Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

Cian...

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

Cian

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

Cian

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

My apologies.

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the note Greenwood. No problem

This is an interesting thread, just to add. Cheers

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

Click to expand...

LoL. But are you really done?

Grond

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

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

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

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

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

Peace.

Exploring possibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

Originally posted by Greenwood
Cian

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

My apologies.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Greenwood
------------

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Please clarify how you find the statement ambiguous.

Originally posted by Greenwood

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Tar-Elenion

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

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

Please clarify how you find the statement ambiguous.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

I would make more use of the 'quote function' but I do not know how to 'break up' the 'quoted' post so as to reply to seperate portions in order (my attempts to do that elsewhere have been quite unsuccessful).

Click to expand...

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

Originally posted by Greenwood
------------
Quote [Tar-Elenion]
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe that CT did not simply make it up.
------------

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

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

I dismiss it because it is circumstantial and based on circular reasoning. You suggested the possibility CT copied the "Anglicization theory" from Foster, yourself.
------------
Quote [Tar-Elenion]
I choose to belive that CT is not a plagiarist. I choose to believe that CT did not simply make it up.
------------

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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


Is that clear?

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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