• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

What I note is that Ugluk is directly responding to Grishnakh when he says:
"We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard ..."
If any of these things did not apply to the Uruk-hai in general, and Grishnakh really was a Uruk-hai, then wouldn't he have objected to this usage? I find Grishnakh's lack of objection to this statement far more telling than his lack of insults with the words Uruk-hai.

It's also curious that 'fighting' is considered a qualifier for Uruk-hai. If the only Uruk-hai are that of isengard, then all Uruk-hai are 'fighting Uruk-hai' because both Ugluk's statement and those of the Uruk-hai at Helm's Deep (the only self-labeled Uruk-hai in the books) identify themselves as fighting. If Uruk-hai includes the Uruks of Mordor, then it seems odd that some of them don't fight. What does Appendix F say? That the word uruk was applied to the soldier Orcs of Mordor and Isengard. Do some of these Soldier Orcs hold down desk jobs, so that they do not fight? Are there older Uruk-hai, who are making a living off the Mordor Pension Plan so that they no longer have to fight? Is this why fighting is a qualifier? From what I have read the word fighting would not serve as a qualifier for either the Uruks or the Uruk-hai, as both breeds (if they are different breeds) are clearly bred for fighiting (i. e. to be soldiers).

Also interesting is the fact that neither 'Oghor' nor 'hai' are pure Black Speech words, but were clearly derived from 1st age Orcish languages. Sauron devised the Black Speech during the Dark Years, which Tolkien tells us occurred during the Second Age. From the UT narrative 'The Druedain' it becomes apparent that the Orcs of Beleriand referred to the Druedain of Doriath as Oghor-hai. Since Doriath no longer existed when Sauron devised his Black Speech, it is highly unlikely that his 'hai' preceded the usage in Orcish Oghor-hai. Therefore I would say that the term 'hai' did not spring from Mordor but from Orcish, and Saruman (or Sharkey as his boys called him) would be as free to apply it to his Uruks as Sauron would have been.
 
A round of apologies

First off, I'd like to apologize for posting several times in succession. However, as I have not posted on this thread for some time I think it is only my right.

Now I'd like to start replying to earlier (much earlier) posts. This post was originally drafted on Thrusday February 24th, and so refers to posts on page 25 of this thread (assuming 15 posts per page).

My first contention is with those who posted that the narrator and the Westron-speaking characters in the book do not use the Black Speech. I would agree that characters do not generally make sentences entirely in Black Speech, but they are certainly not afraid to use names from the Black Speech. The word Nazgul immediately pops to mind. This is as much a name as Uruk-hai, and I think it is ridiculous to try and make an exception of it along the lines of: 'The characters can refer to the Nazgul in the Black Speech because there are only 9 Nazgul, but they could not refer to the Uruk-hai as such because there are more than 9 Uruk-hai'.
In fact, Nazgul is so commonly used that it is worth investigating. First off, we see that there is an anglicization for Nazgul- Ringwraiths. In fact, if we look at our indices in RotK, we see that under 'Ringwraiths' we are directed to Nazgul, under 'Black Rider(s)' we are directed to Nazgul, under 'Black Captain' we are directed to Nazgul, and under 'the nine' we are directed to Nazgul. It seems that if Uruks was an equivalent anglicization of Uruk-hai, then under Uruks we should also be directed to Uruk-hai. Yet, stare as I might at the index, Tolkien never says that Uruks are equivalent to Uruk-hai. In fact, they each get their own separate index entry, which I would say is in direct opposition to CT's entry in UT.
But I am not yet finished with the poor Nazgul. Looking at the entry in Appendix B for SA 2251 we see that when Tolkien introduces the Nazgul to us, he identifies them as both Nazgul and Ringwraiths, lest we might think that the two are different. Looking at an equivalent introduction in Appendix A, the stewards, we find that the race of uruks first appear out of Mordor in TA 2475, during the reign of Denethor I. Why would Tolkien give us a BS name and equivalent anglicization for Nazgul, yet neglect to say that Uruks is but an Anglicization for Uruk-hai? In fact, we can go to the same source as the Ringwraith-Nazgul passage: Appendix B, the tale of years. Here we see that it is owing to the attacks of Uruks of Mordor in TA 2901 that Ithilien is finally deserted. And yet again we do not see that Tolkien equates Uruks with Uruk-hai. If I didn't know any better I'd swear that they are different names referring to different breeds.
As for a character such as Gandalf being reluctant to use the BS name for Uruks (theoretically Uruk-hai), we have:
FotR p. 336, Gandalf naming the Nazgul as he recounts his meeting with Radagast
TT p. 129, Gandalf again naming the Nazgul, this time while talking to Strider, Gimli, and Legolas.
TT p. 256, Gandalf twice naming the Nazgul in haste, much as he named the Uruks of Mordor in Moria. We also have Gandalf describing the Nazgul as 'messengers of Mordor' so that we don't confuse them with the Nazgul who are messengers of Isengard. Much as Ugluk says that he is one of the fighting Uruk-hai of Isengard, not to be confused with the fighting Uruk-hai of Mordor, or the non-fighting Uruk-hai of Isengard.
RotK p. 112 Gandalf telling Denethor that the Lord of the Nazgul has come.
RotK p. 280 Gandalf telling Gwaihir that he must fly faster than the Nazgul. To the best of my knowledge this is the last time the Nazgul are mentioned in the narrative, and they are mentioned using their Black Speech name, by the same character who identifies Orcs in Moria as 'black Uruks of Mordor'.
I'd say that the characters in the novel are free to refer to the Nazgul using the Black Speech handle whenever they feel like it, as is the narrator. Perhaps the characters don't use the term 'Uruk-hai' because they've never heard it. Well, to examine this question, let's look at a probable history for the Uruk-race, as can be gleaned from the appendices as well as HoME v. 12:
TA 2460: Sauron re-establishes Dol-Guldur and gets busy with business, which presumably includes designs for a stronger Orc Race- the Uruks.
TA 2475: Uruks are first seen by the free peoples, as they drive Gondorians out of Ithilien, but are later repulsed by Boromir I.
TA 2480: Orcs begin re-populating the Misty Mountains, and creatures of Sauron begin to fill up Moria. Which Orcs and which of Sauron's folk? Probably the Uruks, which Sauron has just bred and which are very tough fighters.
TA 2509: Celebrian, the wife of Elrond, is captured by Orcs at the Redhorn pass. Which Orcs? Probably the ones which were just recently bred and sent to Moria- the Uruks. These Orcs are later hunted down by Elladan and Elrohir- so now Elrond has probably heard of the Uruk-folk.
TA 2510: Northern Gondor is over-run by the Orcs of the Misty Mountains and Easterlings. Cirion sends for Eorl, who comes down and erradicates the Orcs and Men, thus earning the land of Rohan. So you could say that the History of Rohan is wound up with the Uruk-folk, or at least that the Rohirrim are familiar with the Uruks. In an interesting side-note, Tolkien originally had Elladan and Elrohir also attacking the Orcs at the Field of Celebrant, further associating these Orcs with those of TA 2509 (see HoME v 12).
TA 2740: Orcs of the Misty Mountains are apparently recovered to the point that they can resume attacks into Eriador.
TA 2747: Orcs under the command of Golfimbul attack the Shire, and are repulsed by Bandobras 'bull-roarer' Took. Well the Uruk-folk are probably now known to the Rangers and the Shire-folk. The Uruks also seem to be resurgent after the set-back at Celebrant. What will stop them?
TA 2766-2769: War of the Dwarves and Orcs. Included in the combat are Azog and his guard, which were great Orcs that were agile and strong. It appears as if the Dwarves now know of the Uruk-folk as well, and that most of them have been temporarily erradicated from the Misty Mountains. Still, something tells me that they'll be back.
TA 2901: Uruks of Mordor attack Ithilien yet again, this time ruining it during the reign of Turgon, Grandfather of Denethor.
TA 2933: Orcs slay Arathorn while he rides with Elladan and Elrohir. We've already seen that the twins are particularly vindictive against the Uruks, so it's a good bet that it was Uruks that slew Arathorn. Again the Dunedain and Elves of Rivendell are aware of the Uruk-folk.
TA 2940: 171 years after the death of his old man (who says Orcs had short lives), Bolg and his bodyguard (goblins of great size with scimitars of steel) lead the resurgent Uruks of Gundabad and the Misty Mountains (as well as many lesser Orcs) into the battle of five armies, where they are annhilated. This again allows a brief respite from Orc attacks in the North.
TA 3000: Saruman begins using the Palantir, and becomes a full traitor to the White Council, probable beginning of his recruitment of Orcs from the Misty Mountains. We are told that some of the Uruks of the Misty Mountains were in the service of Saruman. I doubt that these were the same ilk as Ugluk and the Orcs of Helm's Deep, as Saruman had not yet the time to breed in the quality of sun-tolerance. In other words, they were probably an older breed than the one which later claims to be Uruk-hai.

Well, there you have it. The Uruks had been around for 544 years by the time Gandalf spots them in Moria. In those 544 years they have had probable military engagements with Gondor, Rohan, the Dwarves, the Dunedain, the Elves of Rivendell, the Elves of Mirkwood, and even the Hobbits. All of the Free-Peoples from the Lord of the Rings have had contact with them in war-time. If the Uruks were the same as the Uruk-hai, then we could assume that they proudly boasted to be Uruk-hai like the Orcs of Helm's Deep. This would mean that the Westron Speakers of Middle Earth would have become quite familiar with the term Uruk-hai by TA 3018, and would be as likely to say 'Uruk-hai' as they were to say 'Nazgul'. Yet the Westron speakers seem decidedly unfamiliar with the term Uruk-hai and exceedingly familiar with the term Uruks. I would say that this is evidence that the Uruks were not the same as the Uruk-hai, a name which only appears in the index/narrative during the year 3019, 544 years after the advent of the Uruk.
 

Yes. It is suggestive. It is suggestive that Isengarders orcs = Uruk-hai.

No. Uruk-hai is not always qualified. In the last usage in my example 5 it is merely: "We are the Uruk-hai". In example 6 it is merely "in the clutches of the Uruk-hai". In example 4, the chapter title is merely "The Uruk-hai", no qualifiers. Oh, I see you are arguing that the qualifiers are used when the Uruk-hai name themselves when talking to other orcs. In other words yet another special case. Your arguments seem to be filled with special cases, one for each occasion.


I marvel at the way you keep switching your arguments back and forth as to who the narrator is to suit your argument in each case. The narrator/author is JRR Tolkien and he has chosen to call the orc in Cirith Ungol by the name of Snaga in at least four instances: "growled Snaga", "Shagrat hunted Snaga", a second "growled Snaga", and "Snaga thrust the ladder". There is no evidence that JRRT was such an incompetent storyteller, or so liked to confuse his readers (evidently including his son), that he did not mean Snaga to be the name of this particular orc.


The distinction is based on what is evidently one of your favorite passages in LOTR, my example 12 from Appendix F which says that the Uruk-hai use the word snaga to mean slave. Ugluk is indisputedably Uruk-hai. The word snaga is not used the same way in the Uruk-hai chapter as it is in the Cirith Ungol chapter. It is clearly an orc's name in Cirith Ungol and based on Appendix F it is a form of address when used by Ugluk. Further evidence that Shagrat is not a Uruk-hai, but in fact one of the Uruks, as Gorbag calls him.

I suggest you try rereading this thread. Tar-Elenion and I have already had this discussion and I have already pointed out the many instances in which the name of a job/profession/thing is also used as a proper name: farmer/Farmer, miller/Miller, sawyer/Sawyer, smith/Smith, fisher/Fisher, stone/Stone, etc. (just to give a few examples from English). I suspect examples could be put forth from almost any language one chose to look at. There is no evidence that this apparently near universal tendency did not also take place in Middle-earth (cotton/Cotton, helm/Helm, strider/Strider, underhill/Underhill come to mind as a few obvious examples).
 
Greenwood wrote:

I responded:
You are going to need to refresh my memory on this. _CT_ has said that he made a change to bring his fathers writings in line with Foster? Where does this occur? Please provide the citation and quote.

Greenwood wrote:
Go back and read the thread. It's there.
Click to expand...

In post 01-26-02 Greenwood wrote (in part, see post for full context):

This is the only post I have fond that seems to be what Greenwood is referring to.

Greenwood, you seem to have asserted that CT says he changed his fathers writings to bring them in line with Foster. When I asked for the citation and quote to back your assertion up, you seemed reluctant to provide it. The above post from 01-26-02 is the only post I have found that seems to be what you were speaking of. It did not provide any quote from CT saying he changed his fathers writings to bring them in line with Foster.
I ask again, please provide the citation and quote from CT saying that he did any such thing.
 
JRRT wrote in Letter 78:
[emphasis added]

The use of Urukhai and Uruks here is clealy synonymous, showing that JRRT used them in the same way, with 'Uruks' being an 'anglicization'. It is also interesting to note how he defines his 'figure of speech': "folk made bad...", and we know that 'uruk' is derived from roots relating to terrible and horrible.
 
Last edited:
"The fighting Uruk-hai"

Originally posted by aragil

If any of these things did not apply to the Uruk-hai in general, and Grishnakh really was a Uruk-hai, then wouldn't he have objected to this usage?
Click to expand...

Of course, "Uruk-hai" is never used in the singular, so it is extremely unlikely that anyone is "a Uruk-hai".

Why would Grishnakh object? Nothing that Ugluk says is untrue. Grishnakh seems far more interested in challenging Ugluk's authority than engaging in a debate over the Isengarders' self-definition.


You are forgetting that Ugluk also says, "we are the fighters." Does this mean that the Northerners and Grishnakh's troop are not fighters? I think not!

Clearly, all of the Orcs in the raiding party are fighters; Ugluk, however, consistently disparages their ability and their discipline. He described them as "rabble", and the Northerners as "mountain-maggots" who are only "half-trained."

With Ugluk's consistent emphasis on the superior training and fighting prowess of the Isengarders, the use of "fighting" to qualify "Uruk-hai" does appear rather significant. Ugluk never tells another orc that "we are the Uruk-hai"; instead he always qualifies it with either their allegiance or their perceived ability as warriors.
 
Without getting into anything deeper:

If you asked a Notre Dame footballer, he would call himself one of the "Fighting Irish." This is a badge of honor, however he would also answer to the name of "The Irish." Obviously the Uruk-Hai esprit de corps is quite high, and they are very much in the National Championship hunt, at least in their own pea brains.
 

A very good point. And of course, there are other Irish than the "Fighting Irish".
 
Anglicization

Originally posted by aragil
First off, I'd like to apologize for posting several times in succession. However, as I have not posted on this thread for some time I think it is only my right.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! No apology necessary!


That isn't the point. The point is that Uruks are a commonplace, while the Nazgul are rare (and thus rarely spoken of). Words tend to get Anglicized (or adapted for whatever language) when they are commonly used. Words that are seldom used tend to remain intact. "Uruk-hai" is more of a mouthful than "Uruks", and thus a natural candidate for Anglicization to the latter.


Originally posted by aragil
In fact, Nazgul is so commonly used that it is worth investigating. First off, we see that there is an anglicization for Nazgul- Ringwraiths.
Click to expand...

"Ringwraiths" is most definitely not an Anglicization; it's a translation. There is a huge difference between the two.

Originally posted by aragil
In fact, they each get their own separate index entry, which I would say is in direct opposition to CT's entry in UT.
Click to expand...

Of course, CT's entry in UT entirely concords with his father's synonmous use of "Urukhai" and "Uruks" in his letter to CT.


As I have pointed out, he doesn't give an Anglicization of Nazgul. There doesn't appear to be one! Your parallel fails, because Tolkien doesn't give the Black Speech term for "Uruks", which, I think we would all agree, cannot be pure Black Speech (because of the -s marker).


The fact that Uruks have been around and in action for hundreds of years is presumably why their name has been Anglicized (which it undoubtedly has; witness the "-s" marker). No character refers to them by their Black Speech name (except Gorbag - but we don't get his Black Speech words), unless it is in fact "Uruk-hai", which would explain the soldier-orc's comment. No character in the narrative of LotR ever refers to the Isengarders as "Uruk-hai", though the narrator does once from Pippin's persepctive. In the Appendix, the Isengarders are referred to as "uruks", and, in UT, a post-LotR text, they are referred to as "black Uruks."
 
Last edited:
Origin of the Terms Uruk and Uruk-hai

I think that it would be useful in this discussion to look chronologically at where Tolkien begins to use our two favorite terms, 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai'.

Uruk-hai:
Chronologically this is the first usage of either term. Ugluk claims to be Uruk-hai in chapter #XXI, an Orc Raid (HoME VII, p.409). CT does not give us the exact usage, but does mention that Ugluk claims 'we are the servants of the old Uthwit and the White Hand'. This seems to me to be indicative that Ugluk claimed to be of the (fighting) Uruk-hai here in the same sense as in TT p.6 (Quote number 1 in Greenwood's list on p.23). The next usage of the term apparently comes in Helm's Deep, in the passage analogous to Greenwood's Quote #5 (HoME VIII p.22, TT p.184). Interspersed with this are the descriptions of the Orcs of Saruman (HoME VII p.82 with TT p.20, and HoME VII p. 401 with TT p.48). At this point in the writing, Tolkien has only given one set of soldier Orcs a special name, he calls the Orcs of Isengard Uruk-hai, and he attests that they are larger than normal Orcs and that they are equiped with 'great bows, greater than their (goblins') custom.' From the info that CT gives us it is very difficult to date this passage. The best I can say is that Humphrey Carpenter's biography states that Tolkien finished 'Flotsam and Jetsam' in December 1942. This corresponds to page 230 of TT, so the first use of the term Uruk-hai was 169 printed pages before December 1942, whatever that means. 1942 was a productive year, so I would place the first usage of Uruk-hai during the summer of 1942, when CT was 17. This is important, because prior to turning 18 in the summer of 1943, CT was helping his father in the writing, and so was privy to most of his thoughts. Once CT went to South Africa, most of his correspondence with his father was via letters, which we can all read in the book of that name. If for instance, JRRT had told CT that he planned for the Uruk-hai of Isengard to be humans that Saruman had ruined in crossbreeding with Orcs, it would be fair for him to write on 12 August 1944 "There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker". This would apply only to the troops of Saruman, as he had made folk (human-folk) bad intentionally by crossing them with Orcs. It could not apply to Mordor Orcs, as he had not yet given a name to them (as we shall see), nor were the later uruks of Mordor made to be any more 'bad' than the original Orc-stock they came from. The term 'uruks' he uses in the letters can safely be assumed to be an anglicization made up on the spot, as it has not appeared anywhere in the narrative up to this point, nor will it appear again for several years. We know at what stage of the writing Tolkien was at at this point, because he alludes to it in the letter. During the Spring of 1944 he had been writing about Sam and Frodo, and by May he had brought them all the way up to Cirith Ungol. From May until August 12th he had written virtually nothing, and he had probably not amended his usage of Uruk-hai since it was originally written back in summer 1942. His earlier letter of May 6th, 1944 also uses the term Urukhai, and like the later letter it is also unhyphenated. I don't know if the lack of hyphen actually occured in the writing of LotR- CT has given it in both instances with the hyphen (this probably is a moot point, as Greenwood points out that he was under no requirement from his son to make private letters conform to what he was trying to publish). But it becomes clear that when Tolkien makes this statement in the letter he is referring to the episode of Merry, Pippin, and Ugluk, which CT was around for back in 1942, which was strictly in reference to Isengard Orcs.

Uruks:
The word uruks does not appear in the text until long after Tolkien's letters to his son. CT speculates that his father picked up Frodo and Sam during a retreat in the summer of 1948 (HoME IX, p.12). This would be in the 'Tower of Cirith Ungol', and it is not long until an interesting quote appears. The two slave drivers who mistake Frodo and Sam for fellow Orcs earn the distinction of being the first Goblins Tolkien labels as 'uruks'. This is the passage of RotK p.255, HoME IX p.34, note 4. This is 6 years since the appearance of the term Uruk-hai, and four years since the use of the term uruks in letters to his son. In this time 'Trotter' becomes 'Strider', so it is not beyond reasoning that Tolkien's concept for 'uruks' has changed. In fact, it has demonstrably changed, as the letter used both Uruk-hai and uruks in reference to Saruman's troops. The one million dollar question is: did Tolkien intend that both Saruman's and Sauron's Orcs were uruks (expanded definition of uruks), or that now it was Sauron's Orcs who were uruks while Saruman's troops retained the older label of Uruk-hai (changed definition of uruks)? Of course, bar a seance with JRRT (how's that coming Grond?) we will never know the answer. The best I can do is look at where Tolkien went back and changed earlier references to Mordor Orcs to the term 'uruks'. The first, and most interesting usage, is the first one which appears in the text: The black Uruks of Mordor encountered in Moria. This comes from FotR p.421, and is given alternately in HoME VI p.437 and HoME VII p.193 and p.205 note 5.
In HoME VI p.437 it's 'Gandalf says there are goblins- of very evil kind, larger than usual, real orcs.'
In HoME VII p.193 it's 'There are goblins: very many of them,' he said. 'Evil they look and large: black Orcs.'
In HoME VII p.205 note 5 CT informs us that the above passage originally had 'veritable Orcs' in place of 'black Orcs'. The reason for this can be seen in HoME VI p.437 note 35, p.443, and page 462 note 2. Tolkien was still in his habit from the Hobbit of referring to the garden-variety Goblins, and the large soldiers were then 'veritable Orcs'. Of course, when he started referring to the garden-variety as Orcs, he had to come up with a new name for the soldiers. It appears to me that he didn't do this until the summer of 1948, when he came up with uruks for Mordor Orcs. He then had to go back and change the earlier references, especially this one. Most interesting is a usage which slipped in just before the summer of 1948. In the fall of 1947, Tolkien was vexing about how to link the Hobbit with the Lord of the Rings. While sending in a list of revisions to Allen & Unwin he included a list of 'suggestions' which would help him link his two tales (letters 111, 21 September, 1947). Most of the suggestions involved the Riddle-Game between Gollum and Bilbo, but there was one tiny nugget regarding Orcs on page 93:
'A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones,' thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, go along at a great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground.' (http://www.ringgame.net/riddles.html#93 for comparison with the 1937 version of the Hobbit).
The above description immediately brings to mind several passages from the LotR:
The Two Towers, p.62 'In the twilight he saw a large black Orc, probably Ugluk, standing facing Grishnakh, a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground. Round them were many smaller goblins.'
The Two Towers, p. 68 'From that direction there now came hoarse cries, and there was Grishnakh again, and at his back a couple of score of others like him: long-armed crook-legged Orcs. They had a red eye painted on their shields.'
The Return of the King, p. 223 'Behind him came Shagrat, a large orc with long arms that, as he ran crouching, reached to the ground.'
The common thread in these four passages is that the larger creatures have arms reaching almost to the ground. It is beyond coincidence that Tolkien would use this same phrase four times to apply to four un-related Orcs. I would say that this is evidence that Tolkien had already concieved of the appearance of the uruks in September 1947, nearly a full year before summer 1948 wehn he actually applied the term 'uruks' to these creatures! The concept of 'uruks' actually preceeds use of that term, which occurs 6 years after the term Uruk-hai was applied to Saruman's Orcs.
With this in mind, I again say that we should look at the usages in 'The Uruk-hai' and Helm's Deep:
 
Well damnit! Who can say anything in less than 10000 characters? Does anybody else feel that the webmaster is forcing us to work under too stringent of conditions?
TT p. 61 '"We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here ....."'
As I've said before, 'fighting' is not a qualifier for soldiers. It is colorful, but it does not allow us to differentiate between one group of Uruk-hai and the next, as they are all fighters, even if the Uruks of Mordor are also Uruk-hai. Ugluk here says that "We are the fighting Uruk-hai" with a definite article. This means that all Uruk-hai are defined by 'we'. This means that the Uruk-hai are the servants of Saruman, and that the Uruk-hai came out of Isengard. If Grishnakh were a Uruk-hai, then all of the Uruk-hai would be servants of Saruman and would come out of Isengard. This would make Ugluk's statement objectionable to Grishnakh. But I agree with ShagratU here, Grishnakh does not object because everything that Ugluk just said was true. The reason is because there are no Uruk-hai of Mordor, so all Uruk-hai do serve Saruman and all Uruk-hai do come out of Isengard.
TT p.184 '"What of the dawn?" they jeered. "We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. .... "'
This is also usage with a definite article (this time without the 'qualifier' fighting), indicating that all of the Uruk-hai do not stop the fight for night or day. Mordor Uruks are demonstrably affected by the light of day. The only way for the above statement to be true is if it is intended to not include the soldier orcs of Mordor. This would indicate that the uruks of Mordor do not go by the name of Uruk-hai.
Also, we have models for how Uruk could be made plural. In Adunaic singular uruk becomes plurak urik. In Sindarin the singular orch (which Tolkien says is related to uruk, making Eldarin uluk=evil unlikely to be the root of uruk) becomes plural yrch. Tar-Elenion even offered the Westron plural, which was urukin.
None of these plurals is reminiscent of uruk-hai, which means that there could easily be other ways of making uruk plural than adding -hai. This makes me think that 'hai' probably means something more than simply 's'. Again I remind everybody that Tolkien gives completely separate index entries in LotR to Uruk-hai and uruks, with no cross-referencing between the two. When terms referred to the same beings, as in Nazgul and Ringrwaiths, Tolkien cross-referenced them. To me this indicates that the two terms did not refer to the same creatures. It's late, I have class in 5 hours, so I'm done posting for tonight, but I'll have much more to say regarding UT tomorrow (sigh).
 

Tar-Elenion

I never said "CT says he changed his fathers writings to bring them in line with Foster", that is your mischaracterization! As for reluctance, I was reluctant to do your work for you, particularly since the entire exchange back on page 8 of this thread was the result of one of your early red-herrings in this discussion. I see that I was right in my assumption that you could find the relevant point under discussion in the thread.

You have misrepresented what I said in my post to Grond. I did not say: "CT ... changed his fathers writings to bring them in line with Foster" as you claim. What I said was: "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." This is very different from your characterization of it. I specifically said that CT says he has changed his father's writing (which he has) to eliminate inconsistencies. I did not say that CT said he made the changes in order to bring his father's writings in line with Foster, but that CT changed his father's writings to eliminate an inconsistency and that this brought it in line with Foster. This is quite different from your quote. Also it is quite clear that the important thing in this particular point under discussion is that CT has admitted to changing his father's writing on occasion (at least prior to HoME). Now to the specifics of the case. As you are well aware since you found my earlier post, it refers to an editorial note of CT's in UT in The Line of Elros essay in that book (note 14). In that editorial note CT points out an inconsistency in the the listing of the kings of Numenor in Appendix A of LOTR. CT furthers draws attention to the fact that Foster had made calculations on the date of death of Tar-Calmacil which he presented in his The Complete Guide to Middle-earth, but that these did not take into account the inconsistency. CT now pointed out the inconsistency and admitted that when he prepared The Silmarillion for publication he changed his father's writings to eliminate the inconsistency. No, CT does not specifically say that this brought The Silmarillion in line with Foster (and I never claimed that CT said Foster was the reason for the change), but that certainly was one result of the change. CT goes on to say that he has now found additional notes of his father's that make him think that his (CT's) change in The Silmarillion was perhaps wrong and he is now making another change, resulting in a difference from what was presented in The Silmarillion. This means that the death date given by Foster for Tar-Calmacil, now gets assigned to Tar-Ardamin. No, Foster is not mentioned again here in the note, but that is irrelevant. However, CT ends the note by pointing out that even this latest change does not solve all the apparent inconsistencies and may not be the final answer, but that the whole situation may be more complex.

In his editorial note CT could have presented the entire story of the inconsistency in Appendix A of LOTR and the changes he (CT) made in The Silmarillion without ever mentioning Foster. It was CT who brought Foster into the discussion. There was no need to explain Foster's inconsistency with what is now presented in UT. You keep going into paroxyms of outrage when I suggest that CT may have adopted his Uruks definition in the UT index from Foster, but here we have CT going out of his way to bring Foster's work into one of his editorial discussions in UT.

As I pointed out in my post to Grond, the important thing is CT's admission that he did change his father's writings to eliminate an inconsistency. This change did indeed bring The Silmarillion in line with Foster's writing, but that was not the specific reason CT made the change and I never claimed it was as you kept implying I did.
 
Last edited:
Quoted by ShagratU
One point that has been hardly raised in this debate, but which, I feel, is extremely important, is the simple fact that "Uruk-hai" is Black Speech.
Click to expand...

This is not a "simple fact". The only statement that Uruk-hai is pure Black Speech is that same disputed definition in UT. You are once again engaging in circular reasoning, attempting to use the assumption that what is under discussion is true to prove that it is true. Appendix F says "the word uruk of the Black Speech". It does not say that Uruk-hai is of the Black Speech. Uruk-hai is clearly a derived word from uruk, perhaps the only thing we can agree on, but the Appendix does not say Uruk-hai is Black Speech. That is your unproven assumption.

Yes, Appendix F says Olog-hai was Black Speech, but Oghor-hai, which you always want to bring in, is not stated in UT to be from the Black Speech. UT says Oghor-hai is the name applied to the Druedain by the orcs. Another part of your argument has been that the orcs have their own language, that Blach Speech is spoken by Sauron and his captains. Therefore, following your own arguments Oghor-hai is not Black Speech. So we are left with three words that use the suffix "-hai", only one of which, Olog-hai, is clearly labeled by Tolkien as Black Speech. A second, Oghor-hai, is called an Orc word, which by your own reasoning would mean it is not Black Speech. And finally, our disputed word Uruk-hai, which is not defined by Tolkien as Black Speech. But I guess everything will once again come down to another one of your special cases.
 
Greenwood, just a casual comment from a casual observer. By your own admission, Olog-hai is pure black speech. By your own admission Uruk is also pure black speech. How in the wide, wide world of sports can you come to the conclusion that Uruk-hai is not pure black speech? My consternation has nothing to do with any assumption as to the uruk versus uruk-hai issue. My consternation comes from you reaching an impossible conclusion that Uruk-hai is not pure black speech. Olog = black speech. -hai = black speech. Uruk = black speech. -hai does not = black speech???? That's just a crazy assumption.

Oghar-hai would follow the same line of logic. If -hai is in fact black speech (and we can certainly conclude that it is based on the Olog-hai example) then Oghar must be too. Your logic doesn't appear circular here, it just appears totally illogical.
 
Oghor-hai is a first age term, used by the Orcs of Beleriand to refer to the Druedain who made stone statues at the crossing of the Teiglin. Since the term was used in the first age, it cannot have originated from the black speech, which Sauron did not devise until the second age (dark years). Since it was first used before Sauron made his language, the Black Speech 'borrowed' the term from 1st age Orcish. So it is an Orcish term originally, not a term developed by Sauron.
 
Grond

No where is "-hai" defined as Black Speech. The only one of the three words that use the suffix "-hai", that is defined by Tolkien as Black Speech is Olog-hai. Just because it has the suffix "-hai" does not automatically make "-hai" Black Speech. We know that Black Speech takes things from other languages. Perhaps it took "-hai". Under ShagratU's arguments Oghor-hai is not Black Speech. Unfinished Tales say it is the name given by the orcs to the Druedain and ShagratU says orcs do not use Black Speech except for the Captains of Mordor. My point is that ShagratU and Tar-Elenion come up with special case arguments for each use of the words under discussion in LOTR and that their special case arguments then don't even work coherently with each other.

Examples of special case arguments: 1) When Gandalf says "Uruks of Mordor" in Moria, it is because he doesn't want to utter a Black Speech word -- something that Gandalf has not shyed away from on other occasions. 2) When Gorbag refers to himself and Shagrat as Uruks, we don't really know what he actually said and Tolkien uses Uruks because Sam has never heard the term Uruk-hai. In fact Gorbag and Shagrat seem to be the only two characters in LOTR who ever engage in a Black Speech conversation, but it is conveniently translated for us. 3) When the tracker says "rebel Uruk-hai", now Tolkien has no problem with Sam and Frodo hearing a term they are unfamilar with. Additionally though the "higher-ups" are wrong about Sam being a "mighty elf" (we know he isn't) and Frodo being a "dwarf-man" (he is a hobbit) the higher-ups are right about the "rebel Uruk-hai" (Gorbag's boys). As Aragil has pointed out, the "mighty elf" is based on a report of Sam, but it is not correct; the "dwarf-man" is based on a report of Frodo, but it is not correct; and the "rebel Uruk-hai" is based on Gorbag and his boys fighting Shagrat, but it is just as incorrect as the earlier two reports. 4) Tolkien uses the word Uruk-hai in the Siege of Gondor chapter, but it is not because he is calling Saruman's elite troops Uruk-hai, but because he is reporting Pippin's thoughts. 5) Despite the fact that Tolkien clearly use Snaga as the name of a particular orc at the Tower of Cirith Ungol (Christopher Tolkien also refers to it as a name), no, it isn't really a name, but the hobbit author's didn't know it meant slave so they wrote the book treating it as a name. 6) The phrase "Uruk-hai of Isengard" is not a simple statement that they are called Uruk-hai and that they are from Isengard, but instead implies that there are Uruk-hai from places other than Isengard. 7) Enough. I could go on and on. Everything is a special case or some sort of narrow legalistic definition. Prior to this discussion with Tar-Elenion and ShagratU it never occurred to me that I should have submitted LOTR to a team of lawyers to be sure that I was truly understanding Tolkien's wonderful adventure/fantasy.

I will happily give up the arguments advanced in my last post if ShagratU and Tar-Elenion will also give up their various special case arguments and legalistic word splitting. But, if they are allowed special case arguments and legalistic interpretations than Aragil and I should be allowed such arguments too. As I have said before if they wish to simply "agree to disagree" as you and I have amicably done on occasion, that is also fine with me.
 
Last edited:
Snaga and Snaga

Originally posted by Greenwood
I marvel at the way you keep switching your arguments back and forth as to who the narrator is to suit your argument in each case.
Click to expand...

The key concept here is again the distinction between the "internal" and the "external".

In the "internal" conceit, the "Red Book", the narrators are Bilbo, Frodo and Sam, and draw on the eyewitness accounts of their friends. Point of view is integral to the narrative.

The narrative voice in Appendix F, however, is clearly "external" (with its notes on the "translation" into English), and is generally omniscient. It is Tolkien's voice rather than that of his characters.

The authorial voice in the Appendix knows that the Uruk-hai call the lesser orcs "snaga", meaning "slave". The hobbit narrators of the main narrative don't know this, which is why "snaga" appears to be a personal name, "Snaga", in both "The Uruk-hai" and "The Tower of Cirith Ungol."


You are confusing authorship with the narrative voice. The narrative voice of LotR (that of the hobbit authors of the Red Book) is not omniscient.

Far from being an incompetent storyteller, Tolkien adds depth to his story through linguistic details such as the use of "Snaga." Snaga is the name of the small Orc in "The Tower of Cirith Ungol", just as it is the name of the Orc scout in "The Uruk-hai." Both names are capitalized, and treated by the hobbit narrators as proper names.

Appendix F adds depth to the story by explaining that "Snaga" is not in fact just a popular prenom amongst Orcs, but actually the Black Speech term for "slave", "snaga".


Your distinction is quite unfounded. In both cases, "Snaga" is used as a proper name by the hobbit "authors" of the Red Book. The Appendix indicates that it is not in fact a proper name.

That the narrative voice also uses "Snaga" in "The Tower of Cirith Ungol" is quite unremarkable. The hobbit "authors" quite naturally believe it to be a proper name. Are you really suggesting that the narrative voice would not have denoted the scout in Rohan thus if he had played a further part in the story?

Originally posted by Greenwood
Further evidence that Shagrat is not a Uruk-hai, but in fact one of the Uruks, as Gorbag calls him.
Click to expand...

We of course have two direct uses of "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai" as synonyms, from Tolkien's letters and from UT. We also have Saruman's orcs described as "uruks" and as uruk. You are drawing a distinction that Tolkien himself does not appear to draw.

And Gorbag's words are of course translated.

Originally posted by Greenwood
I suggest you try rereading this thread.
Click to expand...

Your re-reading suggestions have proved somewhat unadvisable. You recommended that I re-read the thread to find examples of you and aragil demonstrating how "-hai" could not mean "-folk". I found a grand total of none, and am still awaiting your arguments on this matter.

What are they?
 
Re: Origin of the Terms Uruk and Uruk-hai

 

Appendix F tells us that snaga is used for the word slave among the Uruk-hai. And the Uruk-hai are clearly Saruman's elite orc troops in the context of LOTR, just as you admit Snaga is clearly the name of the orc at the Tower of Cirith Ungol.


And I can come up with quite a few changes between various drafts as demonstrated quite well by CT in the HoME series. What is important is the usage in LOTR, not the various secondary sources you keep bringing into it. The distinction that Tolkien draws in LOTR seems quite clear to me and Aragil and evidently also to the screenwriters of the movie and apparently the Tolkien linguists they had consulting on the film.

Gee, putting little smiley faces all through my posts is quite fun. I think I will do it all the time from now on.
 
ShagratU, I would argue that we do not have two instances of Uruk-hai and Uruks being synonymous in reference to soldier Orcs of Mordor and Isengard. The letter of JRRT to CT of August 1944 was written before the term Uruks was ever applied to Mordor Orcs, and the context in which it is used indicates that both Uruks and Uruk-hai apply only to Isengard Orcs. Tolkien says 'folk made bad', which to me sounds like a reference to Saruman taking 'good' human-folk, and making them 'bad' by crossing them with Orcs. The Uruks of Mordor were never supposed to come from any 'good' stock, so 'folk made bad' would not seem to apply to them. Four after this letter Tolkien decided to apply the term 'uruks' to troops of Mordor, so the usage of the term demonstrably changed from the writing of the letter until the time of publication. The interesting thing is that the concept of 'uruks' existed before Tolkien decided to apply the term to them. In my mind this is an example of an existing species of soldier orc being defined by an existing name. In other words, whatever notions Tolkien had about the word 'uruks' in August 1944 were probably changed by the time he used the words in the text, in the summer of 1948.
As for the other example of equated use, this comes from a Tolkien, but not JRR Tolkien. Christopher Tolkien is the person who embelished the UT index entries to include definitions. He says that he does this so that the reader need not look into countless references for definitions. This is very helpful, yet unfortunately his own definition in the index for UT appears to be at odds with his father's index for LotR. The index in LotR has Uruks and Uruk-hai with separate entries. None of the indexed passages under Uruks correspond with Orcs in the indexed passages under Uruk-hai. Further, every instance of Uruk-hai in the index refers to Orcs of Isengard (lumping in 'rebel Uruk-hai here'), every instance of Uruks in the index refers to Orcs of Mordor, at least in the three editions I have access to.
A further pillar of the Uruks=Uruk-hai theory is at odds with ShagratU (and perhaps Tar-Elenion). Robert Foster's guide claims that uruks of both Isengard and Mordor were bred to be sun-tolerant, which seems to be at odds with Treebeard's oft-quoted statement on these boards. Treebeard believes that Orc sun-tolerance is a result of crossing Orcs with Men. I think that if Foster had special access to Tolkien's notes on this matter, he would have done a better job in the definition. As it is, his statement that Mordor Orcs such as Shagrat and Gorbag were sun-tolerant seems to be at odd with the books, and makes me more skeptical of his equating of the terms Uruks and Uruk-hai.

A final note: I think that CT and Robert Foster have done a fantastic job in making the writings of JRR Tolkien accessible to a wide audience. They have struggled through thousands of pages in order to try and make thousands of different entries as consistent as possible. No matter how good they are, it is possible that they have goofed on one or two entries. The only one I am aware of as a possibility is Uruks/Uruk-hai. I do not think that their probable error on this entry reflects poorly on either of them. To the contrary, it just reminds me of the vast number of notes they had to go through, and what a stellar job they did on their respective projects as a whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Similar threads

📖👀 Chapter 3 (📔Book III) The Uruk-Hai
Replies
4
Views
2K
Rivendell_librarian
B
🧌Orcs and Daylight
Replies
2
Views
7K
Sihtric
Why did good in LOTR eventually win? Did evil stand a chance?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Klaatu
F
Seeking Help: 3D Models for Uruk-Hai Armor Project
Replies
0
Views
1K
Frequ
F
Tolkien's Difficult Ethics
Replies
8
Views
2K
Backyard Professor
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…