Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

[Grond]

Originally posted by Greenwood
Perhaps the question never came up before Tolkien's death because the usage is clear in LOTR? At least it always seemed clear to me. Without CT's index entry in UT and without third party "scholars" opinions, it would still seem clear.

What would have made it clear is the author discussing Orcs, Uruks and Uruk-hai in the Appendix under Orcs. That would have left nothing open for discussion. This blaring ommission makes one wonder as to what the proper answer is. It matters not what CT says or Tolkien scholars, the author should have included the information in the Appendix to LotR. So I hold the author's feet to the fire for not clearing the matter up.

I must say that it astounds me that we all think we know more about this conflicted issue than the author's son. He was his father's confidant and sounding board. But I still see enough evidence in the works to disagree with him; but, I am able to see that there are definately two sides to this issue.

 

[Greenwood]

So I hold the author's feet to the fire for not clearing the matter up.

Grond

Poor old JRR! I hope you aren't drummed out of the purist's league for that one.

 

[Grond]

There are times that even a great author makes a mistake. JRRT admitted as much on several occassions. If I'm drummed out of the purist elite for simply stating something the author himself portrayed, then so be it. I still consider myself a purist but I guess one would say I am a "realistic" purist or a purist resigned to the fact that the author is dead and not here to lend us his expertise. For anyone to say how the author would feel today if he saw the movie is ludicrous. He said over thirty years ago that his book wasn't a suitable subject for a movie (probably because of it's narrative style and the limited ability to render the world believable); however, with today's graphics and the right screenplay (maybe even PJ's although I'm sure the author would object to Arwen's expanded role ) it is possible that the author would have been "tickled pink" with a movie version of his book.

Who's to say? Certainly not the ever so humble Grond.

 

[Aldanil]

Although I think it very likely that Ronald would have been (most justifiably) horrified at quite a number of things that were done to his book in the course of this movie, the willful mangling / manufacturing of Arwen's character not least among them, I also have to concur with my main man the Mace that Tolkien's effort in creating the secondary world which he bequeathed to us was not an exercise in perfect certainty; the chapter on "The Problem of Ros"in The Peoples of Middle-earth shows that he very often struggled at length, and sometimes unsuccessfully, to bring all the fine details into agreement with one another and his own conception. Given the truly prodigious quantity and quality of his authorial invention, it seems only natural that there are gaps and lacunae left for subsequent explorers of Arda to wander around in. I'd further affirm with our humble Hammer that a screenplay might be written which would have pleased him; had PJ and his co-conspirators spent as much time working on the script as they did on all the other cinematic wonders on display at a theater near you, they might have come a little closer to it. Finally, any surety of ours, thirty years after the author's death, about how he would have reacted to the current movie must be speculative at best, if not necessarily "ludicrous". As I started by saying, I believe he would not have been happy by half, but we can hardly be certain, and one would like to imagine he would have found some solace in the tremendous success of a film derived from his Tale, however much flawed it might otherwise be.

All this is probably better suited to one of the movie forums, I'm sure, but Grond's comment got me going...

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Re: half breeds

Originally posted by Ossiriand Blade
The easiest explanation is that uruk,black speech for orc,refers to pure bred orcs wheras uruk-hai means half orc,an orc crossed with man.Tolkien uses this elsewhere with olog and olog-hai,or troll and half troll.

There is nothing in the corpus that indicates 'hai' is used for 'half'. The Uruk-hai are not 'Half-orcs' (a cross breed of Men and Orcs) and the Olog-hai are not 'Half-trolls' (a cross breed of Men and Trools). Try reading App. F, I, Other Races, Trolls.

 

[Greenwood]

The Uruk-hai are not 'Half-orcs' (a cross breed of Men and Orcs)

Tar-Elenion

Actually there are a number of indications in LOTR that the Uruk-hai are a some sort of half-breed, probably with men. Here are three quotations form LOTR:

A) In The Two Towers in the chapter "Treebeard", Treebeard says in talking about Saruman: "He has taken up with foul folk, with the Orcs. Brm, hoom! Worse than that he has been doing something to them; something dangerous. For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, ir has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!" (While not using the term Uruk-hai directly, this quote specifically suggests that the elite orc troops of Saruman that are capable of fighting in daylight, unlike orcs in general, were created by blending orcs and men.

B) Again in the chapter "Helm's Deep", Glamling says: "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." (Another character, not Treebeard, describes Isengard's, i. e. Saruman's, troops as being half breeds whose specialty is being able to fight in the sun.)

C) In The Two Towers in the chapter "Flotsam and Jetsam", Aragorn says: "We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep." (Yet another character referring to Saruman's orc troops as "half-breeds" or a blending of races.

Tolkien does not say specifically how it is that the Olog-hai can endure the sun or where they came from. He does say that no one doubted that Sauron bred them and that as long as "the will of Sauron held sway over them" they could endure the sun.

 

[Grond]

Well said Greenwood. I was just getting ready to dig into the books for quotes myself. Alas, you beat me to it.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

-----------------
Quothe Greenwood:
Cian and other forum members pointed out the Index entry (by Christopher Tolkien) in Unfinished Tales that says: "Uruks -- Anglicized form of Uruk-hai of the Black Speech."

[and]

Actually, I would find CT's take on the whole question interesting given that his entry in the index of UT conflicts with the apparent meaning in LOTR. It would not surprise me if the various Tolkien scholars were relying on CT's index entry in UT, a not unreasonable thing for them to do, but it does demonstrate the dangers of not going back to the primary source that I have been stressing.
--------------------

That the entry in the index to UT is CT's not necessarily accurate. What CT said about the index is:
"In the event there was no index to The Lord of the Rings until the second edition of 1966, but my father's original rough draft has been preserved. From it I derived the plan of my index to The Silmarillion... and also, both there and in the index to this book, some of the translations and the wording of some of the 'definitions'."
UT, Introduction, The Istari


Also try Letter 78: "Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks..."

------------
Quote:

Actually there are a number of indications in LOTR that the Uruk-hai are a some sort of half-breed, probably with men. Here are three quotations form LOTR:

A) In The Two Towers in the chapter "Treebeard",
<snip>
----------------------

As you note, Treebeard does not specifically refer to the Uruk-hai.
And as JRRT said of Treebeard (and Treebeard's reference to Orcs): "Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot that he does not know or understand."
Letter 153

--------------
Quote:
B) Again in the chapter "Helm's Deep", Glamling says: "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." (Another character, not Treebeard, describes Isengard's, i. e. Saruman's, troops as being half breeds whose specialty is being able to fight in the sun.)
-----------------------

Replace 'Treebeard' with 'Gamling' in the above quote.

--------------
Quote:
C) In The Two Towers in the chapter "Flotsam and Jetsam", Aragorn says: "We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep." (Yet another character referring to Saruman's orc troops as "half-breeds" or a blending of races.
---------------------------

You would be better served by providing a fuller context, particularly by noting that Aragorns reference to 'half-orcs' is in responce to Merry speaking of 'marching Orcs', and 'troops [of Orcs] on great wolves', and 'battalions of Men, most ordinary looking but others that were horrible with goblin-faces'.


Now go to UT, Battles of the Fords of Isen.
"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."

There is a clear distinction here between Orcs (the lesser variety small enough to ride wolves), Uruks (or Uruk-hai) and, Orc-men (or Half-orcs).

-------------------
Quote:
Tolkien does not say specifically how it is that the Olog-hai can endure the sun or where they came from. He does say that no one doubted that Sauron bred them and that as long as "the will of Sauron held sway over them" they could endure the sun.
---------------------

He also says "Trolls they were". Not Man-trolls, or Troll-men.

 

[Greenwood]

Tar-Elenion

my father's original rough draft has been preserved. From it I derived the plan of my index to The Silmarillion... and also, both there and in the index to this book, some of the translations and the wording of some of the 'definitions'."

And how do we, the readers, know what is JRR Tolkien and what is C Tolkien? He says he derived the "plan" of "my" index. This hardly sounds like we can take the whole index as being definitively JRR Tolkien's.

Also try Letter 78: "Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks..."

This is indeed interesting. This is the first time I have seen any reference to Tolkien ever discussing Uruk-hai. Can you give us some background and context for this quotation? To who and when was it written? Was Tolkien answering a question and if he was, what was it? Can you put the above quote in context? What comes before and after it?

As you note, Treebeard does not specifically refer to the Uruk-hai.
And as JRRT said of Treebeard (and Treebeard's reference to Orcs): "Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot that he does not know or understand."
Letter 153

Who or what else could Treebeard be referring to? There are repeated references to the Uruk-hai being some form of orc, that they belong to Saruman and that they do not care about sunlight. As for the Tolkien letter, the same questions as for the above letter. When did Tolkien write this and to who and what is the context? We know that Tolkien kept changing his mind about the origins of orcs; to such an extent that it seems it is impossible to resolve the question about orcs' origins because Tolkien himself never resolved it to his own satisfaction.

Replace 'Treebeard' with 'Gamling' in the above quote.

It is always a quaint conceit when an author treats his fictional characters as completely seperate personas from himself, but he did write them and put those words in their mouths. Following the above reasoning for Treebeard and now Gamling means we might as well not try to figure out what Tolkien meant on anything in his books. You are not seriously arguing that we treat LOTR as an actual history of real events and Tolkien is just repeating real people's conversations?

You would be better served by providing a fuller context, particularly by noting that Aragorns reference to 'half-orcs' is in responce to Merry speaking of 'marching Orcs', and 'troops [of Orcs] on great wolves', and 'battalions of Men, most ordinary looking but others that were horrible with goblin-faces'.

If you want a fuller context, you should give it. The full sentences before Aragorn's statement are (Merry speaking): " 'Most of them were ordinary men, rather tall and dark-haired, and grim but not particularly evil-looking. But there were some others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed. Do you know, they reminded me at once of that Southerner at Bree; only he was not so obviously orc-like as most of these were.' " It then continues: " 'I thought of him too,' said Aragorn. 'We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep.' "

We have four of Tolkien's characters Treebeard, Gamling, Merry and Aragorn all clearly saying that these troops of Saruman's are not normal orcs, nor normal men, but something in between. Maybe Tolkien was changing his mind in later years, but he never changed what he wrote in LOTR and it is pretty clear that in LOTR these are some sort of half-orc/half-man creatures. I do not see how these passages can be reasonably read in any other way.

Now as to the Battles of the Fords of Isen in Unfinished Tales I have stated at great length on other threads (see for example The Council of Elrond thread) why Tolkien's posthumously published works cannot be used to argue against the clear meaning of things in LOTR. Here I will only repeat part of Christopher Tolkien's Introduction to Unfinished Tales: "The problems that confront one given responsibility for the writings of a dead author are hard to resolve. Some persons in this position may elect to make no material whatsoever available for publication, save perhaps for work that was in a virtually finished state at the time of the author's death. In the case of the unpublished writings of J. R. R. Tolkien this might seem at first sight the proper course; since he himself, peculiarly critical and exacting of his own work, would not have dreamt of allowing even the more completed narratives in this book to appear without much further refinement. [emphasis added] Also germane is Christopher Tolkien's remarks in the Introduction to The Silmarillion: "A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for .... " This certainly holds true for all of Tolkien's unpublished work.

He also says "Trolls they were". Not Man-trolls, or Troll-men.

No where have I ever said that Olog-hai were crossbreeds or half anything. I said Tolkien said they could abide the sun when normal trolls could not and that Tolkien does not specify how this ability is arrived at. I have never said that -hai meant half. That was Ossiriand Blade's suggestion. I do not agree with it. I think an argument could be made that the suffix -hai refers to a sun tolerant ability in a creature that normally cannot abide, or shuns the sun, but I have not done enough research into LOTR to see if there are any exceptions that would argue against that.

 

[Cian]

Originally posted by Greenwood
But see my example 6: In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Seige of Gondor there is the following sentence: "No hours so dark had Pippin known, not even in the clutches of the Uruk-hai." In this case it is not any character using the term Uruk-hai to refer to Saruman's troops, but the book's "narrator" himself, Tolkien.

My usually bad math attests that I'm aware of example 6 but this is my point here actually, to the number of quotes and to their characterization. You have shown (so far) one quote in the narrative voice that points to Saruman's elite as -hai.

On the net, an orc enthusiast called "Shagrat" points out the same thing, when he says: "It's noteworthy that "Uruk-hai" is almost never used by the narrative voice in LotR."

The inconsistency is that throughout LOTR Tolkien refers to Saruman's elite orc troops are referred to as Uruk-hai, but in The Battles of the Fords of Isen they are called Uruks.

As said, Tolkien is "narrator" in UT, and in this way the Prof refers to Saruman's elite not throughout LotR with -hai, but once rather, using the examples given so far ~ generally note that "Uruks" occurs something like 9 times in UT I think.

Another mention about a quote given: when we do get to orc-eavesdrop a bit in Mordor, indeed we see the term "Uruk-hai" pop up ~ and "rebel" Uruk-hai, which (arguably anyway), might imply that there are non-rebel "Uruk-hai". A point such as it is anyway. Cheers

 

[Greenwood]

Another mention about a quote given: when we do get to orc-eavesdrop a bit in Mordor, indeed we see the term "Uruk-hai" pop up ~ and "rebel" Uruk-hai, which (arguably anyway), might imply that there are non-rebel "Uruk-hai". A point such as it is anyway.

Cian

It could equally be argued that to a Mordor orc, all Uruk-hai are rebels because they are Saruman's troops.

If one accepts the (I believe reasonable and justifiable) premise that uruk and Uruk-hai refer to subsets of the broader category of "orcs" and that uruk refers to Sauron's large, soldier orcs from Mordor and that Uruk-hai are a further refinement of uruks and refers to Saruman's elite, sun-tolerant orcs (these last two premises also seem reasonable and justifiable to me) than there are no inconsistencies within LOTR. All the examples given fit within this framework. It is only when material written by people other than Tolkien or Tolkien's posthumously published Battles of the Fords of Isen are considered that there is any inconsistency. I have repeatedly given the reasons why posthumously published material cannot be used in a case such as this (see my response to Tar-Elenion). We are left with an inconsistency apparently created by others, not Tolkien. If Tar-Elenion can give the relevant information about the letter he mentions in which Tolkien refers to Uruk-hai, then perhaps we can lay the inconsistency on Tolkien's doorstep. Based on what has been presented so far, I don't see how we can.

 

[Cian]

The quote is from a letter to Christopher Tolkien. Tar-E may elaborate or whatever, but here's a longer section:

"And of course, as you already discover, one of the discoveries of the process is the realization of the values that often lurk under dreadful appearances. Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable (though I fear it must be admitted that there are human creatures that seem irredeemable short of a special miracle, ...) JRRT 1944

Another:

"But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are as clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side ... Well, there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai. Keep up your hobbitry in heart, and think that all stories feel like that when you are in them." 1944 to CT

 

[Greenwood]

Cian

Thank you for the expanded material. Tar-Elenion's use of the quote was clearly out of context and not relevant to this discussion.

 

[aragil]

Just thought that I'd remark on the fact that quotes 2 and 9 (from the first page of this thread) seem to be in almost exactly the same context: 'Other people have messed up, now it is time for the biggest, meanest orcs to take care of it.' Both are referring to a group of orcs (plural), and both are essentially bragging about the abilities of big orcs. However, the Mordor orc says uruks, the Isengard orc says Uruk-hai. I think that it is lucky that the two terms are both used in virtually the same context, and I think it is useful to note how the two terms seem to make a distinction between the orcs of Mordor and those of Isengard.

Regarding secondary sources:
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/g/greatorcs.html
What I love about this entry is that it addresses the fact that the characters seem to regard the orcs of Isengard as a new race, but rather than following suit the encyclopedia insists that the characters in the book were wrong and that the Uruk-hai are really just the uruks, despite the fact that there is no use of the term Uruk-hai used anywhere between the fall of Ithilien and before the treason of Isengard.
I would also like to point out that Aragorn thinks that the orcs of Saruman (specifically those slain by Boromir at Amon hen) are different than any other orcs he's seen (he remarks about this), and he also claims to know more about orcs than any other man in Middle-Earth. It is to Aragorn that Gamling is speaking when he describes the half-orcs of Isengard. If Aragorn knew so much about orc-kind, and if the Uruk-hai were really just Uruks with white badges on, then it is unlikely that Aragorn would have been so perplexed by their appearance at Amon Hen, or that he wouldn't have corrected Gamling if the old warrior of Rohan was off base. Would Tolkien say:
"Aragorn is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and knows more of orc-kind than any man in Middle-Earth, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot that he does not know or understand."
Would anybody buy that as an excuse for Aragorn being unable to recognize that the Uruk-hai of Isengard are the same as the uruks which had been plaguing Middle-Earth for 500 years? Gandalf was able to recognize Uruks (from Mordor) in a matter of seconds while dodging arrows and trying to peer out of the chamber of Marzbul. Is there the slightest possibility that Uruks really are different from the Uruk-hai, and that perhaps Eomer, Glamding, Treebeard, and Aragorn really do know a little about Orcs?

 

[Tar-Elenion]

----------------
Quothe Greenwood"

And how do we, the readers, know what is JRR Tolkien and what is C Tolkien? He says he derived the "plan" of "my" index.
------------------------

He says 'my index' in reference to the Silmarillion. He says 'the index' for UT (which is what we are discussing).
Further he says he derived not only the 'plan' but used both the translations and wording of some definitions.

--------------------
Quote:
This hardly sounds like we can take the whole index as being definitively JRR Tolkien's.
------------------------


I did not say that the whole index could be definitively taken as JRRT's. What I did say was that the entry in question was not necessarily CT's.


But lets add some further circumstantial evidence. Robert Foster in his 'Complete Guide to Middle-earth' (which is useful despite some errors) notes the same thing, that 'uruks' is the "Anglicized" plural. It is odd that both CT and RF would use the same term, in the same circumstance, except that RF also had access to the (at that time) unpublished materials. So perhaps RF made it up, and CT (he did note that he found the Guide quite useful) simply lifted the terminology from RF. Or perhaps they are both drawing from the same source, JRRT and his index, with translations and wording.
Circumstantial, but intriguing none the less.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also try Letter 78: "Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-------------------
Quote:
This is indeed interesting. This is the first time I have seen any reference to Tolkien ever discussing Uruk-hai. Can you give us some background and context for this quotation? To who and when was it written? Was Tolkien answering a question and if he was, what was it? Can you put the above quote in context? What comes before and after it?
-----------------------

I take it, then, that you do not have Letters?

Certainly, though I note that Cian has given part of it, so I will respond below.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you note, Treebeard does not specifically refer to the Uruk-hai.
And as JRRT said of Treebeard (and Treebeard's reference to Orcs): "Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot that he does not know or understand."
Letter 153
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------
Quote:
Who or what else could Treebeard be referring to? There are repeated references to the Uruk-hai being some form of orc, that they belong to Saruman and that they do not care about sunlight.
---------------

And also to Uruk-hai in Mordor. These would be Saurons.

-------------------
Quote:
As for the Tolkien letter, the same questions as for the above letter. When did Tolkien write this and to who and what is the context?
---------------------

He wrote it in 1954, to Peter Hastings, in responce to PH asking if he had not 'overstepped the mark in metaphysical matters regarding for example Treebeards statement that the Dark Lord created Trolls and Orcs'. Tolkien responded that Treebeard does not say 'created' but rather 'made in counterfeit', and that Treebeard does not know everything anyways (or words to that effect).

-----------------
Quote:
We know that Tolkien kept changing his mind about the origins of orcs; to such an extent that it seems it is impossible to resolve the question about orcs' origins because Tolkien himself never resolved it to his own satisfaction.
-------------------

Here we agree.



--------------------
Quote:
It is always a quaint conceit when an author treats his fictional characters as completely seperate personas from himself, but he did write them and put those words in their mouths. Following the above reasoning for Treebeard and now Gamling means we might as well not try to figure out what Tolkien meant on anything in his books. You are not seriously arguing that we treat LOTR as an actual history of real events and Tolkien is just repeating real people's conversations?
------------------

I suggested no so thing. Though JRRT does note some such circumstances in any event, even in LotR itself.
Are you suggesting that we should just ignore what JRRT had to say about certain things just because it does not fit into a particular veiw?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You would be better served by providing a fuller context, particularly by noting that Aragorns reference to 'half-orcs' is in responce to Merry speaking of 'marching Orcs', and 'troops [of Orcs] on great wolves', and 'battalions of Men, most ordinary looking but others that were horrible with goblin-faces'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------
If you want a fuller context, you should give it.
-------------------

My paraphrase was clear enough. And notes the different types that Merry was speaking of.


--------------------
Quote:
The full sentences before Aragorn's statement are (Merry speaking): " 'Most of them were ordinary men, rather tall and dark-haired, and grim but not particularly evil-looking. But there were some others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed. Do you know, they reminded me at once of that Southerner at Bree; only he was not so obviously orc-like as most of these were.' " It then continues: " 'I thought of him too,' said Aragorn. 'We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep.' "
-----------------------

You left out the preceeding sentences where Merry speaks of the "endless lines of marching Orcs; and troops of them mounted on great wolves. And there were battalions of Men too[and then continue with the quote you provided above]."

Which of course ties in neatly with the 'Fords of Isen' narrative.

---------------------
Quote:
We have four of Tolkien's characters Treebeard, Gamling, Merry and Aragorn all clearly saying that these troops of Saruman's are not normal orcs, nor normal men, but something in between.
----------------------

We also have Merry and Pippin captured by the Uruk-hai, but do they ever call them Orc-men, or Man-orcs, or Half-orcs?
Note also"The Orcs yelled and jeered. 'Come down! Come down!' they cried... We are the fighting Uruk-hai."
The 'Orcs' are the Uruk-hai, not the Half-orcs, or Orc-men.

We know that _some_ of these troops are 'Half-orcs'. We do not have any defintive statement that the Uruk-hai are the 'Half-orcs'.
We do know that Saruman interbred Orcs and Men, in MR, JRRT refers to these as 'Saruman's wickedest deed producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile' (Morgoth's Ring pg 419), but he does not refer to these as Uruk-hai.

----------------
Quote:
Maybe Tolkien was changing his mind in later years, but he never changed what he wrote in LOTR
------------------

And perhaps he did not change his mind at all.

------------------
Quote:
and it is pretty clear that in LOTR these are some sort of half-orc/half-man creatures. I do not see how these passages can be reasonably read in any other way.
--------------------

I have not suggested that there were not any 'half/orc/half man creatures. What I have suggested is that the Uruks are not Half-orcs.

-----------------------
Quote:
Now as to the Battles of the Fords of Isen in Unfinished Tales I have stated at great length on other threads (see for example The Council of Elrond thread)
-----------------------

I will look at it.

-----------------
Quote:
why Tolkien's posthumously published works cannot be used to argue against the clear meaning of things in LOTR.
------------------

Yes they can. And they can also be used to clarify what is actually intended by the author himself.
------------------------
<some snipage>
Quote:
Also germane is Christopher Tolkien's remarks in the Introduction to The Silmarillion: "A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for .... " This certainly holds true for all of Tolkien's unpublished work.
---------------------------

Not necessarily. In many cases there is great consistancy. And when further clarity and insight into the Legendarium is offered by the posthumously published corpus it should be utilized, even if it forces one to put aside preconceived notions.


--------------------
Quote:
No where have I ever said that Olog-hai were crossbreeds or half anything. I said Tolkien said they could abide the sun when normal trolls could not and that Tolkien does not specify how this ability is arrived at. I have never said that -hai meant half. That was Ossiriand Blade's suggestion. I do not agree with it.
-------------------

Excellent.

------------------
Quote:
I think an argument could be made that the suffix -hai refers to a sun tolerant ability in a creature that normally cannot abide, or shuns the sun, but I have not done enough research into LOTR to see if there are any exceptions that would argue against that.
-------------------

It would be interesting to see that kind of argument.
However the Druedain are named Oghor-hai by the Orcs. The Druedain were Men and not of some creature that was normally sun-intolerant.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

-------------
Quothe aragil:
Would anybody buy that as an excuse for Aragorn being unable to recognize that the Uruk-hai of Isengard are the same as the uruks which had been plaguing Middle-Earth for 500 years? Gandalf was able to recognize Uruks (from Mordor) in a matter of seconds while dodging arrows and trying to peer out of the chamber of Marzbul. Is there the slightest possibility that Uruks really are different from the Uruk-hai, and that perhaps Eomer, Glamding, Treebeard, and Aragorn really do know a little about Orcs?
----------------

Is there any possibilty that JRRT might know what he is speaking of? There are Uruk-hai in Mordor as well, (refer to Cian's quote above), and JRRT refers to Saruman's as Uruks.
In any event I am not arguing that there were not differences between Sauron's Uruks and Saruman's Uruks. What I am debating is whether they were 'Half-orcs' or not. The Half-orcs are a seperate group, as is distinguished by the author. I am also debating that 'uruks' is the 'Anglicized' form of 'uruk-hai'.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Greenwood
Cian

Thank you for the expanded material. Tar-Elenion's use of the quote was clearly out of context and not relevant to this discussion.

You may consider it irrelevant, but I do not.

Letter 78 shows JRRT using Urukhai and its 'Anglicized' counterpart 'Uruks'.

Letter 66 shows JRRT using the plural 'Orcs' and then refers to CT being among the 'Urukhai', again suggesting that 'Uruk-hai' is a plural form.

Thank you Cian for typing those out.

 

[Cian]

Little favor for Tal-Elmar, since "winging" it's way into better MB circulation

 

[Greenwood]

Tar-Elenion

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.

First in regards to the index in Unfinshed Tales. Are you seriously arguing that JRRT produced the index for a book published seven years after his death? I also suggest you look at the copyright page of UT. There you will find it says "Introduction, Commentary, Index, and Maps copyright 1980 by Christopher Reuel Tolkien. [emphasis added] Clearly the index, like the introduction and commentary are Christopher Tolkien's work, not his father's. As such they bear no more weight than any other outside party's writings, they are not JRRT's words. Robert Foster's work is equally worthless in regard to the question since we do not know on what it is based. You say yourself there are errors in it. You cannot arbitrarily decide that in cases where Foster agrees with you he is right without any further evidence. You say: "So perhaps RF made it up, and CT (he did note that he found the Guide quite useful) simply lifted the terminology from RF"! That is precisely the point! Thank you for making it for me. This may indeed have happened. Personally, I suspect it did, but I have no proof. The point is it cannot be ruled out. You continue: "Or perhaps they are both drawing from the same source, JRRT and his index". But there is no JRRT index for Unfinished Tales! It is Christopher Tolkien's index.

I take it, then, that you do not have Letters?

You are correct. I do not own a copy of Tolkien's Letters. Neither do a lot of other Forum members, that is why it is incumbent on someone quoting from them to give a full enough account so that readers can judge what you are quoting. I have thanked Cian for taking the trouble to give some of the context of the letter. The fuller quote provided by Cian is: "And of course, as you already discover, one of the discoveries of the process is the realization of the values that often lurk under dreadful appearances. Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable". Clearly, Tolkien is discussing the nature of "bad folk" and whether they are created that way by their maker. He is not talking about the terms uruk and Uruk-hai and their meanings relative to each other. Your limited quote was totally misleading. The quote is irrelevant to this discussion.

You then say in regard to my question of what else could Treebeard being referring to: "And also to Uruk-hai in Mordor. These would be Saurons." But there is not a single bit of unambiguous evidence that there are any Uruk-hai in Mordor except for your contention that uruk and Uruk-hai are equivalent. You are engaging in circular reasoning, you are assuming the two terms as equivalent and then using the results of that assumption to "proof" the assumption.

Thank you for the fuller context of Tolkien's letter to Peter Hastings. As with the earlier letter to Christopher Tolkien above we now see that Tolkien's comment about Treebeard has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, but was in reference to the creation of orcs and trolls, something we are not discussing here.

I repeat, it is a quaint conceit when an author treats his fictional characters as seperate personas. It is the author who puts the words in his fictional characters mouths, so they are indeed the authors words. I am not ignoring JRRT's words in LOTR. You are attempting to do that by citing outside sources like Robert Foster and Christopher Tolkien over JRRT's own words in LOTR.

Moving on, if you wish more of the passage from the chapter Flotsam and Jetsam, very well we will move several more sentences up. Merry speaking: " 'He emptied Isengard. I saw the enemy go: endless lines of marching Orcs; and troops of them mounted on great wolves. And there were battalions of Men, too. Many of them carried torches, and in the flare I could see their faces. Most of them were ordinary men, rather tall and dark-haired, and grim but not particularly evil-looking. But there were some others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed. Do you know, they reminded me at once of that Southerner at Bree; only he was not so obviously orc-like as most of these were.' " It then continues: " 'I thought of him too,' said Aragorn. 'We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep.' " I fail to see how this longer quote in anyway changes Aragorn's statement calling them "half-orcs" and as Aragil has pointed out Aragorn is supposed to be one of the most knowledgeable men in all of Middle Earth on the subject of orcs. As for tying in with the "Fords of Isen", for the umpteenth time, Tolkien's posthumously published work cannot be used to refute the clear meaning of his words in LOTR.

You then go on to talk about Merry and Pippins capture and say that they do not call them half-orcs. But Merry and Pippin were captured by a mixed party. Some were Saruman's elite troops, the Uruk-hai. Some were Sauron's troops, but it is never specified whether they are the large uruks or the smaller kinds of orcs. And finally, some were definitely identified as the smaller, northern orcs from Moria. Therefore, of course, as a group Merry and Pippin would class them all as orcs. This was also Merry's and Pippin's first ever close-up encounter with orcs and not exactly the time to be composing a treatise on the different varieties.

Continuing, you say: "What I have suggested is that the Uruks are not Half-orcs." No one in this thread has suggested that uruks are half-orcs. This in fact is the opposite of what is being discussed. For you to even be arguing the point suggests you have not read and understood the thread. You seem to have jumped into the middle of it without understanding the discussion. The contention here is that uruks are a breed of orcs and that Uruk-hai are another kind of orc, belonging to Saruman who are light-tolerant and who are probably a blend of orcs (possibly uruks) and men.

Finally, on the subject of the suffix -hai you state: "However the Druedain are named Oghor-hai by the Orcs." The term Oghor-hai, as far as I can find appears no where in LOTR. The only reference I can find to it is a single mention in Unfinished Tales which appears to be the basis for your statement. There is no indication what-so-ever as to why orcs called the Druedain the Oghor-hai. Therefore, it could mean anything and cannot be used to argue for or against any meaning that might be considered for the suffix -hai.

 

[Grond]

Okay, I've been searching the works and have a few more tidbits of info to throw into the fire. They resolve the conflict for me but I know won't convince all or even any.

quote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This quote is from Morgoth's Ring, Text X, Myths Transformed, it states, "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...'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
end quote

Here is the perfect opportunity for the author (who wrote this passage himself) to clearly identify these half breeds as Uruk-hai and he does not. He instead refers to them as Men-orcs and Orc-men. We now have proof from the author's own hand that Saruman did indeed make Half-orcs as Tar-Elenion has stated. I now must agree with him that Uruk-hai does not identify them, else the author would have pointed it out in the referenced passage.

This quote also answers another thread about how orc's breed. I think my post back then was "the old fashioned way" and I think that this quote answers that riddle as well.

My logic is sound, even though this is from a later published source, it indicates clear evidence to me of the answer to the subject of this post. Argue if you will, but it is crystal clear to me.

That is my humble opinion, but I could be wrong.

***note***
I would like to emphasize that the quote above is that of JRRT and not CT. In my copy of Morgoth's Ring, CT's remarks are made in small type with JRRT's writings in large type.