that is very interesting is the Index entry Snaga. 
"Snaga (slave), 441, 885-8, (see 1105)" 
The Index treats both uses of Snaga in the narrative proper as the same, and the refers the reader to pg. 1105, which is App. F in the edition I have at hand. This would be App. F where we learn that the Uruk-hai call lesser Orcs 'snaga'. A single entry for Snaga, with its uses treated exactly the same and the reader is referred to App. F for clarification of who it is used for and who uses it. Textual evidence that both Sauron's and Saruman's great soldier-Orcs are Uruk-hai.


----------



## Greenwood

> Ah, I see, so now we seem to have 'editors' modifying JRRT's work in LotR. Interesting.



I take it you have never worked with or as an editor?


----------



## Greenwood

> There is also the 'Note to the Text' in the 'Collectors Edition' and the HM paperback One Volume edition. In that 'Note on the Text' it states that JRRT first received the Ballantine edition (the one you have) in Jan '66, and found a number of errors in it particularly noting the Appendices.



Note: "the Appendicies".



> It also notes that: "The *text* of this edition incorporates all corrections and revisions intended by its author and constitutes an authoritative edition of Lord of the Rings, uniform with that published in Great Britain by HarperCollinsPublishers." [emphasis added -- Greenwood]





> It notes that of the revised edition *text* that I am holding first appeared in Great Britain (issued by Allen and Unwin) in Nov. 1966. It notes that the *text* of this edition is slightly different than that of the Ballantine *text* "perhaps due to closer attention to Tolkien's direction for revision". It also notes of the Ballantine *text* that JRRT's "revisions were sometimes sloppily incorporated or simply overlooked", and makes note of the "errant Ballantine branch of revision". [emphasis added -- Greenwood]





> This introduced some typographical errors, which JRRT corrected and these were then added to the second impressions in 1967. It notes that in all HM editions derives from the '67 A&U edition. The Collector's Edition that I am holding is a 'photo off-set' of that three volume British edition, which had been "the most authoritative *text* available". It goes on to state "The present *text*, then, is the most faithful to the author's intent". [emphasis added -- Greenwood]



Definition form Random House Webster's Dictionary: "text -- the main body of matter in a manuscript, book, etc., as distinguished from notes, appendixes, illustrations, etc." I believe the etc. in the foregoing defintion would normally be considered to include an index.



> For the Allen and Unwin 1966 edition the "appendices were reset to include Tolkien's extensive revisions and the index".



No, I didn't forget this one. It says there were extensive revisions to the *appendices* by Tolkien, it does not say to the index. Perhaps you can give the complete sentence and the sentences before and after it so that we can see a complete context. Certainly, nothing you have presented here says that the revisions by Tolkien you refer to were in the index.



> So once again:
> But something that is very interesting is the Index entry Snaga.
> "Snaga (slave), 441, 885-8, (see 1105)"
> The Index treats both uses of Snaga in the narrative proper as the same, and the refers the reader to pg. 1105, which is App. F in the edition I have at hand. This would be App. F where we learn that the Uruk-hai call lesser Orcs 'snaga'. A single entry for Snaga, with its uses treated exactly the same and the reader is referred to App. F for clarification of who it is used for and who uses it. Textual evidence that both Sauron's and Saruman's great soldier-Orcs are Uruk-hai.



So once again: Appendix F tells us that the Uruk-hai (in this case Ugluk) use snaga to mean slave. Our attention is drawn by the index to the fact of two usages of the made up word snaga and the fact that the Uruk-hai (Ugluk), use it to mean slave. Appendix F most definitely does not say "the lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruks, snaga, slave". Appendix F does not equate Uruks with Uruk-hai; that is your unproven defintion.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Tar-Elenion wrote:]
> For the Allen and Unwin 1966 edition the "appendices were reset to include Tolkien's extensive revisions and the index".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't forget this one. It says there were extensive revisions to the appendices by Tolkien, it does not say to the index. Perhaps you can give the complete sentence and the sentences before and after it so that we can see a complete context. Certainly, nothing you have presented here says that the revisions by Tolkien you refer to were in the index.
Click to expand...


It says the reset appendices included Tolkien's revisions and the index.
There are no sentences before it per se, it is the start of a new paragraph. The paragraph before it says the Allen and Unwin edition is different than the earlier Ballantine edition due to closer attention paid by A&U and that the hurried work of Ballantine led to revisions being sloppily incorporated or overlooked.

The complete sentence reads: "For this 1966 Allen & Unwin edition the appendices were reset to include Tolkien's extensive revisions and the index. This introduced a number of typographical errors which are often mistaken for revision. A close scrutiny of the first edition text and of the much later corrected impressions of the second edition is therefore necessary to discern whether any particular change in this edition is authorial or erroneous." 

As I have noted I have a different edition with the same index. JRRT saw this edition and even made further corrections evidenced in his 'check copies'.


----------



## aragil

First off, I'd just like to say that Tar-Elenion, if you have learned how to put a quote inside a quote, then you now have some explaining for the rest of us.
Secondly, regarding this whole 'snaga' thing. We all know what the passage in appendix F says:


> The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, _snaga_ 'slave'.


It does not say that only the Uruk-hai called lesser breeds snaga, only that they were _especially_ prone to do so. This implies to me that any greater breed would call a lesser breed snaga. In Greenwood's and my theory, the Uruks of Mordor are a greater breed than Snaga of Cirith Ungol. Therefore the Uruks could also call lesser breeds snaga, they just might not have been as prone to it as the Uruk-hai. As I have pointed out to Harad in the pentorclete thread, Shagrat seems to share a lot of traits in common with Ugluk. In my mind the two are more alike then either of them are to Grishnakh or Gorbag. Perhaps Shagrat is equally as arrogant as Ugluk, and so has dubbed one of the lesser Orcs in his command 'Snaga'. I doubt he referred to all such lesser Orcs in his command as snaga, as that would have been confusing for every Orc involved. In my own opinion, Snaga was probably some sort of nickname, like 'Radar' in the MASH tv series. Now that I think of it, Snaga reminds me a lot of an evil, Orcish Radar. I can even imagine Radar saying to Colonel Potter '_Nar! Keep your hands off your knife, or I'll put an arrow in your guts_.' Well, maybe not.
Anyway, I have the Haughton Mifflin version from which Tar-Elenion might be quoting, and I note that terms for the same creatures are still usually cross-referenced, like Oliphaunt and Mumak, and the paragraph of different names for the Nazgul. Still the terms Uruks and Uruk-hai are not equated (also Gorbag's statement has been dropped from the entries for uruks-it's on p.721, so I guess no index is perfect). Our point still remains that Uruks is never equated with Uruk-hai in the indices, whether the oft-inaccurate Ballantine, the Haughton-Mifflin, Del-Rey, or thrice revered Allen-Unwin versions. Of course, this indicates to me that the creatures were different, but even more it indicates that CT did not get his UT definition from his father's indices. He did have the letter of 1944 to equate the two terms, but as both CT and I have pointed out, that letter was written before 'Uruks' was applied to Mordor Orcs. The telling thing is that the concept of Uruks predates the use of the term, or even the concept of Saruman's Orcs. They were the 'veritable Orcs' of Moria, or the 'big ones, the orcs of the mountains' in the revision to The Hobbit. 'Veritable Orcs pre-dates the conception of Saruman's Uruk-hai, 'big ones' is after that conception. Both predate the application of the term 'uruks' to Mordor Orcs, and neither one indicates that the uruks have the chief characteristics of the Uruk-hai: mannish equipment and Sun-tolerance. It is fairly clear to me that Tolkien came up with the term Uruk-hai early on for the troops of Saruman. When looking for a name for the large soldiers of Mordor (6 years later), he chose Uruks. I still see no indication that Tolkien intended the two terms to be equivalent, however closely related they are.


----------



## Grond

Since I can absolutely assert that Tar-Elenion's index is definitive myself, I would like for someone to argue the points he brought up one by one. They are valid and have yet to be refuted in the index argument. Greenwood, your index is not the definitive one and that should be conceded and the argument be picked up again on the merits.


----------



## Harad

I dont want to have to come here to defend Grishnakh. But I will. Shagrat and Grishnakh were Orcs from the same Old School. Call them what you want, they both were Styes in the Red Eye.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> By your own linguistic type of analysis, this makes it impossible for "-hai" to be Black Speech, but instead it must be an Orcish speech element. *



"Olog-hai" demonstrates conclusively that "-hai" is a Black Speech element. "Uruk-hai" is thus composed of two Black Speech elements.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> You are the one ignoring your own wish to use the posthumously published material by ignoring this. You are now apparently trying to pick and choose which bits of linguistic history you like. *



Not so. I would agree with you that the posthumously published material cannot be used to _contradict_ the published sources, but only to illuminate them. There are clearly chronological inconsistencies in Tolkien's unpublished works, and this would appear to be one of them. We know from LotR that "-hai" is Black Speech. 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * BTW, if Ugluk is speaking Westron when he talks to Grishnakh (which is clearly stated in the text), why does he use a Black Speech word, Uruk-hai? (If that is, Uruk-hai is a Black Speech word as you claim.) Why does he not use the Westron equivalent, Uruks? *



Because certain Black Speech elements are common to all Orcish dialects, with "Uruk-hai" evidently being one of them. There is clearly no need for Ugluk to anglicize "Uruk-hai", as it is a term used and understood by Mordor Orcs of different breeds. English speakers frequently use foreign terms when they know that those terms are understood by their listeners. 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * The same question applies to Saruman's orcs at Helm's Deep. They are clearly speaking Westron to Aragorn. Why don't they use Uruks?*



They are stating who they are; there is no need for them to Anglicize the term. Anglicizations tend to occur when _native_ English speakers use a term frequently and adapt it to their own patterns for convenience.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * If Uruk-hai is pure Black Speech, as you say, why is this the only Black Speech word they use? Especially, if as you say Black Speech is only spoken by the Captains of Mordor. *



Tolkien tells us that the different Orcish groups preserved some Black Speech elements in their dialects. 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Your arguments are filled with "ifs" and "possibilities".*



That's because they are reasonable, and advanced reasonably! 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * These are not proofs. You and Tar-Elenion constantly use ifs and possibilities and then treat the results as facts. You then use these dubious "facts" to proof your initial "ifs" and "possibilities", but your entire argument remains a house of cards built on "ifs" and "possibilities". *



_Any_ argument on this issue has to be built on "ifs and possibilities", or rather, _probabilities_. This is due to the absence of a clear definition of the term by JRRT (although CT's UT index entry may be drawn from such a definition). Without such a definition, we can _all_ only argue on probabilities. However, some things are definite, such as the fact that JRRT used "Uruks" to describe Saruman's elite Orcish troops. 




> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * The inconsistency is that Saruman's elite orc troops during LOTR are referred to as Uruk-hai but called Uruks in UT. This is clearly an inconsistency, a possibility that CT warned us of. *



No, it's not clearly an inconsistency. Saruman's great orcs are described as "uruks" in LotR, and we are told that the term _uruk_ applied to them in Appendix F. Given Tolkien's demonstrable inconsistency with capitalization, UT is entirely consistent with LotR on this point.

LotR allows for the possibility that "Uruks" can refer to Saruman's great soldier-orcs; the "Isen" text is therefore not inconsistent with LotR on this point.


----------



## ShagratU

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * But we (the readers) know that Sam is anything but an Elf warrior. This is even more true of the hobbit narrators of the story (Your internal story, remember? You seem to be confusing your arguments again by saying "Tolkien tells us". Please try to stick to one POV please.) We most defintely know Sam is not a warrior elf and hence this rumor is wildly inaccurate. *



The hobbit narrators are reporting what the orcs said. We know from what they said that their information was consistent with the information that Shagrat had to report. _Shagrat's_ information was in fact incorrect on this point, but he had good reason to believe that there was indeed an Elf-warrior loose. Therefore the orc's comments are consistent with Shagrat's information.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * But we (the readers), and the hobbit narrators (POV again, remember), know that Frodo is not a dwarf-man. It is another wildly inaccurate rumor. *



Being a hobbit, Frodo _is_ a "sort of small dwarf-man". That's what hobbits are.




> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Yes, indeed we have "rebel Uruk-hai" and the only Uruk-hai that have ever been mentioned in LOTR have been Saruman's.*



Which proves nothing as to whether the term can be applied to Mordor-orcs or not. This reference may be to "Uruk-folk" of Mordor. The previous usage of the term does not rule out the possibility.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * You say: "From a reading of the text and Appendix", but from the POV of your hobbit narrators there is no Appendix, there is only the narrative of the LOTR in which Uruk-hai has only been used in reference to Saruman's troops.*



In the "internal" concept, the hobbit narrators are reporting the speech of the orcs, not inventing it. They do not necessarily understand it. They clearly do not understand the usage of "Snaga", and use it as a proper name. At the time, Frodo and Sam had never heard the term "Uruk-hai". They might well have inferred that it was a reference to the "black Uruks" of Mordor, which it may well have been.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * Thus we have a third wild rumor, just like the other two.*



The first two rumours are highly consistent with the information that Shagrat had to report. He was told that there was a great warrior around, who was probably or possibly an Elf. He had captured a sort of small dwarf-man. It thus seems very likely that the third rumour is equally consistent with Shagrat's information, and that Gorbag's troop were in fact "a pack of rebel Uruk-hai."



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * And as Aragil has pointed out, it is quite clear from the text that the two orcs are complaining about the fact that the "higher-ups" don't know what is going on.*



The "Higher-Ups" don't know exactly what is going on. They only have the information provided by Shagrat and perhaps the Nazgul to go on, and they don't know the full story. That doesn't change the fact that the orcs have information that is highly consistent with Shagrat's knowledge of the situation.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * The clincher tip-off is the fourth possibility the soldier orc mentions. The fourth possibility mentioned is: "maybe it's all the lot together". Certainly the suggestion that a "warrior Elf" and a bunch of orcs have teamed up is an even wilder possibility than that some of Saruman's troops had slipped in to Mordor! Or are you suggesting that this last possibility is an "accurate rumor"? *



It _was_"all the lot together."  "Together" need not imply that the three parties are working in concert, merely that they were all involved in the disturbance at the Tower. 

We the readers know that Sam was not in fact an Elf warrior, but Shagrat didn't know that, and had reason to believe that he was. Shagrat also knew that a "sort of small dwarf-man" and, evidently, a "pack of rebel Uruk-hai" were involved.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * But the Isengard coinage would be perfectly understandable to any orc who knew the suffix "-hai" (whatever it means) that comes from the Orc language.*



You are forgetting that there is no such thing as "the Orc language". Tolkien is very clear on this point. The Orcish dialects are mutually incomprehensible, but do have common elements derived from Black Speech.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * That the two Mordor orcs know the term is no proof it is a Black Speech term. *



But Appendix F demonstrates quite clearly that it is a Black Speech term. 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> * For that matter, you point out that orcs of different breeds speak Westron to each other, not Black Speech. In that case, why doesn't the soldier orc use the Westron word Uruks? Why does he use the supposed Black Speech word Uruk-hai? *



Because the word is perfectly comprehensible. Why would Orcs "anglicize" a term when there was no need to? It's native speakers of English who tend to Anglicize terms, not those who speak it as a second language.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> But there is nothing odd about the soldier orc's comments. What is odd is your interpretation of them. *



The soldier-orc supplies three rumours. The first two are highly consistent with the information available to Shagrat. It's perfectly possible that the third is too.

What is odd is insisting that the soldier-orc's reference must be to Isengarders rather than Gorbag's troops. Until this point, "Uruk-hai" has only been used in reference to Saruman's troops, but that doesn't mean it cannot be applied to Sauron's. The soldier-orc's comments suggest very strongly that it can. By way of analogy, until the Appendices, "uruks" has only been used in reference to Sauron's troops. However a single reference demonstrates that it can also be applied to Saruman's. 



> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> You mean such a word as Nazgul? *



Nazgul is evidently neither singular nor plural. Black Speech does not appear to have plurals as English does, but appears instead to rely on group markers such as "-hai". Therefore Tolkien has not made a singular term plural, as you claim. What he has not done is provide us with an Anglicization of a term for a group of Nazgul, presumably because such an "Anglicization" never occurred, the Nazgul not having been a commonplace for centuries like the Uruks.]


----------



## ShagratU

*Shagrat's information*

There was a lot of discussion earlier in this thread about the timetable of Shagrat's report of the goings-on at the Tower of Cirith Ungol. I would like to add the following observations:

1) Shagrat appears to have commanded other orcs than those in the Tower (who were all killed). We know this from the conversation between the tracker and the soldier-orc. It appears that Shagrat was the soldier-orc's commanding officer, although the soldier was obviously not stationed at the Tower. We can infer that aside from the Tower, there were also detachments under Shagrat's control in the surrounding area, probably based in orc-holds such as that the tracker calls home.

2) Such orcs were most likely the first individuals to whom Shagrat conveyed his information, _en route_ to Barad-dur. This explains why the soldier-orc's comments match so closely with the information that Shagrat had to report.

3) The tracker and soldier appear to know that Shagrat is alive, but likely to be facing demotion or worse. This indicates very strongly that the search parties received their orders from sources who had heard Shagrat's account of events, perhaps first-hand. 

All of this suggests that the soldier-orc's information is based on Shagrat's own account, perhaps relayed by Shagrat's subordinates in other orc-holds. Given the fidelity of the soldier's information to Shagrat's, we have strong reason to suspect that "rebel Uruk-hai" is indeed a reference to Gorbag's band, and not to some imaginary group of Isengarders.


----------



## Greenwood

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *Since I can absolutely assert that Tar-Elenion's index is definitive myself, I would like for someone to argue the points he brought up one by one. They are valid and have yet to be refuted in the index argument. Greenwood, your index is not the definitive one and that should be conceded and the argument be picked up again on the merits. *



Grond 

I will concede that there are evidently a number of versions of the LOTR index out there and that evidently the one in my copies is not the latest. However, nothing in the various quotes that Tar-Elenion posts about revisions is specific to the Index. That aside, I will go back and respond as you ask to the points he makes from his version of the index.

In the index in the editions Tar-Elenion has, as apparently in all the indices mentioned, Uruks and Uruk-hai are given seperate entries as Aragil pointed out. If it turns out that there are creatures in LOTR that are the same, but have different names referring to them and each name is given a seperate entry, then all that can be said about seperate entries in the index is that it doesn't mean anything. Unless the entries are directly cross-referenced (as apparently Uruks and Uruk-hai never are), the seperate index entries certainly does not prove that the two are identical. As Aragil has pointed out, however, given that none of the versions of the index have Uruks and Uruk-hai together or even cross-referenced to each other, this is a strong indication that CT's single index entry for the two terms in UT did not come from his father's draft index.



> There are seperate entries for Elf (with Elves as a sub-entry), Elf-kindred, and Elven-folk.



Without knowing what each of these entries refers to it is hard to respond, but if Elf-kindred refers to the so-called half-elven such as Elrond, then they are different from elves and deserve a seperate entry. I do not know what Elven-folk is referring to.



> Interestingly enough in the Index entry for Orcs, it (after listing usages) notes 'App. F' and 'See also Yrch'. App. F where we see that 'uruk' applies to both the Mordoreans and the Isengarders, and that the lesser breeds are called 'snaga' by the Uruk-hai (and we have both Isengarders and Mordoreans who call a lesser breed orc 'Snaga' in the narrative).



I have agreed that Appendix F says the Black Speech word uruk refers to the large soldier orcs of Isengard and Mordor. Appendix F, however, does not say that Uruks and Uruk-hai are equivalent. I have already, repeatedly stated my views on the snaga issue and why it also does not make Uruks and Uruk-hai equivalent.



> The Index then lists:
> 'Orcs of the Eye',
> 'of Mordor',
> 'of the Mountains',
> 'of the White Hand,... called Isengarders'.
> Interesting, no specific cross reference to Uruks, or Uruk-hai.



I do not see how this sheds any light either way on the question at hand.

In regard to the snaga entry I repeat what I saud before:

Re: the great Snaga debate. Appendix F does indeed say that the Uruk-hai use the word snaga to mean slave and this does tell us that Ugluk, unquestionably a Uruk-hai, was calling his scout "Slave". This clearly differentiates this usage from the chapter in RTOK where the orc in the service of the tower of Cirith Ungol is named Snaga (as Christopher Tolkien also recognizes.)


----------



## Greenwood

> There are no sentences before it per se, it is the start of a new paragraph. The paragraph before it says the Allen and Unwin edition is different than the earlier Ballantine edition due to closer attention paid by A&U and that the hurried work of Ballantine led to revisions being sloppily incorporated or overlooked.
> 
> The complete sentence reads: "For this 1966 Allen & Unwin edition the appendices were reset to include Tolkien's extensive revisions and the index. This introduced a number of typographical errors which are often mistaken for revision. A close scrutiny of the first edition text and of the much later corrected impressions of the second edition is therefore necessary to discern whether any particular change in this edition is authorial or erroneous."



Tar-Elenion

Thank you for taking the time to give the full quote. It does not change what you posted earlier, so I will merely repeat what I said earlier: It says there were extensive revisions to the appendices by Tolkien, it does not say to the index.


----------



## Greenwood

> *Quote by ShagratU*
> "Olog-hai" demonstrates conclusively that "-hai" is a Black Speech element.



How does it demonstrate "conclusively that -hai is a Black Speech element"? All Appendix F says is that a certain type of troll was called Olog-hai in Black Speech. Appendix F also says that _uruk_ is Black Speech, but it does not say that Uruk-hai is Black Speech. The only other word we are ever given in any of Tolkien's writing is Oghor-hai and it clearly comes from a time before Black Speech. This clearly indicates that "-hai" predates Black Speech. You wish to say that it indicates a chronological inconsistency between LOTR and the Druedain essay. I do not see any inconsistency. There is nothing in LOTR to prove "-hai" is Black Speech. The Druedain essay indicates it is not, this is not an inconsistency, but a clarification and you say we should look to the unpublished works for such clarifications. You seem to want to declare inconsistencies only when they are convenient for you.



> Because certain Black Speech elements are common to all Orcish dialects, with "Uruk-hai" evidently being one of them.



Or these elements could come from the Orcish dialects that predate Black Speech as the suffix "-hai" is shown to do by the term Oghor-hai.  



> They are stating who they are; there is no need for them to Anglicize the term.



I agree, Saruman's troops are stating who they are, the Uruk-hai. That is the reason they do not use the term Uruks.  



> Any argument on this issue has to be built on "ifs and possibilities", or rather, probabilities. This is due to the absence of a clear definition of the term by JRRT (although CT's UT index entry may be drawn from such a definition). Without such a definition, we can all only argue on probabilities. However, some things are definite, such as the fact that JRRT used "Uruks" to describe Saruman's elite Orcish troops.



We agree, JRRT never gave a clear definition and all we can go on are his usages in LOTR where Uruk-hai are Saruman's troops and Uruks are Sauron's.  



> Saruman's great orcs are described as "uruks" in LotR, and we are told that the term uruk applied to them in Appendix F.



Saruman's troops in LOTR are called Uruk-hai, not Uruks. Appendix F tells us uruk is a Black Speech word and it is indeed used for Saruman's elite troops in its modified form of Uruk-hai.

As to the soldier and tracker orc exchange, it is clear where the rumors came from, what is equally clear is that they are all wildly wrong: Sam is not an elf-warrior -- Sam is a hobbit; Frodo is not a dwarf-man -- Frodo is a hobbit; Gorbag was not a rebel Uruk-hai of Isengard -- Gorbag was a thiefing Mordor uruk; and there are no elf-warrior, dwarf-men and Uruk-hai running around together in Mordor.


More later.


----------



## Strider97

"As for the other kind of Troll, the Olog-hai, no reference to their origin has been found, except for Appendix F: "That Sauron bred them none doubted, though from what stock was not known." However, they were definitely true Trolls, not large Orcs."
Source:Tolkien FAQ and book list by William D. B. Loos 

Since a theme of Tolkien was that evil could corrupt but not create a species it seems logical that the olog-hai is a bred version of a troll and was given a derivative name to signify the difference. olog=Troll hai= from or after
Tolkien in appendix f said that the Uruk-hai emitted from both Mordor and Isengard. If the suffix -hai indicateds a modified or bred version would it be logical to conclude that the Uruk-Hai is a modified or further corruption of the uruks the Black language word for orc. Who they were bred with I can find no indication. The Uruk-hai could have believed that they were a superior versionof the more traditional orc (uruk) therfore the prideful declaration that we are the fighting Uruk-Hai.This is also probably why no self-respecting Uruk-hai would ever refer to themself as a uruk. I believe that uruks (basic orcs) and the Uruk-hai a larger next generation orc existed both in Mordor and Isengard and were used by both Sauron and Sauruman.


----------



## Greenwood

> *Quote by ShagratU*
> What is odd is insisting that the soldier-orc's reference must be to Isengarders rather than Gorbag's troops. Until this point, "Uruk-hai" has only been used in reference to Saruman's troops, but that doesn't mean it cannot be applied to Sauron's. The soldier-orc's comments suggest very strongly that it can. By way of analogy, until the Appendices, "uruks" has only been used in reference to Sauron's troops. However a single reference demonstrates that it can also be applied to Saruman's.



And this is the crux of the whole debate. You and Tar-Elenion have insisted the soldier orc's comments refer to Gorbag and his boys. Now you say that the comments "suggest" that Uruk-hai can be applied to Sauron's orcs. (The strength of a suggestion doesn't matter, it is still only a suggestion.) Aragil and I argue that there is just as much, or more, reason for it to "suggest" the Uruk-hai reference is to Saruman's troops. When you combine that with the fact that the reader has never heard the term used for or by any troops except Saruman's you have a veritable certainty. And yes "until the Appendices, "uruks" has only been used in reference to Sauron's troops". That is exactly our point! Tolkien would be a very poor storyteller indeed to write LOTR in such a way that his readers read the whole narrative and are given a consistent usage of uruks for Sauron's troops (which of course argues against the soldier orc meaning Sauron's troops in his Uruk-hai statement) and Uruk-hai for Saruman's troops, only to confuse his readers by equating the terms in the Appendix! One thing we all agree on is that Tolkien was not a poor storyteller but a great one!

Let us look at Tolkien's Introduction to the First Edition. In it, referring to the third volume, ROTK, Tolkien says: "And for those who like such lore in an appendix some brief account is given of the languages, alphabets, and calendars that were used in the Westlands in the Third Age of Middle-earth. Those who do not need such information, or who do not wish for it, *may neglect these pages* and the strange names that they may meet they may, of course, pronounce as they like. Care has been given to their transcription from the original alphabets, and some notes are offered on the intentions of the spelling adopted. [There is a footnote making it clear that by spelling, Tolkien is talking in reference to pronounciation.] *But not all are interested in such matters, and many who are not may still find the account of these great and valiant deeds worth the reading.* It was in that hope that I began the work of translating and selecting the stories of the Red Book, part of which are now presented to Men of a later Age, one almost as darkling and ominous as was the Third Age that ended with the great years 1418 and 1419 of the Shire long ago." [emphasis added] Here we have Tolkien at the outset of LOTR anticipating that many readers will not read the Appendices. Indeed, he is encouraging those readers who are not interested in further Middle-earth history and minutia to *not* read the Appendices. [In the Introduction to UT, CT cites a letter of his father's in which JRRT says: "I now wish that no appendices had been promised!" This letter was written before ROTK was published. -- added in later edit.] However, you are insisting that Tolkien was such a bad writer that he is going to change the meaning of words and passages in the narrative for those readers who do read the Appendices and leave the readers who do not read the Appendices with a false impression. Thus, readers of the Appendices are admitted to some sort of secret fraternity with a truer understanding of the LOTR narrative than those who do not. I do not believe that Tolkien was playing these sorts of head games with his readers, or was that bad a writer. Those are the only choices if you are arguing that the meanings of words are going to be changed for those that read the Appendices while Tolkien is telling his readers: "Don't bother to read the Appendices if you don't want to, you will still understand the story without the Appendices." As I said, this is the very crux of our argument. When you argue that we can only really understand the true meaning of Uruks and Uruk-hai from reading the Appendices, I say that Tolkien's own words from the Introduction to the First Edition indicates that your reading of the Appendices must be wrong! He would not actively deceive a portion of his readers in this way! Not and be the great writer he clearly is. It is your interpretation that must be wrong!


----------



## Greenwood

> *Quote by Strider97*
> Tolkien in appendix f said that the Uruk-hai emitted from both Mordor and Isengard.



There is no such statement in Appendix F.



> If the suffix -hai indicateds a modified or bred version would it be logical to conclude that the Uruk-Hai is a modified or further corruption of the uruks the Black language word for orc. Who they were bred with I can find no indication. The Uruk-hai could have believed that they were a superior versionof the more traditional orc (uruk) therfore the prideful declaration that we are the fighting Uruk-Hai.This is also probably why no self-respecting Uruk-hai would ever refer to themself as a uruk. I believe that uruks (basic orcs) and the Uruk-hai a larger next generation orc existed both in Mordor and Isengard and were used by both Sauron and Sauruman.



We agree on most points, except that uruks are not "basic orcs", they are large soldier orcs. And yes both Sauron and Saruman had large soldier orcs, but Saruman's are a somewhat different, larger breed than Sauron's and are the ones that call themselves Uruk-hai. No Mordor soldier orc ever calls himelf Uruk-hai.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Clarifications, somewhat OT*



> Aragil wrote:
> First off, I'd just like to say that Tar-Elenion, if you have learned how to put a quote inside a quote, then you now have some explaining for the rest of us.



I did the 'quote' and '/quote' with brackets[], for the statement that I was replying to. Then I 'copied' the statemement that I made, and 'pasted' inside that 'quote' and enclosed it in the 'quote' and brackets.

{QUOTE}XXX wrote:
{QUOTE}YYY wrote:
blah blah blah{/QUOTE}

blah blah blah {/QUOTE}

Replace the {} with []. 


Re: Index,
Grond, Aragil; Thank you.




> Greenwood wrote:
> Without knowing what each of these entries refers to it is hard to respond, but if Elf-kindred refers to the so-called half-elven such as Elrond, then they are different from elves and deserve a seperate entry. I do not know what Elven-folk is referring to.



The 'Elf-kindred' is referenced to Aragorn's statement that "So it is that Luthien Tinuviel alone of the Elf-kindred has died indeed and left the world...", after singing part of the Lay in 'A Knife in the Dark'. Luthien is the only Elf to have been permitted this grace, and 'Elf-kindred' here is referring to Elves, not the Half-elven of whom others had 'died indeed and left the world'. The next couple of sentences do speak of some of the 'Half-elven'.

'Elven-folk' is referenced to: "It was the Elven-folk of Gildor who told me this...", Aragorn in 'Strider'. "...the rider was of the Elven-folk", i.e. Glorfindel, 'Flight to the Ford'; and "No tidings Elven-folk have heard Of Amroth evermore", Legolas' song of Nimrodel in 'Lothlorien'.


----------



## Greenwood

Tar-Elenion

Thank you.


----------



## Strider97

Greenwood,

I will check my source for that quote. I had looked it up several weeks ago. It might have been from the Sil. index. I was posting without my reference material. I will learn not to do that. The qoute is acurate but I will get you the source.


----------



## Cian

Right, Appendix F says that _uruk_ referred to, applied as a rule to: great soldier-orcs out of Mordor and Isengard. 

Considering that _Balrog_ refers to a powerful demon basically, and so does "BalrogS" refer to the same demons ... or considering what _Silmaril_ and "SilmarilS" both refer to ... what's the opinion on what _uruk_ and "urukS" might reasonably refer to?


----------



## Greenwood

> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *Right, Appendix F says that uruk referred to, applied as a rule to: great soldier-orcs out of Mordor and Isengard.
> 
> Considering that Balrog refers to a powerful demon basically, and so does "BalrogS" refer to the same demons ... or considering what Silmaril and "SilmarilS" both refer to ... what's the opinion on what uruk and "urukS" might reasonably refer to? *



Exactly, Appendix F says _uruk_ applies to the great soldier orcs of Mordor and Isengard. It does *not* say _Uruk-hai_applies to the great soldier orcs of Mordor and Isengard.


----------



## Cian

Any opinion as to my question on _uruk_/S though?


----------



## Greenwood

> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *Any opinion as to my question on uruk/S though? *



Throughout the narrative of LOTR, JRRT uses Uruks to refer to the soldier orcs of Mordor. In Appendix A there is a mention of uruks from the Misty Mountains in Saruman's service but this is in the early 2990's, approximately thirty years before the action of LOTR and these were presumably the original stock from which Saruman developed his Uruk-hai.

Also we see in Quendi and Eldar in The War of the Jewels (p. 390) that the Black Speech word uruk was borrowed by the orcs from ancient Elvish Tongues. We also see there that JRRT said uruk referred "to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor".


----------



## Cian

And adding the Appendix F info: that uruk refers to the great soldier-orcs of Mordor and Isengard. I think that is worth considering here, and that the other mentioned anglicized forms refer to the same thing that they anglicize.


----------



## Greenwood

I repeat: "Throughout the narrative of LOTR, JRRT uses Uruks to refer to the soldier orcs of Mordor." The only exception (not in the narrative proper) is: "In Appendix A there is a mention of uruks from the Misty Mountains in Saruman's service but this is in the early 2990's, approximately thirty years before the action of LOTR and these were presumably the original stock from which Saruman developed his Uruk-hai."

In Appendix F, JRRT tells us that the Black Speech word _uruk_ is applied to the soldier orcs of Mordor and Isengard and so it is, in the form Uruks for the soldier orcs of Mordor and in the form Uruk-hai for the soldier orcs of Isengard. JRRT is quite consistent in the narrative. As I pointed out a few posts up Tolkien told his readers to skip the Appendices if they weren't interested. Can you point to a single instance (other than your argument in this case) where Tolkien changed the usage of words in the narrative proper with redefinitions in the Appendices? That would be very poor story-telling, especially after telling your readers they do not have to read the Appendices. Appendices are "supplementary material at the end of a text" (from my Random House Webster's). Appendices supplement the text, they do not supercede it. I suggest that any interpretation from appendix material that changes the clear usage of words in the main text, must be an incorrect interpretation. It contradicts the normal usage of Appendices and it goes against JRRT's clear statement to his readers that they can skip the Appendices if they wish.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> In Appendix F, JRRT tells us that the Black Speech word _uruk_ is applied to the soldier orcs of Mordor and Isengard and so it is, in the form Uruks for the soldier orcs of Mordor and in the form Uruk-hai for the soldier orcs of Isengard.


 
Add that _Balrog_ "BalrogS" and _Balrogath_ is applied to the same thing, as with _Silmaril_ "SilmarilS" and _Silmarilli_


----------



## Cian

We should at least shoot for 500 posts here


----------



## Greenwood

> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *We should at least shoot for 500 posts here  *



Lets go for it! And everyone can come to the celebration dressed as their favorite orc!


----------



## Grond

God, I love this thread.


----------



## aragil

Well, the whole intrusion of Westron between what we read and what was actually said in these instances is becoming quite a nuisance.

Regarding Uruks vs. Uruk vs. Uruk-hai: From everything I've read from HoME to Letters to Carpenter's Biography, Uruks seems to be a (anglicized) plural to Uruk. That Uruks and Uruk-hai were originally conceived to refer to the same creatures is reasonably evident from the letter of August 12th 1944. However, it is also reasonably evident that it was another four years before this term was applied to the already extant Soldier-Orcs of Mordor. During this same time, Aragorn went from 'Trotter' to 'Strider'. Clearly, names were developing and being refined during this period. When Tolkien finally decided to use the term Uruks (applied to Mordor Orcs), he also went back and re-named his earlier 'veritable orcs' Uruks. So Sauron already had 'large soldier Orcs', they were just called by another name (they still smelled as sweet). These were different than the large fighting Orcs of Saruman, which were called 'Uruk-hai' from conception through publishing. If people are still not accepting this (why?), then we can always look back and see how the two theories handle the different uses (referring to Greenwood's post http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=51353#post51353 with the added entry #15, Appendix B, Year 2901):

Theory 1: Uruks = Uruk-hai. This is the theory where 'Uruks' is simply an anglicization of Uruk-hai, so that when Westron (translated to English speakers) refer to the creatures, they say 'Uruks'. This includes narrators (Hobbits) and Gandalf. When Black Speechers refer to the creatures, they use the BS term 'Uruk-hai'.
Usages 1-7, 12: All Westron Speakers, all use the term Uruk-hai. This goes against the general idea of theory 1, even if we come up with special usages for each term.
Usage 8, 10-11, 13-15: All Westron Speakers, all use the term Uruks. These usages are all consistent with theory 1.
Usage 9: A Black Speecher (the only confirmed one in the whole of the trilogy, as far as I'm aware) using the term Uruks. This again goes against theory 1 unless we say that the ring _translated_ (as opposed to allowing Sam to _understand_) the Black Speech.
Total (disregarding special instances):6 usages supporting theory 1, 9 refuting it.

Theory 2: Uruk-hai is the term for Saruman's Orcs, Uruks is the term for Sauron's Orcs. Language of the speaker now becomes irrelevant, as we allow Tolkien (or the Hobbits) to filter all names for us, first through Westron, and then into English.
Usages 1-6: Saruman's Orcs referred to as Uruk-hai. This conforms with theory 2.
Usage 7: Gorbag's lot referred to as 'rebel Uruk-hai'. This needs to be explained as an incorrect reference on the part of the Higher Ups (much as they incorrectly labelled a Hobbit as a great Elf, or mischaracterized the falling out between Gorbag and Shagrat as a 'raid' on the tower), and so goes against theory 2 without the invocation of 'special instance' arguments.
Usages 8-11, 13, 15: Mordor Orcs referred to as Uruks, conforming with theory 2.
Usage 12: Being as conciliatory to camp 1 as possible here, I'll say that without deeper reading this passage implies that both Mordor & Isengard Orcs are referred to as Uruk-hai, although the passage does not say that. Therefore this passage goes against theory 2 (without further explanation).
Usage 14: Here we have troops in the service of Saruman coming ~26 years prior to Ugluk and co. described as 'great uruks from the mountains'. I think that it is entirely probable that these pre-date Saruman's breeding program, but again I'll be conciliatory and say that this usage goes against theory 2 without further explaining.
Total (disregarding special instances):12 usages supporting theory 2, 3 refuting it.

_Without further argument_ the text supports theory 2 over theory 1. Furthermore, the 'further arguments' for theory 1 requires us to make special instances of 9 of our 15 usages. This line of arguing results with 'special instances' being more likely than 'normal instances', which is usually the downfall of a theory.

Regarding Cian's argument: Balrogath is a general plural referring to all 30+(?) balrogs. Sindarin also has a partitive plural, for which balrogS is the anglicization. This is evident by looking at the correlate of uruk, orch. There is singular orch, partitive plural yrch, and general plural orchoth (sp?). From what I've read it looks to me as if Tolkien originally had a similar plural argument for uruk- with uruks being anglicized partitive plural and urukhai being a general plural. But as I continually point out, he changed this concept when he re-named the large soldier Orcs of Mordor. I'm supported by the above numbers, even more so if we expand usage #6 into 3 usages. Tolkien is distinguishing between when he uses uruks and when he uses uruk-hai, and it appears he is distinguishing based on who the orcs serve rather than the language of the speaker (see theory 1 vs theory 2 above).



> _Originally posted by Cian_
> *We should at least shoot for 500 posts here *


I think 500 posts apiece on this thread is a better goal. At least that way we'd outdo that whiny thread about things that ****ed us off about the movie.



> _Originally posted by Greenwood_
> *Lets go for it! And everyone can come to the celebration dressed as their favorite orc! *


Oh good, Dibs on Ugluk! If Harad is there I can show him the myriad ways Brute Strength triumphs over Low Cunning. I hope he's been practicing his shrieking.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Regarding Cian's argument: Balrogath is a general plural referring to all 30+(?) balrogs. Sindarin also has a partitive plural, for which balrogS is the anglicization. This is evident by looking at the correlate of uruk, orch. There is singular orch, partitive plural yrch, and general plural orchoth (sp?).



Aragil, my argument  is simply that the words refer to the same thing, demon(s). I could have left _Balrogath_ out, or added the (hypothetical) vowel change plural with, or instead of, Balrogath, and my point, such as it is, is the same. Maybe that was just too basic a thing to say, but it seems hardly arguable. Not the greatest analogy in certain respects, but there it was.

Appendix F tells us that _uruk_ refers to: the great soldier-orcs of Mordor and Isengard. And if we simply say that uruks refers to the same thing as uruk, then uruks can also refer to: the great soldier-orcs of Mordor and Isengard.


----------



## aragil

Cian- I agree that they probably referred to the same thing in their derivation. But I think that Tolkien changed his mind on what Uruks meant while he was writing. Tolkien first conceived of the terms Uruk-hai and uruks to refer to the orc-human crosses of Isengard. At the same time he had conceived of large soldiers of Mordor- he called them 'veritable orcs'. He later took the term Uruks, and applied it to Mordor Orcs. I'm not saying this was good to do linguistically- it ends up with two different breeds having different plurals but the same singular form. This is reflected in Appendix F: the word uruk was only applied to the great soldier Orcs issuing from both Mordor and Isengard. The evidence is fairly plain to see by looking at the history of the writings:
1) ~1941 there were goblins and 'veritable orcs'.
2) In 1942 there was the Uruk-hai, which were cross-breeds of Saruman.
3) In 1944 Tolkien wrote a letter equating Uruk-hai and Uruks.
4) In 1947 Tolkien submitted his changes to the Hobbit, calling the big goblins 'Orcs' (echoing 'veritable orcs' of ~1941), and describing them similarly to descriptions of Shagrat and Grishnakh.
5) In 1948 Tolkien first calls large soldier orcs of Mordor 'Uruks'.
6) In the published version of 1953 Tolkien had revised 'veritable Orcs' to read 'Uruks', yet Uruk-hai remained Uruk-hai throughout.
I am well aware that this was not the best thing to do linguistically. However, if we look at when the terms are used, Uruk-hai is generally used by Westron speakers (i.e. when the anglicized term _should_ have been used), and Uruks is used the one time a Black Speecher is speaking. I know that Gorbag's words were 'understood' or 'translated' by the ring for Sam, yet (in the internal history) the Red Book was written years later when Frodo had all the facts laid out in front of him, as well as the words of Pippin and Merry to compare with. If Gorbag had said 'Uruk-hai', Frodo would have gathered this as he was writing.

I specifically addressed your balrogath example, because I believe that Tolkien intended the Black Speech to reflect Sindarin:
orch=uruk
yrch='un-anglicized' version of uruks
orchath=urukhai


----------



## Tar-Elenion

Greenwood, you nearly have me convinced. 
I must agree, if we dismiss some 'Letters' as "not relevant" and dismiss posthumous works as "muddying the primary works", and dismiss the appendices because you are saying "Tolkien is telling his readers: "Don't bother to read the Appendices if you don't want to, you will still understand the story without the Appendices.""; and of course even within the primary work narrative you can say it is "at best ambiguous and hence can be ignored", then you are it seems quite correct. If we do _all_ those things, your case is made.
However, I am not so willing to dismiss these things, especially when they add depth, clarity and insight to the Legendarium, and do not contradict the published 'canon'. 


> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Let us look at Tolkien's Introduction to the First Edition. In it, referring to the third volume, ROTK, Tolkien says: "And for those who like such lore in an appendix some brief account is given of the languages, alphabets, and calendars that were used in the Westlands in the Third Age of Middle-earth. Those who do not need such information, or who do not wish for it, *may neglect these pages* and the strange names that they may meet they may, of course, pronounce as they like. Care has been given to their transcription from the original alphabets, and some notes are offered on the intentions of the spelling adopted. [There is a footnote making it clear that by spelling, Tolkien is talking in reference to pronounciation.] *But not all are interested in such matters, and many who are not may still find the account of these great and valiant deeds worth the reading.* It was in that hope that I began the work of translating and selecting the stories of the Red Book, part of which are now presented to Men of a later Age, one almost as darkling and ominous as was the Third Age that ended with the great years 1418 and 1419 of the Shire long ago." [emphasis added] Here we have Tolkien at the outset of LOTR anticipating that many readers will not read the Appendices.


This is interesting, but lets see what else JRRT said about this 'Forword to the First Edition': "In the Second Edition of 1966 this Foreword was rejected in its entirety. On one of his copies of the First Edition my father wrote beside it: 'This Foreword I should wish very much in any case to cancel. Confusing (as it does) real personal matters with the "machinery" of the Tale is a serious mistake.'", see PoME. 
And he did, in effect, 'cancel' (or as CT notes "rejected in its entirety") the Forword of the First Edition, since he provided an entirely new one for the Second.


> Indeed, he is encouraging those readers who are not interested in further Middle-earth history and minutia to *not* read the Appendices. [In the Introduction to UT, CT cites a letter of his father's in which JRRT says: "I now wish that no appendices had been promised!" This letter was written before ROTK was published. -- added in later edit.]


JRRT wrote:
"I now wish that no appendices had been promised! For I think their appearance in truncated and compressed form will satisfy nobody: certainly not me; clearly from the (appalling mass of) letters I receive not those people who like that kind of thing - astonishingly many; while those who enjoy the book as an 'heroic romance' only, and find 'unexplained vistas' part of the literary effect, will neglect the appendices, very properly.
I am not now at all sure that the tendency to treat the whole thing as a kind of vast game is really good - cert. not for me, who find that kind of thing only too fatally attractive. It is, I suppose, a tribute to the curious effect that story has, when based on very elaborate and detailed workings of geography, chronology, and language, that so many should clamour for sheer 'information', or 'lore'." (see UT).

It is good thing that we are "people who like that kind of thing", and that we enjoy the explanation provided to the "unexplained vistas" that add depth to the Tale. I for one am quite glad JRRT found such things "fatally attractive" and provided so much more information on the "detailed workings of geography, chronology, and language".


> However, you are insisting that Tolkien was such a bad writer that he is going to change the meaning of words and passages in the narrative for those readers who do read the Appendices and leave the readers who do not read the Appendices with a false impression.


We are insisting that? I thought "One thing we all agree on is that Tolkien was not a poor storyteller but a great one!".

I nearly see your point. With as much as Shagrat and I are dismissing JRRT's writings, declaring them ambiguous and saying they should be ignored or that they are not relevant we obviously think he was a "bad writer". 


> Thus, readers of the Appendices are admitted to some sort of secret fraternity with a truer understanding of the LOTR narrative than those who do not. I do not believe that Tolkien was playing these sorts of head games with his readers, or was that bad a writer.


I think JRRT was providing those interested with further explanation and detail to his world. I think you are insisting that you do not enjoy "very elaborate and detailed workings of geography, chronology, and language" or "sheer 'information', or 'lore'", and put yourself in the place of "those who enjoy the book as an 'heroic romance' only", and so perhaps you should "neglect the appendices, very properly". I however will not neglect them, I am with those many who clamoured for more .


----------



## Grond

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Cian- I agree that they probably referred to the same thing in their derivation. But I think that Tolkien changed his mind on what Uruks meant while he was writing...*


ARAGIL, I THOUGHT YOU WERE SURE!! Now you say that you think that JRRT changed his mind. If you're not sure, you have no certain argument, only an argument of opinion. I thought this thread had boiled down to two sides arguing certainties and now Aragil throws uncertainty back into it. Greenwood, I think you need to PM Aragil and get him back in line!!!


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> Aragil wrote:
> I still say that folk/people is difficult to distinguish from human folk/people. Tolkien's letter of 8/1944 is a case in point. I will maintain that by 'folk made bad', he was referring to human folk- the Uruk-hai of Saruman.



"Quendi Elves, of any kind, including the Avari. The sg. Quende was naturally less frequently used. As has been seen, the word was made when the Elves as yet knew of no other 'people' than themselves. The sense 'the Elvish people, as a whole', or in the sg. 'an Elf and not some other similar creature', developed first in Aman, where the Elves lived among or in contact with the Valar and Maiar. During the Exile when the Noldor became re-associated with their Elvish kin, the Sindar, _but met other non-Elvish *people, such as Orcs*, Dwarves, and Men_, it became an even more useful term. But in fact it had ceased in Aman to be a word of everyday use, and remained thereafter mainly used in the special language of Lore: histories or tales of old days, or learned writings on peoples and languages."
Emphasis and Italics mine. Quoted from 'Quendi and Eldar', in WotJ.
We have Orcs referred to as 'people'.


[Italics below mine]


> from Letter 66 to CT:
> Your service is, of course, as anybody with any intelligence and ears and eyes knows, a very bad one, living on the repute of a few gallant men, and you are probably in a particularly bad comer of it. But all Big Things planned in a big way feel like that to the toad under the harrow, though on a general view they do function and do their job. An ultimately evil job. _For we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed. But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are as clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side. .... Well, there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai_. Keep up your hobbitry in heart, and think that all stories feel like that when you are in them. You are inside a very great story! I think also that you are suffering from suppressed 'writing'. That may be my fault. You have had rather too much of me and my peculiar mode of thought and reaction. And as we are so akin it has proved rather powerful. Possibly inhibited you.


What is interesting about this letter is that, while the 'hobbit amongst the Urukhai' is an obvious reference to Merry and Pippin being captured by the Isengarders, JRRT refers to breeding new Saurons as well as turning Elves and Men into Orcs. 


> from Letter 78 to CT:
> I read your letters carefully, and of course as is quite right you open your rather troubled heart to us; but do not think that any detail of your exterior life, your friends, acquaintance, or the most minor events, are not worth writing or of interest. I am glad that you are finding it (at times) easier to rub along. I shouldn't worry too much, if the process sometimes seems to be a declension from the highest standards (intellectual and aesthetic, at any rate, not moral). I don't think you are in the least likely permanently to decline upon the worse; and I should say that you need a little thickening of the outer skin, if only as a protection for the more sensitive interior; and if you acquire it, it will be of permanent value in any walk of later life in this tough world (which shows no signs of softening). And of course, as you already discover, one of the discoveries of the process is the realization of the values that often lurk under dreadful appearances. _Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker;_ and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable (though I fear it must be admitted that there are human creatures that seem irredeemable short of a special miracle, and that there are probably abnormally many of such creatures in Deutschland and Nippon - but certainly these unhappy countries have no monopoly: I have met them, or thought so, in England's green and pleasant land).



As has been noted already, we have JRRT using 'Uruks' as an 'anglicization' for 'Urukhai'.
What is interesting here is that there is no reference to Saruman, and as is noted in the previously cited Letter 66 there is a reference to breeding new Saurons, as well as turning Elves and Men into Orcs. Saruman did not turn Elves and Men into Orcs. He, if the supposition holds, interbred Orcs with Men, and Orcs were already folk made bad. It was Morgoth who originally at least conceived of the idea of 'corrupting' Elves and/or Men for the purpose of defiling the Children of God, though Sauron may well have been responsible for its implemtation: 
"We may assume, then, that the idea of breeding the Orcs came from Melkor, not at first maybe so much for the provision of servants or the infantry of his wars of destruction, as for the defilement of the Children and the blasphemous mockery of the designs of Eru. The details of the accomplishment of this wickedness were, however, left mainly to the subtleties of Sauron. In that case the conception in mind of the Orcs may go far back into the night of Melkor's thought, though the beginning of their actual breeding must await the awakening of Men." See Morgoth's Ring.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> Can you point to a single instance (other than your argument in this case) where Tolkien changed the usage of words in the narrative proper with redefinitions in the Appendices? That would be very poor story-telling, especially after telling your readers they do not have to read the Appendices. Appendices are "supplementary material at the end of a text" (from my Random House Webster's). Appendices supplement the text, they do not supercede it. I suggest that any interpretation from appendix material that changes the clear usage of words in the main text, must be an incorrect interpretation.



Depends on what you mean: But try App F, Of the Elves, footnote 1.


----------



## Greenwood

> _Quote by Tar-Elenion_
> Greenwood, you nearly have me convinced.



Good, there is hope for you yet.  



> I must agree, if we dismiss some 'Letters' as "not relevant" and dismiss posthumous works as "muddying the primary works", and dismiss the appendices because you are saying "Tolkien is telling his readers: "Don't bother to read the Appendices if you don't want to, you will still understand the story without the Appendices.""; and of course even within the primary work narrative you can say it is "at best ambiguous and hence can be ignored", then you are it seems quite correct. If we do _all_ those things, your case is made.



1) The letters: Aragil has shown in great detail how the meaning of the terms Uruk and Uruk-hai changed over the years. The letter you like to cite so much was written more than ten years before The Two Towers was published at a time when Aragorn was Trotter and Grishnakh was Ugluk. This right of the author to change his mind and change the meanings of his made-up words is exactly why one must look at the primary source, the LOTR, and why the primary source cannot be contradicted by the secondary sources. 

2) The posthumously published material: You still don't get it, and it is clearly getting to be a waste of time to discuss things with somone who is so blind about the limitations of secondary sources. I quote: "I would agree with you that the posthumously published material cannot be used to _contradict_ the published sources, but only to illuminate them." That is from ShagratU. He and I may disagree on interpretations, but at least he does recognize basic rules of scholarship which you seem unable to grasp, despite Christopher Tolkien's own repeated warnings about inconsistencies and the dangers of publishing unapproved texts by a dead author.

3) The Forward to the First Edition: You don't even seem to understand the Tolkien quotes that you type. From your post: On one of his copies of the First Edition my father wrote beside it: 'This Foreword I should wish very much in any case to cancel. *Confusing (as it does) real personal matters with the "machinery" of the Tale is a serious mistake.'*" [emphasis added] It is quite clear what Tolkien is referring to here and it has nothing to do with his telling his readers they can skip the Appendices if they wish. All one has to do to understand what Tolkien is referring to is to look at the Foreward to the First Edition. Look at the beginning of the Foreward: "This tale, which has grown to be almost a history of the great War of the Ring, is drawn for the most part from the memoirs of the renowned Hobbits, Bilbo and Frodo, as they are preserved in the Red Book of Westmarch. This chief monument of Hobbit-lore is so called because it was compiled, repeatedly copied, and enlarged and handed down in the family of the Fairbairns of Westmarch, descended from that Master Samwise of whom this tale has much to say." So we start out the Foreward with the literary pretension that this whole book is not a fictional creation by Tolkien, but rather is a real history written by hobbits and Tolkien is just presenting excerpts from this actual history. Three papragraphs later Tolkien is dedicating the book to his children and his friends, the Inklings. On the next page he is referring to people in "England and across the water". And then we end with a footnote discussing pronounciation with examples from English, Welsh and German. This is the "confusing" of "real personal matters" with the "machinery" of the tale that Tolkein regrets. When we look at the new Foreward to the Second Edition this becomes abundantly clear. In the new Foreword, gone is any pretense of LOTR being an actual history that Tolkien is merely excerpting (all that is relegated to an expanded Prologue). Instead we have a straight forward (no pun intended) account of the writing of LOTR and its relationship to The Hobbit. There is no "confusing" of the personal with the "machinery" of the story. That is what Tolkien "rejected" and "canceled" with his new Foreward.
I repeat that only a poor storyteller and writer would use appendices to change the meanings of things in the main narrative. That or a writer who liked to play head games on his readers. We know the first possibility is not true and I challenge you to give evidence that the second possibility is true.

4) Ambiguity in the narrative: I personally do not think there is any ambiguity in the narrative. It seems quite clear to me that in every case in the narrative Uruks refer to Sauron's elite orc troops and Uruk-hai refer to Saruman's elite orc troops. I do not consider the tracker and soldier orc exchange in the least bit ambiguous, nor any of the other uses of Uruks and Uruk-hai in the narrative. I have allowed for the possibility of ambiguity out of politeness so as to avoid saying that I believe your interpretation to be totally wrong. But since you see fit to attempt to use that politeness on my part against me I will now *unambiguously* state that I do not believe there is any ambiguity in LOTR, but it is your interpretation that is completely wrong and does not agree with what Tolkien wrote in LOTR. [Edited for clarity and to correct typos -- I should know better than posting late at night after an evening out. ]

The arguments you and ShagratU advance are one special case after another, filled with contradictions from one case to another, i.e. in some cases Uruks is used because the speaker is using Westron, but in other cases, even though the character is speaking in Westron he uses a (supposed) Black Speech term because he is an orc. In one place a Westron speaker (Gandalf) uses an Anglicization because the "good guys" are reluctant to speak Black Speech, but in other places the "good guys" and the "narrator" (our hobbit POV) have no problem using Black Speech. In one place certain words are used because it is the hobbit "narrator" (ShagratU's internal POV) yet in other cases, the Appendices, it is the "authorial" (Tolkien) POV, though Tolkien clearly states in his Prologue that the Appendices are taken from the Red Book of Westmarch and other Shire Records, so there is no "authorial" POV. You insist that you want to use all the posthumously published work, but when it is pointed out that the posthumously published work goes against some of your and ShagratU's arguments (as in Oghor-hai predating Black Speech or uruk coming from ancient elvish tongues), well then suddenly you guys rediscover the warnings about inconsistencies (but for only certain things) or just totally ignore the problem. Your arguments are a mass of conflicting special cases, yet still you keep advancing them or making new special cases.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Cian- I agree that they probably referred to the same thing in their derivation. But I think that Tolkien changed his mind on what Uruks meant while he was writing.



Ok. Opinion noted  Actually, in much of my latest ramblings, I was just trying to move in the direction of TBattlesoftFordsoIsen as "UrukS" relates to it and LotR. Greenwood was having none of it however  as I expected.

I snipped some good work there by you ('good', though I'm not going to bother to see if it's accurate, so it better be ). But I have to say the conclusions you seem to be making from the research are all too speculative for me (kinda like the earlier missing hyphen thing). 



> I specifically addressed your balrogath example, because I believe that Tolkien intended the Black Speech to reflect Sindarin:
> orch=uruk
> yrch='un-anglicized' version of uruks
> orchath=urukhai



I can't remember if orchath is attested but there's _orchoth_ anyway (*orch-hoth) "Orc-folk" ("-host, -horde"). 

I'll generally add that the speculated BS loan-words do not specifically reflect Sindarin any more than other possibles (that I know of; there's a speculated Valarin loan). The grammar in the tiny corpus might possibly reflect Quenya in one respect (in the seeming instance of one locative ending, according to a theory set forth by Robert Foster), and the phonology of each language shows no more similarity by comparison than any two languages chosen at random ~ according to David Salo, who has indeed broken down the languages in this regard (or what he could of BS that is).

I'm not really sure what this X=X chart is trying to imply, but I assume you're aware, in any case, that Sindarin _yrch_ represents a vowel change type of pluralization not attested in Black Speech. I think you are trying to say that uruks is an anglicization for some other unknown plural form in Black Speech, but not Uruk-hai. But I'll yet trust Tolkien or his son on this matter. I've not yet been convinced not to anyway :grin:

And yes, I wouldn't see a great problem with equating _orchoth_ "Orc-folk" with _Uruk-hai_ "Uruk-folk"


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *ARAGIL, I THOUGHT YOU WERE SURE!! Now you say that you think that JRRT changed his mind. If you're not sure, you have no certain argument, only an argument of opinion. I thought this thread had boiled down to two sides arguing certainties and now Aragil throws uncertainty back into it. Greenwood, I think you need to PM Aragil and get him back in line!!!  *



Ah, but you see Grond- I am always thinking. As a thinking being saying that 'I think' is just a colorful writing style. We should not think of the term 'I think' as a qualifier to my opinions, er, statements of fact.

Cian- rats. I said Orchoth (sp?) above, and then let your 'balrogath' convince me that the o should be an a. That orch is related to Sindarin is of course the Good Professor's suggestion in appendix F, not mine. I read the letter on page 178 (don't have books now, so can't give the letter #), and was familiar with the 2 different plural forms of orch. To me it looked as if orchoth was very similar to the (un-hyphenated) urukhai, and it reminded me of the consistent argument that 'hai' means 'folk'. So naturally I equate urukhai with a general plural term like orchoth. I just don't understand how a language would only form a plural by adding a term like 'host' or 'folk'. So I assume that there is some other term out there that has the equivalent of either a vowel change or the addition of an 's'. Sindarin goes from orch to yrch. Adunaic goes from uruk to urik. English goes from uruk to uruks. Shirley there must be another way to make a plural in Black Speech, rather than adding 'folk' or 'horde'. In my opinion, Tolkien didn't care to develop the Black Speech to that point. So I'm going to theorize that urukS is the anglicization of a hypothetical black speech term which has a vowel change somewhere: Yruk, Uryk, Urak (ack!), Urik, Urok, etc, rather than the anglicization of urukhai. And as always, I'll stand by our argument that Uruk-hai in the text of LotR (as opposed to it's conception, derivation, or use in Letters) refers to the offspring of Saruman's breeding program, while Uruks refers to the large soldier Orcs of Mordor.

As for my conclusions drawn from the 6 points above, they're bound to be speculative, I don't know where to draw the line at 'too'. CT never tells us when Tolkien changed 'veritable Orcs' in Moria to 'Uruks', but since the usage in 'The Land of Shadow' is said to be the first, then he must have made the change some time after the Summer of 1948. Tolkien had already concieved of 'large Soldier Orcs of Mordor', he called them 'veritable orcs', both before and after Saruman's troops were labeled 'Uruk-hai'. I see no evidence that when Tolkien started calling Mordor Orcs 'Uruks' he was trying to establish a relationship with the 'Uruk-hai' of Isengard. There is no point in the writing of the _text_ where Tolkien referred to Saruman's troops as Uruks, as evidenced by CT's statement in HoME IX. In other words, Tolkien is using the terms Uruks and Uruk-hai in different contexts (as evidenced by my 'probability' post some 10+ pages ago). Of the theories advanced thus far, saying that Uruk-hai refers only to the hybrids of Saruman does the best in explaining the difference in usages. In fact, if we take 'rebel Uruk-hai' to be a mistaken label (like great Elf), and 'great uruks from the mountains in the service of Saruman' to pre-date the hybrids, then our theory perfectly explains every usage in both the text and the appendices.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Cian- rats. I said Orchoth (sp?) above, and then let your 'balrogath' convince me that the o should be an a.



Trickssy 



> That orch is related to Sindarin is of course the Good Professor's suggestion in appendix F, not mine.



You mean _uruk_ is related to Sindarin _orch_. And it is 'related', both words coming from Elvish languages. Note that Black Speech _uruk_ as a vocabulary borrowing is from archaic Elvish.

Quenya _urco_ is from the same stem as _uruk_ (cf. *RUKU) and had 'kinship' with S. _orch_. But here we have to know about how we might inflect the word _uruk_ in the Black Speech. 

In any event, to speculate about vowel change plurals in Black Speech, even were you to offer example of any simple vocabulary borrowing directly from Sindarin ... well, this is 'too'  much speculation Imo. 

A borrowed word in BS 'lives' within Sauron's Esperanto. Linguist Helge Fauskanger offers on BS plurality of simple nouns ~ that maybe a qualifier like _ash_ "one" or _hai_ "folk" -)) is added if the meaning has to be further specified.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *In any event, to speculate about vowel change plurals in Black Speech, even were you to offer example of any simple vocabulary borrowing directly from Sindarin ... well, this is 'too'  much speculation Imo.
> 
> A borrowed word in BS 'lives' within Sauron's Esperanto. Linguist Helge Fauskanger offers on BS plurality of simple nouns ~ that maybe a qualifier like ash "one" or hai "folk" -)) is added if the meaning has to be further specified. *



Well, unless the entire 'rings' poem is translated somewhere into Black Speech, then I'd say that Helge is speculating as much as I am, although perhaps with some more linguistic knowledge than me. Imagine what would happen to her theory if someone were to produce a line like:
'_three nizg for the elven kings_'
Anyway, if we presume that the verse rhymes in Black Speech (the original language of the verse), then the plural of 'ring' should rhyme with the plural of 'king'. That probably wouldn't happen if ring was pluralled by '3 ring' and king was pluralled by 'king-horde/folk/people'. However, if the plural were formed by a vowel change (orch to yrch) or a stem (Tar-Elenion's Urukin) then the verse would stand a fighting chance of rhyming.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

Why should the 'Rings poem' rhyme in the Black Speech?
It is not a B.S. composition. The only B.S. part of it is:
ash nazg durbatulûk
ash nazg gimbatul 
ash nazg thrakatulûk 
agh burzum-ishi krimpatul 
(which does 'rhyme').
The "ancient rhyme", 'Three Rings...etc', is a later composition, perhaps written by 'loremasters' among the Eldar when it was determined how the Rings had been distributed, or perhaps by those among the Dunedain in the Third Age, too which Sauron's 'spell' had been added.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> 1) The letters: Aragil has shown in great detail how the meaning of the terms Uruk and Uruk-hai changed over the years. The letter you like to cite so much was written more than ten years before The Two Towers was published at a time when Aragorn was Trotter and Grishnakh was Ugluk. This right of the author to change his mind and change the meanings of his made-up words is exactly why one must look at the primary source, the LOTR, and why the primary source cannot be contradicted by the secondary sources.



I dont think Aragil has shown this. The meaning of the terms did not change. 'Uruk' and 'Uruk-hai' always referred to Orcs (even if 'figuratively'). I do not think JRRT changed his mind. He always applied the terms to Orcs (even if 'figuratively'). You seem to be labelling them contradictory, because they do not support your position; conversely I do not label the secondary sources contradictory because they do support my position. You have suggested that 'secondary sources' can be used to clarify the primary, but you are unwiling to do this in this case because you seem to think the 'secondary sources' contradict (your reading of) the primary.



> 2) The posthumously published material: You still don't get it, and it is clearly getting to be a waste of time to discuss things with somone who is so blind about the limitations of secondary sources. I quote: "I would agree with you that the posthumously published material cannot be used to _contradict_ the published sources, but only to illuminate them." That is from ShagratU. He and I may disagree on interpretations, but at least he does recognize basic rules of scholarship which you seem unable to grasp, despite Christopher Tolkien's own repeated warnings about inconsistencies and the dangers of publishing unapproved texts by a dead author.



This is a mis-characterization of my position (which you still do not seem to grasp) on 'secondary' and 'primary' sources. I hold the 'primary' (LotR, RGEO, Hobbit, and 'Guide to Names') works as 'law' (though they must be taken in proper context), and hold that the 'secondary' sources can be used to add depth and clarity to the 'primary', not contradict (with some few exceptions). If I see no contradition I do not feel the need to try and read one into them. As I have said before, I am quite loathe to simply dismiss any of JRRT's writings. If the 'secondary sources' contradict (or are used to contradict) your opinion then you can feel free to dismiss them, but I am equally free to use them to back up my position, which they do not contradict. If there was an inconsistancy in the posthumous writings with the published writings then I would agree with you, but in the matter we are discussing I see none, and am not willing to accept your assertion that there is. 



> 3) The Forward to the First Edition: You don't even seem to understand the Tolkien quotes that you type. From your post: On one of his copies of the First Edition my father wrote beside it: 'This Foreword I should wish very much in any case to cancel. *Confusing (as it does) real personal matters with the "machinery" of the Tale is a serious mistake.'*" [emphasis added] It is quite clear what Tolkien is referring to here and it has nothing to do with his telling his readers they can skip the Appendices if they wish. All one has to do to understand what Tolkien is referring to is to look at the Foreward to the First Edition. Look at the beginning of the Foreward: "This tale, which has grown to be almost a history of the great War of the Ring, is drawn for the most part from the memoirs of the renowned Hobbits, Bilbo and Frodo, as they are preserved in the Red Book of Westmarch. This chief monument of Hobbit-lore is so called because it was compiled, repeatedly copied, and enlarged and handed down in the family of the Fairbairns of Westmarch, descended from that Master Samwise of whom this tale has much to say." So we start out the Foreward with the literary pretension that this whole book is not a fictional creation by Tolkien, but rather is a real history written by hobbits and Tolkien is just presenting excerpts from this actual history. Three papragraphs later Tolkien is dedicating the book to his children and his friends, the Inklings. On the next page he is referring to people in "England and across the water". And then we end with a footnote discussing pronounciation with examples from English, Welsh and German. This is the "confusing" of "real personal matters" with the "machinery" of the tale that Tolkein regrets. When we look at the new Foreward to the Second Edition this becomes abundantly clear. In the new Foreword, gone is any pretense of LOTR being an actual history that Tolkien is merely excerpting (all that is relegated to an expanded Prologue). Instead we have a straight forward (no pun intended) account of the writing of LOTR and its relationship to The Hobbit. There is no "confusing" of the personal with the "machinery" of the story. That is what Tolkien "rejected" and "canceled" with his new Foreward.
> I repeat that only a poor storyteller and writer would use appendices to change the meanings of things in the main narrative. That or a writer who liked to play head games on his readers. We know the first possibility is not true and I challenge you to give evidence that the second possibility is true.



You do not seem to understand what JRRT wrote _and did_. He wrote what he wanted to do ('cancel the Foreword'), he gave a reason for it ('confusing personal matters with the tale'), and then he did it (he wrote a new Foreword). What you noted as "rejected" or "cancelled" are indeed gone from the new Foreword. What else is gone from the new Foreword are any references to 'neglecting the appendices'. What I find interesting is how willing you are to attempt to simply dismiss anything written by JRRT that seems to disagree with your position. The Appendices were supplied by JRRT and add depth and clarity to the story. I will accept and use them. If you are one of "those readers who are not interested in further Middle-earth history and minutia" then do not read the Appendices. In the subject we are discussing the Appendices do not 'change the meaning of things' and add further clarity and insight. 



> 4) Ambiguity in the narrative: I personally do not think there is any ambiguity in the narrative. It seems quite clear to me that in every case in the narrative Uruks refer to Sauron's elite orc troops and Uruk-hai refer to Saruman's elite orc troops. I do not consider the tracker and soldier orc exchange in the least bit ambiguous, nor any of the other uses of Uruks and Uruk-hai in the narrative. I have allowed for the possibility of ambiguity out of politeness so as to avoid saying that I believe your interpretation to be totally wrong. But since you see fit to attempt to use that politeness on my part against me I will now *unambiguously* state that I do not believe there is any ambiguity in LOTR, but it is your interpretation that is completely wrong and does not agree with what Tolkien wrote in LOTR. [Edited for clarity and to correct typos -- I should know better than posting late at night after an evening out. ]



Good enough. I will say that I believe your interpretation to be totally wrong, and that it does not agree with what JRRT wrote in LotR. The 'rebel Uruk-hai' (along with 'Elf-warrior' and 'small sort of dwarf-man') is clearly in reference to events at Cirith Ungol, and it is quite evident that it was Sauron's Uruk-hai that were the 'rebels'. There is no possibility that Gorbag etc. could have been thought to Saruman's Uruk-hai.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> Greenwood wrote:
> The arguments you and ShagratU advance are one special case after another, filled with contradictions from one case to another, i.e. in some cases Uruks is used because the speaker is using Westron, but in other cases, even though the character is speaking in Westron he uses a (supposed) Black Speech term because he is an orc. In one place a Westron speaker (Gandalf) uses an Anglicization because the "good guys" are reluctant to speak Black Speech, but in other places the "good guys" and the "narrator" (our hobbit POV) have no problem using Black Speech. In one place certain words are used because it is the hobbit "narrator" (ShagratU's internal POV) yet in other cases, the Appendices, it is the "authorial" (Tolkien) POV, though Tolkien clearly states in his Prologue that the Appendices are taken from the Red Book of Westmarch and other Shire Records, so there is no "authorial" POV. You insist that you want to use all the posthumously published work, but when it is pointed out that the posthumously published work goes against some of your and ShagratU's arguments (as in Oghor-hai predating Black Speech or uruk coming from ancient elvish tongues), well then suddenly you guys rediscover the warnings about inconsistencies (but for only certain things) or just totally ignore the problem. Your arguments are a mass of conflicting special cases, yet still you keep advancing them or making new special cases.



I am not comfortable speaking for Shagrat currently, as it seems he will not be around for quite some time to correct any mistating of his position on my part. You may wish to hold off on addressing what he has said until he is able to respond, or at least expect it to be a bit of a wait.

However for my part, I dont see any contradictions in the positions I have advanced. 
I will address some of the points you are making above even though there are some points above) that seem (by inclusion) to be attributed to me (as well as Shagrat), though I do not recall stating them. I do not think I said the 'good guys were reluctant to use B.S.' (I think Cian supplied a quote from JRRT to that effect), However Gandalf is using an 'anglicization'. 'S' is not a plural marker in any Middle-earth languages that I can recall. As 'Uruk' was applied to the 'great soldier orcs' I see no inconsistancy with Gandalf using it.
I want to use the posthumous works, as long as they don't contradict the primary, but in your axample "(as in Oghor-hai predating Black Speech or uruk coming from ancient elvish tongues)" and "well then suddenly you guys rediscover the warnings about inconsistencies", I have not stated my position directly on Oghor-hai and B.S., and as I recall it was me that pointed out that 'Uruk' was borrowed from Elvish. I have not said it was inconsistant. Indeed it is quite consistant with what we know of the development of B.S.


----------



## Eonwe

Newbies! Pay attention. B.S. = black speech, nothing else.


----------



## aragil

Eonwe you rat! Sneaking in here and thieving our preciousss 500th post. We hates it! We hates it forever!!

Oh well, 501 for me. Just 422 more and we catch the 'ticked you off' thread. Anybody feeling tired?

Tar Elenion- how do we know that the rings poem was not composed in it's entirety by Sauron?

Also, Uruk-hai demonstrably referred only to Saruman's troops, at least until summer 1948. Up until this time, the concept of 'large soldier-Orcs of Mordor' had already appeared, but had never been called Uruks. That he first applied the term Uruks to Mordor Orcs in 1948, 4 years after writing the letter to his son, is pretty good evidence that the definition changed during those four years. As I said before, this could have been an expansion of the collective terms 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' to include both Mordor and Isengarders, or it could have been that 'Uruk-hai' remained the name of Isengarders while 'Uruks' was used only for Mordor Orcs. Either way we have a changing definition. Having examined the 15 (really 18) usages in the texts and appendices, I would say that the latter theory is better supported by what Tolkien wrote.


----------



## Greenwood

I was saving this relisting of the examples for the 400th post but Eonwe stole that number. Anyway, I have redone the list of uses of the terms uruk/uruks/Uruks/Uruk-hai. In this new listing I have arranged the occurrences in the same sequence they appear in the book. I have renumbered them in this new sequence, but have used the computer software style of numbering, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc. to distinguish them from the older listings on this thread. I have also seperated out each usage as its own number (in the old list 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 were lumped and 2.17 and 2.18 were lumped). Example 2.16 is new since the last listing, having been found by Aragil since then.

2.1) In The Fellowship of the Ring, in the chapter The Bridge of Khazad-dum, Gandalf says: "There are Orcs, very many of them .... And some are large and evil: black Uruks of Mordor. ...." 

2.2) This is not exactly a quote, but in The Two Towers, Tolkien titles his chapter "The Uruk-hai". 

2.3) In the chapter The Uruk-hai in The Two Towers, Ugluk says: "We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here ..... " 

2.4) Later in the same chapter, Ugluk again speaking: "Leave them to me then! No killing, as I've told you before; but if you want to throw away what we've come all the way to get, throw it away! I'll look after it. Letting the fighting Uruk-hai do the work, as usual. ..... " 

2.5) On the next page, Ugluk again: "You seem to know a lot. ... More than is good for you I guess. Perhaps those in Lugburz might wonder how, and why. But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as usual. ...." 

2.6) In The Two Towers in the chapter Helm's Deep, as Aragorn looks out for the dawn there is the following passage: 

"The Orcs yelled and jeered. 'Come down! Come down!' they cried. 'If you wish to speak to us, come down! Bring out your king! We are the fighting Uruk-hai. We will fetch him from his hole, if he does not come down. Bring out your skulking king!' 

2.7) The passage in 2.6) continues: " 'The king stays or comes at his own will,' said Aragorn. 

" 'Then what are you doing here?' they answered. 'Why do you look out? Do you wish to see the greatness of our army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai.' 

2.8) The passage in 2.7) continues: " 'I looked out to see the dawn,' said Aragorn. 

" 'What of the dawn?' they jeered. 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. .... " 

2.9) In The Two Towers, in the chapter The Choices of Master Samwise, Gorbag says: " .... I say something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks. ....." 

2.10) In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Seige of Gondor there is the following sentence: "No hours so dark had Pippin known, not even in the clutches of the Uruk-hai." 

2.11) In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Land of Shadow, Sam and Frodo overhear two orcs talking and one says: ".... First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together." 

2.12) In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Land of the Shadow, Sam and Frodo are overtaken on the road by troops of orcs and there is the following description of the troops: "Beside them, running up and down the line, went two of the large fierce _uruks_, cracking lashes and shouting." (Italics in original.) 

2.13) In The Return of the King, at the end of the chapter The Land of the Shadow, while Sam and Frodo are masqerading as orcs: "A troop of heavy-armed _uruks_ from Barad-dur charged into the Durthang line and threw them into confusion." (Italics in the original.) 

2.14) In The Return of the King, in Appendix A it says: "In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475 they swept across Ithilien and took Osgiliath." 

2.15) In The Return of the King, in Appendix A it says: "In 2989 Theodwyn married Eomund of Eastfold, the chief Marshal of the Mark. Her son Eomer was borm in 2991, and her daughter Eowyn in 2995. At that time Sauron had arisen again, and the shadow of Mordor reached out to Rohan. Orcs began to raid in the eastern regions and slay or steal horses. Others also came down from the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman, though it was long before that was suspected." 

2.16) In The Return of the King, in Appendix B, The Tale of Years, it says: "2901 Most of the remaining inhabitants of Ithilien desert it owing to the attacks of Uruks of Mordor."

2.17) In The Return of the King, in Appendix F it says: "Orc is the form of the name that other races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan. In Sindarin it was orch. Related. no doubt, was the word _uruk_ of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard." (Italics in the original.) 

2.18) Directly following 2.17) above in Appendix F is: "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, _snaga_ 'slave'." (Italics in the original.) 

_Continued in next post because of message length restrictions._


----------



## Greenwood

_Continued from last post._

So what do we have? 

Uruks/uruks where it clearly refers to Mordor orcs: examples 2.1, 2.9, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.16. Total of 6 examples

Uruk-hai where it clearly refers to Isengard orcs: examples 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.10. Total of 8 examples

uruks referring to Isengard orcs: example 2.15. Total of 1 example

uruk referring to both Mordor and Isengard orcs: example 2.17. Total of 1 example.

Uruk-hai where it is not specified who is being referred to: example 2.11, 2.18. Total of 2 examples.

Notice I am not excluding any examples just because they are in the Appendices. I have never said that the Appendices should be ignored as Tar-Elenion as attempted to characterize my statements. I said that Tolkien said in his Introduction to the First Edition of LOTR that readers need not read the Appendices if they did not wish to. I said that based on that statement and normal usage of appendices in books, I consider it impossible that Tolkien would change the meaning of things in the main narrative by anything he wrote in the Appendices. Many foreign language editions of LOTR do not even include the Appendices. Some of these foreign editions certainly appeared during Tolkien's lifetime, the rest must be authorized by his estate. If the Appendices were essential to understanding the true meaning of things in LOTR, Tolkien and his estate would not allow what would be incomplete, and inaccurate versions of his work to be published. I do not believe Tolkien changed any meanings by what he wrote in the Appendices. 

Let us look again at the usages. The first 13 are in the narrative proper and of these in 4 cases uruks/Uruks clearly refer to Mordor orcs and in 8 cases Uruk-hai clearly refers to Isengard orcs. The remaining instance is the much discussed soldier/tracker conversation (example 2.11); we will come back to this one. We have 5 examples in the Appendices. In two of these uruks clearly refers to Mordor orcs bringing that usage up to a total of six examples. In the remaining 3 cases, in one case Uruk-hai is not specified as to who it refers to (example 2.18), in one case uruks refers to Isengard orcs (2.15) and in one case uruk (2.17) refers to Mordor and Isengard orcs. This last case is unique in several ways. It is the only instance to in any way apply the same term to both Mordor and Isengard orcs, but it is the only case where the word *uruk* is used. It is also quite clear that the sense of the sentence here is linguistic and indeed the base word *uruk* is in both Uruks as applied to Mordor orcs and Uruk-hai as applied to Isengard orcs, so there is no conflict with the other usages. Example 2.15 does indeed have uruks applied to orcs in the employ of Saruman, but these are from a period approximately 30 years before the action of LOTR and there is no dispute that Saruman bred his own special orcs, so here we have the source of this special breed, the uruks before Saruman turned them into Uruk-hai. We are left now with only two examples (2.11 & 2.17). In both cases Uruk-hai is used without an immediate specification as to whose troops are being referred to. Given that we have 14 out of 18 examples that are clearly attributable, 6 for Uruks as Mordor orcs and 8 for Uruk-hai as Isengard orcs, by far the simplest, most logical conclusion is that these last two examples of Uruk-hai also refer to Isengard's troops, especially since there is not a single instance of Uruk-hai ever referring to Mordor troops. Thus 14 out of 18 examples require no special explanation as to what they mean; two (2.11 & 2.17) are easily assigned based on the other uses, one fits the other uses when we consider its time period (2.15) and the last (2.17) refers to the root word _uruk_ common to both names and is so stated. Only one case, example 2.15 requires the least explanation.

In opposition to this simple explanation of the uses of Uruks and Uruk-hai in LOTR we have Tar-Elenion's and ShagratU's efforts to equate the two terms which require that virtually every one of the 18 examples have its own special explanation for why it does not refer to what the term in a simple, straight forward reading seems to refer to. We are told that "of Isengard" does not mean that the Uruk-hai are from Isengard but implies something different. We are told that we aren't really hearing Mordor orcs call themselves Uruks. We are told that when some character speak Westron they use one word, but when other characters also speak Westron they use a different word. In short many special cases instead of accepting that Tolkien meant what he wrote. And the whole rational for this is example 2.17 found in the end of the Appendices in a linguistic section. In other words Tolkien was such a bad writer that only those who carefully read the all the Appendices will be let in on the secret. Oh yes, the other initiates into the secret will be those readers who read personal family letters and a manuscript not written until nearly 20 years after LOTR and that Tolkien never intended the public to see (at least in its unfinished form). Yes, Tar-Elenion's and ShagratU's arguments are much simpler than merely accepting what Tolkien wrote in LOTR.


----------



## Greenwood

> _Quote by Tar-Elenion_
> I dont think Aragil has shown this. The meaning of the terms did not change. 'Uruk' and 'Uruk-hai' always referred to Orcs (even if 'figuratively'). I do not think JRRT changed his mind. He always applied the terms to Orcs (even if 'figuratively').



Of course, Uruks and Uruk-hai always referred to orcs. The question is do they refer to the same orcs? They do not.




> _a few quotes of Tar-Elenion's from various posts_
> The App. F and Q&E both note that the lesser breeds were called 'snaga'. That is what Shagrat is calling this lesser breed Orc. POV is important.
> 
> It fits in perfectly with all the other instances. As is noted in App. F Orcs of different breeds speak Common to each other, Black Speech was the 'language of Barad-dur and the captains of Mordor'. The explanation is not convoluted, it is provided by the author.
> 
> App. F where we see that 'uruk' applies to both the Mordoreans and the Isengarders, and that the lesser breeds are called 'snaga' by the Uruk-hai (and we have both Isengarders and Mordoreans who call a lesser breed orc 'Snaga' in the narrative).
> 
> This would be App. F where we learn that the Uruk-hai call lesser Orcs 'snaga'. A single entry for Snaga, with its uses treated exactly the same and the reader is referred to App. F for clarification of who it is used for and who uses it.



I have not used any quotes from ShagratU so that you do not have to speak for him. But we see from the above quotes your repeated insistence that to understand LOTR a reader must read the Appendices. I repeat that Tolkien would not write in such a way that a reader would be misled unless he/she read the Appendices. Tolkien was not that bad a writer and there is no evidence that he played those sorts of head games with his readers. I do not think the Appendices contradict anything in the narrative and I do not think that they must be read to understand the narrative.


----------



## Grond

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *I have not used any quotes from ShagratU so that you do not have to speak for him. But we see from the above quotes your repeated insistence that to understand LOTR a reader must read the Appendices. I repeat that Tolkien would not write in such a way that a reader would be misled unless he/she read the Appendices. Tolkien was not that bad a writer and there is no evidence that he played those sorts of head games with his readers. I do not think the Appendices contradict anything in the narrative and I do not think that they must be read to understand the narrative. *


Here I disagree with you Greenwood. JRRT used the appendices for the very reason you state he would not have. That is to enlighten the reader and to expand upon the information by adding more color and detail. We hear that Merry's horn comes from the hoard of Scatha the Worm. The appendix gives a little more information on that. One of the very reasons we should pay close attention to the appendices is that the author apparently did not like to revise his works. His letters make it clear that he had neither the time nor the inclination to go through the massive corrections that would be necessary to bring all his works into accordance. He still tried and a much truer concordance was brought to the texts in 1987 when CT made revisions. 

What is illogical in this thread is the fact that you choose to ignore CT as simply another third party. The LotR as it is published today has changes in it made by the Estate. It is they who own and control *all* supportive and ancillary material. It was CT who worked for years with his father in a supportive role. It was CT who was appointed the literary executor by JRRT himself. I would think that his input would have significant meaning to the discussion and his commentary would have very meaningful weight in these matters. I am not saying that his entry the Uruks = anglication of Uruk-hai is definitive but that it should definately bear substantially more weight than any statement by Foster who didn't have access nor the time to comb through all the reference material as has CT.

I am also disturbed that people continue to talk in the definitive voice on this thread. No one on this thread has proven anything one way or the other. The reason for that is that the Uruk versus Uruk-hai issue is one of opinion and one that you can not prove scientifically or linguistically no matter how hard one wants to. That occurs because there is not a consistency of use throughout. The linguists have to come up with "reaching" arguments of point of view and the scientists must show statistical charts in attempts to prove their points. 

All in all, it boils down to a simple argument... if the two Orcs at outside of Cirith Ungol were referring to the rebel Uruk-hai as being the orcs of Minas Morgul then there is the proof that Uruk-hai was an interchangeable term for Uruk. If it refers to a group of sneaky, Saruman intruders then it would appear the terms are not interchangeable.


----------



## Greenwood

> Here I disagree with you Greenwood. JRRT used the appendices for the very reason you state he would not have. That is to enlighten the reader and to expand upon the information by adding more color and detail. We hear that Merry's horn comes from the hoard of Scatha the Worm. The appendix gives a little more information on that. One of the very reasons we should pay close attention to the appendices is that the author apparently did not like to revise his works. His letters make it clear that he had neither the time nor the inclination to go through the massive corrections that would be necessary to bring all his works into accordance.



Grond

I am not saying we should ignore the Appendices (as Tar-Elenion has tried to characterize my position). Of course, the Appendices give us lots of *new* and *expanded* information. I am saying that Tolkien would *not* use the Appendices to contradict things in the narrative. I am unaware of any instances of his doing this. If there are such instances then I think you have already provided the guide in your above statement to resolving such a contradiction when you say Tolkien "had neither the time nor the inclination to go through the massive corrections that would be necessary to bring all his works into accordance". In such a case the narrative proper should trump the Appendices. But, I do not think Tolkien contradicts the narrative in the Appendices, so if there is an interpretation of material in the Appendices that does contradict the narrative, I submit that the interpretation must be considered to be wrong.



> What is illogical in this thread is the fact that you choose to ignore CT as simply another third party.



CT is a third party. He may be more knowledgeable than the rest of us, but he is not his father. There is nothing in any of the books published by CT that states that equating Uruks and Uruk-hai in LOTR was his father's idea.



> All in all, it boils down to a simple argument... if the two Orcs at outside of Cirith Ungol were referring to the rebel Uruk-hai as being the orcs of Minas Morgul



Of course, Gorbag and his boys were the basis for the rumor, as Sam was the basis for the warrior Elf rumor and Frodo was the basis for the dwarf-man rumor. The point, however, is that all three rumors are *wrong* and both the narrator of the story and we, the readers, know they are wrong. Tolkien is telling us here how totally confused the "higher-ups" are by what happened in Cirith Ungol. We know there was no warrior elf, we know there was no dwarf-man, we know there were no rebel Uruk-hai and we certainly know that there was not a combination of all three. To insist that there were indeed rebel Uruk-hai means that this is the one rumor of the four that is correct. It is illogical to assume that Tolkien meant for us to think that this one rumor was true when we know all the others are wrong. We are in on the joke on the "higher-ups", we know the basis of the rumors and we know they are wrong. Rumors often have some basis in fact, as these do, but you have to ask yourself as the reader. Is there really a warrior elf loose in Mordor? No, it was Sam who is anything but a warrior elf. Is there really a "dwarf-man" around? No, it was Frodo; and remember hobbits consider themselves distinct from the "Big People". A hobbit would never consider himself a "dwarf-man". Was there really a bunch of "rebel Uruk-hai" as we have come to understand Uruk-hai in the narrative, that is Saruman's troops? No, of course not, there was a falling out of Mordor orcs arguing over the swag. Finally, there certainly was not a warrior elf a dwarf-man and a bunch of rebel Uruk-hai all at the same time attacking Cirith Ungol, whether in concert or independently. The point is, we the readers, no all of these suugested possibilities are absurd.


----------



## Grond

Greenwood, I'm not really arguing with you. I just find it odd that you are definitive that the two Orcs are stating that all three of the assumptions are wrong. The perception was that there was a great Elf-warrior and a small Dwarf-man and rebel Uruk-hai (from wherever). We, the reader, know those statements are incorrect, but I don't feel either of the two Orcs knew which were right and which were wrong or whether all the three statements together were right or wrong. I don't see it that way and I don't see any single definitive in any argument presented here by either side. 

I personally see the sheer number of Uruk-hai descriptives as weighing more in favor of them being Saruman's exclusive description of his specific breed but there is no definitive evidence presented here at all, only conflicting and conflicted evidence.


----------



## Greenwood

> We, the reader, know those statements are incorrect, but I don't feel either of the two Orcs knew which were right and which were wrong or whether all the three statements together were right or wrong. I don't see it that way



Grond

Look at the entire conversation between the two orcs:

"Hardly twenty paces from where the hobbits lurked the small orc stopped. 'Nar!' it snarled. 'I'm going home.' It pointed across the valley to the orc-hold. 'No good wearing my nose out on stones anymore. There's not a trace left, I say. I've lost the scent through giving way to you. It went up into the hills, not along the valley, I tell you.'
" 'Not much use are you, you little snufflers?' said the big orc. 'I reckon eyes are better than your snotty noses.'
" 'Then what have you seen with them?' snarled the other. '*Garn! You don't even know what you're looking for.*'
" 'Whose blame's that?" said the soldier. '*Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together.*'
" 'Ar!' said the tracker. '*They've lost their heads, that's what it is.* And some of the bosses are going to lose their skins too, I guess, if what I hear is true: Tower raided and all, and hundreds of your lads done in, and prisoner got away. If that's the way you fighters go on, small wonder there's bad news from the battles.' " [emphasis added]

To me, it seems clear you have two very frustrated orcs who are complaining they don't know what they are looking for. The soldier orc says it isn't his fault, because look at the ridiculous stories he has been given. I can't think of a better description of this than sarcasm. We, the reader, know these rumors are ridiculous, and it seems, so does this soldier orc. But, evidently you don't think it is clear, so I guess we will just "agree to disagree".


----------



## Grond

Greenwood, I absolutely agree that they don't know what they're looking for. They appear confused and also apparently feel the higher ups are morons and confused as well; however, my point does not change one whit. There is absolutely no clarity in the statements as to what they are meaning when the say Uruk-hai. They may be referring to rebel Isengarders or they may be referring to Gorbag's Cirith Ungol Uruks who have already been referred to as rebels by Shagrat. 

I also find it odd that your agruments are adamant that Shagrat could not have spoken to someone (say a subordinate) advising them that 1) an Elf-warrior was loose, 2) he had captured a small Dwarf-man and that 3) a group of Mordor Uruks had rebelled against Sauron's orders not to molest of pilfar any captives and that he had killed him.

I'm not saying this happened because we can't possibly know. But I wonder how you can say that it absolutely did not happen. If there was a note somewhere in a appendix that said this did in fact happen, it would disprove your theory. As a note found that said the rebel uruk-hai referred to Isengarder Orcs would prove your case.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Imagine what would happen to her theory if someone ...




Helge is a man  (f. Helga).


----------



## Greenwood

> Greenwood, I absolutely agree that they don't know what they're looking for. They appear confused and also apparently feel the higher ups are morons and confused as well; however, my point does not change one whit. There is absolutely no clarity in the statements as to what they are meaning when the say Uruk-hai. They may be referring to rebel Isengarders or they may be referring to Gorbag's Cirith Ungol Uruks who have already been referred to as rebels by Shagrat.



Grond

The point that Aragil and I make is that there *is clarity* as to what the meaning of Uruk-hai is here. Forget all the arguments that have gone back and forth on this thread. Look at it for a moment as you did when you first read LOTR. At this point in LOTR, the term Uruk-hai has occurred eight times. In everyone of those cases Uruk-hai has clearly referred to Saruman's elite troops. As a first time reader, who would you think these "rebel Uruk-hai" are? Do you think that any author, least of all an author as good as Tolkien (or his editors for that matter), would suddenly on this ninth occasion change the meaning of the term? It would be completely unfair to the readers, none of whom would get it. If Tolkien meant us to think Mordor orcs were being referred to, why not use Uruks here? The term has already been used twice in the narrative, both times in reference to Mordor orcs. Why would Tolkien so confuse his readers?



> I also find it odd that your agruments are adamant that Shagrat could not have spoken to someone (say a subordinate) advising them that 1) an Elf-warrior was loose, 2) he had captured a small Dwarf-man and that 3) a group of Mordor Uruks had rebelled against Sauron's orders not to molest of pilfar any captives and that he had killed him.



No. I have argued that Shagrat did not send a message from Cirith Ungol *before* he leaves the tower himself with the bundle. Clearly, he has spoken to someone after leaving the tower, because what the soldier orc says is based on events at the tower, but Shagrat's hurried report as he makes his dash for Barad-dur (in his wounded state, a dash about as remarkable as the famed death march across Rohan  ) has only served to confuse everyone. Also look at the soldier orc's phrasing: "First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together." This does not sound like a coherent report: "dwarf-man captured, warrior elf attacks tower while Minas Morgul troops rebel". No, the soldier says: "First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour", then they tell me, no "it's a sort of small dwarf-man", then they tell me, no, its "a pack of rebel Uruk-hai", no, no, "maybe it's all the lot together"! Whatever report has been received is totally incomprehensible to the "Higher Ups" as are the orders given to the soldier orc. It has only served to sow total confusion.


----------



## Gawain

> The difference between primary and secondary sources is basic to doing any research. Secondary sources cannot refute primary sources.





> ...an authors published material that he/she saw through to publication is considered in a very different light than any posthumously published material that someone else has gathered together and published.



Hitler once published some propoganda stating clearly that Germany could in no way lose WWII. Victory was assured and within only months he himself would be marching into Britian.

Some years after the war had ended, letters written by Hitler were found. In one he declared that Germany would die. The war was lost and the Fatherland faced only defeat.

According to the second source theory, Germany did win WWII. The letters describing defeat were published post-humously, so they hold no weight. Only the first writing can and is to be believed.

Just being silly...


----------



## Harad

Reality (Germany lost WWII) or truth (2+2=4, base10) trump general principles of literary sources. There is none of the first and some of the second in LOTR.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> Greenwood wrote:
> I am not saying we should ignore the Appendices (as Tar-Elenion has tried to characterize my position).



I have? Lets see, I think have 'characterized' your position as wanting to dismiss the appendices:
"and dismiss the appendices because you are saying "Tolkien is telling his readers: "Don't bother to read the Appendices if you don't want to, you will still understand the story without the Appendices."";" as well as you saying Tolkien is "telling his readers they can skip the Appendices". What I have referred to as you wanting to ignore is a part of the narrative proper ('rebel Uruk-hai') which you have said is "at best ambiguous and hence can be ignored".

I have said that: "With as much as Shagrat and I are dismissing JRRT's writings, declaring them ambiguous and saying they should be ignored or that they are not relevant we obviously think he was a "bad writer"." 




> Of course, the Appendices give us lots of new and expanded information. I am saying that Tolkien would not use the Appendices to contradict things in the narrative. I am unaware of any instances of his doing this. If there are such instances then I think you have already provided the guide in your above statement to resolving such a contradiction when you say Tolkien "had neither the time nor the inclination to go through the massive corrections that would be necessary to bring all his works into accordance". In such a case the narrative proper should trump the Appendices. But, I do not think Tolkien contradicts the narrative in the Appendices, so if there is an interpretation of material in the Appendices that does contradict the narrative, I submit that the interpretation must be considered to be wrong.
> [and]
> I repeat that only a poor storyteller and writer would use appendices to change the meanings of things in the main narrative. That or a writer who liked to play head games on his readers.



JRRT refers the reader to the Appendices in (at least) two cases I can recall. Once when Frodo is singing the 'Man in the Moon' song ('At the Sign of the Prancing Pony'), and again in the 'Lothlorien' chapter when Frodo first hears the Galadhrim speaking.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Tar Elenion- how do we know that the rings poem was not composed in it's entirety by Sauron?



I infer that it was not from Gandalf's statement about it being a verse long known in Elven lore.

Why do you think Sauron would have composed it?



> Also, Uruk-hai demonstrably referred only to Saruman's troops, at least until summer 1948. Up until this time, the concept of 'large soldier-Orcs of Mordor' had already appeared, but had never been called Uruks. That he first applied the term Uruks to Mordor Orcs in 1948, 4 years after writing the letter to his son, is pretty good evidence that the definition changed during those four years. As I said before, this could have been an expansion of the collective terms 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' to include both Mordor and Isengarders, or it could have been that 'Uruk-hai' remained the name of Isengarders while 'Uruks' was used only for Mordor Orcs. Either way we have a changing definition. Having examined the 15 (really 18) usages in the texts and appendices, I would say that the latter theory is better supported by what Tolkien wrote.



Except, of course, that in the two Letters previously cited, the terms are not referring to Saruman's troops.


----------



## aragil

The verse- I don't know, Elven lore could refer to the fact that the Elves were around and the Numenoreans were still on their Island when the verse was first spoken. I guess the main problem with my theory is that Sauron spoke the 'Ash nazg' lines (undoubtedly his own) at the forging in SA 1600, yet the 'nine for mortal men' did not first appear until SA 2251. Oh well, Sauron still could have written the other lines much later.

The letters:


> Well there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai.
> JRRT, letter 66, 4th May, 1944


If that is not a reference to Merry, Pippin, and the troops of Saruman, then you can call me Shirley.



> Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable
> JRRT, letter 78, 12th August, 1944


To whom do you suppose that Tolkien is referring with his usage of Uruks and Urukhai here, if not to the troops of Saruman. The Uruks of Mordor were not good folks made bad by Sauron, they were bad folks made to be stronger, and the term 'Uruks' was not applied to them for another four years. The Uruk-hai of Isengard were men crossed with orcs. As men were generally considered 'good' peoples (with many exceptions), the Uruk-hai were 'good' folk 'made bad by the intention of their maker' (Saruman). The same could of course be said of Orcs in general and their maker Morgoth, but Orcs in general are not Uruks, as is pointed out in Appendix F. Considering this evidence within the letters, and the dates we have from the HoME series I do not understand how you can say that these letters were not referring to the troops of Saruman.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> The letters:
> 
> 
> 
> Well there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai.
> JRRT, letter 66, 4th May, 1944
> 
> 
> 
> If that is not a reference to Merry, Pippin, and the troops of Saruman, then you can call me Shirley.
Click to expand...


The 'hobbit' referred to is Christopher Tolkien, and he was not among Saruman's troops.




> Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable
> JRRT, letter 78, 12th August, 1944
> 
> 
> 
> To whom do you suppose that Tolkien is referring with his usage of Uruks and Urukhai here, if not to the troops of Saruman. The Uruks of Mordor were not good folks made bad by Sauron, they were bad folks made to be stronger, and the term 'Uruks' was not applied to them for another four years. The Uruk-hai of Isengard were men crossed with orcs. As men were generally considered 'good' peoples (with many exceptions), the Uruk-hai were 'good' folk 'made bad by the intention of their maker' (Saruman). The same could of course be said of Orcs in general and their maker Morgoth, but Orcs in general are not Uruks, as is pointed out in Appendix F. Considering this evidence within the letters, and the dates we have from the HoME series I do not understand how you can say that these letters were not referring to the troops of Saruman.
Click to expand...


"The penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs", L66.
"And of course, as you already discover, one of the discovers of the process is the realization of the values that often lurk under dreadful appearences", L78.

Saruman did not turn Men into Orcs. If the supposition holds, he interbred Men with Orcs. Sauron was the one who turned Men and Elves ('good folk') into Orcs ('made bad') by implementing Morgoth's plan:
"We may assume, then, that the idea of breeding the Orcs came from Melkor, not at first maybe so much for the provision of servants or the infantry of his wars of destruction, as for the defilement of the Children and the blasphemous mockery of the designs of Eru. The details of the accomplishment of this wickedness were, however, left mainly to the subtleties of Sauron. In that case the conception in mind of the Orcs may go far back into the night of Melkor's thought, though the beginning of their actual breeding must await the awakening of Men." 

App. F says: "Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs _that at this time_ issued from Mordor and Isengard." 
Italics mine. 'Uruk' had been in use for a _long_ time (internally).


----------



## Greenwood

> _Quote by Tar-Elenion_
> Lets see, I think have 'characterized' your position as wanting to dismiss the appendices:
> "and dismiss the appendices because you are saying "Tolkien is telling his readers: "Don't bother to read the Appendices if you don't want to, you will still understand the story without the Appendices."";" as well as you saying Tolkien is "telling his readers they can skip the Appendices". What I have referred to as you wanting to ignore is a part of the narrative proper ('rebel Uruk-hai') which you have said is "at best ambiguous and hence can be ignored".



There you go again. First, Tolkien himself told his readers they could skip the Appendices in the Foreward to his First Edition of LOTR. While Tolkien did indeed completely redo the Foreward in the Second Edition and this statement is not there, he certainly never said anywhere, "BTW, I retract my statement about not reading the Appendices. You must read them to understand my work." Second, I said: "I am saying that Tolkien would not use the Appendices to contradict things in the narrative." and "I do not think Tolkien contradicts the narrative in the Appendices, so if there is an interpretation of material in the Appendices that does contradict the narrative, I submit that the interpretation must be considered to be wrong." As for the "rebel Uruk-hai", I have said that I do not think it is ambiguous, I was trying to grant you some leeway for the sake of argument. I think it clearly refers to Saruman's troops.



> JRRT refers the reader to the Appendices in (at least) two cases I can recall. Once when Frodo is singing the 'Man in the Moon' song ('At the Sign of the Prancing Pony'), and again in the 'Lothlorien' chapter when Frodo first hears the Galadhrim speaking.



And of course these references were not included when Tolkien wrote these chapters, nor in the First Edition. They are also about as relevant to this discussion as your earlier red herring about the Kings of Numenor.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> There you go again.


?


> First, Tolkien himself told his readers they could skip the Appendices in the Foreward to his First Edition of LOTR. While Tolkien did indeed completely redo the Foreward in the Second Edition and this statement is not there, he certainly never said anywhere, "BTW, I retract my statement about not reading the Appendices. You must read them to understand my work."




JRRT said he wanted to cancel the Forward. He cancelled it, and wrote another one, that does not include any reference to 'skipping' the Appendices. CT notes that the First Edition Forward was "rejected in its entirety". Guess what, I think I will trust CT's statement over your supposition.



> Second, I said: "I am saying that Tolkien would not use the Appendices to contradict things in the narrative." and "I do not think Tolkien contradicts the narrative in the Appendices, so if there is an interpretation of material in the Appendices that does contradict the narrative, I submit that the interpretation must be considered to be wrong."



I have provided two instances of the Appendices 'contradicting the narrative'.



> As for the "rebel Uruk-hai", I have said that I do not think it is ambiguous, I was trying to grant you some leeway for the sake of argument. I think it clearly refers to Saruman's troops.



I am aware of that, I was pointing out what you said should be 'ignored'. 




> And of course these references were not included when Tolkien wrote these chapters, nor in the First Edition. They are also about as relevant to this discussion as your earlier red herring about the Kings of Numenor.



Really? They are included in the Second Edition, HM editions. And the Lothlorien one is in my copy of the Ballantine edition. 
And you did ask Cian: "Can you point to a single instance (other than your argument in this case) where Tolkien changed the usage of words in the narrative proper with redefinitions in the Appendices? That would be very poor story-telling, especially after telling your readers they do not have to read the Appendices."

There you go. I have provided two instances.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *The 'hobbit' referred to is Christopher Tolkien, and he was not among Saruman's troops.
> *


I sincerely hope you are being argumentative here and didn't miss the fact that JRRT was paralleling his son's situation with that of Merry and Pippin. CT was in South Africa with fellow RAFers which he apparently found quite unpleasant. JRRT was characterizing him as having the values of a hobbit amongst people behaving as orcs. Except he didn't say Orcs, he said Urukhai, which were the troops of Saruman.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *App. F says: "Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard."
> Italics mine. 'Uruk' had been in use for a _long_ time (internally).*


App F does not say that the word 'Uruk' has been around a long time. It says that the word uruk is related to the Sindarin word orch, is a Black Speech term, and is only applied to the soldier-orcs of Isengard and Mordor, as a rule. Prior to 2475, the term Uruk had never been used internally that I am aware, and appendix F does not say that it had. Externally, the term Uruks was never applied to Mordor Orcs until 4 years after the letter was written, and you can take CT's word on that.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> I sincerely hope you are being argumentative here and didn't miss the fact that JRRT was paralleling his son's situation with that of Merry and Pippin. CT was in South Africa with fellow RAFers which he apparently found quite unpleasant. JRRT was characterizing him as having the values of a hobbit amongst people behaving as orcs. Except he didn't say Orcs, he said Urukhai, which were the troops of Saruman.



I have noted that 'parallel' previously. Urukhai were Orcs and not just Saruman's. As is also said in that letter "The penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs", L66. 
Saruman did not turn Elves and Men into Orcs.



> App F does not say that the word 'Uruk' has been around a long time. It says that the word uruk is related to the Sindarin word orch, is a Black Speech term, and is only applied to the soldier-orcs of Isengard and Mordor, as a rule. Prior to 2475, the term Uruk had never been used internally that I am aware, and appendix F does not say that it had. Externally, the term Uruks was never applied to Mordor Orcs until 4 years after the letter was written, and you can take CT's word on that.



App F refers to it applying "as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard." 'At this time' (i.e. later in the Third Age). Internally the word had been in use for Orcs for a long time (you have already noted the Adunaic use and it was borrowed from earlier Elvish words into the B.S., which Sauron devised in the Second Age).


----------



## aragil

All right, I think we're getting a little side-tracked here.
What I said: JRRT never uses Uruks or Uruk-hai to refer to Mordor Orcs before 1948.
What you said: JRRT wrote two letters to his son using the terms Urukhai.
What I said: Those two usages both seem to refer to Saruman's Urukhai, especially since he has not yet referred to Mordor Orcs as Uruks.
What you said: Urukhai refers to Mordor Orcs as well as Isengarders, therefore Urukhai in the letters must not refer only to Isengarders.

Am I mischaracterizing your argument here? Do you have any evidence that in 1944 Uruks referred to Mordor Orcs other than the fact that you think Uruks and Urukhai are the same thing? If you do I am sure CT would like to see it, as he is apparently unaware of it.


----------



## Eonwe

Newbies: 1948 and 1944 are Anno Domini, not Third Age. 

Warning: 525th post approaching! Catch it while its hot!


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> All right, I think we're getting a little side-tracked here.
> What I said: JRRT never uses Uruks or Uruk-hai to refer to Mordor Orcs before 1948.
> What you said: JRRT wrote two letters to his son using the terms Urukhai.
> What I said: Those two usages both seem to refer to Saruman's Urukhai, especially since he has not yet referred to Mordor Orcs as Uruks.
> What you said: Urukhai refers to Mordor Orcs as well as Isengarders, therefore Urukhai in the letters must not refer only to Isengarders.
> Am I mischaracterizing your argument here?



The point I am making for the two Letters is that they do not refer to Saruman's Orcs. Uruk-hai (and Uruks) in Letters is referring to (Elves and) Men becoming Orcs, . This to my mind shows that JRRT did not consider the terms exclusive to Saruman's Orcs even after using Uruk-hai for Saruman's Orcs in a draft of 'The Uruk-hai'. 
You _seem_ to be presuming that JRRT (initially) intended that Uruk and Uruk-hai apply only to Saruman's Orcs (?). 
I am not presuming that. I think he had a clear intention of what the word meant from his first use of it.



> Do you have any evidence that in 1944 Uruks referred to Mordor Orcs other than the fact that you think Uruks and Urukhai are the same thing? If you do I am sure CT would like to see it, as he is apparently unaware of it.



First Uruks and Urukhai (or -hai) are the same thing. This is clearly shown by JRRT's use in the cited Letter where Uruks is an anglicization. 
The first attested to definition of 'uruk' is from the preliminary writing of 'Lowdham's Report' where it is defined as 'goblin, orc'. CT says 'Lowdham's Report' belongs with D.A.3 and 4 which he dates to the first part of '46 and notes a reference by his father that indicates he had written them at the end of '45.

Let me go back to an earlier post by you:


> The best I can say is that Humphrey Carpenter's biography states that Tolkien finished 'Flotsam and Jetsam' in December 1942. This corresponds to page 230 of TT, so the first use of the term Uruk-hai was 169 printed pages before December 1942, whatever that means. 1942 was a productive year, so I would place the first usage of Uruk-hai during the summer of 1942, when CT was 17.



I dont think this is borne out by other facts. The _initial_ drafting of the 'Uruk-hai' chapter may have been done by that point, but CT notes that the various Orc names including Uruk-hai are present in the _second_ version (he notes that 'Snaga' and 'Mauhur' had already 'appeared in the preliminary draft'). Pippen casting aside his brooch is now entered into the second version. But there is no mention of Aragorn returning the brooch in the first manuscript which seems to be dated to around June of '42 (when Grishnakh was changed to Grishnak). CT gives no dates for the second version, but it could well be from as late as '44. JRRT says he wrote the first drafts of book 3 in 1942 and then began again in '44 (after take a year or so off for the War). It is possible that the first use of Uruk-hai is actually from '44. But no really specific dates are given.

CT notes that the word 'uruks' seems to have been first used in the earliest form of the conclusion to the Land of Shadow. But he also refers to the reader to 'Lowdhams Report' (which translates uruk as orc) which is from the first part of '46 or the latter part of '45.

There is an earlier use of Uruk in the compound 'Uruktharbun' a (prior) name for Azanulbizar. No translation is attested to, but using what we know a *translation can be gleaned and possibly even what it is referring to. I want to see if others come up with my *translation and conclusion, so I am not going to provide it at this point. If you would care to play along please do, perhaps Cian might join in as well. I will post my translation tomorrow.


----------



## Greenwood

*RE: Time of invention of Urukhai*

JRRT's letter to CT in which he uses the phrase "a hobbit amongst the Urukhai" (as Aragil says clearly a reference to Merry and Pippin with Ugluk's band) is dated May 6, 1944. Clearly JRRT expected CT to immediately understand what he was saying so he cannot be referring to something that he had just written. This would indicate Uruk-hai was not a new invention in early 1944.

In his Foreward to The Treason of Isengard, CT says his father had taken the story as far as the chapter The Palantir by the end of 1942. In the chapter Helm's Deep (which comes before The Palantir) in The War of the Ring, CT presents (pp. 21-22) what he says was an "extremely rapid initial sketch" of Aragorn's talking to the troops of Saruman from above the gates of the Hornburg. In it the orc captain says: "We are the Uruk-hai, we slay." If Tolkien had taken the story beyond this point by late 1942 and an "initial sketch" has the orcs calling themselves "Uruk-hai", this would seem to be evidence that the term Uruk-hai does indeed probably date to 1942.

(Aragil -- my apologies for jumping in. I thought I would beat Eonwe to the 525th post.  )


----------



## Harad

Now that the dust has settled, its time for the definitive answer:

"Hai" is derived from the Japanese "Hai" and means roughly "!".

Therefore Uruk-hai means Uruk!
The Uruk-hai were Uruks, only more so.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

Belatedly, but per a request by Cian, 'Uruktharbun':
Uruk- 'Orc', (in Q&E Dwarvish 'Orcs', 'Rukhs')
Tharkûn- 'Staff-man', thar- 'staff'
Bundushathur- 'Cloudyhead, bund- 'head'


----------



## Eonwe

doesn't that seem like a strange name for Moria? Like a decapitated orc head on a stick??


----------



## Cian

Tar-E, I figured you might be thinking Tharkûn (earlier _Sharkûn_) and etc., but with such cold conjectural waters, I declined to dip even my toe  

Perhaps Tar-E is thinking of Azogs head on a stake? and the ref. to _Azanulbizâr_ in note 36 in HoMe to the "The Mines of Moria"?


----------



## aragil

Interesting, but this would mean that Uruk was originally intended to be a dwarven term. Is Dwarvish really that closely related to Quenya?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *Tar-E, I figured you might be thinking Tharkûn (earlier Sharkûn) and etc., but with such cold conjectural waters, I declined to dip even my toe
> 
> Perhaps Tar-E is thinking of Azogs head on a stake? and the ref. to Azanulbizâr in note 36 in HoMe to the "The Mines of Moria"? *



Yes. That is what was brought to mind. Though unattested to, unfortunately.


----------



## aragil

Just saving this thread from the imminent void of pruning - too much good reference material in here for me to let it go.


----------



## ReadWryt

I'm working on an idea actually that might let us archive threads like this one which, although quite well aged, indeed contains some insightfull and spirited discussion...


----------



## Tar-Elenion

Cian supplied this commentary from noted Tolkien bibliographer Wayne Hammond (who originally posted it in the 'rec.arts.books.tolkien' newsgroup, in responce to a debate on another subject).



> An index was appended to _The Lord of the Rings_ beginning with the Ballantine Books edition in 1965. It was compiled by a woman named Nancy Smith, hired by Allen & Unwin to do the job, with Tolkien's approval and participation. (Relevant correspondence recently sold at auction.) But it was done in a rush, because of the urgency of publication to compete with the Ace Books "pirate". Tolkien then did further work on the index: "Closer scrutiny," he wrote to Allen & Unwin in February 1966, "has revealed many more errors, several omissions, and some confused entries [in the Ballantine Books edition index]. I have in the event done much alteration and correction -- making, I think, the index more useful and informative within its limits" (quoted in _J.R.R. Tolkien: A Descriptive Bibliography_, 1993, p. 137). The revised index first appeared in the 2nd Allen & Unwin hardcover edition of _The Lord of the Rings_, 1966. But it was never as full an index as Tolkien would have liked.
> 
> The chronology of these actions will be shown in detail in Volume 1 of the Tolkien _Companion and Guide_ my wife and I are writing for HarperCollins and Houghton Mifflin, for publication in September 2003, and their history will be dealt with more fully in the next edition of my Tolkien _Bibliography_, projected for 2004 from Oak Knoll Press.
> 
> Wayne Hammond


----------



## aragil

*General vs. Partitive Plural*

Awright, I know Cian and T-E are still trolling around these boards, and there is the remotest possibility that ShagratU is still floating around, so I thought I'd pose a grammatical question for you linguistic-types (this being the best spot on the forum I could think of to post it): 
What exactly defines a general plural term?

I'm aware that the Elven languages generally had both a partitive and general plural form for peoples (i.e. different races), and that the general plural was usually formed through the addition of an ending like 'people/host/folk'. However, I'm confused on where exactly a term like 'Druedain' or 'Dunedain' would fall. Would it be a general plural term (like 'dru-folk'), or would it be a simple compound of an adjective and the peoples name (like 'men of the west', west modifying men)? Or are they the same thing?

Obviously, this is related to the linguistic aspect of this thread, as your (collective) argument all along seems to be that Uruk-hai was a plural term for Uruk, and that Uruks was simply an anglicization of this Black Speech term. Having read a bit more of the linguistic aspects of Tolkiens world since the beginning of this debate, I recognize a (probably obvious) similarity between Elvish '-hoth' and BS '-hai'. However, assuming that Sauron not only borrowed Elvish vocabulary for his BS, but also grammatical structure, shouldn't there be partitive plural form as well?

Hmm. That's actually two seperate questions. Oh well, waiting to hear from you(-folk).


----------



## aragil

Anybody home?


----------



## Grond

Uruks = anglicized term for Uruk-hai.

Aragil... your own. Let begin again.


----------



## aragil

*Don't mind if I do*

But (and this is a big butt), we could have dru-folk and dru-host be seperate things (hypothetical situation here- imagine drurim and druhoth if you like). Their 'anglicization' (of course, they're already in English, but you know what I mean) would both be dru*s*, and the singular of either term would be dru. Anyway, that's just some stuff I've been thinking about. Any thoughts?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

Shagrat seems to be gone (he moved back to England from China), I attempted to e-mail him a little while back and got no responce.
Cian will be able to better answer your query but here is something noted linguist David Salo wrote on a this subject elsewhere:


> Let's also note that the Black Speech suffix -hai appears in
> _Olog-hai_ "Trolls", and so evidently marks plurality or collectivity
> (at least of peoples); so "Uruk-hai" means no more than "Orcs" or
> (using _uruk_ in its most specific sense) "Great Soldier-Orcs", sc.
> _The_ Orcs par excellence.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Shagrat seems to be gone (he moved back to England from China), I attempted to e-mail him a little while back and got no responce.*


Sheesh. You think he'd be easier to get a hold of in England.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Cian will be able to better answer your query but here is something noted linguist David Salo wrote on a this subject elsewhere:*


Ah yes. But I'm unclear on whether (for instance) Druedain and Dunedain are general plural terms like Galadhrim or Orchoth. Any opinions?


----------



## Cian

I don't feel very qualified  (though thanks Tar-E), especially after noting Helge's approach to the partitive vrs the general in Quenya (avoiding it in his course until the Appendices).

Anyway, on the coll plurals vrs. the 'mutation' plurals (thank you David! see below), but perhaps these forms might help?

adanath "men" (pl. agreement)
aranath "kings"
balrogath "balrogs"
drúath "drúedain" (said to be pl.)
eglath "the Falathrim"
firiath "mortal men" (called 'class-plural')
ion(n)ath "sons"
nauglath "dwarves"
periannath "halflings" (pl. agreement)
sellath "daughters"
torath "kings" 



> *"3) those formed by adding a suffix, as faradrim, rohirrim; to which one might add the 'collective plurals' ending in -ath (aselenath, periannath) or even those ending in -hoth, -waith (glamhoth, druuwaith). These can be produced at will, but generally have a semantic content differing slightly from the mutation-plurals."* ~ David Salo




Edain itself arises from i-mutation (through stages) from Old Sindarin _*adani_ (note Quenya _atani_).

But haven't we sorta gone this path before? with regards "Uruks" _Uruk-hai_ I mean 

edit: more to muse on: 

Dúnedain was created to match Dúnedhil: _"... which was a name for all the Elves of Beleriand, allied in the War."_ JRRT

And:
_Ónen i-Estel Edain, ú-chebin estel anim_ 
Translated by JRRT: "I gave Hope to the Dúnedain; I have kept no hope for myself".


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *
> But haven't we sorta gone this path before? with regards "Uruks" Uruk-hai I mean *



Yes, the difference being that then I was pronouncing, now I am asking. Thanks for the quotes- still not sure whether 'dunedain' falls into the class of collective plural, though.


----------



## Cian

I edited in some stuffs (above), and heck, I don't think we have heard from Chris Gilson yet  member of the Tolklang Editorial Team:

__________
"Sindarin employs various plural suffixes, one of which is _-ath_, as in _sammath_'chambers', _ennorath_ 'middle-lands', _giliath_ 'host of stars', etc. In the notes in _The Road Goes Ever On_ Tolkien explains that "the suffix _-ath_ (originally a collective noun-suffix) was used as a group plural, embracing all things of the same name, or those associated in some special arrangement." In Letter #347 he says: "It was a collective or group suffix, and the nouns so formed originally singulars. But they were later treated as pls., especially when applied to people(s), e.g. _Periannath_ the Hobbit-folk, as distinguished from _periain_ hobbits, an indefinite number of 'halflings'."

Another Sindarin plural suffix is _-rim_. In Letter # 168 Tolkien says: "The 'correct' plural of _onod_ was _enyd_, or general plural _onodrim_; though _ened_ might be a form used in Gondor." Other examples of _-rim_ include _nogothrim_ 'dwarf-folk' (also _Naugrim_), _Golodhrim_ 'the Noldor', and _orodrim_ (in _Thangorodrim_ 'Mountains of Tyranny'). 

In Letter #144 in an explanation of the form _Rohir-rim_ Tolkien says: "The Eldarin languages distinguish in forms and use between a 'partitive' or 'particular' plural, and the general or total plural. Thus _yrch_ 'orcs, some orcs, des orques' occurs in vol. I, pp. 359, 402; the Orcs, as a race, or the whole of a group previously mentioned would have been _orchoth_. In Grey-elven the general plurals were very frequently made by adding to a name (or a place-name) some word meaning 'tribe, host, horde, people'. So _Haradrim_ the Southrons: Q _rimbe_, S _rim_, host; _Onod-rim_ the Ents." 

:edit:

By and large suffixed forms are used as 'group' or 'total' plurals, while the vowel-affected forms are used for the 'particular' plural. But the latter is sometimes marked by a suffix as well. One example is _e^l_ 'star', pl. _elin_ (group pl. _elenath_). The same suffix _-in_ is seen in the plural _Conin_ 'princes' (Letter # 230). This also resembles the ending in plural adjectives such as _galen_ 'green' pl. _gelin_, and may owe its origin in part to this, or arise by a similar development. Presumably suffixed plurals co-exist in the place of vowel-affection plurals because the phonetic causes of the latter did not affect all nouns." C. Gilson
__________

Some darn good quoting here if nothing else


----------



## aragil

Thanks! The letter 144 quote (specifically the discussion of orch/yrch/orchoth) was part of what got me thinking about this in the first place.


----------



## Lantarion

[Quenya]'Nothing is more interesting than the Eldarin languages'[/Quenya].


----------



## aragil

[Morbeth]Unless it is sweet, uncouth Black Speech[/Morbeth]


----------



## Anamatar IV

uruk means orc in the black language. So if anyone can tell us what hai means then we'd have something.


----------



## Anamatar IV

since the uruk hai were orc-men maybe hai ment man.


----------



## Grond

> _Originally posted by Anamatar IV _
> *uruk means orc in the black language. So if anyone can tell us what hai means then we'd have something. *


This thread has 37 pages. If you would read them you would discover that we have been arguing about the meaning of the word "hai!" for 36 of them. 

The argument is that, since the plural "s" doesn't exist in the black speech, that Uruks is simply an anglicization of the word Uruk-hai. It is determined that Uruks is not a word in the black speech (at least I think we've all agreed to that). It has been argued that "hai" means folk or peoples or a lot of other things. Read the thread and you'll see.


----------



## Anamatar IV

okay ill start reading them now. Ill get back to you sometime next week


----------



## Grond

> _Originally posted by Anamatar IV _
> *okay ill start reading them now. Ill get back to you sometime next week  *


Nobody said coming in to a thread with 37 pages would be easy.


----------



## Lantarion

That's precisely what is so annoying about coming late into RP's: if you have to read over twenty pages worth of text just to fit in your own minuscule plot variation.. Well, let's just say I'd rather gut a live fish than read that much at a time!


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*bump*

Just bumping the thread so it does not get lost.


----------



## Cian

I thought Aragil may have 'struck' again at last! and Tar-E parried! but not yet ... not yet it seems ...


----------



## Snaga

Shouldn't this thread be 'Great Smial'-ed?


----------



## aragil

*What does '-hai' mean?*

(Cian or T-E out there?)
This thread is intended to extend _Uruks vs. Uruk-hai_, which, alas, was packed off to the Smials before I could get my last word in. In any case, Tar-Elenion countered my argument that '-hai' might mean men with


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion_
> *I have remembered. We actually have a Black Speech word for 'man'.
> 'sharku' - 'old man'. *shar, '*old'; *ku , '*man'.
> Cian please give further insight as necessary.*


 Cian offered


> _Originally posted by Cian_
> *I wouldn't call it further insight from me, but Craig Daniel certainly agrees with you Tar-E. From his analysis of the BS ("A second Opinion On the Black Speech" ... now available at local Ardalambion outlets ), Craig concludes a breakdown of either Shar-kû or Shark-kû, in any event Kû meaning "man".
> 
> Craig offers his comments on 'debasement' in his work. Helge's wordlist includes parenthetical (DBS?) DBS for "Debased Black Speech".*


 I find this interesting, because one of the two k's is dropped going from shark-ku to sharku. This to me is a little reminiscent (perhaps wishfully so) of another word ending in k- Uruk. Is it at all possible that Uruk-hai stems from two original words- 'Uruk' and 'khai'? Remember, the original form (as demonstrated in Letters 66 and 78, as well as HoME vol 8) was 'urukhai' without the hyphen. I know Cian's earlier argument on the hyphen:


> _Originally posted by Cian_
> *Well I didn't say LotR (however in one of my editions it is so spelt in RotK, but obviously not in others). I'm just basing that statement on Letters where it's apparently not hyphenated (spelled Urukhai twice [different letters], in both new and old editions at least).
> 
> A probable reason for a hyphenated form: "... simply to avoid the pronunciation of -kh- as a fricative." David Salo
> 
> In any case my main thing was to show a hyphenated example including "folk", as in Adûnaic kadar-lâi*


 Avoidance of a fricative is here given as the reason for later adding a hyphen, and now I'm wondering if there isn't a bit of lenition (new word for me) going on as well. For a close-looking word in Quenya, we have Tar-Elenion's statement:


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion_
> *And even further is 'borrowed' from the Quenya: Tarkil from (IIRC) 'tar', 'high' and (CE) 'khil-', 'follow'(followers, Men).*


 Is it linguistically possible to have Quenya "Khil" for men related to (completely hypothetical) Black Speech "Khai"=men and "Khu"=man (to say nothing of Dwarvish kun=man)? I'm not really trying to make a hard sell here- I'm genuinely interested to find out if this is linguistically possible. Hmm. Perhaps I know part of Cian's reply already:


> _Originally posted by Cian_
> *In any event, to speculate about vowel change plurals in Black Speech, even were you to offer example of any simple vocabulary borrowing directly from Sindarin ... well, this is 'too' much speculation Imo. *


 Come on! Speculation is fun!


----------



## elven kismet

everyone seems to suggest that "hai" in suffix form refers to people or man, as far as i've seen, yet i suggest a new theory. Couldn't "hai" also mean improved, or altered (changed, modified, etc.). As it has been seen "hai" is also appears in the form Olog-hai, which is used analogously with Uruk-hai. since these two terms, uruk and uruk-hai, olog and olog-hai respectively, seem to be used in the story in such different contexts (and i understand that this is a hotly debated issue around here) wouldn't it seem sensible that these hai suffixes intimate some sort of modification like sunlight tolerance?


----------



## Isenho

"Uruk" means "orcs" in the black tongue. and "hai" has to mean "man!"


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: What does '-hai' mean?*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> <snip>
> I find this interesting, because one of the two k's is dropped going from shark-ku to sharku. This to me is a little reminiscent (perhaps wishfully so) of another word ending in k- Uruk.



_*Shark_ is unattested to in the corpus. It is a hypothetical of Craig Daniels'. He also suggest simply _shar_. You may wish to see if any other known B.S. compunds syncope in that manner.
Also would it need to be dropped from the compounds Olog-hai and Oghor-hai?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by elven kismet _
> everyone seems to suggest that "hai" in suffix form refers to people or man, as far as i've seen, yet i suggest a new theory. Couldn't "hai" also mean improved, or altered (changed, modified, etc.). As it has been seen "hai" is also appears in the form Olog-hai, which is used analogously with Uruk-hai. since these two terms, uruk and uruk-hai, olog and olog-hai respectively, seem to be used in the story in such different contexts (and i understand that this is a hotly debated issue around here) wouldn't it seem sensible that these hai suffixes intimate some sort of modification like sunlight tolerance?



We also have the Oghor-hai (the Druedain (Woses)). It seems unlikely that Orcs would name their hated foes with a 'superlative' suffix.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Isenho _
> "Uruk" means "orcs" in the black tongue. and "hai" has to mean "man!"



Uruk means Orc in the B.S. it does not mean Orc*S*.
Uruk is a singular, not a plural.
'-hai' is only used when referring to groups of beings: Uruk-hai (great soldier-orcs), Olog-hai (a race of black trolls) and Oghor-hai (the Dru-folk). 
Since the Olog-hai were Trolls not Men, the theory that '-hai' "has to mean "man!"" does not seem to stand.


----------



## aragil

Woo-hoo, T-E is here, and some promising-looking new blood as well. Hopefully Cian will show sooner or later. T-E- have you been able to raise ShagratU since his return to England?
Anyway, some investigations of Tar-Elenion's and Cian's, which I rather laxly forgot to include in my opening post:

1)


> _Originally posted by Cian in Orcs out of pods?_
> *Anyway, very little about the Black Speech is known. I bow to my betters with this term as far as scholarly linguistic opinion goes: the following are very well respected Tolkien linguists' views on the seemingly elusive "-hai".
> 
> Christopher Tolkien (if not "opinion" at least appendixed): Uruks is an anglicization of Uruk-hai
> 
> David Salo: -hai "people, group"
> 
> Helge Fauskanger: -hai "folk"
> 
> Lisa Star: "-hai" is a collective plural
> 
> Carl Hostetter: wrote (in 1993) that he favored the interpretation of "superior". "The Eldarin collective terms -lim, rim, hoth yield nothing that could reasonably be related to -hai." Carl H.
> 
> It should be added that Tolkien also used oghor-hai as a term the orcs used to refer to the Drúedain (with Uruk-hai, Olog-hai)
> 
> It should also be added that with the publication of Sauron Defeated we find that JRR Tolkien glossed Adûnaic kadar-lâi as "city-folk". Also, from Avarin dialect: Kinn-lai theoried to basically mean "Elf-people". Interesting  *


 Of course of great interest to me is Carl Hostetter's definition, but I note that he seems to be in the minority among the other experts (not the same as being wrong!).

2)


> _Originally posted by Cian_
> *Part of linguist David Salo's discussion on the English word "Man" as it related to Glorfindels prophecy:
> 
> "The key words (for your question) are dîr/nér. These refer to the males of any kind of _hnau_ or intelligent beings, especially of Elves and humans of various sorts."
> 
> Another section:
> 
> "Which would leave open the possibility that he could be killed by _edhel_, _nogoth_, _onod_, or _perian_. However, it would preclude the possibility he could be killed by a female _adan_." (incidently this is based on a hypothetical and not reflective of Davids view regarding the death of the Witch King)
> 
> This is just to show that David is certainly well aware of the various beings in Middle-earth, moreover, I think naturally, he would be not only mindful of possible distinctions between "Man" and "folk" but of distinctions beyond that.
> 
> Leave them at the door or not, the linguistic "opinions" from David and others regarding BS -hai (that I posted in the other thread) ... well let's just say that from my experience in reading David, Helge, Lisa Star, Carl Hostetter, are very familiar with Tolkiens world too  *


3)


> _Originally posted by Cian_
> *Bombadillodillo,
> Generally, JRRT uses collective suffixes in his langs of course, and of note, he does not always hyphenate Urukhai in any event.
> 
> For a hyphenated example of "folk" see Adûnaic kadar-lâi which means, according to Tolkien, "city folk"
> 
> ~ (-lâi) may come from Avarin Kinn-lai ~ itself perhaps a reflex of *Quende-lië ~ well attested "a-infixion" (See Elvish stem LI) can explain the form in the Avarin clan name suffix. Stem LI > Q. lië "people".
> 
> Tar-Elenion, weekends are tough for me to respond, but I'll hopefully address the questions you raised (re: Carl Hostetter), as best I can, come monday-ish if not sooner. Cheers*



4)


> _Originally posted by Cian_
> *I couldn't find anything further here Tar-E. He did give a response (not in a linguistic forum) on "-hai" back in 1993, before all of HoMe was published ("Soory" is so spelt purposely I'd say):
> 
> "Soory, I've drawn a blank on this one, though I tend to favor the interpretation that it means "superior" (The Eldarin collective terms, i.e., -lim, -rim, -hoth, yield nothing that could reasonably be related to -hai)." C. Hostetter 1993
> 
> The other opinions on "hai" were:
> David Salo ~ "people, group"
> Helge F. ~ "folk"
> Lisa Star includes it in her (given in three parts) study of JRRT's collectives.
> 
> (well, to give all those opinions over here now )*


 Again I think it's interesting that Hostetter doesn't feel that "-hai" fits in with the other collectives. 

5)


> _Originally posted by Cian_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion_
> *... and should feel free to give additional insight). Literally 'adan' (the singular) is an adaption to Sindarin of the Quenya 'atan' (see WotJ, Quendi & Eldar). The plural Quenya name for Men Atani literally means 'the Second Folk' (see Q&E) but is normally translated 'Men'. It comes from the Common Eldarin 'tata', 'atta' two. *
> 
> 
> 
> *Dúnedain would naturaly be given as "Western-men" as likely as Q. Núnatani, but indeed adapted adan hailed from a "second" sense in Q. atan. Adan can be glossed "Man" or "one of the Second people, folk"
> 
> There's nothing much additional about that though  but thanks for the confidence vote.*
Click to expand...

6)


> _Originally posted by Cian_
> *something from Helge
> Note Helge Fauskangers entry on olog in which he writes a "variety" of Troll, and immediately follows with Olog-hai "Olog-people".
> 
> Agree with HF or not on -hai, I thought it might be interesting to note that a trained lang-guy sees nothing awkward with slapping a collective to a "variety" of Troll.*


7)


> _Originally posted by Cian_
> *Are you referring to Uruk and Uruk-hai here? If so the general force of the argument simply offers a "word" with slapped on collective. As Tolkien invented Nogoth and Nogothrim.
> 
> Stem *RUKU
> ancient forms:
> ruk-, rauk-, uruk-, urk(u), runk, rukut/s strengthened: gruk-, elaborated guruk-, ñguruk
> CE: *rauku, *raukó
> more "ancient": (uruk) urku/ó, adj. urká
> Quenya: urko pl urqui (d.*urku or *uruku)
> Sindarin: urug, orch (d. *urkó, adj. *úrká)
> Adûnaic: urkhu, urkhu
> 
> Generally speaking: what Tolkien did invent was a very real interelated history of langs, and in the context of "found" texts ... Tolkien even took pleasure in asterisking some of his own forms as if they were unattested  which they then are, in a historical sense, within the fantasy of translation.*


 This seems to come mostly from Q and E (HoME 11, pp 389-391). There's an interesting bit from HoME 10 which _might_ imply that Uruk and Olog share a similar root, but that's for my next post. 

8)


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion_
> *I dont think Gorbag 'said' 'Uruks'. 'Uruks' (an anglicization) is what was used to translate what Sam actually heard him say through the Ring (taking into account the internal history presented (see App. F and Prolouge)).*
> 
> 
> 
> _From the Choices of Master Samwise_
> He heard them both clearly, and he understood what they said. Perhaps the Ring gave understanding of tongues, or simply understanding, especially of the servants of Sauron its maker, so that if he gave heed, he understood and translated the thought to himself.
> 
> 
> 
> *What Sam may have heard through the Ring was *URUKIN, This is may be the same word that Gandalf used in Moria. The tracker and soldier Orc are speaking Westron (being of different breeds they used that tongue, App. F) but both know the word 'Uruk-hai' so there is no need for that to be rendered into Westron.*
Click to expand...

Tar-Elenion, if you have anything of linguistic import that you want to add from _U vs U-h_ please feel free. I thought I'd repost these particular quotes to not only re-fresh our memory, but also to help out anyone who didn't have the "benefit" of following along with us in that long-ish thread.


----------



## aragil

*Re: Re: What does '-hai' mean?*



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> **Shark is unattested to in the corpus. It is a hypothetical of Craig Daniels'. He also suggest simply shar. You may wish to see if any other known B.S. compunds syncope in that manner.
> Also would it need to be dropped from the compounds Olog-hai and Oghor-hai? *


 "Syncope"? I must say, you lost me there. As for "Shar-ku" vs "Shark-ku", I doubt I'll be able to find another Black Speech term to test this. I was hoping that either you or Cian would be able to fill me in on whether or not the Elvish Languages might do this- since Black Speech proportedly bases much of it's vocabulary and grammatical structure off of these.
If any other Elvish or Black-Speech words follow this pattern of contraction (is that what syncoping means?), then I would think that Olog-hai might also drop the k sound, as Ologkai sounds awkwards (to me at least). Then again, this is the farthest I've ever dabbled in philology, and my opinion doesn't amount to too much (yet).
Oghor-hai has some dubious (to say the least) distinctions. As we pointed out in _U vs U-h_, it was supposed to be a derogatory handle used in First Age Beleriand- a full age of the world before Sauron "invented" Black Speech (and with it "-hai"). Aside from the essay on the Druedain, there is no further support for this, and not much background for the term even in that essay. I imagine that by the time Tolkien came up with Oghor-hai (late 60's? early 70's?) he was merely following the convention he had earlier established. In this regard I think Uruk-hai and Olog-hai are the much more interesting forms to investigate. I will mention that I think Druedain uses "edain~=men" as a collective plural in the same sense in which I think you say "hai=folk" is a collective plural, so I don't see the problem of Oghor-hai being a direct translation of Dru-edain (hyphen added by me for emphasis).



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion_
> *Since the Olog-hai were Trolls not Men, the theory that '-hai' "has to mean "man!"" does not seem to stand.*


 I agree that "-hai" does not *have* to mean man, but I don't think there's anything from the Olog-hai definition to preclude it. ShagratU and I discussed this at length in _U vs U-h_, here's a snippet of what ShagratU had to say:


> _Selected from ShagratU's post here_
> *Yes, I wasn't very clear there. Let me attempt to clarify. Tolkien says that the Stone Trolls are just "counterfeits" rather than "rational incarnates", as the Orcs are. (He says this in the letter where he points out that Treebeard was wrong about the Orcs being mere counterparts). But he says that there are other types of troll, "for which other origins are suggested."
> 
> So as the Stone Trolls aren't really alive but are made of "animated" stone, it is highly unlikely that they can breed with anything. Moreover, Tolkien says that the other kind(s) of troll have different origins. If the Olog-hai were bred from Stone Trolls and Men, they would have common origin with the Stone Trolls. But they don't.
> 
> So what I meant was that the Olog-hai are clearly not crossbred Stone Trolls, but trolls made in an entirely different sort of way. I think Tolkien even suggests that they might have been made from some "primitive" human stock (neanderthals?), but they clearly aren't made from the Stone Trolls.
> 
> But whatever the Olog-hai were made from, they are unambiguously trolls. They're not "like half-trolls" or "troll-men", but "trolls". In his letters, when he discusses different sorts of troll, Tolkien never uses "half-trolls" or "troll-men"; the new sort of troll may have been bred from some sort of Men, but they are definitely full trolls, and always described as such.*


I've looked for some references, and here's what I've found. I'll say that you're reasonably familiar with the first  :


> _From Letter 153 to Peter Hastings_
> I am not sure about Trolls. I think they are mere 'counterfeits', and hence (though here I am of course only using elements of old barbarous mythmaking that had no 'aware' metaphysic) they return to mere stone images when not in the dark. But there are other sorts of Trolls beside these rather ridiculous, if brutal, Stone-trolls, for which other origins are suggested.


The second quote comes from Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed (p. 414 of my edition). As you can see, it backs up ShagratU's assertion that the Olog-hai might have been bred from Neandertalic stock:


> _From Morgoth's Ring_
> The Elves would have classed the creatures called 'trolls' (in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings) as Orcs - in character and origin - but they were larger and slower. It would seem evident that they were corruptions of primitive human types.
> At the bottom of the page my father wrote: 'See The Lord of the Rings Appendix p. 410'; this is the passage in Appendix F concerning Trolls.
> ...
> He now expressly asserts the earlier view (see p. 408 and note 1) that the Orcs were in origin corrupted Elves, but observes that later' some were probably derived from Men. In saying this (as the last paragraph and the reference to The Lord of the Rings Appendix F suggest) he seems to have been thinking of Trolls, and specifically of the Olog-hai, the great Trolls who appeared at the end of the Third Age (as stated in Appendix F): "That Sauron bred them none doubted, though from what stock was not known. Some held that they were not Trolls but giant Orcs; but the Olog-hai were in fashion of body and mind quite unlike even the largest of Orc-kind, whom they far surpassed in size and power.'


As you can see, Tolkien's "Trolls they were" statement does not preclude him from thinking of the Olog-hai as originating from humans. In fact, this seems to be exactly what the good professor had in mind!
The beginning of the passage is also where I get the idea that 'olog' and 'uruk' are both probably related, and originate from the primitive stem *ruku, as seen in Q&E (HoME 11, p. 389). I can't find a Quenya term for trolls, but the Sindarin term is Torog, which is reasonably close to S. orch/yrch/orchoth for Orcs and BS Olog for troll. I am of course assuming this relatedness because the passage says the elves would have classified the trolls as "orcs".

Before anyone accuses me of making too hard of a sell for "hai"="men" (certainly before isenho again states that "hai" *must* ="men"), I acknowledge that there still seem to be a lot of problems here. In the first place, "-hai" might work as "men" in the case of Oghor-hai just as "-edain" in Druedain. But this seems to be different than the other usages. In Druedain the "dru" seems to be adjectival (also "dun" in Dunedain). However, the "uruk" in Uruk-hai and the "olog" in Olog-hai are almost certainly not adjectival. The Olog-hai are trolls, the Uruk-hai are Orcs, regardless of whether or not these respective races have humanish origins. Still, I think this is fun to dabble in, and I would like to solidify my own (quite imperfect) understanding of what exactly constitutes a collective plural such as "folk" or "people".


----------



## aragil

Forgot to say- Merry Christmas to anyone who finds this thread interesting enough to read (ho-ho-hai)!


----------



## aragil

*Paiging all Cians*

You out there anywhere?


----------



## Cian

Cian is out on vacation (regarding Uruk-hai) and forgot his pager too (on purpose) 

Maybe Jallan will offer a general opinion or whatever (he started posting here recently).

_____

Perhaps the person who theoried *shark-ku (and writes _probably *shar-ku_ in his wordlist), Craig Daniel, did so because he thought it possible the sound might be absorbed in composition.

The Craig Daniel who suggests _hai_ as 'race'


----------



## aragil

Craig could have been correct on the one hand, and woefully wrong on the other. In any case where does that leave us (or me, more properly)?

Craig thinks that sharku could be from *shark and *ku, with one of the k's being absorbed in composition.
Presumably, with no other knowledge available, there could be a plural of *ku= **khai (two asterisks denoting the extra amount of speculation going on here). I would like to point out that though this is speculating, it is not totally without basis in the languages of middle-earth, after all Sindarin has several vowel-change plurals: adan-edain, orch-yrch, correct?

Looking at HoME, we see all the early versions of Uruk-hai so spealt- both in the chapter "An Orc Raid" and in the early sketch of Aragorn's parley at the gate of the Hornburg in "Helm's Deep". However, there is the distinct possibility that these were additions by the editor (CT), as the well known letters of May and August 1944 both have urukhai so spelt, without the hyphen. Any chance that Uruk and **khai went the way of tar & khil-tarkil?


----------



## jallan

It seems some want me to join in here.

Unfortunately, I have nothing to add to the hypotheses.

We know little about the Black Speech, must less its development, and I wonder if Tolkien's remark about various dialects of Orkish may have been in part a cover to make it unnecessary to go deeply into creating yet another consistant language, especially one intended to be ugly.

Tolkien provides in different places two different translations of the curse of the Modor Orc, which doesn't provide much hope that he himself took the Black Speech very seriously.

All recently relations suggested here I find _possible_, but I think we don't have enough background knowledge for any measure of whether they are _likely_, or whether Tolkien might have thought at some time or other that they were likely.


----------



## aragil

*A long expected party*

Glad you finally made it, jallan. I was beginning to wonder if you'd ever show.
Incidentally, your theory on Tolkien and the Black Speech is what I accused the language folk of doing:


> _Originally posted by me, nearly a year ago_
> *I am sure that David et al are more familiar with the races (and languages) of Middle-Earth than I am. I wasn't trying to accuse them of an ignorant mistake, but rather a hasty mistake. If they have spent as much time on 'hai' as we have spent here on this post, then I wouldn't even accuse them of a hasty mistake. It seems to me that black speech is much less fleshed out than most of the other languages of Middle-Earth, so I just assume that the linguists have spent less time on it. If this is the case, then it might be possible that they took a glance, said 'hai looks like folk', and then decided to get back to languages which were more fleshed out and interesting (and nice sounding). *



Everything I posted was possible? That's somehow unsatisfying- perhaps it really is more fun to work with the fleshed out languages. As Cian pointed out some time ago, we don't even seem to know whether BS words have singular and plural forms or whether they use some sort of external marker. Hurrumpf.

What about the problem of Oghor being adjectival to make _Oghor-hai_ reflect S. _Druedain_. Does that mean that -men can not be considered a plural marker?
An alternative theory of mine which has been encouraged by your post is that Black Speech is such a crude language that the order of elements in a word essentially becomes meaningless- nazgul might as easily be gulnaz; and Uruk-hai, Oghor-hai, and Olog-hai might actually all refer to creatures with both mannish and "other" characteristics. Not exactly the same as saying troll-men for Olog-hai, for instance, but it does have it's advantages. First off, I think Black Speech should be crude- vulgar sounds with poor gramatical structure and lack of element order in words seems to fit the concept of Orc-language nicely. Second, it would explain why the Orc-men don't say much at Helm's Deep. Notice that they seem to make up a significant part of Saruman's forces at Helm's Deep (Gamling, Merry, and Aragorn all refer to them), yet they don't seem to get a lot of narrative devoted to them during the action. Unless you assume that "We are the Fighting Uruk-hai" refers to both Men-orcs (large and cunning) and Orc-men (treacherous and vile).
It's a thought, anyway.


----------



## jallan

From _Unfinished Tales_, "The Drúedain", Note 6:


> It is stated in isolated notes that their own name for themselves was _Drughu_ (in which the _gh_ represents a spirantal sound). This name adopted in Sindarin in Beleriand became _Drû_ (plurals _Drúin_ and _Drúath_); but when the Eldar discovered that the Drû-follk were steadfast enemies of Morgoth, and especially the Orcs, the 'title' _adan_ was added, and they were called _Drúedain_ (singular _Drúadan_), to mark both their humanity and friendship with the Eldar, and their racial difference from the people of the Three Houses of the Edain. _Drû_ was then only used in compounds such as _Drúnos_ 'a family of the Drû-folk', _Drúwaith_ 'the wilderness of the Drû-folk'. In Quenya _Drughu_ became _Rú_, and _Rúatan_, plural _Rúatani_.


There is nothing to suggest that _drú-_ is especially adjectival, though of course in Sindarin, as in English, noun forms are used adjectivally on occasion.

There is nothing to indicate that _Oghor-_ is necessarily at all related to _Drughu_ or any of its Elvish derivatives, though it _might_ be through a series of changes such as _Drughu_ > _Urugh_ > _Urghu_ > _Ughru_ > _Oghr_ > _Oghor_. The order of these changes here is mostly arbitrary.

Aragil posted:


> First off, I think Black Speech should be crude- vulgar sounds with poor gramatical structure and lack of element order in words seems to fit the concept of Orc-language nicely.


The Black Speech invented by Sauron certainly must have had full grammar. He intended it to be useful and used, even for precise incantations such as we find in the Ring inscription, and to be the common tongue of all who served him, though he failed in this.

Since the form _Oghor-hai_ dates to the First Age, we might suppose that the Black Speech was partly based on some particular Orkish speech.

The various types of Orcs we hear speaking in Common Speech or in Black Speech translated by the Ring speak in a "low" English style, but generally do so in complete sentences with a full grammar. The goblins in _The Hobbit_ even sing a song, presumably of their own composition.

Their Orc jargons, largely derived from Black Speech, might be mutually unintelligible, but would surely also be true speech with a full grammer, not some kind of sub-speech needing gestures to be understood.

Ghân-buri-Ghân speaks more "primitively", but probably mostly from lack of familiarity with Common Speech. Tolkien has him get quite huffy when asked how he knows the size of the army besieging Minas Tirith, and he insists that he can calculate and reckon quite well, thank you, even "men in dark" and then proves it by giving the number of the Rohirrim host.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *The Black Speech invented by Sauron certainly must have had full grammar. He intended it to be useful and used, even for precise incantations such as we find in the Ring inscription, and to be the common tongue of all who served him, though he failed in this.*


 I'll agree that Sauron was cunning enough to come up with as lovely a language as anyone- but it seems that he (or Tolkien) created words with the harshest, ugliest sounds possible. The fact that Tolkien gives two translations of the same curse of the Moria Orc suggests to me that Black Speech was particularly hard to formulate into English- perhaps very alien or primitive in grammar and vocabulary (if we stay within the secondary reality and pretend that Tolkien was translator rather than creator, of course). I don't intend to say that Black Speech lacked any grammar, just that it was perhaps primitive/crude. My question is whether or not 'Uruk-hai' could actually mean 'Orc-men', (assuming hai=men), with neither the 'Orc' or 'men' element being more important, but rather implying an even partnership. Nazgul too- which is more important, ring or wraith?


----------



## jallan

Sauron would doubtless try to put particularly biases into the words and grammar of Black Speech.

There are always things that are easy to say in one language but difficult in another.

But what reason not to create a language that otherwise matches the efficiency of already existing languages for most purposes?

One would want verb tenses or aspects or some comparable method to distinguish what one had done from what one was now doing.

One would want to distinguish an Orc chasing an Elf from an Elf chasing an Orc.

Sauron might try to make the Black Sppech very simple and regular, as is often done with invented languages. 

But there was little point in Sauron creating a tongue intended for use by all his servants, not just the more stupid and menial of the Orcs, that was inadequate to convey meaning clearly.


----------



## aragil

I don't think I'm saying it would be difficult to convey meaning. I'm suggesting that in the case of a hybrid race or a race with characterstics of two other races, that the name for the hybrid race would be composed of two elements of equal weight- the elements could be randomly chosen- first or second element would not carry any additional significance.


----------



## 10000 strong

i think uruks are cooler, I don't know why, I think they look scarier than the big old fat uruk hai


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by 10,000 strong _
> *i think uruks are cooler, I don't know why, I think they look scarier than the big old fat uruk hai *



'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' are the same thing. 'Uruks' is simply the anglicization of 'Uruk-hai'.


----------



## 10000 strong

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' are the same thing. 'Uruks' is simply the anglicization of 'Uruk-hai'. *



well whatever, i'm talking about the orcs of mordor


----------



## Tar-Elenion

So am I. There were Uruk-hai in Mordor as well. Sauron's Uruk-hai.


----------



## aragil

T-E, would it at least be possible to convince you to say "I believe that Uruks and Uruk-hai are the same thing", in recognition of the ~600 posts on this thread arguing that point?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

JRRT uses the two words interchangeably in Letter 78.

"And of course, as you already discover, one of the discoveries of the process is the realization of the values that often lurk under dreadful appearances. Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable...". 

That is good enough for me.


----------



## aragil

Yes it is good enough for you, making it your opinion on the matter. I've pointed out before that in 1944, when that letter was written, all of the Mordor Orcs later referred to as "Uruks" were then called "Veritable Orcs", "True Orcs", etc, while the Isengard Orcs were called Uruk-hai (and Aragorn was called Trotter). It is possible that JRRT changed his mind between 1944 and publishing. I don't mind you having a different opinion on the matter, it makes for interesting discussion. But if you would kindly recognize that other opinions exist it would also make for polite discussion.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

Aragil said:
"T-E, would it at least be possible to convince you to say "I believe that Uruks and Uruk-hai are the same thing"...".

I said that JRRT used the terms interchangeably in Letter 78, thus they are the same thing.

Now you are writing about Mordor and Isengard Orcs, which was not referred to in your request. Perhaps you should be more clear in your statement and instead of complaining about my noting that words 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' are the same thing, you should have complained about my statement that Sauron has Uruk-hai as well. 
As the _author_ uses the terms interchangeably in Letter 78 (1944) and used the anglicization 'Uruks' for Saruman's Uruk-hai in 'Fords of Isen' (ca.1970?), then the terms are interchangeable. That is how the _author_ used them. 

If you wish to argue with my assertion about Sauron having Uruk-hai then clearly state it (and of course as I've pointed out we do have Mordor Orcs referred to as 'Uruk-hai').


----------



## jallan

If you read Book 3 of _The Lord of the Rings_, you probably get the strong impressiion that _Uruk-hai_ means Saruman's new breed of sun-resistant Orcs and means only those.

If you read some of the other material, notably the mention of rebel Uruk-hai by the solider Orc in Mordor in the chapter "The Land of Shadow", you will have doubts.

This most important references, because it is within _The Lord of the Rings_ iself, is a speech in which the soldier Orca explains to the tracker Orc Orc why they have been called out. The other references in his speech all refer to the previously described disturbances around and within the Tower of Cirith Ungol. The slaughtering of most of its garrison would certainly be explain why Orcs have been summoned on duty to search for intruders and for the rebels.

So the reference to rebel "Uruk-hai" almost certainly refers to the "filthy rebel Gorbag", as Shagrat has previously said, and to his followers.

Tar-Elenion's reasoning here and elsewhere is quite right.

Why then does _Uruk-hai_ seem to have a different meaning in the Rohirrim chapters?

One possibility is that Tolkien changed his mind during composition of the book, and did not properly modify some earlier references.

Another possibility, I believe the correct one, is that _Uruk_ in Tolkien's mind while writing _The Lord of the Rings_, always meant large solider Orc, referring to a particular race or caste or class or Orc. 

There were presumably Uruks, that is Uruk-hai, all about Middle-earth.

Saruman's Uruk class was different, a kind of Uruk bred especially to withstand sunlight.

But they still naturally call themselves Uruks, Uruk-hai, or fighting Uruk-hai, in contrast to other sorts of Orcs.

Saruman's Uruk-hai boast that they are the warriors of Saruman's Orc community, not like his other Orc servants, not like those smaller maggot folk from Moria. They are Uruk-hai, better than other kinds of Orcs, fiercer and better than Men.

They boast that they are the Uruk-hai, who can withstand sunlight, unlike Saruman's other Orcs or Misty Mountain Orcs.

They aren't at all thinking about other Uruks, other Uruk-hai, in Mordor or elsewhere, who cannot deal with sunlight as well.

Why should they think about these in the circumstances?


----------



## aragil

I was in fact arguing that Uruks and Uruk-hai mean the same thing. It does appear that Tolkien used the terms interchangeably in 1944, but there is the distinct possibility that he changed his mind by the time of publishing- hence my bringing up the fact that in 1944 Tolkien called large soldier Orcs of Mordor "veritable Orcs", but at the time of publishing he called them "Uruks".
We don't know for certain what Tolkien did in Fords of Isen, or if he was planning on changing the entries before he passed on. We don't even know if he had unintionally contradicted his earlier work. This is precisely why Greenwood did not like the use of a Secondary source in this matter.
You know my stance on Mordor Uruk-hai. The same statement that has Uruk-hai in Mordor has a Dwarf-man and an Elf-lord also running around. I do not call into question whether the reference is to Gorbag's lot. I just question whether it accurately refers to them as Uruk-hai. I can respect that you have a different opinion on the matter, but it would be nice to see you acknowledge that it is an issue.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *They aren't at all thinking about other Uruks, other Uruk-hai, in Mordor or elsewhere, who cannot deal with sunlight as well.
> 
> Why should they think about these in the circumstances? *


 Well, I see that you are now involved in the earlier matters of the thread, rather than the strictly linguistic questions. My answer to your question is that some of Ugluk's bragging about being "Uruk-hai" comes when he is addressing Grishnakh, who is almost certainly a Uruk. Given Grishnakh's general disdain for Saruman and his filthy White Badges, it is inconceivable to me that Grishnakh wouldn't respond with something along the lines of "You're not the only Uruk-hai".

Your theory that Tolkien changed his mind and then didn't properly edit has some merit. 
However, in regards to your theory of Uruk always being in Tolkien's mind, I can provide you quotes that show that "Uruk" was not applied in any form to a Mordor Orc until 1948, and then, except for the dubious "Rebel Uruk-hai" statemtent, all references to Mordor soldiers were as "Uruks". Uruk-hai was first applied to Saruman's Orcs in 1942, and, excepting a cryptic appendix entry and the references in UT (which I look at with some skepticism), the Isengarders were always referred to as "Uruk-hai" and never Uruks.

I know there are some linguistic objections- "Uruks" is certainly an anglicized plural of "Uruk". The singular of "Uruk-hai" is certainly "Uruk". However, I think that there is evidence that "-hai" is something other than just a simple plural marker, and, in any case, every other language in Middle-earth has other ways of making a plural than adding a collective marker. My own opinion is that Tolkien originally had "Uruk-hai" for Saruman, and long-afterwards decided to rename his Mordor orcs "Uruks". I think he intended them to be separate breeds (Saruman's Uruk-hai are certainly different then Shagrat, Grishnakh, or Ugluk), but tried to 'get away with one' with using such similar names. I'm trying to excuse the professor from this by coming up with a translation for '-hai' which will suitably differentiate the Isengarders from the Mordor lot, and using '-hai'='men' seems to be a logical choice. I'll freely admit that stretching 'hai' to be the plural term from 'ku'=man is stretching it, but I don't feel to bad about this as I think Tolkien has already fudged.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> I was in fact arguing that Uruks and Uruk-hai mean the same thing. It does appear that Tolkien used the terms interchangeably in 1944, but there is the distinct possibility that he changed his mind by the time of publishing- hence my bringing up the fact that in 1944 Tolkien called large soldier Orcs of Mordor "veritable Orcs", but at the time of publishing he called them "Uruks".



It is more likely that he did not change his mind.



> We don't know for certain what Tolkien did in Fords of Isen, or if he was planning on changing the entries before he passed on. We don't even know if he had unintionally contradicted his earlier work. This is precisely why Greenwood did not like the use of a Secondary source in this matter.



Secondary sources like those that have "veritable Orcs"? Of course Greenwood did not like the use of the Appendices either.

What we do know is that 'Fords of Isen' is in agreement with "his earlier work", which also refers to Saruman's Orcs as 'uruks'.



> You know my stance on Mordor Uruk-hai. The same statement that has Uruk-hai in Mordor has a Dwarf-man and an Elf-lord also running around. I do not call into question whether the reference is to Gorbag's lot. I just question whether it accurately refers to them as Uruk-hai. I can respect that you have a different opinion on the matter, but it would be nice to see you acknowledge that it is an issue.



A "sort of small dwarf-man", not a "Dwarf-man", which is an apt description of Hobbit (Frodo). And we know that Sam was _seen_ as an Elf. As the reference was to Mordorian Orcs at Cirith Ungol, then they are the ones being called "rebel Uruk-hai". There was evidence that the 'Elf' and 'dwarf-man' were there (or believed to be). There is evidence that Mordorian Orcs were there, and these are being referred to as Uruk-hai. There is no evidence that Isengarders were there or believed to be there. Until there is some evidence presented it is simply a guess with nothing to back it up.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *It is more likely that he did not change his mind.*


 Unfortunately, in this issue we don't have a better gauge of likelihood than our own opinions. What I do know is that in 1942 Tolkien was calling Mordor soldiers "Orcs", Isengard Soldiers "Uruk-hai". In 1944 he wrote a letter equating Uruk-hai and Uruks. In 1947 he was still calling Mordor soldiers "Orcs". Only in 1948 did he start calling Mordor Orcs "Uruks". I'd say he definitely changed his mind on what to call Mordor Orcs, the remaining question is whether he still thought "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai" were the same thing.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Secondary sources like those that have "veritable Orcs"? Of course Greenwood did not like the use of the Appendices either.
> 
> What we do know is that 'Fords of Isen' is in agreement with "his earlier work", which also refers to Saruman's Orcs as 'uruks'.*


 We don't know if Saruman's Uruks (from the appendices in LotR) are intended to be offshoots of his human/orc breeding program. In my opinion TA 3005 is too early for that- I know you have a different opinion.
UT is a bit of a different beast than HoME, I'm afraid. HoME is presenting us with earlier writings that we know are different from the published works- in many cases we can see how they evolve into the published works. For his part, CT made no effort to change anything in HoME. However, he acknowledges that he changed certain names in UT. We know from his letters that JRRT often used initials when writing, rather than writing out full names. We also know, from PoME, that within a year or two of writing Battle at the Fords of Isen JRRT was writing things that contradicted his published work. His mind was slipping, a fact that he lamented to CT in private. The fact is, that any or all of these ingredients could combine to make what we see in UT questionable. I'm not completely disregarding the book- I love it. However, I am saying that a possible unintended mixing of Uruk-hai and Uruks could have occurred which resulted in the wrong term being used in UT. I don't see how the same could be said of "veritable Orcs" in HoME.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *A "sort of small dwarf-man", not a "Dwarf-man", which is an apt description of Hobbit (Frodo). And we know that Sam was seen as an Elf. As the reference was to Mordorian Orcs at Cirith Ungol, then they are the ones being called "rebel Uruk-hai". There was evidence that the 'Elf' and 'dwarf-man' were there (or believed to be). There is evidence that Mordorian Orcs were there, and these are being referred to as Uruk-hai. There is no evidence that Isengarders were there or believed to be there. Until there is some evidence presented it is simply a guess with nothing to back it up. *


 The other problem here is that no other Mordor unit is ever referred to as being composed of "Uruk-hai". You choose to wait until there is evidence to back up Isengarders at Cirith Ungol. I choose to wait until there is other evidence of Mordor Uruk-hai. We could be waiting a while.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> We don't know if Saruman's Uruks (from the appendices in LotR) are intended to be offshoots of his human/orc breeding program. In my opinion TA 3005 is too early for that- I know you have a different opinion.



Again, the terms were used interchangeably. You admit that. 
There is no inconsistancy. 




> UT is a bit of a different beast than HoME, I'm afraid. HoME is presenting us with earlier writings that we know are different from the published works- in many cases we can see how they evolve into the published works. For his part, CT made no effort to change anything in HoME. However, he acknowledges that he changed certain names in UT.



He admits to those changes. What did he admit to changing in 'Fords of Isen'?



> We know from his letters that JRRT often used initials when writing, rather than writing out full names. We also know, from PoME, that within a year or two of writing Battle at the Fords of Isen JRRT was writing things that contradicted his published work. His mind was slipping, a fact that he lamented to CT in private. The fact is, that any or all of these ingredients could combine to make what we see in UT questionable.



There is no inconsistancy. JRRT uses the terms interchangeably. Saying the JRRT's 'mind was slipping' some years after he wrote this is simply an attempt to make an inconsistancy where there is none. 



> I'm not completely disregarding the book- I love it. However, I am saying that a possible unintended mixing of Uruk-hai and Uruks could have occurred which resulted in the wrong term being used in UT. I don't see how the same could be said of "veritable Orcs" in HoME.



Yes lets just pick and choose the "secondary sources" to be used. 'Veritable Orcs' was not used, it was discarded. 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' were both used, not discarded.

As CT wrote of 'Battles of the Fords of Isen':
"This, together with the account of the military organisation of the Rohirrim and the history of Isengard given in an Appendix to the text, belongs with other late pieces of severe historical analysis; it presented relatively little difficulty of a textual kind, and is only unfinished in the most obvious sense."

Uruks and Uruk-hai were used interchangeable for the same sorts of beings, 'great soldier-orcs from Mordor and Isengard'.
There is no logical reason to attempt to create an inconsistancy where there is none. He uses the terms interchangeably in Letters, LotR, and 'Fords of Isen' that is over a period of some 25 years.



> The other problem here is that no other Mordor unit is ever referred to as being composed of "Uruk-hai". You choose to wait until there is evidence to back up Isengarders at Cirith Ungol. I choose to wait until there is other evidence of Mordor Uruk-hai. We could be waiting a while.



Again, "rebel Uruk-hai" is refering to Mordorian Orcs, which you "do not call into question". App. F says the Uruk-hai call lesser Orcs "snaga". This is done by both Mordorean and Isengarders. 2 pieces of evidence against _no_ evidence whatsoever that Isengarders were involved (or even believed to be) in the Cirith Ungol affair. None.


----------



## aragil

I'm getting a little side-tracked here from my question about Uruk-hai evolving from Uruk and Khai, but what the heck. 580 posts deserves a synopsis.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Again, the terms were used interchangeably. You admit that.
> There is no inconsistancy.*


I have never said that the terms were used interchangeably in the narrative, which is what this whole thread is about. The reference in the appendix is "great Uruks from the Misty Mountains in the service of Saruman". In my opinion this could be Mordor Orcs that Saruman has enlisted while creating his own orc/man hybrids. In which case the terms are no longer used interchangeably.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *He admits to those changes. What did he admit to changing in 'Fords of Isen'?*


 CT admits to changing names where retention of the Manuscript form would lead to undue confusion. Did he do so in 'Fords of Isen'? Who the hell knows! He didn't give a list of which names he changed, he merely mentioned that he did so. This opens up the possibility that he changed some abbreviation to 'Uruks', possibly incorrectly. It does seem odd to me that Uruk-hai makes an appearance in the index, while never appearing in the narrative.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *There is no inconsistancy. JRRT uses the terms interchangeably. Saying the JRRT's 'mind was slipping' some years after he wrote this is simply an attempt to make an inconsistancy where there is none. *


 Saying that is simply a fact. It causes confusion in some of his other unpublished work. It might be causing confusion here.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Yes lets just pick and choose the "secondary sources" to be used. 'Veritable Orcs' was not used, it was discarded. 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' were both used, not discarded.*


 Veritable Orcs was not discarded, it was changed to 'Uruks'. Determining occurences such at this is exactly the use of these 'secondary sources'.
In any case, I'm not picking and choosing my secondary sources. I love UT, but the fact is that in some cases it conflicts with the published writing. A matter of minutes ago you told me that Celeborn could not be Olwe's grandson because then he and Galadriel would be too closely related for the customs of the Eldar. Yet if we read UT, one of the stories we get is that Celeborn is Olwe's grandson. In this case you acknowledge that UT has certain inherent problems. I'm sure it doesn't diminish your enjoyment of UT, and the possible mistaking of Uruks for Uruk-hai does not diminish mine.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *As CT wrote of 'Battles of the Fords of Isen':
> "This, together with the account of the military organisation of the Rohirrim and the history of Isengard given in an Appendix to the text, belongs with other late pieces of severe historical analysis; it presented relatively little difficulty of a textual kind, and is only unfinished in the most obvious sense."*


 It is obviously unfinished. It trails off in mid-sentence. We don't even know if JRRT ever looked over the thing again for gross errors. CT would not recognize any discrepancy between Uruks and Uruk-hai, assuming there is one. He already equates the term in his head due to the Letter of 1944, I'm sure. However, as I've mentioned several times, Uruks was not used in the text when CT received this letter, and when it was finally used 4 years later it was applied to a type of Orc that had been quite distinct from Saruman's Uruk-hai.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Uruks and Uruk-hai were used interchangeable for the same sorts of beings, 'great soldier-orcs from Mordor and Isengard'.
> There is no logical reason to attempt to create an inconsistancy where there is none. He uses the terms interchangeably in Letters, LotR, and 'Fords of Isen' that is over a period of some 25 years.*


 He used the terms interchangeably in Letters, but he was not then referring to Mordor Orcs. I don't think it was used interchangeably in LotR. I've addressed UT several times, but it is worth noting again that the term "Uruk-hai" isn't used at all in UT.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Again, "rebel Uruk-hai" is refering to Mordorian Orcs, which you "do not call into question". App. F says the Uruk-hai call lesser Orcs "snaga". This is done by both Mordorean and Isengarders. 2 pieces of evidence against _no_ evidence whatsoever that Isengarders were involved (or even believed to be) in the Cirith Ungol affair. None. *


 The context of the quote is that the "higher ups" are in error. And indeed they are- there are no small dwarf-men or great elves running around Mordor. I don't think there are any rebel Uruk-hai running around Mordor either. You're reading of this passage depends on the passage being an accurate account. My reading relies on the fact that it is not accurate.
Again, my thesis is that "rebel Uruk-hai" erroneously refers to Mordor Orcs, in exactly the same way that "great Elf" and "a small dwarf-man" erroneously refers to Frodo and Sam.
Appendix F says that lesser breeds of Orc are called Snaga. It also notes that the Uruk-hai were especially fond of calling lesser breeds Snaga, but were apparently not the only ones to do so. According to Appendix F Shagrat could have called someone Snaga without being one of the Uruk-hai.

The beat goes on ....


----------



## jallan

Aragil posted:


> My answer to your question is that some of Ugluk's bragging about being "Uruk-hai" comes when he is addressing Grishnakh, who is almost certainly a Uruk.


Check the text:


> In the twilight he saw a large black Orc, probably Uglúk, standing facing Grishnákh, a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground.


This short crook-legged creature may be a different kind of Uruk, or possibly a different kind of Orc, more intelligent than the brute Uruks, the kind of Orc that Sauron could more greatly trust to handle his interests intelligently. Perhaps Grishnákh and his kind are half-Uruks bred with another type of Orc. Who knows? 

That he is an Uruk is an unsupported hypothesis.

But if you wish him to be an Uruk, then note that when addressing Grishnákh, Uglúk says:


> But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as usual.


_Uruk-hai_ is otherwise used only eight times in the main text of LR. Twice it is used by Uglúk when speaking of his own folk to the northern Orcs who are not Uruks, three times when jeering at Aragorn before the Hornburg, once in a back-reference to Pippin's captivity, and once in the reference of the Mordor soldier Orc to rebel Uruk-hai.

In all cases there is no _necessity_ to suppose any meaning but the general "soldier-orc" meaning of Uruks.


> It does seem odd to me that Uruk-hai makes an appearance in the index, while never appearing in the narrative.


Easily explained by Christopher Tolkien in the Introduction to UT under the section about _The Istari_:


> In the event there was no index to _The Lord of the Rings_ until the second edition of 1966, but my father's original rough draft has been preserved. From it I derived the plan of my inex to _The Silmarillion_, with translation of names and brief explanatory statements, and also, both there and in the index to this book, some of the translations and the wordings of some of the 'defintitions'.


The mention of the form _Uruk-hai_ makes full sense in an entry for J.R.R. Tolkien's draft for an index to _The Lord of the Rings_. Compare:


> _Pelennor (Fields)_ 'Fenced Land', the 'townlands' of Minas Tirith, guarded by the wall of Rammas Echor, on which was frought the greatest battle of the War of the Ring.


The name _Rammas Echor_ does not appear in _Unfinished Tales_ elsewhere.


> CT admits to changing names where retention of the Manuscript form would lead to undue confusion. Did he do so in 'Fords of Isen'? Who the hell knows!


How would _Uruk-hai_ in the UT text at any point cause any confusion that a change to _Uruks_ would alleviate?


> Again, my thesis is that "rebel Uruk-hai" erroneously refers to Mordor Orcs, in exactly the same way that "great Elf" and "a small dwarf-man" erroneously refers to Frodo and Sam.


Very weak.

We know why the Orcs think there may be a "great Elf" about, for we saw through Sam's eyes and ears when and why that deduction was made. 

Shagrat would have brought this information to the authorities.

"A small dwarf-man" is a reasonable description of a hobbit to beings who know about Dwarves and have probably never heard of hobbits or halflings.

Shagrat would have brought that information also

Shagrat would also have brought proper information about who was responsible for the rebellion.

There was no reason for anyone to have been confused on the point of who was responsible for the rebellion.

Aragil, your arguments are all what is usually called "special pleading".

You speculate that Christopher Tolkien included incorrect information when you don't like the information he provides, that Christopher Tolkien changed the text at the particular points that you would rather read differently, that J.R.R. Tolkien carelessly didn't write down what he really meant or should have meant when it isn't in accord with your theories, that the Mordor soldier Orc wasn't using the proper word.

All of this is _possible_, but certainly none of it _more_ convincing than the position that most of this information is correct in the texts and that _Uruks_ is _Uruk-hai_ rendered more idiomatically in English.

Your _Uruk_ + _hai_ hypothesis, as I've already indicated, I also find _possible_, but no more.

It also possible that _Sharkû_ is to be broken down as _sha_ 'man' + _rkû_ 'old', and that the plural of *_sha_ is _shai_, and that _-hai_ in _Uruk-hai_ and other words is a weakening of that form.

There is no evidence for or against that possible hypothesis either.

Similarly, there is no suport for the idea that in Black Speech elements of compounds could change position.

A groundless hypothesis is useful for searching to see if evidence can be found to provide grounds for it.

It is not useful for anything else.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> I have never said that the terms were used interchangeably in the narrative, which is what this whole thread is about. The reference in the appendix is "great Uruks from the Misty Mountains in the service of Saruman". In my opinion this could be Mordor Orcs that Saruman has enlisted while creating his own orc/man hybrids. In which case the terms are no longer used interchangeably.


JRRT used the terms interchangeably. You are simply picking and choosing in order to create the illusion of an 'inconsistancy' where there is none.


> CT admits to changing names where retention of the Manuscript form would lead to undue confusion. Did he do so in 'Fords of Isen'? Who the hell knows! He didn't give a list of which names he changed, he merely mentioned that he did so.


CT wrote this:
"...except in minor details such as shifts in nomenclature (where retention of the manuscript form would lead to disproportionate confusion or disproportionate space in elucidation) I have made no alterations for the sake of consistency with published works, but rather drawn attention throughout to conflicts and variations...". Obviously he, at least, felt there was no inconsistancy in 'Fords of Isen'. 
And he does note things that he 'changed'.


> This opens up the possibility that he changed some abbreviation to 'Uruks', possibly incorrectly.


Try dealing in probabilities.
You are simply attempting to create an inconsistancy where none exists to hold onto a pet theory that you have no evidence to back up. 


> It does seem odd to me that Uruk-hai makes an appearance in the index, while never appearing in the narrative.


Probably because the index was created from JRRT's original draft of an index for LotR.


> Saying that is simply a fact. It causes confusion in some of his other unpublished work. It might be causing confusion here.


The 'mind slipping' was some years after 'Fords' was written. Look at the other pieces written at the same time as 'Fords'. 
The only confusion is that which you are attempting to make by trying to create an inconsistancy where there is none.
Uruks=Uruk-hai is consistant in Letters, in LotR and in 'Fords of Isen'.


> Veritable Orcs was not discarded, it was changed to 'Uruks'. Determining occurences such at this is exactly the use of these 'secondary sources'.


'Veritable Orcs' was discarded/abandoned as a term, it was not later used. Arwen was originally named _Finduilas_. This name for her was discarded and Arwen was used.


> In any case, I'm not picking and choosing my secondary sources. I love UT, but the fact is that in some cases it conflicts with the published writing.


You are over generalizing. We are not discussing UT (which contains various 'unrelated' (FLBW) tales), we are discussing 'Fords of Isen' (one specific tale contained in UT). It is not inconsistant with LotR (nor with Letters). 


> A matter of minutes ago you told me that Celeborn could not be Olwe's grandson because then he and Galadriel would be too closely related for the customs of the Eldar. Yet if we read UT, one of the stories we get is that Celeborn is Olwe's grandson.


Correct. This is based on _evidence_. JRRT said Celeborn was Elmo's grandson. JRRT said Celeborn was Olwe's grandson. JRRT said that the Eldar do not wed with first cousins. I can produce passages stating each of these things. That is evidence.


> In this case you acknowledge that UT has certain inherent problems.


No, I did not. I 'acknowledge' that there are problems with various versions of Celeborn's (and Galadriel's) history which create conflicts with the canonical texts as well as explicit concepts in the Legendarium. It has nothing to do with UT.


> I'm sure it doesn't diminish your enjoyment of UT, and the possible mistaking of Uruks for Uruk-hai does not diminish mine.


The usage is consistant throughout. You are reduced to making assumptions because you have no evidence.


> It is obviously unfinished. It trails off in mid-sentence. We don't even know if JRRT ever looked over the thing again for gross errors. CT would not recognize any discrepancy between Uruks and Uruk-hai, assuming there is one. He already equates the term in his head due to the Letter of 1944, I'm sure. However, as I've mentioned several times, Uruks was not used in the text when CT received this letter, and when it was finally used 4 years later it was applied to a type of Orc that had been quite distinct from Saruman's Uruk-hai.


Unfinished in only the most obvious sence. There are no 'gross errors'. You are making assumptions about CT based on no evidence. There is no inconsistancy in the usage of Uruks=Uruk-hai.


> He used the terms interchangeably in Letters, but he was not then referring to Mordor Orcs. I don't think it was used interchangeably in LotR.


Based on the evidence your thoughts are wrong. You need to produce evidence to back up your thoughts not supposition and possibilty.


> I've addressed UT several times, but it is worth noting again that the term "Uruk-hai" isn't used at all in UT.


It is not an entry in the Index either. It is a 'definition' of an entry.


> The context of the quote is that the "higher ups" are in error. And indeed they are- there are no small dwarf-men or great elves running around Mordor. I don't think there are any rebel Uruk-hai running around Mordor either. You're reading of this passage depends on the passage being an accurate account. My reading relies on the fact that it is not accurate. Again, my thesis is that "rebel Uruk-hai" erroneously refers to Mordor Orcs, in exactly the same way that "great Elf" and "a small dwarf-man" erroneously refers to Frodo and Sam.


It is accurate based on the information given in the text. Hobbits _are_ a 'sort of small dwarf-man'. We know why Sam was thought to be an Elf. There were 'rebel Uruk-hai'. None of these were Isengarders. Again you have no evidence to back up your assumptions.


> Appendix F says that lesser breeds of Orc are called Snaga. It also notes that the Uruk-hai were especially fond of calling lesser breeds Snaga, but were apparently not the only ones to do so. According to Appendix F Shagrat could have called someone Snaga without being one of the Uruk-hai.


This is again an attemt to create an inconsistancy where there is none. The facts are that great soldier-orcs from Isengard and Mordor both use the word 'snaga' to refer to a lesser breed, and are both referred to as Uruk-hai. 

The possibilty on top of possibilty is just building a house of cards.
Try facts and evidence.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

This is something Steuard Jensen wrote in the rec.arts.books.tolkien newsgroup a little while back, on the use of 'snaga' in App. F etc. responding to Michael Martinez:


> I'm not so sure of that. First of all, the word "Uruks" wasn't
> previously used in the passage you quoted: only the singular "Uruk" was. The only plural of "Uruk" used in the entry on "Orcs and the Black Speech" in Appendix F is "Uruk-hai". Second, I believe that it is perfectly natural English usage for "especially by the Uruk-hai" to mean a subset of all Orcs rather than a subset of all Uruks (in fact, this strikes me as the more natural reading, unless "lesser kinds" also refers to Uruks rather than to Orcs in general).



Here is the link for fuller context:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&th=298b3c93e2b1a1c8&rnum=1

I would recommend reading the thread in "Sort by date" (button in upper right hand corner).


----------



## aragil

Grishnakh as a Uruk is not completely unsupported: First we have Pippin's view of Grishnakh:


> In the twilight he saw a large black Orc, probably Uglúk, standing facing Grishnákh, a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground.


 Next is a description of his companions:


> From that direction there now came hoarse cries, and there was Grishnákh again, and at his back a couple of score of others like him: long-armed crook-legged Orcs.


Then we have Sam's view of Shagrat:


> Behind him came Shagrat, a large orc with long arms that, as he ran crouching, reached to the ground.


 Shagrat is almost definitely an Uruk, as given by the implicit conversation between him and Gorbag:


> And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks.


On top of this, we have the two earlier description of the 'Black Orcs of Mordor' from the Chamber of Marzubal, from HoME VI and HoME VII, respectively:


> Gandalf says there are goblins - of very evil kind, larger than usual, real orcs.
> ...
> 'There are goblins: very many of them,' he said. 'Evil they look and large: black Orcs.


 These coincide nicely with the ~contemporary passage that Tolkien added to the Hobbit, in an effort to make it more closely relate to The Lord of the Rings:


> "A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones," thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the ocs of the mountains, go along at a great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground.


 To me this is pretty good evidence that Grishnakh, with his long arms hanging almost to the ground is a Uruk. He doesn't even seem to be a particularly strange Uruk- all of the other descriptions of large Soldier Orcs of Mordor match the description of Grishnakh's long arms. Note: I don't think Grishnakh is particularly short for an Orc, he is just short in comparison to Ugluk. The Moria runts surrounding the two are described by: "Round them were many smaller goblins."

First off, I agree that Uruk-hai of Isengard may be used to differentiate Ugluk and co. from Grishnakh. However, earlier Ugluk had addressed Grishnakh with:


> We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here, and we shall lead you back by the way we choose.


 Here no qualifier is used (unless you consider 'fighting' somehow capable of distinguishing Isengard soldier-orcs from those of Mordor). However, it does seem that "the fighting Uruk-hai" are equated with the servants of Saruman. Again, why doesn't Grishnakh object to this characterization? Gorbag has pride in being a Uruk. Given what we know from Appendix F wouldn't Grishnakh resent being referred to as a common snaga? 
Before I leave the uses of Uruk-hai, it's worth highlighting the one which most makes me think that there is meant to be a distinction between Uruk-hai and Uruks:


> 'What of the dawn?' they jeered. 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. We come to kill, by sun or moon. What of the dawn?'


 Fighting without regards to the dawn is not a property of Mordor Orcs, Uruks or otherwise. Here Uruk-hai is used without qualifiers, it simply states that the Uruk-hai do not distinguish between night and day. Uruks of Mordor do.

Re. CT's use of his father's original index. Tar-Elenion has brought this up before. My response is that there is no index I have ever seen to LotR which equates Uruks and Uruk-hai, or that even cross-references Uruks and Uruk-hai. Why would Tolkien have dropped such a useful definition in the published index? If the rough draft stated that the two terms were equivalent, then why don't any of the subsequent indices cross-reference the two terms? However, this matter might actually be settled, as apparently the original index will be made public. Please read this.

A minor clarification: I was not trying to imply that Uruk-hai in UT was changed to Uruks. I was suggesting that it was possible that Tolkien used some sort of abbreviated form, which CT decided to elucidate to avoid confusion. However, IMO it is possible that CT could make a mistake under such a circumstance.



> _Originally posted by jallan_
> *There was no reason for anyone to have been confused on the point of who was responsible for the rebellion.*


 If Shagrat had actually reported there would be no confusion. However, the whole context of the Tracker-Soldier debate is that there is confusion. "They've lost their heads". If Shagrat had actually reported, I don't see where there would be any confusion- Shagrat knew that Gorbag's lot had been taken care of. There would have been no need to mention rebel Uruk-hai, just the great Elf and dwarf-man (if Shagrat couldn't do any better after actually seeing both Frodo and Sam). I don't think that Shagrat had reported yet when Frodo and Sam overheard the Tracker/Soldier- he did not arrive to Barad-dur until that day (from Appendix B).

The extent of my "special pleading" is only in questioning how much faith we should put in UT. Tar-Elenion completely refuted an argument of mine in another thread based simply on the fact that UT was inconsistent with the published works. Given that there is an apparent distinction between Uruks and Uruk-hai in Lord of the Rings, there is a possibility that UT is inconsistent with the published works. I have never said it is definitely so, but instead recognized it only as a possibility. However, if it is consistent with the published works then I am at a loss as to why the Uruk-hai of Isengard seem to claim that all Uruk-hai are resistant to the sun, or why JRRT would title his chapter dealing with Isengarders as "The Uruk-hai", or why Gorbag would use the term Uruks instead of Uruk-hai to describe Orcs of Mordor.
In the case of the published works I have never questioned whether Tolkien wrote what he meant- of course he did, he had 5 years between the time he finished writing and the time it was published. 5 years would take care of a lot of inconsistencies. However, we have no evidence that the UT passage received any editing- it was never even finished!!


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Re. CT's use of his father's original index. Tar-Elenion has brought this up before. My response is that there is no index I have ever seen to LotR which equates Uruks and Uruk-hai, or that even cross-references Uruks and Uruk-hai. Why would Tolkien have dropped such a useful definition in the published index? If the rough draft stated that the two terms were equivalent, then why don't any of the subsequent indices cross-reference the two terms? However, this matter might actually be settled, as apparently the original index will be made public.



As Mr. Hammond notes: "But it [the published form] was never as full an index as Tolkien would have liked." 
The cost for a much fuller index would likely have been to great.



> A minor clarification: I was not trying to imply that Uruk-hai in UT was changed to Uruks. I was suggesting that it was possible that Tolkien used some sort of abbreviated form, which CT decided to elucidate to avoid confusion. However, IMO it is possible that CT could make a mistake under such a circumstance.



A house of cards.
Anything is possible. Try what is _probable_. It is most likely that JRRT used the full word he intended, and CT published it correctly. With minimal if any editing.



> If Shagrat had actually reported there would be no confusion. However, the whole context of the Tracker-Soldier debate is that there is confusion. "They've lost their heads". If Shagrat had actually reported, I don't see where there would be any confusion- Shagrat knew that Gorbag's lot had been taken care of. There would have been no need to mention rebel Uruk-hai, just the great Elf and dwarf-man (if Shagrat couldn't do any better after actually seeing both Frodo and Sam). I don't think that Shagrat had reported yet when Frodo and Sam overheard the Tracker/Soldier- he did not arrive to Barad-dur until that day (from Appendix B).



The only way the Higher Ups would know about the 'dwarf-man' and the 'Elf' would be through a 'report' from Shagrat (or a Cirith Ungol survivor). They would know about the 'rebellion' from what the Nazgul and those troops who came there saw, all the dead Orcs from Minas Morgul and Cirith Ungol. From LotR we do not know that none of Gorbag's boys got out. We only know that none of Shagat's did. There is no evidence that any Isengarders were in Mordor or believed to be in Mordor. 



> Given that there is an apparent distinction between Uruks and Uruk-hai in Lord of the Rings, there is a possibility that UT is inconsistent with the published works. I have never said it is definitely so, but instead recognized it only as a possibility.



Considering App F and 'rebel Uruk-hai' there is no "apparent distinction".



> However, if it is consistent with the published works then I am at a loss as to why the Uruk-hai of Isengard seem to claim that all Uruk-hai are resistant to the sun, or why JRRT would title his chapter dealing with Isengarders as "The Uruk-hai", or why Gorbag would use the term Uruks instead of Uruk-hai to describe Orcs of Mordor.



Do they claim that all Uruk-hai are resistant to the Sun? Besides the Mordorean Uruk-hai dont seem to have much problem with the sun either.
Why is the chapter title a problem?
Gorbag does not use the term 'Uruks', that is what Sam 'hears' as a translation effect from the Ring.


----------



## aragil

*Facts and Evidence*

Thank you, Tar-Elenion, for that wonderfully complementary reply- it was a pleasure to read. I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I've always thought the same of your efforts in this matter.

Here are the facts as I see them:

1940- JRRT introduces us to the large Orcs in Moria. He differentiates them from the lesser breeds by calling them "Black Orcs", while the smaller breeds are "Goblins".

1941- JRRT introduces us to the Orcs of Saruman. He immediately differentiates them from all other Orcs, by mentioning that they are larger than normal Orcs and use human-ish equipment.

1942- JRRT first uses the term Uruk-hai. He does this in reference to Ugluk's troops, who are again mentioned as being man-like. Instead of saying 'We are servants of Saruman the wise, the White Hand', Ugluk says 'We are the servants of the old Uthwit and the White Hand'. This indicates that 'We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior' was probably extant at this time, which is said to be written with more facility than any chapter up to that point.

1942- JRRT again uses the term Uruk-hai, now in the battle for Helm's Deep, specifically Aragorn's parley.

1944- JRRT uses the terms Uruks and Uruk-hai in letters to CT. Up until this point Uruks has never been used in the narrative, and Uruk-hai is only used to refer to Isengard Orcs.

1947- JRRT sends in revisions to the Hobbit which later appear in the published work. Here he contrasts 'real Orcs' with 'goblins' in almost the exact same sense that he later contrasts 'Uruks' with 'orcs'. Of course, he is still not referring to anything as Uruks in the narrative proper.

1948- JRRT first uses the term Uruks. CT notes that the term 'Uruk-hai' had appeared long before. It had always been used to refer to Isengard Orcs.

1948- JRRT finally finishes writing LotR, begins serious revisions.

1948-1953- JRRT revises earlier passages that refer to Orcs so that they now refer to 'Uruks'. This is in all cases Mordor Orcs. Uruk-hai only pops up one more time- 'rebel Uruk-hai', which could either apply to Mordor Orcs or to imaginary Isengarders.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Do they claim that all Uruk-hai are resistant to the Sun? Besides the Mordorean Uruk-hai dont seem to have much problem with the sun either.*


. 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm.' This seems to be inclusive of all Uruk-hai. They don't say 'we are those subset of Uruk-hai who do not stop the fight ...' 
I've posted before where JRRT links poor Mordor-orc performance with the sun. You chose to ignore it. I posted where Treebeard wonders if Saruman's Orcs can withstand sunlight because they've been crossed with men. You discredited Treebeard's statement. I posted where Gamling says that it is Saruman's half-orcs and orc-men that care not for the light of day. You said that this did not refer to the Uruk-hai. Should I repost this quotes?



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Why is the chapter title a problem?*


 It's only a problem if you assume that Mordor also has Uruk-hai. THE Uruk-hai is in reference to Ugluk's band, which is distinguished several times from any other Orcs that have appeared up to this point, or that will appear again.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Gorbag does not use the term 'Uruks', that is what Sam 'hears' as a translation effect from the Ring. *


 Ah yes, the assumption-free argument. I simply don't buy this. The internal conceipt of the story is that Frodo wrote it in the Red book, not that some magical scribe was writing down what was heard by each character inn the moment it was heard. At the time when Frodo wrote the book, he had full knowledge of the terms 'Uruk-hai' and 'Uruks'. If he had equated the two, then he would have been free to use 'Uruk-hai' here, since it is spoken in exactly the same sense as earlier when he had Ugluk say 'Uruk-hai'. Frodo didn't, and I'm not going to argue with him.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Facts and Evidence*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Thank you, Tar-Elenion, for that wonderfully complementary reply- it was a pleasure to read. I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I've always thought the same of your efforts in this matter.*


*

You are welcome, I think.




Here are the facts as I see them:
<snip>

Click to expand...


The facts from LotR as published (The Canon):
There are Isengarders referred to as Uruk-hai.
There are Mordor Orcs referred to as Uruk-hai.
There are are two great soldier orcs (one from Isengard, one from Mordor) who use the word 'snaga' to refer to a lesser breed. Snaga is used especially by the Uruk-hai. The index to LotR refers to those and says to see App F for explanation. 
'Uruks' and 'Uruk' is used to refer to great soldier-orcs in the service of both Isengard and Mordor.
Other facts:
'Letters' uses the terms interchangeably. 
'Fords of Isen' refers to the Isengarders as Uruks.
The UT index offers a 'definition' for 'Uruks' which equates it with 'Uruk-hai'.

Fact: No inconsistancy.

Fact: There is _no_ evidence that any Isengarders were in or believed to be in Mordor. If there were evidence some one should have presented it by now.*


----------



## jallan

As I indicated, we don't know exactly what Grishnákh or his followers are.

Tolkien doesn't say.

I don't think we would expect all Orcs must be either Uruks or snagas.

It is stressed Grishnákh is short. Shagrat is seen as large Orc. Possibly these are relative terms. Grishnákh is short relative to Saruman's even larger Uruk-hai. Shagrat is simply a normal large Orc compared to the smaller types who are closer to Hobbit size. Girshnákh and Gorbag _might_ be about the same size.

Or Gishnákh might indeed be short, not a Uruk, or not a pure Uruk.

As often with Tolkien, the closer you look the more you see that you cannot find absolute evidence.

But calling Grishnákh _short_ rather than _shorter_ suggests to me he was short, was not an Uruk.

Aragil posted


> :CT's use of his father's original index. Tar-Elenion has brought this up before. My response is that there is no index I have ever seen to LotR which equates Uruks and Uruk-hai, or that even cross-references Uruks and Uruk-hai. Why would Tolkien have dropped such a useful definition in the published index?


As Christopher Tolkien notes the original indiex was not complete. Also, it contained some very large entries, notably the entire article on the Istari.

The Nancy Smith index included in the second edition to _The Lord of the Rings_ was an independent work, not done by Tolkien, though he later corrected it and added some annotations to it. Christopher Tolkien describes the original draft index as one on which he based in style, and also in content for some entries, the index in the _The Silmarillion_ and _Unfinished Tales_. In both these indexes every entry is annoted, sometimes substantially.

Accordingly we would not expect to find the Uruk-hai information or most information from the Tolkien's original draft index in the Nancy Smith index, even if Tolkien was able to locate it at the time and use it. The Nancy Smith index remains mostly an unannotated index.

As to _Unfinished Tales_, this is far from being all of a piece, it has late items, early items, drafts, and finished work. One should consider each part separately. 

For "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" Christopher Tolkien only remarks that


> ... it presented relatively little difficulty of a textual kind, and is only unfinished in the most obvious sense. This is then not a hasty and hard-to-read pencil draft which Christopher Tolkien has had to painfully decipher, guess at words, and fix up grammatically.


In the HoME series Christopher Tolkien appears to print abbreviations and odd spellings as he finds them in the texts, for such sometimes apear. It seems his father generally used few abbreviations, except in some very rough drafts.

A study of this point might be helpful. Can you find any cases of abbreviations of a kind that might be misleading in finished texts.

The Uruk-hai of Isengard claim they are resistant to the sun. They do not necessarily make this claim for all Orcs. 

This is indeed the point which most makes readers suspect that the term _Uruk-hai_ refers only to Saruman's newly bred Uruks.

What they say is:


> 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. We come to kill, by sun or moon. What of the dawn?


They claim they are Uruks, for the third time, and then they boast about their prowess. 

The reader, including myself originally, perceives a connection between the fact that these are Uruk-hai and that they will fight by day, a characteristic of Saruman's new breed. Therefore _Uruk-hai_ must mean, it seems, mean that new breed.

Or it may mean, we are Uruks, professional soldiers, we don't stop for anything. Mordor-Uruks might make the same boast, though less able to fulfill it on a bright day, when the sun made their heads wobbly.

Note that almost all examples of the use of _Uruk-hai_ in the book are in words spoken by Orcs. In the full text the only exception is the chapter heading and a back-reference to Pippin's captivity by the "Uruk-hai".

It is a term found mainly in Orc-speech.

I would take it that the title of the chapter comes about because it tells of Merry and Pippin's captivity by the Uruks who contiually call themselves Uruk-hai, a term which, to my ears, flows better than "The Uruks".


> If Shagrat had actually reported, I don't see where there would be any confusion- Shagrat knew that Gorbag's lot had been taken care of.


Snaga tells Gorbag:


> Gorbag’s swine got to the gate first, and none of ours got out. Lagduf and Muzgash ran through, but they were shot. I saw it from a window, I tell you. And they were the last.


All Shagrat's folk have been skilled, save for himself and Snaga. Seemingly not all of Gorbag's, since they shot Lagduf and Muzgash. So where are they? They ran off, I would suppose, wanting to get as far as they could before word of the incident got to the authorities. Snaga's fear of going out to bring word to the authorities is, I think, mainly fear that Gorbag's Orcs are out there somewhere still.

As to the confusion, of course there is confusion. An entire garrison has been wiped out, there may be one or more Elf warriors about, there are rebel-Orcs about, and who knows what kind of orders came back once Lugburz heard about the Dwarf-men, meaning Frodo and Sam, especially when it was found that Frodo was no longer there.

Pure SNAFU.

Actually, considering what we know and what Shagrat would have said, the instructions given the soldier Orc are reasonable enough.

But the tracker gleefully speculates that they've all lost their heads and some will be in big trouble. 

Tar-Elenion posted:


> Besides the Mordorean Uruk-hai dont seem to have much problem with the sun either.


I suspect they do, but that there aren't many bright, sunny days in Mordor. At this time Sauron's darkness has spread well ouside of Mordor. It is probably always rather dark and gloomy within Mordor, at least north-western Mordor, under a veil of volcanic cloud.

The Sea of Núrnen region was probably more pleasant in human terms and less pleasant for Orcs.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm.' This seems to be inclusive of all Uruk-hai. They don't say 'we are those subset of Uruk-hai who do not stop the fight ...'
> I've posted before where JRRT links poor Mordor-orc performance with the sun. You chose to ignore it.


No, I posted _quotes_ suggesting something else.


> I posted where Treebeard wonders if Saruman's Orcs can withstand sunlight because they've been crossed with men. You discredited Treebeard's statement.


I posted what JRRT had to say about some of Treebeard's suppositions.


> I posted where Gamling says that it is Saruman's half-orcs and orc-men that care not for the light of day. You said that this did not refer to the Uruk-hai. Should I repost this quotes?


And I posted where the half-orcs and orc-men are distinguished from the Uruk-hai.


> [Originally posted by Tar-Elenion:
> Why is the chapter title a problem?]
> 
> It's only a problem if you assume that Mordor also has Uruk-hai. THE Uruk-hai is in reference to Ugluk's band, which is distinguished several times from any other Orcs that have appeared up to this point, or that will appear again.



'The Uruk-hai' is in reference to Ugluk's band. However Ugluk's boys were not THE only Uruk-hai. 
The Palantir refers to the Palantir of Isengard. It was not the only Palantir.
That Mordor has Uruk-hai is not an assumption. It is a fact. Until you can present some evidence that Isengarders were involved in or believed to be involved in the events at Cirith Ungol it will remain a fact.



> [Originally posted by Tar-Elenion:
> Gorbag does not use the term 'Uruks', that is what Sam 'hears' as a translation effect from the Ring.]
> 
> Ah yes, the assumption-free argument. I simply don't buy this. The internal conceipt of the story is that Frodo wrote it in the Red book, not that some magical scribe was writing down what was heard by each character inn the moment it was heard. At the time when Frodo wrote the book, he had full knowledge of the terms 'Uruk-hai' and 'Uruks'. If he had equated the two, then he would have been free to use 'Uruk-hai' here, since it is spoken in exactly the same sense as earlier when he had Ugluk say 'Uruk-hai'. Frodo didn't, and I'm not going to argue with him. [/B]


And I am not going to argue with: "He heard them both clearly, and he understood what they said. Perhaps the Ring gave understanding of tongues, or simply understanding, especially of the servants of Sauron its maker, so that if he gave heed, he understood and translated the thought to himself." Uruks is not a BS word. Uruks is an anglicization.


----------



## jallan

As I indicated, we don't know exactly what Grishnákh or his followers are.

Tolkien doesn't say.

I don't think we would expect all Orcs must be either Uruks or snagas.

It is stressed Grishnákh is short. Shagrat is seen as large Orc. Possibly these are relative terms. Grishnákh is short relative to Saruman's even larger Uruk-hai. Shagrat is simply a normal large Orc compared to the smaller types who are closer to Hobbit size. Girshnákh and Gorbag _might_ be about the same size.

Or Gishnákh might indeed be short, not a Uruk, or not a pure Uruk.

As often with Tolkien, the closer you look the more you see that you cannot find absolute evidence.

But calling Grishnákh _short_ rather than _shorter_ suggests to me he was short, was not an Uruk.

Aragil posted


> :CT's use of his father's original index. Tar-Elenion has brought this up before. My response is that there is no index I have ever seen to LotR which equates Uruks and Uruk-hai, or that even cross-references Uruks and Uruk-hai. Why would Tolkien have dropped such a useful definition in the published index?


As Christopher Tolkien notes the original indiex was not complete. Also, it contained some very large entries, notably the entire article on the Istari.

The Nancy Smith index included in the second edition to _The Lord of the Rings_ was an independent work, not done by Tolkien, though he later corrected it and added some annotations to it. Christopher Tolkien describes the original draft index as one on which he based in style, and also in content for some entries, the index in the _The Silmarillion_ and _Unfinished Tales_. In both these indexes every entry is annoted, sometimes substantially.

Accordingly we would not expect to find the Uruk-hai information or most information from the Tolkien's original draft index in the Nancy Smith index, even if Tolkien was able to locate it at the time and use it. The Nancy Smith index remains mostly an unannotated index.

As to _Unfinished Tales_, this is far from being all of a piece, it has late items, early items, drafts, and finished work. One should consider each part separately. 

For "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" Christopher Tolkien only remarks that


> ... it presented relatively little difficulty of a textual kind, and is only unfinished in the most obvious sense. This is then not a hasty and hard-to-read pencil draft which Christopher Tolkien has had to painfully decipher, guess at words, and fix up grammatically.


In the HoME series Christopher Tolkien appears to print abbreviations and odd spellings as he finds them in the texts, for such sometimes apear. It seems his father generally used few abbreviations, except in some very rough drafts.

A study of this point might be helpful. Can you find any cases of abbreviations of a kind that might be misleading in finished texts.

The Uruk-hai of Isengard claim they are resistant to the sun. They do not necessarily make this claim for all Orcs. 

This is indeed the point which most makes readers suspect that the term _Uruk-hai_ refers only to Saruman's newly bred Uruks.

What they say is:


> 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. We come to kill, by sun or moon. What of the dawn?


They claim they are Uruks, for the third time, and then they boast about their prowess. 

The reader, including myself originally, perceives a connection between the fact that these are Uruk-hai and that they will fight by day, a characteristic of Saruman's new breed. Therefore _Uruk-hai_ must mean, it seems, mean that new breed.

Or it may mean, we are Uruks, professional soldiers, we don't stop for anything. Mordor-Uruks might make the same boast, though less able to fulfill it on a bright day, when the sun made their heads wobbly.

Note that almost all examples of the use of _Uruk-hai_ in the book are in words spoken by Orcs. In the full text the only exception is the chapter heading and a back-reference to Pippin's captivity by the "Uruk-hai".

It is a term found mainly in Orc-speech.

I would take it that the title of the chapter comes about because it tells of Merry and Pippin's captivity by the Uruks who contiually call themselves Uruk-hai, a term which, to my ears, flows better than "The Uruks".


> If Shagrat had actually reported, I don't see where there would be any confusion- Shagrat knew that Gorbag's lot had been taken care of.


Snaga tells Gorbag:


> Gorbag’s swine got to the gate first, and none of ours got out. Lagduf and Muzgash ran through, but they were shot. I saw it from a window, I tell you. And they were the last.


All Shagrat's folk have been skilled, save for himself and Snaga. Seemingly not all of Gorbag's, since they shot Lagduf and Muzgash. So where are they? They ran off, I would suppose, wanting to get as far as they could before word of the incident got to the authorities. Snaga's fear of going out to bring word to the authorities is, I think, mainly fear that Gorbag's Orcs are out there somewhere still.

As to the confusion, of course there is confusion. An entire garrison has been wiped out, there may be one or more Elf warriors about, there are rebel-Orcs about, and who knows what kind of orders came back once Lugburz heard about the Dwarf-men, meaning Frodo and Sam, especially when it was found that Frodo was no longer there.

Pure SNAFU.

Actually, considering what we know and what Shagrat would have said, the instructions given the soldier Orc are reasonable enough.

But the tracker gleefully speculates that they've all lost their heads and some will be in big trouble. 

Tar-Elenion posted:


> Besides the Mordorean Uruk-hai dont seem to have much problem with the sun either.


I suspect they do, but that there aren't many bright, sunny days in Mordor. At this time Sauron's darkness has spread well ouside of Mordor. It is probably always rather dark and gloomy within Mordor, at least north-western Mordor, under a veil of volcanic cloud.

The Sea of Núrnen region was probably more pleasant in human terms and less pleasant for Orcs.

From a later post by Aragil:



> The internal conceipt of the story is that Frodo wrote it in the Red book, not that some magical scribe was writing down what was heard by each character inn the moment it was heard. At the time when Frodo wrote the book, he had full knowledge of the terms 'Uruk-hai' and 'Uruks'. If he had equated the two, then he would have been free to use 'Uruk-hai' here, since it is spoken in exactly the same sense as earlier when he had Ugluk say 'Uruk-hai'. Frodo didn't, and I'm not going to argue with him.


_Uruks_ is the form of the word mentioned in the fight in Moria. The _s_ plural gives indication that it represents some Common Speech word. Sam hears what they say, and either pre-translated into Common Speech, or he is, through the Ring, translating it himself. Whatever form Gorbag here used for the plural of _Uruk_ we would expect to be rendered to Sam's understanding as the normal Common Speech form of the plural of _Uruk_, which would then be represented in the published text as English _Uruks_.

Sam may quite well have never previously heard the term _Uruk-hai_, if that is the term Gorbag is using. If he had heard it, it would probably be as a foreign term. Accordingly he would not hear this in his translation.

In the other case the soldier Orc and the tracker Orc are speaking to each other in Comon Speech. Presumably Frodo put down what they said, though possibly part cleaned up, and that is what we have in English. This would include the Orc expression Uruk-hai, if that was what was spoken.

Frodo would naturally have know both _Uruks_ and _Uruk-hai_, the latter from this conversation and from Merry and Pippin's account which he included in his book.

Of course, this is really bogus.

Tolkien actually composed it all down in English from the beginning. But there is really no problem in his using _Uruks_ in one passage and _Uruk-hai_ in another if they mean the same thing.

There is a possiblity certainly, Aragil, that Tolkien at certain times _might_ have thought _Uruk-hai_ meant something different from _Uruks_.

Tolkien was always refining his languages and changing them and enjoyed subtle distinctions.

But evidence to support it is so weak, that I don't believe you can reasonably go any further than to point it out as a possibility.


----------



## Confusticated

> _Posted by jallan_
> *Whatever form Gorbag here used for the plural of Uruk we would expect to be rendered to Sam's understanding as the normal Common Speech form of the plural of Uruk, which would then be represented in the published text as English Uruks.*



If you don't mind a little side question from an observer - why wouldn't this be "orcs"?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> [Tar-Elenion posted:
> Besides the Mordorean Uruk-hai dont seem to have much problem with the sun either.]
> 
> I suspect they do, but that there aren't many bright, sunny days in Mordor. At this time Sauron's darkness has spread well ouside of Mordor. It is probably always rather dark and gloomy within Mordor, at least north-western Mordor, under a veil of volcanic cloud.



In the Uruk-hai chapter the Northerners complain about the Sun, and there is a (seeming) connection between the Northerners lack of endurance and the sun:


> The Uruk-hai:
> "In the afternoon Uglúk's troop overtook the Northerners. They were flagging in the rays of the bright sun, winter sun shining in a pale cool sky though it was; their heads were down and their tongues lolling out."



Prior to this: 


> The Uruk-hai
> Either because they were quicker and hardier, or because of some plan of Grishnákh's, the Isengarders gradually passed through the Orcs of Mordor, and Grishnákh's folk closed in behind.



The Sun is not mentioned.

Some note that after:


> The Uruk-hai:
> The Isengarders began to run with a redoubled pace that astonished Pippin, a terrific spurt it seemed for the end of a race. Then he saw that the sun was sinking, falling behind the Misty Mountains; shadows reached over the land. The soldiers of Mordor lifted their heads and also began to put on speed.


While the setting of the Sun may have helped 'invigorate' the Mordorean Orcs, we also know that the Riders were gaining on them:


> The Uruk-hai:
> 'Maggots!' jeered the Isengarders. 'You're cooked. The Whiteskins will catch you and eat you. They're coming!'
> A cry from Grishnákh showed that this was not mere jest. Horsemen, riding very swiftly, had indeed been sighted: still far behind, but gaining on the Orcs, gaining on them like a tide over the flats on folk straying in a quicksand.



This was posted between aragil and I earlier in the thread:


> aragil wrote:
> Now, turning to the orcs of Mordor:
> 'East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men (Olog-hai? I thought trolls could not be bred with men!) and Variags and Orcs that hated the sunlight.'
> (from 'The Battle of the Pelennor Fields', p.150 of my edition of RotK)
> 
> For right now I'll ignore the reference to troll-men, and focus on what is happening to the orcs. These are the orcs of Mordor which were sent to besiege Minas Tirith. I think it is reasonable to assume that this huge army includes any sun-resistant strains which Sauron might have posessed. Yet here Tolkien mentions that they hate sunlight in the midst of their rout. Why? It seems by the very fact that he mentions it that the sun is having an effect on the orcs. I acknowledge that this is not as direct a statement as some would like, but I think that in the greater context of the works it indicates that Sauron's breeds do not do so well in the sun (as Treebeard stated above). Before anybody uses it against me, I am aware that Treebeard says Saruman's orcs hate the sun, and here Tolkien says that Sauron's troops also hate the sun. But to say this is evidence that the two breeds are the same is to totally ignore the context of the statements. At Helm's deep the Uruk-hai claim that they care not for the sun. The next morning they are routed, the sun is brightly shining (it is described glinting off the gear of the riders), but there is no indication that the sun is having any effect on the orcs. At the Pelannor fields the orcs are given a darkness by Sauron. When the darkness is blown aside, Tolkien says that they hate the sun as they are being routed. I think that I am supported by the text here when I say that the reason Tolkien mentions their hatred of the sun is because they are affected by it, whereas the troops of Isengard are not!!





> Tar-Elenion wrote:
> Nobody said the two breeds were the same. I think those posting here have all noted differences. Yes the sun is shining when Sauron's troops are routed. But interestingly enough, the Sun is shining for quite some time before that. The sun starts shinnig when the Rohirrim charge and start routing the Mordorians. The sun is shinning when the Witch King comes to slay Theoden, and be slain (his arrival causes a great shadow). The sun is shing after he is slain, (Merry stands blinking in the sunlight). At mid-morning when the day begins to turn against Gondor the wind is blowing, the rain is flying the sun is shining and the air is clear. Mordor is winning, and all hope is lost because the watchmen see afar the Corsairs of Umbar coming. The hosts of Mordor are enheartened and come yelling to the onset. All this while the sun is shining. Only when the Mordorians realize that the Ships are filled with their enemy, do they become bewildered and filled with dread. It does not make any mention of the Orcs being cowed by the sun. The sun did not rout them, surprise and fear did. We know they hated it, and as you pointed out so do Saruman's. Still no proof that Sauron's Orcs were any more effected that Saruman's.



There is another bit on page 16 in this thread.
Saruman's Uruk-hai may have been able to withstand the Sun better than Sauron's. But I dont see that Sauron's Uruk-hai were greatly effected either.


----------



## aragil

*Further Sun Evidence*



> In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475 they swept across Ithilien and took Osgiliath.


 Black Orcs, great strength. No mention of sun tolerance.




> 'Surely even Orcs must pause on the march?' said Gimli. 'Seldom will Orcs journey in the open under the sun. Yet these have done so,' said Legolas.


 Is Legolas ignorant of Orcs? Or has he just conveniently forgotten about the 544 years that Uruks have been running amock? (Or, are the Uruks of Mordor actually susceptible to sunlight?)




> He has taken up with foul folk, with the Orcs. Brm, hoom! Worse than that: he has been doing something to them; something dangerous. For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, or has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!


 Orc/Men hybrids. Sun tolerance. Implication that the two are related. Further implication that non-hybrids will not be sun-tolerant. Also Middle-earth history: all Orcs up until the time of Saruman have not been able to abide the sun. Has Treebeard been sleeping the past 544 years?




> But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun,' said Gamling. 'And neither will the wild men of the hills. Do you not hear their voices?


More Orc/Men hybrids. More sun tolerance. Implication that this is a new invention, not one that has been around for 544 years. Note also, the three categories here neatly coincide with the three categories that Merry reports to see exiting Isengard:


> endless lines of marching Orcs; and troops of them mounted on great wolves. And there were battalions of Men, too. Many of them carried torches, and in the flare I could see their faces. Most of them were ordinary men, rather tall and dark-haired, and grim but not particularly evil-looking. But there were some others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed.


 Here the match would be: 
half-orcs=endless lines of marching Orcs, 
orc-men=men with goblin-faces, 
and wild men of the hills=battalions of men. 
Note also that Tar-Elenion's reading of the passage has Gamling totally discount the Uruk-hai in his speech, in spite of the facts that:
1) Tar-Elenion's argument is that all Soldier Orcs, both those of Mordor and those of Isengard are sun resistant.
2) The Uruk-hai themselves claim to be sun-resistant, and apparently make up the majority of Saruman's forces.




> Finally, there is a cogent point, though horrible to relate. It became clear in time that undoubted Men could under the domination of Morgoth or his agents in a few generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning. There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile.


 Saruman did cross-breed orcs and men! No mention here of Sun tolerance, but there is nice corroboration with Treebeard's speculation that Saruman's crossing of orcs and men would produce sun-tolerant orcs. Again, Treebeard notes that Saruman's orcs can withstand sunlight. He then speculates that in order to get this sun-tolerance Saruman might have crossed Orcs and Men. Later we learn that Saruman indeed crossed Orcs and Men. Wouldn't it be odd if this crossing had no effect on their sun-tolerance, especially given Gamling's comment that specifically the hybrids of Saruman are unaffected by daylight?
Also, we now have more terms to equate to Saruman's army list. The equation runs thus: Gamling's quote, Merry's account, Morgoth's Ring:
half-orcs=endless lines of marching Orcs=Men-Orcs 
orc-men=men with goblin-faces=Orc-men
wild men of the hills=Dunlendings=(not mentioned)
Notice that if the half-orcs above are also Uruk-hai, then we've accounted for all of the sun-tolerant troops under Saruman's command.
Note also that at this point we have many quotes attesting to the sun-tolerance of Saruman's Orcs specifically, and exactly 0 quotes attesting to Uruk son-tolerance in general.
Take into account the above quotes which Tar-Elenion has kindly re-posted, and there are even statements which could be interpreted as showing Mordor Uruks to be not sun-tolerant (as Treebeard implies). In fact, Tar-Elenion's theory on the Lugburz Ape/Mountain Maggot/Saruman's Uruk-hai race sets up an interesting equation:
Uruk-hai: stronger, hardier than Lugburz Apes, not more sun tolerant
Uruk-hai: more sun tolerant than Mountain Maggots, not stronger or hardier
Lugburz Apes: more sun tolerant than Mountain Maggots, yet less strong and hardy.
As I said before, what a strange mix of Orcs!

jallan- Thank you for at least admitting the slimmest of possibilities that my reading is valid!! That is all I want. I don't expect to swing anybody's view on this, just to demonstrate why I think the way I do. Your acknowledgement (however slim) is very much appreciated, although it may undermine the legendary contentiousness of this thread.
That being said, I do of course have some points to make. First of all, regarding Sam's ignorance of the term Uruk-hai: I think that is debatable if you assume that Sauron's Uruks are in fact also Uruk-hai. Following the advent of the Uruk-hai, there is an immediate swelling in Orc activity- the peopling of Moria with Orcs and the abduction of Celebrian, the battle at the fields of Celebrant (the establishment of the Kingdom of Rohan), and various incursions into Eriador, culminating with the Dwarf-Orc war of 2766-2769. I detailed this all in my post here (please ignore my ignorant statement about 'Ringwraiths' being an anglicization of Nazgul- obviously I've learned some things on this thread). What this timeline demonstrates to me is that Hobbits are familiar with Uruks through the 'war' with Golfimbul. If these Uruks were actually Uruk-hai like those at Helm's Deep, then we could imagine they'd mention this fact at every full stop. According to this timeline and the assumption that Uruks=Uruk-hai, every Hobbit child that goes in for histories (i.e. Sam) should know the term Uruk-hai.
Other little points (again, I hate to be contentious, but you might find earlier information interesting)
Gorbag's lot was taken care of- the two Orcs who shot Lagduf and Muzgash are later found by Sam, see my posts here , here and here , as well as HoME IX, p. 24. Even if they weren't taken care of, you'd think Higher Ups would have their priorities straight. What seems more important, a few stray Orcs, or a great Elf spy? In any case, we do know that the Higher Ups are capable of a much better description than "a small dwarf-man":


> _from the Black Gate Opens_
> Pippin who stood behind Prince Imrahil sprang forward with a cry of grief.
> ‘Silence!’ said Gandalf sternly, thrusting him back; but the Messenger laughed aloud.
> ‘So you have yet another of these imps with you!’ he cried. ‘What use you find in them I cannot guess; but to send them as spies into Mordor is beyond even your accustomed folly. Still, I thank him, for it is plain that this brat at least has seen these tokens before, and it would be vain for you to deny them now.’
> ...
> ‘Dwarf-coat, elf-cloak, blade of the downfallen West, and spy from the little rat-land of the Shire-nay; do not start! We know it well


 This is certainly a more accurate assesment than "small Dwarf-man". What epiphane caused the change in tone?

As for Shagrat and Grishnakh, I really feel that short in relation to Ugluk and large in relation to Snaga II could easily result in the two being the same height. In any case, they both have those long arms reaching almost to the ground- certainly a strikingly similar description, in my book at least.

How thin is my argument? I honestly believe it is a matter of opinion. Looking at the history of the terms, we see that in 1944 Tolkien had three separate groups of Orcs in mind: goblins, Black Orcs, and Uruk-hai. In the published work there are still three reasonably separate groups of Orcs- plain Orcs, Soldiers of Mordor, and Soldiers of Isengard, respectively. The soldiers of Mordor are usually referred to as Uruks, those of Isengard are usually referred to as Uruk-hai. They were different in their conception, and they remain different in the published work (see sun tolerance). The only question is whether or not Tolkien intended for the soldier Orcs of Mordor to also be Uruk-hai, in which case his definition for the term Uruk-hai would have had to change from it's conception in 1942. It's of worth to note at this point that the first two times JRRT used the terms Uruks, he italicized (not to be confused with anglicized) them- these are the entries on the last two pages of The Land of Shadow. I think this is interesting- it looks to me like Tolkien was really dealing with something new at this point, rather than just the Uruk-hai which he had been describing for the previous 6 years.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475 they swept across Ithilien and took Osgiliath.



I wonder if the last years of Denethor I all took place at night.



> 'Surely even Orcs must pause on the march?' said Gimli. 'Seldom will Orcs journey in the open under the sun. Yet these have done so,' said Legolas.


And what would Legolas have forgotten? He speaks the truth. All Orcs, of any sort, prefer the dark to the sun, they all hate it. And of course there are Mordor Orcs along with the Isengarders traveling in the Sunlight as well.



> Treebeard says:
> It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it.


Of course we also know that Grishnakh's company abided and endured the Sun. And we know that Sauron's Orcs fight all day in the sunlight during the battle of the Pelennor Fields, and quite succesfully for a time. All Orcs prefer the dark.




> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun,' said Gamling. 'And neither will the wild men of the hills. Do you not hear their voices?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> More Orc/Men hybrids. More sun tolerance. Implication that this is a new invention, not one that has been around for 544 years. Note also, the three categories here neatly coincide with the three categories that Merry reports to see exiting Isengard:
> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> endless lines of marching Orcs; and troops of them mounted on great wolves. And there were battalions of Men, too. Many of them carried torches, and in the flare I could see their faces. Most of them were ordinary men, rather tall and dark-haired, and grim but not particularly evil-looking. But there were some others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Here the match would be:
> half-orcs=endless lines of marching Orcs,
> orc-men=men with goblin-faces,
> and wild men of the hills=battalions of men.
> Note also that Tar-Elenion's reading of the passage has Gamling totally discount the Uruk-hai in his speech, in spite of the facts that:
> 1) Tar-Elenion's argument is that all Soldier Orcs, both those of Mordor and those of Isengard are sun resistant.
> 2) The Uruk-hai themselves claim to be sun-resistant, and apparently make up the majority of Saruman's forces.



That is interesting because while aragil says the Half-orcs=the Orcs (meaning the Uruk-hai), _Aragorn_ calls the 'men with goblin faces' "half-orcs" just a couple lines later. Interesting. It is also interesting that Gamling speaks of the 'sun resistant' nature of the 'hill men'.
1)Aragil has yet to show that the soldier-orcs of Mordor were not sun resistant in light of the facts that they run in the sun with out being greatly effected if at all, and they fight all day in the sunlight at the Pelennor Fields.
Note that Tar-Elenion has said Saruman's Uruk-hai may be able to better withstand the sun than Sauron's and he has also said that Sauron's Uruk-hai seem to be a different breed than Saruman's.



> Also, we now have more terms to equate to Saruman's army list. The equation runs thus: Gamling's quote, Merry's account, Morgoth's Ring:
> half-orcs=endless lines of marching Orcs=Men-Orcs
> orc-men=men with goblin-faces=Orc-men
> wild men of the hills=Dunlendings=(not mentioned)
> Notice that if the half-orcs above are also Uruk-hai, then we've accounted for all of the sun-tolerant troops under Saruman's command.


Aragil says: half-orcs=marching Orcs=Men-Orcs, Aragorn says half-orcs=men with goblin-faces. Who to believe?



> Take into account the above quotes which Tar-Elenion has kindly re-posted, and there are even statements which could be interpreted as showing Mordor Uruks to be not sun-tolerant (as Treebeard implies).


Like the ones where they run and fight all day in the sun with little or no ill effect? 



> In fact, Tar-Elenion's theory on the Lugburz Ape/Mountain Maggot/Saruman's Uruk-hai race sets up an interesting equation:
> Uruk-hai: stronger, hardier than Lugburz Apes, not more sun tolerant
> Uruk-hai: more sun tolerant than Mountain Maggots, not stronger or hardier
> Lugburz Apes: more sun tolerant than Mountain Maggots, yet less strong and hardy.


Tar-Elenion did NOT advance this 'theory'. I suggest you read more carefully what I wrote, and refrain from putting words in my mouth. 



> In any case, we do know that the Higher Ups are capable of a much better description than "a small dwarf-man":
> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> from the Black Gate Opens
> Pippin who stood behind Prince Imrahil sprang forward with a cry of grief.
> ‘Silence!’ said Gandalf sternly, thrusting him back; but the Messenger laughed aloud.
> ‘So you have yet another of these imps with you!’ he cried. ‘What use you find in them I cannot guess; but to send them as spies into Mordor is beyond even your accustomed folly. Still, I thank him, for it is plain that this brat at least has seen these tokens before, and it would be vain for you to deny them now.’
> ...
> ‘Dwarf-coat, elf-cloak, blade of the downfallen West, and spy from the little rat-land of the Shire-nay; do not start! We know it well
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This is certainly a more accurate assesment than "small Dwarf-man". What epiphane caused the change in tone?



Hmm... good question... I wonder if it could be because the Mouth of Sauron knows more than a simple soldier-orc and tracker? 
Which describes a Hobbit better to some one who does not know what Hobbit is: "a sort of small dwarf-man" or an 'imp, brat, spy from a rat-land called the Shire'?



> The only question is whether or not Tolkien intended for the soldier Orcs of Mordor to also be Uruk-hai, in which case his definition for the term Uruk-hai would have had to change from it's conception in 1942.


Please provide JRRT's definition for the term.


Aragil has yet to provide any evidence that Isengarders were involved in the events at Cirith Ungol.


----------



## aragil

*reply (part 1)*



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *I wonder if the last years of Denethor I all took place at night.*


 I wonder if every single Orc engagement from the First Age on occurred at night. The answer is probably not. Any Orc can fight during the day- they just don't fight well because they are not sun-tolerant. Were the Uruks of TA 2475 sun-tolerant? There is no statement either for or against. However, judging by the fact that Legolas, Gamling, and Treebeard all remark specifically on the Isengarders sun-tolerance, it seems like sun-tolerance is a sufficiently remarkable characteristic. This begs the question, why doesn't Tolkien mention sun-tolerance in the passage in the appendix rather than remarking on the size and strength of the Uruks? Which trait is more rare among pre-Uruk orcs: strength or sun tolerance? Many characters remark about Isengarders being sun tolerant. Exactly zero characters remark about Mordor Orcs' sun-tolerance. Why do I bear the burden of proof on this issue?




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *And what would Legolas have forgotten? He speaks the truth. All Orcs, of any sort, prefer the dark to the sun, they all hate it. And of course there are Mordor Orcs along with the Isengarders traveling in the Sunlight as well.*


 At this point there are only Isengarders and Moria Orcs travelling together. Their discussion runs thus:


> 'But what are we going to do at sunrise?' said some of the Northerners.
> 'Go on running,' said Uglúk. 'What do you think? Sit on the grass and wait for the Whiteskins to join the picnic?'
> 'But we can't run in the sunlight.'
> 'You'll run with me behind you,' said Uglúk. 'Run! Or you'll never see your beloved holes again.'


 The implication is that the Moria runts would not run if Ugluk's lot was not making them. This is what I would like to call the "natural state of orcs". They can operate in daylight, they just do so poorly- i.e. not as well as Isengard troops.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Of course we also know that Grishnakh's company abided and endured the Sun. And we know that Sauron's Orcs fight all day in the sunlight during the battle of the Pelennor Fields, and quite succesfully for a time. All Orcs prefer the dark.*


 Yes Grishnakh's troop was able to run in the day. So were the Moria Maggots. Neither of them ran as well as Ugluk's troop.
Sauron's orcs at the Pelannor fight quite successfully? Is that a Mordor euphemism? I can find exactly two passages about Orcs at Pelannor- both mention routing, one mentions sunlight. All mention of Mordor forces actually fighting at Pelannor in the sunlight seem to be in reference to the Haradrim and Easterlings, who I agree, are probably sun-tolerant.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *That is interesting because while aragil says the Half-orcs=the Orcs (meaning the Uruk-hai), _Aragorn_ calls the 'men with goblin faces' "half-orcs" just a couple lines later. Interesting. It is also interesting that Gamling speaks of the 'sun resistant' nature of the 'hill men'.*


 Word order is important in English. Adjectives modify nouns, and in the case of compound words, preceed the noun they modify. You are a language guy, it is embarrasing for me to have to tell you this. The following are all men, with adjectival modifiers which show orcish characteristics: "_Goblin-men_", "_Orc-men_", "_Men with Goblin faces_", "_squint-eyed Southerner at Bree_", "_squint-eyed Ruffians in the Shire_". Orcs too can be modified with adjectives, however they will still be Orcs. The following are examples of such creatures found in the narrative: "_Orcs_", "_Men-orcs_", "_Half-orcs_". Any which I am forgetting? All of the above fall into the two broad categories from Morgoth's Ring: Orc-men and Men-orcs, respectively.
Absolutely, Gamling speaks of the sun-resistant nature of the hill-men. His point, I believe, is that *NONE* of the forces of Saruman are going to be bothered by the sun, whether they are half-orcs, goblin-men, or hill-men. Is Gamling forgetting about the Uruk-hai? Seems like they are a pretty important part of the equation. Perhaps that is what the reference to half-orcs is intended to convey?




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *1)Aragil has yet to show that the soldier-orcs of Mordor were not sun resistant in light of the facts that they run in the sun with out being greatly effected if at all, and they fight all day in the sunlight at the Pelennor Fields.
> Note that Tar-Elenion has said Saruman's Uruk-hai may be able to better withstand the sun than Sauron's and he has also said that Sauron's Uruk-hai seem to be a different breed than Saruman's.*


 Again, I have five quotes (three sir!) which tie sun-resistance in with being human/orc hybrids. Sauron's Uruks were not human/orc hybrids, the logical conclusion is that they were not sun tolerant. There are many quotes remarking that Saruman's troops are sun-tolerant. There are no such quotes regarding Sauron's troops. Any Orc will fight in the sun if the need is there- they are not vampires or trolls. They will even run in the sun if needs be- the Moria Maggots are proof of this. However, they will not be as effective- I'd say the Battle of the Pelannor fields is an excellent example of this. In the case of running, Grishnakh's boys drop their heads due to the effects of the "pale winter sun shining in a cool blue sky", and they fall behind Ugluk's troop. Why are Ugluk's troop never mentioned as dropping their heads in the sun?
The natural state of Orcs is that they can't abide the sun. Several characters remark that Isengard troops can abide the sun, thereby allowing these troops to be exceptions outside the natural state. Exactly zero characters remark on a Mordor-orc's sun-tolerance, thus indicating that the Mordor troops exist within the natural state of Orcs- i.e. they are not sun-tolerant. If you want the Mordor Orcs to lie outside of the natural state of Orcs, then logic says that the burden of proof is on you, not me.
However, if you believe that Sauron's troops are in fact not as sun-resistant as the Isengarders, as you seem to be implying in your second point, then please stop disagreeing with me when I post statements to this effect. You can't say "aragil is wrong" and then agree with me in consecutive sentences. Not with regards to the same point. Not if you expect useful discussion to occur.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Aragil says: half-orcs=marching Orcs=Men-Orcs, Aragorn says half-orcs=men with goblin-faces. Who to believe?*


 Half-orcs are orcs with human characteristics. Men with goblin-faces are men with orcish characteristics. "Half" modifies orcs. "With goblin-faces" modifies men. Two different races, two different creatures. Believe your English teacher.


----------



## aragil

*reply (part 2)*



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Like the ones where they run and fight all day in the sun with little or no ill effect? *


 Grishnakh's Apes run all day. So do the Moria Maggots. Ugluk's troop runs faster than both. Mordor orcs hang their head while running because of the effects of the sun. In case you have never run long distance let me fill you in on something: it is bad form to drop your head- it slows you down.
I have seen no evidence in the Pelannor fields narrative that Orcs were in fact fighting after the sun came up. The two mentions of Orcs I do see run thus:


> For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and the darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them.
> ...
> Well nigh all the northern half of the Pelennor was overrun, and there camps were blazing, orcs were flying towards the River like herds before the hunters; and the Rohirrim went hither and thither at their will.
> ...
> East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men and Variags and orcs that hated the sunlight.


 In the context given, the first two quotes show that the Northern half of the Pelennor was occupied mostly by Orcs. It is they who are overtaken by terror when the darkness is removed. Not exactly fighting well, and the two mentions of sunlight make me think that the sun has something to do with the poor performance. Mordor troops are mentioned to be fighting, but they all seem to be men (or at least troll-men):


> Southward beyond the road lay the main force of the Haradrim, and there their horsemen were gathered about the standard of their chieftain.
> ...
> New forces of the enemy were hastening up the road from the River; and from under the walls came the legions of Morgul; and from the southward fields came footmen of Harad with horsemen before them, and behind them rose the huge backs of the mûmakil with war-towers upon them.
> ...
> And now the fighting waxed furious on the fields of the Pelennor; and the din of arms rose upon high, with the crying of men and the neighing of horses. Horns were blown and trumpets were braying, and the mûmakil were bellowing as they were goaded to war. Under the south walls of the City the footmen of Gondor now drove against the legions of Morgul that were still gathered there in strength.
> ...
> The great wrath of his onset had utterly overthrown the front of his enemies, and great wedges of his Riders had passed clear through the ranks of the Southrons, discomfiting their horsemen and riding their footmen to ruin. But wherever the mûmakil came there the horses would not go, but blenched and swerved away; and the great monsters were unfought, and stood like towers of defence, and the Haradrim rallied about them. And if the Rohirrim at their onset were thrice outnumbered by the Haradrim alone, soon their case became worse; for new strength came now streaming to the field out of Osgiliath. There they had been mustered for the sack of the City and the rape of Gondor, waiting on the call of their Captain. He now was destroyed; but Gothmog the lieutenant of Morgul had flung them into the fray; Easterlings with axes, and Variags of Khand. Southrons in scarlet, and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues. Some now hastened up behind the Rohirrim, others held westward to hold off the forces of Gondor and prevent their joining with Rohan.
> ...
> Hard fighting and long labour they had still; for the Southrons were bold men and grim, and fierce in despair; and the Easterlings were strong and war-hardened and asked for no quarter. And so in this place and that, by burned homestead or barn, upon hillock or mound, under wall or on field, still they gathered and rallied and fought until the day wore away.


 These are all the mentions I can find of fighting during the battle. The Haradrim are mentioned often, the Easterlings, Variags of Khand, and the troll-men of Far Harad are all mentioned a couple of times apiece. The legions of Morgul are mentioned twice, but I can find no evidece that they contained Orcs. Frodo's eyewitness account runs thus:


> And out of the gate an army came.
> All that host was clad in sable, dark as the night. Against the wan walls and the luminous pavement of the road Frodo could see them, small black figures in rank upon rank, marching swiftly and silently, passing outwards in an endless stream. Before them went a great cavalry of horsemen moving like ordered shadows, and at their head was one greater than all the rest: a Rider, all black, save that on his hooded head he had a helm like a crown that flickered with a perilous light
> ...
> Even as these thoughts pierced him with dread and held him bound as with a spell, the Rider halted suddenly, right before the entrance of the bridge, and behind him all the host stood still.
> ...
> Soon he had passed, like a shadow into shadow, down the winding road, and behind him still the black ranks crossed the bridge. So great an army had never issued from that vale since the days of Isildur's might; no host so fell and strong in arms had yet assailed the fords of Anduin; and yet it was but one and not the greatest of the hosts that Mordor now sent forth.


 I see horsemen, but no mention of Orcs.
Conspicuously absent now from the account of Pelannor is any mention of Orcs except for the two earlier passages which mention them fleeing. How can anyone say that Sauron's Orcs faught at Pelannor with 'little or no ill effect" from sunlight?? In the interest of solving that puzzle, I'm attaching the account of the Pelannor fields. If anyone can find a description here of Orcs fighting _well_ (as opposed to being routed), you get a lollipop!!




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Tar-Elenion did NOT advance this 'theory'. I suggest you read more carefully what I wrote, and refrain from putting words in my mouth.*


 Your theory appears to me to be that Ugluk's lot is stronger and hardier than the Mordor Orcs, yet no more sun-tolerant in spite of the fact that the Mordor Orcs are hanging their heads until the sun goes down. You seem to agree that Ugluk's band is more sun-tolerant than the mountain maggots, therefore they do not need to be stronger or hardier in order to overtake them. The above equation is pursuing this logic to it's natural conclusion. Exactly which part of this statement is putting words into your mouth?




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Hmm... good question... I wonder if it could be because the Mouth of Sauron knows more than a simple soldier-orc and tracker?
> Which describes a Hobbit better to some one who does not know what Hobbit is: "a sort of small dwarf-man" or an 'imp, brat, spy from a rat-land called the Shire'?*


 I'd say halfling best describes a Hobbit, as per Ugluk's orders:


> 'Orders.' said a third voice in a deep growl. '_Kill all but _NOT _the Halfings; they are to be brought back _ALIVE _as quickly as possible_. That's my orders.'


 When the Higher-ups want to, they can do better than "dwarf-man". For me the implication is that the Higher-ups are a little confused in this case.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Please provide JRRT's definition for the term. {Uruk-hai}*


 In 1942 JRRT used the term Uruk-hai to refer to Isengard Orcs. Between 1942 and 1948 he never referred to Mordor Orcs as either Uruk-hai or Uruks. However, during this span he did write about the Mordor soldier-Orcs which he later called Uruks, he simply had different names for them. The implication is that between 1942 and 1948 JRRT had no intention of using the word "Uruk" in any form to refer to soldier Orcs of Mordor. I have no idea what JRRT's precise definition of the term Uruk-hai was at the time, but judging by the context of the writings it had nothing to do with soldiers of Mordor.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Aragil has yet to provide any evidence that Isengarders were involved in the events at Cirith Ungol. *


 I have no intention of showing that Isengarders were involved at Cirith Ungol- if this is what you are waiting for then you will be waiting until the cows come home. My view is, and has always been that rebel Uruk-hai *MIGHT* (please notice I'm mentioning this as a possibility) be a mistaken identity, just as Sam is in fact not an great Elf, and Frodo is neither a dwarf nor a man (nor a mix of the two). Have Mordor troops ever been attacked by Isengarders in order to steal away spies from the Rat land of the Shire? Actually, yes they have- just 20 days earlier, an event that is doubtless still on every Mordorian's mind. And these particular Isengarders identified themselves as Uruk-hai at every opportunity. No, this would not be a good excuse if the Tracker and Soldier were operating under good intelligence. However, given that the only thing that the two Orcs agree about is that their information makes no sense (‘Garn! You don’t even know what you’re looking for.’ ‘Whose blame’s that?’ said the soldier. ‘Not mine. That comes from Higher Up'), I believe it is a valid reading. I believe your take is also a valid reading, a courtesy you seem reluctant to reciprocate.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Nóm _
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jallan_
> Whatever form Gorbag here used for the plural of Uruk we would expect to be rendered to Sam's understanding as the normal Common Speech form of the plural of Uruk, which would then be represented in the published text as English Uruks.
> 
> 
> 
> *If you don't mind a little side question from an observer - why wouldn't this be "orcs"? *
Click to expand...

The prevailing logic as I see it is this: Uruk literally means 'orc', so 'Uruks' would literally be translated as 'orcs'. However, towards the end of the Third Age 'Uruk' is only used to refer to large Soldier-Orcs, regardless of the literal meaning of the word. Sam "understands" the word as spoken by Gorbag, including the context. Gorbag did not mean that any orc was left to put things straight, but only that the large Soldier-orcs had to do so. Sam understood it in this sense, so the natural translation would be 'Uruks'.
My contention as always is that since this is a self-reference by a Mordor Orc (one speaking Black Speech, no less), it is pretty damning evidence that 'Uruks' is a seperate term from 'Uruk-hai'. I do not think that the Ring translated everything Sam heard into Westron (obviously it didn't, as 'Gorbag' and 'Shagrat' are either Black Speech or pure Orcish names). I believe the Ring allowed Sam to understand what was being said in it's own language. When I listen to Spanish I don't translate a word such as 'tampoco' into English 'neither'. I understand it as 'tampoco'. This is how I believe the Ring works.
In any case, we know that the internal conceipt of the story is that Frodo wrote down the word 'Uruks' after he had access to Pippin and Merry's information on the Uruk-hai, as well as Sam's account of Gorbag and Shagrat. If Frodo recognized the two groups of Orcs as being the same, he should have had Gorbag say 'Uruk-hai', as it was here being used in the same sense in which Ugluk had earlier used it. I respect Frodo's abilities as a writer and a linguist, therefore if he used two distinct terms here, then I believe it was because he was referring to distinct creatures.
If we pull ourselves out of the internal conceipt of the story, then things become even easier. Tolkien wrote 'Uruks' for Gorbag's statement, he had earlier written 'Uruk-hai' for Ugluk. If he intended the two Orcs to belong to the same race then the easiest way for him to have shown that would have been to use the same term to describe them, especially since the Orcs are speaking in the same context. He didn't- I think that is significant.
Hope that answer's your question Nom, and in any case, 'observers' are welcome to stay if they find anything which suits their fancey.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: reply (part 1)*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Any Orc can fight during the day- they just don't fight well because they are not sun-tolerant. Were the Uruks of TA 2475 sun-tolerant? There is no statement either for or against. However, judging by the fact that Legolas, Gamling, and Treebeard all remark specifically on the Isengarders sun-tolerance, it seems like sun-tolerance is a sufficiently remarkable characteristic. This begs the question, why doesn't Tolkien mention sun-tolerance in the passage in the appendix rather than remarking on the size and strength of the Uruks? Which trait is more rare among pre-Uruk orcs: strength or sun tolerance? Many characters remark about Isengarders being sun tolerant. Exactly zero characters remark about Mordor Orcs' sun-tolerance. Why do I bear the burden of proof on this issue?



The begged question might rather be how much experience did Legolas, Gamling and Treebeard have with the Uruks of Mordor. Presumably all had experience with the lesser breeds that were in greater numbers in their environs. You bear the burden of proof because I am challenging your assertions that the Uruks of Mordor were not 'tolerant' of the sun. I have already posted evidence that they could tolerate the sun (eg The Northerners a said to be 'flagging in the sun', not the Orcs of either Isengard or Mordor.)



> Yes Grishnakh's troop was able to run in the day. So were the Moria Maggots. Neither of them ran as well as Ugluk's troop.



The question is why? We know the Northerners complained about the sun. We know they were a lesser breed. We know they were 'flagging in the sun'. There are two *possibilities* given for the Orcs of Mordor not running as well as the Isengarders. One is because the Isengarders were "quicker and hardier", the other is "because of some plan of Grishnakh's". Neither possibilty mentions the sun.




> Sauron's orcs at the Pelannor fight quite successfully? Is that a Mordor euphemism? I can find exactly two passages about Orcs at Pelannor- both mention routing, one mentions sunlight. All mention of Mordor forces actually fighting at Pelannor in the sunlight seem to be in reference to the Haradrim and Easterlings, who I agree, are probably sun-tolerant.



The sun starts shining when the Rohirrim charge and start routing the Mordorians. The sun is shining when the Witch King comes to slay Theoden, and be slain (his arrival causes a great shadow). The sun is shining after he is slain, (Merry stands blinking in the sunlight). At mid-morning when the day begins to turn against Gondor the wind is blowing, the rain is flying the sun is shining and the air is clear. Mordor is winning, and all hope is lost because the watchmen see afar the Corsairs of Umbar coming. The hosts of Mordor are enheartened and come yelling to the onset. All this while the sun is shining. Only when the Mordorians realize that the Ships are filled with their enemy, do they become bewildered and filled with dread. It does not make any mention of the Orcs being cowed by the sun. The sun did not rout them, surprise and fear did. 


After the initial rout by the Rohirrim, and the death of the Witch-king, it is stated that men from the City drove against the legions of Morgul that were gathered in strength at the south walls, these had not been routed until they were attacked (though the sun was shining). Then the Enemy's reserves are sent in. Now the tide is turning again. Then the Corsairs are seen. A great press of Eomers 'first foes' are between him and Harlond, while 'new foes' cut Eomer off from Imrahil. It is realized that the 'Corsairs' are actually allies. Imrahil then charges into those that cut him off and they include Orcs along with Variags and the 'troll-men'.




> Word order is important in English. Adjectives modify nouns, and in the case of compound words, preceed the noun they modify. You are a language guy, it is embarrasing for me to have to tell you this.



You have me confused with someone else. Cian and Jallan are the 'language guys'



> The following are all men, with adjectival modifiers which show orcish characteristics: "_Goblin-men_", "_Orc-men_", "_Men with Goblin faces_", "_squint-eyed Southerner at Bree_", "_squint-eyed Ruffians in the Shire_". Orcs too can be modified with adjectives, however they will still be Orcs. The following are examples of such creatures found in the narrative: "_Orcs_", "_Men-orcs_", "_Half-orcs_". Any which I am forgetting? All of the above fall into the two broad categories from Morgoth's Ring: Orc-men and Men-orcs, respectively.



Fascinating. However you are wrong. In the text Aragorn specifically refers to what you term 'men with orcish characteristics' as "half-orcs". Pippin also speaks of "half-orcs and ruffians" in the Shire (and Merry slays "a great squint-eyed brute like a huge orc") where there were no Uruk-hai.




> Absolutely, Gamling speaks of the sun-resistant nature of the hill-men. His point, I believe, is that *NONE* of the forces of Saruman are going to be bothered by the sun, whether they are half-orcs, goblin-men, or hill-men. Is Gamling forgetting about the Uruk-hai? Seems like they are a pretty important part of the equation. Perhaps that is what the reference to half-orcs is intended to convey?



None are? 
"On they rode, the king and his companions. Captains and champions fell or fled before them. Neither orc nor man withstood them. Their backs were to the swords and spears of the Riders and their faces to the valley. They cried and wailed, for fear and great wonder had come upon them with the rising of the day."
TT, Helm's Deep

Fear came upon Saruman's Uruks with the rising of the day.




> Again, I have five quotes (three sir!) which tie sun-resistance in with being human/orc hybrids. Sauron's Uruks were not human/orc hybrids, the logical conclusion is that they were not sun tolerant. There are many quotes remarking that Saruman's troops are sun-tolerant. There are no such quotes regarding Sauron's troops. Any Orc will fight in the sun if the need is there- they are not vampires or trolls. They will even run in the sun if needs be- the Moria Maggots are proof of this. However, they will not be as effective- I'd say the Battle of the Pelannor fields is an excellent example of this. In the case of running, Grishnakh's boys drop their heads due to the effects of the "pale winter sun shining in a cool blue sky", and they fall behind Ugluk's troop. Why are Ugluk's troop never mentioned as dropping their heads in the sun?



The Northerners complain about and 'flag' in the sun. The Mordor Orcs do not. 
The text does not say that "Grishnakh's boys drop their heads due to the effects of the "pale winter sun shining in a cool blue sky",". The sun is only said to effect the Northerners. The text does not say why the Mordor orcs had there heads bowed. We do know that Orcs tend to run bent over.



> However, if you believe that Sauron's troops are in fact not as sun-resistant as the Isengarders, as you seem to be implying in your second point, then please stop disagreeing with me when I post statements to this effect. You can't say "aragil is wrong" and then agree with me in consecutive sentences. Not with regards to the same point. Not if you expect useful discussion to occur.



I believe it is likely that the Isengarders are _more_ tolerant of the sun than the Uruk-hai of Mordor. However I have seen no evidence that they are greatly so. 
However what you keep claiming is that they are _not_ sun tolerant. The Northerners are obviously much more effected by the sun than either of the other groups. Those you could say are 'not sun tolerant'.
The same can not be said for those of Mordor. Indeed the "evidence" you give is a misconstrual of the text ("Grishnakh's boys drop their heads due to the effects of the "pale winter sun shining in a cool blue sky""). The text does not say that at all. Was this deliberate? Useful discussion does not occur when such things as that happen.



> Half-orcs are orcs with human characteristics. Men with goblin-faces are men with orcish characteristics. "Half" modifies orcs. "With goblin-faces" modifies men. Two different races, two different creatures. Believe your English teacher.



I think I will trust what JRRT wrote when he had Aragorn refer to the goblin-faced men as Half-orcs, which contradicts your statement..


----------



## aragil

*Re: Re: reply (part 1)*



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *The begged question might rather be how much experience did Legolas, Gamling and Treebeard have with the Uruks of Mordor. ... You bear the burden of proof because I am challenging your assertions that the Uruks of Mordor were not 'tolerant' of the sun. I have already posted evidence that they could tolerate the sun (eg The Northerners a said to be 'flagging in the sun', not the Orcs of either Isengard or Mordor.)*


 Gamling and Legolas make their statements to Aragorn. Aragorn says of himself "There are few among mortal Men who know more of Orcs". If either Gamling or Legolas was wrong in their statements, you can assume Aragorn would correct them. He doesn't, so their statements are in effect testified to by the most knowledgeable mortal on the matters of Orc-kind. Still not enough evidence? Legolas had just encountered Uruks in Moria- he never mentioned them looking particularly strange- why should they? They've been around for 544 years. In that time they've had at least one engagement with the Elves of Mirkwood- The Battle of Five Armies. As for Gamling, I've mentioned before that the war which formed the Kingdom of Rohan (the fields of Celebrant) was fought against probable Uruks. Again the Rohirrim faced probable Uruks following the Orc-dwarf wars, when the tattered remnants of the Orcs tried to flee into the White Mountains. More Uruks were probably encountered in 2885, whent the twin sons of Folcwine perished fighting with Gondor in Ithilien. 16 years later Ithilien was finally overun by Uruks. The whole history of Rohan has been bound up with Uruks- I think it is safe to assume that Gamling is familiar with them.
Lack of a mention in one case is not proof by any means. I can come up with zillions of passages that don't state Uruks and Uruk-hai are the same thing. Would you be willing to accept that as evidence that they are different? Again, I have provided several quotes which describe the natural state of Orcs- they can not tolerate the sun. I have provided several passages which describe the hybrid creatures of Saruman as being sun-tolerant, *THESE ARE THE ONLY ORCS DESCRIBED AS BEING SUN-TOLERANT*. I've even provided passages which suggest that Mordor Orcs are effected by the sun- you choose to interpret them differently. None of this changes the facts- there are passages which say Orcs are effected by the sun. There are passages which say Isengard orcs are special for not being effected by the sun. There are no passages which state that Mordor Orcs are uneffected by the sun. I would think that this is enough evidence.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *The question is why? We know the Northerners complained about the sun. We know they were a lesser breed. We know they were 'flagging in the sun'. There are two possibilities given for the Orcs of Mordor not running as well as the Isengarders. One is because the Isengarders were "quicker and hardier", the other is "because of some plan of Grishnakh's". Neither possibilty mentions the sun.*


* An explanation is provided later when the Mordor Orcs raise their heads. They have been running with their heads down- this slows them down. When the sun is no longer on their heads they are able to raise them, at which point they put on speed. Ugluk's lot is quicker than Grishnakh's because they need not worry about the sun- Grishnakh and company do. A 'plan' of Grishnakh's doesn't even come into play- the fact that he falls behind the Isengarders does nothing except get his own boys closer to the bows of the pursuing Rohirrim. Ugluk is not planning on bolting back across Rohan to Mordor. The Mordor Orcs have no conceivable reason for falling to the back, and, given Grishnakh's very strong preservation instinct, you can believe that if there was any way to stay further out of range of the Rohirrim bows, Grishnakh would do so.





Originally posted by Tar-Elenion 
The sun starts shining when the Rohirrim charge and start routing the Mordorians. ... (edited to fit within a single post) Imrahil then charges into those that cut him off and they include Orcs along with Variags and the 'troll-men'.

Click to expand...

 This is simply a cut and paste from one of your old posts. It does not address the fact that none of the forces described as fighting include orcs. Read my other post. I've even provided you with an electronic version of the text. Take my word for it or look yourself- there is no mention of Orcs fighting here, only men.





Originally posted by Tar-Elenion 
You have me confused with someone else. Cian and Jallan are the 'language guys'

Click to expand...

 My mistake- I meant it as a sincere compliment, especially when discussing Tolkien. Earlier comments you had made regarding manuscripts had made me think you had linguistic training. Obviously I don't have such training, so I guess I don't have any way of recognizing someone who does.





Originally posted by Tar-Elenion 
Fascinating. However you are wrong. In the text Aragorn specifically refers to what you term 'men with orcish characteristics' as "half-orcs". Pippin also speaks of "half-orcs and ruffians" in the Shire (and Merry slays "a great squint-eyed brute like a huge orc") where there were no Uruk-hai.

Click to expand...

 First off, we don't know that the term "Uruk-hai" doesn't include Orc-men. Second of all, "half" modifies orc, not man. There is simply no way to be wrong about that.





Originally posted by Tar-Elenion 
None are? 
"On they rode, the king and his companions. Captains and champions fell or fled before them. Neither orc nor man withstood them. Their backs were to the swords and spears of the Riders and their faces to the valley. They cried and wailed, for fear and great wonder had come upon them with the rising of the day."
TT, Helm's Deep
Fear came upon Saruman's Uruks with the rising of the day.

Click to expand...

 Yes, fear came upon Saruman's troops with the rising of the day. But it was not fear of day itself, or of the sun. The next passage clearly states:



The land had changed. Where before the green dale had lain, its grassy slopes lapping the ever-mounting hills, there now a forest loomed. Great trees, bare and silent, stood, rank on rank, with tangled bough and hoary head; their twisted roots were buried in the long green grass. Darkness was under them. Between the Dike and the eaves of that nameless wood only two open furlongs lay. There now cowered the proud hosts of Saruman, in terror of the king and in terror of the trees.

Click to expand...

 Clearly the host of Saruman is in terror of the king and the trees, as stated- nothing to do with morning or sun. This is not the same case as at Pelannor, which is where I assume you are going with this. There it is stated:



For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and the darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them.

Click to expand...

 Immediately preceeding "terror took them" is the fact that the darkness is removed. No mention of trees. No mention of them being terrified by Theoden. Just the mention of darkness being removed.





Originally posted by Tar-Elenion 
The Northerners complain about and 'flag' in the sun. The Mordor Orcs do not. 
The text does not say that "Grishnakh's boys drop their heads due to the effects of the "pale winter sun shining in a cool blue sky",". The sun is only said to effect the Northerners. The text does not say why the Mordor orcs had there heads bowed. We do know that Orcs tend to run bent over.

Click to expand...

 The text says



Then he saw that the sun was sinking, falling behind the Misty Mountains; shadows reached over the land. The soldiers of Mordor lifted their heads and also began to put on speed.

Click to expand...

 The implication here is that the Orcs lift their heads because the sun has gone down. If there is another interpretation of why their heads are not raised until the sun goes down, I would like to hear it. Running bent over is not the same as running with your head down. Bent over is a result of the position of the shoulders. Head down is a result of the position of the neck.





Originally posted by Tar-Elenion 
I believe it is likely that the Isengarders are _more_ tolerant of the sun than the Uruk-hai of Mordor. However I have seen no evidence that they are greatly so. 
However what you keep claiming is that they are _not_ sun tolerant. The Northerners are obviously much more effected by the sun than either of the other groups. Those you could say are 'not sun tolerant'.
The same can not be said for those of Mordor. Indeed the "evidence" you give is a misconstrual of the text ("Grishnakh's boys drop their heads due to the effects of the "pale winter sun shining in a cool blue sky""). The text does not say that at all. Was this deliberate? Useful discussion does not occur when such things as that happen.

Click to expand...

 This was not a misconstrual of the text. It was an interpretation, and as it stands it is the only interpretation which has been given. Answer the question: Why don't the Mordor Orcs lift their heads until after the sun goes down?





Originally posted by Tar-Elenion 
I think I will trust what JRRT wrote when he had Aragorn refer to the goblin-faced men as Half-orcs, which contradicts your statement.. 

Click to expand...

 Then you believe that "half-orc" describes a man instead of an Orc. There is no arguing with such a belief.*


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: reply (part 2)*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> some snippages for things that were adressed in above post.
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence in the Pelannor fields narrative that Orcs were in fact fighting after the sun came up. The two mentions of Orcs I do see run thus:
> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <snip first 2 quotes>
> ...
> East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men and Variags and orcs that hated the sunlight.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> In the context given, the first two quotes show that the Northern half of the Pelennor was occupied mostly by Orcs. It is they who are overtaken by terror when the darkness is removed. Not exactly fighting well, and the two mentions of sunlight make me think that the sun has something to do with the poor performance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The context given is your own, which is taken out of context of what is in the book. I presented this evidence a long time ago.
> A great press of Eomers 'first foes' are between him and Harlond, while 'new foes' cut Eomer off from Imrahil. It is realized that the 'Corsairs' are actually allies. Imrahil then charges into those that cut him off and they include Orcs along with Variags and the 'troll-men'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Battle of the Pelennor Fields
> 'The Corsairs of Umbar!' men shouted. 'The Corsairs of Umbar! Look! The Corsairs of Umbar are coming! So Belfalas is taken, and the Ethir, and Lebennin is gone. The Corsairs are upon us! It is the last stroke of doom!'
> And some without order, for none could he found to command them in the City, ran to the bells and tolled the alarm; and some blew the trumpets sounding the retreat. 'Back to the walls!' they cried. 'Back to the walls! Come back to the City before all are overwhelmed!' But the wind that sped the ships blew all their clamour away.
> The Rohirrim indeed had no need of news or alarm. All too well they could see for themselves the black sails. For Éomer was now scarcely a mile from the Harlond, and a great press of his first foes was between him and the haven there, while new foes came swirling behind, cutting him off from the Prince. Now he looked to the River, and hope died in his heart, and the wind that he had blessed he now called accursed. But the hosts of Mordor were enheartened, and filled with a new lust and fury they came yelling to the onset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "new foes" were the 'Orcs, Variags, and troll-men'.
> They were fighting well enough to cut off Imrahil from Eomer. Try looking at the full context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mordor troops are mentioned to be fighting, but they all seem to be men (or at least troll-men):
> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <snip>
> ...
> New forces of the enemy were hastening up the road from the River; and from under the walls came the legions of Morgul; and from the southward fields came footmen of Harad with horsemen before them, and behind them rose the huge backs of the mûmakil with war-towers upon them.
> ...
> And now the fighting waxed furious on the fields of the Pelennor; and the din of arms rose upon high, with the crying of men and the neighing of horses. Horns were blown and trumpets were braying, and the mûmakil were bellowing as they were goaded to war. Under the south walls of the City the footmen of Gondor now drove against the legions of Morgul that were still gathered there in strength.
> ...
> <snip>
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> These are all the mentions I can find of fighting during the battle. The Haradrim are mentioned often, the Easterlings, Variags of Khand, and the troll-men of Far Harad are all mentioned a couple of times apiece. The legions of Morgul are mentioned twice, but I can find no evidece that they contained Orcs. Frodo's eyewitness account runs thus:
> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> And out of the gate an army came.
> All that host was clad in sable, dark as the night. Against the wan walls and the luminous pavement of the road Frodo could see them, small black figures in rank upon rank, marching swiftly and silently, passing outwards in an endless stream. Before them went a great cavalry of horsemen moving like ordered shadows, and at their head was one greater than all the rest: a Rider, all black, save that on his hooded head he had a helm like a crown that flickered with a perilous light
> ...
> <snip>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I see horsemen, but no mention of Orcs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see no mention of the foot troops being Men. Perhaps they were all ghosts. We already know that Morgul had Orcs, that is where Gorbag was from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conspicuously absent now from the account of Pelannor is any mention of Orcs except for the two earlier passages which mention them fleeing. How can anyone say that Sauron's Orcs faught at Pelannor with 'little or no ill effect" from sunlight?? In the interest of solving that puzzle, I'm attaching the account of the Pelannor fields. If anyone can find a description here of Orcs fighting well (as opposed to being routed), you get a lollipop!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The see above the hosts of Mordor. See above the 'new foes'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your theory appears to me to be that Ugluk's lot is stronger and hardier than the Mordor Orcs, yet no more sun-tolerant in spite of the fact that the Mordor Orcs are hanging their heads until the sun goes down. You seem to agree that Ugluk's band is more sun-tolerant than the mountain maggots, therefore they do not need to be stronger or hardier in order to overtake them. The above equation is pursuing this logic to it's natural conclusion. Exactly which part of this statement is putting words into your mouth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wrote:
> "In fact, Tar-Elenion's theory on the Lugburz Ape/Mountain Maggot/Saruman's Uruk-hai race sets up an interesting equation:
> Uruk-hai: stronger, hardier than Lugburz Apes, not more sun tolerant
> Uruk-hai: more sun tolerant than Mountain Maggots, not stronger or hardier
> Lugburz Apes: more sun tolerant than Mountain Maggots, yet less strong and hardy."
> 
> Again you are wrong. DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
> I stated no such thing. I did not say that the Orcs of Mordor were less strong and hardy than the Northerners. I did not say the Isengarders were not as strong or hardy as the Northerners. I also have stated that the Isengarders may well be more tolerant of the sunlight than the Uruk-hai of Mordor. Just not significantly so.
> Again, DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say halfling best describes a Hobbit, as per Ugluk's orders: When the Higher-ups want to, they can do better than "dwarf-man". For me the implication is that the Higher-ups are a little confused in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ugluk is from Isengard and Isengard has more dealings with the Shire than Mordor.
> In any event a "sort of small dwarf-man" would be an apropriate description for a Halfling ("Go look for a Halfling, trooper", "Whats that boss?").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>
> The implication is that between 1942 and 1948 JRRT had no intention of using the word "Uruk" in any form to refer to soldier Orcs of Mordor. I have no idea what JRRT's precise definition of the term Uruk-hai was at the time, but judging by the context of the writings it had nothing to do with soldiers of Mordor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inaccurate. You are neglecting the Adunaic 'uruk, c.goblin, orc' from Lowdham's Report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no intention of showing that Isengarders were involved at Cirith Ungol- if this is what you are waiting for then you will be waiting until the cows come home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you dont. That is because you cant. In fact you can not even provide evidence that they were believed to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My view is, and has always been that rebel Uruk-hai *MIGHT* (please notice I'm mentioning this as a possibility) be a mistaken identity, just as Sam is in fact not an great Elf, and Frodo is neither a dwarf nor a man (nor a mix of the two).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sam was believed to be a great Elf, due to the power of the Ring and other evidence available.
> Misconstruing what the text says about Frodo does not help your case. A 'sort of small dwarf-man' is an excellent description of a Hobbit. It neither suggests nor states he was a hybrid, nor that he was a dwarf or a 'man' (though you probably mean 'Man').
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have Mordor troops ever been attacked by Isengarders in order to steal away spies from the Rat land of the Shire? Actually, yes they have- just 20 days earlier, an event that is doubtless still on every Mordorian's mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Then when they had laid their fallen comrades in a mound and had sung their praises, the Riders made a great fire and scattered the ashes of their enemies. So ended the raid, and no news of it came ever back either to Mordor or to Isengard; but the smoke of the burning rose high to heaven and was seen by many watchful eyes." TT, The Uruk-hai
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is a valid reading. I believe your take is also a valid reading, a courtesy you seem reluctant to reciprocate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is no evidence whatsoever that Isengarders were believed to be involved in the actions at Cirith Ungol. There is no chance of that whatsoever. Shagrat survived and he knew what Orcs were there. The Nazgul and other soldiers came into Cirith Ungol and there were dead Morgul Orcs and Ungol Orcs who died fighting each other. Nothing to even remotely suggest Isengarders. There was a 'sort of dwarf-man', there was evidence of an 'Elf', there is nothing said, mentioned or even hinted at that suggest anyone believed that any of Sarumans orcs were involved.
Click to expand...


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Re: Re: reply (part 1)*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Gamling and Legolas make their statements to Aragorn. Aragorn says of himself "There are few among mortal Men who know more of Orcs". If either Gamling or Legolas was wrong in their statements, you can assume Aragorn would correct them. He doesn't, so their statements are in effect testified to by the most knowledgeable mortal on the matters of Orc-kind. Still not enough evidence? Legolas had just encountered Uruks in Moria- he never mentioned them looking particularly strange- why should they? They've been around for 544 years. In that time they've had at least one engagement with the Elves of Mirkwood- The Battle of Five Armies. As for Gamling, I've mentioned before that the war which formed the Kingdom of Rohan (the fields of Celebrant) was fought against probable Uruks. Again the Rohirrim faced probable Uruks following the Orc-dwarf wars, when the tattered remnants of the Orcs tried to flee into the White Mountains. More Uruks were probably encountered in 2885, whent the twin sons of Folcwine perished fighting with Gondor in Ithilien. 16 years later Ithilien was finally overun by Uruks. The whole history of Rohan has been bound up with Uruks- I think it is safe to assume that Gamling is familiar with them.*


*

Which has nothing to do with Legolas comment that Orcs seldom journey out in the Sun. All hate the sun. The vast majority of Orcs involved in the Battle of Five Armies would not have been Uruks. The would have been of lesser breeds. The Orcs at Celebrant came from the Misty Mountains, the vast majority of them would have been lesser breeds. Ditto for after the Dwarf and Orc wars.
It is telling that Gamling speaks of Half-orcs and Goblin-men, while in the narrative voice the Uruk-hai are always referred to as Orcs or Goblins. I prefer not to make assumptions.



An explanation is provided later when the Mordor Orcs raise their heads. They have been running with their heads down- this slows them down. When the sun is no longer on their heads they are able to raise them, at which point they put on speed. Ugluk's lot is quicker than Grishnakh's because they need not worry about the sun- Grishnakh and company do. A 'plan' of Grishnakh's doesn't even come into play- the fact that he falls behind the Isengarders does nothing except get his own boys closer to the bows of the pursuing Rohirrim. Ugluk is not planning on bolting back across Rohan to Mordor. The Mordor Orcs have no conceivable reason for falling to the back, and, given Grishnakh's very strong preservation instinct, you can believe that if there was any way to stay further out of range of the Rohirrim bows, Grishnakh would do so.

Click to expand...


The _text_ gives two possibilities for Grishnakh's people to fall back. Neither of them has anything to do with the sun. You are attempting to read something into the text that is not there. The text does not say they are _able_ to raise their heads when the sun goes down. It merely says that they do raise their heads. You can believe that if JRRT wanted to say that they slowed down because of the sun then he would have done so, like he did when he wrote that the Northerners 'were flagging in the bright sun'. He did not do that for the Mordor Orcs. 





This is simply a cut and paste from one of your old posts. It does not address the fact that none of the forces described as fighting include orcs. Read my other post. I've even provided you with an electronic version of the text. Take my word for it or look yourself- there is no mention of Orcs fighting here, only men.

Click to expand...


You are wrong. A great press of Eomers 'first foes' are between him and Harlond, while 'new foes' cut Eomer off from Imrahil. It is realized that the 'Corsairs' are actually allies. Imrahil then charges into those that cut him off and they include Orcs along with Variags and the 'troll-men'.
The new foes include Orcs which are later routed along with the Variags etc. Read the passages.




First off, we don't know that the term "Uruk-hai" doesn't include Orc-men. Second of all, "half" modifies orc, not man. There is simply no way to be wrong about that.

Click to expand...


Aragorn, of whom you note: "There are few among mortal Men who know more of Orcs", does not call the Uruk-hai "half-orcs", he calls the 'goblin-faced men' "half-orcs". Do you disagree with him?




Yes, fear came upon Saruman's troops with the rising of the day. But it was not fear of day itself, or of the sun. The next passage clearly states:



The land had changed. Where before the green dale had lain, its grassy slopes lapping the ever-mounting hills, there now a forest loomed. Great trees, bare and silent, stood, rank on rank, with tangled bough and hoary head; their twisted roots were buried in the long green grass. Darkness was under them. Between the Dike and the eaves of that nameless wood only two open furlongs lay. There now cowered the proud hosts of Saruman, in terror of the king and in terror of the trees

Click to expand...

Clearly the host of Saruman is in terror of the king and the trees, as stated- nothing to do with morning or sun. This is not the same case as at Pelannor, which is where I assume you are going with this. There it is stated: 



For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and the darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them.

Click to expand...

 Immediately preceeding "terror took them" is the fact that the darkness is removed. No mention of trees. No mention of them being terrified by Theoden. Just the mention of darkness being removed.

Click to expand...


Both circumstances are quite the same. It is not the sun that broke either group. It is the fact that they were being charged down upon. Indeed supply the first part of the passage:



Suddenly the king cried to Snowmane and the horse sprang away. Behind him his banner blew in the wind, white horse upon a field of green, but he outpaced it. After him thundered the knights of his house, but he was ever before them. Éomer rode there, the white horsetail on his helm floating in his speed, and the front of the first éored roared like a breaker foaming to the shore, but Théoden could not be overtaken. Fey he seemed, or the battle-fury of his fathers ran like new tire in his veins, and he was borne up on Snowmane like a god of old, even as Oromë the Great in the battle of the Valar when the world was young. His golden shield was uncovered, and lo! it shone like an image of the Sun, and the grass flamed into green about the white feet of his steed.

Click to expand...

Rather frightening...
"...and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them"; if it was the sun that caused the terror did it also kill them? And Orcs are not singled out from the hosts of Mordor, which included more than Orcs. Were Men terrified of and killed by the sun as well? 




The implication here is that the Orcs lift their heads because the sun has gone down. If there is another interpretation of why their heads are not raised until the sun goes down, I would like to hear it. Running bent over is not the same as running with your head down. Bent over is a result of the position of the shoulders. Head down is a result of the position of the neck.

Click to expand...

You do not bend over from the shoulders, you bend over from the waist. (The texts notes they ran with "bowed backs"
They put on speed because of the charging cavalry, not because the sun goes down. 




This was not a misconstrual of the text. It was an interpretation, and as it stands it is the only interpretation which has been given. Answer the question: Why don't the Mordor Orcs lift their heads until after the sun goes down?

Click to expand...

No it is a misconstrual (and now seems quite deliberate). JRRT used 'bright sun' line for the Northerners. You took the line and transferred it to the Mordor Orcs. That is not an interpretation.
Because they dont straighten themselves up until then. The Isengarders run with their backs bowed. It is very difficult and uncomfortable to run bent over from the waist but with the neck craned so that your head is up. 




Then you believe that "half-orc" describes a man instead of an Orc. There is no arguing with such a belief.

Click to expand...

Half-orcs is used for 'goblin-faced men'.
That is what Aragorn of whom you note: "There are few among mortal Men who know more of Orcs" says. Answer the question: Do you disagree with him?*


----------



## aragil

*Re: Re: reply (part 2)*



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *The context given is your own, which is taken out of context of what is in the book. I presented this evidence a long time ago.
> A great press of Eomers 'first foes' are between him and Harlond, while 'new foes' cut Eomer off from Imrahil. It is realized that the 'Corsairs' are actually allies. Imrahil then charges into those that cut him off and they include Orcs along with Variags and the 'troll-men'.*


 The context is a large quote from the books. Here is the fullest description of Eomer's "first foes" that I can come up with:


> And with that the host began to move. But the Rohirrim sang no more. Death they cried with one voice loud and terrible, and gathering speed like a great tide their battle swept about their fallen king and passed, roaring away southwards.
> ...
> Southward beyond the road lay the main force of the Haradrim, and there their horsemen were gathered about the standard of their chieftain.
> ...
> The great wrath of his onset had utterly overthrown the front of his enemies, and great wedges of his Riders had passed clear through the ranks of the Southrons, discomfiting their horsemen and riding their footmen to ruin.


 Eomer's "first foes" appear to all be Haradrim, echoed by the statement


> And if the Rohirrim at their onset were thrice outnumbered by the Haradrim alone, soon their case became worse;


 As for the new foes which cut Eomer off from Imrahil, they are described pretty clearly:


> for new strength came now streaming to the field out of Osgiliath. There they had been mustered for the sack of the City and the rape of Gondor, waiting on the call of their Captain. He now was destroyed; but Gothmog the lieutenant of Morgul had flung them into the fray; Easterlings with axes, and Variags of Khand. Southrons in scarlet, and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues. Some now hastened up behind the Rohirrim, others held westward to hold off the forces of Gondor and prevent their joining with Rohan.


 There is no mention of Orcs here, although there is an explicit statement that these were the forces which cut off Imrahil from Eomer.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *The "new foes" were the 'Orcs, Variags, and troll-men'.
> They were fighting well enough to cut off Imrahil from Eomer. Try looking at the full context.*


 The "new foes" were the "Easterlings with axes, and Variags of Khand. Southrons in scarlet, and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues." Orcs were never described as being a part of this force, but thanks for the context tip.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *I see no mention of the foot troops being Men. Perhaps they were all ghosts. We already know that Morgul had Orcs, that is where Gorbag was from.*


 We don't know that Morgul sent any of it's Orcs to Pelannor, or that it had any Orc troops beyond Gorbag's 80+. We do know that Morgul sent men, as in horsemen. The description of the troops behind the horsemen does not seem reminiscent to me of a description of Orcs. Orcs in the Morgul brigade is your unproven assumption.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *The see above the hosts of Mordor. See above the 'new foes'.*


 Done and done. No mention of Orcs, plenty of mention of men. Next?




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by aragil_
> In fact, Tar-Elenion's theory on the Lugburz Ape/Mountain Maggot/Saruman's Uruk-hai race sets up an interesting equation:
> Uruk-hai: stronger, hardier than Lugburz Apes, not more sun tolerant
> Uruk-hai: more sun tolerant than Mountain Maggots, not stronger or hardier
> Lugburz Apes: more sun tolerant than Mountain Maggots, yet less strong and hardy.
> 
> 
> 
> *Again you are wrong. DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
> I stated no such thing. I did not say that the Orcs of Mordor were less strong and hardy than the Northerners. I did not say the Isengarders were not as strong or hardy as the Northerners. I also have stated that the Isengarders may well be more tolerant of the sunlight than the Uruk-hai of Mordor. Just not significantly so.
> Again, DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.*
Click to expand...

 I'm trying to follow your logic. Questions:
1) If Tolkien only describes the Isengarders as being more sun tolerant than the Northerners, are they also quicker and hardier?
2) Is there any chance that the Isengarders are quicker and hardier than the Mordorians because the Isengarders are not suffering from the effects of the sun, while the Mordorians are?
If I knew your answer to these questions I wouldn't be forced to put words in your mouth. 




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Ugluk is from Isengard and Isengard has more dealings with the Shire than Mordor.
> In any event a "sort of small dwarf-man" would be an apropriate description for a Halfling ("Go look for a Halfling, trooper", "Whats that boss?").*


 Isengard may have more dealings with the Shire than Mordor, but the Mouth suggests that Mordor is plenty familiar with the land and it's inhabitants


> spy from the little rat-land of the Shire-nay; do not start! We know it well


 Ugluk is a modest intellect- he had no problem figuring out what a Halfling was. The Mouth was a less modest intellect- he could instantly recognize someone from the Shire. The Nazgul were will-less intellects, they accomplished the task as well. There is no indication that any of the combined forces of evil were upset with the term "halfling". There is evidence that the Tracker and Soldier were upset with the term "a sort of small dwarf-Man". That is my point.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Inaccurate. You are neglecting the Adunaic 'uruk, c.goblin, orc' from Lowdham's Report. *


 Uruk-hai is a Black Speech term, not an Adunaic one. We do not know any connotation of the Adunaic term "uruk", specifically whether it was used only to refer to Soldier orcs in the same sense as BS uruk, or whether it referred to orcs in general, as per it's definition. Again, the Uruk/Uruks/Uruk-hai which appears in The Lord of the Rings is a Black Speech term. This is what I was defining. I was, as far as I am aware, quite accurate in describing how Tolkien wrote about these terms between 1942 and 1948.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Of course you dont. That is because you cant. In fact you can not even provide evidence that they were believed to be involved.*


 I don't because I am under no delusion about what actually happened at Cirith Ungol- Gorbag fought Shagrat. Please don't put words in _my_ mouth. I think I have provided evidence of how the Cirith Ungol affair *could* have been attributed to Isengarders, via the earlier Grishnakh-Ugluk affair.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Sam was believed to be a great Elf, due to the power of the Ring and other evidence available.
> Misconstruing what the text says about Frodo does not help your case. A 'sort of small dwarf-man' is an excellent description of a Hobbit. It neither suggests nor states he was a hybrid, nor that he was a dwarf or a 'man' (though you probably mean 'Man').*


 Sam was believed to be a great Elf. He was not a great Elf. I think the Cirith Ungol mess could have been believed to have been caused by Isengarders, even though it was in fact not. As for Frodo, a "short" man would have been simpler and more accurate. There is nothing dwarven about Hobbits other than their height. Attributing dwarvish characteristics to Frodo is a mistake, as is calling Sam an Elf.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *"Then when they had laid their fallen comrades in a mound and had sung their praises, the Riders made a great fire and scattered the ashes of their enemies. So ended the raid, and no news of it came ever back either to Mordor or to Isengard; but the smoke of the burning rose high to heaven and was seen by many watchful eyes." TT, The Uruk-hai*





> 'Also they have filled themselves with new doubts that disturb their plans. No tidings of the battle will come to Mordor, thanks to the horsemen of Rohan; but the Dark Lord knows that two hobbits were taken in the Emyn Muil and borne away towards Isengard against the will of his own servants. He now has Isengard to fear as well as Minas Tirith. If Minas Tirith falls, it will go ill with Saruman.' TT, The White Rider


 The Dark Lord probably also knew that the Isengarders referred to themselves as "Uruk-hai, ... the servants of Saruman", due to the fact that Ugluk proudly said this while addressing Grishnakh. The Dark Lord probably also knows that Ugluk slew some of the troops that tried taking the Hobbits to Mordor. Everything fits into place then.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *"Because there is no evidence whatsoever that Isengarders were believed to be involved in the actions at Cirith Ungol. There is no chance of that whatsoever. Shagrat survived and he knew what Orcs were there. The Nazgul and other soldiers came into Cirith Ungol and there were dead Morgul Orcs and Ungol Orcs who died fighting each other. Nothing to even remotely suggest Isengarders. There was a 'sort of dwarf-man', there was evidence of an 'Elf', there is nothing said, mentioned or even hinted at that suggest anyone believed that any of Sarumans orcs were involved. *


 Shagrat survived and knew that the non-existant survivors of Gorbag's brigade posed no threat to Mordor. The two spies did. I don't think a report from Shagrat would have been concerned at all with Gorbag's lot. I have remotely suggested Isengarders via the Grishnakh-Ugluk link, you just choose to ignore it.


----------



## aragil

*Re: Re: Re: Re: reply (part 1)*



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Which has nothing to do with Legolas comment that Orcs seldom journey out in the Sun. All hate the sun. The vast majority of Orcs involved in the Battle of Five Armies would not have been Uruks. The would have been of lesser breeds. The Orcs at Celebrant came from the Misty Mountains, the vast majority of them would have been lesser breeds. Ditto for after the Dwarf and Orc wars.
> It is telling that Gamling speaks of Half-orcs and Goblin-men, while in the narrative voice the Uruk-hai are always referred to as Orcs or Goblins. I prefer not to make assumptions.*


 Even more telling is the fact that Gamling says that the Hybrids of Saruman can abide the sun, and then a few lines later the self-styled Uruk-hai say they also abide the sun.
If you would like to discount the statements of Treebeard, Gamling, and Legolas to prove your point, feel free. The quickest way to prove your point would be to discount Tolkien's characters altogether and write your own novel.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *The _text_ gives two possibilities for Grishnakh's people to fall back. Neither of them has anything to do with the sun. You are attempting to read something into the text that is not there. The text does not say they are _able_ to raise their heads when the sun goes down. It merely says that they do raise their heads. You can believe that if JRRT wanted to say that they slowed down because of the sun then he would have done so, like he did when he wrote that the Northerners 'were flagging in the bright sun'. He did not do that for the Mordor Orcs. *


 Was the sun bright in the case of the Northerners, yet less so in the case of the Mordor Orcs? Did they have their own personal raincloud following them around? Running with your head down is slow. That is a fact. The Mordor Orcs do not run as fast as the Isengarders. That is a fact. The Mordor Orcs don't lift their heads until the sun goes down. That is a fact. When the Mordor Orcs lift their heads (after the sun goes down) they run faster. That is a fact. It takes very little "reading" on my part to connect the dots here.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *You are wrong. A great press of Eomers 'first foes' are between him and Harlond, while 'new foes' cut Eomer off from Imrahil. It is realized that the 'Corsairs' are actually allies. Imrahil then charges into those that cut him off and they include Orcs along with Variags and the 'troll-men'.
> The new foes include Orcs which are later routed along with the Variags etc. Read the passages.*


 I'm quite right, actually. I did more than read the passages, I posted them. Now we can both read them.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Both circumstances are quite the same. It is not the sun that broke either group. It is the fact that they were being charged down upon. Indeed supply the first part of the passage:
> Rather frightening...
> "...and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them"; if it was the sun that caused the terror did it also kill them? And Orcs are not singled out from the hosts of Mordor, which included more than Orcs. Were Men terrified of and killed by the sun as well?*


 The description at Pelannor is that darkness is removed and the Mordoreans flee in terror. Once they are fleeing in terror they are killed by the Rohirrim. Orcs in fact are singled out from the host of Mordor:


> For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and the darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them.
> ...
> Well nigh all the northern half of the Pelennor was overrun, and there camps were blazing, orcs were flying towards the River like herds before the hunters; and the Rohirrim went hither and thither at their will.
> ...
> Southward beyond the road lay the main force of the Haradrim, and there their horsemen were gathered about the standard of their chieftain.


 These are three consecutive descriptions of the forces of Mordor arrayed against Rohan. There are no intervening passages which describe Mordor forces fighting the Rohirrim. First we get the Rohirrim attacking from the North. Then the forces of Mordor facing the Rohirrim are routed. Next we hear that the Northern half of the Pelannor is overrun, orcs are fleeing, and the Rohirrim can go wherever they want. Up to this point there is no mention of Mordor men anywhere. It appears that all that the Rohirrim have fought are Orcs. It is the Orcs alone who flee when the darkness is removed. Men don't come into the equation until the Haradrim are mentioned being south of the Road. They seem to be largely unfought, and there is no indication that they were ever fleeing. So no, Men were not terrified by the sun. That is a particularly Orcish characteristic, unless the Orcs are Isengarders.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *You do not bend over from the shoulders, you bend over from the waist. (The texts notes they ran with "bowed backs"
> They put on speed because of the charging cavalry, not because the sun goes down.*


 Next time you see someone running around bent at the waist, be sure to let me know. We could take a picture of it- it'd probably be worth some money. If Tolkien intended that the Mordorians put on speed because of the cavalry, then he sure picked a strange way of describing it:


> Then he saw that the sun was sinking, falling behind the Misty Mountains; shadows reached over the land. The soldiers of Mordor lifted their heads and also began to put on speed.


 Mentions of cavalry: 0. Mentions of sun: 1.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *No it is a misconstrual (and now seems quite deliberate). JRRT used 'bright sun' line for the Northerners. You took the line and transferred it to the Mordor Orcs. That is not an interpretation.
> Because they dont straighten themselves up until then. The Isengarders run with their backs bowed. It is very difficult and uncomfortable to run bent over from the waist but with the neck craned so that your head is up.*


 The same bright sun was shining on the Isengarders, Northerners, and Mordorians, so I think what I have done is entirely legitimate. The Isengarders run with bowed backs, not with their heads down. The Mordoreans apparently run with both, until the sun sets. I never said that the Mordoreans were running around bent at the waist. That was your idea. 




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Half-orcs is used for 'goblin-faced men'.
> That is what Aragorn of whom you note: "There are few among mortal Men who know more of Orcs" says. Answer the question: Do you disagree with him? *


 If Aragorn thinks that "men" and "orcs" are the same thing, then yes I do disagree with him. If he thinks "half-orcs" is a broad hybrid term, which includes the subclass of men with goblin faces then I agree with him. Gamling's quote which started this debate was "half-orcs and goblin-men". These two terms are clearly meant to refer to different creatures. "Goblin-men" is a perfect match for "men with goblin faces", thus leaving Gamling's "half-orcs" unaccounted for.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Re: Re: reply (part 2)*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> The "new foes" were the "Easterlings with axes, and Variags of Khand. Southrons in scarlet, and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues." Orcs were never described as being a part of this force, but thanks for the context tip.



Orcs were part of the force that cut Imrahil off from Eomer, because when Imrahil counter attacked he drove the troll-men, Variags, and orcs before him. Did the Orcs just magically appear? (Of course what I am actually waiting for is the reasonable explanation for them, which I would probably agree with). Obviously they were fighting in the sun and well enough to cut off Imrahil from Eomer. If they were not there they could not be driven forth. 



> We don't know that Morgul sent any of it's Orcs to Pelannor, or that it had any Orc troops beyond Gorbag's 80+. We do know that Morgul sent men, as in horsemen. The description of the troops behind the horsemen does not seem reminiscent to me of a description of Orcs. Orcs in the Morgul brigade is your unproven assumption.


Your reasoning is specious at best.

In 'The Siege of Gondor' it is reported that:
"A man rode in haste from the fords, saying that a host had issued from Minas Morgul and was already drawing nigh to Osgiliath; and it had been joined by regiments from the South, Haradrim, cruel and tall."
Later Gandalf says:
"...for the Rammas is breached far and wide, and soon the host of Morgul will enter in at many points. And I came chiefly to say this. Soon there will be battle on the fields. A sortie must be made ready. Let it be of mounted men. In them lies our brief hope, for in one thing only is the enemy still poorly provided: he has few horsemen."
Then later:
"'The enemy,' men murmured. 'The dike is down. Here they come pouring through the breaches! And they carry torches, it seems. Where are our own folk?'"
And then:
"Now the main retreat was scarcely two furlongs distant. Out of the gloom behind a small company of horsemen galloped, all that was left of the rearguard. Once again they turned at bay, facing the oncoming lines of fire. Then suddenly there was a tumult of fierce cries. Horsemen of the enemy swept up. The lines of fire became flowing torrents, file upon file of Orcs bearing flames, and wild Southron men with red banners, shouting with harsh tongues, surging up, overtaking the retreat. And with a piercing cry out of the dim sky fell the winged shadows, the Nazgûl stooping to the kill."
The host of Morgul is joined by the Haradrim, they breach the Rammas, then we are told what the host consists of Horsemen and file upon file of Orcs, kind of like the description of the host that issued from Morgul in 'The Stairs of Cirith Ungol' (rank upon rank of black figures led by cavalry).
Then we have from 'The Black Gate Opens':
"But Gandalf and Aragorn rode with the vanguard to the entrance of Morgul Vale and looked on the evil city.
It was dark and lifeless; for the Orcs and lesser creatures of Mordor that had dwelt there had been destroyed in battle, and the Nazgûl were abroad. Yet the air of the valley was heavy with fear and enmity. Then they broke the evil bridge and set red flames in the noisome fields and departed."
Orcs in the host of Morgul, and more than Gorbag's patrol. Imagine that.



> Done and done. No mention of Orcs, plenty of mention of men. Next?
> [Aragil previously posted: The legions of Morgul are mentioned twice, but I can find no evidece that they contained Orcs.]



The legions of Morgul were made up of Orcs, see above. (Actually as far as I can recall, JRRT only uses the word "legion" in reference to Orcs). There are your Orcs.



> I'm trying to follow your logic. Questions:
> 1) If Tolkien only describes the Isengarders as being more sun tolerant than the Northerners, are they also quicker and hardier?
> 2) Is there any chance that the Isengarders are quicker and hardier than the Mordorians because the Isengarders are not suffering from the effects of the sun, while the Mordorians are?
> If I knew your answer to these questions I wouldn't be forced to put words in your mouth.


You are grasping at straws. This has nothing to do with the issue of 'sun tolerance'. There is nothing "forcing" you to put words in my mouth. The only thing I recall saying about 'quick hardy' is what JRRT said.


> Isengard may have more dealings with the Shire than Mordor, but the Mouth suggests that Mordor is plenty familiar with the land and it's inhabitants


Mordor is plenty familiar? Try 'Hunt for the Ring', for example: "Now Sauron had never paid heed to the "Halflings," even if he had heard of them, and he did not yet know where their land lay. From Gollum, even under pain, he could not get any clear account, both because Gollum indeed had no certain knowledge himself, and because what be knew he falsified."



> Ugluk is a modest intellect- he had no problem figuring out what a Halfling was. The Mouth was a less modest intellect- he could instantly recognize someone from the Shire. The Nazgul were will-less intellects, they accomplished the task as well.



The Mouth of Sauron is not a lowely tracker or simple fighting orc.
As for what the Nazgul knew, try 'Hunt for the Ring'



> There is no indication that any of the combined forces of evil were upset with the term "halfling".


Try 'Hunt for the Ring', for example:: "Gollum would not know the term "Hobbit," which was local and not a universal Westron word. He would probably not use "Halfling" since he was one himself, and Hobbits disliked the name. That is why the Black Riders seem to have had two main pieces of information only to go on: Shire and Baggins."


> There is evidence that the Tracker and Soldier were upset with the term "a sort of small dwarf-Man". That is my point.


No there is not. They were upset with the whole situation. Not a specific 'term'. 



> Uruk-hai is a Black Speech term, not an Adunaic one. We do not know any connotation of the Adunaic term "uruk", specifically whether it was used only to refer to Soldier orcs in the same sense as BS uruk, or whether it referred to orcs in general, as per it's definition. Again, the Uruk/Uruks/Uruk-hai which appears in The Lord of the Rings is a Black Speech term. This is what I was defining. I was, as far as I am aware, quite accurate in describing how Tolkien wrote about these terms between 1942 and 1948.



You wrote: "The implication is that between 1942 and 1948 JRRT had no intention of using the word "Uruk" in any form to refer to soldier Orcs of Mordor." 
The Lowdham Report is from that period and can not refer to Isengarders (who did not exist in the Second Age). 



> I don't because I am under no delusion about what actually happened at Cirith Ungol- Gorbag fought Shagrat. Please don't put words in _my_ mouth. I think I have provided evidence of how the Cirith Ungol affair *could* have been attributed to Isengarders, via the earlier Grishnakh-Ugluk affair.


Which words did I put in your mouth?
Again there is no evidence to support your supposition. Your supposition is pure speculation.



> Sam was believed to be a great Elf. He was not a great Elf. I think the Cirith Ungol mess could have been believed to have been caused by Isengarders, even though it was in fact not. As for Frodo, a "short" man would have been simpler and more accurate. There is nothing dwarven about Hobbits other than their height. Attributing dwarvish characteristics to Frodo is a mistake, as is calling Sam an Elf.


What "dwarvish characteristics" were attributed to Frodo?

Sam was believed to be a 'great Elf' because JRRT tells us that is how he was seen. It was not a mistake to report it. JRRT does not tell us that the Morgul Orcs or Ungol Orcs were seen as Isengarders. In fact Sam notes that it would be dangerous to wear the Morgul gear after the events in the Tower.
It is not a mistake to call Frodo a "small sort of dwarf-man", and it does not imply that he was a Dwarf or a Man. That is an accurate description for someone who does not know what a hobbit or a halfling is (and would not even know those terms). It is not a mistake to report it.
The Uruk-hai involved were from Morgul and Ungol. That is what was seen and reported. No mistake.



> The Dark Lord probably also knew that the Isengarders referred to themselves as "Uruk-hai, ... the servants of Saruman", due to the fact that Ugluk proudly said this while addressing Grishnakh. The Dark Lord probably also knows that Ugluk slew some of the troops that tried taking the Hobbits to Mordor. Everything fits into place then.


No, your 'probablies' are pure speculation and not based on the text. The text says what Sauron knew about this.
However, even if Sauron did know why would he go spreading it all over Mordor? And why would Sauron not know that Saruman's Uruk-hai had all been slaughtered?



> Shagrat survived and knew that the non-existant survivors of Gorbag's brigade posed no threat to Mordor. The two spies did. I don't think a report from Shagrat would have been concerned at all with Gorbag's lot. I have remotely suggested Isengarders via the Grishnakh-Ugluk link, you just choose to ignore it.


1). The text does not say that Shagrat knew none of Gorbag's boys got out.
2). The text does not say or imply that none of Gorbag's boys got out. It does say that none of Shagrat's got out. 
3). The Nazgul who comes there does not know that none escaped with the prisoner (nor do the troops that arrive shortly after).
4). I ignore your remote suggestion because you have _no_ evidence to back it up. You are engaging in pure speculation.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: reply (part 1)*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Even more telling is the fact that Gamling says that the Hybrids of Saruman can abide the sun, and then a few lines later the self-styled Uruk-hai say they also abide the sun.
> If you would like to discount the statements of Treebeard, Gamling, and Legolas to prove your point, feel free. The quickest way to prove your point would be to discount Tolkien's characters altogether and write your own novel.


Treebeard is not making a statement he is asking a speculative question. Gamling speaks half-orcs and goblin-men bred by Saruman, he does not attribute either appellation to the Uruk-hai (you are the one doing that) who are directly called Orcs throughout. Legolas says it is unusual for Orcs to be out in the Sun and it is. How am I discounting anything they say?
JRRT never says Saruman's Uruk-hai are half-orcs. No character ever says that Saruman's Uruk-hai are half-orcs. Aragorn does call the 'goblin-faced men' half-orcs (you seem to give more credence to Gamling than Aragorn). Pippin mentions 'half-orcs and ruffians' in the Shire. These are not Saruman's Uruk-hai (who are dead). Saruman's Uruk-hai are called Orcs, Goblins, Uruk-hai and Uruks directly. 



> Running with your head down is slow. That is a fact. The Mordor Orcs do not run as fast as the Isengarders. That is a fact. The Mordor Orcs don't lift their heads until the sun goes down. That is a fact. When the Mordor Orcs lift their heads (after the sun goes down) they run faster. That is a fact. It takes very little "reading" on my part to connect the dots here.


Running with you back bowed is slow. Of course Orcs did so.
Running with your back bowed and your head up is uncomfortable at the least.
Why did the Isengarders run with their backs bowed?
Two reasons are given for the Morder Orcs not running as fast as the Isengarders: a 'plan' , or 'not being as quick and hardy'. Nothing is said about the sun.
Fact: JRRT said the Northerners were 'flagging in the sun', he did not say that of the Mordor Orcs.
Perhaps the Mordor Orcs had their heads down because the sun was in their eyes. 

<snip of point addressed in above post>



> The description at Pelannor is that darkness is removed and the Mordoreans flee in terror. Once they are fleeing in terror they are killed by the Rohirrim.


The "hosts of Mordor" are fleeing in terror from the Rohirrim. Not from the Sun. The "hosts of Mordor" include more than just orcs. They wail, flee and die because of the Rohirrim. Not because of the sun. You are picking and choosing.



> Orcs in fact are singled out from the host of Mordor: These are three consecutive descriptions of the forces of Mordor arrayed against Rohan. There are no intervening passages which describe Mordor forces fighting the Rohirrim. First we get the Rohirrim attacking from the North. Then the forces of Mordor facing the Rohirrim are routed. Next we hear that the Northern half of the Pelannor is overrun, orcs are fleeing, and the Rohirrim can go wherever they want.



The Orcs are singled out later.
The Orcs are said to be fleeing from the Rohirrim "like herds before the hunters". They are not said to be fleeing from the sun.



> Up to this point there is no mention of Mordor men anywhere. It appears that all that the Rohirrim have fought are Orcs. It is the Orcs alone who flee when the darkness is removed. Men don't come into the equation until the Haradrim are mentioned being south of the Road. They seem to be largely unfought, and there is no indication that they were ever fleeing. So no, Men were not terrified by the sun. That is a particularly Orcish characteristic, unless the Orcs are Isengarders.


The text does not say that the Orcs alone fled. It says the hosts of Mordor fled. The hosts of Mordor include more than Orcs. It _later_ (the next chapter and later in the battle) specifically singles out the orcs who flee from the Rohirrim, not the sun. But even if the text specifically said 'the orcs of the hosts of Mordor fled in terror', it would still be the Rohirrim they were fleeing from, not the sun. You are picking and choosing. 



> If Tolkien intended that the Mordorians put on speed because of the cavalry, then he sure picked a strange way of describing it:
> 
> 
> 
> Then he saw that the sun was sinking, falling behind the Misty Mountains; shadows reached over the land. The soldiers of Mordor lifted their heads and also began to put on speed.
> 
> 
> 
> Mentions of cavalry: 0. Mentions of sun: 1.
Click to expand...

This is out of context. Try the prior paragragh:
"Horsemen, riding very swiftly, had indeed been sighted: still far behind, but gaining on the Orcs, gaining on them like a tide over the flats on folk straying in a quicksand."
This is why they put on speed.

<snip of point adressed above>


----------



## aragil

*Re (1): Re: Re: Re: reply (part 2)*



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Orcs were part of the force that cut Imrahil off from Eomer, because when Imrahil counter attacked he drove the troll-men, Variags, and orcs before him. Did the Orcs just magically appear? (Of course what I am actually waiting for is the reasonable counter argument, which I would probably agree with). Obviously they were their fighting in the sun and well enough to cut off Imrahil from Eomer. If they were not there they could not be driven forth.*


 Honestly, if I knew what you were looking for, and that you would agree with it, I'd post it. The text describes the forces seperating Imrahil from Eomer very explicitly. There is no mention of orcs. There is not even a mention of 'legion' or anything else vague that could be interpreted as orcs. There are Easterling, Southrons, Variags, and Far-haradrim. No possibility of Orcs. These are the forces that are sent to separate Eomer and Imrahil, a force which fights reasonably well. Later, elements of this force are mentioned as being driven Eastward by Imrahil. My interpretation is that they are driven along with orcs that had been routing from the outset. Since there is no mention of Orcs being sent to separate Eomer and Imrahil, I believe this is a good interpretation.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Your reasoning is specious at best.*


 Your posting style is impolite, at best. If you think your continuous insults somehow enhance your contribution to these boards, then you are sadly mistaken. Facts like Orcs being described in the Morgul host are welcome contributions. Insults about my reasoning skills are not.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *In 'The Siege of Gondor' it is reported that:
> "A man rode in haste from the fords, saying that a host had issued from Minas Morgul and was already drawing nigh to Osgiliath; and it had been joined by regiments from the South, Haradrim, cruel and tall."
> Later Gandalf says:
> "...for the Rammas is breached far and wide, and soon the host of Morgul will enter in at many points. And I came chiefly to say this. Soon there will be battle on the fields. A sortie must be made ready. Let it be of mounted men. In them lies our brief hope, for in one thing only is the enemy still poorly provided: he has few horsemen."
> Then later:
> "'The enemy,' men murmured. 'The dike is down. Here they come pouring through the breaches! And they carry torches, it seems. Where are our own folk?'"
> And then:
> "Now the main retreat was scarcely two furlongs distant. Out of the gloom behind a small company of horsemen galloped, all that was left of the rearguard. Once again they turned at bay, facing the oncoming lines of fire. Then suddenly there was a tumult of fierce cries. Horsemen of the enemy swept up. The lines of fire became flowing torrents, file upon file of Orcs bearing flames, and wild Southron men with red banners, shouting with harsh tongues, surging up, overtaking the retreat. And with a piercing cry out of the dim sky fell the winged shadows, the Nazgûl stooping to the kill."
> The host of Morgul is joined by the Haradrim, they breach the Rammas, then we are told what the host consists of Horsemen and file upon file of Orcs, kind of like the description of the host that issued from Morgul in The Stairs of Cirith Ungol (rank upon rank of black figures led by cavalry).
> The we have from The Black Gate Opens:
> "But Gandalf and Aragorn rode with the vanguard to the entrance of Morgul Vale and looked on the evil city.
> It was dark and lifeless; for the Orcs and lesser creatures of Mordor that had dwelt there had been destroyed in battle, and the Nazgûl were abroad. Yet the air of the valley was heavy with fear and enmity. Then they broke the evil bridge and set red flames in the noisome fields and departed."
> Wow, Orcs in the host of Morgul.*


 Had you posted this earlier it would have saved some empty posting on both are parts. We are agreed now, the Legion of Morgul has Orcs in it, and was very aggressive prior to the charge of the Rohirrim. Now let's look at how they fare post-dawn:


> New forces of the enemy were hastening up the road from the River; and from under the walls came the legions of Morgul; and from the southward fields came footmen of Harad with horsemen before them, and behind them rose the huge backs of the mûmakil with war-towers upon them.
> ...
> And now the fighting waxed furious on the fields of the Pelennor; and the din of arms rose upon high, with the crying of men and the neighing of horses. Horns were blown and trumpets were braying, and the mûmakil were bellowing as they were goaded to war. Under the south walls of the City the footmen of Gondor now drove against the legions of Morgul that were still gathered there in strength.


 The legions of Morgul come from under the wall. This does not speak of any particular prowess on their part. Later they are driven into by the footmen of Gondor- not necessarily routing, but not showing any prowess either. The matter stands- Men fighting for Mordor are described in several passages as regrouping and fighting reasonably well. The Orcs are not. The implication is that the sunlight has broken their fighting ability, else why the deference between men and orcs? No such difference exists between the men and orcs fighting for Isengard. This, along with the slow performance of Grishnakh's band and the numerous comments by characters that imply only hybrid orcs are sun tolerant, makes me think that Sauron's Orcs (who are non-hybrids) are not any more sun tolerant than any other Orcs who has been around since the first age. I am saying that Sauron's orcs are like other orcs in this respect. You are saying that they are different. It is up to you to come up with evidence that they are different. So far I have not seen anything compelling. The battle at Pelannor fields does not have the orcs behaving any different then they did at say, the Disaster of Gladden fields. All the descriptions of the Orcs at Pelannor during the day either have them routing, or being driven into. None of these descriptions are like the descriptions of the (sun-tolerant) Haradrim and Easterlings, who rally and fight. Where is the evidence that these Orcs were more sun tolerant than their First and Second Age counterparts?


----------



## aragil

*Re (2): Re: Re: Re: reply (part 2)*



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *You are grasping at straws. This has nothing to do with the issue of 'sun tolerance'. There is nothing "forcing" you to put words in my mouth.*


 Thank you for again not answering my question. This has everything to do with sun-tolerance. I think that the reason the Isengarders appear to be 'stronger and hardier' than the Mordor orcs is because the Mordor Orcs are being adversely effected by the sun. The description of the Mordor Orcs lifting their heads and putting on speed after the sun goes down supports me in this. Your logic seems to be that the greater strength and hardiness of the Isengarders has nothing to do with sun-tolerance. I have several times extended this logic. This is not putting words in your mouth, this is taking the words from your mouth and seeing where it leads. If you would answer my question then I wouldn't even have to see where your logic leads- you would be telling me.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Mordor is plenty familiar? Try 'Hunt for the Ring', for example: "Now Sauron had never paid heed to the "Halflings," even if he had heard of them, and he did not yet know where their land lay. From Gollum, even under pain, he could not get any clear account, both because Gollum indeed had no certain knowledge himself, and because what be knew he falsified."
> The Mouth of Sauron is not a lowely tracker or simple fighting orc.
> As for what the Nazgul knew, try 'Hunt for the Ring'
> Try 'Hunt for the Ring', for example:: "Gollum would not know the term "Hobbit," which was local and not a universal Westron word. He would probably not use "Halfling" since he was one himself, and Hobbits disliked the name. That is why the Black Riders seem to have had two main pieces of information only to go on: Shire and Baggins."*


 There is a big difference between Hunt for the Ring and the later events in Mordor. That difference is experience. Before the Hunt for the Ring Mordor knew nothing of the Shire. Afterwards, as the Mouth says, Mordor knows it well. The words of the soldier are post Hunt for the Ring. At this point Mordor knew the Shire well. Grishnakh had no problem recognizing halflings, the logical conclusion would be that the tracker and the Soldier wouldn't either.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *No there is not. They were upset with the whole situation. Not a specific 'term'.*


 They were upset with an unclear order from the Higher Ups. They don't seem to think any of the described culprits were particularly likely. Neither do I.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *You wrote: "The implication is that between 1942 and 1948 JRRT had no intention of using the word "Uruk" in any form to refer to soldier Orcs of Mordor."
> The Lowdham Report is from that period and can not refer to Isengarders (who did not exist in the Second Age).*


 I was speaking in the context of the Black Speech term Uruk. Adunaic is a different language. Doubtless the two words spring from a common root in Quenya or Common Elvish, but they are not the same term. Whatever Tolkien had in mind for Adunaic has no effect on what he had in mind for the Black Speech, which is what we're discussing.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Which words did I put in your mouth?*
> 
> 
> 
> _Earlier post by Tar-Elenion_
> Of course you dont. That is because you cant.
> 
> 
> 
> *Again there is no evidence to support your supposition. Your supposition is pure speculation.*
Click to expand...

 There is evidence that earlier Isengard Uruk-hai had attacked servants of Sauron in order to steal away halflings. This is from the text. This is evidence.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Sam was believed to be a 'great Elf' because JRRT tells us that is what was seen. It was not a mistake to report it.
> What "dwarvish characteristics" were attributed to Frodo? You should stop misconstruing the text.
> It is not a mistake to call Frodo a "small sort of dwarf-man". That is an accurate description for someone who does not know what a hobbit or a halfling is (and would not even know those terms). It is not a mistake to report it.
> The Uruk-hai involved were from Morgul and Ungol. That is what was seen and reported. No mistake.*


 It was a mistake to call Sam an great Elf. It doesn't matter whether he was believed to be an great Elf or not. That belief was in error. Frodo is given dwarvish characteristics in the term "a sort of dwarf-Man". The term "dwarf" is an adjective modifying "Man". This gives the "Man" dwarvish characteristics. Clear enough?
Some common Dwarven characteristics: Short, beard, stocky. Only short applies to Frodo, hence it would be easier to call him a "short-man", or a "half-sized man=halfling". Dwarf-man is inaccurate. That the Orcs of Ungol and Morgul were Uruk-hai is your assumption. It does not have much bearing on my argument.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *No, your 'probablies' are pure speculation and not based on the text. The text says what Sauron knew.
> However, even if Sauron did know why would he go spreading it all over Mordor?*


 Ugluk told Grishnakh that he was a member of the fighting Uruk-hai, and that they were servants of Saruman. Ugluk killed troops loyal to Mordor in order to take the halflings to Isengard. None of this is speculation- it is fact based on the text. I speculated that this was pertinent information which Grishnakh would have communicated on. Gandalf agrees with me:


> the Dark Lord knows that two hobbits were taken in the Emyn Muil and borne away towards Isengard against the will of his own servants


 Obviously the Dark Lord knows that his own troops were opposed by Isengarders, else how would he know that they were going to Isengard. Ugluk says that the Isengarders are the fighting Uruk-hai, servants of Saruman. In all probability this is how Grishnakh would have described them. Feel free to post a reasonable alternative. I'd imagine that "against the will of his own servants" was a reference to his servants being killed by the Isengarders. This seems like a reasonable conclusion based on the text. Perhaps you could offer a different reasonable conclusion?
As far as what Sauron would want his underlings to know, it seems they all know too much. Grishnakh has personal knowledge of the Ring. Gorbag knows something 'has slipped'. The tracker tells the soldier to


> ‘Go to your filthy Shriekers, and may they freeze the flesh off you! If the enemy doesn’t get them first. They’ve done in Number One, I’ve heard, and I hope it’s true!’


 I seriously doubt any of this is information that Sauron would want to be generally known to his troops. The fact is that they learn about this stuff, whether Sauron wills it or no.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *1). The text does not say that Shagrat knew none of Gorbag's boys got out.
> 2). The text does not say or imply that none of Gorbag's boys got out. It does say that none of Shagrat's got out.
> 3). The Nazgul who comes there does not know that none escaped with the prisoner.
> 4). I ignore your remote suggestion because you have _no_ evidence to back it up. You are engaging in pure speculation. *


 1) Shagrat seems plenty confident to go out of the tower, even though he is injured. He does not say that he thinks all of Gorbag's men are dead, nor does he say that he suspects some are still living. His actions, however, support the former.
2) HoME IX, p. 18


> His first draft ('A') of the new chapter extended as far as the point where Sam, descending the path from the Cleft, sees the two orcs shot down as they ran from the gateway of the Tower


 HoME IX, p. 23-24


> Two archers right in the gateway - probably those who shot down the escaping orcs - lay pierced from behind with spears.


 HoME IX, p. 24


> He overhears the orc reporting to Shagrat. Shagrat is lying wounded by dead body of Gorbag. All Gorbag's men have been killed, but they have killed all Shagrat's but these two.


 HoME IX, p. 24


> Gorbag coveted the mithril coat, but pretended that they must search for the missing spy first. He sent his men to capture wall and gate, and demanded mithril coat.


 Nothing in the published work contradicts this. Shagrat's men are still shot down by archers, but here we see that those archers were sent to guard the gates from any messenger being sent out. They were not covering a retreat by the remainder of Gorbag's lot. We even get an explicit statement "All Gorbag's men have been killed".
3) The Nazgul who came there does not appear to be the source of the rumor, as he never encountered a great Elf or a sort of dwarf-Man.
4) I provide evidence from the text which backs up my speculation. You choose to ignore it.


----------



## aragil

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: reply (part 1)*



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Treebeard is not making a statement he is asking a speculative question. Gamling speaks half-orcs and goblin-men bred by Saruman, he does not attribute either appellation to the Uruk-hai (you are the one doing that) who are directly called Orcs throughout. Legolas says it is unusual for Orcs to be out in the Sun and it is. How am I discounting anything they say?
> JRRT never says Saruman's Uruk-hai are half-orcs. No character ever says that Saruman's Uruk-hai are half-orcs. Aragorn does call the 'goblin-faced men' half-orcs (you seem to give more credence to Gamling than Aragorn). Pippin mentions 'half-orcs and ruffians' in the Shire. These are not Saruman's Uruk-hai (who are dead). Saruman's Uruk-hai are called Orcs, Goblins, Uruk-hai and Uruks directly. *


 Treebeard makes a declarative statement:


> He has taken up with foul folk, with the Orcs. Brm, hoom! Worse than that: he has been doing something to them; something dangerous. For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it.


 If you have any evidence to refute this, please provide it. Otherwise accept that it is Saruman's Orcs and not Sauron's which can endure the sun. Treebeard later speculates that Saruman has been crossing Orcs with Men. This is confirmed by Tolkien in Morgoth's Ring. If you have any evidence to refute Treebeard's supposition, please provide it.
Aragorn says that with dawn will come hope. Gamling says that Half-orcs, goblin-men, and wild-men will not be affected by the dawn. He seems to be describing all of Saruman's forces. You seem to think he is not describing the Uruk-hai, which means he is neglecting the majority of Saruman's forces. The Uruk-hai later claim that they care not for the dawn, indicating that they are the half-orcs which Gamling describes. This is entirely self consistent.
There is no evidence that the goblin-men consider themselves to be anything other than Uruk-hai. In which case Pippin's comments in the Shire could in fact be regarding Uruk-hai. Even Robert Foster, in his guide to Middle-earth recognizes that. If you can provide text refuting that, then please do so.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Running with you back bowed is slow. Of course Orcs did so.
> *


 Really? I thought the way Orcs ran was quite fast.


> _From The Hobbit_
> "A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones," thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, go along at a great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground.





> *Running with your back bowed and your head up is uncomfortable at the least.
> Why did the Isengarders run with their backs bowed?
> Two reasons are given for the Morder Orcs not running as fast as the Isengarders: a 'plan' , or 'not being as quick and hardy'. Nothing is said about the sun.
> Fact: JRRT said the Northerners were 'flagging in the sun', he did not say that of the Mordor Orcs.
> Perhaps the Mordor Orcs had their heads down because the sun was in their eyes.*


 Isengarders are never mentioned with their heads down. Why would the sun not be in their eyes? Why would the Isengarders run with their heads up if it was so darned uncomfortable? Why would JRRT mention the sun going down if it has no effect on the Mordor lot?




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *The "hosts of Mordor" are fleeing in terror from the Rohirrim. Not from the Sun. The "hosts of Mordor" include more than just orcs. They wail, flee and die because of the Rohirrim. Not because of the sun. You are picking and choosing.*


 The "hosts of Mordor" referred to here is never described as anything but Orcs. There is absolutely no reference to men. I am "picking" every single mention of Mordor troops there are here, and "choosing" to post them all. If I have missed one, please provide it. Otherwise accept the fact that I posted it all and there was no mention of men.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *The Orcs are singled out later.
> The Orcs are said to be fleeing from the Rohirrim "like herds before the hunters". They are not said to be fleeing from the sun.*


 The description of the Orcs is the only one given for the "hosts of Mordor". They are not "singled out". They are it. As far as I know, the only time Orcs are ever described as fleeing in terror of the sun is the first time it appears when Fingolfin marches into Beleriand. Otherwise Orcs will not flee in terror of it. They will, however, be adversely affected by it, and the will route where otherwise they might stand and fight- like the Haradrim and Easterlings who are at Pelannor. This description is entirely consistent with Sauron's Orcs being affected by the sun as they were in the first and second age. This is not what happens to Saruman's Orcs.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *The text does not say that the Orcs alone fled. It says the hosts of Mordor fled. The hosts of Mordor include more than Orcs. It _later_ (the next chapter and later in the battle) specifically singles out the orcs who flee from the Rohirrim, not the sun. But even if the text specifically said 'the orcs of the hosts of Mordor fled in terror', it would still be the Rohirrim they were fleeing from, not the sun. You are picking and choosing. *


 I "picked" every passage available. If you think that there is a passage which describes men among these "hosts of Mordor" then please provide it. Otherwise stop implying that I am stacking the dice- it's insulting.




> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *This is out of context. Try the prior paragragh:
> "Horsemen, riding very swiftly, had indeed been sighted: still far behind, but gaining on the Orcs, gaining on them like a tide over the flats on folk straying in a quicksand."
> This is why they put on speed.*


 If this is why they put on speed, why mention the sunset at all? Why not have the horsemen sighted and then the orcs immediately put on speed? What possible reason could there be for inserting the sun reference?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Re (1): Re: Re: Re: reply (part 2)*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Honestly, if I knew what you were looking for, and that you would agree with it, I'd post it. The text describes the forces seperating Imrahil from Eomer very explicitly. There is no mention of orcs. There is not even a mention of 'legion' or anything else vague that could be interpreted as orcs. There are Easterling, Southrons, Variags, and Far-haradrim. No possibility of Orcs. These are the forces that are sent to separate Eomer and Imrahil, a force which fights reasonably well. Later, elements of this force are mentioned as being driven Eastward by Imrahil. My interpretation is that they are driven along with orcs that had been routing from the outset. Since there is no mention of Orcs being sent to separate Eomer and Imrahil, I believe this is a good interpretation.*


*

The reasonable explanation is that the Orcs who had been earlier driven away by the Rohirrim, toward the river, regrouped when the reserves were sent in from over the river and thus were part of the forces that cut off Imrahil from Eomer. That is why the orcs were there to be driven away by Imrahil along with the troll-men and Variags. If they had been routed by the sun, why would they return? The sun was shining the whole morning through. The fight lasted a long time. In any event Orcs were there as part of those forces that cut off Imrahil and were later driven away. 




Your posting style is impolite, at best. If you think your continuous insults somehow enhance your contribution to these boards, then you are sadly mistaken. Facts like Orcs being described in the Morgul host are welcome contributions. Insults about my reasoning skills are not.

Click to expand...

I am not insulting your reasoning skills. I think your arguments suggesting such things as the legions (foot) of Morgul consisted of only men because it does not say they were orcs there (even though it does not say they were men either) and when Gorbag and Co. is pointed out trying to suggest that they were the only Orcs at Morgul, are absurd (perhaps even intentionally?). You have many good arguments, some of which I even agree with. But I am finding such things deliberately provocative. I may be wrong on the deliberate part. But that is how I am beginning to see it.




We are agreed now, the Legion of Morgul has Orcs in it, and was very aggressive prior to the charge of the Rohirrim. Now let's look at how they fare post-dawn:
The legions of Morgul come from under the wall. This does not speak of any particular prowess on their part. Later they are driven into by the footmen of Gondor- not necessarily routing, but not showing any prowess either.

Click to expand...


As the quote you posted said the fighting waxed furious. It also lasted a long time. The legions of Morgul did not flee the sun. Not even when driven against by the footmen of Gondor. 




The matter stands- Men fighting for Mordor are described in several passages as regrouping and fighting reasonably well. The Orcs are not. The implication is that the sunlight has broken their fighting ability, else why the deference between men and orcs?

Click to expand...

There is no such implication. The Orcs fled because they were taken by surprise. They did not flee the sun. 
Do you think that if the sun had come out and they had not been attacked they would have fled?





No such difference exists between the men and orcs fighting for Isengard. This, along with the slow performance of Grishnakh's band and the numerous comments by characters that imply only hybrid orcs are sun tolerant, makes me think that Sauron's Orcs (who are non-hybrids) are not any more sun tolerant than any other Orcs who has been around since the first age. I am saying that Sauron's orcs are like other orcs in this respect. You are saying that they are different. It is up to you to come up with evidence that they are different. So far I have not seen anything compelling.

Click to expand...

JRRT gives two reasons for the Mordor Orcs 'slowness' a 'plan', or 'being less quick and hardy'.
Neither of those says anything about the sun. 
If the Mordor Soldier Orcs were just as effected by the sun as the Northerners then why were they not described as 'flagging in the sun'?
As a side note though we both think the Isengarders had some 'man' blood in them, it is not actually a proven assertion. Remember JRRT still treats it as a 'speculation' very late.

<snip of part addressed above>*


----------



## aragil

*Proposition*

I think we're going in circles here. You seem confident in your argument, I am certainly confident in mine. In the mean time much MB space is being used with out much progress, and it appears that anyone else who might have input in the matter is staying away from the thread. How about this: we have a poll- were Sauron's great Soldier-Orcs more sun-resistant than their predecessors? We could have three options:
1)Sauron's soldier Orcs were as sun-tolerant as Isengard's.
2)Sauron's soldier Orcs were less sun-tolerant than the Isengarders, but more sun-tolerant than their predecessors. (I assume your position)
3)Sauron's soldier Orcs were no more sun-tolerant than their predecessors. (My position)

We could each build our case privately and then submit them to a moderator, who would post them both in the poll-thread simultaneously. The two of us would not be allowed to post in the poll-thread until the voting on the poll closed- say a week or two. Then we each post a single summary (10000 characters) stating what we agree with and disagree with of the points that other posters make. We then both abide by the decision of that poll for any future discussions on this thread. This would save us a whole lot of wrangling and space-hogging on this thread. It might even bring in some fresh view points on the matter. What do you think?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Re (2): Re: Re: Re: reply (part 2)*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> There is a big difference between Hunt for the Ring and the later events in Mordor. That difference is experience. Before the Hunt for the Ring Mordor knew nothing of the Shire. Afterwards, as the Mouth says, Mordor knows it well. The words of the soldier are post Hunt for the Ring. At this point Mordor knew the Shire well. Grishnakh had no problem recognizing halflings, the logical conclusion would be that the tracker and the Soldier wouldn't either.


The 'experience' only lasted several days some six months before when four Black Riders entered the Shire. Not much time there. But even if Sauron (and the Mouth) did then know it well that hardly suggests everyone in Mordor knew it.
Grishnakh is obviously a special servant not a lowly soldier or tracker. Grishnakh knew about the significance of Gollum and the Ring. Did the tracker and soldier know? By "logical conclusion" shouldn't they? Shagrat and Gorbag did not either, and they were higher placed than the soldier and tracker. Shagrat and Gorbag did not even know what Frodo was.


> They were upset with an unclear order from the Higher Ups. They don't seem to think any of the described culprits were particularly likely. Neither do I.


They were given their orders based on the information available.
None of that information suggests anything whatsoever about Isengarders.


> I was speaking in the context of the Black Speech term Uruk. Adunaic is a different language. Doubtless the two words spring from a common root in Quenya or Common Elvish, but they are not the same term. Whatever Tolkien had in mind for Adunaic has no effect on what he had in mind for the Black Speech, which is what we're discussing.


That is not what you wrote: "The implication is that between 1942 and 1948 JRRT had no intention of using the word "Uruk" in any form to refer to soldier Orcs of Mordor." 
They both mean Orc. JRRT used the term 'uruk' during the time period you note for other than Isengarders. This suggests that he knew what he wanted to use the term for, Orcs in general. I think JRRT knew exactly what he was doing, and he intended it to be a BS term for Orcs. But even if you are correct and he at first only intended it to be used for the Isengarders then where would they get it from?




> There is evidence that earlier Isengard Uruk-hai had attacked servants of Sauron in order to steal away halflings. This is from the text. This is evidence.


Provide a quote saying they attacked servants of Sauron in order to steal away the halflings.



> It was a mistake to call Sam an great Elf. It doesn't matter whether he was believed to be an great Elf or not. That belief was in error. Frodo is given dwarvish characteristics in the term "a sort of dwarf-Man". The term "dwarf" is an adjective modifying "Man". This gives the "Man" dwarvish characteristics. Clear enough?
> Some common Dwarven characteristics: Short, beard, stocky. Only short applies to Frodo, hence it would be easier to call him a "short-man", or a "half-sized man=halfling". Dwarf-man is inaccurate.


Grasping at straws.
An Elf was 'seen'. There is nothing suggesting any Isengarders were seen or believed to be in the vicinity. The orders are related only to the events at Cirith Ungol. Nothing was there that could even be mistaken for Isengarders.
The phrase "a sort of small dwarf-man" then accurately depicts Frodo. Short like a dwarf (only smaller) and otherwise resembling a Man. JRRT chose to provide that description. Hence that description is accurate. What would have been "easier" in your opinion is not important. 



> Ugluk told Grishnakh that he was a member of the fighting Uruk-hai, and that they were servants of Saruman. Ugluk killed troops loyal to Mordor in order to take the halflings to Isengard. None of this is speculation- it is fact based on the text. I speculated that this was pertinent information which Grishnakh would have communicated on. Gandalf agrees with me:
> 
> 
> 
> the Dark Lord knows that two hobbits were taken in the Emyn Muil and borne away towards Isengard against the will of his own servants
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the Dark Lord knows that his own troops were opposed by Isengarders, else how would he know that they were going to Isengard. Ugluk says that the Isengarders are the fighting Uruk-hai, servants of Saruman. In all probability this is how Grishnakh would have described them. Feel free to post a reasonable alternative. I'd imagine that "against the will of his own servants" was a reference to his servants being killed by the Isengarders. This seems like a reasonable conclusion based on the text. Perhaps you could offer a different reasonable conclusion?
Click to expand...

Ugluk killed Northerners. They were operating under their own orders. 
Anything other than what Gandalf says Sauron knows is speculation and without basis.
Grishnakh does not call Saruman's Orcs "fighting Uruk-hai". He calls them Isengarders: "Curse the Isengarders".
In all probability Grishnakh told the Nazgul something to the effect of: 'I ordered the Isengarders to bring the prisoners back to Lugburz with me. They refused, I need troops to get them to obey'. I'm sure he did so with appropriate "orc-talk" (use your imagination).



> As far as what Sauron would want his underlings to know, it seems they all know too much. Grishnakh has personal knowledge of the Ring. Gorbag knows something 'has slipped'. The tracker tells the soldier to I seriously doubt any of this is information that Sauron would want to be generally known to his troops. The fact is that they learn about this stuff, whether Sauron wills it or no.


Grishnakh is obviously a special operative. The Witch King's demise was, well, rather public. On the otherhand "no news of the raid ever came back either to Mordor or Isengard".



> 1) Shagrat seems plenty confident to go out of the tower, even though he is injured. He does not say that he thinks all of Gorbag's men are dead, nor does he say that he suspects some are still living. His actions, however, support the former.
> 2) <snip quotes> Shagrat's men are still shot down by archers, but here we see that those archers were sent to guard the gates from any messenger being sent out. They were not covering a retreat by the remainder of Gorbag's lot. We even get an explicit statement "All Gorbag's men have been killed".
> 3) The Nazgul who came there does not appear to be the source of the rumor, as he never encountered a great Elf or a sort of dwarf-Man.
> 4) I provide evidence from the text which backs up my speculation. You choose to ignore it.


1) Shagrat has to go out to report what happened. In LotR it Shagrat is not told that all of Gorbag's men are dead.
2) We get no such statement in LotR. I wonder why not? Did JRRT change his mind? Did he decide that Shagrat would not know? Did he decide that Sam would not know? 
3) The information could come from two different sources, Shagrat and the Nazgul.
4) The only real evidence you need to provide is evidence that it was believed that the Isengarders attacked Cirith Ungol.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: reply (part 1)*



> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Treebeard makes a declarative statement: If you have any evidence to refute this, please provide it. Otherwise accept that it is Saruman's Orcs and not Sauron's which can endure the sun. Treebeard later speculates that Saruman has been crossing Orcs with Men. This is confirmed by Tolkien in Morgoth's Ring. If you have any evidence to refute Treebeard's supposition, please provide it.*


*
The fact that Sauron's Orcs run in the sun with out 'flagging' like the Northerners is evidence enough. Sauron's Orcs do not even complain about the Sun. They endure it quite well. JRRT does not note any effect on them (unless it is causing them to lower their heads)




Aragorn says that with dawn will come hope. Gamling says that Half-orcs, goblin-men, and wild-men will not be affected by the dawn. He seems to be describing all of Saruman's forces. You seem to think he is not describing the Uruk-hai, which means he is neglecting the majority of Saruman's forces. The Uruk-hai later claim that they care not for the dawn, indicating that they are the half-orcs which Gamling describes. This is entirely self consistent.
There is no evidence that the goblin-men consider themselves to be anything other than Uruk-hai. In which case Pippin's comments in the Shire could in fact be regarding Uruk-hai. Even Robert Foster, in his guide to Middle-earth recognizes that. If you can provide text refuting that, then please do so.

Click to expand...

The Uruk-hai of Isengard were all killed so they cannot be in the Shire. JRRT in the narrative voice always refers to the Uruk-hai of Isengard as Orcs and Goblins never as goblin-men or half-orcs. Aragorn does not call the Uruk-hai half-orcs, he does call the goblin-faced men half-orcs. The comparisons drawn between those like the 'Southerner' are to the goblin-faced men not the Uruk-hai.



Really? I thought the way Orcs ran was quite fast.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think I previously mentioned that.



Isengarders are never mentioned with their heads down. Why would the sun not be in their eyes? Why would the Isengarders run with their heads up if it was so darned uncomfortable? Why would JRRT mention the sun going down if it has no effect on the Mordor lot?

Click to expand...

Are the Mordor Orcs mentioned with their backs bowed?
When you bow your back it is natural for the head tilt forward. It would be a given. 
He mentioned the sun going down because the sun was going down at that time. He does tend to be quite descriptive.




The "hosts of Mordor" referred to here is never described as anything but Orcs. There is absolutely no reference to men. I am "picking" every single mention of Mordor troops there are here, and "choosing" to post them all. If I have missed one, please provide it. Otherwise accept the fact that I posted it all and there was no mention of men.

Click to expand...

The hosts of Mordor include all the troops. But lets just say you are correct and the hosts of Mordor include only Orcs. Then we know that the Orc legions of Morgul did not flee the sun. Why not?

Also: 
"Now he looked to the River, and hope died in his heart, and the wind that he had blessed he now called accursed. But the hosts of Mordor were enheartened, and filled with a new lust and fury they came yelling to the onset."
Is this just speaking of Orcs (and just those of Mordor exclusive of the Morgul legions)? But the sun was shining, like it had been all morning. Why were only those Orcs enheartened, and filled with new lust and fury? Did no one else care?*


----------



## jallan

Nóm posted on Sam's hearing the word _Uruks_:


> if you don't mind a little side question from an observer - why wouldn't this be "orcs"?


From _Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_, letter 144:


> The name has the form _orch_ (pl. _yrch_) in Sindarin and _uruk_ in the Black Speech.


This equates them. However see the chapter "The Bridge of Khazad-dûm":


> There are Orcs, very many of them,' he said. 'And some are large and evil: black Uruks of Mordor.' Gandalf here distinguishes Uruks of Mordor as a particular kind of Orc. Assming that Gandalf's use here is normal (at least for those who knew something about Orcs and their kind), then Sam from listening to Gandalf and probably others speaking of such things, would also distinguish between _Orc_ as a general term and _Uruk_ as a particular kind of Orc.
> 
> From Appendix F:
> 
> 
> 
> In Sindarin it was _orch_. Related, no doubt, was the word _uruk_ of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the _Uruk-hai_, _snaga_ 'slave'.
> 
> From _The War of the Jewels_, (HoME 11): "Quendi and Sindar", Appendix C. Elvish names for the Orcs:
> 
> 
> 
> The word _uruk_ that occurs in Black Speech, devised (it is said) by Sauron to serve as a lingua franca for his subjects, was probably borrowed by him for the Elvish tongues of earlier times. It referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor. Lesser breeds seem to have been called _snaga_.
> 
> 
> 
> The meaning here seems to be that _uruk_ was the general word for _orc_, but in actual use normally only referred to the large soldier Orcs.
> 
> Of course, as I mentioned in my last post, any argument about what Sam would hear is probably bogus. Sam hears _Nazgûl_ instead of 'Ringwraith'. Of course he knew both terms. But Sam is hardly likely to have known _Lugbúrz_ which ought therefore to have been translated for him as _the Dark Tower_.
> 
> We might also _imagine_ Sam picking up _Lugbúrz_ with his ears and _Dark Tower_ with his mind, associating the two, and so writing down _Lugbúrz_. We might ....
> 
> Linguistic arguments based on this passage are weak.
> 
> Aragil posted:
> 
> 
> 
> I respect Frodo's abilities as a writer and a linguist, therefore if he used two distinct terms here, then I believe it was because he was referring to distinct creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ouch!
> 
> From the chapter "Lothlórien":
> 
> 
> 
> Frodo could understand little of what was said, for the speech that the Silvan folk east of the mountains used among themselves was unlike that of the West. Legolas looked up and answered in the same language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tolkien later decided this was wrong, and blamed it on Frodo's linguistic ignorance. From Appendix F, footnote:
> 
> 
> 
> In Lórien at this period Sindarin was spoken, though with an 'accent', since most of its folk were of Silvan origin. This 'accent' and his own limited acquaintance with Sindarin misled Frodo (as is pointed out in _The Thain's Book_ by a commentator of Gondor). All the Elvish words cited in I, ii, chs 6, 7, 8 are in fact Sindarin, and so are most of the names of places and persons. But _Lórien_, _Caras Galadhon_, _Amroth_, _Nimrodel_ are probably of Silvan origin, adapted to Sindarin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From _Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_, letters 205, footnote 2:
> 
> 
> 
> 'A star shines on the hour of our meeting' (_The Lord of the Rings_, Book I, Chapter 3). The reading in the letter, _omentielmo_, is the same as in the first edition of the book, but Tolkien later changed it to _omentielvo_. The Elvish language Quenya makes a distinction in its dual inflexion, which turns on the number of persons involved; failure to understand this was, Tolkien remarked, 'a mistake generally made by mortals'. So in this case. Tolkien made a note that the Thain's Book of Minas Tirith', one of the supposed sources of _The Lord of the Rings_, had the reading _omentielvo_, but that Frodo's original (lost) manuscript probably had _omentielmo_; and that _omentielvo_ is the correct form in the context. (The Ballantine paperback edition of The Lord of the Rings has the erroneous reading 'omentilmo'.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aragil, you can hardly at the same time claim that Tolkien changed concepts about Uruks and Uruk-hai during the writing of _The Lord of the Rings_ yet claim that Frodo's linguistic understanding is perfect, especially when it is really Tolkien writing, not Frodo.
> 
> There are internal contradictions in _The Lord of the Rings_. Tolkien made revisions in the second edition, but did not eliminate all of them.
> 
> Any argument that Tolkien must have done things perfectly, as you understand perfection, is invalid.
> 
> Tolkien sometimes changed his mind during the writing of _The Lord of the Rings_, and sometimes after it.
> 
> Tolkien, or Frodo if you prefer, also uses both _Elves_ and _Eldar_, _Orcs_ and _Goblins_.
> 
> But the evidence from Appendix F and _Unfinished Tales_, as well as the mention of Uruk-hai by the Mordor Orc all strongly indicate the identity of meaning of _Uruks_ and _Uruk-hai._ in Tolkien's mind, and pending further evidence, I prefer to think he knew more than you do.
> 
> To disgregard this evidence is "special pleading".
> 
> Can you locate _any_ other supposed error of _any_ kind in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen", a narrative thick with proper names, geographical references, interlaced chronology, complex Appendices?
> 
> To claim that the Orcs of the Misty Mountains are Uruks is also special pleading. Of the Orcs whom the Fellowship meet in Moria one is described as:
> 
> 
> 
> ... a huge orc-chieftain, almost man-high, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . If this chieftain is _huge_, yet still not the height of a man, then most were much smaller than Men, and therefore not Uruks, though that chieftain probably is one of the Uruks of Mordor that Gandalf spotted.
> 
> The common run of the Misty Mountain Orcs would seem to be of this smaller stock, called maggots by Saruman's Uruk-hai, while the Dark Tower Orcs are called apes.
> 
> 
> 
> Have Mordor troops ever been attacked by Isengarders in order to steal away spies from the Rat land of the Shire? Actually, yes they have- just 20 days earlier, an event that is doubtless still on every Mordorian's mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is absurd! How would "every Mordorian's mind" know of the existence of this single troop of Orcs among so many, or that anything bad had happened to it, or know anything about the Shire?
> 
> As to the sun-tolerance, it is irrelevant.
> 
> Yes, Saurman's Uruk-hai are better at resisting the Sun than most Orcs and are believed to have been in part interbred with Men, which probably explains this difference.
> 
> Obviously in such a situation there would likely be both kinds: Orcs with a little of the Man breed in them, and Men with a little of the Orc-breed in them, and all kinds of in-betweens.
> 
> Trying to distinguish Saruman's Uruk-hai from man-orcs is probably impossible, because such as Gamling, believing, probably rightly, the story that Saruman has cross-bred his Orcs with Men, will use "half-orcs and goblin-men" to describe the Uruk-hai in Saruman's host along with whatever beings that seem like Men that Saruman might have in his forces, other than the Dunlendings.
> 
> Trying to dig out exact percentages of human blood in Saruman's Uruk-hai or what percentage of Saruman's forces might have been pure Orc is futile.
> 
> Saruman's Uruk-hai seem to lack the ape-like arms Tolkien gives to the Mordor Uruks and to Grishnákh and his followers, perhaps because partly man-bred. Or are the maggots are also short-armed? Does Saruman also have _some_ ape Uruk-hai?
> 
> Aragil denies identity between Uruk-hai and Uruks, other than that both are Orcs, and insists that Uruk-hai have man-blood in them.
> 
> Tar-Elenion goes too far in my opinion in insisting that all Uruks must be alike, be equally unhindered by the sun.
> 
> Saruman's Uruk-hai are noted in texts supplied by Aragil for greater ability to tolerate the Sun that that of other Orcs, , but how _much_ greater than other types of Uruks and other types of Orcs it is vain to debate.
> 
> But the greater sun-tolerance of Saruman's Uruk-hai has no necessary connection at all as to whether _Uruk-hai_ and _Uruks_ are equivalent.
> 
> It is a different issue.
> 
> Orcs of different sizes are still Orcs. Uruks with different amounts of sun-tolerance may be equallly Uruks and equally Uruk-hai, or at least may call themselves so.
> 
> Some human ancestry need affect the way in which they use the term _Uruk_.
> 
> The maggots have better sight in the dark than Saruman's Uruk-hai, perhaps because the sun-tolerance of Saruman's Uruk-hai comes with a price.
> 
> Grishnákh and his followers do better in the sun than the northerners, or at least do not complain so much ... we don't know which. Tolkien doesn't tell us specifically, so again, nothing can be _proved_.
> 
> Should Grishnákh and his followers should even be counted strictly as Uruks? Possibly they are "sort of Uruks".
> 
> That there is tension in the narrative between the terms _Uruk-hai_ and _Uruks_ is reasonable enough if Tolkien first invented the term _Uruk_ to refer to Saruman's solider Orcs, and then later extended it to also refer to the large Orcs of Mordor.
> 
> The result would be that Saruman's Uruks would seem to be (now incorrectly) reserving the name for themselves alone.
> 
> On the other hand, names are sometimes used differently in different contexts. Saruman's Uruk-hai have no reason to think about other Uruks, especially if short Grishnákh is not an Uruk, or not a full Uruk.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Grond

jallan,
what is the answer then? Are Uruks and Uruk-hai the same in your opinion or different. You give a lot of information but fail to make a stand on your fellings.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> The common run of the Misty Mountain Orcs would seem to be of this smaller stock, called maggots by Saruman's Uruk-hai, while the Dark Tower Orcs are called apes.
> ...
> Saruman's Uruk-hai seem to lack the ape-like arms Tolkien gives to the Mordor Uruks and to Grishnákh and his followers, perhaps because partly man-bred. Or are the maggots are also short-armed? Does Saruman also have _some_ ape Uruk-hai?


Two passages noting the "long arms" of the Isengarders, and one passage likening them to apes:


> 'No hope of escape!' thought Pippin. 'But there is a hope that I have left some of my own marks unspoilt on the wet ground.' He groped with his two tied hands at his throat, and unclasped the brooch of his cloak. Just as long arms and hard claws seized him. he let it fall. 'There I suppose it will lie until the end of time,' he thought. 'I don't know why I did it. If the others have escaped, they've probably all gone with Frodo.'
> TT, The Uruk-hai
> ...
> Aragorn turned and sped up the stair; but as he ran he stumbled in his weariness. At once his enemies leapt forward. Up came the Orcs, yelling, with their long arms stretched out to seize him.
> TT, Helm's Deep
> ...
> Hundreds of long ladders were lifted up. Many were cast down in ruin, but many more replaced them, and Orcs sprang up them like apes in the dark forests of the South.
> TT, Helm's Deep


I don't think the physical differences between Saruman's Uruks and Sauron's Uruks are extremely great, noticable certainly (and surely to other orcs), just not huge. Saruman's seem _on average_ to be larger (though the 'huge orc-chieftain' in Moria seems more physically imposing) and to have straighter legs, the Mordor Uruks could have longer arms (or it could be a factor of them being shorter and bowlegged that makes their arms appear longer and more apelike, or a combination).


> jallan wrote:
> Tar-Elenion goes too far in my opinion in insisting that all Uruks must be alike, be equally unhindered by the sun.


That is not intended to be my position (though I do admit it may seem like it, especially when I attempt to counter arguments that they are as fully effected by the sun as, say, the Northerners). I think the Uruks of Sauron were much less effected by the sun than the lesser breeds, though they may be a _little_ more effected than Saruman's Uruks.

Your post was excellent by the way.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *From the chapter "Lothlórien":Tolkien later decided this was wrong, and blamed it on Frodo's linguistic ignorance. From Appendix F, footnote:From Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, letters 205, footnote 2:Aragil, you can hardly at the same time claim that Tolkien changed concepts about Uruks and Uruk-hai during the writing of The Lord of the Rings yet claim that Frodo's linguistic understanding is perfect, especially when it is really Tolkien writing, not Frodo.
> There are internal contradictions in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien made revisions in the second edition, but did not eliminate all of them.
> Any argument that Tolkien must have done things perfectly, as you understand perfection, is invalid.
> Tolkien sometimes changed his mind during the writing of The Lord of the Rings, and sometimes after it.
> Tolkien, or Frodo if you prefer, also uses both Elves and Eldar, Orcs and Goblins.*


 jallan- I think that you are under the wrong impression of what I am trying to do here. The whole point of this thread, back when it was started last year, was to see if from the text of Lord of the Rings the term Uruks seemed to describe creatures which were reasonably distinct from Uruk-hai. You could think of it as answering the question "Does the use of Uruks in UT seem inconsistent with it's use in LotR?" Please think of my posts in this light. The particular quatation of Gorbag's seems very similar to one of Ugluk's:


> _Ugluk's quote_
> 'Very well,' said Uglúk. 'Leave them to me then! No killing, as I've told you before; but if you want to throw away what we've come all the way to get, throw it away! I'll look after it. Let the fighting Uruk-hai do the work, as usual.
> ...
> _Gorbag's quote_
> Something nearly slipped you say. I say, something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks.


 This quote to me shows Uruks and Uruk-hai being used in a very similar context. Noticably, the Mordor Orc says "Uruks", the Isengard Orc says "Uruk-hai". We also have Gandalf and the narrator in _The Land of Shadow_ say 'uruks' when referring to Mordor troops, while the Isengarders always refer to themselves as Uruk-hai. However, Tar-Elenion and ShagratU (who used to be very active on this thread) argued that Gorbag's statement was a special case owing to the translation effects of the Ring. I didn't really buy it, but in the interest of having some agreement on this thread (something which doesn't occur very often) I have since been arguing under this assumption. That Tolkien does things perfectly is not my argument!! It is a concilliatory gesture on my part- obviously it has not gotten me very far.




> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *But the evidence from Appendix F and Unfinished Tales, as well as the mention of Uruk-hai by the Mordor Orc all strongly indicate the identity of meaning of Uruks and Uruk-hai. in Tolkien's mind, and pending further evidence, I prefer to think he knew more than you do.
> To disgregard this evidence is "special pleading".
> Can you locate any other supposed error of any kind in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen", a narrative thick with proper names, geographical references, interlaced chronology, complex Appendices?*


 (Grond- I think this pretty explicitly states jallan's feeling on the matter). First off, I am not overly fond of the term "special pleading". Second, I don't think I'm engaging in that activity. I have not ignored any appendix entry or statements by Mordor Orcs. I have largely neglected Unfinished Tales, because that was deliberately left out of the opening question of this thread (600+ posts ago). Again, think of this thread as attempting to answer the question "Does the use of Uruks in UT seem inconsistent with it's use in LotR?" 
Having said that, I don't feel that the Appendix F mention equates the terms 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai'. The entry stems from the Black Speech word "Uruk", and states that this word is used to describe soldier-Orcs of Mordor and Isengard. This can be read two ways:
1) The soldier-orcs of these two lands can be referred to collectively with any term including 'uruk',
2) The soldier-orcs of these two lands can each be referred to with seperate terms, both of which include the word 'uruk'.




> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *To claim that the Orcs of the Misty Mountains are Uruks is also special pleading. Of the Orcs whom the Fellowship meet in Moria one is described as: "snipped quote". If this chieftain is huge, yet still not the height of a man, then most were much smaller than Men, and therefore not Uruks, though that chieftain probably is one of the Uruks of Mordor that Gandalf spotted.
> The common run of the Misty Mountain Orcs would seem to be of this smaller stock, called maggots by Saruman's Uruk-hai, while the Dark Tower Orcs are called apes.*


 I think you might have misunderstood part of my argument here. I certainly don't think the Northerners travelling with Uglúk were uruks(though perhaps the larger, bolder ones which stayed behind were), nor do I think that all of the Orcs in Moria were Uruks. I do think there were Uruks in the Misty Mountains- mainly because Gandalf identifies them in Moria. The huge chieftain seems like an excellent example, not only because of his size but also because he is described as 'swart' which matches the appendix entry for the uruks in the time of Denethor: "black orcs of great strength". There were also _likely_ Uruks described in the Misty Mountains much earlier:


> _Azog's description from Appendix A:_
> Thereupon Azog came forth, and he was a great Orc with a huge iron-clad head, and yet agile and strong. With him came many like him, the fighters of his guard.
> 
> _Bolg's description from the Hobbit:_
> There a host of Wargs came ravening and with them came the bodyguard of Bolg, goblins of huge size with scimitars of steel.


 Note also the chronology of the Third Age:
TA 2475- first deployment of Uruks in Ithilien and Osgiliath
c.TA 2480- Orcs begin to make strongholds in the Misty Mountains, Sauron populates Moria with his creatures.
The proximity of these two dates makes me believe that Sauron used Uruks to help lead his colonization efforts in the mountains- The Great Goblin was also probably a Uruk.
I think the description from the Hobbit describes Uruks for several reasons. First, there is the mention of the Long Arms:


> _From the Hobbit_
> "A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones," thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the ores of the mountains, go along at a great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground.
> _From the Lord of the Rings_
> In the twilight he saw a large black Orc, probably Uglúk, standing facing Grishnákh, a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground.
> ...
> Behind him came Shagrat, a large orc with long arms that, as he ran crouching, reached to the ground.


 Shagrat we know is a Uruk. I suspect Grishnakh is a Uruk both because of this passage and because it makes sense to me that Sauron would only send his best soldiers to try and recover the Ring. In any case, the continued mention of arms reaching almost to the ground is sufficiently remarkable to me to make me think that we're dealing with the same variety of Orcs in all three cases. There is further collaboration from the earlier draft of the Moria episode:


> _From HoME VII_
> 'There are goblins: very many of them,' he said. 'Evil they look and large: black Orcs.


 This is making the same distinction as the passage from The Hobbit- goblins being the smaller variety, Orcs being larger. It is worth noting that this and the passage from the Hobbit were written in roughly the same era- before Tolkien used the term 'Uruks'. In a later re-write the 'black Orcs' in Moria became 'Uruks', I think it is reasonable to assume that if Tolkien had again re-written the passage from the Hobbit then they too would have become Uruks.
I think there is even more evidence from the opening of the chapter _The Uruk-hai_, although unfortunately I can't attest to this because Christopher Tolkien has given us virtually nothing of the original drafting of this chapter in the HoME series. He does say that the original drafting of this chapter in particular is very similar to the final form, so I think it is valid to regard the description of Ugluk, Grishnakh, and the northerners as being similar to the first draft. Worth noting is that here Ugluk and Grishnakh are described as orcs, the northerners are described as goblins. Something to keep in mind, anyway.
However, we even get an explicit statement of Uruks in the Misty Mountains:


> _From Appendix A, The House of Eorl_
> In 2989 Théodwyn married Éomund of Eastfold, the chief Marshal of the Mark. Her son Éomer was born in 2991, and her daughter Éowyn in 2995. At that time Sauron had arisen again, and the shadow of Mordor reached out to Rohan. Orcs began to raid in the eastern regions and slay or steal horses. Others also came down from the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman, though it was long before that was suspected.


 This seems to be a pretty explicit statement that some of the orcs of the Misty Mountains were in fact Uruks.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *This is absurd! How would "every Mordorian's mind" know of the existence of this single troop of Orcs among so many, or that anything bad had happened to it, or know anything about the Shire?*


 I think my language was confusing here. By every Mordorian I meant the "higher ups" responsible for giving the order to find the rebel Uruk-hai involved in the Cirith Ungol incident. Uglúk's band was remarkable, not just for their talented leader, but also because it was, to the best of my knowledge, the first time servants of Isengard had outright attacked creatures loyal to Sauron. Also, judging by Grishnkakh's words, it was the first time that Mordor units had encountered the White Badges of Saruman. Up to this point Saruman had been misleading Sauron's agents, etc. but he was probably considered to be nominally subservient to Sauron. Once Uglúk whacks off the heads of those Moria Orcs, Sauron would (IMO) consider Saruman to be an open rebel. I imagine some message would then be sent out to his captains that Saruman's servants were not to be trusted. If you believe that Uruks and Uruk-hai refer to different things, then the message might be that Saruman's Uruk-hai are not to be trusted.




> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *As to the sun-tolerance, it is irrelevant.
> Yes, Saurman's Uruk-hai are better at resisting the Sun than most Orcs and are believed to have been in part interbred with Men, which probably explains this difference.
> Obviously in such a situation there would likely be both kinds: Orcs with a little of the Man breed in them, and Men with a little of the Orc-breed in them, and all kinds of in-betweens.
> Trying to distinguish Saruman's Uruk-hai from man-orcs is probably impossible, because such as Gamling, believing, probably rightly, the story that Saruman has cross-bred his Orcs with Men, will use "half-orcs and goblin-men" to describe the Uruk-hai in Saruman's host along with whatever beings that seem like Men that Saruman might have in his forces, other than the Dunlendings.
> Trying to dig out exact percentages of human blood in Saruman's Uruk-hai or what percentage of Saruman's forces might have been pure Orc is futile.*


 I don't think sun-tolerance is irrelevant. I'm trying to make a case that the term Uruk-hai refers to Isengarders, while the term Uruks refers to Mordor Orcs. If there were no difference between the two varieties of Orcs, there would be no reason for me to claim that they are referred to with different names. It is precisely because of the different characteristics of the Isengarders that this thread even exists. Chief among these characteristics is sun-tolerance. Both the soldier-Orcs of Mordor and Isengard are larger and stronger than the earlier breeds. The Isengarders have been mixed with some amount of men's blood, and have apparently become sun-tolerant. This is the basis for saying that Isengarders are different than Mordorians- any discussion about difference in naming (real or perceived) must stem from this difference in characteristics.
As for which term refers to which variety of hybrid- I absolutely agree with you 100%. I think there are two very broad 'varieties' of hybrid, ones that are more orcish, and ones that are more mannish. Personally I think that both varieties fall under the collective term "Uruk-hai", but that is just me. I said this many times in the deep past of this thread, but I'll admit that it may seem as if I was trying to be more precise in recent posts.




> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *Saruman's Uruk-hai seem to lack the ape-like arms Tolkien gives to the Mordor Uruks and to Grishnákh and his followers, perhaps because partly man-bred. Or are the maggots are also short-armed? Does Saruman also have some ape Uruk-hai?
> Aragil denies identity between Uruk-hai and Uruks, other than that both are Orcs, and insists that Uruk-hai have man-blood in them.*


 To Tar-Elenions description of long-armed Isengarders, I'll add the fact that Grishnakh calls Uglúk an Ape after Uglúk disparages the Nazgul.
In any case I don't think I deny identity between Saruman's soldier Orcs and those of Sauron. The vast majority of my posts are going to point out the differences- that's the nature of my position on this thread. However, I am happy to point out that there are very strong similarities. First off, Uglúk's troop is described as swarthy, just like the Uruk in Moria and just like the Uruks in the time of Denethor. This relationship actually runs even deeper than in the published text. The orc-chieftain who spears Frodo was extant (and clad in black) in the first full account of the chamber of Marzubul. The first conception of the capture of Merry and Pippin was that they were captured by "Black orcs of Misty Mountains" (HoME VII, p 346-347, note 18) who later bear them to Isengard. These of course later became a band of native Isengarders, but it is apparent to me that they were first thought of as being related to the earlier Chieftain. Remember, his band wasn't originally described as "black Uruks of Mordor", but as "Black Orcs" (unaffiliated). Also, there is my earlier quote about the "great uruks in the service of Saruman" who came down from the Misty Mountains in TA 2991-2995. From UT _The Palantiri_ note 7 we learn that Saruman's 'possible' special breeding program could have started no earlier than TA 2990. To me this suggests that Saruman began with Uruks out of the Misty Mountains, and then crossed them with men in order to get his hybrid army. If this is the case then I would expect Saruman's troops to share more than a passing resemblance to Sauron's Uruks- I certainly wouldn't deny similarities between the two.




> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *Tar-Elenion goes too far in my opinion in insisting that all Uruks must be alike, be equally unhindered by the sun.*


 I have never before agreed so heartily with a statement on this thread. He has said before that Saruman's troops might be more sun tolerant than Sauron's, however the way he has vehemently denied any quote which suggests this does seem a bit _extreme_.




> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *Orcs of different sizes are still Orcs. Uruks with different amounts of sun-tolerance may be equallly Uruks and equally Uruk-hai, or at least may call themselves so.
> Some human ancestry need not affect the way in which they use the term Uruk.*


 I agree that this is a possible reading. However, given the earlier strong identification from Helm's Deep that the Uruk-hai don't mind the sun, I prefer to think that these two are related. I agree that there are other readings, but I think mine is equally valid.




> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *That there is tension in the narrative between the terms Uruk-hai and Uruks is reasonable enough if Tolkien first invented the term Uruk to refer to Saruman's solider Orcs, and then later extended it to also refer to the large Orcs of Mordor.
> The result would be that Saruman's Uruks would seem to be (now incorrectly) reserving the name for themselves alone.
> On the other hand, names are sometimes used differently in different contexts. Saruman's Uruk-hai have no reason to think about other Uruks, especially if short Grishnákh is not an Uruk, or not a full Uruk. *


 This is why Gorbag's quote becomes so important. It was added in revision, after Tolkien had decided to include uruks in the forces of Sauron. It is used in virtually an identical context to an earlier quote by Uglúk, as I suggested earlier. Nobody is arguing that Uruks and Uruk-hai are absolutely equivalent- Uruk-hai is pure Black Speech (pure bs!), while Uruks is an an anglicized Black Speech term. It is then puzzling that Gorbag would use the term "Uruks" while speaking in Black Speech/Orcish, while Ugluk and the Isengarders would continually use the term "Uruk-hai". For me the preferred solution to this is that "uruks" and "Uruk-hai" really are different terms which distinguish the soldier-orcs of Mordor from those of Isengard. I think that invoking the "translation" powers of the Ring is "special pleading", but I'm not going to insist that my interpretation is the only one out there.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> The whole point of this thread, back when it was started last year, was to see if from the text of Lord of the Rings the term Uruks seemed to describe creatures which were reasonably distinct from Uruk-hai. You could think of it as answering the question "Does the use of Uruks in UT seem inconsistent with it's use in LotR?"


In other words are you asking does _Fords of Isen_ seem inconsistant with _LotR_ because _Fords of Isen_ says...:

"Behind them came two battalions of the fierce *Uruks*, heavily armed but trained to move at great speed for many miles."

...instead of saying:

"Behind them came two battalions of the fierce *Uruk-hai*, heavily armed but trained to move at great speed for many miles."
??


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> I think there are two very broad 'varieties' of hybrid, ones that are more orcish, and ones that are more mannish. Personally I think that both varieties fall under the collective term "Uruk-hai", but that is just me. I said this many times in the deep past of this thread, but I'll admit that it may seem as if I was trying to be more precise in recent posts.



Clarify please.
By saying: "I think that both varieties [of hybrid] fall under the collective term "Uruk-hai...", do you mean that the 'goblin-faced men' spoken of by Merry, the Southerner from Bree, the Orc-men in _Fords of Isen_ and the 'fighting Uruk-hai of Isengard' are all "Uruk-hai" ??


----------



## jallan

Grond posted:


> jallan,
> what is the answer then? Are Uruks and Uruk-hai the same in your opinion or different. You give a lot of information but fail to make a stand on your fellings.


I think from _The Lord of the RIngs_ alone you cannot even _prove_ that _Uruk-hai_ is a plural form. It _might_ be both singular and plural, just as _Nazgûl_ is, and similarly for _Olog-hai_.

As Aragil documents, Tolkien used _Uruk-hai_ long before he used _Uruks_ or _uruks_ or _uruk_.

It is often thought that the _-hai_ element in _Juruk-hai_ is a plural marker literally meaning smething like '-folk'. 

If this is true, then Tolkien would hardly be aware of coining the workd _Uruks_. It would likely exist as the obvious Anglicized form, ready to use, as soon as the word _Uruk-hai_ was created.

That the form _Uruks_ exists, though _Nazgûls_ does not, _might_ suggest that _Uruk_ in Black Speech was a singular form and there was a differing plural form.

Even that is not _proved_. The suffix _-hai_ might be a race marker used in both singular and plural. There might be another optional way of indicating plural alone in Black Speech, without the _-hai_ ending.

The main text of _The Lord of the Rings_ provides _no_ answers.

The "rebel Uruk-hai" mentioned by the soldier-Orc seems to refer to Gorbag and his crew. Can you _prove_ it? Of course not.

The mention of a "great Elf" seems to echo the speculations of the Orcs when they find Frodo lying comatose. But can you prove it comes from those speculations through either Shagrat or one of the rebels who has been captured? No, for someone else _may_ have theorized a "great Elf" independently.

Can you prove from _The Lord of the Rings_, including the Appendices, that the Elves, the "People of the Stars" are not aliens from another word?

The only use of the word _Eldar_ in the main text of _The Lord of the Rings_ is Gandalf's statement to Frodo:


> And here in Rivendell there live still some of his chief foes: the Elven-wise, lords of the Eldar from beyond the furthest seas.


Does _Eldar_ apply specifically and only to a particular kind of Elf that comes from beyond the furthest seas. 

"Furthest seas" cannot mean the sea which is so close to the west of the Shire, reputedly visible from the top of any of the three Elf towers just beyond the western border. It _must_ mean the Pacific Ocean, which would contain the "furthest" seas from Rivendell.

So one would argue from this text alone.

Phrases and sentences may sometimes mean more or less than is apparent on the surface, or be interpreted differently than they would be with fuller knowledge.

Even in The Appendices, written a few years after completion of the text of _The Lord of the Rings_, Tolkien had made changes in some underlying features of his world.

The language which Tolkien had formerly represented as descended from the language originally spoken by the exiled Noldor when they returned to Middle-earth now becomes Sindarin, awhich had begun to differ from the language spoken by the Noldor before the Noldor ever crossed into the West.

Almost certainly many of the details of the realms of Gondor and Arnor and Rohan were invented when he wrote the Appendices.

Did Tolkien only invent Elrond laying a task on Aragorn when he wrote it in Appendix A?

You can _prove_ nothing one way or the other.

This is when Tolkien penned:


> Related, no doubt, was the word _uruk_ of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, _snaga_ 'slave'.


 Well, the only "great soldier-orcs' that issue from Isengard at this time, so far as we are told in the main text, are those who call themselves _Uruk-hai_.

That suggests that the _Uruk-hai_ are _Uruks_, but does not prove it. Tolkien might be writing awkardly here. 

This text does not indicate whether _Uruk-hai_ is a normal Black Speech plural for _Uruks_ or whether _Uruk-hai_ identifies a particular kind of _Uruk_. 

But this text _suggests_ strongly to me that Tolkien thought the Isengard _Uruk-hai_ were a kind of _Uruk_.

It says nothing about whether he thought at this time that _Uruk-hai_ meant exactly the same as _Uruks_.

One of the scouting Orcs had been called {i]Snaga[/i] by Uglúk, and later an Orc named _Snaga_ is promient in the story, being berated by Shagrat in the Tower of Cirith Ungol and eventually dying in a fall when frightened by Sam.

Now Tolkien explains that this duplicated name is not really a proper name at all, but a somewhat derogatory class title applied to the smaller Orcs?

Was this always Tolkien's thought? Or did Tolkien notice that he had used the same name twice, and, as he often did, come up with an explanation for something puzzling in the text?

A duplicated name is not the kind of error that needs explanation, but Tolkien might have enjoyed providing one in any case. Or _snaga_ might indeed have meant 'slave' to Tolkien from its first use.

At least when he wrote this note, Tolkien thought that _snaga_ was used in the speech of both Isengard and Mordor. If Tolkien had written "especially by the Uruks" we would probably understand him to mean both the Uruks of Mordor and the Uruk-hai of Saurman, for he has spoken of Uruks issuing from both Mordor and Isengard.

But he writes "Uruk-hai". Do we then understand that _snaga_ was more used as a name for lesser Orcs by Saruman's Uruk-hai, perhaps because the Saruman's Uruk-hai were indeed more different from other Orcs, for example in their resistance to light? Or is Tolkien simply using a native term, _Uruk-hai[/i,] instead of the English Uruks?

You can't prove either.

But it seems to me likely from the Appendix note that Tolkien recognized all Uruk-hai as being Uruks.

Certainly it appears in letter 78 and in "The Battles of the Ford of Isen" that Uruks is used to cover Uruk-hai.

That "The Battles of the Ford of Isen" was not published in Tolkien's lifetime and was not completed is irrelevant. It, like many other such iincomplete writings, shows us what he was thinking at one time, and his thoughts, even late thoughts, should not be ignored.

The text, though not complete, is obviously very carefully composed and written as shown by the complexity of its subject matter. It is exactly the kind of text where any author would be trying to be extremely precise.

Why disparage it, when it agrees with what Tolkien wrote in Appendix F? Here also we see Uruks coming out of Isengard.

So Uruk-hai are Uruks.

But are all Uruks also Uruk-hai?

I feel that the Appendix F sentence reads better if we take Uruk-ha to mean simply Uruks. 

I don't find it convincing that Tolkien wants us to imagine the Orcs so confused about what had happened in the Tower of Cirith Ungol that they blamed it on Saruman's Orcs.

I do not find it at all odd that, that Tolkien would use Uruk-hai and Uruks somewhat interchangeably if they were interchangeable.

The main evidence seems to me to be the outright statement in the index to Unfinished Tales under Uruks:



Anglicized form of Uruk-hai of the Black Speech; a race of Orcs of great size and strength.

Click to expand...

Neither "Uruk-hai" nor "Black Speech" are mentioned anywhere in Unfinished Tales, so this part of this entry is a very odd one for Chritopher Tolkien to invent.

CT claims that some of the material in the Index comes from his father's draft index to The Lord of the Rings, and this is exactly what would have fitted well there, and does not fit well in the index to UT.

Where else does Christopher Tolkien invent such things that he should not be trusted?

The worst he has been blamed for in linguistic matters is probable transcription errors in "The Etymologies" (part of which he makes clear were not very legible).

Certain non-linguistic inventions in the published Silmarillion were admitted in CT's own introduction, but have been mostly, perhaps completely, covered in the HoME series, and concern almost entirely the Fall of Doriath and minor corrections in the material.

What in the index to Unfinished Tales that can be shown to be in error from other writings or that CT would have any reason to want to change?

Because of ambiguity in the main text, Aragil can produce explanations mostly opposing what is found in other documents, but in fact no more likely to be true than what we find in the other documents.

What reason to distrust these other documents?

I see no problem with Tolkien inventing Uruk-hai, then deciding Sauron would have large Orcs of similar kind, but not, it seems, arising from breeding of Orcs and Men and not so easily able to bear sunlight.

Tolkien also began to use more often Common Speech Uruks instead of the Black Speech Uruk-hai.

Some of the tension between the accounts of Saruman's Uruk-hai Tolkien's later usage of Uruks would arise because Tolkien was not thinking of Sauron's Orcs much when first writing about the Uruk-hai.

A reader is a little suprised when the Mordor soldier Orc uses the phrase Uruk-hai, because the reader is only familiar with the term in respect to Saruman's Uruk-hai. Tolkien might not perceive this difficulty. Would he remember when and where exactly he had used Uruks and when and where he had used Uruk-hai, if to him they meant the same thing?

This is just as possible as Aragil's hypothesis.

It is equally unproveable._


----------



## Grond

*Great response!!*

There's an old saying, "Ask and it shall be answered!" I asked and you have provided me with one of the best responses I've seen (as we say here in the South) "in a coon's age!"

Thanks for your insightful, inciteful and well thought out response jallan.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

bump


----------



## Ancalagon

Excellent choice for a bump T-E, the only difficulty is where to join the fray, as it is far advanced and well-argued!?


----------



## Tar-Elenion

I 'bumped' as there are some things in it I wish to use elsewhere and did not wish to have keep 'diving' for it. You are welcome to join in wherever you wish, though there is likely little new to add.


----------



## Melko Belcha

I'm sorry, I did not read the whole thread. But in Unfinished Tales - The Battle of the Fords of Isen, the Uruk-hai are always called Uruks or black Uruks. And in that it is clear that the Uruks and the Orc-men are not the same.

UT - The Battle of the Fords of Isen


> Behind them came two battalions of the fierce Uruks........As soon as the enemy had gained possession of the eastern end of the Fords there appeared a company of men or Orc-men



And in The Hunt for the Ring it is said that the Dunlending that told the Nazgul where the Shire was had Orc blood in him, and he was the squit-eyed southerner in Bree, the one Frodo thought "looks more than half like a goblin".


----------



## Ancalagon

> _Originally posted by Melko Belcha _
> *I'm sorry, I did not read the whole thread. *



I know it is epic, but you would do great service to the contributors of this thread if you read it fully. Threads such as this one serve as an excellent resource for learning about the intricacy of Tolkiens work, hence the reason those who have contributed to this thread have taken so much time and effort to fully research their answers before posting. Rather a shame there are not more like this available on the forum, as everyone would be much the wiser for reading them.


----------



## aragil

*flogging a long dead horse ...*

... or am I trying to prod it back to life?



> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *A reader is a little suprised when the Mordor soldier Orc uses the phrase Uruk-hai, because the reader is only familiar with the term in respect to Saruman's Uruk-hai. Tolkien might not perceive this difficulty. Would he remember when and where exactly he had used Uruks and when and where he had used Uruk-hai, if to him they meant the same thing?*


 Never did respond to this. Thread-fatigue, I guess. The only (last?!!) thing I'll add is that Tolkien probably was aware of the different uses of Uruk-hai/Uruks when he wrote the soldier-tracker scene. Again, when he first wrote the scene, he had never used the term 'Uruks'. Also, when he first wrote the scene, the whole bit was different, and there was neither a mention of 'Uruk-hai'. A few pages later (when the Hobbits, disguised as Orcs, are found by a group of Orcs headed towards the Black Gate), Tolkien uses 'uruks' for the first time. I have no idea when he did his revisionist bit for 'Uruks'- placing the term in the Chamber of Marzubul and in Gorbag's speech. The first draft for the appendices still has them as 'black orcs' attacking in Denethor's time. However, it is entirely possible (IMO probable) that he added 'rebel Uruk-hai' in the soldier/tracker scene when he was adding 'uruks' elsewhere. That's all I got- hopefully not too controversial- I don't really think it matters one way or another.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

This was originally written for a discussion at Michael Martinez' SF-Fandom site:
http://www.sf-fandom.com/vbulletin/

Uruk-hai and Uruks.

In this essay I will offer evidence that the terms Uruks and Uruk-hai are interchangeable and both terms refer to the 'great-soldier orcs' that issued from both Mordor and Isengard. 
That Saruman had Uruk-hai in his service is undoubted. There are numerous direct references to the Uruk-hai of Saruman in the main narrative text of LotR. These primarily occur in the chapters The Uruk-hai and Helm's Deep. Within these chapters the Isengarders refer to themselves as "fighting Uruk-hai" or the "Uruk-hai of Isengard", and once simply as "the Uruk-hai" when addressing Aragorn before the walls of Helm's Deep. There are two other occurances of the term Uruk-hai within the main narrative, once in narrative format when reporting Pippin's feelings in the chapter Minas Tirith ("No hours so dark had Pippin known, not even in the clutches of the Uruk-hai"), and once in the chapter Land of Shadow when Sam and Frodo overhear a conversation between a soldier-orc and a tracker in Mordor in a passage which reads: " 'Whose blame's that?' said the soldier. 'Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together.'" Up until this last use all references in LotR to Uruk-hai have been to the Isengarders.
There are four uses of the term 'Uruks' in the main narrative, once in Khazad-dum when Gandalf refers to: "black Uruks of Mordor" (Bridge of Khazad-dum), once when Sam overhears Gorbag say: "Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks" (The Choices of Master Samwise) while in Shelob's Lair, and twice in narrative format in The Land of Shadow ("large fierce _uruks_" and "heavy-armed _uruks_"). All these references are to the Orcs of Mordor. 
In App. A we have two uses of the term 'uruks' once in reference to Mordor ("In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor"), and once in reference to Saruman ("Others [Orcs] also came down from the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman, though it was long before that was suspected"). With this second we have the first use of the term 'Uruks' for Saruman's Uruk-hai.
In App. F there is also the following passage: "_Orcs and the Black Speech_. Orc is the form of the name that other races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan. In Sindarin it was _orch_. Related, no doubt, was the word _uruk_ of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, _snaga_ 'slave'." In the essay _Battles of the Fords of Isen_, published in _Unfinished Tales_ there are nine (if my count is correct) uses of the term 'uruks' for the Isengarders. There are a few other uses of the term 'Uruks' and 'Urukhai' in the available corpus, including App. B, Letter 66 and the essay Quendi and Eldar in War of the Jewels (and the LotR Index).
From the _Fords of Isen_ narrative and the App. A statement as well as App. F, it is undoubted that the great soldier-orcs of Isengard can be called 'Uruks' or 'Uruk-hai'.
But what of the great soldier-orcs of Mordor? We have one instance of an Uruk using the term 'Uruks'; as cited above Gorbag refers to 'poor Uruks' in a converstion with Shagrat, but that is not necessarily what he said, but rather what Sam 'heard'. Both Shagrat and Gorbag are captains in Mordor's armies and they do not seem to have been speaking Westron. It is possible that they were speaking the Black Speech (App. F notes: "When Sauron arose again, it [BS] became once more the language of Barad-dûr and of the captains of Mordor") or perhaps some debased form there of. That Sam was able to understand the two seems to be an effect of the Ring, which he was wearing at the time: "He heard them both clearly, and he understood what they said. Perhaps the Ring gave understanding of tongues, or simply understanding, especially of the servants of Sauron its maker, so that if he gave heed, he understood and translated the thought to himself. Certainly the Ring had grown greatly in power as it approached the places of its forging; but one thing it did not confer, and that was courage. At present Sam still thought only of hiding, of lying low till all was quiet again; and he listened anxiously. He could not tell how near the voices were, the words seemed almost in his ears."
It is _possible_ that Gorbag actually used the term 'Uruk-hai' and Sam, through the Ring, _heard_ the word 'Uruks' (which he would have been familiar with from Gandalf's use of it in Moria). This is, of course, not provable, but possible within the context of the story.
We also have one instance of a Mordor Orc explicitly using the term 'Uruk-hai'. Frodo and Sam overhear a soldier stating his orders to his tracker companion "First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together" which a "Higher Up" has sent them out to look for. These relate back to the events at Cirith Ungol. The "dwarf-man" is a reference to Frodo, the Orcs did not know what a Hobbit was ("'Lugbúrz wants it, eh? What is it, d'you think? Elvish it looked to me, but undersized. What's the danger in a thing like that?'") Gorbag believed that an Elf-warrior was about: "`By all the signs, Captain Shagrat, I'd say there's a large warrior loose, Elf most likely, with an elf-sword anyway, and an axe as well maybe: and he's loose in your bounds, too, and you've never spotted him. Very funny indeed! ' Gorbag spat. Sam smiled grimly at this description of himself.". When Sam enters the Tower of Cirith Ungol he does so crying out: " 'That's done it!' said Sam. `Now I've rung the front-door bell! Well, come on somebody!' he cried. `Tell Captain Shagrat that the great Elf-warrior has called, with his elf-sword too!'". When Snaga and Sam encounter each other: "[Snaga] stopped short aghast. For what it saw was not a small frightened hobbit trying to hold a steady sword: it saw a great silent shape, cloaked in a grey shadow, looming against the wavering light behind; in one hand it held a sword, the very light of which was a bitter pain, the other was clutched at its breast, but held concealed some nameless menace of power and doom.
For a moment the orc crouched, and then with a hideous yelp of fear it turned and fled back as it had come. Never was any dog more heartened when its enemy turned tail than Sam at this unexpected flight. With a shout he gave chase.
`Yes! The Elf-warrior is loose!' he cried. 'I'm coming. Just you show me the way up, or I'll skin you!'"
After this encounter Snaga says to Shagrat: "There's a great fighter about, one of those bloody-handed Elves, or one of the filthy _tarks_. He's coming here, I tell you. You heard the bell. He's got past the Watchers, and that's _tark's_ work. He's on the stairs. And until he's off them, I'm not going down. Not if you were a Nazgûl, I wouldn't.'"
Shagrat later fled the Tower and would have reported this to the 'Higher Up', which is why the Orcs would be sent out looking for an Elf and a dwarf-man. This leaves the "rebel Uruk-hai".
The other major event at the Tower was the battle between Gorbag and Shagrat and their respective companies.Gorbag (who had earlier suggested that he and Shagrat take some 'trusty lads' and go off and det themselves up somewhere away from the 'big bosses') wanted to "pinch" Frodo's mithril mail. Shagrat, it seems, objected and this caused a battle between the two opposing forces. Of this Sam notes: "The courtyard lay in deep shadow, but he could see that the pavement was strewn with bodies. Right at his feet were two orc-archers with knives sticking in their backs. Beyond lay many more shapes; some singly as they had been hewn down or shot; others in pairs, still grappling one another, dead in the very throes of stabbing, throttling, biting. The stones were slippery with dark blood.
Two liveries Sam noticed, one marked by the Red Eye, the other by a Moon disfigured with a ghastly face of death; but he did not stop to look more closely."
Of the aftermath of the battle Snaga says: "'...I've told you twice that Gorbag's swine got to the gate first, and none of ours got out. Lagduf and Muzgash ran through, but they were shot. I saw it from a window, I tell you. And they were the last.'"
(con't)


----------



## Tar-Elenion

(con't)
It seems rather obvious that Shagrat, along with reporting the 'Elf' and the 'dwarf-man' would have reported the battle between Gorbag and himself. We also know that as Sam and Frodo were fleeing from Cirith Ungol a Nazgul arrived and soon after many soldiers came in responce to his cries. They could easily observe what happened (and Sam after collecting Orc gear for he and Frodo to disguise themselves in says: " `The Morgul-stuff, Gorbag's gear, was a better fit and better made,' said Sam; `but it wouldn't do, I guess, to go carrying his tokens into Mordor, not after this business here." Sam recognizes that what occured in the Tower will become known). It thus becomes clear that what the 'Higher Up' sent the Orcs out to look for were those involved with the events at Cirith Ungol. That is the 'dwarf-man' who escaped, the 'Elf' that was believed to be present, and any Orcs who might have fled the Tower (the "rebel Uruk-hai"). As no Isengarders were present and there was nothing to suggest any Isengarders were present this leaves only those Orcs who were actually involved and may have fled to account for the "rebel Uruk-hai", and those were great soldier-orcs of Mordor, hence Sauron had Uruk-hai in his service, and thus the terms 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' are fully interchangeable and refer to both Isengarders and Mordoreans.
There are two other passages I find relevant to this. One is from Letter 78 where in JRRT writes to his son Chritopher, in part: 
"Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable (though I fear it must be admitted that there are human creatures that seem irredeemable short of a special miracle, and that there are probably abnormally many of such creatures in Deutschland and Nippon - but certainly these unhappy countries have no monopoly: I have met them, or thought so, in England's green and pleasant land)." Here JRRT uses the terms 'Urukhai' and 'Uruks' interchangeably and is using them to refer, in particular, to (some) of the Germans and Japanese during WWII (and also to some of his own countrymen). This also shows that the term 'Uruk-hai' was not exclusive to Isengarders.
There is also an entry in the Index to UT:
"_Uruks_ Anglicized form of _Uruk-hai_ of the Black Speech; a race of Orcs of great size and strength."
It is possible that this entry was drawn from JRRT. CT writes: "In the event there was no index to The Lord of the Rings until the second edition of 1966, but my father's original rough draft has been preserved. From it I derived the plan of my index to The Silmarillion, with translation of names and brief explanatory statements, and also, both there and in the index to this book, some of the translations and the wording of some of the "definitions"."
UT, Introduction, The Istari
CT also writes of this Index: "The brief defining statements are not restricted to matters actually mentioned in the book; and occassionally I have added notes on the meaning of hitherto untranslated names."
UT, Index
According to what CT has written, this Index entry could have been drawn from JRRT's own draft of an Index for LotR, making it relevant to the use of 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' in LotR, if it was drawn from that draft Index then it stands to reason that all the uses of 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' in LotR are interchangeable and refer to the same race of creature, "great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard." This would again mean that the "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to those Orcs involved in the events at Cirith Ungol who may have fled in or after the fighting there, as suggested by the evidence presented above. This seems particularly likely since CT noted that the "defining statements are not restricted to matters actually mentioned in the book" and the entry in question is just that, a "defining statement" (as opposed to a translation) and the term 'Uruk-hai' does not actually appear in the narrative.

If, as I think the evidence suggests, 'Uruks' is simply an anglicization for Uruk-hai and the two terms are interchangeable and can be (and are) applied to both the the Isengarders and the Mordorean soldier-orcs we are left with no plot holes and fully consistant uses of the terms throughout the texts.

A brief post script, Letter 78 and the essay Quendi and Eldar in WotJ provide the possiblity of an attested to translation for 'Uruk-hai'. Letter 78 says "Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker". The pertinent portion of this is "folk made bad". In Q&E we learn that 'uruk' was borrowed by Sauron from the Elvish tongues when he was devising the Black Speech in the Second Age,
and was related to words meaning 'horrible'.
If Uruks are "folk made bad" and 'uruk' is related to horrible, and 'horrible' and 'bad' are synonmous, then it could very well be that a reasonable translation of Uruk-hai (which is used interchangeably with its anglicization 'uruks') is:
Uruk-hai: *bad-folk, *horrible-folk.


----------



## Snaga

I’ve been looking carefully at what we know about the Black Speech, and the language of the orcs more generally. I am probably foolish to post my conclusions on this thread, but here goes anyway!

The curious thing is, there is precious little that can be definitely said to be “pure” Black Speech; namely the inscription on the Ring. This not only dates from the early years of Sauron’s rule, but it is as authoritative a source we could hope for: ie the words of Sauron himself.

Apart from this, we have only the names of various orcs, the names used by orcs for various people or things, and the curse of the Mordor orc, directed at the Isengarders in TTT I Ch3 ‘The Uruk-Hai’, and a few other terms identified in the Appendices, and in other Tolkien writings.

But it is curious that most if not all of these can be rejected as not “pure” Black Speech. This form was forgotten by the orcs after Sauron’s defeat at the hands of the Last Alliance.

The orcs spoke many dialects, related, but sufficiently diverse that the three groups of orcs crossing Rohan had to resort to the common speech in order to be understood. Although Sauron reintroduced the Black Speech on his return to Mordor at the end of the Third Age, this was only used by the captains of Mordor. We are told that the soldiers of the Dark Tower spoke a ‘debased form’; and this is form used by the cursing Mordor orc.

Pluralisation is a particularly interesting issue. Firstly the word Nazgul is a B.S. word, which can be both singular or plural (similar to the English ‘sheep’). On the other hand it appears that pluralisation can take other forms. Uruk-Hai appears to be a collective noun, capable only meaning a plural. Others have argued that this is actually a plural of ‘uruk’. The suffix –hai in fact predates Sauron’s form of B.S., since it is attested to in relation to the oghor-hai, referring to the pukel-men in the first age. It is doubtful therefore, if when it is being used, it is actually a form in ‘pure’ B.S. The Isengarders’ use it about themselves, but they would presumably not use pure B.S. The only other ‘verbal’ use of it is between the small tracker orc and the larger solder orc. These are not ‘Captains of Mordor’ so we can assume their discussions would typically be held in a debased form. Yet, Frodo and Sam can understand their speech, and thus we must assume that their dialogue is also in the Common tongue; and that the tribal dialect problem still existed in Mordor and that ‘debased forms’ were not universally understood.

This is then give us two different uses of ‘Uruk-hai’. The Isengarders are apt to announce: “We are the Uruk-Hai”; a collective noun. In the other it is a plural, in the phrase “pack of Uruk-Hai”. This suggests a parallel with Nazgul: which can be singular, plural or collective. We have no case to prove that the phrase “I am an Uruk-Hai” is correct, but it seems possible.

Is this rule always observed? No. We have the counter-example of ‘tark’, which is pluralized in the orkish version of the Common tongue in the form ‘tarks’.

So what can we make of Gorbag’s use of the term “uruks”? Clearly he is using a plural case. Is this an ‘incorrect’ (or anglicised) plural of uruk, that would be more correctly written as “uruk-hai”? This seems unlikely, as I will show.

Other uses of “Uruks” include Gandalf inserting a non-standard term into the Common Tongue; and two italised cases of use by the narrator in ROTK II 2 “The Land of Mordor”. It seems highly unlikely that in any of these cases an “incorrect” form would be adopted.

What then could the terms refer too? Uruk is clear:


> The form in Adunaic _urku, urkhu_ may be direct from Quenya or Sindarin; and this form underlies the words for Orc in the languages of Men of the North-West in the Second and Third Ages. The Orcs themselves adopted it, for the fact that it referred to terror and detestation delighted them. The word _uruk_ that occurs in the Black Speech, devised (it is said) by Sauron to serve as a lingua franca for his subjects, was probably borrowed by him from the Elvish tongues of earlier times. It referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor.



This is a clue: it refers to the elite Mordor orcs ‘specially’ but not exclusively. So what of the use of Uruks in “The Battle of the Fords of Isen” to refer to some of Saruman’s forces? It appears to be used to very definitely distinguish the great orcs (who are would be “men-orcs”) of Saruman’s armies from his “orc-men”. From the taunts of the Isengarders at Helms Deep we can see that there is no distinction between these in the term “Uruk-Hai” between these two groups, but Uruks are still definitely orcish.

Thus Uruks can refer to some Isengarders, and the elite Mordor orcs. Whereas Uruk-Hai appears not refer to Mordor orcs, only soldiers of Isengard, both orc-men and men-orcs.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Snaga _
> What then could the terms refer too? Uruk is clear:
> 
> This is a clue: it refers to the elite Mordor orcs ‘specially’ but not exclusively. So what of the use of Uruks in “The Battle of the Fords of Isen” to refer to some of Saruman’s forces? It appears to be used to very definitely distinguish the great orcs (who are would be “men-orcs”) of Saruman’s armies from his “orc-men”. From the taunts of the Isengarders at Helms Deep we can see that there is no distinction between these in the term “Uruk-Hai” between these two groups, but Uruks are still definitely orcish.



That Saruman's Uruk-hai are "men-orcs" is an unproven assertion. In 'Fords of Isen the Uruks are clearly distinguished from the 'half-orcs' and are not referred to as any sort of 'half-orc'. 



> Thus Uruks can refer to some Isengarders, and the elite Mordor orcs. Whereas Uruk-Hai appears not refer to Mordor orcs, only soldiers of Isengard, both orc-men and men-orcs.


As my post above shows, the "rebel Uruk-hai" referred to in in the conversation between the soldier-orc and the tracker can only refer to Mordor Orcs. 
To disprove this evidence must be presented that Isengarders were present or believed to be present at Cirith Ungol. To date no one has been able to provide any such evidence ((and not just here, but in any number of forums and the newsgroups where I have argued this).


----------



## Snaga

I've read this thread, and I am aware that these points have been raised before.



> _Originally Posted By Tar-Elenion_
> *That Saruman's Uruk-hai are "men-orcs" is an unproven assertion. In 'Fords of Isen the Uruks are clearly distinguished from the 'half-orcs' and are not referred to as any sort of 'half-orc'.*


 I think you misunderstand me. You are correct that in the Fords of Isen the Uruks are clearly distinguished from the 'half-orcs'. Thus the term Uruk-Hai is not used by the author, who wishes to distinguish between the two groups in an essay that is written from the standpoint of an omniscient observer. By contrast, Lord of the Rings is written differently, feigning to be written by Frodo from the observations of himself and others. Here, the distinction between orcs and half-orcs is imperfectly observed, and the term Uruk-Hai is used without distinction. Thus it is my belief that while 'Uruk' is only ever used of orcs, Uruk-Hai is a collective term for a more diverse group: Sarumans orc-bred armies.



> _Originally Posted By Tar-Elenion_
> *As my post above shows, the "rebel Uruk-hai" referred to in in the conversation between the soldier-orc and the tracker can only refer to Mordor Orcs.
> To disprove this evidence must be presented that Isengarders were present or believed to be present at Cirith Ungol. To date no one has been able to provide any such evidence ((and not just here, but in any number of forums and the newsgroups where I have argued this).*


 Whilst "rebel Uruk-Hai" may _refer_ to Mordor Orcs, why should we assume it refers to them correctly? Frodo and Sam are badly misidentified by the orcs, who quite clearly have no confidence in the instructions from their "Higher Ups". There are many possibilities: (1) that Shagrat mis-reported; (2) that Shagrat reported correctly, but was misinterpreted; (3) that Shagrat was correctly interpreted but the orders misidentified the quarry; (4) that the orcs did not understand their orders; and most likely of all (5) that the orcs are being sarcastic.

Therefore, because the text leaves us unclear as to what these orcs meant in their use of the term "Uruk-Hai" we must look elsewhere. What we can be much clearer about is that if the orcs had wanted to pluralise 'uruk' they would in fact have used 'uruks': the correct plural form when this term is used in the Common tongue; as attested to both by the author and Gandalf.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Snaga _
> I think you misunderstand me. You are correct that in the Fords of Isen the Uruks are clearly distinguished from the 'half-orcs'. Thus the term Uruk-Hai is not used by the author, who wishes to distinguish between the two groups in an essay that is written from the standpoint of an omniscient observer. By contrast, Lord of the Rings is written differently, feigning to be written by Frodo from the observations of himself and others. Here, the distinction between orcs and half-orcs is imperfectly observed, and the term Uruk-Hai is used without distinction. Thus it is my belief that while 'Uruk' is only ever used of orcs, Uruk-Hai is a collective term for a more diverse group: Sarumans orc-bred armies.



Uruk-hai is only used of the great-soldier orcs from Mordor and and Isengard. The Uruk-hai are never _directly_ referred to as any sort of half-orc in LotR. When referring to Uruk-hai directly, they are always termed as 'Orcs' or 'Goblins'.



> Whilst "rebel Uruk-Hai" may _refer_ to Mordor Orcs, why should we assume it refers to them correctly? Frodo and Sam are badly misidentified by the orcs, who quite clearly have no confidence in the instructions from their "Higher Ups". There are many possibilities: (1) that Shagrat mis-reported; (2) that Shagrat reported correctly, but was misinterpreted; (3) that Shagrat was correctly interpreted but the orders misidentified the quarry; (4) that the orcs did not understand their orders; and most likely of all (5) that the orcs are being sarcastic.



Shagrat _correctly_ reported the _facts_ from his onwn observations. Frodo is not mis-identified. Sam was _believed_ to be an Elf-warrior based on the observation of the evidence.
"`By all the signs, Captain Shagrat, I'd say there's a large warrior loose, Elf most likely, with an elf-sword anyway, and an axe as well maybe: and he's loose in your bounds, too, and you've never spotted him. Very funny indeed! ' Gorbag spat. Sam smiled grimly at this description of himself.". When Sam enters the Tower of Cirith Ungol he does so crying out: " 'That's done it!' said Sam. `Now I've rung the front-door bell! Well, come on somebody!' he cried. `Tell Captain Shagrat that the great Elf-warrior has called, with his elf-sword too!'". When Snaga and Sam encounter each other: "[Snaga] stopped short aghast. For what it saw was not a small frightened hobbit trying to hold a steady sword: it saw a great silent shape, cloaked in a grey shadow, looming against the wavering light behind; in one hand it held a sword, the very light of which was a bitter pain, the other was clutched at its breast, but held concealed some nameless menace of power and doom.
For a moment the orc crouched, and then with a hideous yelp of fear it turned and fled back as it had come. Never was any dog more heartened when its enemy turned tail than Sam at this unexpected flight. With a shout he gave chase.
`Yes! The Elf-warrior is loose!' he cried. 'I'm coming. Just you show me the way up, or I'll skin you!'"
After this encounter Snaga says to Shagrat: "There's a great fighter about, one of those bloody-handed Elves, or one of the filthy _tarks_. He's coming here, I tell you. You heard the bell. He's got past the Watchers, and that's _tark's_ work. He's on the stairs. And until he's off them, I'm not going down. Not if you were a Nazgûl, I wouldn't.'"




> Therefore, because the text leaves us unclear as to what these orcs meant in their use of the term "Uruk-Hai" we must look elsewhere.


No, it is not unclear. The Orcs were referring to the events at Cirith Ungol. To prove that the "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to Isengarders, evidence must be presented that Isengarders were involved or believed to be involved in the events at Cirith Ungol.



> What we can be much clearer about is that if the orcs had wanted to pluralise 'uruk' they would in fact have used 'uruks': the correct plural form when this term is used in the Common tongue; as attested to both by the author and Gandalf.



'Uruks' is an anglicization. To prove differently you need to show that 's' is a plural marker in Westron (or Black Speech).

As the index in UT says:
"_Uruks_ Anglicized form of _Uruk-hai_ of the Black Speech; a race of Orcs of great size and strength."


----------



## Snaga

> Uruk-hai is only used of the great-soldier orcs from Mordor and and Isengard. The Uruk-hai are never _directly_ referred to as any sort of half-orc in LotR. When referring to Uruk-hai directly, they are always termed as 'Orcs' or 'Goblins'.


Wrong. It never clearly refers to Mordor orcs, except in your one confused example.

At Helms Deep we have Gamling describing Saruman's forces as 'half orcs and goblin-men'; and later both Merry and Aragorn attest to their presence. And yet the narrator only ever uses the term 'Orc' in the entire chapter. But these Orcs, who must therefore include men-orcs and orc-men, repeatedly call themselves the Uruk-Hai. It clearly refers to all of them.



> The Orcs were referring to the events at Cirith Ungol. To prove that the "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to Isengarders, evidence must be presented that Isengarders were involved or believed to be involved in the events at Cirith Ungol.


Wrong again. I do not have to prove any such thing. I have already said that the Orcs were referring to events at Cirith Ungol, but misidentifying their quarry, for whatever reason. I have presented numerous reasons how this might come about. In order for you to prove your presumption you would have to prove that (a) Shagrat correctly reported events at Cirith Ungol; and (b) he was correctly understood; and (c) that those that he reported to correctly passed on this information to the tracker and soldier orc; and (d) that these two both understood this information; and (e) that they were not being sarcastic in their conversation.



> 'Uruks' is an anglicization. To prove differently you need to show that 's' is a plural marker in Westron (or Black Speech).


 I did that already. The Gandalf example, or the 'tarks' example.

As for CT's index in UT, I will stick to the author's own words.


----------



## aragil

LOL! I should know better by now, but ...


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Uruk-hai is only used of the great-soldier orcs from Mordor and and Isengard. The Uruk-hai are never _directly_ referred to as any sort of half-orc in LotR. When referring to Uruk-hai directly, they are always termed as 'Orcs' or 'Goblins'.*


 Given the 'circumstantial' evidence surrounding the references, I don't think any direct statement need be made. If we were to put this to a vote, I'd be willing to bet that 90% or more of the forum would agree that the Uruk-hai of Isengard are orc/human hybrids. Any takers?


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Shagrat correctly reported the facts from his onwn observations. Frodo is not mis-identified. Sam was believed to be an Elf-warrior based on the observation of the evidence.*


LOL!! And what hidden tome contains Shagrat's report, that you can so confidently state exactly what he said?


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *No, it is not unclear. The Orcs were referring to the events at Cirith Ungol. To prove that the "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to Isengarders, evidence must be presented that Isengarders were involved or believed to be involved in the events at Cirith Ungol.*


Oh excellent- we now get to dictate what the other side must prove in order to have a convincing argument!! Glad you came up with such an unbiased test for proof- you must be worried that you've now made your own case so much more difficult!


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *'Uruks' is an anglicization. To prove differently you need to show that 's' is a plural marker in Westron (or Black Speech).
> As the index in UT says:
> "Uruks Anglicized form of Uruk-hai of the Black Speech; a race of Orcs of great size and strength." *


 'Uruks' could as well be an orcization, or anything else. Snaga doesn't need to prove anything. And please, before you Trotter out the UT index again, can we acknowledge that it is copyrighted by Christopher Tolkien, not JRR? Perhaps it comes from JRRT's notes, perhaps not- there is no way to tell.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by Snaga _
> Wrong. It never clearly refers to Mordor orcs, except in your one confused example.


The example is not confused. The evidence from LotR has been directly quoted. To prove that the "rebel Uruk-hai" does not refer to Orc's in Sauron's service you need to provide evidence that other Orcs (Isengarders) were were involved in or belived to be involved in the events at Cirith Ungol.

Or should I thank you for admitting that the example I provided is the one place it does clearly refer to Mordor Orcs? 




> At Helms Deep we have Gamling describing Saruman's forces as 'half orcs and goblin-men'; and later both Merry and Aragorn attest to their presence. And yet the narrator only ever uses the term 'Orc' in the entire chapter. But these Orcs, who must therefore include men-orcs and orc-men, repeatedly call themselves the Uruk-Hai. It clearly refers to all of them.



Gamling describes some of Sauron's forces as half-orcs and goblin-men. Gamling does not directly refer to Saruman's Uruk-hai as half-orcs and goblin-men hence my statement was correct. Merry and Aragorn refer to the half-orcs and goblin faced men march seperately from and are distinguished from the Orcs.

"'Then all at once there was a tremendous stir. Trumpets blared and the walls of Isengard echoed. We thought that we had been discovered, and that battle was going to begin. But nothing of the sort. All Saruman's people were marching away. I don't know much about this war, or about the Horsemen of Rohan, but Saruman seems to have meant to finish off the king and all his men with one final blow. He emptied Isengard. I saw the enemy go: endless lines of marching Orcs; and troops of them mounted on great wolves. And there were battalions of Men, too. Many of them carried torches, and in the flare I could see their faces. Most of them were ordinary men, rather tall and dark-haired, and grim but not particularly evil-looking. But there were some others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed. Do you know, they reminded me at once of that Southerner at Bree: only he was not so obviously orc-like as most of these were.'
'I thought of him too,' said Aragorn. 'We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep. It seems plain now that that Southerner was a spy of Saruman's; but whether he was working with the Black Riders, or for Saruman alone, I do not know. It is difficult with these evil folk to know when they are in league, and when they are cheating one another.'"

This is further made clear by the description in 'Fords of Isen'.




> Wrong again. I do not have to prove any such thing. I have already said that the Orcs were referring to events at Cirith Ungol, but misidentifying their quarry, for whatever reason. I have presented numerous reasons how this might come about. In order for you to prove your presumption you would have to prove that (a) Shagrat correctly reported events at Cirith Ungol; and (b) he was correctly understood; and (c) that those that he reported to correctly passed on this information to the tracker and soldier orc; and (d) that these two both understood this information; and (e) that they were not being sarcastic in their conversation.



No, I am correct. I have provided direct quotes showing that the information that was known to Shagrat is entirely consistant with the information relayed in the conversation between the soldier and tracker. 
No one has been able to provide evidence that Isengarders were present or believed to be present at Cirith Ungol and thus "rebel Uruk-hai" referred to Isengarders. 



> I did that already. The Gandalf example, or the 'tarks' example.



'Uruks' as used by Gandalf is 'anglicization'. 'Tark' is a debased form of the Quenya 'tarkil'. 'Tarks' is an anglicization. If you can provide evidence that 's' is a plural marker in either of these speech forms I am sure the various Tolkien linguistic experts, including those authorized by the Estate, would be delighted to know, would be delighted to know.



> As for CT's index in UT, I will stick to the author's own words.


As CT said: 
"In the event there was no index to The Lord of the Rings until the second edition of 1966, but my father's original rough draft has been preserved. From it I derived the plan of my index to The Silmarillion, with translation of names and brief explanatory statements, and also, both there and in the index to this book, some of the translations and the wording of some of the "definitions"."
UT, Introduction, The Istari
"The brief defining statements are not restricted to matters actually mentioned in the book; and occassionally I have added notes on the meaning of hitherto untranslated names."

Providing evidence that other Orcs (Isengarders) were believed to be involved in the events at Cirith Ungol is the only way to prove that "rebel Uruk-hai" does not refer to Sauron's Orcs.
What the soldier and tracker had to say is entirely consistant with what Shagrat knew (and what could be observed at Cirith Ungol).


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> LOL! I should know better by now, but ...
> Given the 'circumstantial' evidence surrounding the references, I don't think any direct statement need be made. If we were to put this to a vote, I'd be willing to bet that 90% or more of the forum would agree that the Uruk-hai of Isengard are orc/human hybrids. Any takers?


Argumentum ad populum.
And a strawman to boot.



> LOL!! And what hidden tome contains Shagrat's report, that you can so confidently state exactly what he said?[


What the soldier and tracker conversed about is entirely consistant with the information Shagrat would have had. I have quoted the relevant passages above.


> Oh excellent- we now get to dictate what the other side must prove in order to have a convincing argument!! Glad you came up with such an unbiased test for proof- you must be worried that you've now made your own case so much more difficult!


Ad hominem attacks render your argument less than credible. 

As the key portion of this argument is contained in the phrase "rebel Uruk-hai" and I have provided evidence that it refers to the events at Cirith Ungol and using direct quotes from LotR have shown what knowledge Shagrat would have had and what would have been observed at Cirith Ungol, and that this is entirely consistant with the "rebel Uruk-hai" passage my argument is made.
On the otherside is the argument that "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to Isengarders. I have requested evidence that Isengarders were present or believed to be present at Cirith Ungol, just like the Elf-warrior and small sort of dwarf-man were present or believed to be present at Cirith Ungol. So far no such evidence has ever been provided here or in any other forum or newsgroup where I have discussed this.





> 'Uruks' could as well be an orcization, or anything else. Snaga doesn't need to prove anything. And please, before you Trotter out the UT index again, can we acknowledge that it is copyrighted by Christopher Tolkien, not JRR? Perhaps it comes from JRRT's notes, perhaps not- there is no way to tell.


Another strawman.
There is no attested plural marker 's' in the languages of Middle-earth. What CT says about the index re. explanations (and what he does not say) has been quoted.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Argumentum ad populum.
> And a strawman to boot.*


 Populate the forum with all the strawmen you care to. I'm not sure what you think the point of posting here is, but you are not convincing anyone of your argument. If you think that you can prove that Gamling's reference does not refer to Uruk-hai, then let's start a poll. Otherwise you are stuck with _Argumentum ad unum_.


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *What the soldier and tracker conversed about is entirely consistant with the information Shagrat would have had. I have quoted the relevant passages above.*


 However, what has been said ad infinitum on this thread (and here it is yet again- for all the good it seemingly does) is that the orcs were clearly unsatisfied with their orders. There is clearly room for ambiguity here, whether you see it or not.


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Ad hominem attacks render your argument less than credible.*


 I wasn't aware that I had made any. What I did do is point out that you are entirely stacking the deck in your favor: "To prove that the "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to Isengarders, evidence must be presented that Isengarders were involved or believed to be involved in the events at Cirith Ungol." And who, besides you, ordains that this and no other constitutes proof? Make up all the rules you want, but don't lecture me on credibility.



> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *As the key portion of this argument is contained in the phrase "rebel Uruk-hai" and I have provided evidence that it refers to the events at Cirith Ungol and using direct quotes from LotR have shown what knowledge Shagrat would have had and what would have been observed at Cirith Ungol, and that this is entirely consistant with the "rebel Uruk-hai" passage my argument is made.
> On the otherside is the argument that "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to Isengarders. I have requested evidence that Isengarders were present or believed to be present at Cirith Ungol, just like the Elf-warrior and small sort of dwarf-man were present or believed to be present at Cirith Ungol. So far no such evidence has ever been provided here or in any other forum or newsgroup where I have discussed this.*


 You have made this your main argument because, frankly, without it you don't have anything tying Uruk-hai to Mordor. However, the fact that there is so much ambiguity (whether you choose to admit it or not) makes the whole argument rather weak. I'm happy to allow that your interpretation is valid- I've even done some justice (IMO) to the "Uruks=anglicized Uruk-hai" argument in another thread. However, my reading of this passage will never be that it refers accurately to Gorbag's lot. This just takes away too much from the reading- the fun here is that the bad guys (From the Big Bosses to the Tracker and Soldier) are completely befuddled as to what is happening in the world around them. "Whose is the Kingly face in the Palantir?" "Why does the wind turn against them at Pelannor?" "What has nearly killed Shelob?" "What has decimated the entire Tower of Cirith Ungol- was it an Elf, a Dwarf, a Pack of Rebels, the whole lot of them acting in concert?" Mordor has no clue, and that is the joy of the passage!! Your pursuit of which report could have been made where and when by whom probably provides some scholarly satisfaction, but (IMO) it misses out on the true enjoyment of Tolkien's written word. So by all means, if you are not impressed with the coincidence of Ugluk's Uruk-hai attacking Sauron's troops to abduct M&P, and the Soldier's accusation that Uruk-hai have attacked Cirith Ungol to get at yet another prisoner, then keep asking for proof. I'll be here enjoying the work. 


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Another strawman.
> There is no attested plural marker 's' in the languages of Middle-earth. What CT says about the index re. explanations (and what he does not say) has been quoted. *


 Strawman indeed! The truth is that there is a grand total of one passage of what can be called true BS (the Ring inscription), and one passage of Orcish (the Moria Orc's insult to Ugluk) in the entire corpus. Again, it is very easy to make demands for proof when you know there will be none forthcoming. The 's' ending seems to be applied rather frequently to Black Speech words. Given the extreme paucity of actual grammar rules for BS, this is as close to evidence as anyone will ever get.
As for UT, the fact remains that we do not know if the definition came from CT or JRRT- we're all aware of the evidence. As Cian said some time ago, JRRT's original notes for the index are going to be published, so there is some hope for closure here. However, as I have pointed out before, the actual index for LotR seems to differentiate the terms 'uruks' an 'uruk-hai'. Hardly evidence in your favor.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

As an aside:



> Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
> Ad hominem attacks render your argument less than credible





> Aragil responded:
> I wasn't aware that I had made any. What I did do is point out that you are entirely stacking the deck in your favor:...



My initial statement was in responce to this:


> aragil wrote:
> Oh excellent- we now get to dictate what the other side must prove in order to have a convincing argument!! Glad you came up with such an unbiased test for proof- you must be worried that you've now made your own case so much more difficult!



"you must be worried that you've now made your own case so much more difficult!"

This is an ad hominem.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *"you must be worried that you've now made your own case so much more difficult!"
> This is an ad hominem. *


 It's admittedly sarcastic and smart-alecky (I prefer 'wry observation'), but it is not intended as (nor do I think it is) an attack.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> Populate the forum with all the strawmen you care to. I'm not sure what you think the point of posting here is, but you are not convincing anyone of your argument. If you think that you can prove that Gamling's reference does not refer to Uruk-hai, then let's start a poll. Otherwise you are stuck with _Argumentum ad unum_.



The argument was a strawman because it was not about whether the Isengarders were hybrids or not, it was about _direct_ references to them as Half-orcs etc. Gamling's statement is an implied reference, which people infer as referring to the Uruk-hai.

Do you speak for everyone?



> However, what has been said ad infinitum on this thread (and here it is yet again- for all the good it seemingly does) is that the orcs were clearly unsatisfied with their orders. There is clearly room for ambiguity here, whether you see it or not.



No ambiguity in the orders given based on the events at Cirith Ungol. It was believed there was an Elf warrior on the loose (Snaga even saw it). Frodo is a sort of small dwarf-man. Some of Sauron's Orcs rebelled. All three of those fit with what the tracker and soldier were told to look for. 
No Isengarders present, no evidence of Isengarders present.
Reason to send scouting parties out to look Sam, Frodo and any of Sauron's Uruk-hai that rebelled and may have escaped. No reason to send them out to look for Isengarders. 



> What I did do is point out that you are entirely stacking the deck in your favor: "To prove that the "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to Isengarders, evidence must be presented that Isengarders were involved or believed to be involved in the events at Cirith Ungol." And who, besides you, ordains that this and no other constitutes proof? Make up all the rules you want, but don't lecture me on credibility.


It is the only way to prove the argument. It is as simple as that. 



> You have made this your main argument because, frankly, without it you don't have anything tying Uruk-hai to Mordor.


Wrong. App.E, a letter and the index to UT.




> Strawman indeed!
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. This:
> "And please, before you Trotter out the UT index again, can we acknowledge that it is copyrighted by Christopher Tolkien, not JRR?"
> is a strawman, no argument was being made about who holds the copyright. Indeed The Silmarillion, and HoME are all copyrighted by CT (et. al.).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that there is a grand total of one passage of what can be called true BS (the Ring inscription), and one passage of Orcish (the Moria Orc's insult to Ugluk) in the entire corpus. Again, it is very easy to make demands for proof when you know there will be none forthcoming. The 's' ending seems to be applied rather frequently to Black Speech words. Given the extreme paucity of actual grammar rules for BS, this is as close to evidence as anyone will ever get.
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that 's' is an english plural marker and is used as an Anglicization in any number of words throughout the corpus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for UT, the fact remains that we do not know if the definition came from CT or JRRT- we're all aware of the evidence. As Cian said some time ago, JRRT's original notes for the index are going to be published, so there is some hope for closure here. However, as I have pointed out before, the actual index for LotR seems to differentiate the terms 'uruks' an 'uruk-hai'. Hardly evidence in your favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CT took definitions and explanations from his father's index to put the UT index together.
> As I have pointed out, the index to LotR differentiates the terms 'Elf' and 'Elven-folk'.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *It's admittedly sarcastic and smart-alecky (I prefer 'wry observation'), but it is not intended as (nor do I think it is) an attack. *



It is a direct and derogatory comment on me personally, not my argument, and presented as though it has some relevance to my argument. That is an ad hominem attack.


----------



## Parrot

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *"you must be worried that you've now made your own case so much more difficult!"
> 
> This is an ad hominem. *


If you consider that an ad hominem, I must ask, do your internal organs ever just spontaneously burst through your gauze-thin skin?


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *The argument was a strawman because it was not about whether the Isengarders were hybrids or not, it was about _direct_ references to them as Half-orcs etc. Gamling's statement is an implied reference, which people infer as referring to the Uruk-hai. Do you speak for everyone?*


 I have no idea how many I speak for. However, it appears to me that two noted members of this thread (jallan and ShagratU) would both side with you for Uruks=Uruk-hai, but would agree with me that Gamling was referring to the Uruk-hai with his statement. As far as I know, you're the only one who cares that there is no 'direct' statement, nor should we expect there to be. According to the "Uruk-hai=human/orc hybrids" theory, the Uruk-hai are a new race, so the non-orcish characters wouldn't know what to call them other than 'half-orcs', etc. The forces of darkness refer to them as 'Uruk-hai'. Who would be left to make a direct statement that "uruk-hai=half-orcs"? I would say this is your very own strawman. If you're curious as to whether or not I speak for everyone, then why don't we follow my suggestion and have a poll? I'm sure it would be informative.


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *No ambiguity in the orders given based on the events at Cirith Ungol. It was believed there was an Elf warrior on the loose (Snaga even saw it). Frodo is a sort of small dwarf-man. Some of Sauron's Orcs rebelled. All three of those fit with what the tracker and soldier were told to look for.
> No Isengarders present, no evidence of Isengarders present.
> Reason to send scouting parties out to look Sam, Frodo and any of Sauron's Uruk-hai that rebelled and may have escaped. No reason to send them out to look for Isengarders.*


 Snaga did not see an elf-wariior because none existed. It was a mistaken identity. If mistaken identities don't result in ambiguity, than what does?


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *Wrong. App.E, a letter and the index to UT.*


I'll assume you meant appendix F, which never says anything about "Mordor Uruk-hai". The letter refers to Germans, Japanese, and some English- still no reference to Mordor Uruk-hai. The index for UT 1) is not authoratative; and 2)mentions nothing of Mordor Uruk-hai.


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *The truth is that 's' is an english plural marker and is used as an Anglicization in any number of words throughout the corpus.*


 The truth is that 's' is also a plural marker in many real world languages. It could also be a plural marker in one of Tolkien's languages- there's simply no evidence for or against it.


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *CT took definitions and explanations from his father's index to put the UT index together.
> As I have pointed out, the index to LotR differentiates the terms 'Elf' and 'Elven-folk'. *


 I would think the point here is that we don't know which definitions come from CT and which from JRRT. As easy as it is for you to assume that 'Uruk-hai' is one of JRRT's, it is equally easy for me to assume otherwise. As there is yet no definitive word on which it is, I suggest you stop pushing your assumption around the thread and wait for Wayne Hammond's final word on the matter, like the rest of us.


> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *It is a direct and derogatory comment on me personally, not my argument, and presented as though it has some relevance to my argument. That is an ad hominem attack.*


 It is not about you, it is about the method you employ in your argument. If you consider it to be derogatory, then I recommend you adopt a new style! If you're going to sit there and declare what needs to be proved, and do so in such a way that clearly favors your own argument, then you should be aware that some will see the humor in this. Sorry to offend, but it was most definitely *NOT* a derogatory comment towards you, but a bit of a chuckle at your style of arguing.


> _Originally posted by Parrot_
> *If you consider that an ad hominem, I must ask, do your internal organs ever just spontaneously burst through your gauze-thin skin?*


 That was quite funny! Was it _extreme_ly funny? I don't know- let's ask T-E!


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> I have no idea how many I speak for.


Then why make the claim:
"you are not convincing anyone of your argument"?



> However, it appears to me that two noted members of this thread (jallan and ShagratU) would both side with you for Uruks=Uruk-hai, but would agree with me that Gamling was referring to the Uruk-hai with his statement. As far as I know, you're the only one who cares that there is no 'direct' statement, nor should we expect there to be. According to the "Uruk-hai=human/orc hybrids" theory, the Uruk-hai are a new race, so the non-orcish characters wouldn't know what to call them other than 'half-orcs', etc. The forces of darkness refer to them as 'Uruk-hai'. Who would be left to make a direct statement that "uruk-hai=half-orcs"?


There is no direct reference to the Uruk-hai in LotR (or elsewhere in the corpus) as 'half-orcs'. I pointed that out in responce to Snaga's argument that:
"Here, the distinction between orcs and half-orcs is imperfectly observed, and the term Uruk-Hai is used without distinction."
You attempted to change that to argument about Isengarders being hybrids:
"If we were to put this to a vote, I'd be willing to bet that 90% or more of the forum would agree that the Uruk-hai of Isengard are orc/human hybrids".

That is why it is a strawman.



> I would say this is your very own strawman.



My argument is not a strawman. Snaga stated that "the term Uruk-Hai is used without distinction". I pointed out the distinction, the Uruk-hai are never _directly_ referred to as half-orcs (and the converse is true as well, half-orcs are never referred to as Uruk-hai, indeed when directly referred to the 'half-orcs' are never referred to as orcs but rather as men). When directly referred to in either narrative or authorial voice they are always Orcs or Goblins. 



> Snaga did not see an elf-wariior because none existed. It was a mistaken identity. If mistaken identities don't result in ambiguity, than what does?



"For what it saw was not a small frightened hobbit trying to hold a steady sword: it saw a great silent shape, cloaked in a grey shadow, looming against the wavering light behind; in one hand it held a sword, the very light of which was a bitter pain, the other was clutched at its breast, but held concealed some nameless menace of power and doom.
For a moment the orc crouched, and then with a hideous yelp of fear it turned and fled back as it had come. Never was any dog more heartened when its enemy turned tail than Sam at this unexpected flight. With a shout he gave chase.
`Yes! The Elf-warrior is loose!' he cried. 'I'm coming. Just you show me the way up, or I'll skin you!'"
After this encounter Snaga says to Shagrat: "There's a great fighter about, one of those bloody-handed Elves, or one of the filthy tarks. He's coming here, I tell you. You heard the bell. He's got past the Watchers, and that's tark's work."

Snaga says he did see an Elf (or a tark). What he did not see was a hobbit (nor did he see an Isengarder).



> I'll assume you meant appendix F, which never says anything about "Mordor Uruk-hai". The letter refers to Germans, Japanese, and some English- still no reference to Mordor Uruk-hai. The index for UT 1) is not authoratative; and 2)mentions nothing of Mordor Uruk-hai.


They all back up my assertion in that they show that Uruk-hai are not exclusive to Isengard. 
1) Yes it is authoritative.
2) It includes all the great-soldier orcs, Mordorean or Isengarder. 



> The truth is that 's' is also a plural marker in many real world languages. It could also be a plural marker in one of Tolkien's languages- there's simply no evidence for or against it.


Certainly there is evidence against it. The index explanation in UT that Uruks is an anglicization, and that JRRT commonly uses anglicizations in the same manner.



> I would think the point here is that we don't know which definitions come from CT and which from JRRT. As easy as it is for you to assume that 'Uruk-hai' is one of JRRT's, it is equally easy for me to assume otherwise. As there is yet no definitive word on which it is, I suggest you stop pushing your assumption around the thread and wait for Wayne Hammond's final word on the matter, like the rest of us.


Your assumption would be 'less easy', because CT does not state that any of the 'definitions' are his.



> It is not about you, it is about the method you employ in your argument. If you consider it to be derogatory, then I recommend you adopt a new style! If you're going to sit there and declare what needs to be proved, and do so in such a way that clearly favors your own argument, then you should be aware that some will see the humor in this. Sorry to offend, but it was most definitely *NOT* a derogatory comment towards you, but a bit of a chuckle at your style of arguing.


Then you should have addressed the argument and not directed your 'comment' at me. You stated: "you must be worried that you've now made your own case so much more difficult!".
Again, that was directed at me personally, not my argument.



> That was quite funny! Was it _extreme_ly funny? I don't know- let's ask T-E!


Interesting. You state that you were not making an ad hominem, you apologize for offending, you claim that your statement was not derogatory, and then when another poster makes an ad hominem attack you encourage it by declaring how funny it was.


----------



## Bombadillodillo

Wow,

And the debate is still waged.

First post:

01-19-2002 11:15 PM.


----------



## Lantarion

Listen, this is a very interesting and difficult thread and it warrants further discussion. It does *not*, however, warrant the kind of behaviour exhibited. So please either calm down and stop poking at each others' ribs, and discuss the matter in an orderly fashion; or the thread will be closed and re-opened at a further date.
Agreed? Now let's continue - and any further attacks or rib-poking will event in the closing of the thread. 


> _Originally posted by aragil_
> The truth is that 's' is also a plural marker in many real world languages. It could also be a plural marker in one of Tolkien's languages- there's simply no evidence for or against it.


Tar-Elenion, you countered this very well. Can we now then say that 'Uruks' is an Anglicized form of the Black-speech 'Uruk-hai', referring to the same race of Orcs?
Here is the direct quote from UT:


> _Uruks_ Anglicized form of _Uruk-hai_ of the Black Speech; a race of Orcs of great size and strength


It is my opinion and observation that Tolkien uses the terms _Uruk-hai_ and _Uruk(s)_ interchangably throughout his texts. It is similar to the question of capitalization of names of races or people (e.g. hobbits and Hobbits), and as I see it Tolkien merely wanted to maintain a steady flow of English in certain passages where the term _Uruk-hai_ might have been too alien a word to use properly, for example in describing a battle scene or chase, and that the use of the word would have ended the consistant continuity of the written language.


----------



## Snaga

> _Originally Posted By Tar-Elenion_
> *'Uruks' as used by Gandalf is 'anglicization'. 'Tark' is a debased form of the Quenya 'tarkil'. 'Tarks' is an anglicization.*


 I didnt realise that Gandalf spoke English. Or that the orcs did! It seems to me they were both speaking Westron. As were the Isengarders when they used "Uruk-Hai", or indeed the soldier and tracker!

Why anglicise in some dialogue and not in others? It is illogical and inconsistent.

Even the cases where the narratorial voice uses 'uruks' it is italised, to indicate it is NOT an english word. It would be bizarre to use a word from B.S. or orcish, not translate it into English, but then add an -s on as a plural marker, if that is not the right word. If any of the linguistic experts who you are relying upon can show that Tolkien italices words which are anglicization, and not the correct form, then that might be more convincing than your unproven assertion.


----------



## Lantarion

In case you didn't realize, the whole of the LotR is written in English - hence the characters 'speak' English but truly are talking in Westron. Tolkien provides Anglicizations for the reader so that the text flows better.
And your point on the italicized tect was rather unclear, but here is a passage where 'Uruks' is used without it being italicized:


> _From 'Unfinished Tales', The battles of the Fords of Isen_
> Behind them came two battalions of the fierce Uruks, heavily armed but trained to move at great speed for many miles. [...]


The same page includes many references to Uruks, being unitalicized.

I don't see what that proves though; italicized or not, 'Uruks' seems to indicate the same thing as 'Uruk-hai'.


----------



## Melko Belcha

This is the only thing I have ever found that Tolkien wrote about Saruman breeding Half-orcs.

_Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed
There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile._

There is no mention of Uruk-hai, only Men-orcs and Orc-men.

From LotR and UT we know that the southerner at Bree had Orc blood, and from UT we learn that Orc-men fought at The Battle of the Fords of Isen.

_Unfinished Tales - The Hunt for the Ring
Some while ago one of Saruman's most trusted servants (yet a ruffianly fellow, an outlaw driven from Dunland, where many said that he had Orc-blood) had returned from the borders of the Shire, where he had been negotiating for the purpose of "leaf" and other supplies............This Dunlending was overtaken by seceral of the Black Riders as they approached the Tharbad crossing...........The Witch-king had now a clearer understanding of the matter........Seeing that his Master suspected some move between the Shire and Bree (the position of which he knew) would be an important point, at least for information. He put therefore the Shadow of fear on the Dunlending, and sent him on to Bree as an agent. He was the squint-eyed southerner at the Inn. *C.T. note: See The Fellowship of the Ring. When Strider and the Hobbits left Bree Frodo caught a glimpse of the Dunlending ("a swallow face with sly, slanting eyes") in Bill Ferny's house on the outskirts of Bree, and thought: "He looks more than half like a goblin."* 

Unfinished Tales - The Battle of the Fords of Isen
The Garrison of the east bank surprised by the sudden assault of the massed Uruks.......As soon as the enemy had gained possession of the eastern end of the Fords there appeared a company of men or Orc-men...._

We learn from Merry and Aragorn that half-orcs fought at Helm's Deep.

_TTT - Flotsam and Jetsam
'But there were others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed. Do you know, they reminded me at once of that Southerner at Bree, only he was not so obviously orc-like as most of these were.'
'I thought of him too,' said Aragorn. 'We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep.'_

Merry says that the men he saw were more orc-like then the southerner at Bree, so the southerner at Bree must have been a Man-orc, while the ones he saw marching from Isengard were Orc-men. 

The ruffians in the Shire were also half-orcs.

_RotK - The Scouring of the Shire
...they were disturbed to see half a dozen large ill-favored Men lounging against the inn-wall; they were squint-eyed and sallow-faced.
'Like that friend of Bill Ferny's at Bree,' said Sam.
'Like many that I saw at Isengard,' muttered Merry

RotK - The Scouring of the Shire
Merry himself slew the leader, a great squint-eyed brute like a huge orc._

It dosn't just come out and say it, but putting the quotes together, Frodo thought the southerner in Bree looked half like a goblin, then Merry and Aragorn both thought of the southerner when they saw the half-orcs (Aragorn's words) of Isengard, and then Sam thought of the southerner from Bree when he saw the ruffians in the Shire, and Merry thought of the men he saw at Isengard. 

Nowhere is the any reference to Uruk-hai in any of those quotes. Neither Aragorn or Merry thought of the Uruk-hai when they saw the half-orcs at Helm's Deep or Isengard, they thought of the southerner at Bree (who from UT we know has Orc-blood). Merry didn't think of the Uruk-hai when he saw the ruffians in the Shire, he thought of the half-orcs (Aragorn's words) that he saw at Isengard.

In HoME 9: Sauron Defeated we see that Tolkien actually had written Orc-men for the ruffians in The Scouring of the Shire, why he removed Orc-men CT does not say, but the description of the ruffians and the Orc-men remained the same.

_Sauron Defeated - The Scouring of the Shire.
'Well, I am staggered,' said Pippin. 'Of all the ends to our journey this is that last I expected: to fight half-orcs in the Shire itself to rescue Cosimo the Pimple of all people!'

The hobbits drew their swords and pressed near him; but he backed away. Very orc-like all his movements were, and he stooped now with his hands nearly touching the ground.

The orc-man looked at them with such a leer of hatred as they had not seen in all their adventures.

And then as with a groan and a curse the orc-man [?toppled] over him he stabbed upwards, and Sting passed clean through his body.

If they gave themselves up they were kindly treated, and fed (for they were usually half-starved after hiding in the woods), and then shown to the borders. This sort were Dunlendings, not orc-men/half-breeds, who had originally come because their own land was wretched, and Saruman had told them there was a good country with plenty to eat away North.

The chief of the orcish men at Bywater said that he had told the Boss that it was no good sending hobbits, and that the men ought to have gone, but the Boss had said no.

(C. Tolkien) The original reading of C 'Merry himself slew the largest of the ruffians' was altered to '...the leader, a great squint-eyed brute like a huge orc'; with this cf. the description of the orc-man 'Sharkey' at Bag End in the A version. (The A version I have given above)_


----------



## Snaga

Thanks MB. Interesting but ultimately unhelpful. Aragorn and Merry never use the term Uruk-Hai at all. Pippin does in recalling his experiences in being orc-dragged across Rohan. So this doesnt give us any extra insight. I don't think anyone is disputing that there are orc-men in the Shire.

Lantarion, you are mixing up my points.

If 'uruks' is unitalised in a piece of writing not made ready for publication that hardly proves anything. The UT makes a narratorial distinction between Uruks and half-orcs that is not present in LotR. That distinction is only observed by characters.

The fact that uruks is italised when used by the author in a published form tells me that it is the correct and untranslated form, and distinct from 'Uruk-Hai'.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

'Uruks' is used twice in App. A:
"In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor"
and:
"Others also came down from the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman"

In neither circumstance is it italicized.


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *'Uruks' is used twice in App. A:
> "In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor"
> and:
> "Others also came down from the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman"
> 
> In neither circumstance is it italicized. *


 Nor is it italicized in Gandalf or Gorbag's speeches. Indeed, it is quite inconsistently used, as ShagratU noted sometime ago. I think that if you look at when it was added to the text there is a bit more consistency, but still not total consistency. And of course, UT had CT for an editor, and we have no idea how often JRRT went back over it. Capitilization and italicization are two of the last things we should look for there for consistency to the LotR. As it turns out, UT is at least self-consistent, but again we don't know if that comes form JRR or CT- it could easily be one of the "minor details" he says he paves through for consistency: "In this book I have accepted from the outset that this must be so; and except in minor details such as shifts in nomenclature (where retention of the manuscript form would lead to disproportionate confusion or disproportionate space in elucidation) I have made no alterations for the sake of consistency with published works, but rather drawn attention throughout to conflicts and variations."


----------



## Tar-Elenion

For an instance of an italicized anglicization I would point out _silmarils_ in RGEO. This is in a form published by JRRT and an undoubted anglicization.


----------



## aragil

re: Melko Belcha's post

MB, I think you might be pushing too hard for what precisely constitutes man-orcs, orc-men, half-orcs, and goblin-men. Try out the following theory: 

Uruk-hai refers to any orc/man hybrid. Now consider that the Orcs themselves are the only ones who use this term. Tolkien (in HoME v.10) makes a further distinction by seperating the collective Uruk-hai into two groups- the orc-men (orc being adjectival, thus mannish creatures with orcish blood) and men-orcs (orcish creatures with mannish blood). The term half-_elf_ is generally used to describe any human/elven hybrid- those who are more Elvish, or those who are more mannish. It could then be possible that the term 'half-orc' is used in a similarly imprecise way- either men-orcs, or orc-men, or both groups collectively (like Uruk-hai). I would suggest that goblin-men is a perfect synonym for orc-men, as goblin (in the published LotR) seems to be used as a perfect synonym for orc.

This theory is supported by the following four quotes:
Tolkien as narrator in Morgoth's Ring saying Saruman's hybridization produced orc-men and men-orcs
Treebeard in speculating that human/orc hybridization leads to sun-tolerant orcs
Gamling at Helm's Deep stating that half-orcs, goblin-men, and Dunlendings are all unaffected by sunlight
The Uruk-hai themselves in closely associating the fact that they are Uruk-hai with the fact that they are not intimidated by the dawn. They don't say "we are the Uruk-hai, which is why we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. We come to kill, by sun or moon. What of the dawn?", but I think most people read it that way. The way Tolkien writes it is with a semi-colon, which seems to me to be a way of (partially) defining what it means to be a member of the Uruk-hai.

Re-read through the passages with orc/men hybrids (including HoME 9), and see if this theory fits or fails.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Nor is it italicized in Gandalf or Gorbag's speeches. Indeed, it is quite inconsistently used, as ShagratU noted sometime ago.*


* 

_Snaga_ is making the argument and is referring to it being italicized when used in the narrative voice.*


----------



## aragil

> _Originally posted by Tar-Elenion _
> *_Snaga_ is making the argument and is referring to it being italicized when used in the narrative voice. *


 Ah- didn't catch the narrative voice bit, which made me curious what everyone was going on about. As I suppose everyone here knows, uruks in the narrative voice is twice italicized, both in 'the Land of Shadow'- first to describe the leaders of the troop of orcs which Frodo and Sam fall in with, next to describe an entire column of orcs which crashes into the troop which Frodo and Sam have fallen in with. What people might not know is that this was the very first instance where Tolkien used the term 'uruks' (as CT notes) in LotR, making these two references rather conspicuous. The appendix entries for 'uruks' were both added sometime later- in HoME 12 the orcs in Denethor I 's time are simply 'black orcs' (bread by the Nazgul, not Sauron!), while the mention in Rohan is absent.
Sorry about the initial distraction snaga, hope this helps more. Good point- one made (in some sense) earlier by Greenwood- but we know more now than we did then.


----------



## Greenwood

Nearly two years since I started this thread (and over a year since I have been on the Forum) and the debate still rages!

I am impressed!


----------



## Snaga

Tar-Elenion said:


> _Snaga_ is making the argument and is referring to it being italicized when used in the narrative voice.


It seems surprising that I would have to point out that the Appendices do not form part of the narrative! The appendices are not written in the same voice as the main text. That much should be clear enough.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

You made no distinction between the Appendices or the main body of LotR or the narrative voice used in either place. Your statement refers specifically to its use "by the author in a published form" and you also said "Even the cases where the narratorial voice uses 'uruks' it is italised, to indicate it is NOT an english word". I have provided two instances of 'uruks' being "used by the author in a published form" both in "narratorial voice" and in neither of those instances is it italicized. I have also provided an instance of "the author in a published form" italicizing an undoubted anglicized word (silmarils).


----------



## Snaga

I apologise, if it helps, for some slightly haziness of language in responding to Lanty's reply to my original point. The original post makes the point more clearly, and I refer you back to it. Italics are used in the narrative, by the narratorial voice to convey a non-English word in the correct form. The Appendix do not form part of the _narrative_, although they do form part of the _text._ It is obvious that the 'voice' here is different. The Appendices do not form part of the "recollections" of the hobbits! On the other hand, it seems somewhat doubtful to bring in 'The Road Goes Ever On' (to decode the acronym); which is clearly a seperate text entirely - indeed a musical composition! What evidence do we have that conventions were carried across consistently from one work to another? In any event it would be preposterous to suggest that the song lyrics contained in this latter work are in the same voice as the narrative of Lord of the Rings. While in a post-modern sense it is quite in order for you to bring your knowledge of this secondary text to pre-structure (or rather post-structure) your interpretation of Lord of the Rings, it seems bizarre to believe that this later work is required in order to accurately understand the main text.

Most readers will approach the text somewhat more straightforwardly, and decode the text to mean that the Uruk-Hai of Isengard were distinct from the uruks of Mordor. Aragil has shown why this should be so on a number of occasions. While you do not accept these arguments, and wish to demonstrate by reference to unpublished or later works that the reader is 'wrong', in fact you are demonstrating the escape of the text from the author; and your own ability to impose meaning based on external reference points. In essence no different from ascribing pointy ears to Galadriel.

But you raise the case of Silmarils/Silmarilli. Silmarilli is present in the Appendix italicised, but nowhere does it appear not in italics. Silmarils is used, not in italics, in dialogue. Aragorn uses it, and we are told he is translating the Lay of Luthien from elvish into Westron. That is a case where 'anglicization' could be reasonably said to be occurring. There we have a known form in another language (Silmarilli in elvish) and a definite case of translation. By contrast, Uruk-Hai is only ever used in conversations conducted in the Common Tongue, so there is no need for anglicization.


----------



## Grsshnahg

This has been apparent to me ever since I read about the Olog-hai.

I've seen various attempts at assigning meaning to -hai. None of them seem to address several very central points...

The Uruk-hai think they're better than regular orcs(and men, and even, possibly Nazgul)

The Uruk-hai _are _ better than regular orcs. They can withstand the sun. This is a major innovation in orc genetics. Additionally, it is implied that they are smarter and stronger than your standard orc.

Uruk-hai is a name, which is why it's always capitalised.

Looking at those points, and then reading about the Olog-hai(which is also capitalised), and noting _their _ enhancements, we are brought to a logical conclusion.

-hai means 'high' 'special' 'better'. It is a suffix that denotes the enhanced nature of the bearer.

The two most common meanings that -hai is given are 'race' and 'man'. If it were 'race', then ALL uruks would be Uruk-hai. If it were 'man' then the distinctions that have already been noted in this thread would not be needed. In fact, there would be no need for the term at all, as 'half-orc', 'orc-men', and 'goblin-men' are all used _in addition to _ Uruk-hai.

This is not to say that Saruman didn't use humans when he was breeding the Uruk-hai(all the half-orcs would suggest that he was), it is to point out that Saruman thought his finished product was special. As Sauron thought his improved trolls were.


----------



## aragil

I agree with the gist of your argument (that Uruk-hai are distinct from Uruks), but I think some additional observations might be helpful. First off, Uruk-hai is an Orcish/Black-speech term, so while we have convenient names such as half-orc in English/Westron, it would hardly be redundant to have such a term in their native language. Second off, the point about "race" (or more properly "folk") making the terms "uruk-hai"/"uruks" equivalent is rather the point of the whole thread. I should say, if b.s. "hai"=folk, then Uruks is just an anglicization of Uruk-hai, and the two terms are relatively equivalent, in spite of the fact that Saruman's Orcs are quite distinct from Sauron's Uruks. Of course, that is not what I believe.


----------



## Grsshnahg

The redundancy I suggest comes not from the Uruk-hai themselves, but from the Company, who use the term distinctly from those others. Why would Aragorn or Gandalf choose to use black speech when they've got a word in the common tongue that already covers it?

While this does leave the precise meaning of -hai still undiscovered, it lets us eliminate errant possibilities.


----------



## Tanelorn

I don't know whether this is of any use to anyone, but here it is anyway,
http://www.tolkienonline.de/etep/Tolkien/O/Uruk-hai.html


----------



## MichaelMartinez

For those of you who are curious, I reposted my reply to Tar-Elenion from SF-FANDOM in a much shorter thread here (in the Tolkien Forum).


----------



## aragil

I really appreciated your reply to TE in the other thread. Many of your arguments had been raised before, some quite unsuccessfully by myself.

One matter I always found to be a rather slippery slope- uruks being a more general term, capable of application to Uruk-hai and non Uruk-hai alike. Both Greenwood and myself brought it up back in the days of yore (see here and here), but I always found it rather untenable. Of course, back then Greenwood and I were trying to show that Saruman's Orcs were differently abled than Sauron's, so that turned out to be a bit of a red herring.

I'm in absolute agreement with you in regards to the ambiguous nature of "rebel Uruk-hai". I actually was the first one on these boards to bring it up (back when God wore Huggies). To me the fact that there was no prior precedent for Uruk-hai referring to non-Isengarders sealed the deal, especially considering the humorous confusion in the rest of the orders of the tracker. To me, the oblique reference to Sam and Frodo as a 'great Elf' and sort of 'dwarf-man' respectively was amusing, and mistakenly referring to Gorbags rebellious scum as Isengarders fit much better into the passage than reading it as a completely accurate account, as TE was wont to do. I still say that that passage was a bit of a wink to the reader, much as Frodo's statement _'You and I, Sam, are still stuck in the worst places of the story, and it is all too likely that some will say at this point: "Shut the book now, dad; we don't want to read any more." '_

You also got my support for the metaphorical references of JRRT's letters. I always thought that 'hobbit amongst the urukhai' cinched it, but this argument has never seemed to enjoy simple answers.

On a final note, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about Tolkien errata. TE mentioned a possible publication of Tolkien's original LotR appendices by Wayne Hammond. The publication dates were set for 'Sept 2003' and sometime in 2004. Did anything ever become of this? It could be relatively informative to this debate, especially regarding the oft-used definition from UT.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

Mr. Hammond is not nor was he going to be publishing the index material (this from private correspondence on the subject), he is still hard at work on the Companion and Guide now due out next year because of all the new information that he has found (and other concerns such as work, this from a public post out in the newsgroups).
From a public reply by Mr. Hostetter in the newsgroups, he finds no reason to believe that CT did or would make up the UT index entry.


----------



## MichaelMartinez

Tar-Elenion said:


> From a public reply by Mr. Hostetter in the newsgroups, he finds no reason to believe that CT did or would make up the UT index entry.


The UT index entry, however, only refers to the Uruks in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen". The index itself was composed by Christopher SPECIFICALLY for _Unfinished Tales_.

There is, in fact, no reason (provided in any of the Tolkien texts) to believe that "Uruk-hai" is anything other than a tribal name.

But the argument will doubtless continue for years to come despite any supporting evidence for the contrary point of view. In Tolkien's usage, all Uruk-hai are Uruks, but not all Uruks are Uruk-hai. That usage can only change if someone publishes something written specifically by J.R.R. Tolkien in which he deliberately applies the terms interchangeably.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

CT used his fathers rough draft index for LotR for translations and wording of some definitions found in the UT index. CT states that the defining statements are not restricted to matters mentioned in UT. 
Otherwise you have your opinion I have mine.


----------



## aragil

Ugh. Just re-read your post about Mr. Hammond's intentions. A chronology (rather than a publishing of notes and other materials) is decidedly less useful in regards to the debate.

I'll agree with you on the last bit- opinions seem to be what we are left with. However, it is worth noting (one last time, hopefully) that even with Tolkien's revisions to Ms. Smith's index, Uruk-hai was never equated with Uruks in the LotR index. Not that this is definitive proof by any stretch of the imaginition, but it is suggestive, and as such, better than nothing.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

We have already been through the 'cross-referencing' (and/or lack there-of) in the index. The suggestion is purely subjective.


----------



## aragil

Suggestive, subjective.

Potayto, potato.

Let's call the whole thing agreed upon.


----------



## MichaelMartinez

Tar-Elenion said:


> CT used his fathers rough draft index for LotR for translations and wording of some definitions found in the UT index. CT states that the defining statements are not restricted to matters mentioned in UT.
> Otherwise you have your opinion I have mine.


No, basically, you continue to insist on manufacturing facts on this one particular topic -- something highly uncharacteristic of your analyses of the texts, which are usually very, very well done.

Nowhere does Christopher Tolkien say or imply that his father prepared an index for _Unfinished Tales_, and the index published in that book was composed by Christopher specifically for that book.

You're not simply inferring a connection which has never been substantiated or supported by any text, you're assuming it's inherently self-evident, which it is not.

This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a matter of taking things in the proper context. The index entry in _Unfinished Tales_ only refers to "The Battles of the Fords of Isen". It doesn't refer directly or obliquely to _The Lord of the Rings_ and therefore has absolutely nothing to do with that book.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

No, you are manufacturing something I did not say. My facts are quite accurate. You are deliberately trying to distort what I said and create a strawman. 
CT specifically stated that he used his fathers rough draft index for LotR for translations and wording of some definitions found in the UT index. He specifically stated that the defining statements are not restricted to matters mentioned in the book. 

If you wish to continue you will desist from telling me what I am doing.


----------



## MichaelMartinez

Tar-Elenion said:


> No, you are manufacturing something I did not say. My facts are quite accurate. You are deliberately trying to distort what I said and create a strawman.


Nonsense. It is you who insist on distorting Christopher Tolkien's index for _Unfinished Tales_ into something written by Tolkien as a comment on the use of "uruks" and "uruk-hai".

Christopher's specific statement in no way implies that an entry clearly referring solely to "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" was in any way prepared for _The Lord of the Rings_.

Feel free to cite a definitive connection between the UT index entry and _The Lord of the Rings_. I've been waiting a long time for you or ANYONE to do so.

So far, nothing has been forthcoming.

I suggest we let this matter rest for now. Nothing new is being said (again).


----------



## Tar-Elenion

I gave you fair warning to desist. You Michael, are trying to create a strawman. I am not going to play along with it. It bores me immensely. You pretend to claim a distortion when, in fact, it is you doing the distorting. What I stated was accurate. The quotes have been supplied in this thread. 

Now lets see if you can follow your own suggestion.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Thread closed until further notice.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Thread reopened.

The offending posts have been deleted. 

*DO NOT*, under any circumstances, start up a personal affair again. If you have something to say on the topic of the thread, by all means say it. Be polite, be open-minded and take personal matters to PM/email.

Thank you.


----------



## Rakh

We cannot tell for SURE who Tolkien meant to be the ancestors of the Uruk-hai--the origins of all Orcs are shrouded in mystery according to the book, and Saruman is not about to tell Gandalf or another one of the good guys what he did (and most of the book is written in limited-omniscient perspective)--but putting in my two cents, I would side with the "Uruk-hai as part-humans" theory. I would like to make several further points, and I hope I am not repeating anything already discussed:

I. References to other hybrid creatures, i.e. Halfelven and men with elvish blood. Elrond and Aragorn, to name one of each, are referred to as an "Elf" and a "Man" respectively in most instances throughout the book. Even though they contain characteristics of both races, their hybrid nature is mentioned only occasionally when referring to their races. Thus, even if the Uruk-hai and Ruffians really are orc/human hybrids (the former with more orc characteristics, the latter with more human characteristics) it is consistent with the rest of the text to refer to them merely as "Orcs" (even "Uruks") and "Men." If the precedent of the elf/humans is to be taken, it should be possible for hybrid orc/humans to "choose" one race while still retaining characteristics of the other. Perhaps it is to be expected that some become "Orcs" and others "Men." I suspect Gamling's comment about the "half-orcs and goblin-men" in Helm's Deep may be phrased that way to emphasize the atrocity of interbreeding orcs and humans, which is different from the mere fact that Saruman has orcs in his keeping. "Half-orcs" and "goblin-men" might not be separated in that line were they the same type of creature.

For the moment at least, I will leave it open that "Uruk-hai" is a plural of "Uruk," and other "Uruk-hai" which are full-blooded or even part-human orcs may possibly belong to Sauron, even though I do not believe the context of the books support these assertions. I am merely claiming that "Uruks"/"Uruk-hai" need not mean full-blooded orcs.

II. Behavior of Saruman's Uruk-hai. Although Orcs as characters are poorly developed, the battle cry of the Uruk-hai, "We are the fighting Uruk-hai!" appears to show more camaraderie, in the human sense, than anything uttered by Misty Mountains or Mordor orcs. In fact, it sounds almost collegiate. A Google search for "We are the fighting," in addition to this page, yields "We are the fighting Irish" (Notre Dame), "We are the fighting Illini" (U-Illinois), "We are the fighting Gamecocks" (U-South Carolina), etc. "We do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm" (Uruk-hai at Helm's Deep) perhaps resembles "Our hearts shall give while we do live" (Princeton University fight song) and has somewhat of the same meaning. Grishnakh and the Misty Mountains Orcs fail to respond in kind, even when presented with the opportunity to do so. In the scene where Merry and Pippin are captured, all the orc parties verbally attack one another, but it is only the Uruk-hai of Saruman that extol the virtues of their master, such as the fact that he gives them "man's-flesh" to eat. ("This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat" Exodus 16:15, referring to the manna that rained down from heaven for the Israelites.) Grishnakh, for example, shows great ambivalence about the Nazgul awaiting on the river bank, even in front of his enemies. I wonder wherein the difference lies?

--I am Rakh. I hold an undergraduate degree, with honors, in ecology and evolutionary biology from the Ivy League. I have spoken.


----------



## Maerbenn

Rakh said:


> Elrond and Aragorn, to name one of each, are referred to as an "Elf" and a "Man" respectively in most instances throughout the book.


Could you please show us where Elrond is referred to as an Elf?


----------



## Ancalagon

He is generally referred to as 'halfelven' however, the lineage of Elrond is clear in that his elven heritage is unquestionable;



> `You remember?' said Frodo, speaking his thought aloud in his astonishment. `But I thought,' he stammered as Elrond turned towards him, 'I thought that the fall of Gil-galad was a long age ago.'
> 'So it was indeed,' answered Elrond gravely. `But my memory reaches back even to the Elder Days. Eärendil was my sire, who was born in Gondolin before its fall; and my mother was Elwing, daughter of Dior, son of Lúthien of Doriath. I have seen three ages in the West of the world, and many defeats, and many fruitless victories.



Certainly not Elf alone, but greatest of any called halfelven'. Actually, there is a question for you, Is Elrond the most renowned Half-Elven?


----------



## Grond

Ancalagon said:


> He is generally referred to as 'halfelven' however, the lineage of Elrond is clear in that his elven heritage is unquestionable;
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not Elf alone, but greatest of any called halfelven'. Actually, there is a question for you, Is Elrond the most renowned Half-Elven?


Tricksy, Tricksy, Tricksy. Of course he was not. The most renowned Half-Elven would have been Luthien. 

Hope I didn't spoil your party.



Rakh said:


> We cannot tell for SURE who Tolkien meant to be the ancestors of the Uruk-hai--the origins of all Orcs are shrouded in mystery according to the book, and Saruman is not about to tell Gandalf or another one of the good guys what he did (and most of the book is written in limited-omniscient perspective)--but putting in my two cents, I would side with the "Uruk-hai as part-humans" theory. I would like to make several further points, and I hope I am not repeating anything already discussed:
> 
> I. References to other hybrid creatures, i.e. Halfelven and men with elvish blood. Elrond and Aragorn, to name one of each, are referred to as an "Elf" and a "Man" respectively in most instances throughout the book. Even though they contain characteristics of both races, their hybrid nature is mentioned only occasionally when referring to their races. Thus, even if the Uruk-hai and Ruffians really are orc/human hybrids (the former with more orc characteristics, the latter with more human characteristics) it is consistent with the rest of the text to refer to them merely as "Orcs" (even "Uruks") and "Men." If the precedent of the elf/humans is to be taken, it should be possible for hybrid orc/humans to "choose" one race while still retaining characteristics of the other. Perhaps it is to be expected that some become "Orcs" and others "Men." I suspect Gamling's comment about the "half-orcs and goblin-men" in Helm's Deep may be phrased that way to emphasize the atrocity of interbreeding orcs and humans, which is different from the mere fact that Saruman has orcs in his keeping. "Half-orcs" and "goblin-men" might not be separated in that line were they the same type of creature.
> 
> For the moment at least, I will leave it open that "Uruk-hai" is a plural of "Uruk," and other "Uruk-hai" which are full-blooded or even part-human orcs may possibly belong to Sauron, even though I do not believe the context of the books support these assertions. I am merely claiming that "Uruks"/"Uruk-hai" need not mean full-blooded orcs.
> 
> II. Behavior of Saruman's Uruk-hai. Although Orcs as characters are poorly developed, the battle cry of the Uruk-hai, "We are the fighting Uruk-hai!" appears to show more camaraderie, in the human sense, than anything uttered by Misty Mountains or Mordor orcs. In fact, it sounds almost collegiate. A Google search for "We are the fighting," in addition to this page, yields "We are the fighting Irish" (Notre Dame), "We are the fighting Illini" (U-Illinois), "We are the fighting Gamecocks" (U-South Carolina), etc. "We do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm" (Uruk-hai at Helm's Deep) perhaps resembles "Our hearts shall give while we do live" (Princeton University fight song) and has somewhat of the same meaning. Grishnakh and the Misty Mountains Orcs fail to respond in kind, even when presented with the opportunity to do so. In the scene where Merry and Pippin are captured, all the orc parties verbally attack one another, but it is only the Uruk-hai of Saruman that extol the virtues of their master, such as the fact that he gives them "man's-flesh" to eat. ("This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat" Exodus 16:15, referring to the manna that rained down from heaven for the Israelites.) Grishnakh, for example, shows great ambivalence about the Nazgul awaiting on the river bank, even in front of his enemies. I wonder wherein the difference lies?
> 
> --I am grondRakh. I hold an undergraduate degree, with honors, in ecology and evolutionary biology from the Ivy League. I have spoken.


ROFL! I also agree that the Orc of Saruman were stouter and definately operated as units. Ironically, it was a Mordor Orc, Grishnak (sp) who had the cunning and strength to flee with Merry and Pippin. While the fighting Uruk-hai were being slaughtered by the men of the Riddermark, Grishnak very nearly escaped with the treasure. 

I would like to discuss the Uruk-hai versus Uruk issue again and will begin reviewing all my material again over the next month to make an intelligent presentation of my opinion.

--I am grond. I hold an undergraduate degree, without honors, in accounting, business and marketing from a highly reputable Central Louisiana University. I have also read the works of Tolkien about 22,000,000 times. I have spoked.

Cheers,

grond


----------



## aragil

The clock is ticking, o Grond-iose one, and a month has come and gone. Not that I'm going to lecture anyone on sticking to deadlines for turning in work on _U v. U-h_- I'm still compiling my view of the argument for the folks at Encyclopedia of Arda. Hey, are those guys still around?
Yes, yes they are. Back to work then. Let's see what you come up with, G-man.


----------



## Elthir

Maybe PE17 will have something relevant to this thread. Part of the announcement reads: 

"Parma Eldalamberon," 'The Book of Elven-tongues', is a journal of the Elvish
Linguistic Fellowship, a special interest group of the Mythopoeic Society.
The current issue is a commentary by J. R. R. Tolkien from the late 1950s and early 1960s concerning the words and names from his invented languages incorporated into The Lord of the Rings. This commentary has been edited and annotated by Christopher Gilson, with the permission and guidance of Christopher Tolkien and the Tolkien Estate.​ 
"Words, Phrases and Passages" is a collection of notes on the Quenya, Sindarin, Dwarvish, Rohirric and Black Speech examples occurring in "The Lord of the Rings," with detailed translations and syntactic explanations, together with a discussion of the etymologies of the various words and names. For the Elvish examples these are traced back to their Common Eldarin roots. The entries were arranged by Tolkien in the order in which the words and phrases occurred in the story and this arrangement has been preserved in this edition.​ 
Although Tolkien never completed the commentary as originally planned, he
retained the more cursory list of words and names from which he was working; and he continued to compose further notes on the grammar and history of the Elvish words and names in the story. Many of these were placed together with "Words, Phrases and Passages," and the main commentary has been supplemented by these notes in this edition. Together these texts give the clearest picture we have of how Tolkien conceived of his linguistic inventions in the forms they were revealed to his readers.​ 
My copy has been ordered but has not arrived yet. But again, _maybe_


----------



## Elthir

Actually it arrived today! Here's something...

'The debased form of the B. S. which survived in the Third Age only in the Dark Tower is seen in a few names (as Uruk-hai 'Orc-folk') and the fragment of vituperation uttered by one of Grishnakh's companions, emissaries from Sauron.'​ 
From _Words, Phrases and Passages_ Parma Eldalamberon 17


----------



## aragil

Perhaps settling what the words themselves mean, at least. For those of us who are not possessed of PE, and who are yet still attempting to unravel what was said by JRRT, what was said by CT, and what was said by various editors and annotators, could you (Galin) if possible expound on your excerpt, and tell us if this comes from Mr. Gilson, Mr. Tolkien JR, or Mr. Tolkien Sr?

I'm still a bit confused personally by Tolkien continually referring to Grishnakh's companion as a servant of the Dark Tower. The utterance in the 'black speech' (referred in appendix F and elsewhere here in this thread) is indisputably made by Pippin's yellow-fanged guard, who is almost immediately killed by Uglúk's mates, and who is later (chronologically, actually earlier in the text) described by Aragorn as one of the "Northern Orcs from far away".


----------



## Elthir

Sure, the context in general is the Black Speech on the Ring. After a note B krimp-, tie, bind, there is the following in PE17:

'The Black Speech was not intentionally modeled on any style, but was meant to be self-consistent, very different from Elvish, yet organized and expressive, as would be expected of a device of Sauron before his complete corruption. It was evidently an agglutinative language, and the verbal system must have included pronominal suffixes expressing the object, as well as those indicating the subject: -ul is a pl. objective, translated 'them', and -ûk an element meaning 'the whole, all' (thrakatalûk I 267 is a misprint for -ulûk, as correctly written in the flame letters). The stem burz 'dark' is also found in the later Lugbûrz = Barad-dûr; in the archaic ring-inscription burzumishi is evidently made up of this stem + a particularizing suffix or 'article' um, and an enclitic 'preposition' ishi 'in, inside'. The debased form of the B. S. which survived in the Third Age only in the Dark Tower is seen in a few names (as Uruk-hai 'Orc-folk') and the fragment of vituperation uttered by one of Grishnakh's companions, emissaries from Sauron. I have tried to play fair linguistically, and it is meant to have a meaning and not to be a mere casual group of nasty noises, though an accurate translation would even nowadays only be printable in the higher and artistically more advanced forms of literature. According to my taste such things are best left to Orcs, ancient and modern.' ​
The editorial note which follows explains: 'This is from the carbon copy of a letter to Mr. W. R. Matthews (dated 13-15 June 1964), which Tolkien placed in the same file with the manuscript of 'Words, Phrases and Passages' (...).'

The editorial note is longer, explaining agglutinative language and other things.


----------



## aragil

Thanks, Galin!

Well, I'd say "Uruk-hai" as "Orc-men" is out for sure now, regardless of how nice of a theory it might have been. Still not sure if the term Uruk-hai only strictly applies to Saruman's troops, or to all "great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard".

Certainly I think I can show that Tolkien considered Saruman's troops to be uniquely different from Sauron's from conception, and  described them quite differently in the text. Additionally, I can show that the distinction between the two types of Orcs goes back to Tolkien's conception of the passages refferring to soldier orcs of Isengard and Mordor. The only remaining question is, did Tolkien intend that the two different terms (U and U-h) distinguished between the two different races of soldier orcs, or that both types were equally U and U-h (as suggested in appendix F), and that qualifiers such as "U-h of Isengard" were the manner of distinguishing Saruman's rare breed.
Certainly Uruks is anglicized something, and barring discovery of another BS plural term with 'uruk' in it, we're probably at the end of the argument (famous last words).


----------



## Gordis

It is an awesome thread - and I am a late-comer. I have once posted the following on another forum:

About “uruks” and “uruk-hai”: the words mean almost the same. The latter word means uruk-people - uruks as race. 
I recommend this article on the Black Speech and its similarities with Hittite language http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/orkish.htm

But the fact that they were called by the same word doesn’t mean that Mordor and Isengard uruks were the same race.

The Black Uruks of Mordor I believe had NO mannish blood added in the Third Age (I leave out the question of the origin of orcs back in Utumno). I think they were simply the result of artificial selection among orcs. Sauron (or the Witck.King, or both) took the biggest , fittest and most resistant to light (therefore with the darkest skin) and bred them over and over again for several generations. 
Here is a quote from HOME 12, the draft for Appendix A:


> 10. Denethor I. born 2375 lived 102 years died 2477. Great troubles arose in his day. The Morgul-lords having bred in secret a fell race of black Orcs in Mordor assail Ithilien and over-run it.


 It doesn’t seem there was any interbreeding with men involved, or it would have been mentioned. 

As for the Isengarders, I think that the words of Treebeard (1) and especially the quote from Morgoth’s Ring (2) leave no doubt that an interbreeding program of Man and orcs DID indeed take place in Isengard. 



> 1. " For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman’s Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are the Men he has ruined, or has he blended the races of orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!" (The Two Towers, Treebeard)





> 2. Finally, there is a cogent point, though horrible to relate. It became clear in time that undoubted Men could under the dominion of Morgoth or his agents in a few generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning. There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning and Orc-men treacherous and vile." (HoMe X: Morgoth’s Ring, Myths Transformed, Text X) )



There is a very important question: * When did the interbreeding program start?* - At the earliest, it might have started after 2759 when Saruman took possession of Isengard. He desired to emulate Sauron for a long time – studying the Ring-lore, and breeding-lore (quote 2) as well. Quote 2 tells us that he rediscovered Morgoth’s secret himself. 
Alternatively, the breeding could have started much later, when Saruman became ensnared by Sauron via his palantir (TA 3000 according to the Tale of Years). 
This quote from UT that was brought to my attention in one of the replies dates the breeding program TA 2990.


> 'The Council seems to have been unaware, since for many years Isengard had been closely guarded, of what went on within its Ring. The use, and possibly special breeding, of Orcs was kept secret, and cannot have begun much before 2990 at earliest. The Orc-troops seem never to have been used beyond the territory of Isengard before the attack on Rohan.' Unfinished Tales



If Saruman’s interbreeding program was THAT recent –30 years before the War of the Ring - there is indeed no way for all ten thousand of Sariman’s uruks to be cross-breeds. Just not enough time.

Some great uruks were already in Saruman’s service prior to 3000. 


> "Eomer was born in 2991, and ... Eowyn ... in 2995. At that time Sauron had arisen again.... Orcs began to raid in the eastern regions. ... Others also came down from the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman, though it was long before that was suspected (Appendix A, THE KINGS OF THE MARK, The Third Line).


He had got some Mordorian Black uruks from Moria, it seems. Moria was populated by "Sauron’s creatures" since 2500, probably the same black uruk race that was spotted in Minas Morgul in 2475. Others may have been deserters from Mordor, because, as we know from Gorbag and Shagrat, going away to roam in free bands was the sweetest dream of Sauron’s uruks. Perhaps some have found their way to Saruman’s service even prior to Sauron’s return to Mordor.
As Saruman’s uruk-hai were black skinned, there is no doubt that the genetic material used for their "production" were Mordorian black uruks, not white-skinned "maggots" from Moria.

*As to the method:* Did Saruman go to such lengths as Morgoth did? (Quote2:"undoubted Men could under the dominion of Morgoth or his agents in a few generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with Orcs” ) - I bet, not. He didn’t have time to train Men for even "a few generations" and he had not Morgoth’s power to pervert creatures. I am sure he took the easiest way, capturing women from Rohan and maybe Dunland and giving them to his uruks. 
The program, undoubtedly, started as small-scale experiment. Of course, not everyone of Saruman’s 10000 uruks had a human mother. The disappearance of several thousand women from the area could not have remained unnoticed. No, I think less than a hundred women taken in raids over the years were used. 

It is quite disgusting to talk about, so I will concentrate only on *genetics* Let us look at what happened when Saruman crossed a black uruk with a white-skinned blue eyed captive woman. Both white skin and blue eyes may be considered (with some simplification) recessive genes. The first generation would be much like their fathers, with the skin color maybe only a shade lighter. Recessive genes would not be expressed. The first generation would be practically undistinguishable from black uruks. But, if we hypothesize that "resistance to light" is a dominant gene, then this first generation, unlike their fathers, would be resistant to light. 
Also these half-breeds would call themselves "uruk-hai", like their fathers did. (I doubt that raised under Saruman’s tutelage they would be proud of their human ancestry or if they even knew about it – likely they were told that their superior abilities were a result of “good training”).

Then, as in the first generation of cross-breeds there were undoubtedly both males and females, Saruman simply made them mate with each other. And here, in total accordance with Mendel’s laws, the recessive genes, inherited from grandmothers, started to appear in about a third of the group. In the third and later generations more recessive genes were expressed, so the mixed-blood population (still in fact 50% orc 50% human) became more and more heterogeneous, human and orc features appearing in different combinations. And here some would be called "Men-orcs" and used for spying, some would be called "Orc-Men", and the majority of the group, with the dominant genes expressed, would make some of Saruman’s best fighting uruk-hai we meet in the LOTR. Some others would be cross-breeds between half-orcs and orcs. Perhaps even 25% of human blood would assure the resistance to light.

As a side note, in a part of the second and further generations the recessive "fear of light" gene will reappear. I think those unfortunate uruk-babies were simply eliminated.

What I am trying to point out is that one will never get a homogenous population as a result of interbreeding very different genetic material. There would be inevitably those who looked like Black uruks but also those that could be called Men-Orcs and Orc-Men, especially in the second etc. generations. And a white-skinned Orc-Man could be a brother of one of the "uruk-hai".


----------



## Elthir

By the way, there is actually another instance, so just to note it as well:


*B Urukhai*
_Uruk-hai_ 'Orc-folk'​ 
This instance is with respect to the word appearing in the appendices, and so appears much later in PE17.


----------



## tom hyle

Wow; the detail of discussion....many years and many concussions ago I read the Lord of the Rings repeatedly. My impressions from that time could be mistaken, but it always seemed clear to me that while there were many tribes/races/breeds (terms often used interchangeably in older writings in the English language) of orcs mentioned and implied, a few by name (black orc, red orc, Misty Mountain goblins), uruk-hai were something different though related, and specific to Saruman. As such I do find it unremarkable that the author felt no need to make it more clear, since it was already seemingly clear.

More in the way of questions than answers on perepheral matters brought up in the few pages of this thread I've read so far:

I recall a single reference to "half orcs" as such in LOTR; it was early in the novel, and if I recall correctly one or more of them were nosing around the Shire looking for Bagginses and trying to pass as human. It was not my impression that Uruk-hai were specifically related to these, though at that point in the novel we had not yet heard of Uruk-hai.

"the land of Mordor where the shadow lies" hmmm......shadow=darkness=protection from light.....Sauron is the Necromancer (Saruman is the White wizard, and in color theory all colors come together to form white, so Saruman of many colors remains in some sense a reinterpretted white); dead and undead things are not held to like bright light, in tradional folk-lore, are blinded, weakened, or otherwise offput by it, but it rarely does any specific harm to them, though there are occasional stories of trolls who turn to stone in sunlight; sometimes they turn back if not shattered. Orcs are made from elves; it has been said in another thread that they are undead elves of some kind, which I find an interesting concept. Are female orcs ever mentioned?

re the author's comment about a movie being infeasible, I suspect it had far more to do with the length and complexity of the novel than with special effects. The recent movie is very very long for a movie, so much so as to (like the novel) be broken into three segments for ready consumption, each of which is still exceptionally long for an entertainment film. Even so, a great deal has been left out; not just events and characters but whole themes such as the pagan Earth-gods (including Tom Bambadil; Beorn (yes, from The Hobbit); a more in-tune people, the woses/wildmen, known to our time as bigfoot; and the attitudes and powers of the forest/vegetable-related [gi]ents/tree-shepherds; my Catholic brother and sister in law uncomfortably changed the subject after raving joyously about the movie's suposed Christian themes at mention of this); the symbolism of the Necromancer's world of Death, fire, greed, and shadow representing modern industrial society; and the secret value of the marginalized, addressed only in reference to the smallness of hobbits in the movie, quite memorable and striking in the book in attitudes toward the disreputable poor dirty homeless rangers that culminated in Strider's all that glitters is not gold speach. (the strider we don't yet know isn't anywhere near scary enough in the movie, and he doesn't even scare Sam with his broken sword though he did in the cartoon version; in the newer movie he doesn't even carry it around, but it is apparently at Rivendel) 

Kept was the latent racism about the dark evil men from the South, probably for the appeal of their likely oversized oliphants, and added was a renaissancy brothers Hildebrandt look that obscures the early-medieval trappings of the novel.

Pretty mixed bag ramblings, I know; My taste for serious scholarship these days is toward blade making, design, and use; and human psychology and sociology (group behavior is neccessarily important for a perpetual outsider like me to understand) but some of these thoughts may give a jumping-point or something for those who make a study of LOTR. I stumbled on this forum while reading about orcne/orcneas creatures of medieval myth.


----------

