Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

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

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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).

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.

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

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

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

RE: Time of invention of Urukhai

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

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

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

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.

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'

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

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"?

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

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"?

Click to expand...

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

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

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...

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

Click to expand...

General vs. Partitive Plural

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

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

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

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

Anybody home?

Uruks = anglicized term for Uruk-hai.

Aragil... your own. Let begin again.

Don't mind if I do

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

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.

Click to expand...