Matthew Bailey101 wrote:
"The definitive settlement of the argument is Uglúk's head on a stake where the Rohirrim have burnt the Uruk-hai. The Uruk-hai are the pinnacle of Orcdom. Yet here, we find Uglúk described as a "goblin" the two are the same thing, only the word "goblin" is derived from English Victorian Faery Tradition."
Yes that's a notable goblin reference, and earlier in the published tale some of the Uruk-hai are described as "goblin-soldiers" as well.
Sometime between 1940 and late 1941 (source: Hammond and Scull's Reader's Guide to
The lord of the Rings)
Tolkien appears to have first written ("first" written at this time anyway, as the following is a revision of earlier wording, in which
evil and larger than usual
goblins are refered to as
"real orcs"):
"There are goblins: very many of them," he said. "Evil they look and large: veritable Orcs" the last part revised to read:
"... he said: "Evil they look and large: black Orcs."
Which is not the final text of course (and
if I recall correctly Christopher Tolkien does not note when the final revision was made), but here it looks like Tolkien imagined a seeming distinction between a goblin and an
orc (as Christopher Tolkien himself notes), at least at some point or points in time, illustrated in the early text describing the goblins in
Moria.
JRRT appears to have written the chapters with the Uruk-hai "goblin references" (the goblin head description you noted, plus the reference to the goblin-soldiers) at the end of 1941 and early 1942 (Hammond and Scull), so not that relatively long afterwards.
That said, in 1944 Tolkien wrote the following, adding it to the revised second edition of
The Hobbit:
"A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones", thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, [are used to that sort of thing] >
go along at great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the floor." And this was included in Allen and Unwin's page proofs dated to
1950, returned to Tolkien for proofing (The History of the Hobbit, the 1947 Hobbit, John Rateliff)
Also, when Tolkien got around to writing the Appendices, he first wrote (Appendix on
Languages):
"The orcs and goblins had languages of their own..." and a bit later
"... and still less to the Gnomes of popular fancy in which they have been confused with Dwarves and goblins, and other small creatures of the earth."
Of course these two passages did not survive into the final version of Appendix F, but whenever the reader encounters "orcs and goblins" confusion can arise, despite the reference to large orcs as goblins, including the Uruk-hai. The already noted addition of the word "orc" in
The Hobbit survives into the third edition however, also revised by Tolkien himself, in the same edition where he finally adds that the word "goblin" is (usually, in that book) used to
translate the
Westron word orc...
... again, which idea (translation) can explain the two orc references remaining in
The Hobbit (two references which seem to often enough get raised by those who say there is a distinction). In other words, in addition to other evidence like the passage you noted, in my opinion the relatively late note allows the reader to imagine that Westron
orc is simply the underlying word in every instance where the reader encounters "goblin" (or in theory other orc-words arguably translated to English, like
Sindarin orch for example, given the context of a given passage).
Thus the reader can imagine (in my opinion), that a "less translated, less English" version of the added Hobbit passage could read:
"A bit low for orcs, at least for the big ones", thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, go along at great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the floor."
And all that said, another opinion I encounter sometimes is that there is a distinction in "usage" here, even from some who agree that orcs and goblins are the same thing. Tom Shippey even argues this: that "goblin" is Hobbit usage, or common usage, while other folk used orc...
... this too I must disagree with 
In any case Mr. Shippey cites an incorrect number of references to "goblin" for his argument (I counted more than he mentioned, anyway). Also he seems to exclude The Hobbit itself in his theory. I can understand why he might do the latter, if so, but Tolkien's ultimate idea, as I see it anyway, explains the matter with respect to everything he published.
Sorry to ramble. I realize you didn't say otherwise about any of this, but it's a matter I sometimes ramble about!
