• 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

Tar-Elenion

It was easiest to deal with your first long post in one reply, now I will reply to your shorter posts to Aragil and myself.

Nowhere in LOTR does Tolkien place Uruk-hai in Mordor. The only thing that even comes close is the reference to a "rebel pack of Uruk-hai" which can easily be understood as referring to Saruman's troops. Nowhere in LOTR are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks.



No one is saying that uruks are half-orcs. You are apparently debating that with yourself. What we are saying is that the Uruk-hai are Saruman's elite troops and they are probably a blend of orcs and men. As to uruks being an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai, neither you nor anyone else has yet presented a single piece of hard, uncontovertible evidence for this contention.

Moving on to your next post, I discussed the first Tolkien letter in my previous post. Cian's longer quotation from it shows that it does not mean what you implied it meant.

Moving to the second letter (once again a thank you to Cian for supplying a fuller quotation) it says: "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." Once again we see from the fuller quotation Tolkien is not saying what you implied he was saying. In the context of the letter orcs and Urukhai are not necessarily equivalent. The phrase "a hobbit amongst the Urukhai" in the context of Tolkien's writings would appear to be a reference to Merry's and Pippin's time in captivity during their trek across Rohan. Tolkien does not define Uruk-hai as the plural form of uruk.

Once again we are left solely with secondary sources stating that uruks and Uruk-hai are equivalent. There is nothing in Tolkien's writing to state this. It might indeed be a reasonable hypothesis, except for the fact that it does not explain Tolkien's usage of the two terms in LOTR. In LOTR he consistently uses Uruk-hai (always capitalized) to refer to Saruman's elite, sun-tolerant orc troops and uruks (sometimes capitalized, sometimes not) to refer to Sauron's large, soldier orcs. I find it hard to believe that this sort of consistency from a perfectionist, philogogist doesn't mean anything and that the terms are really interchangeable.
 
Grond

Thank you for your research. I accept it as JRRT's own writing and will not argue with it. It does indeed make clear that Saruman blended men and orcs. It does not, however, shed any direct light on the question of uruk and Uruk-hai being equivalent or not. There is no reason for JRRT to use the term Uruk-hai in the passage you cite.

If we accept Tar-Elenion's argument then we have the following in LOTR:

a) orcs -- (no problem here)
b) uruks/Uruk-hai -- these are in the employ of both Sauron and Saruman, but Saruman's have absolutely no problem with the sun, unlike all other orcs. Saruman's even boast about their disdain for the sun
c) orc/men hybrids bred by Saruman that are different from his sun tolerant Uruk-hai.

I hate to sound like Harad here and invoke logic, but if b) and c) are totally different, where did Saruman's sun tolerant Uruk-hai come from? Was this yet another unnamed deviltry of Saruman's? What of Treebeard's comments? Do we now dismiss them afterall. If Saruman's breeding experiments were not for the purpose of creating sun-tolerant orcs what were they for? The soldier uruks already existed. Isn't it far simpler to accept that Saruman's breeding experiments produced his sun-tolerant Uruk-hai? That seems crystal clear to me.

Well that is my opinion.
 
Last edited:
-------------
Quothe Greenwood:
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.
----------

Thanks, I often find it easier to respond point by point.

------------
Quote:
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?
<snip>
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.
------------------------

I suggest you reread what I actually posted, including what CT said, about the index in UT (nowhere did I argue that JRRT 'produced' the UT index).
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
In otherwords, CT is saying that some of the translations and wordings and definitions in the UT (and Sil.) index are his father's.

------------------
Quote:
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.
----------------------------

But you can arbitrarily decide that JRRT's words in UT are wortheless, because they do not agree with your interpretation of passages in LotR?

In any event I did not decide or say that Foster was right, I said the evidence was 'circumstantial'. But nonetheless it is there. People can judge it how they wish. If you wish to arbitrarily dismiss it because it does not agree with your interpretation, that is your right.

---------------------
Quote:
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.
---------------------

Ah, the point also is that given the two sources saying the samething, both having access to JRRT's own notes and drafts it is entirely possible that this was drawn from JRRT's own notes. Indeed the circumstantial evidence points toward it.

----------------------
Quote:
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 did not say the _index in UT_ was JRRT's. I refer you again to the CT's statement about the index:
"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'."
The index I am referring to is the draft JRRT originally made for the LotR.


--------------
Quote:
You are correct. I do not own a copy of Tolkien's Letters.
--------------

That is a shame. You should look into getting a copy. It is very informative and there is a (relatively) new edition out.

-----------------
<snip>
Quote:
[In Letter 78]
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.
-------------------

What he is discussing may be irrelevant, but his use of the terms 'Uruks' and 'Urukhai' is not. He is using the 'Anglicized' form.


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

Cian has already posted about Uruk-hai in Mordor.


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

Welcome. The reference stands. JRRT was pointing out that characters in his works are not all knowing or otherwise always correct, which is the point I was making.

-------------------
Quote:
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.
--------------------

You are ignoring JRRT's words outside LotR, because they do not agree with your interpretation of passages in LotR. You have also chosen to dismiss 'JRRT's' own words about Uruk-hai in Mordor by suggesting that they are Sarumans, because it does not support your interpretation.

-----------------
Quote:
Moving on, if you wish more of the passage from the chapter Flotsam and Jetsam
-----------------

I already posted the relevant portion.

-----------------
Quote:
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.
------------------------------

It doesn't, especially if he is calling the 'half-orcs' "half-orcs". What it does show is that he is not calling Uruk-hai 'half-orcs'.


------------------
Quote:
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 are welcome to dismiss JRRTs posthumously published works, because they do not agree with your interpretation of LotR, but for myself I will use them because they explain and clarify what he meant. Especially when it is quite clear in LotR that Sauron and Saruman had Uruk-hai, '-hai' refers to 'folk' or 'race', and 'half-orcs' and Uruks are seperate creatures.

---------------------
Quote:
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.
--------------------

And none of them were 'Half-orcs'.

--------------
Quote:
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.
---------------------

That is what it seemed 'Ossiriand Blade' was suggesting in post 1-22-02 2:55 am, and to what I was responding in post 1-22-02 5:31 pm.

-------------------
Quote:
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.
--------------------

Ah, no, you seem not to have understood. My contention is that 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' are synonomous in this manner, and the Uruks (the 'anglicized form of 'Uruk-hai'), (or, if you prefer, Uruk-hai) are not 'half-orcs'.


-----------------
Quote:
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.
---------------------

It is obvious that they called them the Oghor-hai, because they were the Oghor-folk. Just like the Olog-hai and the Uruk-hai, were respectively 'folk' (or 'race' or otherwise pluralized).
It can be used to argue against your 'consideration' that:
--------
Quothe Greenwood:
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.
---------

Since there is no indication that the Druedain were originally some creature that could not abide or tolerate the sun, considering that they were Men. This would be an 'exception', that would argue against that possible interpretation.
 
--------------------
Quote:
Nowhere in LOTR does Tolkien place Uruk-hai in Mordor. The only thing that even comes close is the reference to a "rebel pack of Uruk-hai" which can easily be understood as referring to Saruman's troops. Nowhere in LOTR are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks.
---------------------

The context is clear. The rebel Uruk-hai are in Mordor. They would be 'rebelling' against Sauron. There is a LotR reference to Sarumans troops as uruk: "Related, no doubt, was the word URUK of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time ISSUED from Mordor and ISENGARD. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga, slave."
Emphasis mine.
LotR, App. F.

Hmm... 'great soldier-orcs from Isengard' (Saruman's troops), referred to by the word 'uruk'. 'Snaga' is used in both the Uruk-hai chapter, and in the Tower of Cirith Ungol chapter.


-----------
Quote:
No one is saying that uruks are half-orcs. You are apparently debating that with yourself.
-------------

You seem to be debating with me.

-------------
Quote:
What we are saying is that the Uruk-hai are Saruman's elite troops and they are probably a blend of orcs and men. As to uruks being an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai, neither you nor anyone else has yet presented a single piece of hard, uncontovertible evidence for this contention.
---------------

What you are saying, yes. What I am saying, no.
You have presented no 'uncontrovertible' evidence to support your contention.

----------------
Quote:
Moving on to your next post, I discussed the first Tolkien letter in my previous post. Cian's longer quotation from it shows that it does not mean what you implied it meant.
-----------------

What was it that I implied it meant?

---------------
Quote:
Moving to the second letter (once again a thank you to Cian for supplying a fuller quotation) it says: "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." Once again we see from the fuller quotation Tolkien is not saying what you implied he was saying. In the context of the letter orcs and Urukhai are not necessarily equivalent. The phrase "a hobbit amongst the Urukhai" in the context of Tolkien's writings would appear to be a reference to Merry's and Pippin's time in captivity during their trek across Rohan. Tolkien does not define Uruk-hai as the plural form of uruk.
------------------

The 'Hobbit' being referred to is CT. The Orcs (or Urukhai) are referring to the Nazis and those less reputable elements among the Allies, if I am not greatly mistaken.

------------
Quote:
Once again we are left solely with secondary sources stating that uruks and Uruk-hai are equivalent. There is nothing in Tolkien's writing to state this. It might indeed be a reasonable hypothesis, except for the fact that it does not explain Tolkien's usage of the two terms in LOTR. In LOTR he consistently uses Uruk-hai (always capitalized) to refer to Saruman's elite, sun-tolerant orc troops and uruks (sometimes capitalized, sometimes not) to refer to Sauron's large, soldier orcs. I find it hard to believe that this sort of consistency from a perfectionist, philogogist doesn't mean anything and that the terms are really interchangeable.
-----------------

In accurate but seem quote from App. F above, where he uses 'uruk' for the great soldier-orcs from both Isengard and Mordor.

Also note Ugluk refering to the "Uruk-hai of Isengard" when speaking to Grishnakh.
"But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as usual."
Is this because there are other Uruk-hai than just those of Isengard?
 
Last edited:
Tar-Elenion

Part of the time your reasoning ignores your own statements, the rest of the time it is circular. You have never once gone back to the original post in this thread and dealt with the quotations presented there from LOTR. You have never once presented any evidence to back up your assertion that uruk is an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai other than to repeat the assertion. You always ignore the fact that there is a possible alternative interpretation to a passage you cite. You never give any reason why the alternative interpretation could not be correct; you merely assert that yours is correct without any support for the assertion.

The hypothesis under discussion here, which you have never yet addressed directly is simple, but I will restate it. There are undoubtedly orcs in LOTR. There is a subset of orcs known as uruks. There is another subset of orcs known as Uruk-hai; these last belong to Saruman, are disdainful of the sun and apparently were created by Saruman by blending orcs and men. Thus all uruks are orcs, but not all orcs are uruks. Also all Uruk-hai can be considered orcs, but not all orcs are Uruk-hai. If we consider the likely possibility that Saruman created his breed by crossing men with uruks to create his Uruk-hai, then we can also say that all Uruk-hai are uruks, but not all uruks are Uruk-hai.

Moving on to your last posts: You keep repeating that CT says "some of the translations and wordings and definitions in the UT (and Sil.) index are his father's". That is precisely the point. Some are his father's, but the rest are CT's. Which are which? There is no way to know. The individual entries are not initialed. You want to say that the uruk being an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai entry is JRRT's entry, but you have absolutely no evidence to back this up. It could well be CT's entry. You say that I want to: "arbitrarily decide that JRRT's words in UT are wortheless". But you have absolutely no evidence that the index entry in UT are JRRT's words and this entry is the sole basis for the "Anglicized" theory. In you own earlier post you entertain the possibility that CT merely copied Foster's viewpoint for this definition. Nowhere have you given anything in JRRT's own hand that says this was his definition. All you say is that both CT and Foster had access to JRRT's notes so they could have found the "Anglicized definition" there. Yes, they could have, but you have no evidence they did, other than to say that they agree with each other, but you have also said they may agree with each other because they copied from each other rather than finding it in Tolkien. Your own arguments refute each other.

As to the whole question of using Tolkien's posthumously published work to refute something in LOTR. It cannot be done. You do not seem to grasp the difference between primary sources and secondary sources that Aragil and I have pointed out. As I suggested earlier, go read the discussions about this on the other threads, for instance the Council of Elrond thread in this section (http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2160&perpage=15&pagenumber=1 ). The difference between primary and secondary sources is basic to doing any research. Secondary sources cannot refute primary sources.

Moving on to Tolkien's letters you say: "What he is discussing may be irrelevant, but his use of the terms 'Uruks' and 'Urukhai' is not. He is using the 'Anglicized' form." The only evidence that Tolkien is using the "Anglicized form" is your assertion that he is. You have never proven the "Anglicized" theory.

(BTW, snide and somewhat smug comments like: "That is a shame. You should look into getting a copy [of Tolkien's letters]. It is very informative and there is a (relatively) new edition out." do not advance your arguments in the least.)

You say: "Cian has already posted about Uruk-hai in Mordor". But, Cian's post does not prove there are Uruk-hai in Mordor. It is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. It proves nothing. You say: "You have also chosen to dismiss 'JRRT's' own words about Uruk-hai in Mordor ... ". But nowhere does JRRT say there are Uruk-hai in Mordor. I ignore it because JRRT doesn't say it. Please give a direct quote from LOTR where JRRT says there are Uruk-hai in Mordor. No one else has yet been able to find such a statement. If you are going to point to the two orcs overheard by Sam and Frodo in Mordor in Return of the King (number 7 in my original post) please do not engage in your usual habit of taking snippets out of context. This quote starts out with the orc saying: "First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour ... ". Are we to take it that there are "great elves in bright armor" running around Mordor? In addition, if you refer to my example 9 you will see we have Gorbag, a Mordor orc speaking, he says, talking of himself and his orcs: "Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks". He does not call himself and his men "Uruk-hai", but rather "Uruks".

You say: "It is obvious that they called them the Oghor-hai, because they were the Oghor-folk." It is only obvious, because you say that -hai equals -folk. There is nothing in the text to make it obvious. You are engaging in circular reasoning again, in essence saying: "I define it this way therefore it is obvious that my definition is right."

Moving on to your later posts, you say: "The context is clear. The rebel Uruk-hai are in Mordor." I have dealt with this point above, the context is not clear. Or are you saying that the are "great elves in bright armor" running around Mordor. As for your quotation form Appendix F in ROTK, this was also dealt with earlier in this thread, please scroll up and read the posts. At this point I will merely point to two things, as I said at the beginning of this particular post Uruk-hai may indeed be classed as uruks so the quote from the appendix saying that uruks "issued from Mordor and Isengard" does not mean that Uruk-hai came from Mordor. Much more interesting, however is the part of the quote from the Appendix that says: "word uruk of the Black Speech". You have been arguing that uruk is the Anglicized form of Uruk-hai and citing Foster and Christopher Tolkien as your only sources for this. Here we have JRRT himself saying that uruk is a word "of the Black Speech". How can uruk than be an Anglicized word if it is Black Speech? Or are you now going to argue that Black Speech and English are equivalent? Your thesis that uruk is an Anglicized word has just been shot down by JRRT's own words.

You say: "Snaga' is used in both the Uruk-hai chapter, and in the Tower of Cirith Ungol chapter". I cannot find snaga anywhere in the Uruk-hai chapter. Can you give a quotation? As for the Cirith Ungol chapter, Snaga is clearly used in this chapter as the name of a particular orc in the service of the tower of Cirith Ungol.

The rest of your post has already been dealt with either above or in earlier posts.

Finally:


This last suggestion is the thinnest argument yet. Suggesting that Ugluk's statement implies there are Uruk-hai other than Isengard's is about as ludicrous as Greymantle's thesis about "mercenary" bands of Uruk-hai in the original discussion on the movie thread.
 
"And here are others strange to me. Their gear is not the manner of orcs at all!" TTT
Click to expand...

The "goblin-soldiers" are then described, and what is said to be not usual is that they were armed with short, broad-bladed swords, (as opposed to curved scimitars) also (seemingly as implied), that they bore bows like that of Men. They further had a "strange" device upon their shields, and Aragorn comments that he has not seen these tokens before (include S-rune on helms).

In general, not everything in this goblin description can be said to be especially notable however (outside of the comparison to the other Orcs present here of course), including I think, the stature of these soldier-orcs, as they likely do not outstrip that of the huge Orc-chieftain met in Moria, or at least, it doesn't seem implied. I too think Aragorn knows his goblins pretty well, and just to note, his reaction, immediately following the notice of "strange", drew an exclamation about their gear.

Make what you will of that. Or ... make what you will of that!
 

For clarity, the argument, if I may speak for Tar-E here, is that "Uruks" or "uruks" is anglicized, not uruk, which Tolkien saith is a probable borrowing from archaic Elvish (and indeed is given so as archaic uruk). Compare Silmarils to Silmaril, Silmarilli. Any anglicization here must reasonably refer to the pluralization -s.
 
Last edited:
Cian

Just so I am clear here on this argument.

Uruk-hai is Black Speech
uruk is Black Speech
uruks is an Anglicization

?

Even if this is the argument, nowhere does JRRT say uruks is the Anglicized form of Uruk-hai.

And if uruks is an Anglicization, why does an orc of Mordor use it? Is he just back from a jaunt to Merrie Olde England?
 
Last edited:
Greenwood, as to your first post above, I totally disagree with your assertion in the first paragraph. You make JRRT seem a fool. Had the Orc-men or Man-orcs been called the Fighting Uruk-hai, he would have stated it here. When does an author actually tell you of the greatest abomination of one of his anti-heroes and then not give you the whole story? This is beyond debate to me and is what influenced my decision in this matter more than all other arguments. As to your sun tolerant theory of "if b) and c) are totally different, where did Saruman's sun tolerant Uruk-hai come from? I haven't found anything in the texts that would suggest that the Uruks weren't sun tolerant. But I will look.

As to your final paragraph above stated to Tar-Elenion, in response to his Uruk-hai of Isengard statement, your comments are just too strong. I think Ugluk's comments are one of the best arguments yet that there must be other Uruk-hai. The argument is at least as good as any other put forward as they are all speculation.

I had definitively made up my mind but will put it on hold until I have researched the issue as to whether there is evidence that the Mordor Uruks were sun tolerant or not. If I find evidence that they are, my opinion that the Uruk-hai are just another verbal form of Uruk will stand (at least in my humble opinion). This thread is just about played out. We are nearing the point to where it will degenerate into a logic argument (my logic's better than your logic) and I will have no part in another "Why did Gandalf take the Fellowship through Moria thread"; but we're not quite to that point yet.
 
Originally posted by Cian
Little favor for Tal-Elmar, since "winging" it's way into better MB circulation
Click to expand...


You are welcome. I have been paying little attention to those particular threads. I think I noted one use of it at the 'Inklings' forum, but it had no reply as I recall. Are there any interesting ones using Tar-Elmar and where?
 

Right (unless there is some evidence about that BS employs plural marker -s!!!). In other words, words inflected for plurality would normally inflect using the markers of their own languages.

And if uruks is an Anglicization, why does an orc of Mordor use it? Is he just back from a jaunt to Merrie Olde England?
Click to expand...

This is just Tolkien's choice within his role as translator apparently. Note that Thingol and Aragorn, for examples, both seemingly use "Silmarils" as we read the translation. But -s is not the "correct" plural marker here of course: the word is Quenya, as it's creator knows of course, and it's (nominative) plural marker is properly -i (cf. alternate singular Silmarillë for this example).

This is what's meant by Uruks being "anglicized" ~ ie made English in quality or characteristics.
 
Last edited:
What I will make of that...


I think what is most noticeable here is that the Isengard orcs' gear is more like to that of humans than to the gear of other orcs. I think the reason behind this is that Saruman's orcs are some sort of orc-men hybrid. In the quote from Morgoth's ring Tolkien seems to be making a distinction between men-orcs and orc-men. Of course, it can be argued that Tolkien writes this way a lot, using 'blah and bleh' to describe the same thing. But I think that in this case Tolkien might be referring to two different things- orc men being men with a little orc blood in them (still mostly mannish), which he might use as spies in Bree, and which might compose a minority of his troops at Helm's deep; and men-orcs, orcs with enough mannish blood to not be affected by sunlight, which form the base of his troops. Both Gamling and Treebeard seem to think that Saruman's man/orc breeding program has been devised to bring out sun tolerant orcs. The orcs at Helm's Deep say that 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm'. This seems to imply that other orcs do stop the fight for day. If the bulk of Saruman's troops were uruks (and if this was distinct from orc-men), then either they would perform poorly in the light of day, or else all uruks would have already been sun tolerant. This brings up the issue of why Saruman would bother to cross orcs and men if there had been a supply of sun-tolerant orcs available for the last 500 years? If there had been such a supply of orcs available for 500 years (uruks appeared 35 years before the establishment of Rohan), why would Gamling remark that the Isengarders could fight in the sun? Wouldn't the fact that generations of men were fighting sun-tolerant orcs for the past 500 years have made sun-tolerance in orcs pretty much a standard thing?
Just for the sake of drawing out old arguments, I'd again like to point out that in our world folk, people, and men all tend to have the same connotation, and usually refer to humans. In Tolkiens world this would not be the case, and it would be important to make a distinction between men and folk. I assume that Tolkien linguists derive their translations from the context with which a word is used. A linguist familiar with our world could confuse the distinction between folk and men, and hence get that Uruk-hai meant 'orc-folk', when it might mean 'orc-men'. In our world it wouldn't really matter, both would be 'people of the orc'. In Tolkien's world it would matter- Orc-men is used very often to refer to the troops of Saruman, by several different characters (Aragorn, Treebeard, Gamling, and notably Tolkien himself). Of note is the fact that Saruman's troops don't refer to themselves as orc-men. They seem to prefer the term Uruk-hai.

ps Cian- so that I am pronouncing your name in my head correctly, should it be 'Kee-un', 'Sigh-ann', or other?
 

Why should Tolkien choose to anglicize for Gorbag, and yet consistently not anglicize for Ugluk or all of the orcs at Helm's Deep? Ugluk and Gorbag were bragging in the same context- they are members of breeds of orcs that can handle stuff that regular orcs can't. If Tolkien were just randomly flipping a coin in his head as to when to anglicize and when to not, it is statistically improbable (very improbable) that Tolkien would use the anglicized version in his lone quote from a Mordor Uruk, yet consistently use the black speech version for the quotes from Saruman's orcs. If Tolkien was not mentally flipping a coin, but instead intended to make this distinction then we should ask ourselves why he wanted to make this distinction.
 

I'm a bit winded to those as well. And even where I used it doesn't seem particulary interesting to me lately

Is Inklings forums Xenite, or something else? Heheh, not that I need more places to chat Tolkien though.
 
Right (unless there is some evidence about that BS employs plural marker -s!). In other words, words inflected for plurality would normally inflect using the markers of their own languages.
Click to expand...

Cian

If Black Speech employs the plural marker -s than the word uruks is not an Anglicization but Black Speech! You can't it both ways.

I simply do not understand why it is necessary to invoke all sorts of tortured explanations to justify the Anglicization hypothesis when there is no evidence that JRRT himself ever thought it or said it. All the different usages of uruk/uruks and Uruk-hai are perfectly consistent throughout LOTR without the Anglicization hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Grond

I will grant you some wiggle room on whether the Uruk-hai are a blend of orcs and men or whether there are other half-breeds out there without a name of their own. It does not make sense to me, but we are arguing different opinions. However, I will point out, again, that Morgoth's Ring is a secondary source compared to the primary source, LOTR, and secondary sources cannot be used to manufacture inconsistencies in primary sources.

As for Tar-Elenion invoking Ugluk's statement "we are the fighting Uruk-hai of Isengard" as evidence that there are Uruk-hai other than Isengard's, this is indeed pulling a rabbit out of thin air. If uruks and Uruk-hai are equivalent and both are a plural form of uruk, why doesn't the Mordor orc just call himself Uruk-hai.
 

I'm not trying to have it both ways Greenwood ~ the parenthetical added was simply remarking that someone who wants to actually "prove" uruks is not an anglicization, should simply show evidence of -s as a plural marker in Black Speech

Do you believe that 'uruk-s' is a pure Black Speech word though, ie that BS pluralizes in the same way as seen in English dog/dogs or whatever?

Not any tortured hypothetical really, it's just that -s is the reasonable (anglicizing) plural marker, like in "Silmarils". Cheers
 
Last edited:
Greenwood, we are arguing facts without any "real" evidence from the author. Cian and Tar are supporting their case and you and markrob and others are supporting yours. Grond flounders in between. There is absolutely nothing that is beyond refute in any of the posts thus far. So a secondary source that adds clarity does add weight to the argument. This is my opinion and not yours, but I do believe that secondary sources have intrinsic value when no definitive conclusion may be reached from the primary source. You're trying to break your own rules.

It is apparent from the argument that your assumptions are not conclusive enough to convince a majority of the posters on this thread. I have introduced secondary information that would logically lead someone to the conclusion that had Uruk-hai been the name of the Orc-men or Man-orcs, the author would have stated it in Morgoth's Ring. This example is not conclusive either, but it is both important and relevent. It gives another insight into the fact that apparently the author thought this was a non-issue since he never definatively addressed it himself. That leads me back to the assumption of comparitive sourcing. If the author assumed that it was a non-issue (but it is an issue nonetheless) then who would be most knowledgeable as to the "correct" answer. The answer to this is that the most authoritative source currently surviving is his son Christopher who also feels it is a non-issue and defines Uruk-hai as an anglicazation of Uruk.

I will continue to search for the correct answer, I'm just not sure it can be found.
 
Last edited:
[various snippages for sake of length, not always attributed (my apologies) and somewhat unsuccessful]

-------------
Quothe Greenwood:
Tar-Elenion
Part of the time your reasoning ignores your own statements, the rest of the time it is circular. You have never once gone back to the original post in this thread and dealt with the quotations presented there from LOTR.
---------------

Others have done that already. However I will refer to your #12,
the quote from Appendix F:
"Related. no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'."
To which you stated: "Example 12 is the only case where Tolkien uses the two terms in close proximity and it seems to me to be ambiguous. The first sentence clearly refers makes uruk refer to Mordor orcs..."

This is not accurate. The word 'uruk' is clearly stated to refer the great soldier-orcs from _both_ Mordor and Isengard.

This also contradicts your later statement that:
"Nowhere in LOTR are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks."

App. F is clearly in LotR, and 'great soldier-orcs' from Isengard are clearly Saruman's troops, and it is clearly stated that the word 'uruk' was applied to them



-------------------
Quote:
You have never once presented any evidence to back up your assertion that uruk is an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai other than to repeat the assertion.
---------------------

I suggest rereading my posts as I have presented evidence (such as Letter's and the UT index). You just do not accept that evidence. You are on firmer ground by saying that it is not 'incontrovertible' evidence, and indeed I have labelled some of it 'circumstantial'.

---------------
Quote:
You always ignore the fact that there is a possible alternative interpretation to a passage you cite. You never give any reason why the alternative interpretation could not be correct; you merely assert that yours is correct without any support for the assertion.
----------------

These passages I cite, would that be the 'evidence I have never presented'?
Is my labeling of some of these passages as 'circumstantial evidence' ignoring the fact that there are possible alternative interpretations?

------------------
Quote:
The hypothesis under discussion here, which you have never yet addressed directly is simple, but I will restate it. There are undoubtedly orcs in LOTR.
----------------------

True.

----------------
Quote:
There is a subset of orcs known as uruks.
---------------

This is reasonably accurate, at least for the timeframe we are discussing within.


---------------
Quote:
There is another subset of orcs known as Uruk-hai; these last belong to Saruman, are disdainful of the sun and apparently were created by Saruman by blending orcs and men.
---------------

You have yet to present any 'incontrovertible evidence' to support that. That Saruman had Uruk-hai is undeniable. That Saruman's Uruks were disdainful of the sun is undeniable. That Saruman 'created' (or improved) his Uruks by blending Men with Orcs is not unlikely, though not stated. However they are not 'Half-orcs' ('Orc-men' or 'Man-orcs') as is shown by the clear distinction found between them in the 'Fords of Isen' narrative, and taking into account the circumstantial evidence in Morgoth's Ring.

-----------------
Quote:
Thus all uruks are orcs, but not all orcs are uruks. Also all Uruk-hai can be considered orcs, but not all orcs are Uruk-hai. If we consider the likely possibility that Saruman created his breed by crossing men with uruks to create his Uruk-hai, then we can also say that all Uruk-hai are uruks, but not all uruks are Uruk-hai.
-----------------

But are all 'Half-orcs' Uruks, (or Uruk-hai if you prefer)?

----------------
Quote:
Moving on to your last posts: You keep repeating that CT says "some of the translations and wordings and definitions in the UT (and Sil.) index are his father's". That is precisely the point. Some are his father's, but the rest are CT's. Which are which? There is no way to know.
----------------

Would this be more of the evidence that I have 'never once presented' and for which I 'ignore possible alternatives'?

-------------
Quote:
The individual entries are not initialed. You want to say that the uruk being an Anglicized form of Uruk-hai entry is JRRT's entry, but you have absolutely no evidence to back this up. It could well be CT's entry.
---------------

I would like to say that, yes. But I have not said that, and indeed I have made it clear that it is only a possibilty and presented circumstantial evidence to back that possibility up.
Would it be fair to say that you do not want the entry to be drawn from JRRT's original index because it does not support your interpretation?

------------------
Quote:
You say that I want to: "arbitrarily decide that JRRT's words in UT are wortheless". But you have absolutely no evidence that the index entry in UT are JRRT's words and this entry is the sole basis for the "Anglicized" theory.
--------------------

The words of JRRT that I was refering to are those found in the 'Fords of Isen' narrative.

----------------
Quote:
In you own earlier post you entertain the possibility that CT merely copied Foster's viewpoint for this definition.
-----------------

Is this more of my 'ignoring possible alternatives'?


[continued below]
 
Last edited:
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…