Uruks vs. Uruk-hai [Archive] - Page 3

Greenwood

02-27-2002, 07:49 AM

I was saving this relisting of the examples for the 400th post but Eonwe stole that number. Anyway, I have redone the list of uses of the terms uruk/uruks/Uruks/Uruk-hai. In this new listing I have arranged the occurrences in the same sequence they appear in the book. I have renumbered them in this new sequence, but have used the computer software style of numbering, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc. to distinguish them from the older listings on this thread. I have also seperated out each usage as its own number (in the old list 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 were lumped and 2.17 and 2.18 were lumped). Example 2.16 is new since the last listing, having been found by Aragil since then.

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

2.2) This is not exactly a quote, but in The Two Towers, Tolkien titles his chapter "The Uruk-hai".

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

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

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

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

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

2.7) The passage in 2.6) continues: " 'The king stays or comes at his own will,' said Aragorn.

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

2.8) The passage in 2.7) continues: " 'I looked out to see the dawn,' said Aragorn.

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

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

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

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

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

2.13) In The Return of the King, at the end of the chapter The Land of the Shadow, while Sam and Frodo are masqerading as orcs: "A troop of heavy-armed uruks from Barad-dur charged into the Durthang line and threw them into confusion." (Italics in the original.)

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

2.15) In The Return of the King, in Appendix A it says: "In 2989 Theodwyn married Eomund of Eastfold, the chief Marshal of the Mark. Her son Eomer was borm in 2991, and her daughter Eowyn in 2995. At that time Sauron had arisen again, and the shadow of Mordor reached out to Rohan. Orcs began to raid in the eastern regions and slay or steal horses. Others also came down from the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman, though it was long before that was suspected."

2.16) In The Return of the King, in Appendix B, The Tale of Years, it says: "2901 Most of the remaining inhabitants of Ithilien desert it owing to the attacks of Uruks of Mordor."

2.17) In The Return of the King, in Appendix F it says: "Orc is the form of the name that other races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan. In Sindarin it was orch. Related. no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard." (Italics in the original.)

2.18) Directly following 2.17) above in Appendix F is: "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'." (Italics in the original.)

Continued in next post because of message length restrictions.

Greenwood

02-27-2002, 07:50 AM

Continued from last post.

So what do we have?

Uruks/uruks where it clearly refers to Mordor orcs: examples 2.1, 2.9, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.16. Total of 6 examples

Uruk-hai where it clearly refers to Isengard orcs: examples 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.10. Total of 8 examples

uruks referring to Isengard orcs: example 2.15. Total of 1 example

uruk referring to both Mordor and Isengard orcs: example 2.17. Total of 1 example.

Uruk-hai where it is not specified who is being referred to: example 2.11, 2.18. Total of 2 examples.

Notice I am not excluding any examples just because they are in the Appendices. I have never said that the Appendices should be ignored as Tar-Elenion as attempted to characterize my statements. I said that Tolkien said in his Introduction to the First Edition of LOTR that readers need not read the Appendices if they did not wish to. I said that based on that statement and normal usage of appendices in books, I consider it impossible that Tolkien would change the meaning of things in the main narrative by anything he wrote in the Appendices. Many foreign language editions of LOTR do not even include the Appendices. Some of these foreign editions certainly appeared during Tolkien's lifetime, the rest must be authorized by his estate. If the Appendices were essential to understanding the true meaning of things in LOTR, Tolkien and his estate would not allow what would be incomplete, and inaccurate versions of his work to be published. I do not believe Tolkien changed any meanings by what he wrote in the Appendices.

Let us look again at the usages. The first 13 are in the narrative proper and of these in 4 cases uruks/Uruks clearly refer to Mordor orcs and in 8 cases Uruk-hai clearly refers to Isengard orcs. The remaining instance is the much discussed soldier/tracker conversation (example 2.11); we will come back to this one. We have 5 examples in the Appendices. In two of these uruks clearly refers to Mordor orcs bringing that usage up to a total of six examples. In the remaining 3 cases, in one case Uruk-hai is not specified as to who it refers to (example 2.18), in one case uruks refers to Isengard orcs (2.15) and in one case uruk (2.17) refers to Mordor and Isengard orcs. This last case is unique in several ways. It is the only instance to in any way apply the same term to both Mordor and Isengard orcs, but it is the only case where the word uruk is used. It is also quite clear that the sense of the sentence here is linguistic and indeed the base word uruk is in both Uruks as applied to Mordor orcs and Uruk-hai as applied to Isengard orcs, so there is no conflict with the other usages. Example 2.15 does indeed have uruks applied to orcs in the employ of Saruman, but these are from a period approximately 30 years before the action of LOTR and there is no dispute that Saruman bred his own special orcs, so here we have the source of this special breed, the uruks before Saruman turned them into Uruk-hai. We are left now with only two examples (2.11 & 2.17). In both cases Uruk-hai is used without an immediate specification as to whose troops are being referred to. Given that we have 14 out of 18 examples that are clearly attributable, 6 for Uruks as Mordor orcs and 8 for Uruk-hai as Isengard orcs, by far the simplest, most logical conclusion is that these last two examples of Uruk-hai also refer to Isengard's troops, especially since there is not a single instance of Uruk-hai ever referring to Mordor troops. Thus 14 out of 18 examples require no special explanation as to what they mean; two (2.11 & 2.17) are easily assigned based on the other uses, one fits the other uses when we consider its time period (2.15) and the last (2.17) refers to the root word uruk common to both names and is so stated. Only one case, example 2.15 requires the least explanation.

In opposition to this simple explanation of the uses of Uruks and Uruk-hai in LOTR we have Tar-Elenion's and ShagratU's efforts to equate the two terms which require that virtually every one of the 18 examples have its own special explanation for why it does not refer to what the term in a simple, straight forward reading seems to refer to. We are told that "of Isengard" does not mean that the Uruk-hai are from Isengard but implies something different. We are told that we aren't really hearing Mordor orcs call themselves Uruks. We are told that when some character speak Westron they use one word, but when other characters also speak Westron they use a different word. In short many special cases instead of accepting that Tolkien meant what he wrote. And the whole rational for this is example 2.17 found in the end of the Appendices in a linguistic section. In other words Tolkien was such a bad writer that only those who carefully read the all the Appendices will be let in on the secret. Oh yes, the other initiates into the secret will be those readers who read personal family letters and a manuscript not written until nearly 20 years after LOTR and that Tolkien never intended the public to see (at least in its unfinished form). Yes, Tar-Elenion's and ShagratU's arguments are much simpler than merely accepting what Tolkien wrote in LOTR. :)

Greenwood

02-27-2002, 04:48 PM

Quote by Tar-Elenion
I dont think Aragil has shown this. The meaning of the terms did not change. 'Uruk' and 'Uruk-hai' always referred to Orcs (even if 'figuratively'). I do not think JRRT changed his mind. He always applied the terms to Orcs (even if 'figuratively').

Of course, Uruks and Uruk-hai always referred to orcs. The question is do they refer to the same orcs? They do not.

a few quotes of Tar-Elenion's from various posts
The App. F and Q&E both note that the lesser breeds were called 'snaga'. That is what Shagrat is calling this lesser breed Orc. POV is important.

It fits in perfectly with all the other instances. As is noted in App. F Orcs of different breeds speak Common to each other, Black Speech was the 'language of Barad-dur and the captains of Mordor'. The explanation is not convoluted, it is provided by the author.

App. F where we see that 'uruk' applies to both the Mordoreans and the Isengarders, and that the lesser breeds are called 'snaga' by the Uruk-hai (and we have both Isengarders and Mordoreans who call a lesser breed orc 'Snaga' in the narrative).

This would be App. F where we learn that the Uruk-hai call lesser Orcs 'snaga'. A single entry for Snaga, with its uses treated exactly the same and the reader is referred to App. F for clarification of who it is used for and who uses it.

I have not used any quotes from ShagratU so that you do not have to speak for him. But we see from the above quotes your repeated insistence that to understand LOTR a reader must read the Appendices. I repeat that Tolkien would not write in such a way that a reader would be misled unless he/she read the Appendices. Tolkien was not that bad a writer and there is no evidence that he played those sorts of head games with his readers. I do not think the Appendices contradict anything in the narrative and I do not think that they must be read to understand the narrative.

Grond

02-27-2002, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Greenwood
I have not used any quotes from ShagratU so that you do not have to speak for him. But we see from the above quotes your repeated insistence that to understand LOTR a reader must read the Appendices. I repeat that Tolkien would not write in such a way that a reader would be misled unless he/she read the Appendices. Tolkien was not that bad a writer and there is no evidence that he played those sorts of head games with his readers. I do not think the Appendices contradict anything in the narrative and I do not think that they must be read to understand the narrative. Here I disagree with you Greenwood. JRRT used the appendices for the very reason you state he would not have. That is to enlighten the reader and to expand upon the information by adding more color and detail. We hear that Merry's horn comes from the hoard of Scatha the Worm. The appendix gives a little more information on that. One of the very reasons we should pay close attention to the appendices is that the author apparently did not like to revise his works. His letters make it clear that he had neither the time nor the inclination to go through the massive corrections that would be necessary to bring all his works into accordance. He still tried and a much truer concordance was brought to the texts in 1987 when CT made revisions.

What is illogical in this thread is the fact that you choose to ignore CT as simply another third party. The LotR as it is published today has changes in it made by the Estate. It is they who own and control all supportive and ancillary material. It was CT who worked for years with his father in a supportive role. It was CT who was appointed the literary executor by JRRT himself. I would think that his input would have significant meaning to the discussion and his commentary would have very meaningful weight in these matters. I am not saying that his entry the Uruks = anglication of Uruk-hai is definitive but that it should definately bear substantially more weight than any statement by Foster who didn't have access nor the time to comb through all the reference material as has CT.

I am also disturbed that people continue to talk in the definitive voice on this thread. No one on this thread has proven anything one way or the other. The reason for that is that the Uruk versus Uruk-hai issue is one of opinion and one that you can not prove scientifically or linguistically no matter how hard one wants to. That occurs because there is not a consistency of use throughout. The linguists have to come up with "reaching" arguments of point of view and the scientists must show statistical charts in attempts to prove their points.

All in all, it boils down to a simple argument... if the two Orcs at outside of Cirith Ungol were referring to the rebel Uruk-hai as being the orcs of Minas Morgul then there is the proof that Uruk-hai was an interchangeable term for Uruk. If it refers to a group of sneaky, Saruman intruders then it would appear the terms are not interchangeable.

Greenwood

02-28-2002, 03:15 AM

Here I disagree with you Greenwood. JRRT used the appendices for the very reason you state he would not have. That is to enlighten the reader and to expand upon the information by adding more color and detail. We hear that Merry's horn comes from the hoard of Scatha the Worm. The appendix gives a little more information on that. One of the very reasons we should pay close attention to the appendices is that the author apparently did not like to revise his works. His letters make it clear that he had neither the time nor the inclination to go through the massive corrections that would be necessary to bring all his works into accordance.

Grond

I am not saying we should ignore the Appendices (as Tar-Elenion has tried to characterize my position). Of course, the Appendices give us lots of new and expanded information. I am saying that Tolkien would not use the Appendices to contradict things in the narrative. I am unaware of any instances of his doing this. If there are such instances then I think you have already provided the guide in your above statement to resolving such a contradiction when you say Tolkien "had neither the time nor the inclination to go through the massive corrections that would be necessary to bring all his works into accordance". In such a case the narrative proper should trump the Appendices. But, I do not think Tolkien contradicts the narrative in the Appendices, so if there is an interpretation of material in the Appendices that does contradict the narrative, I submit that the interpretation must be considered to be wrong.

What is illogical in this thread is the fact that you choose to ignore CT as simply another third party.

CT is a third party. He may be more knowledgeable than the rest of us, but he is not his father. There is nothing in any of the books published by CT that states that equating Uruks and Uruk-hai in LOTR was his father's idea.

All in all, it boils down to a simple argument... if the two Orcs at outside of Cirith Ungol were referring to the rebel Uruk-hai as being the orcs of Minas Morgul

Of course, Gorbag and his boys were the basis for the rumor, as Sam was the basis for the warrior Elf rumor and Frodo was the basis for the dwarf-man rumor. The point, however, is that all three rumors are wrong and both the narrator of the story and we, the readers, know they are wrong. Tolkien is telling us here how totally confused the "higher-ups" are by what happened in Cirith Ungol. We know there was no warrior elf, we know there was no dwarf-man, we know there were no rebel Uruk-hai and we certainly know that there was not a combination of all three. To insist that there were indeed rebel Uruk-hai means that this is the one rumor of the four that is correct. It is illogical to assume that Tolkien meant for us to think that this one rumor was true when we know all the others are wrong. We are in on the joke on the "higher-ups", we know the basis of the rumors and we know they are wrong. Rumors often have some basis in fact, as these do, but you have to ask yourself as the reader. Is there really a warrior elf loose in Mordor? No, it was Sam who is anything but a warrior elf. Is there really a "dwarf-man" around? No, it was Frodo; and remember hobbits consider themselves distinct from the "Big People". A hobbit would never consider himself a "dwarf-man". Was there really a bunch of "rebel Uruk-hai" as we have come to understand Uruk-hai in the narrative, that is Saruman's troops? No, of course not, there was a falling out of Mordor orcs arguing over the swag. Finally, there certainly was not a warrior elf a dwarf-man and a bunch of rebel Uruk-hai all at the same time attacking Cirith Ungol, whether in concert or independently. The point is, we the readers, no all of these suugested possibilities are absurd.

Grond

02-28-2002, 03:59 AM

Greenwood, I'm not really arguing with you. I just find it odd that you are definitive that the two Orcs are stating that all three of the assumptions are wrong. The perception was that there was a great Elf-warrior and a small Dwarf-man and rebel Uruk-hai (from wherever). We, the reader, know those statements are incorrect, but I don't feel either of the two Orcs knew which were right and which were wrong or whether all the three statements together were right or wrong. I don't see it that way and I don't see any single definitive in any argument presented here by either side.

I personally see the sheer number of Uruk-hai descriptives as weighing more in favor of them being Saruman's exclusive description of his specific breed but there is no definitive evidence presented here at all, only conflicting and conflicted evidence.

Greenwood

02-28-2002, 06:14 AM

We, the reader, know those statements are incorrect, but I don't feel either of the two Orcs knew which were right and which were wrong or whether all the three statements together were right or wrong. I don't see it that way

Grond

Look at the entire conversation between the two orcs:

"Hardly twenty paces from where the hobbits lurked the small orc stopped. 'Nar!' it snarled. 'I'm going home.' It pointed across the valley to the orc-hold. 'No good wearing my nose out on stones anymore. There's not a trace left, I say. I've lost the scent through giving way to you. It went up into the hills, not along the valley, I tell you.'
" 'Not much use are you, you little snufflers?' said the big orc. 'I reckon eyes are better than your snotty noses.'
" 'Then what have you seen with them?' snarled the other. 'Garn! You don't even know what you're looking for.'
" 'Whose blame's that?" said the soldier. 'Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together.'
" 'Ar!' said the tracker. 'They've lost their heads, that's what it is. And some of the bosses are going to lose their skins too, I guess, if what I hear is true: Tower raided and all, and hundreds of your lads done in, and prisoner got away. If that's the way you fighters go on, small wonder there's bad news from the battles.' " [emphasis added]

To me, it seems clear you have two very frustrated orcs who are complaining they don't know what they are looking for. The soldier orc says it isn't his fault, because look at the ridiculous stories he has been given. I can't think of a better description of this than sarcasm. We, the reader, know these rumors are ridiculous, and it seems, so does this soldier orc. But, evidently you don't think it is clear, so I guess we will just "agree to disagree".

Grond

02-28-2002, 06:40 AM

Cian

02-28-2002, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by aragil
Imagine what would happen to her theory if someone ...

Helge is a man :) (f. Helga).

Greenwood

02-28-2002, 02:16 PM

Greenwood, I absolutely agree that they don't know what they're looking for. They appear confused and also apparently feel the higher ups are morons and confused as well; however, my point does not change one whit. There is absolutely no clarity in the statements as to what they are meaning when the say Uruk-hai. They may be referring to rebel Isengarders or they may be referring to Gorbag's Cirith Ungol Uruks who have already been referred to as rebels by Shagrat.

Grond

The point that Aragil and I make is that there is clarity as to what the meaning of Uruk-hai is here. Forget all the arguments that have gone back and forth on this thread. Look at it for a moment as you did when you first read LOTR. At this point in LOTR, the term Uruk-hai has occurred eight times. In everyone of those cases Uruk-hai has clearly referred to Saruman's elite troops. As a first time reader, who would you think these "rebel Uruk-hai" are? Do you think that any author, least of all an author as good as Tolkien (or his editors for that matter), would suddenly on this ninth occasion change the meaning of the term? It would be completely unfair to the readers, none of whom would get it. If Tolkien meant us to think Mordor orcs were being referred to, why not use Uruks here? The term has already been used twice in the narrative, both times in reference to Mordor orcs. Why would Tolkien so confuse his readers?

I also find it odd that your agruments are adamant that Shagrat could not have spoken to someone (say a subordinate) advising them that 1) an Elf-warrior was loose, 2) he had captured a small Dwarf-man and that 3) a group of Mordor Uruks had rebelled against Sauron's orders not to molest of pilfar any captives and that he had killed him.

No. I have argued that Shagrat did not send a message from Cirith Ungol before he leaves the tower himself with the bundle. Clearly, he has spoken to someone after leaving the tower, because what the soldier orc says is based on events at the tower, but Shagrat's hurried report as he makes his dash for Barad-dur (in his wounded state, a dash about as remarkable as the famed death march across Rohan :) ) has only served to confuse everyone. Also look at the soldier orc's phrasing: "First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together." This does not sound like a coherent report: "dwarf-man captured, warrior elf attacks tower while Minas Morgul troops rebel". No, the soldier says: "First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour", then they tell me, no "it's a sort of small dwarf-man", then they tell me, no, its "a pack of rebel Uruk-hai", no, no, "maybe it's all the lot together"! Whatever report has been received is totally incomprehensible to the "Higher Ups" as are the orders given to the soldier orc. It has only served to sow total confusion.

Gawain

03-01-2002, 03:48 PM

The difference between primary and secondary sources is basic to doing any research. Secondary sources cannot refute primary sources.

...an authors published material that he/she saw through to publication is considered in a very different light than any posthumously published material that someone else has gathered together and published.

Hitler once published some propoganda stating clearly that Germany could in no way lose WWII. Victory was assured and within only months he himself would be marching into Britian.

Some years after the war had ended, letters written by Hitler were found. In one he declared that Germany would die. The war was lost and the Fatherland faced only defeat.

According to the second source theory, Germany did win WWII. The letters describing defeat were published post-humously, so they hold no weight. Only the first writing can and is to be believed.

Just being silly...

Harad

03-02-2002, 08:47 PM

Reality (Germany lost WWII) or truth (2+2=4, base10) trump general principles of literary sources. There is none of the first and some of the second in LOTR.

Tar-Elenion

03-03-2002, 10:34 PM

Greenwood wrote:
I am not saying we should ignore the Appendices (as Tar-Elenion has tried to characterize my position).

I have? Lets see, I think have 'characterized' your position as wanting to dismiss the appendices:
"and dismiss the appendices because you are saying "Tolkien is telling his readers: "Don't bother to read the Appendices if you don't want to, you will still understand the story without the Appendices."";" as well as you saying Tolkien is "telling his readers they can skip the Appendices". What I have referred to as you wanting to ignore is a part of the narrative proper ('rebel Uruk-hai') which you have said is "at best ambiguous and hence can be ignored".

I have said that: "With as much as Shagrat and I are dismissing JRRT's writings, declaring them ambiguous and saying they should be ignored or that they are not relevant we obviously think he was a "bad writer".;)"

Of course, the Appendices give us lots of new and expanded information. I am saying that Tolkien would not use the Appendices to contradict things in the narrative. I am unaware of any instances of his doing this. If there are such instances then I think you have already provided the guide in your above statement to resolving such a contradiction when you say Tolkien "had neither the time nor the inclination to go through the massive corrections that would be necessary to bring all his works into accordance". In such a case the narrative proper should trump the Appendices. But, I do not think Tolkien contradicts the narrative in the Appendices, so if there is an interpretation of material in the Appendices that does contradict the narrative, I submit that the interpretation must be considered to be wrong.
[and]
I repeat that only a poor storyteller and writer would use appendices to change the meanings of things in the main narrative. That or a writer who liked to play head games on his readers.

JRRT refers the reader to the Appendices in (at least) two cases I can recall. Once when Frodo is singing the 'Man in the Moon' song ('At the Sign of the Prancing Pony'), and again in the 'Lothlorien' chapter when Frodo first hears the Galadhrim speaking.

Tar-Elenion

03-03-2002, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by aragil
Tar Elenion- how do we know that the rings poem was not composed in it's entirety by Sauron?

I infer that it was not from Gandalf's statement about it being a verse long known in Elven lore.

Why do you think Sauron would have composed it?

Also, Uruk-hai demonstrably referred only to Saruman's troops, at least until summer 1948. Up until this time, the concept of 'large soldier-Orcs of Mordor' had already appeared, but had never been called Uruks. That he first applied the term Uruks to Mordor Orcs in 1948, 4 years after writing the letter to his son, is pretty good evidence that the definition changed during those four years. As I said before, this could have been an expansion of the collective terms 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' to include both Mordor and Isengarders, or it could have been that 'Uruk-hai' remained the name of Isengarders while 'Uruks' was used only for Mordor Orcs. Either way we have a changing definition. Having examined the 15 (really 18) usages in the texts and appendices, I would say that the latter theory is better supported by what Tolkien wrote.

Except, of course, that in the two Letters previously cited, the terms are not referring to Saruman's troops.

aragil

03-04-2002, 12:58 AM

The verse- I don't know, Elven lore could refer to the fact that the Elves were around and the Numenoreans were still on their Island when the verse was first spoken. I guess the main problem with my theory is that Sauron spoke the 'Ash nazg' lines (undoubtedly his own) at the forging in SA 1600, yet the 'nine for mortal men' did not first appear until SA 2251. Oh well, Sauron still could have written the other lines much later.

The letters:
Well there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai.
JRRT, letter 66, 4th May, 1944
If that is not a reference to Merry, Pippin, and the troops of Saruman, then you can call me Shirley.

Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable
JRRT, letter 78, 12th August, 1944
To whom do you suppose that Tolkien is referring with his usage of Uruks and Urukhai here, if not to the troops of Saruman. The Uruks of Mordor were not good folks made bad by Sauron, they were bad folks made to be stronger, and the term 'Uruks' was not applied to them for another four years. The Uruk-hai of Isengard were men crossed with orcs. As men were generally considered 'good' peoples (with many exceptions), the Uruk-hai were 'good' folk 'made bad by the intention of their maker' (Saruman). The same could of course be said of Orcs in general and their maker Morgoth, but Orcs in general are not Uruks, as is pointed out in Appendix F. Considering this evidence within the letters, and the dates we have from the HoME series I do not understand how you can say that these letters were not referring to the troops of Saruman.

Tar-Elenion

03-04-2002, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by aragil
The letters:

Well there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai.
JRRT, letter 66, 4th May, 1944
If that is not a reference to Merry, Pippin, and the troops of Saruman, then you can call me Shirley.

The 'hobbit' referred to is Christopher Tolkien, and he was not among Saruman's troops.

Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable
JRRT, letter 78, 12th August, 1944
To whom do you suppose that Tolkien is referring with his usage of Uruks and Urukhai here, if not to the troops of Saruman. The Uruks of Mordor were not good folks made bad by Sauron, they were bad folks made to be stronger, and the term 'Uruks' was not applied to them for another four years. The Uruk-hai of Isengard were men crossed with orcs. As men were generally considered 'good' peoples (with many exceptions), the Uruk-hai were 'good' folk 'made bad by the intention of their maker' (Saruman). The same could of course be said of Orcs in general and their maker Morgoth, but Orcs in general are not Uruks, as is pointed out in Appendix F. Considering this evidence within the letters, and the dates we have from the HoME series I do not understand how you can say that these letters were not referring to the troops of Saruman.

"The penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs", L66.
"And of course, as you already discover, one of the discovers of the process is the realization of the values that often lurk under dreadful appearences", L78.

Saruman did not turn Men into Orcs. If the supposition holds, he interbred Men with Orcs. Sauron was the one who turned Men and Elves ('good folk') into Orcs ('made bad') by implementing Morgoth's plan:
"We may assume, then, that the idea of breeding the Orcs came from Melkor, not at first maybe so much for the provision of servants or the infantry of his wars of destruction, as for the defilement of the Children and the blasphemous mockery of the designs of Eru. The details of the accomplishment of this wickedness were, however, left mainly to the subtleties of Sauron. In that case the conception in mind of the Orcs may go far back into the night of Melkor's thought, though the beginning of their actual breeding must await the awakening of Men."

App. F says: "Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard."
Italics mine. 'Uruk' had been in use for a _long_ time (internally).

Greenwood

03-04-2002, 03:07 AM

Quote by Tar-Elenion
Lets see, I think have 'characterized' your position as wanting to dismiss the appendices:
"and dismiss the appendices because you are saying "Tolkien is telling his readers: "Don't bother to read the Appendices if you don't want to, you will still understand the story without the Appendices."";" as well as you saying Tolkien is "telling his readers they can skip the Appendices". What I have referred to as you wanting to ignore is a part of the narrative proper ('rebel Uruk-hai') which you have said is "at best ambiguous and hence can be ignored".

There you go again. First, Tolkien himself told his readers they could skip the Appendices in the Foreward to his First Edition of LOTR. While Tolkien did indeed completely redo the Foreward in the Second Edition and this statement is not there, he certainly never said anywhere, "BTW, I retract my statement about not reading the Appendices. You must read them to understand my work." Second, I said: "I am saying that Tolkien would not use the Appendices to contradict things in the narrative." and "I do not think Tolkien contradicts the narrative in the Appendices, so if there is an interpretation of material in the Appendices that does contradict the narrative, I submit that the interpretation must be considered to be wrong." As for the "rebel Uruk-hai", I have said that I do not think it is ambiguous, I was trying to grant you some leeway for the sake of argument. I think it clearly refers to Saruman's troops.

JRRT refers the reader to the Appendices in (at least) two cases I can recall. Once when Frodo is singing the 'Man in the Moon' song ('At the Sign of the Prancing Pony'), and again in the 'Lothlorien' chapter when Frodo first hears the Galadhrim speaking.

And of course these references were not included when Tolkien wrote these chapters, nor in the First Edition. They are also about as relevant to this discussion as your earlier red herring about the Kings of Numenor.

Tar-Elenion

03-04-2002, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by Greenwood
There you go again.
?

First, Tolkien himself told his readers they could skip the Appendices in the Foreward to his First Edition of LOTR. While Tolkien did indeed completely redo the Foreward in the Second Edition and this statement is not there, he certainly never said anywhere, "BTW, I retract my statement about not reading the Appendices. You must read them to understand my work."

JRRT said he wanted to cancel the Forward. He cancelled it, and wrote another one, that does not include any reference to 'skipping' the Appendices. CT notes that the First Edition Forward was "rejected in its entirety". Guess what, I think I will trust CT's statement over your supposition.

Second, I said: "I am saying that Tolkien would not use the Appendices to contradict things in the narrative." and "I do not think Tolkien contradicts the narrative in the Appendices, so if there is an interpretation of material in the Appendices that does contradict the narrative, I submit that the interpretation must be considered to be wrong."

I have provided two instances of the Appendices 'contradicting the narrative'.

As for the "rebel Uruk-hai", I have said that I do not think it is ambiguous, I was trying to grant you some leeway for the sake of argument. I think it clearly refers to Saruman's troops.

I am aware of that, I was pointing out what you said should be 'ignored'.

And of course these references were not included when Tolkien wrote these chapters, nor in the First Edition. They are also about as relevant to this discussion as your earlier red herring about the Kings of Numenor.

Really? They are included in the Second Edition, HM editions. And the Lothlorien one is in my copy of the Ballantine edition.
And you did ask Cian: "Can you point to a single instance (other than your argument in this case) where Tolkien changed the usage of words in the narrative proper with redefinitions in the Appendices? That would be very poor story-telling, especially after telling your readers they do not have to read the Appendices."

There you go. I have provided two instances.

aragil

03-04-2002, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
The 'hobbit' referred to is Christopher Tolkien, and he was not among Saruman's troops.

I sincerely hope you are being argumentative here and didn't miss the fact that JRRT was paralleling his son's situation with that of Merry and Pippin. CT was in South Africa with fellow RAFers which he apparently found quite unpleasant. JRRT was characterizing him as having the values of a hobbit amongst people behaving as orcs. Except he didn't say Orcs, he said Urukhai, which were the troops of Saruman.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
App. F says: "Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard."
Italics mine. 'Uruk' had been in use for a _long_ time (internally).
App F does not say that the word 'Uruk' has been around a long time. It says that the word uruk is related to the Sindarin word orch, is a Black Speech term, and is only applied to the soldier-orcs of Isengard and Mordor, as a rule. Prior to 2475, the term Uruk had never been used internally that I am aware, and appendix F does not say that it had. Externally, the term Uruks was never applied to Mordor Orcs until 4 years after the letter was written, and you can take CT's word on that.

Tar-Elenion

03-05-2002, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by aragil
I sincerely hope you are being argumentative here and didn't miss the fact that JRRT was paralleling his son's situation with that of Merry and Pippin. CT was in South Africa with fellow RAFers which he apparently found quite unpleasant. JRRT was characterizing him as having the values of a hobbit amongst people behaving as orcs. Except he didn't say Orcs, he said Urukhai, which were the troops of Saruman.

I have noted that 'parallel' previously. Urukhai were Orcs and not just Saruman's. As is also said in that letter "The penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs", L66.
Saruman did not turn Elves and Men into Orcs.

App F does not say that the word 'Uruk' has been around a long time. It says that the word uruk is related to the Sindarin word orch, is a Black Speech term, and is only applied to the soldier-orcs of Isengard and Mordor, as a rule. Prior to 2475, the term Uruk had never been used internally that I am aware, and appendix F does not say that it had. Externally, the term Uruks was never applied to Mordor Orcs until 4 years after the letter was written, and you can take CT's word on that.

App F refers to it applying "as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard." 'At this time' (i.e. later in the Third Age). Internally the word had been in use for Orcs for a long time (you have already noted the Adunaic use and it was borrowed from earlier Elvish words into the B.S., which Sauron devised in the Second Age).

aragil

03-05-2002, 02:18 AM

All right, I think we're getting a little side-tracked here.
What I said: JRRT never uses Uruks or Uruk-hai to refer to Mordor Orcs before 1948.
What you said: JRRT wrote two letters to his son using the terms Urukhai.
What I said: Those two usages both seem to refer to Saruman's Urukhai, especially since he has not yet referred to Mordor Orcs as Uruks.
What you said: Urukhai refers to Mordor Orcs as well as Isengarders, therefore Urukhai in the letters must not refer only to Isengarders.

Am I mischaracterizing your argument here? Do you have any evidence that in 1944 Uruks referred to Mordor Orcs other than the fact that you think Uruks and Urukhai are the same thing? If you do I am sure CT would like to see it, as he is apparently unaware of it.

Eonwe

03-06-2002, 12:50 AM

Newbies: 1948 and 1944 are Anno Domini, not Third Age. :)

Warning: 525th post approaching! Catch it while its hot!

Tar-Elenion

03-06-2002, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by aragil
All right, I think we're getting a little side-tracked here.
What I said: JRRT never uses Uruks or Uruk-hai to refer to Mordor Orcs before 1948.
What you said: JRRT wrote two letters to his son using the terms Urukhai.
What I said: Those two usages both seem to refer to Saruman's Urukhai, especially since he has not yet referred to Mordor Orcs as Uruks.
What you said: Urukhai refers to Mordor Orcs as well as Isengarders, therefore Urukhai in the letters must not refer only to Isengarders.
Am I mischaracterizing your argument here?

The point I am making for the two Letters is that they do not refer to Saruman's Orcs. Uruk-hai (and Uruks) in Letters is referring to (Elves and) Men becoming Orcs, . This to my mind shows that JRRT did not consider the terms exclusive to Saruman's Orcs even after using Uruk-hai for Saruman's Orcs in a draft of 'The Uruk-hai'.
You _seem_ to be presuming that JRRT (initially) intended that Uruk and Uruk-hai apply only to Saruman's Orcs (?).
I am not presuming that. I think he had a clear intention of what the word meant from his first use of it.

Do you have any evidence that in 1944 Uruks referred to Mordor Orcs other than the fact that you think Uruks and Urukhai are the same thing? If you do I am sure CT would like to see it, as he is apparently unaware of it.

First Uruks and Urukhai (or -hai) are the same thing. This is clearly shown by JRRT's use in the cited Letter where Uruks is an anglicization.
The first attested to definition of 'uruk' is from the preliminary writing of 'Lowdham's Report' where it is defined as 'goblin, orc'. CT says 'Lowdham's Report' belongs with D.A.3 and 4 which he dates to the first part of '46 and notes a reference by his father that indicates he had written them at the end of '45.

Let me go back to an earlier post by you:

The best I can say is that Humphrey Carpenter's biography states that Tolkien finished 'Flotsam and Jetsam' in December 1942. This corresponds to page 230 of TT, so the first use of the term Uruk-hai was 169 printed pages before December 1942, whatever that means. 1942 was a productive year, so I would place the first usage of Uruk-hai during the summer of 1942, when CT was 17.

I dont think this is borne out by other facts. The _initial_ drafting of the 'Uruk-hai' chapter may have been done by that point, but CT notes that the various Orc names including Uruk-hai are present in the _second_ version (he notes that 'Snaga' and 'Mauhur' had already 'appeared in the preliminary draft'). Pippen casting aside his brooch is now entered into the second version. But there is no mention of Aragorn returning the brooch in the first manuscript which seems to be dated to around June of '42 (when Grishnakh was changed to Grishnak). CT gives no dates for the second version, but it could well be from as late as '44. JRRT says he wrote the first drafts of book 3 in 1942 and then began again in '44 (after take a year or so off for the War). It is possible that the first use of Uruk-hai is actually from '44. But no really specific dates are given.

CT notes that the word 'uruks' seems to have been first used in the earliest form of the conclusion to the Land of Shadow. But he also refers to the reader to 'Lowdhams Report' (which translates uruk as orc) which is from the first part of '46 or the latter part of '45.

There is an earlier use of Uruk in the compound 'Uruktharbun' a (prior) name for Azanulbizar. No translation is attested to, but using what we know a *translation can be gleaned and possibly even what it is referring to. I want to see if others come up with my *translation and conclusion, so I am not going to provide it at this point. If you would care to play along please do, perhaps Cian might join in as well. I will post my translation tomorrow.

Greenwood

03-07-2002, 02:15 PM

JRRT's letter to CT in which he uses the phrase "a hobbit amongst the Urukhai" (as Aragil says clearly a reference to Merry and Pippin with Ugluk's band) is dated May 6, 1944. Clearly JRRT expected CT to immediately understand what he was saying so he cannot be referring to something that he had just written. This would indicate Uruk-hai was not a new invention in early 1944.

In his Foreward to The Treason of Isengard, CT says his father had taken the story as far as the chapter The Palantir by the end of 1942. In the chapter Helm's Deep (which comes before The Palantir) in The War of the Ring, CT presents (pp. 21-22) what he says was an "extremely rapid initial sketch" of Aragorn's talking to the troops of Saruman from above the gates of the Hornburg. In it the orc captain says: "We are the Uruk-hai, we slay." If Tolkien had taken the story beyond this point by late 1942 and an "initial sketch" has the orcs calling themselves "Uruk-hai", this would seem to be evidence that the term Uruk-hai does indeed probably date to 1942.

(Aragil -- my apologies for jumping in. I thought I would beat Eonwe to the 525th post. :) )

Harad

03-10-2002, 06:41 AM

Now that the dust has settled, its time for the definitive answer:

"Hai" is derived from the Japanese "Hai" and means roughly "!".

Therefore Uruk-hai means Uruk!
The Uruk-hai were Uruks, only more so.

Tar-Elenion

03-22-2002, 03:33 AM

Belatedly, but per a request by Cian, 'Uruktharbun':
Uruk- 'Orc', (in Q&E Dwarvish 'Orcs', 'Rukhs')
Tharkûn- 'Staff-man', thar- 'staff'
Bundushathur- 'Cloudyhead, bund- 'head'

Eonwe

03-22-2002, 04:25 PM

doesn't that seem like a strange name for Moria? Like a decapitated orc head on a stick?? :p

Cian

03-22-2002, 05:47 PM

Tar-E, I figured you might be thinking Tharkûn (earlier Sharkûn) and etc., but with such cold conjectural waters, I declined to dip even my toe :)

Perhaps Tar-E is thinking of Azogs head on a stake? and the ref. to Azanulbizâr in note 36 in HoMe to the "The Mines of Moria"?

aragil

03-22-2002, 06:32 PM

Interesting, but this would mean that Uruk was originally intended to be a dwarven term. Is Dwarvish really that closely related to Quenya?

Tar-Elenion

03-23-2002, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Cian
Tar-E, I figured you might be thinking Tharkûn (earlier Sharkûn) and etc., but with such cold conjectural waters, I declined to dip even my toe :)

Perhaps Tar-E is thinking of Azogs head on a stake? and the ref. to Azanulbizâr in note 36 in HoMe to the "The Mines of Moria"?

Yes. That is what was brought to mind. Though unattested to, unfortunately.

aragil

06-27-2002, 09:07 PM

Just saving this thread from the imminent void of pruning - too much good reference material in here for me to let it go.

ReadWryt

06-27-2002, 09:16 PM

I'm working on an idea actually that might let us archive threads like this one which, although quite well aged, indeed contains some insightfull and spirited discussion...

Tar-Elenion

08-07-2002, 04:56 AM

Cian supplied this commentary from noted Tolkien bibliographer Wayne Hammond (who originally posted it in the 'rec.arts.books.tolkien' newsgroup, in responce to a debate on another subject).

An index was appended to _The Lord of the Rings_ beginning with the Ballantine Books edition in 1965. It was compiled by a woman named Nancy Smith, hired by Allen & Unwin to do the job, with Tolkien's approval and participation. (Relevant correspondence recently sold at auction.) But it was done in a rush, because of the urgency of publication to compete with the Ace Books "pirate". Tolkien then did further work on the index: "Closer scrutiny," he wrote to Allen & Unwin in February 1966, "has revealed many more errors, several omissions, and some confused entries [in the Ballantine Books edition index]. I have in the event done much alteration and correction -- making, I think, the index more useful and informative within its limits" (quoted in _J.R.R. Tolkien: A Descriptive Bibliography_, 1993, p. 137). The revised index first appeared in the 2nd Allen & Unwin hardcover edition of _The Lord of the Rings_, 1966. But it was never as full an index as Tolkien would have liked.

The chronology of these actions will be shown in detail in Volume 1 of the Tolkien _Companion and Guide_ my wife and I are writing for HarperCollins and Houghton Mifflin, for publication in September 2003, and their history will be dealt with more fully in the next edition of my Tolkien _Bibliography_, projected for 2004 from Oak Knoll Press.

Wayne Hammond

aragil

08-14-2002, 10:51 PM

Awright, I know Cian and T-E are still trolling around these boards, and there is the remotest possibility that ShagratU is still floating around, so I thought I'd pose a grammatical question for you linguistic-types (this being the best spot on the forum I could think of to post it):
What exactly defines a general plural term?

I'm aware that the Elven languages generally had both a partitive and general plural form for peoples (i.e. different races), and that the general plural was usually formed through the addition of an ending like 'people/host/folk'. However, I'm confused on where exactly a term like 'Druedain' or 'Dunedain' would fall. Would it be a general plural term (like 'dru-folk'), or would it be a simple compound of an adjective and the peoples name (like 'men of the west', west modifying men)? Or are they the same thing?

Obviously, this is related to the linguistic aspect of this thread, as your (collective) argument all along seems to be that Uruk-hai was a plural term for Uruk, and that Uruks was simply an anglicization of this Black Speech term. Having read a bit more of the linguistic aspects of Tolkiens world since the beginning of this debate, I recognize a (probably obvious) similarity between Elvish '-hoth' and BS '-hai'. However, assuming that Sauron not only borrowed Elvish vocabulary for his BS, but also grammatical structure, shouldn't there be partitive plural form as well?

Hmm. That's actually two seperate questions. Oh well, waiting to hear from you(-folk).

aragil

08-16-2002, 11:55 PM

Anybody home?

Grond

08-17-2002, 12:10 AM

Uruks = anglicized term for Uruk-hai.

Aragil... your own. Let begin again. :);)

aragil

08-17-2002, 01:33 AM

But (and this is a big butt), we could have dru-folk and dru-host be seperate things (hypothetical situation here- imagine drurim and druhoth if you like). Their 'anglicization' (of course, they're already in English, but you know what I mean) would both be drus, and the singular of either term would be dru. Anyway, that's just some stuff I've been thinking about. Any thoughts?

Tar-Elenion

08-18-2002, 11:34 PM

Shagrat seems to be gone (he moved back to England from China), I attempted to e-mail him a little while back and got no responce.
Cian will be able to better answer your query but here is something noted linguist David Salo wrote on a this subject elsewhere:

Let's also note that the Black Speech suffix -hai appears in
_Olog-hai_ "Trolls", and so evidently marks plurality or collectivity
(at least of peoples); so "Uruk-hai" means no more than "Orcs" or
(using _uruk_ in its most specific sense) "Great Soldier-Orcs", sc.
_The_ Orcs par excellence.

aragil

08-19-2002, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Shagrat seems to be gone (he moved back to England from China), I attempted to e-mail him a little while back and got no responce.Sheesh. You think he'd be easier to get a hold of in England.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Cian will be able to better answer your query but here is something noted linguist David Salo wrote on a this subject elsewhere:
Ah yes. But I'm unclear on whether (for instance) Druedain and Dunedain are general plural terms like Galadhrim or Orchoth. Any opinions?

Cian

08-19-2002, 05:58 PM

I don't feel very qualified :) (though thanks Tar-E), especially after noting Helge's approach to the partitive vrs the general in Quenya (avoiding it in his course until the Appendices).

Anyway, on the coll plurals vrs. the 'mutation' plurals (thank you David! see below), but perhaps these forms might help?

adanath "men" (pl. agreement)
aranath "kings"
balrogath "balrogs"
drúath "drúedain" (said to be pl.)
eglath "the Falathrim"
firiath "mortal men" (called 'class-plural')
ion(n)ath "sons"
nauglath "dwarves"
periannath "halflings" (pl. agreement)
sellath "daughters"
torath "kings"

"3) those formed by adding a suffix, as faradrim, rohirrim; to which one might add the 'collective plurals' ending in -ath (aselenath, periannath) or even those ending in -hoth, -waith (glamhoth, druuwaith). These can be produced at will, but generally have a semantic content differing slightly from the mutation-plurals." ~ David Salo

Edain itself arises from i-mutation (through stages) from Old Sindarin *adani (note Quenya atani).

But haven't we sorta gone this path before? with regards "Uruks" Uruk-hai I mean :)

edit: more to muse on:

Dúnedain was created to match Dúnedhil: "... which was a name for all the Elves of Beleriand, allied in the War." JRRT

And:
Ónen i-Estel Edain, ú-chebin estel anim
Translated by JRRT: "I gave Hope to the Dúnedain; I have kept no hope for myself".

aragil

08-20-2002, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Cian

But haven't we sorta gone this path before? with regards "Uruks" Uruk-hai I mean :)

Yes, the difference being that then I was pronouncing, now I am asking. Thanks for the quotes- still not sure whether 'dunedain' falls into the class of collective plural, though.

Cian

08-20-2002, 03:28 PM

I edited in some stuffs (above), and heck, I don't think we have heard from Chris Gilson yet :) member of the Tolklang Editorial Team:

__________
"Sindarin employs various plural suffixes, one of which is _-ath_, as in _sammath_'chambers', _ennorath_ 'middle-lands', _giliath_ 'host of stars', etc. In the notes in _The Road Goes Ever On_ Tolkien explains that "the suffix _-ath_ (originally a collective noun-suffix) was used as a group plural, embracing all things of the same name, or those associated in some special arrangement." In Letter #347 he says: "It was a collective or group suffix, and the nouns so formed originally singulars. But they were later treated as pls., especially when applied to people(s), e.g. _Periannath_ the Hobbit-folk, as distinguished from _periain_ hobbits, an indefinite number of 'halflings'."

Another Sindarin plural suffix is _-rim_. In Letter # 168 Tolkien says: "The 'correct' plural of _onod_ was _enyd_, or general plural _onodrim_; though _ened_ might be a form used in Gondor." Other examples of _-rim_ include _nogothrim_ 'dwarf-folk' (also _Naugrim_), _Golodhrim_ 'the Noldor', and _orodrim_ (in _Thangorodrim_ 'Mountains of Tyranny').

In Letter #144 in an explanation of the form _Rohir-rim_ Tolkien says: "The Eldarin languages distinguish in forms and use between a 'partitive' or 'particular' plural, and the general or total plural. Thus _yrch_ 'orcs, some orcs, des orques' occurs in vol. I, pp. 359, 402; the Orcs, as a race, or the whole of a group previously mentioned would have been _orchoth_. In Grey-elven the general plurals were very frequently made by adding to a name (or a place-name) some word meaning 'tribe, host, horde, people'. So _Haradrim_ the Southrons: Q _rimbe_, S _rim_, host; _Onod-rim_ the Ents."

:edit:

By and large suffixed forms are used as 'group' or 'total' plurals, while the vowel-affected forms are used for the 'particular' plural. But the latter is sometimes marked by a suffix as well. One example is _e^l_ 'star', pl. _elin_ (group pl. _elenath_). The same suffix _-in_ is seen in the plural _Conin_ 'princes' (Letter # 230). This also resembles the ending in plural adjectives such as _galen_ 'green' pl. _gelin_, and may owe its origin in part to this, or arise by a similar development. Presumably suffixed plurals co-exist in the place of vowel-affection plurals because the phonetic causes of the latter did not affect all nouns." C. Gilson
__________

Some darn good quoting here if nothing else :rolleyes:

aragil

08-20-2002, 03:40 PM

Thanks! The letter 144 quote (specifically the discussion of orch/yrch/orchoth) was part of what got me thinking about this in the first place.

Lantarion

08-20-2002, 06:59 PM

'Nothing is more interesting than the Eldarin languages'.
:D:D

aragil

08-21-2002, 08:10 AM

Unless it is sweet, uncouth Black Speech

Anamatar IV

08-26-2002, 05:35 PM

uruk means orc in the black language. So if anyone can tell us what hai means then we'd have something.

Anamatar IV

08-26-2002, 05:45 PM

since the uruk hai were orc-men maybe hai ment man.

Grond

08-26-2002, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Anamatar IV
uruk means orc in the black language. So if anyone can tell us what hai means then we'd have something. This thread has 37 pages. If you would read them you would discover that we have been arguing about the meaning of the word "hai!" for 36 of them. ;)

The argument is that, since the plural "s" doesn't exist in the black speech, that Uruks is simply an anglicization of the word Uruk-hai. It is determined that Uruks is not a word in the black speech (at least I think we've all agreed to that). It has been argued that "hai" means folk or peoples or a lot of other things. Read the thread and you'll see.

Anamatar IV

08-26-2002, 06:06 PM

okay ill start reading them now. Ill get back to you sometime next week :p

Grond

08-26-2002, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Anamatar IV
okay ill start reading them now. Ill get back to you sometime next week :p Nobody said coming in to a thread with 37 pages would be easy. :)

Lantarion

08-26-2002, 08:19 PM

That's precisely what is so annoying about coming late into RP's: if you have to read over twenty pages worth of text just to fit in your own minuscule plot variation.. Well, let's just say I'd rather gut a live fish than read that much at a time! :p

Tar-Elenion

09-29-2002, 11:52 PM

Just bumping the thread so it does not get lost.

Cian

10-01-2002, 04:09 PM

I thought Aragil may have 'struck' again at last! and Tar-E parried! but not yet ... not yet it seems ...

;)

Snaga

10-01-2002, 08:23 PM

Shouldn't this thread be 'Great Smial'-ed?

aragil

12-25-2002, 02:42 AM

(Cian or T-E out there?)
This thread is intended to extend Uruks vs. Uruk-hai (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2146), which, alas, was packed off to the Smials before I could get my last word in. In any case, Tar-Elenion countered my argument that '-hai' might mean men with Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
I have remembered. We actually have a Black Speech word for 'man'.
'sharku' - 'old man'. *shar, '*old'; *ku , '*man'.
Cian please give further insight as necessary. Cian offered Originally posted by Cian
I wouldn't call it further insight from me, but Craig Daniel certainly agrees with you Tar-E. From his analysis of the BS ("A second Opinion On the Black Speech" ... now available at local Ardalambion outlets ), Craig concludes a breakdown of either Shar-kû or Shark-kû, in any event Kû meaning "man".

Craig offers his comments on 'debasement' in his work. Helge's wordlist includes parenthetical (DBS?) DBS for "Debased Black Speech". I find this interesting, because one of the two k's is dropped going from shark-ku to sharku. This to me is a little reminiscent (perhaps wishfully so) of another word ending in k- Uruk. Is it at all possible that Uruk-hai stems from two original words- 'Uruk' and 'khai'? Remember, the original form (as demonstrated in Letters 66 and 78, as well as HoME vol 8) was 'urukhai' without the hyphen. I know Cian's earlier argument on the hyphen: Originally posted by Cian
Well I didn't say LotR (however in one of my editions it is so spelt in RotK, but obviously not in others). I'm just basing that statement on Letters where it's apparently not hyphenated (spelled Urukhai twice [different letters], in both new and old editions at least).

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

In any case my main thing was to show a hyphenated example including "folk", as in Adûnaic kadar-lâi Avoidance of a fricative is here given as the reason for later adding a hyphen, and now I'm wondering if there isn't a bit of lenition (new word for me) going on as well. For a close-looking word in Quenya, we have Tar-Elenion's statement: Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
And even further is 'borrowed' from the Quenya: Tarkil from (IIRC) 'tar', 'high' and (CE) 'khil-', 'follow'(followers, Men). Is it linguistically possible to have Quenya "Khil" for men related to (completely hypothetical) Black Speech "Khai"=men and "Khu"=man (to say nothing of Dwarvish kun=man)? I'm not really trying to make a hard sell here- I'm genuinely interested to find out if this is linguistically possible. Hmm. Perhaps I know part of Cian's reply already: Originally posted by Cian
In any event, to speculate about vowel change plurals in Black Speech, even were you to offer example of any simple vocabulary borrowing directly from Sindarin ... well, this is 'too' much speculation Imo. Come on! Speculation is fun!

elven kismet

12-25-2002, 04:24 AM

everyone seems to suggest that "hai" in suffix form refers to people or man, as far as i've seen, yet i suggest a new theory. Couldn't "hai" also mean improved, or altered (changed, modified, etc.). As it has been seen "hai" is also appears in the form Olog-hai, which is used analogously with Uruk-hai. since these two terms, uruk and uruk-hai, olog and olog-hai respectively, seem to be used in the story in such different contexts (and i understand that this is a hotly debated issue around here) wouldn't it seem sensible that these hai suffixes intimate some sort of modification like sunlight tolerance?

Isenho

12-25-2002, 05:15 AM

"Uruk" means "orcs" in the black tongue. and "hai" has to mean "man!"

Tar-Elenion

12-25-2002, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by aragil
<snip>
I find this interesting, because one of the two k's is dropped going from shark-ku to sharku. This to me is a little reminiscent (perhaps wishfully so) of another word ending in k- Uruk.

*Shark is unattested to in the corpus. It is a hypothetical of Craig Daniels'. He also suggest simply shar. You may wish to see if any other known B.S. compunds syncope in that manner.
Also would it need to be dropped from the compounds Olog-hai and Oghor-hai?

Tar-Elenion

12-25-2002, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by elven kismet
everyone seems to suggest that "hai" in suffix form refers to people or man, as far as i've seen, yet i suggest a new theory. Couldn't "hai" also mean improved, or altered (changed, modified, etc.). As it has been seen "hai" is also appears in the form Olog-hai, which is used analogously with Uruk-hai. since these two terms, uruk and uruk-hai, olog and olog-hai respectively, seem to be used in the story in such different contexts (and i understand that this is a hotly debated issue around here) wouldn't it seem sensible that these hai suffixes intimate some sort of modification like sunlight tolerance?

We also have the Oghor-hai (the Druedain (Woses)). It seems unlikely that Orcs would name their hated foes with a 'superlative' suffix.

Tar-Elenion

12-25-2002, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Isenho
"Uruk" means "orcs" in the black tongue. and "hai" has to mean "man!"

Uruk means Orc in the B.S. it does not mean OrcS.
Uruk is a singular, not a plural.
'-hai' is only used when referring to groups of beings: Uruk-hai (great soldier-orcs), Olog-hai (a race of black trolls) and Oghor-hai (the Dru-folk).
Since the Olog-hai were Trolls not Men, the theory that '-hai' "has to mean "man!"" does not seem to stand.

aragil

12-25-2002, 08:59 AM

Woo-hoo, T-E is here, and some promising-looking new blood as well. Hopefully Cian will show sooner or later. T-E- have you been able to raise ShagratU since his return to England?
Anyway, some investigations of Tar-Elenion's and Cian's, which I rather laxly forgot to include in my opening post:

1) Originally posted by Cian in Orcs out of pods? (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1431)
Anyway, very little about the Black Speech is known. I bow to my betters with this term as far as scholarly linguistic opinion goes: the following are very well respected Tolkien linguists' views on the seemingly elusive "-hai".

Christopher Tolkien (if not "opinion" at least appendixed): Uruks is an anglicization of Uruk-hai

David Salo: -hai "people, group"

Helge Fauskanger: -hai "folk"

Lisa Star: "-hai" is a collective plural

Carl Hostetter: wrote (in 1993) that he favored the interpretation of "superior". "The Eldarin collective terms -lim, rim, hoth yield nothing that could reasonably be related to -hai." Carl H.

It should be added that Tolkien also used oghor-hai as a term the orcs used to refer to the Drúedain (with Uruk-hai, Olog-hai)

It should also be added that with the publication of Sauron Defeated we find that JRR Tolkien glossed Adûnaic kadar-lâi as "city-folk". Also, from Avarin dialect: Kinn-lai theoried to basically mean "Elf-people". Interesting :) Of course of great interest to me is Carl Hostetter's definition, but I note that he seems to be in the minority among the other experts (not the same as being wrong!).

2) Originally posted by Cian
Part of linguist David Salo's discussion on the English word "Man" as it related to Glorfindels prophecy:

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

Another section:

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

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

Leave them at the door or not, the linguistic "opinions" from David and others regarding BS -hai (that I posted in the other thread) ... well let's just say that from my experience in reading David, Helge, Lisa Star, Carl Hostetter, are very familiar with Tolkiens world too :)
3) Originally posted by Cian
Bombadillodillo,
Generally, JRRT uses collective suffixes in his langs of course, and of note, he does not always hyphenate Urukhai in any event.

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

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

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

4) Originally posted by Cian
I couldn't find anything further here Tar-E. He did give a response (not in a linguistic forum) on "-hai" back in 1993, before all of HoMe was published ("Soory" is so spelt purposely I'd say):

"Soory, I've drawn a blank on this one, though I tend to favor the interpretation that it means "superior" (The Eldarin collective terms, i.e., -lim, -rim, -hoth, yield nothing that could reasonably be related to -hai)." C. Hostetter 1993

The other opinions on "hai" were:
David Salo ~ "people, group"
Helge F. ~ "folk"
Lisa Star includes it in her (given in three parts) study of JRRT's collectives.

(well, to give all those opinions over here now ) Again I think it's interesting that Hostetter doesn't feel that "-hai" fits in with the other collectives.

5) Originally posted by Cian Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
... and should feel free to give additional insight). Literally 'adan' (the singular) is an adaption to Sindarin of the Quenya 'atan' (see WotJ, Quendi & Eldar). The plural Quenya name for Men Atani literally means 'the Second Folk' (see Q&E) but is normally translated 'Men'. It comes from the Common Eldarin 'tata', 'atta' two. Dúnedain would naturaly be given as "Western-men" as likely as Q. Núnatani, but indeed adapted adan hailed from a "second" sense in Q. atan. Adan can be glossed "Man" or "one of the Second people, folk"

There's nothing much additional about that though :) but thanks for the confidence vote.
6) Originally posted by Cian
something from Helge
Note Helge Fauskangers entry on olog in which he writes a "variety" of Troll, and immediately follows with Olog-hai "Olog-people".

Agree with HF or not on -hai, I thought it might be interesting to note that a trained lang-guy sees nothing awkward with slapping a collective to a "variety" of Troll.
7) Originally posted by Cian
Are you referring to Uruk and Uruk-hai here? If so the general force of the argument simply offers a "word" with slapped on collective. As Tolkien invented Nogoth and Nogothrim.

Stem *RUKU
ancient forms:
ruk-, rauk-, uruk-, urk(u), runk, rukut/s strengthened: gruk-, elaborated guruk-, ñguruk
CE: *rauku, *raukó
more "ancient": (uruk) urku/ó, adj. urká
Quenya: urko pl urqui (d.*urku or *uruku)
Sindarin: urug, orch (d. *urkó, adj. *úrká)
Adûnaic: urkhu, urkhu

Generally speaking: what Tolkien did invent was a very real interelated history of langs, and in the context of "found" texts ... Tolkien even took pleasure in asterisking some of his own forms as if they were unattested :) which they then are, in a historical sense, within the fantasy of translation. This seems to come mostly from Q and E (HoME 11, pp 389-391). There's an interesting bit from HoME 10 which might imply that Uruk and Olog share a similar root, but that's for my next post.

8) Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
I dont think Gorbag 'said' 'Uruks'. 'Uruks' (an anglicization) is what was used to translate what Sam actually heard him say through the Ring (taking into account the internal history presented (see App. F and Prolouge)).
From the Choices of Master Samwise
He heard them both clearly, and he understood what they said. Perhaps the Ring gave understanding of tongues, or simply understanding, especially of the servants of Sauron its maker, so that if he gave heed, he understood and translated the thought to himself.
What Sam may have heard through the Ring was *URUKIN, This is may be the same word that Gandalf used in Moria. The tracker and soldier Orc are speaking Westron (being of different breeds they used that tongue, App. F) but both know the word 'Uruk-hai' so there is no need for that to be rendered into Westron.
Tar-Elenion, if you have anything of linguistic import that you want to add from U vs U-h please feel free. I thought I'd repost these particular quotes to not only re-fresh our memory, but also to help out anyone who didn't have the "benefit" of following along with us in that long-ish thread.

aragil

12-25-2002, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
*Shark is unattested to in the corpus. It is a hypothetical of Craig Daniels'. He also suggest simply shar. You may wish to see if any other known B.S. compunds syncope in that manner.
Also would it need to be dropped from the compounds Olog-hai and Oghor-hai? "Syncope"? I must say, you lost me there. As for "Shar-ku" vs "Shark-ku", I doubt I'll be able to find another Black Speech term to test this. I was hoping that either you or Cian would be able to fill me in on whether or not the Elvish Languages might do this- since Black Speech proportedly bases much of it's vocabulary and grammatical structure off of these.
If any other Elvish or Black-Speech words follow this pattern of contraction (is that what syncoping means?), then I would think that Olog-hai might also drop the k sound, as Ologkai sounds awkwards (to me at least). Then again, this is the farthest I've ever dabbled in philology, and my opinion doesn't amount to too much (yet).
Oghor-hai has some dubious (to say the least) distinctions. As we pointed out in U vs U-h, it was supposed to be a derogatory handle used in First Age Beleriand- a full age of the world before Sauron "invented" Black Speech (and with it "-hai"). Aside from the essay on the Druedain, there is no further support for this, and not much background for the term even in that essay. I imagine that by the time Tolkien came up with Oghor-hai (late 60's? early 70's?) he was merely following the convention he had earlier established. In this regard I think Uruk-hai and Olog-hai are the much more interesting forms to investigate. I will mention that I think Druedain uses "edain~=men" as a collective plural in the same sense in which I think you say "hai=folk" is a collective plural, so I don't see the problem of Oghor-hai being a direct translation of Dru-edain (hyphen added by me for emphasis).

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Since the Olog-hai were Trolls not Men, the theory that '-hai' "has to mean "man!"" does not seem to stand. I agree that "-hai" does not have to mean man, but I don't think there's anything from the Olog-hai definition to preclude it. ShagratU and I discussed this at length in U vs U-h, here's a snippet of what ShagratU had to say:
Selected from ShagratU's post here (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=50594#post50594)
Yes, I wasn't very clear there. Let me attempt to clarify. Tolkien says that the Stone Trolls are just "counterfeits" rather than "rational incarnates", as the Orcs are. (He says this in the letter where he points out that Treebeard was wrong about the Orcs being mere counterparts). But he says that there are other types of troll, "for which other origins are suggested."

So as the Stone Trolls aren't really alive but are made of "animated" stone, it is highly unlikely that they can breed with anything. Moreover, Tolkien says that the other kind(s) of troll have different origins. If the Olog-hai were bred from Stone Trolls and Men, they would have common origin with the Stone Trolls. But they don't.

So what I meant was that the Olog-hai are clearly not crossbred Stone Trolls, but trolls made in an entirely different sort of way. I think Tolkien even suggests that they might have been made from some "primitive" human stock (neanderthals?), but they clearly aren't made from the Stone Trolls.

But whatever the Olog-hai were made from, they are unambiguously trolls. They're not "like half-trolls" or "troll-men", but "trolls". In his letters, when he discusses different sorts of troll, Tolkien never uses "half-trolls" or "troll-men"; the new sort of troll may have been bred from some sort of Men, but they are definitely full trolls, and always described as such.
I've looked for some references, and here's what I've found. I'll say that you're reasonably familiar with the first ;) : From Letter 153 to Peter Hastings
I am not sure about Trolls. I think they are mere 'counterfeits', and hence (though here I am of course only using elements of old barbarous mythmaking that had no 'aware' metaphysic) they return to mere stone images when not in the dark. But there are other sorts of Trolls beside these rather ridiculous, if brutal, Stone-trolls, for which other origins are suggested.
The second quote comes from Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed (p. 414 of my edition). As you can see, it backs up ShagratU's assertion that the Olog-hai might have been bred from Neandertalic stock: From Morgoth's Ring
The Elves would have classed the creatures called 'trolls' (in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings) as Orcs - in character and origin - but they were larger and slower. It would seem evident that they were corruptions of primitive human types.
At the bottom of the page my father wrote: 'See The Lord of the Rings Appendix p. 410'; this is the passage in Appendix F concerning Trolls.
...
He now expressly asserts the earlier view (see p. 408 and note 1) that the Orcs were in origin corrupted Elves, but observes that later' some were probably derived from Men. In saying this (as the last paragraph and the reference to The Lord of the Rings Appendix F suggest) he seems to have been thinking of Trolls, and specifically of the Olog-hai, the great Trolls who appeared at the end of the Third Age (as stated in Appendix F): "That Sauron bred them none doubted, though from what stock was not known. Some held that they were not Trolls but giant Orcs; but the Olog-hai were in fashion of body and mind quite unlike even the largest of Orc-kind, whom they far surpassed in size and power.'
As you can see, Tolkien's "Trolls they were" statement does not preclude him from thinking of the Olog-hai as originating from humans. In fact, this seems to be exactly what the good professor had in mind!
The beginning of the passage is also where I get the idea that 'olog' and 'uruk' are both probably related, and originate from the primitive stem *ruku, as seen in Q&E (HoME 11, p. 389). I can't find a Quenya term for trolls, but the Sindarin term is Torog, which is reasonably close to S. orch/yrch/orchoth for Orcs and BS Olog for troll. I am of course assuming this relatedness because the passage says the elves would have classified the trolls as "orcs".

Before anyone accuses me of making too hard of a sell for "hai"="men" (certainly before isenho again states that "hai" must ="men"), I acknowledge that there still seem to be a lot of problems here. In the first place, "-hai" might work as "men" in the case of Oghor-hai just as "-edain" in Druedain. But this seems to be different than the other usages. In Druedain the "dru" seems to be adjectival (also "dun" in Dunedain). However, the "uruk" in Uruk-hai and the "olog" in Olog-hai are almost certainly not adjectival. The Olog-hai are trolls, the Uruk-hai are Orcs, regardless of whether or not these respective races have humanish origins. Still, I think this is fun to dabble in, and I would like to solidify my own (quite imperfect) understanding of what exactly constitutes a collective plural such as "folk" or "people".

aragil

12-25-2002, 09:58 AM

Forgot to say- Merry Christmas to anyone who finds this thread interesting enough to read (ho-ho-hai)!

aragil

01-12-2003, 06:26 AM

You out there anywhere?

Cian

01-15-2003, 08:29 PM

Cian is out on vacation (regarding Uruk-hai) and forgot his pager too (on purpose) :D

Maybe Jallan will offer a general opinion or whatever (he started posting here recently).

_____

Perhaps the person who theoried *shark-ku (and writes probably *shar-ku in his wordlist), Craig Daniel, did so because he thought it possible the sound might be absorbed in composition.

The Craig Daniel who suggests hai as 'race' :)

aragil

01-23-2003, 02:51 AM

Craig could have been correct on the one hand, and woefully wrong on the other. In any case where does that leave us (or me, more properly)?

Craig thinks that sharku could be from *shark and *ku, with one of the k's being absorbed in composition.
Presumably, with no other knowledge available, there could be a plural of *ku= **khai (two asterisks denoting the extra amount of speculation going on here). I would like to point out that though this is speculating, it is not totally without basis in the languages of middle-earth, after all Sindarin has several vowel-change plurals: adan-edain, orch-yrch, correct?

Looking at HoME, we see all the early versions of Uruk-hai so spealt- both in the chapter "An Orc Raid" and in the early sketch of Aragorn's parley at the gate of the Hornburg in "Helm's Deep". However, there is the distinct possibility that these were additions by the editor (CT), as the well known letters of May and August 1944 both have urukhai so spelt, without the hyphen. Any chance that Uruk and **khai went the way of tar & khil-tarkil?

jallan

01-23-2003, 06:04 AM

It seems some want me to join in here.

Unfortunately, I have nothing to add to the hypotheses.

We know little about the Black Speech, must less its development, and I wonder if Tolkien's remark about various dialects of Orkish may have been in part a cover to make it unnecessary to go deeply into creating yet another consistant language, especially one intended to be ugly.

Tolkien provides in different places two different translations of the curse of the Modor Orc, which doesn't provide much hope that he himself took the Black Speech very seriously.

All recently relations suggested here I find possible, but I think we don't have enough background knowledge for any measure of whether they are likely, or whether Tolkien might have thought at some time or other that they were likely.

aragil

01-23-2003, 06:42 AM

Glad you finally made it, jallan. I was beginning to wonder if you'd ever show.
Incidentally, your theory on Tolkien and the Black Speech is what I accused the language folk of doing:
Originally posted by me, nearly a year ago
I am sure that David et al are more familiar with the races (and languages) of Middle-Earth than I am. I wasn't trying to accuse them of an ignorant mistake, but rather a hasty mistake. If they have spent as much time on 'hai' as we have spent here on this post, then I wouldn't even accuse them of a hasty mistake. It seems to me that black speech is much less fleshed out than most of the other languages of Middle-Earth, so I just assume that the linguists have spent less time on it. If this is the case, then it might be possible that they took a glance, said 'hai looks like folk', and then decided to get back to languages which were more fleshed out and interesting (and nice sounding).

Everything I posted was possible? That's somehow unsatisfying- perhaps it really is more fun to work with the fleshed out languages. As Cian pointed out some time ago, we don't even seem to know whether BS words have singular and plural forms or whether they use some sort of external marker. Hurrumpf.

What about the problem of Oghor being adjectival to make Oghor-hai reflect S. Druedain. Does that mean that -men can not be considered a plural marker?
An alternative theory of mine which has been encouraged by your post is that Black Speech is such a crude language that the order of elements in a word essentially becomes meaningless- nazgul might as easily be gulnaz; and Uruk-hai, Oghor-hai, and Olog-hai might actually all refer to creatures with both mannish and "other" characteristics. Not exactly the same as saying troll-men for Olog-hai, for instance, but it does have it's advantages. First off, I think Black Speech should be crude- vulgar sounds with poor gramatical structure and lack of element order in words seems to fit the concept of Orc-language nicely. Second, it would explain why the Orc-men don't say much at Helm's Deep. Notice that they seem to make up a significant part of Saruman's forces at Helm's Deep (Gamling, Merry, and Aragorn all refer to them), yet they don't seem to get a lot of narrative devoted to them during the action. Unless you assume that "We are the Fighting Uruk-hai" refers to both Men-orcs (large and cunning) and Orc-men (treacherous and vile).
It's a thought, anyway.

jallan

01-27-2003, 02:35 AM

From Unfinished Tales, "The Drúedain", Note 6:It is stated in isolated notes that their own name for themselves was Drughu (in which the gh represents a spirantal sound). This name adopted in Sindarin in Beleriand became Drû (plurals Drúin and Drúath); but when the Eldar discovered that the Drû-follk were steadfast enemies of Morgoth, and especially the Orcs, the 'title' adan was added, and they were called Drúedain (singular Drúadan), to mark both their humanity and friendship with the Eldar, and their racial difference from the people of the Three Houses of the Edain. Drû was then only used in compounds such as Drúnos 'a family of the Drû-folk', Drúwaith 'the wilderness of the Drû-folk'. In Quenya Drughu became Rú, and Rúatan, plural Rúatani.There is nothing to suggest that drú- is especially adjectival, though of course in Sindarin, as in English, noun forms are used adjectivally on occasion.

There is nothing to indicate that Oghor- is necessarily at all related to Drughu or any of its Elvish derivatives, though it might be through a series of changes such as Drughu > Urugh > Urghu > Ughru > Oghr > Oghor. The order of these changes here is mostly arbitrary.

Aragil posted:First off, I think Black Speech should be crude- vulgar sounds with poor gramatical structure and lack of element order in words seems to fit the concept of Orc-language nicely. The Black Speech invented by Sauron certainly must have had full grammar. He intended it to be useful and used, even for precise incantations such as we find in the Ring inscription, and to be the common tongue of all who served him, though he failed in this.

Since the form Oghor-hai dates to the First Age, we might suppose that the Black Speech was partly based on some particular Orkish speech.

The various types of Orcs we hear speaking in Common Speech or in Black Speech translated by the Ring speak in a "low" English style, but generally do so in complete sentences with a full grammar. The goblins in The Hobbit even sing a song, presumably of their own composition.

Their Orc jargons, largely derived from Black Speech, might be mutually unintelligible, but would surely also be true speech with a full grammer, not some kind of sub-speech needing gestures to be understood.

Ghân-buri-Ghân speaks more "primitively", but probably mostly from lack of familiarity with Common Speech. Tolkien has him get quite huffy when asked how he knows the size of the army besieging Minas Tirith, and he insists that he can calculate and reckon quite well, thank you, even "men in dark" and then proves it by giving the number of the Rohirrim host.

aragil

01-27-2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by jallan
The Black Speech invented by Sauron certainly must have had full grammar. He intended it to be useful and used, even for precise incantations such as we find in the Ring inscription, and to be the common tongue of all who served him, though he failed in this. I'll agree that Sauron was cunning enough to come up with as lovely a language as anyone- but it seems that he (or Tolkien) created words with the harshest, ugliest sounds possible. The fact that Tolkien gives two translations of the same curse of the Moria Orc suggests to me that Black Speech was particularly hard to formulate into English- perhaps very alien or primitive in grammar and vocabulary (if we stay within the secondary reality and pretend that Tolkien was translator rather than creator, of course). I don't intend to say that Black Speech lacked any grammar, just that it was perhaps primitive/crude. My question is whether or not 'Uruk-hai' could actually mean 'Orc-men', (assuming hai=men), with neither the 'Orc' or 'men' element being more important, but rather implying an even partnership. Nazgul too- which is more important, ring or wraith?

jallan

01-29-2003, 01:34 AM

Sauron would doubtless try to put particularly biases into the words and grammar of Black Speech.

There are always things that are easy to say in one language but difficult in another.

But what reason not to create a language that otherwise matches the efficiency of already existing languages for most purposes?

One would want verb tenses or aspects or some comparable method to distinguish what one had done from what one was now doing.

One would want to distinguish an Orc chasing an Elf from an Elf chasing an Orc.

Sauron might try to make the Black Sppech very simple and regular, as is often done with invented languages.

But there was little point in Sauron creating a tongue intended for use by all his servants, not just the more stupid and menial of the Orcs, that was inadequate to convey meaning clearly.

aragil

01-29-2003, 02:19 AM

I don't think I'm saying it would be difficult to convey meaning. I'm suggesting that in the case of a hybrid race or a race with characterstics of two other races, that the name for the hybrid race would be composed of two elements of equal weight- the elements could be randomly chosen- first or second element would not carry any additional significance.

10,000 strong

01-29-2003, 03:55 AM

i think uruks are cooler, I don't know why, I think they look scarier than the big old fat uruk hai

Tar-Elenion

01-29-2003, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by 10,000 strong
i think uruks are cooler, I don't know why, I think they look scarier than the big old fat uruk hai

'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' are the same thing. 'Uruks' is simply the anglicization of 'Uruk-hai'.

10,000 strong

01-29-2003, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' are the same thing. 'Uruks' is simply the anglicization of 'Uruk-hai'.

well whatever, i'm talking about the orcs of mordor

Tar-Elenion

01-29-2003, 05:05 AM

So am I. There were Uruk-hai in Mordor as well. Sauron's Uruk-hai.

aragil

01-29-2003, 05:43 AM

T-E, would it at least be possible to convince you to say "I believe that Uruks and Uruk-hai are the same thing", in recognition of the ~600 posts on this thread arguing that point?

Tar-Elenion

01-30-2003, 01:08 AM

JRRT uses the two words interchangeably in Letter 78.

"And of course, as you already discover, one of the discoveries of the process is the realization of the values that often lurk under dreadful appearances. Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable...".

That is good enough for me.

aragil

01-30-2003, 01:17 AM

Yes it is good enough for you, making it your opinion on the matter. I've pointed out before that in 1944, when that letter was written, all of the Mordor Orcs later referred to as "Uruks" were then called "Veritable Orcs", "True Orcs", etc, while the Isengard Orcs were called Uruk-hai (and Aragorn was called Trotter). It is possible that JRRT changed his mind between 1944 and publishing. I don't mind you having a different opinion on the matter, it makes for interesting discussion. But if you would kindly recognize that other opinions exist it would also make for polite discussion.

Tar-Elenion

01-30-2003, 04:27 AM

Aragil said:
"T-E, would it at least be possible to convince you to say "I believe that Uruks and Uruk-hai are the same thing"...".

I said that JRRT used the terms interchangeably in Letter 78, thus they are the same thing.

Now you are writing about Mordor and Isengard Orcs, which was not referred to in your request. Perhaps you should be more clear in your statement and instead of complaining about my noting that words 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' are the same thing, you should have complained about my statement that Sauron has Uruk-hai as well.
As the _author_ uses the terms interchangeably in Letter 78 (1944) and used the anglicization 'Uruks' for Saruman's Uruk-hai in 'Fords of Isen' (ca.1970?), then the terms are interchangeable. That is how the _author_ used them.

If you wish to argue with my assertion about Sauron having Uruk-hai then clearly state it (and of course as I've pointed out we do have Mordor Orcs referred to as 'Uruk-hai').

jallan

01-30-2003, 05:19 AM

If you read Book 3 of The Lord of the Rings, you probably get the strong impressiion that Uruk-hai means Saruman's new breed of sun-resistant Orcs and means only those.

If you read some of the other material, notably the mention of rebel Uruk-hai by the solider Orc in Mordor in the chapter "The Land of Shadow", you will have doubts.

This most important references, because it is within The Lord of the Rings iself, is a speech in which the soldier Orca explains to the tracker Orc Orc why they have been called out. The other references in his speech all refer to the previously described disturbances around and within the Tower of Cirith Ungol. The slaughtering of most of its garrison would certainly be explain why Orcs have been summoned on duty to search for intruders and for the rebels.

So the reference to rebel "Uruk-hai" almost certainly refers to the "filthy rebel Gorbag", as Shagrat has previously said, and to his followers.

Tar-Elenion's reasoning here and elsewhere is quite right.

Why then does Uruk-hai seem to have a different meaning in the Rohirrim chapters?

One possibility is that Tolkien changed his mind during composition of the book, and did not properly modify some earlier references.

Another possibility, I believe the correct one, is that Uruk in Tolkien's mind while writing The Lord of the Rings, always meant large solider Orc, referring to a particular race or caste or class or Orc.

There were presumably Uruks, that is Uruk-hai, all about Middle-earth.

Saruman's Uruk class was different, a kind of Uruk bred especially to withstand sunlight.

But they still naturally call themselves Uruks, Uruk-hai, or fighting Uruk-hai, in contrast to other sorts of Orcs.

Saruman's Uruk-hai boast that they are the warriors of Saruman's Orc community, not like his other Orc servants, not like those smaller maggot folk from Moria. They are Uruk-hai, better than other kinds of Orcs, fiercer and better than Men.

They boast that they are the Uruk-hai, who can withstand sunlight, unlike Saruman's other Orcs or Misty Mountain Orcs.

They aren't at all thinking about other Uruks, other Uruk-hai, in Mordor or elsewhere, who cannot deal with sunlight as well.

Why should they think about these in the circumstances?

aragil

01-30-2003, 05:19 AM

I was in fact arguing that Uruks and Uruk-hai mean the same thing. It does appear that Tolkien used the terms interchangeably in 1944, but there is the distinct possibility that he changed his mind by the time of publishing- hence my bringing up the fact that in 1944 Tolkien called large soldier Orcs of Mordor "veritable Orcs", but at the time of publishing he called them "Uruks".
We don't know for certain what Tolkien did in Fords of Isen, or if he was planning on changing the entries before he passed on. We don't even know if he had unintionally contradicted his earlier work. This is precisely why Greenwood did not like the use of a Secondary source in this matter.
You know my stance on Mordor Uruk-hai. The same statement that has Uruk-hai in Mordor has a Dwarf-man and an Elf-lord also running around. I do not call into question whether the reference is to Gorbag's lot. I just question whether it accurately refers to them as Uruk-hai. I can respect that you have a different opinion on the matter, but it would be nice to see you acknowledge that it is an issue.

aragil

01-30-2003, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by jallan
They aren't at all thinking about other Uruks, other Uruk-hai, in Mordor or elsewhere, who cannot deal with sunlight as well.

Why should they think about these in the circumstances? Well, I see that you are now involved in the earlier matters of the thread, rather than the strictly linguistic questions. My answer to your question is that some of Ugluk's bragging about being "Uruk-hai" comes when he is addressing Grishnakh, who is almost certainly a Uruk. Given Grishnakh's general disdain for Saruman and his filthy White Badges, it is inconceivable to me that Grishnakh wouldn't respond with something along the lines of "You're not the only Uruk-hai".

Your theory that Tolkien changed his mind and then didn't properly edit has some merit.
However, in regards to your theory of Uruk always being in Tolkien's mind, I can provide you quotes that show that "Uruk" was not applied in any form to a Mordor Orc until 1948, and then, except for the dubious "Rebel Uruk-hai" statemtent, all references to Mordor soldiers were as "Uruks". Uruk-hai was first applied to Saruman's Orcs in 1942, and, excepting a cryptic appendix entry and the references in UT (which I look at with some skepticism), the Isengarders were always referred to as "Uruk-hai" and never Uruks.

I know there are some linguistic objections- "Uruks" is certainly an anglicized plural of "Uruk". The singular of "Uruk-hai" is certainly "Uruk". However, I think that there is evidence that "-hai" is something other than just a simple plural marker, and, in any case, every other language in Middle-earth has other ways of making a plural than adding a collective marker. My own opinion is that Tolkien originally had "Uruk-hai" for Saruman, and long-afterwards decided to rename his Mordor orcs "Uruks". I think he intended them to be separate breeds (Saruman's Uruk-hai are certainly different then Shagrat, Grishnakh, or Ugluk), but tried to 'get away with one' with using such similar names. I'm trying to excuse the professor from this by coming up with a translation for '-hai' which will suitably differentiate the Isengarders from the Mordor lot, and using '-hai'='men' seems to be a logical choice. I'll freely admit that stretching 'hai' to be the plural term from 'ku'=man is stretching it, but I don't feel to bad about this as I think Tolkien has already fudged.

Tar-Elenion

01-30-2003, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by aragil
I was in fact arguing that Uruks and Uruk-hai mean the same thing. It does appear that Tolkien used the terms interchangeably in 1944, but there is the distinct possibility that he changed his mind by the time of publishing- hence my bringing up the fact that in 1944 Tolkien called large soldier Orcs of Mordor "veritable Orcs", but at the time of publishing he called them "Uruks".

It is more likely that he did not change his mind.

We don't know for certain what Tolkien did in Fords of Isen, or if he was planning on changing the entries before he passed on. We don't even know if he had unintionally contradicted his earlier work. This is precisely why Greenwood did not like the use of a Secondary source in this matter.

Secondary sources like those that have "veritable Orcs"? Of course Greenwood did not like the use of the Appendices either.

What we do know is that 'Fords of Isen' is in agreement with "his earlier work", which also refers to Saruman's Orcs as 'uruks'.

You know my stance on Mordor Uruk-hai. The same statement that has Uruk-hai in Mordor has a Dwarf-man and an Elf-lord also running around. I do not call into question whether the reference is to Gorbag's lot. I just question whether it accurately refers to them as Uruk-hai. I can respect that you have a different opinion on the matter, but it would be nice to see you acknowledge that it is an issue.

A "sort of small dwarf-man", not a "Dwarf-man", which is an apt description of Hobbit (Frodo). And we know that Sam was seen as an Elf. As the reference was to Mordorian Orcs at Cirith Ungol, then they are the ones being called "rebel Uruk-hai". There was evidence that the 'Elf' and 'dwarf-man' were there (or believed to be). There is evidence that Mordorian Orcs were there, and these are being referred to as Uruk-hai. There is no evidence that Isengarders were there or believed to be there. Until there is some evidence presented it is simply a guess with nothing to back it up.

aragil

01-30-2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
It is more likely that he did not change his mind. Unfortunately, in this issue we don't have a better gauge of likelihood than our own opinions. What I do know is that in 1942 Tolkien was calling Mordor soldiers "Orcs", Isengard Soldiers "Uruk-hai". In 1944 he wrote a letter equating Uruk-hai and Uruks. In 1947 he was still calling Mordor soldiers "Orcs". Only in 1948 did he start calling Mordor Orcs "Uruks". I'd say he definitely changed his mind on what to call Mordor Orcs, the remaining question is whether he still thought "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai" were the same thing.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Secondary sources like those that have "veritable Orcs"? Of course Greenwood did not like the use of the Appendices either.

What we do know is that 'Fords of Isen' is in agreement with "his earlier work", which also refers to Saruman's Orcs as 'uruks'. We don't know if Saruman's Uruks (from the appendices in LotR) are intended to be offshoots of his human/orc breeding program. In my opinion TA 3005 is too early for that- I know you have a different opinion.
UT is a bit of a different beast than HoME, I'm afraid. HoME is presenting us with earlier writings that we know are different from the published works- in many cases we can see how they evolve into the published works. For his part, CT made no effort to change anything in HoME. However, he acknowledges that he changed certain names in UT. We know from his letters that JRRT often used initials when writing, rather than writing out full names. We also know, from PoME, that within a year or two of writing Battle at the Fords of Isen JRRT was writing things that contradicted his published work. His mind was slipping, a fact that he lamented to CT in private. The fact is, that any or all of these ingredients could combine to make what we see in UT questionable. I'm not completely disregarding the book- I love it. However, I am saying that a possible unintended mixing of Uruk-hai and Uruks could have occurred which resulted in the wrong term being used in UT. I don't see how the same could be said of "veritable Orcs" in HoME.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
A "sort of small dwarf-man", not a "Dwarf-man", which is an apt description of Hobbit (Frodo). And we know that Sam was seen as an Elf. As the reference was to Mordorian Orcs at Cirith Ungol, then they are the ones being called "rebel Uruk-hai". There was evidence that the 'Elf' and 'dwarf-man' were there (or believed to be). There is evidence that Mordorian Orcs were there, and these are being referred to as Uruk-hai. There is no evidence that Isengarders were there or believed to be there. Until there is some evidence presented it is simply a guess with nothing to back it up. The other problem here is that no other Mordor unit is ever referred to as being composed of "Uruk-hai". You choose to wait until there is evidence to back up Isengarders at Cirith Ungol. I choose to wait until there is other evidence of Mordor Uruk-hai. We could be waiting a while.

Tar-Elenion

01-30-2003, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by aragil
We don't know if Saruman's Uruks (from the appendices in LotR) are intended to be offshoots of his human/orc breeding program. In my opinion TA 3005 is too early for that- I know you have a different opinion.

Again, the terms were used interchangeably. You admit that.
There is no inconsistancy.

UT is a bit of a different beast than HoME, I'm afraid. HoME is presenting us with earlier writings that we know are different from the published works- in many cases we can see how they evolve into the published works. For his part, CT made no effort to change anything in HoME. However, he acknowledges that he changed certain names in UT.

He admits to those changes. What did he admit to changing in 'Fords of Isen'?

We know from his letters that JRRT often used initials when writing, rather than writing out full names. We also know, from PoME, that within a year or two of writing Battle at the Fords of Isen JRRT was writing things that contradicted his published work. His mind was slipping, a fact that he lamented to CT in private. The fact is, that any or all of these ingredients could combine to make what we see in UT questionable.

There is no inconsistancy. JRRT uses the terms interchangeably. Saying the JRRT's 'mind was slipping' some years after he wrote this is simply an attempt to make an inconsistancy where there is none.

I'm not completely disregarding the book- I love it. However, I am saying that a possible unintended mixing of Uruk-hai and Uruks could have occurred which resulted in the wrong term being used in UT. I don't see how the same could be said of "veritable Orcs" in HoME.

Yes lets just pick and choose the "secondary sources" to be used. 'Veritable Orcs' was not used, it was discarded. 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' were both used, not discarded.

As CT wrote of 'Battles of the Fords of Isen':
"This, together with the account of the milit