Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

Right First: "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: ..." and then it is said they could endure the sun so long as that will held sway over them.

I muchly like this idea from Tolkien, and see it as a component of the Dark Lord's "expenditure of will". I do not want to know the particulars of "how", and Tolkien does, naturally Imo, not digress. But the "mythic evidence" in this description at least, seems to be that the Olog-hai would lose what measure of sun-endurance they had following S's vanquishing (leading to a less mythic age).

Click to expand...

Cian

But did all these trolls instantly turn to stone in the daylight when Sauron's will was withdrawn from them in that final battle of the Third Age before the Black Gates? That is the clear implication of this argument. Odd that there is no mention of it.

Greenwood, Tolkien says here that the Olog-hai could endure the Sun so long as the will of Sauron held sway over them.

I edited other (my) examples of similar phrasing here, as I think "so long" need not really be explained by example.

If someone wants to try and show my interpretation of this specific description somehow unreasonable, then they may give it a go. But that's a different thing than showing textual evidence of Olog-hai sunbathing (or enduring, to use Tolkien's phrasing) after Sauron's fall. I mean, even if there were that 'evidence', it would yet seem (to me) contradictory to the phrasing in the Appendix as I read it.

It has been theoretically put forth that the Olog-hai are, or may be, sun-tolerant due to mens-blood, and all I'm doing is pointing to a description of the Olog-hai in LotR which would seem to give other "reason" rather, to their sun-endurance (Sauron's will), & states simply to boot, "Trolls they were."

Greenwood, if the issue of Uruk-hai versus Uruk is so crystal clear from you interpretation of the references in the Uruk-hai chapter, why did you begin this thread? You ask the question,

Can you give me any examples (other than uruks and Uruk-hai) where in LOTR or The Hobbit, Tolkien uses two different made-up words to mean exactly the same thing and where he does not explain to the reader, in the narrative, why these words are different?

Click to expand...

I respond with pretty much your same question. How is it that this subject is so hotly debated by people extremely knowledgeable in the works (myself included) and his linguistics (myself not included) while, all the while, the author never sees fit to give us any guidance in the matter? It is also ironic that his own son, who has worked closer with the author than anyone else, subscribes to the theory that Uruk-hai isn't what you feel it is. (That doesn't necessarily make him right, just closer to the subject and one would think more in tune with the true thoughts of JRRT.)

This thread is dead. All sides needlessly put forth arguments which have substance but are routinely dissed by the other. Both sides appear so entrenched in their conviction that no definitive decision will be reached on this thread. In the last four of five pages few, if any have responded but Greenwood, Aragil, Cian, Tar-Elenion and myself. That ought to tell you something. Quit arguing. Each of you go from the thread with the determination that you have proven you're point.

Cian, your arguments are the most compelling, as they should be, since you appear to have the best grasp of Tolkien's language that I've seen on the forum to date. (My opinion.) Everyone has put forth intelligent and well thought out arguments, responses and counter-responses. I don't think anymore can be asked from a thread. Maybe the time has come to let it rest. I know that I am going to do that and not get involved again. The Uruk-hai was an interesting chapter which has given us an interesting debate. In reading it for the fourth time in as many days last night, I came to the realization that one can just about read anything into it. The Uruk-hai were Orc-men. The Uruk-hai were Man-orcs. The Uruk-hai were Saruman's special elite force of Uruks. The Uruk-hai were Uruks of Mordor refined by Saruman to be greater than Sauron's. The Uruk-hai were something totally different that Saruman created as the elite of the elite and were Orcs but with something added. My greatest disappointment in rereading again, was the fact that the author didn't think it enough of an issue to address it in the chapter or address it ever again. His own son appears not to be confused by the issue and yet I am. Now, we may never know and I am unable to contact CT to find out. All avenues of contact are closed due to the movie uproar. I'll keep trying and start another thread if I am successful.

If someone wants to try and show my interpretation of this specific description somehow unreasonable, then they may give it a go. But that's a different thing than showing textual evidence of Olog-hai sunbathing (or enduring, to use Tolkien's phrasing) after Sauron's fall. I mean, even if there were that 'evidence', it would yet seem (to me) contradictory to the phrasing in the Appendix as I read it.

Click to expand...

Cian

I didn't mean to start a debate with you on the subject. I just meant to show the implications of the statement in the Appendix.

Grond

My question that started the thread was where in Tolkien's published writing was there a justufication for the "uruks is an Anglicization of Uruk-hai" definition found in various Tolkien dictionaries, etc. I hoped that someone more knowledgeable than I could point me to something. Cian has provided inciteful [that was supposed to be insightful -- later edit by Greenwood] posts on the fine points of language, you and others have provided passages from various books that I have at times been unaware of. This was what I hoped for (and appreciate), though in my opinion, few if any were directly relevant to the original question. Tar-Elenion has for the most part played word games and treated the discussion like a college debating competition where it doesn't matter what the topic is, the aim is to score debating points. Under his philosophy Tolkien was playing all sorts of word and head games with his readers. Barring my finding something new to add, as I said earlier I will no longer waste my time with this. As in other clashes of opinion, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

Greenwood, I fear that my last post didn't serve its function. We neither agree nor disagree. I find both arguments compelling here. And rereading the text again last night did nothing to give me closure on this subject. The Uruk-hai appear to be referring to themselves as something totally unique and different. Not in a manner of "we are the Green Berets of Fort Bragg" but as in "we are the Green Berets and we're going to kick your butt." That feeling in and of itself fully supports your case. You have argued your case in a scientific and logical manner. My opinion is not that you are wrong. My conclusion is that given just the text of the LotR alone, one could and possibly should conclude that the Uruk-hai are a unique breed of Orc bred specifically by Saruman. Clouding that issue are the arguments put forward by the other "debaters" on the thread which attack the premise both from a linguistic standpoint and from "some" potential inconsistencies in the text. (And by this I refer to the Uruk-hai of Isengard comment and the rebel Uruk-hai comment). Combine those minor inconsistencies with the author's failure to address the issue and his own son's different take on the matter and you have an unresolveable issue.

My last post was meant to be a "I admire everyone's argument and wish everyone could be right" speech. Apparently it didn't come off quite as I'd hoped. So I'll say it more directly.

"I admire everyone's opinion in this thread and feel that the issue is currently unresolveable due to a lack of any definitive statement on the part of the author." In conclusion, we may all interpret what we read in a personal way and come to our own conclusions as to what an author meant, but we can never know without his direct input. He appears never to have directly responded to this issue (which I find astounding). It is one of the few really confusing mysteries that JRRT left unresolved. He either thought that it was so apparent that it shouldn't be addressed or purposefully wanted there to be a few mysteries for the reader to sort out for himself.

Greenwood, I do not disagree with you on this one and apologize if it appeared I did. Grond has been the ultimate in wishy-washy on this thread. My opinion has ebbed and flowed as the tide and in the final analysis has stopped dead cold 10 feet from the jetty, not knowing whether to suck back into the ocean or crash into the wall. Oh well, life's like that sometimes, isn't it?!!!

I'll probably bow out too then (but never say never, just in case )

This has been fun, and I hope much of my involvement so far has been taken in the light of testing the opinions of folk who know their Tolkien (whether we might disagree about X or not) and have done some obvious work to present argument. I've never been in this particular debate nearly so deep ...

... anyway,
Cheers
Cian

Oops!

Cian

In my post the word was of course supposed to be insightful, not inciteful. That's what I get for posting in a hurry and not rereading what I typed.

I said that I was out of the thread barring finding anything new to add. In regard to whether Snaga is used in LOTR as a character's name I just found an editorial note by Christopher Tolkien on page 410 of the hardcover edition of The Treason of Isengard. Note 2 on this page says: "The Orc-names Snaga and Mauhur appear already in the preliminary draft." As I have said before, Christopher Tolkien is not JRRT, but it is interesting that he seems to believe that his father was using Snaga as a characters name in The Two Towers.

Bowing out again now.

Bowing out? Why is everybody leaving- there is still so much to discuss. I guess that if I'm the only one posting here than at least I'll have the gratification of having everybody else on the thread (i.e. myself) agreeing with me.

(I was going to post this earlier, but, as everybody was bowing out during it's composition, I decided to sit on it. I guess it will be edition one of posts to myself)

Originally posted by Cian
It has been theoretically put forth that the Olog-hai are, or may be, sun-tolerant due to mens-blood, and all I'm doing is pointing to a description of the Olog-hai in LotR which would seem to give other "reason" rather, to their sun-endurance (Sauron's will), & states simply to boot, "Trolls they were."

Click to expand...

Cian- I don't see any conflict here with the 'sun-resistance' being a result of blending with men. In the context of Appendix F the "Trolls they were" statement is clearly meant to distinguish them from being a variety of Orc, and has no bearing on whether or not they might be hybrids. In fact, I can definitively say that they were not known to be 'just trolls', as Tolkien specifically says that the 'stock' from which the Olog-hai were bred was unknown. If mannish blood makes orcs (who can at least survive in the sunlight) function a little bit better in direct sunlight, then it might make trolls capable of not being turned into stone in the sunlight, provided their master is concentrating on them. This could be a matter of degree- orcs can ordinarily operate in the sunlight, but they do better with man-blood; trolls ordinarily turn to stone, but with man-blood and the will of their master, they can survive in sunlight. Again I point to the fact that these Trolls were bred, so they could be crossed with something, and that they had more 'sunlight tolerance' than regular trolls. How would breeding regular trolls ever evolve the ability to withstand sunlight, with or without the trolls' master? Conversely, if it is only the will of the master which confers the ability to withstand sunlight, then why can't Sauron just concentrate on his other breeds as well, making them all able to operate in daylight? Any variety of trolls would help his forces, and would prevent him having to send storm clouds to cover his forces.

Varieties of Trolls (and the much maligned Troll-Men)

In searching through Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit I can think of the following candidates for the Olog-hai:

1) Stone Trolls of the Hobbit: Unlikely, unless Sauron blinked when the trolls encountered Bilbo and Co.

2) Cave Troll(s) of the Fellowship of the Ring: Certainly possible- we know that the Olog-hai reside in Mordor, and that there has recently been a pack of Uruks sent from Mordor into Moria. The cave troll is also at home under the mountain, and the Olog-hai are said to reside in the Mountains of Mordor (as well as Dol-Goldur, but we have no other descriptions of trolls in the forest). Otherwise there is no evidence to support or refute it.

3) Mountain Trolls of Return of the King: Again possible- here we again have the Mountain Link and we have forces coming from Mordor.

4) Hill-Trolls of Return of the King: Originally my favorite candidate for Olog-hai, they seem to be the shock-troops that Sauron unleashes to wipe out the captains of the West. These Trolls come from Gorgoroth, which qualifies as the 'Mountains of Mordor' in my book. But again we have nothing else to support/refute their link to the Olog-hai.

5) Olog-hai: The only thing saying that Olog-hai can't be their own breed of trolls, separate from any breed appearing in the narrative, is that this would just be odd. Tolkien has done odd things before (Tom Bombadil). Of course, accepting the Olog-hai as their own anomolous entry takes the fun out of speculating where they might come from.

6) Troll-Men of Far Harad: My new favorite for the Olog-hai. They are problematic, because they are not 'unambiguously' declared to be trolls, but rather have the curious phrase 'black men like half-trolls' attached to them (if we believe that these are the same creatures as the troll-men a few pages later. Of course, we don't always believe that half-orcs doing fine in the sunlight refer to Uruk-hai who also do fine in the sunlight when those entries are separated by a few pages.). Yet I have no problem with Tolkien's use of the word 'like' here. He uses the phrases 'as if', 'as though', and 'like' throughout his works to refer to things that really *are* the way they seem. You can almost open the book to a random page to find him using this technique. There is definite controversy over whether or not these are indeed trolls. Yet, if we for a moment look beyond the controversy, we see that these are the only 'troll-like' creatures that Tolkien ever describes as unambiguously operating in the sun. Why would Tolkien mention the ability to operate in the sun in appendix F if he never intended to describe trolls operating in sunlight?
The men are described as coming from Far Harad, and the Olog-hai are described as having 'appeared in Southern Mirkwood and in the mountain borders of Mordor'. Here again we have no problem unless we want one. Southern Mirkwood is home to Dol-Goldur, the mountains of Mordor are home to Barad-dur. If Sauron wanted to find a place to breed trolls with men, then he could scarcely come up with a better place than his two strongest fortresses, which doubtlessly had pits for breeding (I'm sure there's a mention of these pits somewhere).
Also, troll-men seem (obviously) different enough from the other varieties to get their own mention in the appendix. We are given no obvious descriptive differences between Stone, Cave, Mountain, or Hill trolls, so none of them are inherently better candidates for the Olog-hai then the others. Troll-men are better candidates for getting their own mention because they would (if they really existed) be so different from other varieties.
We also know that the blood of men provide some sort of enhanced ability to deal with the sun to the 'evil things that came in the Great Darkness' (unless we consider Treebeard to be a liar). The Olog-hai can withstand sunlight when the will of their master is upon them. This is better than 'the older race of the Twilight'. No matter how we choose to read this passage, the fact is that Olog-hai could withstand the sun, while other trolls could not. If Sauron bent his will towards any of the older races of trolls, they still turned to stone in the sun. Therefore the will of Sauron is not the only player here. Not only must Sauron bend his will towards the Olog-hai for them to operate in sunlight, but also something must be different about the Olog-hai themselves for them to be able to respond to the force of his will (for lack of a better phrase). Troll-men (if they really are trolls) would provide an obvious substrate- human blood carries the ability to withstand the sunlight.
Finally Olog-hai would fit a theory on the usage of the term 'hai'. Olog means troll, a theory for the word 'hai' is that it means men, so Olog-hai would mean troll-men. It is unclear how 'troll-folk', or 'greater-trolls', or any of the other theories for 'hai' (except for 'sun tolerant only when the will of their master is upon them') could be applied to any of the other varieties of trolls. If you accept that Tolkien could say 'men like half-trolls' to refer to actual trolls, then I think that Troll-men become the most likely candidate for the Olog-hai, though of course there is a world of difference between 'most likely candidate' and 'only candidate'.

Originally posted by Greenwood
From my Webster's Dictionary: profession -- any vocation or business. also: vocation -- a particular occupation, business, or profession; a function or station. So yes, in the sense of a job slave is a profession. <snip>As for Tolkien, he is not the translator. He is the author. He wrote the entire book, he did not translate it. More words games on your part.

Click to expand...

You are correct, JRRT wrote the entire book (i.e. external).
There is nothing to suggest that JRRT considered that he was presenting himself (acting in the 'role') as a 'translator' of the 'Red Book of Westmarch' ('compiled' by one B.B. Baggins and "as seen by the Little People; being the memoirs of Bilbo Frodo...") (i.e. internal).

"In presenting the matter of the Red Book, as a history for people of today to read, the whole linguistic setting has been translated as far as possible into terms of our own times. Only the languages alien to Common Speech have been left in their oroginal forms, but these appear mainly in the names of persons and places.
"The Common Speech, as the language of the Hobbits and their narratives, has inevitably been turned into modern English...".
LotR Appendix F (II): On Translation.

In The Ride of the Rohirrim in ROTK we find the following passage: "Merry felt that he had seen him before somewhere, and suddenly he remembered the Pukel-men of Dunharrow. Here was one of those old images brought to life, or maybe a creature descended in true line through endless years from the models used by the forgotten craftsmen long ago." Clearly Tolkien is telling us the Woses or Druedain are the Pukel-men.<snip>

Click to expand...

Quite, sort of.

Yes, you "mentioned" the passage, but you conveniently forgot to mention that Tolkien quite clearly says that uruk "referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of of the regiments of Mordor" with no reference to Isengard.<snip>

Click to expand...

If you say so.
But I find this odd: The paragraph I posted (1-26-02 3:54pm) containing the cite from Q&E:

While taken by themselves it would seem that we have two different Orcs with the personal name 'Snaga' (though JRRT does not repeat any other personal Orc names in LotR). However, when taken in context with App. F (wherein it is noted that the word 'snaga' is Black Speech for 'slave', and that the lesser kinds of Orcs were called 'snaga' especially by the Uruk-hai), and in 'Quendi and Eldar' (wherein it is said that 'uruk' "... referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor. Lesser breeds seem to have been called snaga"), a different picture emerges.

Click to expand...

Quite clearly has: 'wherein it is said that 'uruk' "... referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor.' Which you say I 'conveniently forgot to mention'.
You are right, no mention of Isengarders at all. Probably because JRRT here is writing about Sauron's Orcs, who seem to have called lesser breeds 'snaga'.

No, the Nazgul was wrong in each case. Sam was not a "great Elf in bright armour". In fact Sam never wore the mithril coat that you claim gave rise to this report. And if the Nazgul seriously thought it might be a "great Elf in bright armour", how did he think a bunch of orcs got this armour off the "great Elf". Sam was not a "small dwarf-man". Sam doesn't look anything like a man. And Gorbag's boys were not "Uruk-hai", they were Uruks as Gorbag himself called them. The Nazgul was wrong in every case and didn't have a clue what was going on. That a pack of Saruman's rebel Uruk-hai could have attacked is far more likely than that a "great Elf in bright armour" sneaked past Minas Morgul got up the stairs, wiped out the Cirith Ungol Uruks and Gorbags Uruks and then left his armour behind.

Click to expand...

The importance is what was 'reported'. The Orcs seemed to believe that there was an "large warrior loose, Elf most likely, with an elf-sword any-way...", Sam even "grimly smiled at this description of himself". That Frodo had 'bright armour' might lead the Orcs to believe that the 'Elf-warrior' had 'bright armour', and report that too (and Elf-warriors often wore 'bright armour'). But then Sagrat would not include any of this in his 'report'.

Yes, I am sure you are correct. Sam, the Hobbit, does not look anything like a man.
"Hobbits on the other hand were in nearly all respects normal Men, but of very short stature." (PoME, Dwarves and Men).
"The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically human race...". (Letter 131).
"I am in fact a Hobbit (in all but size). I like gardens, trees..." (Letter 213).
He probably wasn't a 'dwarf-man' either.

Yes, it is far more likely that that a pack of Saruman's Uruks (who were decimated a few days earlier) slipped hundreds of miles through enemy territory, and assaulted Cirith Ungol, to seize Frodo, killed everybody in the tower (except Shagrat (who got away, with a bright mail coat, an elf-cloak etc, and reported), and a few others), then made it look like Gorbag's and Shagrat's troops had killed each other.

Once again, you resort to word games to hide the fact that you are ignoring the main point under discussion.
[and]
Or is Tolkien misleading us again as you so often imply with your word games rather than deal with the topic under discussion.
[and]
We wonders, why my precious? Yes we wonders. Even now you do not address my points, but instead you play word and debating games
[and]
I am tired of wasting my time with you since you continue to play word games and play debating games rather than actually engage in discussion.

Click to expand...

Yawn.

Why 'hai' might mean 'man'

Again, the three usages of Black Speech 'hai'

Usage 1: Uruk-hai
These are the orc soldiers who are definitely from Isengard, and who are also possibly from Mordor. The Uruk-hai of Isengard definitely are resistant to the sun (they brag about it at the Battle of Helm's Deep). We don't know about the 'Uruk-hai of Mordor', because nobody ever refers to themselves as such. Treebeard states (not to be confused with speculates) that 'evil things that came in the Great Darkness ... cannot abide the sun', implying that older species of orcs cannot abide the sun. He also states that 'these Isengarders (orcs, not Dunlendings) are more like wicked men'. This is not speculation on Treebeard's part, this is a statement. Later Treebeard speculates that the Isengarders might be orcs crossed with men (not much of a stretch, given the above statements), but this should not be confused with him speculating that orcs generally can not abide the sun. Tolkien in Morgoth's Ring indeed confirms that Saruman crossed men with orcs. What do you know? Treebeard wasn't lying after all, and his speculation about Saruman crossing orcs and men was dead-on! At Helm's deep Gamling remarks that the the half-orcs of Saruman will do fine in the sunlight. Later on, Orcs claiming to be Uruk-hai also say that they will do fine in the sunlight. The men of Dunland also did fine in the sunlight. I tend to think that if I were there, than I too would have been a-ok when the dawn came. Either Tolkien was merely wasting our time as readers by remarking at what a non-issue the dawn was, or else he was clueing us in that the half-orcs were related to the Uruk-hai by their mutual tolerance of the sunlight, which Treebeard tells us (not to be confused with 'speculates that this') was not the norm for orcs. Finally, drawing attention to the fact that Tolkien describes Saruman's troops as 'Orc-men', it does not seem too great of a stretch that Uruk-hai (Uruk being Black Speech for 'Orc') who are also sun tolerant, might be translated as 'orc-men', thereby giving Saruman only a single variety of sun-tolerant orcs, rather than 2 (which really would have made Treebeard look bad).

Usage 2: Olog-hai
Well, this was addressed in my post above. We know very little about the Olog-hai. They are bred by Sauron, so there was some control as to what genetic material went into them. Normal trolls could not withstand daylight, but Olog-hai could, which indicates that some of the genetic material probably came from a source other than trolls, since none of the extant breeds could withstand sunlight. Treebeard thinks that crossing orcs with men creates sun-tolerant orcs, I have no reason to believe that crossing trolls with men wouldn't have a similar effect. As Cian has pointed out, Sauron's will had to be directed towards the Olog-hai for them to be able to withstand daylight. As I addressed in my previous post, the direction of Sauron's will can not logically be the only necessary ingredient, else Sauron could also just focus his will on all his other trolls and to hell with breeding Olog-hai. It is therefore a requirement that the Olog-hai have something about them that is different from all of the other trolls- something which would combine with Sauron's will to make them sun-tolerant. Men's blood helps the orcs with sunlight, it could help the Olog-hai with sunlight. Crossing trolls with men would produce a race known as 'troll-men'. Olog is black speech for troll, so if 'hai' meant 'men' then 'Olog-hai' would be a direct translation of 'troll-men'. Appropriately enough, Tolkien refers to a group in the battle at Pelannor as 'troll-men', and these are the only 'troll-like' creatures that Tolkien ever describes as operating in the sun in his narrative. Earlier he also refers to 'black men like half-trolls'. It is reasonable to believe that these two creatures are the same ones (although it's amusing that this theory was originally proposed by a member unwilling to ever accept that 'goblin men resistant to sunlight' might be the same people as 'Uruk-hai resistant to sunlight', though the two passages are only separated by a page). However, Tolkien perfuses his narrative with descriptions of 'like', 'as though', and 'as if' meaning, collectively, 'they were'. It is therefore not impossible that 'black men like half-trolls' might actually refer to real half-trolls. If it does refer to real half-trolls, then troll-men would also be a valid name for them. 'Hai' translated as men would then give the Olog-hai as troll-men, thus combining the only two 'troll-like' creatures Tolkien ever describes as operating in sunlight into a single race.

Usage 3: Oghor-hai
This one is getting easier every time I type it. I'll start with the names that other races have applied to the 'dru-folk'.
1) Druedain- given by the Sindar, literally 'Dru-men'
2) Pukel-men, given by the Rohirrim to refer to the effigies of the 'dru-folk' (although Tolkien uses the term to refer to the actual people on pp.400-401 of UT), literally 'goblin/demon-men'
3) Wose, only used once by the Rohirrim, otherwise translated by the narrator to 'wild men', which is it's literal translation.
Clearly the only way that Oghor-hai could be rendered to remain consistent with the other three names of the 'dru-folk', would be to have 'hai' mean 'men'. The nice thing here is that nobody is arguing that the 'dru-folk' are men, they really are. Therefore I don't see any way that 'hai' translated as 'men' in this case could be controversial, unless perhaps because it strengthens my arguments for 'Olog-hai' and 'Uruk-hai' meaning 'troll-men' and 'orc-men', respectively. To further belabor the point, Wose, Pukel, and Ogor all have related roots in Anlo-Saxon/Ancient Germanic languages. These are of course the speciality of our good professor, and it is beyond coincidence that he would use three such related words to refer to the same race. I'll just remind everybody that the suffixes to these same three names are 'men', 'men', and 'hai', respectively.

In brief summary.
Tolkien describes orc-men, who are apparently tolerant of sunlight. Tolkien describes Uruk-hai, who are apparently tolerant of sunlight. Other orcs are moderately intolerant of sunlight. Uruk-hai could be a literal translation of 'orc-men'.
Tolkien mentions 'troll-men' operating in sunlight. Tolkien mentions that the 'Olog-hai' are capable of operating in sunlight. Other trolls are completely incapable of operating in sunlight. Olog-hai could be a literal translation of 'troll-men'.
Tolkien describes the dru-folk as men. The Rohirrim and the Sindar both give the dru-folk names with 'men' in the names. The orcs could be doing the same, saying 'Oghor-hai' to mean 'Ogre-men' (Note, Oghor does not need to be translated as Ogre to make the above point valid. Please do not post saying that "Oghor might not mean Ogre, therefore 'hai' translated as 'men' is utter nonsense.")

I came across another interesting passage in my reading. In Sauron Defeated there is the following editorial note by Christopher Tolkien. In them he is discussing the changing names of orcs on the various drafts of The Tower of Kirith Ungol chapter in ROTK.

"The name of the sole survivng orc beside Shagrat is Radbug in both C and D (Snaga in R[OT]K; see L[OT]R Appendix F, p 409), Radbug being retained in the final story as the name of an orc whose eyes Shagrat says that he had squeezed out (R[OT]K p. 182); in C the orcs whom Sam saw running from the gate and shot down as they fled are Lughorn and Ghash > Muzgash (Lugduf and Muzgash in D, as in R[OT]K). Where in RK Snaga declares that 'the great fighter' (Sam) is 'one of those bloody-handed Elves ..........."

Thus we see, again, that Christopher Tolkien reads the word Snaga as being used in ROTK as the actual name of an orc. A reading completely in keeping with what any reasonable person would conclude from reading the chapter in ROTK. Earlier I pointed to an editorial note of Christopher Tolkien's in The Treason of Isengard. I will repeat that editorial note here: "The Orc-names Snaga and Mauhur appear already in the preliminary draft." Thus Christopher Tolkien also believes that Snaga was being used as an orc's name in The Two Towers.

Tar-Elenion has insisted on pointing to Appendix F of ROTK in which Tolkien says that "snaga" means slave and that therefore the uses of Snaga in The Two Towers and in Return of the King cannot be an orc's name but just means slave. In response I pointed out that in many languages a word that once described a person's profession had become a persons name (i.e. Miller, Smith, Fisher, Taylor, etc.). Tar-Elenion's only response was a snide comment "Is slave a profession?" thus, as is his habit, deflecting attention from the main argument. Tar-Elenion then threw in a comment about the capitalization of the word snaga in the account merely being a result of Tolkien "acting in his role as translator". When I pointed out that Tolkien was the author of the LOTR, Tar-Elenion agreed (how could he not?) and then said "There is nothing to suggest that JRRT considered that he was presenting himself (acting in the 'role') as a 'translator' ..... ". Of course it was Tar-Elenion who had dodged the capitalization issue on the word Snaga by saying Tolkien was "acting in his role as translator" and now Tar-Elenion dodges the actual topic even further and in the process dodges his own dodge!

Returning again to the word snaga and whether it can mean slave and also be used as a character's name I point to Christopher Tolkien's first editorial note above in which he reports that in one manuscript his father named an orc Ghash. We also found out when the Fellowship was in Moria that ghash means fire. Thus JRRT (at least at one point in time) seemed to have no problem with using a Black Speech word as both a name of a creature and a name of a thing.

Now obviously this question about the word/name Snaga is an exceedingly minor point in the vast scheme of the LOTR and is pretty minor even in the context of the discussion on this thread. I have only gone through all of the above to once again demonstrate the extreme lengths to which Tar-Elenion will resort to avoid actually discussing the meat of an issue an to avoid ever admitting that someone else's viewpoint might have merit, much less that, Heaven forbid!, Tar-Elenion could be wrong about anything. I expect that Tar-Elenion will have some profound and deeply thought-out response such as his last one: "Yawn".

As I said earlier, I will no longer waste my time arguing with Tar-Elenion, but I thought it worth my time to demonstrate to other readers the hollowness of Tar-Elenion's debating techniques.

Can I make a small and perhaps not particularly erudite contribution to this discussion?

It seems clear to me that both Sauron and Saruman, at various times, engaged in orc breeding. This is stated in many places. Therefore, because they presumably did not work in open partnership, Sauron's breeds and Saruman's breeds will be different in some way.

Now, here is my question: if they are different breeds of orcs, would Tolkien have given them different names or at least have implied that difference in his texts? I believe he would (he was a bit of a stickler for attention to detail wasn't he). That being accepted, what name did Tolkien use for Saruman's "best" orcs? If it is not Uruk-hai then what is it?

If I have understood the arguments correctly, it seems to me that Greenwood's view is entirely compatible with the available writings, especially LoTR (though I think he might take a few lessons in humility).

Now, here is my question: if they are different breeds of orcs, would Tolkien have given them different names or at least have implied that difference in his texts? I believe he would (he was a bit of a stickler for attention to detail wasn't he). That being accepted, what name did Tolkien use for Saruman's "best" orcs? If it is not Uruk-hai then what is it?

Click to expand...

Ged

I agree.

(though I think he [Greenwood] might take a few lessons in humility).

Click to expand...

If by that you mean I have exhibited exasperation and some annoyance over spending a not inconsiderable number of hours engaged in dealing with Tar-Elenion's legalistic word games and dodges rather than actually discussing the topic, I will accept your characterization and plead guilty. If you refer to my refusal to treat Tolkien's posthumously published work as being on an equal footing with what he himself published in his own lifetime, I humbly disagree.

Intallment 4 in posts to myself

Why 'Rebel Urukhai' seems so ambiguous:

The Return of the King, p. 247:
"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 Urukhai; or maybe it's all the lot together."
"Ar!" said the tracker. "They've lost their heads, that's what it is."

A few things to look at here:
1) The Orcs think the bosses have 'lost their heads.' They clearly do not believe that these alternatives are likely. They think the bosses are grasping at straws, hence 'then it must be a pack of rebel Urukhai; or maybe it's all the lot together'. The whole context of this passage is that both Orcs are upset at their orders, which do not give the Orcs something clear or even likely to find. Clearly, whatever the 'rebel Urukhai' are, they need not be the 'likeliest' option, as the orcs themselves don't seem to feel that they any of the options are likely.

2) The Higher Ups got it wrong on 'dwarf-man' and 'great Elf'. Frodo is not a dwarf-man, he is a Hobbit (or Halfling as Ugluk correctly identifies them in Two Towers). The Nazgul are infinitely aware of what Hobbits are, having just vacationed in the Shire the previous fall. If they knew what they were looking for, and wanted to give a good description, they would have said 'look for a halfling', just as Ugluk was apparently told to 'look for a halfling'.
Similarly, Sam is in no way a 'great Elf'. We're not asking what the Orcs might think Sam is. We're asking what he is. Is he a 'great Elf'? No, he is a Hobbit. The Higher Ups again have it wrong.
If we now assume that Gorbag's lot really were Uruk-hai, then this would be the only case where the Higher-Ups were right. It would then become the exception in their list, since they were wrong about the dwarf-man and great Elf. If we are to say that 'Frodo is almost like a dwarf-man', or 'they might think Sam is a great Elf', then we can equally say 'the Uruks of Gorbag are almost like the Uruk-hai of Isengard.' But, of course, the fact is Frodo is not a dwarf-man and Sam is not a great Elf, they are Hobbits. Therefore the troops of Gorbag are not necessarily actual Uruk-hai. In fact, if they were actual Uruk-hai then they would be the exception in the list of 'dwarf-man, great Elf, and rebel Urukhai' as the only thing that actually existed in Mordor at that time.

3) The hyphenation issue. In my two copies of Return of the King (one copy from 1973, the year of Tolkiens death- 46th printing of 1st Ballantine edition; one copy from 1983- 71st printing of 1st Ballantine edition) the orc in question says 'rebel Urukhai', which might be different than 'rebel Uruk-hai'. I say might because it might just be a printing error. Apparently it has since been amended to 'rebel Uruk-hai', but this was clearly done after the death of the author. Either someone found a note written by him saying 'change Urukhai to Uruk-hai', or else they were assuming this passage was erroneous throughout the 46 printings that occurred during the lifetime of the author (I'm assuming that editions earlier than mine also said 'Urukhai', I'd be interested to hear otherwise). The orc that makes this statement was earlier described as 'a big fighting-orc, like those of Shagrat's company'. This is certainly a Uruk speaking. Yet Tolkien (either intentionally or not) has the Orc mis-represent Uruk-hai as Urukhai. Perhaps Tolkien is showing us that this Orc is unfamiliar with the term, which would be the case if Uruk-hai were strictly soldiers of Isengard and a new breed. I'm not saying this definitively makes 'rebel Urukhai' soldiers of Isengard because the Mordor Orc 'spells' it wrong'. I am saying that the spelling in the book adds to the ambiguity of this, the only passage of a Mordor Orc referring to the Uruk-hai.

The point I am trying to underscore here is that 'rebel Urukhai' is an ambiguous passage. We do not know whether it refers to Orcs of Mordor or Isengard, although we certainly know that Mordor Orcs regard Isengarders (including Saruman) to be rebels after the Grishnakh-Ugluk episode. To take this ambiguous passage to be an exception to the otherwise consistent use of 'Uruk-hai', and then to try and say that this is proof that Sauron also deployed Uruk-hai is bad reasoning. If it were just an exception in the usage the reasoning would not be that bad, but since it is an ambiguous exception (and hence possibly not an exception at all), it is ridiculous to use it to contradict the other, clearer usages. The goal here is not to prove that there is only one interpretation of Uruk/Uruk-hai (there are clearly several different readings). It is to determine which usage is most likely out of several options.

3) The hyphenation issue. In my two copies of Return of the King (one copy from 1973, the year of Tolkiens death- 46th printing of 1st Ballantine edition; one copy from 1983- 71st printing of 1st Ballantine edition) the orc in question says 'rebel Urukhai', which might be different than 'rebel Uruk-hai'. I say might because it might just be a printing error.

Click to expand...

Aragil

I believe the lack of hyphenation is a printer's error. The version I typed in the first post on this thread (with hyphenation) is how it appears in my Houghton Mifflin hardcover volume of ROTK purchased in the 1960s. (I do not have the volume at hand so I can not tell you which edition or printing it is.) Every time I have ever seen Uruk-hai printed (LOTR, HoME, etc.) it was always hyphenated. Until Cian asked about hyphenation I was unaware that it had ever appeared anywhere without the hyphen.

You have been much more articulate than I in explaining why the mention of "rebel Uruk-hai" by an orc in Mordor is at best ambiguous and hence can be ignored when looking at the overall usage of Uruk-hai in LOTR.

Originally posted by Greenwood
Tar-Elenion has insisted on pointing to Appendix F of ROTK in which Tolkien says that "snaga" means slave and that therefore the uses of Snaga in The Two Towers and in Return of the King cannot be an orc's name but just means slave. In response I pointed out that in many languages a word that once described a person's profession had become a persons name (i.e. Miller, Smith, Fisher, Taylor, etc.). Tar-Elenion's only response was a snide comment "Is slave a profession?"

Click to expand...

Although I'm sure there have been snide comments, this one wasn't, as I thought the 'smiley' (which was (as happens) left out of your quote) was supposed to indicate.

thus, as is his habit, deflecting attention from the main argument. Tar-Elenion then threw in a comment about the capitalization of the word snaga in the account merely being a result of Tolkien "acting in his role as translator". When I pointed out that Tolkien was the author of the LOTR, Tar-Elenion agreed (how could he not?) and then said "There is nothing to suggest that JRRT considered that he was presenting himself (acting in the 'role') as a 'translator' ..... ". Of course it was Tar-Elenion who had dodged the capitalization issue on the word Snaga by saying Tolkien was "acting in his role as translator" and now Tar-Elenion dodges the actual topic even further and in the process dodges his own dodge!

Click to expand...

Of course the quote from 'App. F (II), On Translation', which I provided means nothing in the _context_ of my responce (posted 1-29-02, 6:09pm) to the query . Probably because it disagrees with a position held by Greenwood.

As I said earlier, I will no longer waste my time arguing with Tar-Elenion, but I thought it worth my time to demonstrate to other readers the hollowness of Tar-Elenion's debating techniques.
[and]
You have been much more articulate than I in explaining why the mention of "rebel Uruk-hai" by an orc in Mordor is at best ambiguous and hence can be ignored when looking at the overall usage of Uruk-hai in LOTR.

Click to expand...

With my 'hollow debating techniques' and continuous 'dodging' of your 'relevant' questions, and your dismissal of any 'secondary sources' which disagree with your position (and even the 'primary source' can be declared 'ambiguous' (ambiguous?, would JRRT try to 'intentionally mislead his reader'?) and 'ignored', when it disagrees with your position), we make quite a pair.
As Sam might say, 'A nice pickle we have landed ourselves in, Mr. Greenwood!'

In any event, I will stand by my points and join Cian and Grond.

"Rebel Uruk-Hai" at Cirith Ungol

The term "rebel Uruk-Hai" used by the two orcs pursuing Frodo and Sam does not refer to Isengarders. The mithril mail shirt, barrow sword, and elf-cloak were all carried off by Shagrat after the orc battle and Frodo's rescue by Sam. These same items were later shown by the Mouth of Sauron to Gandalph and Aragorn at the parley near the Black Gate. Shargrat must have reported the capture of the hobbits and the attempt by Gorbag and his Uruks to capture the prizes. Gorbag and his Uruk-Hai band are the "rebel" Uruks referred to. Thus the term Uruk-Hai being used by Morder Orcs about Uruks infers that the term cannot be unique to Saruman's. Therefore Uruk-Hai and Uruks are interchangeable and synonymous.