Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

[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.]

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]

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]

[QUOTE]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)
[QUOTE]

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'.

[aragil]

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.]

"...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]

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]

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]

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 :D). 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 :D).

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]

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]

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 uruks". 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- [I]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- [I]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.

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]

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