Tar-Elenion
Elite
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 745
Originally posted by elven kismet
everyone seems to suggest that "hai" in suffix form refers to people or man, as far as i've seen, yet i suggest a new theory. Couldn't "hai" also mean improved, or altered (changed, modified, etc.). As it has been seen "hai" is also appears in the form Olog-hai, which is used analogously with Uruk-hai. since these two terms, uruk and uruk-hai, olog and olog-hai respectively, seem to be used in the story in such different contexts (and i understand that this is a hotly debated issue around here) wouldn't it seem sensible that these hai suffixes intimate some sort of modification like sunlight tolerance?
Of course of great interest to me is Carl Hostetter's definition, but I note that he seems to be in the minority among the other experts (not the same as being wrong!).Originally posted by Cian in Orcs out of pods?
Anyway, very little about the Black Speech is known. I bow to my betters with this term as far as scholarly linguistic opinion goes: the following are very well respected Tolkien linguists' views on the seemingly elusive "-hai".
Christopher Tolkien (if not "opinion" at least appendixed): Uruks is an anglicization of Uruk-hai
David Salo: -hai "people, group"
Helge Fauskanger: -hai "folk"
Lisa Star: "-hai" is a collective plural
Carl Hostetter: wrote (in 1993) that he favored the interpretation of "superior". "The Eldarin collective terms -lim, rim, hoth yield nothing that could reasonably be related to -hai." Carl H.
It should be added that Tolkien also used oghor-hai as a term the orcs used to refer to the Drúedain (with Uruk-hai, Olog-hai)
It should also be added that with the publication of Sauron Defeated we find that JRR Tolkien glossed Adûnaic kadar-lâi as "city-folk". Also, from Avarin dialect: Kinn-lai theoried to basically mean "Elf-people". Interesting
3)Originally posted by Cian
Part of linguist David Salo's discussion on the English word "Man" as it related to Glorfindels prophecy:
"The key words (for your question) are dîr/nér. These refer to the males of any kind of _hnau_ or intelligent beings, especially of Elves and humans of various sorts."
Another section:
"Which would leave open the possibility that he could be killed by _edhel_, _nogoth_, _onod_, or _perian_. However, it would preclude the possibility he could be killed by a female _adan_." (incidently this is based on a hypothetical and not reflective of Davids view regarding the death of the Witch King)
This is just to show that David is certainly well aware of the various beings in Middle-earth, moreover, I think naturally, he would be not only mindful of possible distinctions between "Man" and "folk" but of distinctions beyond that.
Leave them at the door or not, the linguistic "opinions" from David and others regarding BS -hai (that I posted in the other thread) ... well let's just say that from my experience in reading David, Helge, Lisa Star, Carl Hostetter, are very familiar with Tolkiens world too
Originally posted by Cian
Bombadillodillo,
Generally, JRRT uses collective suffixes in his langs of course, and of note, he does not always hyphenate Urukhai in any event.
For a hyphenated example of "folk" see Adûnaic kadar-lâi which means, according to Tolkien, "city folk"
~ (-lâi) may come from Avarin Kinn-lai ~ itself perhaps a reflex of *Quende-lië ~ well attested "a-infixion" (See Elvish stem LI) can explain the form in the Avarin clan name suffix. Stem LI > Q. lië "people".
Tar-Elenion, weekends are tough for me to respond, but I'll hopefully address the questions you raised (re: Carl Hostetter), as best I can, come monday-ish if not sooner. Cheers
Again I think it's interesting that Hostetter doesn't feel that "-hai" fits in with the other collectives.Originally posted by Cian
I couldn't find anything further here Tar-E. He did give a response (not in a linguistic forum) on "-hai" back in 1993, before all of HoMe was published ("Soory" is so spelt purposely I'd say):
"Soory, I've drawn a blank on this one, though I tend to favor the interpretation that it means "superior" (The Eldarin collective terms, i.e., -lim, -rim, -hoth, yield nothing that could reasonably be related to -hai)." C. Hostetter 1993
The other opinions on "hai" were:
David Salo ~ "people, group"
Helge F. ~ "folk"
Lisa Star includes it in her (given in three parts) study of JRRT's collectives.
(well, to give all those opinions over here now )
6)Originally posted by CianDúnedain would naturaly be given as "Western-men" as likely as Q. Núnatani, but indeed adapted adan hailed from a "second" sense in Q. atan. Adan can be glossed "Man" or "one of the Second people, folk"Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
... and should feel free to give additional insight). Literally 'adan' (the singular) is an adaption to Sindarin of the Quenya 'atan' (see WotJ, Quendi & Eldar). The plural Quenya name for Men Atani literally means 'the Second Folk' (see Q&E) but is normally translated 'Men'. It comes from the Common Eldarin 'tata', 'atta' two.
There's nothing much additional about that thoughbut thanks for the confidence vote.
7)Originally posted by Cian
something from Helge
Note Helge Fauskangers entry on olog in which he writes a "variety" of Troll, and immediately follows with Olog-hai "Olog-people".
Agree with HF or not on -hai, I thought it might be interesting to note that a trained lang-guy sees nothing awkward with slapping a collective to a "variety" of Troll.
This seems to come mostly from Q and E (HoME 11, pp 389-391). There's an interesting bit from HoME 10 which might imply that Uruk and Olog share a similar root, but that's for my next post.Originally posted by Cian
Are you referring to Uruk and Uruk-hai here? If so the general force of the argument simply offers a "word" with slapped on collective. As Tolkien invented Nogoth and Nogothrim.
Stem *RUKU
ancient forms:
ruk-, rauk-, uruk-, urk(u), runk, rukut/s strengthened: gruk-, elaborated guruk-, ñguruk
CE: *rauku, *raukó
more "ancient": (uruk) urku/ó, adj. urká
Quenya: urko pl urqui (d.*urku or *uruku)
Sindarin: urug, orch (d. *urkó, adj. *úrká)
Adûnaic: urkhu, urkhu
Generally speaking: what Tolkien did invent was a very real interelated history of langs, and in the context of "found" texts ... Tolkien even took pleasure in asterisking some of his own forms as if they were unattestedwhich they then are, in a historical sense, within the fantasy of translation.
Tar-Elenion, if you have anything of linguistic import that you want to add from U vs U-h please feel free. I thought I'd repost these particular quotes to not only re-fresh our memory, but also to help out anyone who didn't have the "benefit" of following along with us in that long-ish thread.Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
I dont think Gorbag 'said' 'Uruks'. 'Uruks' (an anglicization) is what was used to translate what Sam actually heard him say through the Ring (taking into account the internal history presented (see App. F and Prolouge)).
What Sam may have heard through the Ring was *URUKIN, This is may be the same word that Gandalf used in Moria. The tracker and soldier Orc are speaking Westron (being of different breeds they used that tongue, App. F) but both know the word 'Uruk-hai' so there is no need for that to be rendered into Westron.From the Choices of Master Samwise
He heard them both clearly, and he understood what they said. Perhaps the Ring gave understanding of tongues, or simply understanding, especially of the servants of Sauron its maker, so that if he gave heed, he understood and translated the thought to himself.
"Syncope"? I must say, you lost me there. As for "Shar-ku" vs "Shark-ku", I doubt I'll be able to find another Black Speech term to test this. I was hoping that either you or Cian would be able to fill me in on whether or not the Elvish Languages might do this- since Black Speech proportedly bases much of it's vocabulary and grammatical structure off of these.Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
*Shark is unattested to in the corpus. It is a hypothetical of Craig Daniels'. He also suggest simply shar. You may wish to see if any other known B.S. compunds syncope in that manner.
Also would it need to be dropped from the compounds Olog-hai and Oghor-hai?
I agree that "-hai" does not have to mean man, but I don't think there's anything from the Olog-hai definition to preclude it. ShagratU and I discussed this at length in U vs U-h, here's a snippet of what ShagratU had to say:Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Since the Olog-hai were Trolls not Men, the theory that '-hai' "has to mean "man!"" does not seem to stand.
I've looked for some references, and here's what I've found. I'll say that you're reasonably familiar with the firstSelected from ShagratU's post here
Yes, I wasn't very clear there. Let me attempt to clarify. Tolkien says that the Stone Trolls are just "counterfeits" rather than "rational incarnates", as the Orcs are. (He says this in the letter where he points out that Treebeard was wrong about the Orcs being mere counterparts). But he says that there are other types of troll, "for which other origins are suggested."
So as the Stone Trolls aren't really alive but are made of "animated" stone, it is highly unlikely that they can breed with anything. Moreover, Tolkien says that the other kind(s) of troll have different origins. If the Olog-hai were bred from Stone Trolls and Men, they would have common origin with the Stone Trolls. But they don't.
So what I meant was that the Olog-hai are clearly not crossbred Stone Trolls, but trolls made in an entirely different sort of way. I think Tolkien even suggests that they might have been made from some "primitive" human stock (neanderthals?), but they clearly aren't made from the Stone Trolls.
But whatever the Olog-hai were made from, they are unambiguously trolls. They're not "like half-trolls" or "troll-men", but "trolls". In his letters, when he discusses different sorts of troll, Tolkien never uses "half-trolls" or "troll-men"; the new sort of troll may have been bred from some sort of Men, but they are definitely full trolls, and always described as such.
The second quote comes from Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed (p. 414 of my edition). As you can see, it backs up ShagratU's assertion that the Olog-hai might have been bred from Neandertalic stock:From Letter 153 to Peter Hastings
I am not sure about Trolls. I think they are mere 'counterfeits', and hence (though here I am of course only using elements of old barbarous mythmaking that had no 'aware' metaphysic) they return to mere stone images when not in the dark. But there are other sorts of Trolls beside these rather ridiculous, if brutal, Stone-trolls, for which other origins are suggested.
As you can see, Tolkien's "Trolls they were" statement does not preclude him from thinking of the Olog-hai as originating from humans. In fact, this seems to be exactly what the good professor had in mind!From Morgoth's Ring
The Elves would have classed the creatures called 'trolls' (in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings) as Orcs - in character and origin - but they were larger and slower. It would seem evident that they were corruptions of primitive human types.
At the bottom of the page my father wrote: 'See The Lord of the Rings Appendix p. 410'; this is the passage in Appendix F concerning Trolls.
...
He now expressly asserts the earlier view (see p. 408 and note 1) that the Orcs were in origin corrupted Elves, but observes that later' some were probably derived from Men. In saying this (as the last paragraph and the reference to The Lord of the Rings Appendix F suggest) he seems to have been thinking of Trolls, and specifically of the Olog-hai, the great Trolls who appeared at the end of the Third Age (as stated in Appendix F): "That Sauron bred them none doubted, though from what stock was not known. Some held that they were not Trolls but giant Orcs; but the Olog-hai were in fashion of body and mind quite unlike even the largest of Orc-kind, whom they far surpassed in size and power.'
Originally posted by me, nearly a year ago
I am sure that David et al are more familiar with the races (and languages) of Middle-Earth than I am. I wasn't trying to accuse them of an ignorant mistake, but rather a hasty mistake. If they have spent as much time on 'hai' as we have spent here on this post, then I wouldn't even accuse them of a hasty mistake. It seems to me that black speech is much less fleshed out than most of the other languages of Middle-Earth, so I just assume that the linguists have spent less time on it. If this is the case, then it might be possible that they took a glance, said 'hai looks like folk', and then decided to get back to languages which were more fleshed out and interesting (and nice sounding).
There is nothing to suggest that drú- is especially adjectival, though of course in Sindarin, as in English, noun forms are used adjectivally on occasion.It is stated in isolated notes that their own name for themselves was Drughu (in which the gh represents a spirantal sound). This name adopted in Sindarin in Beleriand became Drû (plurals Drúin and Drúath); but when the Eldar discovered that the Drû-follk were steadfast enemies of Morgoth, and especially the Orcs, the 'title' adan was added, and they were called Drúedain (singular Drúadan), to mark both their humanity and friendship with the Eldar, and their racial difference from the people of the Three Houses of the Edain. Drû was then only used in compounds such as Drúnos 'a family of the Drû-folk', Drúwaith 'the wilderness of the Drû-folk'. In Quenya Drughu became Rú, and Rúatan, plural Rúatani.
The Black Speech invented by Sauron certainly must have had full grammar. He intended it to be useful and used, even for precise incantations such as we find in the Ring inscription, and to be the common tongue of all who served him, though he failed in this.First off, I think Black Speech should be crude- vulgar sounds with poor gramatical structure and lack of element order in words seems to fit the concept of Orc-language nicely.
I'll agree that Sauron was cunning enough to come up with as lovely a language as anyone- but it seems that he (or Tolkien) created words with the harshest, ugliest sounds possible. The fact that Tolkien gives two translations of the same curse of the Moria Orc suggests to me that Black Speech was particularly hard to formulate into English- perhaps very alien or primitive in grammar and vocabulary (if we stay within the secondary reality and pretend that Tolkien was translator rather than creator, of course). I don't intend to say that Black Speech lacked any grammar, just that it was perhaps primitive/crude. My question is whether or not 'Uruk-hai' could actually mean 'Orc-men', (assuming hai=men), with neither the 'Orc' or 'men' element being more important, but rather implying an even partnership. Nazgul too- which is more important, ring or wraith?Originally posted by jallan
The Black Speech invented by Sauron certainly must have had full grammar. He intended it to be useful and used, even for precise incantations such as we find in the Ring inscription, and to be the common tongue of all who served him, though he failed in this.
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?