Originally posted by Aldanil
although I must opine, as a semi-interested observer and without the wish to disparage any who have joined in this most erudite debate, that the entire thread has long since come to resemble a medieval scholastic's hair-splitting wrangle over how many goblins can dance on the point of a scimitar...
Originally posted by ShagratU
"Tark" is not Black Speech, but an Orcish term used in debased Westron. Tolkien is quite clear on that point in Appendix F.
Originally posted by aragil
Well, it's nice to see that we have outside observers, even if they're not always posting. Almost makes me embarrased about titling five posts as 'posts to myself'. But it doesn't. Between Greenwood, ShagratU, Tar-Elenion, and myself (and Grond and Cian), we are evidently entertained by this debate.
Originally posted by Greenwood
All you have are possibilities, not proofs. You accept CT's view on this matter. I (and evidently Aragil) do not. You say there is no evidence CT is wrong. I consider the 14 examples I have cited as evidence that CT is wrong.
Originally posted by Greenwood
All "-hai" has to mean is light or sunlight. The contrast comes when the suffix is place in conjunction with another word. Thus Uruk-hai becomes something like "sunlight-orc", Olog-hai becomes "sunlight-troll" and Oghor-hai becomes "sunlight-goblinlike man".
Originally posted by Greenwood
I have no proof for it, as you have no proof for your suggestions.
Originally posted by Greenwood
Tolkien has given us very little Black Speech to work from and most (all?) of that is said to be debased words from other languages.
Originally posted by Greenwood
Aragil and I find your arguments unconvincing, as you find ours unconvincing.
Please indicate specifically where problems arise if we accept Christopher Tolkien on the issue!
Two major objections here. First, other Black Speech words place the adjectival element in front; nazgul, sharku. Word order is very important linguistically; consider how different French and English are on the placement of adjectival elements.
The second objection is that there is nothing to suggest that "Oghor" means "goblin-like man". There is considerable evidence to suggest that it doesn't. If "Oghor" meant "goblin-like man", we would expect it to include Black Speech elements for "goblin" and "man". But that would give us "Urukku", which is a far cry from Oghor.
But neither of you have shown why!
Originally posted by Greenwood
Aragil and I have done so repeatedly. That is why this thread is 25 pages long. The fact that you and Tar-Elenion do not agree with us does not mean we haven't done it.
Originally posted by Greenwood
We have shown why. Repeatedly. That you do not accept our arguments is not the same thing as our not giving arguments.
Originally posted by Greenwood
We do know from other names that Tolkien applied to the Druedain that tghere was evidently something goblinlike about them.
Originally posted by Greenwood
Do you have any other examples of Black Speech words that use hyphenated suffixes? Do you have any other examples (except for the three under discussion) of the use of "-hai"? Tolkien has given us damn little to work with here. How do you know the rules for hyphenated suffixes are the same as for word elements in an unhypenated word?
As for Oghor, there seems to be little to suggest what it means. We do know from other names that Tolkien applied to the Druedain that tghere was evidently something goblinlike about them.
Bit as I have said repeatedly in earlier posts on this thread, the meaning of "-hai" is irrelevant to the central question of the thread.
Quote by ShagratU
On review of the entire thread, your early standpoint appears to have been that the terms "Uruk-hai" and "Uruks" refer to separate classes of being. In this light, you claimed that the UT Isen text was inconsistent with LotR. At one point (page 3), you even asserted that:
"Nowhere in LOTR are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks."
Now, of course, we would now all agree that this statement is patently false.
Your position at the start of the thread would appear to be that "uruks" are quite distinct from "Uruk-hai", and you and aragil's attempts to define "-hai" as "-sun" or "-men" seem to arise from this position. Of course, we know now that Saruman's Uruk-hai are described as "Uruks" or "uruks" by Tolkien.
We have Ugluk describing his people as "the fighting Uruk-folk" and "the Uruk-folk of Isengard" when talking to other Orcs. [etc., etc.]
Quote by Tar-Elenion]
And both Cian and I own editions of LotR where it is not always hyphenated.
Originally posted by Greenwood
There is also nothing wrong (as you seem to imply with your phrasing "your early standpoint") with refining one's position over time. Indeed this is a normal and useful outgrowth of any discussion.
Originally posted by Greenwood
The only thing we "know now" is your rationalization for the usage of Uruks in Gorbag's statement. Tolkien, as the author of the piece chose to use Uruks here instead of Uruk-hai when a Mordor orc spoke of himself, just as Tolkien chose to always use Uruk-hai whenever one of Saruman's elite orcs spoke of himself. Aragil and I do not think this is coincidence, nor do we accept you convoluted explanations.
Originally posted by Greenwood
Saruman's Uruk-hai have never been described as Uruks.
Originally posted by Greenwood
I could also retype Tolkien's words into my own. It proves nothing but your ability to type.
Originally posted by Greenwood
We have shown why. Repeatedly.
Originally posted by Greenwood
What bothers me is that the first time this definition appears anywhere in print is apparently in Robert Foster's book which predates Christopher Tolkien's index in Unfinished Tales. CT has said he found Foster's work useful. That indicates to me that CT must have used Foster's work for something more important than as a paperweight for his father's papers. While we have discussed this issue for weeks, I can easily see CT considering it a trivial item when he was preparing his index for UT and just adopting Foster's definition.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, this definition doesn't even fit the style of the other definitions in the UT index. No other word is defined as an Anglicization. Is Uruks the only Anglicization in Tolkien? As far as I can tell it is the only defintion that defines a word, Uruk-hai, that is not even in UT.
In an earlier exchange with Tar-Elenion I gave quotes from CT showing that he says he has at times changed his father's writing to eliminate inconsistencies (this is before the HoME series), even in one case saying how a change he made brought his father's writing in line with Foster.
Yes, CT said in that same editorial note that he had now found additional writings of his father's that caused him to change things back, but he also said that this latest change did not solve everything and that it could itself be wrong. The point here is that just because something has been published by CT does not automatically make it equivalent to JRRT.
Greenwood wrote:
Tar-Elenion contended, and may still contend though he has dropped it from the discussion, that Snaga in the Tower of Cirith Ungol chapter is not the proper name of a specific orc (I do not remember; you may also accept his position.) Just about everyone else, including Christopher Tolkien, treats it as a character's name. I could now make blanket pronouncements that "we now know" Snaga is a name in this instance and Tar-Elenion is therefore wrong though I think he has probably not changed his view.
That you both have editions with typographical errors proves nothing but that typographical errors exist. That Tolkien might omit the hyphen in a personal (war-time?) letter to his son, where such niceties would of course be of no concern to him also proves nothing.
Quote by ShagratU
But there is nothing "convoluted" about my explanation! Tolkien says quite clearly that Gorbag and Shagrat's words were translated by the ring. It therefore is patently obvious that Black Speech words that the ringbearer had never heard before would be translated in the text. Where's the convolution?
What it proves is that the interpretation of "-hai" as "-folk" works perfectly well.
Quote by Tar-Elenion
CT had access to his father's materials, and no need to 'borrow' any defintions from Foster.
And as for Uruk-hai not being in UT it further reinforces the case that the defintion came from his father's writings.
It proves that JRRT himself, the one who invented the words, and put them together, used them with out a hyphen. You are of course at liberty to dismiss it, but it proves exactly that.
Originally posted by Greenwood
<snip>
Sam is not wearing the Ring later when he overhears Shagrat and Snaga talking, but still he understands them. Neither Frodo nor Sam are wearing the Ring when they overhear the tracker orc and the soldier orc talking, yet they understand them. Again when Frodo and Sam are overtaken in Mordor by orc troops the uruk driver speaks to them and they have no trouble understanding, but neither is wearing the Ring. You have latched on to what was suggested by Tolkien as a possibility (a possibility that doesn't fit with all the later instances in LOTR) to argue that Gorbag may have really said Uruk-hai when Tolkien has in fact written in the text that Gorbag said Uruks. I call that explanation "convoluted".
Especially when you then have to give a different explanation for Gandalf referring to the "Uruks of Mordor" (example 8) and when the large soldier orcs of Mordor are referred to as uruks by Tolkien on three other occasions in LOTR (examples 10, 11 and 13). Never does Tolkien unambiguously refer to Mordor soldier orcs as Uruk-hai.
Unfinished Tales is a collection of manuscripts. One of the major things the HoME series shows us is how much Tolkien rewrote and tinkered with his texts. I cannot but restate that all of Tolkien's posthumously published material is secondary to LOTR. You and Tar-Elenion continue to blindly ignore that fact.
You don't know this. CT said some of the definitions came from his father. He did not say all. The definitions that didn't come from his father came from somewhere. Either he made them up himself or perhaps he merely followed someone else. The point is we do not know. That you insist this defintion came from JRRT himself does not make it so.
That is pulling an argument out of thin air. It reinforces nothing. I could make up anything I want, point out that it isn't included in something and therefore it proves my point. And you try to characterize my arguments as specious? I would say your arguments are desperate.
In a war-time letter to his son where orthography would be of trivial importance to him. For that matter, since we know that the hyphen has been omitted in typographical error in published versions of LOTR how do you know the editor of the book of Tolkien's letters didn't make a similar typographical error? Have you seen the originals? I am not stating here that there is a hyphen in the original letter, just that you don't know for sure and even if there isn't (and there probably isn't), it doesn't prove a thing. You continue to be blind to the difference between published material that an author prepared for publication (LOTR) and unpublished and private material which an author never expected anyone but close friends and/or family to see in that form.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?