Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

continued from above

[various snippages, for sake of length, not always attributed (my apologies) and somewhat unsuccessful]
-------------
Quothe Geenwood:
As to the whole question of using Tolkien's posthumously published work to refute something in LOTR. It cannot be done.
-------------

It can be done, it is done and CT has done it too.
In any event, the posthumously published 'Fords of Isen' does not refute LotR, nor does it contradict it. It clarifies it.



--------------------
Quote:
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/show...15&pagenumber=1 ). The difference between primary and secondary sources is basic to doing any research. Secondary sources cannot refute primary sources.
-------------------

Secondary sources can be used to refute primary sources, particulaly when it corrects an error (which has been done with LotR).

You do not seem to grasp their is a difference between using secondary sources to clarify what is found in the primary sources, and using them to refute it.

I may read the thread you refer to.

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

You have never disproven it. The context of the usage is clear, at least to me.



------------
Quote:
(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.)
-------------

(BTW I could respond in kind, and point out what might be veiwed as snide comments by you, but I had chosen not to read them that way).
You are reading to much into the recommendation. It was not intended to be either snide or smug. It was merely a suggestion.

-----------------
Quote:
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?
--------------------

Snippets out of context? Lets put this in context. The two Orcs are looking for Sam and Frodo. But they do not know exactly what they are looking for ("Garn! You do not even know exactly what you are looking for." The other Orc responds: "Whose blame's that... Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. First they say its a great Elf in bright armour, then its a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe its all the lot together."). Now these Orcs are in Mordor. They have presented possibilties for what has been causing the troubles therein. The 'great Elf' could be refering to Sam: "Tell Captain Shagrat that the great Elf-warrior has called...", mixed in with rumors of Frodo's mithril coat. The 'small dwarf-man' seems an obvious reference to the Hobbits. This leaves the 'pack of rebel Uruk-hai'. Considering that the rumours of an Elf warrior are reasonable (if mistaken). And the 'dwarf-man' is obvious. We know what caused these. So what would the 'Uruk-hai' rumours come from? If there were no Uruk-hai in Mordor it would seem odd that there would be rumours of rebel Uruk-hai there. And if there were the possibility 'rebel Uruk-hai' in Mordor, it seems reasonable that there were non-rebel Uruk-hai as well. It also seems reasonable that the supposed 'rebel Uruk-hai' in Mordor, were rebelling against something, likely Sauron.

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

Ah yes, the 'Anglicized' form.

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

It is much more obvious that '-hai' refers to 'folk' than it does to one possibilty you suggest, that of it referring to some sort of sun resistant capabilty.



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

I dissagree, but see above.

-----------
Quote:
Or are you saying that the are "great elves in bright armor" running around Mordor.
--------------

That possibility seems to have been entertained by the 'Higher Ups', but see above.

----------
Quote:
As for your quotation form Appendix F in ROTK[...snip]. 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.
-----------

Reread my posts. As Cian has pointed out, I am arguing that uruks (with an 'S', the _plural_) is the 'Anglicized' form of Uruk-hai.


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

Again, the Anglicized plural form of 'uruk' is 'uruks'.
Are you now going to argue that Black Speech used the English 's' as a plural?

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

Try the index, it should give you the page location.

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

"'Now we will deal with Grishnakh,' said Ugluk; but even some of his own followers were looking uneasily southwards.
"'I know,' growled Ugluk. 'The cursed horse-boys have got wind of us. But thats all your fault, Snaga. You and the other scouts ought to have your ears cut off."

Snaga, 'slave' when taken in context with the info in App. F, is not a proper name.

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


------------------
Quote:
Finally:

-----------------
[Quoting Tar-Elenion]
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?
-----------------------

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.
------------------------------

Thinnest yet? In your opinion.

Originally posted by Cian


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.

Click to expand...

Yes.

There seems to have bee some suggestions that Sauron's 'great soldier-orcs' were less 'sun-tolerant' than Saruman's 'great soldier-orcs'. In rereading the 'Uruk-hai' chapter I find no evidence of that. The 'Northerner's' are the ones who complain about the sunlight.
If there is a passage stating that Sauron's great soldier-orcs are less sun tolerant than Saruman's would someone please point it out.

Tar-Elenion, Grond is researching the light resistance characteristic of Mordor Orcs and will have a comment later. I, too, am winded and need a rest. Who would have thought that the Great Hammer of Melkor would be caught between the anvil and .....another hammer????

Originally posted by Grond
Tar-Elenion, Grond is researching the light resistance characteristic of Mordor Orcs and will have a comment later. I, too, am winded and need a rest. Who would have thought that the Great Hammer of Melkor would be caught between the anvil and .....another hammer????

Click to expand...

Fascinating. Another 'hammer'. That very well could be.

Since there seems to still be some misunderstanding of why secondary sources are treated differently from primary sources I will try yet another example. I have written and published material in magazines, journals and books. As with probably 99% of all authors I write drafts before the a manuscript is submitted to the editor. The editor then may or may not make changes and usually I then check over the corrected manuscript and may or may not make other changes. When the whole process is finished the work is published. I also write letters to friends and sometimes write things for myself that I either do not intend to publish or for whatever reason never had published. I can tell you from personal experience when I write drafts and letters this is very different than final versions that are published. I (and the editor) carefully look for any problems and/or inconsistencies. My published work is an entirely different animal than my unpublished drafts, notes and letters. Some authors go so far as to destroy their unpublished materials so that no one can publish them after their deaths as Christopher Tolkien as done with his father's material.

For all of the above reasons an authors published material that he/she saw through to publication is considered in a very different light than any posthumously published material that someone else has gathered together and published. Material written partly or wholly by someone other than the author, even when working form the authors extensive notes is yet another matter and is a further step removed from the author's published work.

Thus looking at any author's literary work we may have three basic types of material

1 -- an author's published work, published by him during his lifetime -- primary material
2 -- posthumously published manuscripts and letters -- secondary material
3 -- various third party encyclopedias, companions, etc. by other authors -- tertiary material

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are JRR Tolkien's primary material regarding his creation of Middle Earth. The Silmarillion and posthumously published works all fall into category 2 (secondary) with parts of them, such as Christopher Tolkien's Introductions and Commentaries being category 3 (tertiary) material. Much of The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and the other books before the History of Middle Earth series actually fall somewhere between category 2 (secondary) and category 3 (tertiary) since by Christopher Tolkien's own admission he was forced to select and edit from his fathers extensive notes and emendations. Various Tolkien companions and encyclopedias are category 3 (tertiary) material

Now how do you use these different categories of material? You may use category 2 material to perhaps get a glimpse of how the author arrived at his final published work. If there are inconsistencies in the primary (category 1) material you may use the secondary (category 2) material to look for clues as to how you might solve the inconsistency, but barring finding a "smoking gun" such as a note or letter from the author stating: "there is inconsistency X in my published work and I intend to fix it in such and such away" you cannot resolve the published inconsistency. Even the "smoking gun" is not 100% certain, because unless the author wrote the "smoking gun" note on his deathbed, he might still have changed his mind about how he wished to resolve the inconsistency. In the absence of a smoking gun there is always the possibility the author might have even intended the inconsistency, had no desire to resolve it or had never resolved it in his own mind.

One thing you absolutely cannot do is use secondary and/or tertiary material to manufacture inconsistencies in the primary material or to redefine things in the primary material.

-------------
Quothe Tar-Elenion
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.
-------------

It is accurate. It is the only place in LOTR where uruk and Uruk-hai are used in close proximity.

-------------
quote
The word 'uruk' is clearly stated to refer the great soldier-orcs from _both_ Mordor and Isengard.
-------------

I have said that Uruk-hai are a subset of uruks so there is no problem here.

-------------
quote
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
-------------

Oops. Sorry.
I will amend it to: Nowhere in the LOTR narrative text are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks.

-------------
quote
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'.
-------------

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

BTW secondary and tertiary sources do not even rise to the level of "circumstantial evidence" in the face of evidence from a primary source.

-------------
quote
These passages I cite, would that be the 'evidence I have never presented'?
-------------

No. They are the passages from LOTR.

-------------
quote
That Saruman had Uruk-hai is undeniable. That Saruman's Uruks were disdainful of the sun is undeniable.
-------------

We agree.

-------------
quote
That Saruman 'created' (or improved) his Uruks by blending Men with Orcs is not unlikely,
-------------

I would consider it proven since Grond's passage from Morgoth's Ring concurs with Treebeard's statement in LOTR.

-------------
quote
However they are not 'Half-orcs' ('Orc-men' or 'Man-orcs')
-------------

Would you prefer "quarter-orcs", "one-eigth orcs", "three-quarter orc-quarter men"? If they are a blend of orc and men, why can they not be called half-orcs, orc-men or man-orcs?

-------------
quote
shown by the clear distinction found between them in the 'Fords of Isen' narrative,
-------------

It is not all that clear. Besides it is secondary material, never put in puiblished form by JRRT.

-------------
quote
and taking into account the circumstantial evidence in Morgoth's Ring.
-------------

Circumstantial material from a secondary source? Hardly very convincing.

-------------
quote
But are all 'Half-orcs' Uruks ?
-------------

No.

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

I would say that all Uruk-hai are a blend of orcs and men. Perhaps in some individuals the orc inheritance is more obvious and in others the man side is more obvious. This is not uncommon when dealing with hybrids.

-------------
quote
Would this be more of the evidence that I have 'never once presented' ... ?
-------------

No.

I will repeat: 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.

-------------
quote
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.
-------------

No, you have presented evidence from secondary sources to back up a possibility from a secondary source. In some case you have presented circumstantial evidence from a primary source to back up a possibility from a secondary source. You then try to use the circumstantial evidence derived from the this merry-go-round of secondary sources and circumstantial arguments to refute evidence from a primary source which you never directly address. The whole thing is a house of cards.

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

I repeat (with slight modifications for emphasis): You have absolutely no evidence that the index entry in UT are JRRT's words and this entry is the origin of the "Anglicized" theory.

-------------
quote
Is this more of my 'ignoring possible alternatives'?
-------------

No. You are ignoring you own earlier post in which you entertain the possibility that CT merely copied Foster's viewpoint for this [Anglicized] definition. The possibility that CT may have copied Foster makes the fact that they agree with each other worthless as any sort of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. This is what you continually ignore.

-------------
quote
It can be done, it is done and CT has done it too.
-------------

The fact that something can be done does not mean it does not break the rules, which you know well was what was meant. I can rob a bank. It does not mean I am not breaking the law.

CT did not refute anything in LOTR. He created a definition unsupported by the majority of usage in LOTR.

-------------
quote
Secondary sources can be used to refute primary sources, particulaly when it corrects an error (which has been done with LotR).
-------------

There was no error in LOTR to correct.

-------------
quote
You have never disproven it. The context of the usage is clear, at least to me
-------------

I have given evidence from LOTR to dispute the "Anglicization" theory (examples 1 - 12) in the original post on this thread plus example 13 given later. Far more evidence than you have given from LOTR for the "Anglicization" theory.

-------------
quote
So what would the 'Uruk-hai' rumours come from?
-------------

Grishnakh has long since reported that Ugluk and his Uruk-hai pals have captured halfings and have refused to bring them to Lugburz. Perfectly reasonable to consider them rebels. Grishnakh considered Saruman a rebel for setting up his own troops with their own badges. Why wouldn't a Mordor orc consider anyone working for Saruman a rebel? I repeat: The Mordor orcs statement is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations.

-------------
quote
Ah yes, the 'Anglicized' form.
-------------

Ah yes, Good old Gorbag, just back from his holiday in jolly olde merrie England using Anglicized speech instead of Black Speech. Do all the orcs in Mordor Anglicize their speech?

-------------
quote
It is much more obvious that '-hai' refers to 'folk' than it does to one possibilty you suggest, that of it referring to some sort of sun resistant capabilty.
-------------

The sun resistant possibility was merely a suggestion. It is irrelevant to the main points under discussion. You have nothing to back up your "folk" suggestion except your "Anglicization" theory. It's a wash.

-------------
quote
I am arguing that uruks (with an 'S', the _plural_) is the 'Anglicized' form of Uruk-hai.
-------------

Are you saying Gorbag uses Anglicized words when speaking to another orc? Or are you saying Tolkien chooses to have his orcs use Anglicized words instead of the Black Speech words he has invented for them?

-------------
quote
Are you now going to argue that Black Speech used the English 's' as a plural?
-------------

See above.

-------------
quote
Try the index, it should give you the page location.
-------------

Sorry, none of my various copies of LOTR have indexes. Which edition are you using? I will have to check it out.

-------------
quote
Snaga, 'slave' when taken in context with the info in App. F, is not a proper name.
-------------

I was unfamiliar with the orthographic usage that would capitalize the word Slave whenever it was used. I must say it makes it a bit confusing to know when a capitilized word might be a proper name as opposed to a social classification. Seems sloppy usage for a philologist, but I guess if Tolien can make up his own words he can make up his own orthography.

Grond

I will not give you a Tar-Elenion style post.

I have not changed my rules about primary and secondary sources (see my post two posts up). Of course, a secondary source can corroborate or clarify a primary source. Your passage from Morgorth's Ring corroborates Treebeard's account. The fact that Tolkien does not say anything about Uruk-hai in it cannot be used as proof of anything about the term Uruk-hai, however. The whole passage is a piece he never used in LOTR or prepared for publication. We cannot know how he might have modified it in a final form. We know that orcs are not fond of sunlight, we know that the Uruk-hai are openly disdainful of the sun, we know that they work for Saruman, Treebeard speculates that Saruman has blended orcs and men to develop orcs that are tolerant of sunlight. It is a reasonable inference that these creations of Saruman's are the Uruk-hai. No it is not proof. If you look back at my original post that started this thread you will see that there is nothing there about half-orcs or sun tolerance or anything. It was a simple listing of the usages of the terms uruk/uruks and Uruk-hai in LOTR. These arguments about hybrids are irrelevant. As is my suggestion about -hai being related to sun tolerance. It was a top of the head suggestion that is irrelevant to the original argument.

As for Tar-Elenion's contention about "Uruk-hai of Isengard" implying that there are other Uruk-hai I repeat my opinion that it is grasping at straws. Under this argument if a herald announced: "All hail Theoden of Rohan", it could be argued that there are other Theodens that the herald is distinguishing this Theoden from. Ugluk boasting we are the "Uruk-hai of Isengard" is the same sort of flowery, somewhat archaic speech useage most of us enjoy in LOTR. To twist it the way Tar-Elenion has is ludicrous.

As for Tolkien, I do not think he is a fool. I think he chose his usage carefully as I pointed out in the post that started this thread. I think Christopher Tolkien may have made a mistake in following someone elses theory about uruks vs. Uruk-hai. I repeat my view that the 12 examples given in my first post and the one example added later add up to a considerable body of evidence in LOTR that does not jibe with the "Anglicization" theory advanced by people other than JRR Tolkien. I remain mystified as to why people are so wedded to it.

Greenwood, I ask you to show me one single time in the published primary works where the author definatively says that the "Uruk-hai" are Orc-men or Man-orcs. It isn't there. The next best source in my humble opinion would be the author's outline of the whole of the works "The Lord of the Rings". These are found in the History of Middle-earth VI, The Return of the Shadow, VII, The Treason of Isengard, VIII, The War of the Ring, and IX, Sauron Defeated. It is a work published after the author's death but contains a basic outline of the LotR. The bulk of the references are found in VII, The Treason of Isengard. It is well that you consider this a work of little meaningful value because it indicates clearly to me that the chapter is dealing with Orcs. The Orcs of Mordor are snaga, the small orcs and the Orcs of Isengard are of a bigger size and carry man-like weapons. These Orcs of Isengard are consistently referred to as the Isengarders or the great orcs and the Orcs of Mordor as Mordor Orcs.

In the scene where the Orcs battle with one another the author's outline reads,
"Some want to go North. Some say ought to go straight to Mordor. The great orcs were ordered to go to Isengard..."
A paragraph later.
"Fight breaks out. Slain orc falls on top of Pippin with blade drawn. Pippin manages to cut wrist bands. Ties cord loosely again.
Isengarders win. Mordor orcs are killed. They start on. [?Leader] called Ugluk [?leaves them]. They rouse Merry, give him drink; cut ankle bonds and drive hobbits with whips. Dark night. Pippin manages to unclasp brooch unseen."
And on the next page.
"Orcs become aware of pursuit by horsemen, Merry and Pippin do not know about horsemen; but perceive that the orcs are afraid..."

It is ironic that Tolkien's has only the chapter number XXIV until the handwritten title of An Orc-raid was later added.

Given this information, along with the fact that the author didn't feel this issue should be confusing enough to elaborate on further, it is apparent to me that the Uruk-hai is a plural form of a group of Uruks. Large and mean fighter orcs of both Mordor and Isengard. It is also just as clear that Saruman bred groups of both Man-orcs and Orc-men based on descriptions from this very same text. If you absolutely refuse to accept these writings, I have nothing further to offer. If the author's outline (published after his death) is not a significant piece of research material, then we have reached an impasse where "common sense" is wonting.

I again reiterate that there is no definitive proof in the text published during the author's lifetime; but, this chapter from The Treason of Isengard, in Chapter XXI, titled The Uruk-hai makes it clear to me what the author meant.

Grond is done with debate. I am fully satified and will depart from this thread. If you don't agree with me, so be it. We will just agree to disagree. I have worked long and hard to try and bring everyone to a logical conclusion. If I have failed to do that, I apologize.... but it wasn't for lack of trying on any participant's part..... including mine!

Well,

I will say this. The two of you (Greenwood and Tal-Elenion -- Grond snuck a post in there--), I have no doubt, have considered Uruks and Uruk-hai more than Tolkien probably ever did.

It seems to me likely that Uruk-hai merely means orc-folk. Though it could mean orc-men (but then again don't all orcs have their origin in men).

Regarding the "Anglicization" of Uruk-hai theory, I thought the whole of the Lord of the Rings was written in Common Speech. (Though perhaps translated by Tolkien into English, I've always taken it that the Common Speech was English, which is strange since English has changed so much over the years, but I'm sure Tolkien was better aware of this than I.) In any case almost all the orc speech is translated.

It seems to me that "Uruks" is merely Common Speech-ization. And some of the orcs did speak common speech. Indeed black speech is merely a bastardization of Common Speech and a bastard language altogether, just as orcs are a bastard race, if bastard is not to good a term for them. Therefore I see no problem with the Uruk-hai themselves refering to themselves alternately as Uruks and Uruk-hai. The bastards probably couldn't keep it straight themselves.

Concerning the "rebel Uruk-hai" that can also be taken to mean that all the Uruk-hai are rebels, since those of Cirith Ungol clearly regarded Saruman and his Uruk-hai as rebels by that time (since they didn't bring the hobbits to Mordor but took them Saruman instead and his treachery was laid bare). Or it could refer merely to some of the Uruk-hai who undoubtedly fled to Mordor after Saruman's fall and yet could not bare the utter slavishness of the Mordor orcs. Which leads me to a point about the difference between the orcs of Mordor in general and the Uruk-hai of Saruman. Saruman's Uruk-hai were more noble than those of Mordor because Saruman had not fallen as low as Sauron. Sauron's orcs were utterly slavish and had come to altogether hate the light, whereas the Uruk-hai did not hate the light just as because their lord Saruman had not yet utterly fallen. Remember Gandalf still kept the hope that Saruman woud yet be saved.

I don't know why Tal-Elenion thinks that Sauron's orcs also could endure the light. The Uruk-hai rather surprised Aragorn at Helm's Deep when he learned that these orcs did not fear the day. Saruman's were the only orcs who did not fear or at least dislike the day.

One final note. It is the Uruk-hai who identify themselves as the Uruk-hai. I think they do this so as to distinguish themselves from the rest of the orcs. Saruman's orcs at least still have some dignity. They take pride in the fact that they are the "orc-folk" or "orc-men" what you will. What it shows is not that the Uruk-hai were more wicked than your typical orc but perhaps still had some remnant of dignity and humanity left in them, however little that was. And it shows not that Saruman was more wicked than Sauron but less so, even as wicked as he was feeding his orcs man flesh. It only makes you wonder, though not much, what Sauron did to his orcs.


Sorry, I meant to give a rather short response, but then again this is short in comparison to the length of yours

PS. Don't take this post too seriously. I really don't think the matter that important. At worst it is a mere slip of Tolkien on a relatively unimportant matter. However, I llike the explanation that the stupid orcs were merely slipping in and out of common speech of which their own is a bastardization. This combined with the pride of the Uruk-hai as being the great orc folk.

. . . . . I'm still looking for Grond's original post . . .

Wow! there are a lot of posts on this.

Crap!!!! I came to a final conclusion to the wrong question. After rereading this thread in its entirety one last time before unsubscribing I realize I got waylaid by Greenwood. Many posts ago he put forth the hypothesis that Uruk-hai could possibly have been a Man-orc or Orc-man. That was not the original premise of the thread and somehow my slow operating brain changed the thread criteria. For the last 24 hours I have been seeking to prove the author did not mean Man-orc when he wrote Uruk-hai.

I have reached the conclusion that the author definately did not mean Man-orc when he wrote Uruk-hai. I am, however, unconvinced that Sauron's Uruks and Saruman's Uruk-hai are the same or different. I have come to no conclusion on the original subject of the thread. The chapter in HoMe The Treason of Isengard, Chapter Uruk-hai never refers to Sauron's orcs as great orcs. It simply refers to them as orcs whereas Saruman's orcs are referred to as great orcs. There are other references to great orcs of Sauron coming against Osgiliath (I believe) during the reign of Denethor and that they were tolerant to sunlight. I will find this entry and others if the exist and carry on my search; however, I tend to agree with the Bombadilliodillo man who said that this really isn't that important of an issue. But I wouldn't ever want anyone to think the Mace of Melkor was a quitter.

BTW, Greenwood, none of this should matter a whit to you since you consider the HoMe an unreliabe secondary source; but, for me, I think the answer doesn't lie in the LotR. The only definitive answer (if there is one) is in the "other works" of the author published after his death.

------------------------------------
Greenwood posted:
-------------
Quothe Tar-Elenion
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.
-------------
[Greenwood]
It is accurate. It is the only place in LOTR where uruk and Uruk-hai are used in close proximity.

-------------
quote [Tar-Elenion]
The word 'uruk' is clearly stated to refer the great soldier-orcs from _both_ Mordor and Isengard.
-------------
[Greenwood:]
I have said that Uruk-hai are a subset of uruks so there is no problem here.
--------------------------

I see you have chosen to break up my responce in such a manner as to make it seem I was saying something I was not.

As you well know, I did not say that the 'close proximity' was not accurate. You know this since you seem to have _puposely_ seperated the part where I pointed out what I was saying was not accurate, in an attempt to make it seem that I was saying something I was not.
I ask you to refrain from doing that.

This is the innaccuracy I was refering to was:
Greenwood wrote:
"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 as in examples 8 to 11,"

And this is how it was innaccurate:
"The word 'uruk' is clearly stated to refer the great soldier-orcs from _both_ Mordor and Isengard".

You should have left it in its proper place and responded to what I was writing instead of trying to make it look like I was saying something else.

Or were you honestly mistaken and you actually thought I was saying the two words were not in close proximity?

-----------
Qouthe Greenwwod
I have said that Uruk-hai are a subset of uruks so there is no problem here.
----------------

Please provide a citation from JRRT saying that Uruk-hai are a subset of uruks.

-------------
quoting Tar-Elenion
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
-------------


-------------
Greenwood responds:
Oops. Sorry.
I will amend it to: Nowhere in the LOTR narrative text are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks.
----------------

JRRT clearly and definitely used 'uruk' to refer to Saruman's troops. What difference does it make that it was not in the 'LOTR narrative text'?



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

BTW secondary and tertiary sources do not even rise to the level of "circumstantial evidence" in the face of evidence from a primary source.
-----------------

In your opinion. However the 'evidence' you have presented is open to interpretation. The posthumous works clarify the primary works, narrowing the alternative interpretation.



-------------
quoting Tar-Elenion:
That Saruman 'created' (or improved) his Uruks by blending Men with Orcs is not unlikely,

Greenwood responds:
I would consider it proven since Grond's passage from Morgoth's Ring concurs with Treebeard's statement in LOTR.
------------

The passage in Morgoth's Ring does not mention Uruk-hai.
Treebeard is _not_ making _statements_. He _is_ asking questions:
"I wonder what he has done? Or they Men he has ruined, or has he blended the races of Orcs and Men?"
Treebeard does not know.


Even if he were making statements, JRRT has pointed out that Treebeard is fallible.


-------------
Quote:
Would you prefer "quarter-orcs", "one-eigth orcs", "three-quarter orc-quarter men"? If they are a blend of orc and men, why can they not be called half-orcs, orc-men or man-orcs?
--------------

Because 'half-orcs', or 'orc-men' or 'man-orcs' is refering to something specifically different than Saruman's Uruk's. This is conclusively proven in 'Fords of Isen', which does not contradict LotR, is fully compatible with it, and uses JRRT's own words, which give us greater clarity and insight into LotR.


----------
Quothe Greenwood:
Circumstantial material from a secondary source [Morgoth's Ring]? Hardly very convincing.
------------

In your opinion.
But as with 'Fords of Isen', noncontradictory, compatible, and clarifies what is found in LotR.

----------
Quote:
I will repeat: 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.
------------

It is evidence nonetheless, and makes sense. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe that CT did not simply make it up.


------------
Quote:
No, you have presented evidence from secondary sources to back up a possibility from a secondary source. In some case you have presented circumstantial evidence from a primary source to back up a possibility from a secondary source...
<snip>
-------------

The evidence is there. You can choose to dismiss it, but it does not change the fact that it is evidence. And it clarifies what is in LotR.


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

Geenwood replies
I repeat (with slight modifications for emphasis): You have absolutely no evidence that the index entry in UT are JRRT's words and this entry is the origin of the "Anglicized" theory.
----------------

Again, here I was referring to (as the quote from me you supplied shows) the 'Fords of Isen' narrative. I was not referring to the UT index.


--------------
Quothe Greenwood:
No. You are ignoring you own earlier post in which you entertain the possibility that CT merely copied Foster's viewpoint for this [Anglicized] definition.
<snip>
-------------

I choose to belive that CT is not a plagiarist. I choose to believe that CT did not simply make it up. You are of course at liberty to dismiss it. But what evidence do you have that 'Uruks' is not an 'Anglicization' of Uruk-hai?



-------------
quoting Tar-Elenion
Secondary sources can be used to refute primary sources, particulaly when it corrects an error (which has been done with LotR).

Greenwood responds:
There was no error in LOTR to correct.
------------


Really? There is an error in Appendix A (a primary source), which was corrected in UT and PoME (secondary sources).

------------
Quote:
I have given evidence from LOTR to dispute the "Anglicization" theory (examples 1 - 12) in the original post on this thread plus example 13 given later. Far more evidence than you have given from LOTR for the "Anglicization" theory.
--------------

Your 'evidence' has proven nothing. Nothing in LotR disputes 'uruks' being the Anglicized form of Uruk-hai.


-------------
quoting Tar-Elenion:
So what would the 'Uruk-hai' rumours come from?

Greenwood responds:
Grishnakh has long since reported that Ugluk and his Uruk-hai pals have captured halfings and have refused to bring them to Lugburz. Perfectly reasonable to consider them rebels. Grishnakh considered Saruman a rebel for setting up his own troops with their own badges. Why wouldn't a Mordor orc consider anyone working for Saruman a rebel? I repeat: The Mordor orcs statement is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations.
----------------

You _seem_ to be suggesting that the Orcs believed that Saruman's Orcs had 'invaded' Mordor. Is this an accurate inference?
If it is then how? Why would the 'Higher Ups' believe this (it was the 'Higher Ups' that the Orcs got their info from)?
The obvious interpretation of the passage is that there were Uruk-hai in Mordor, some of which might be 'rebelling'. I think you are terming it ambiguous because it does not agree with your position, (that only Saruman had Uruk-hai).

-----------
Quote:
Ah yes, Good old Gorbag, just back from his holiday in jolly olde merrie England using Anglicized speech instead of Black Speech. Do all the orcs in Mordor Anglicize their speech?
-------------

When the author chooses that do, the do. JRRT 'Anglicizes' many words. Cian has already cited examples.


-------------
Quote:
Are you saying Gorbag uses Anglicized words when speaking to another orc? Or are you saying Tolkien chooses to have his orcs use Anglicized words instead of the Black Speech words he has invented for them?
-------------

Seeing that JRRT 'Anglicized' words he invented in many cases, then yes (Cian has cited circumstances), He is choosing to do just that.

Once again:
Are you now going to argue that Black Speech used the English 's' as a plural?

-------------
Quote:
Sorry, none of my various copies of LOTR have indexes. Which edition are you using? I will have to check it out.
---------

As all my editions have the index we seem not to be using the same editions. It is just after (most) of the Northerners take off.

An aside:
Which LotR does not have an Index?

-------------
quoting Tar-Elenion
Snaga, 'slave' when taken in context with the info in App. F, is not a proper name.

Greenwood responds:
I was unfamiliar with the orthographic usage that would capitalize the word Slave whenever it was used. I must say it makes it a bit confusing to know when a capitilized word might be a proper name as opposed to a social classification.
<snip>
---------------

Like 'Higher Ups'

---------------
Quothe Bombadillodillo:
Concerning the "rebel Uruk-hai" that can also be taken to mean that all the Uruk-hai are rebels, since those of Cirith Ungol clearly regarded Saruman and his Uruk-hai as rebels by that time (since they didn't bring the hobbits to Mordor but took them Saruman instead and his treachery was laid bare). Or it could refer merely to some of the Uruk-hai who undoubtedly fled to Mordor after Saruman's fall and yet could not bare the utter slavishness of the Mordor orcs.
---------------

The implication of the statement is that there are Uruk-hai in Mordor. The simplest explanation is that Saurons 'great soldier-orcs' were also Uruk-hai, and that both Sauron and Saruman had Uruk-hai. But lets go on the presumption that this pack of Uruk-hai are from Isengard. How did they get to Mordor and why would they go there, and which ones were able to flee there?

------------------
Quote:
I don't know why Tal-Elenion thinks that Sauron's orcs also could endure the light. The Uruk-hai rather surprised Aragorn at Helm's Deep when he learned that these orcs did not fear the day. Saruman's were the only orcs who did not fear or at least dislike the day.
------------------

The 'Northerners' show some concern for the daylight itself. I have asked for a passage indicating that those from Mordor seemed to be adversely effected by the sun, none has been provided.

Aragorn does not seem at all surprised.
The Orcs ask what he is doing on the walls.
He says he is looking out to see the dawn.
They say they dont care about it being night or day, and ask what of it.
He says that no one knows what will come with the day (presumably he is referring to and awaiting Gandalf's return) and tells them to get lost.
They threaten him.

I do not read any surprise in it.
Why do you think so?

Originally posted by Grond
Crap!!!! I came to a final conclusion to the wrong question. After rereading this thread in its entirety one last time before unsubscribing I realize I got waylaid by Greenwood. Many posts ago he put forth the hypothesis that Uruk-hai could possibly have been a Man-orc or Orc-man. That was not the original premise of the thread and somehow my slow operating brain changed the thread criteria. For the last 24 hours I have been seeking to prove the author did not mean Man-orc when he wrote Uruk-hai.

Click to expand...

I am unsure of the context of this post. If by meaning 'Man-orc' with 'Uruk-hai' you are referring to 'uruk', 'orc' and '-hai', 'man' (I realize you are not saying you believe that but rather you are attempting to find out if it is possible), then one reasonable proof is 'olog-hai', which would mean 'troll-man', but it is stated in Appendix F that they were Trolls.

------------
Quothe Tar-Elenion
Or were you honestly mistaken and you actually thought I was saying the two words were not in close proximity?
------------

Yes.

------------
Quote
Please provide a citation from JRRT saying that Uruk-hai are a subset of uruks.
------------

He didn't. It is my suggestion based on his usage.

------------
Quote
What difference does it make that it was not in the 'LOTR narrative text'?
------------

Because that is where all but one ambiguous instance of the word are found.

------------
Quote
However the 'evidence' you have presented is open to interpretation.
------------

You have never addressed my evidence.

------------
Quote
The posthumous works clarify the primary works, narrowing the alternative interpretation.
------------

The posthumous works follow a different usage, muddying the primary works.

------------
Quote
Even if he were making statements, JRRT has pointed out that Treebeard is fallible.
------------

The hybrid orc/man question was not part of the original thread and is irrelevant to the uruks vs. Uruk-hai question.

------------
Quote
This is conclusively proven in 'Fords of Isen', which does not contradict LotR, is fully compatible with it, and uses JRRT's own words, which give us greater clarity and insight into LotR.
------------

The usage of uruks is different in 'Fords of Isen' from in LOTR. The usage of uruks vs. Uruk-hai in LOTR was the original question of this thread. Read the first post.

------------
Quothe Greenwood
Circumstantial material from a secondary source [Morgoth's Ring]? Hardly very convincing.

Quothe Tar-Elenion
In your opinion.
But as with 'Fords of Isen', noncontradictory, compatible, and clarifies what is found in LotR
------------

Morgoth's Ring (as quoted by Grond) makes no mention of either uruks or Uruk-hai. It is irrelevant to the question under discussion. Read the first post in this thread.
As for the 'Fords of Isen', see above.

------------
Quote
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe that CT did not simply make it up.
------------

He probably didn't. You suggested he copied from Robert Foster.

------------
Quote
You can choose to dismiss it, but it does not change the fact that it is evidence. And it clarifies what is in LotR.
------------

I dismiss it because it is circumstantial and based on circular reasoning. You suggested the possibility CT copied the "Anglicization theory" from Foster, yourself.

------------
Quothe Greenwood
I repeat (with slight modifications for emphasis): You have absolutely no evidence that the index entry in UT are JRRT's words and this entry is the origin of the "Anglicized" theory

Quothe Tar-Elenion
Again, here I was referring to (as the quote from me you supplied shows) the 'Fords of Isen' narrative. I was not referring to the UT index.
------------

But what we were discussing was the "Anglicization theory". You appeared to be confused as to what was being discussed. I attempted to get you back on point. You still appear confused.

------------
Quote
I choose to belive that CT is not a plagiarist. I choose to believe that CT did not simply make it up.
------------

I never accused CT of being a plagiarist. You suggested CT may have adopted Foster's definition.

------------
Quote
But what evidence do you have that 'Uruks' is not an 'Anglicization' of Uruk-hai?
------------

What evidence do you have that it is? That was the question at the beginning of the thread. The "Anglicization theory" was advanced after Tolkien's death with no evidence cited from LOTR. I started this thread to ask for such evidence. Read the original post. I do not have to prove a negative.

------------
Quote
There is an error in Appendix A (a primary source), which was corrected in UT and PoME (secondary sources).
------------

This is the first I have heard on this thread of an error in Appendix A. What is it?

------------
Quote
Nothing in LotR disputes 'uruks' being the Anglicized form of Uruk-hai.
------------

In your opinion. Nothing in LOTR supports the "Anglicization theory"; a theory proposed without any evidence from LOTR years after Tolkien's death. You are supporting this theory, you should provide support for it from LOTR. I have provided numerous examples from LOTR to show that the usuage in LOTR does not follow what would be expected from the "Anglicization theory". You test a theory by making predictions based on it, or in this case by seeing if the facts, the usage of the terms uruk/uruks vs. Uruk-hai in LOTR fit what could be reasonably expected from the "Anglicization theory". I have given numerous examples in the first post of this thread to show that the usage does not consistently follow the "Anglicization theory". You have never addressed those examples, nor even shown any evidence that you have read them.

------------
Quote
You _seem_ to be suggesting that the Orcs believed that Saruman's Orcs had 'invaded' Mordor.
Is this an accurate inference?
If it is then how? Why would the 'Higher Ups' believe this (it was the 'Higher Ups' that the Orcs got their info from)?
------------

No. The "Higher Ups" suggested it to the orcs. They were wrong, just as they were wrong about the warrior elf.

------------
Quote
The obvious interpretation of the passage is that there were Uruk-hai in Mordor, some of which might be 'rebelling'.
------------

It is not obvious. I, and others, have given an alternative interpretation. You choose not to believe it. That is why I say it is ambiguous.

------------
Quote
When the author chooses that do, the do. JRRT 'Anglicizes' many words. Cian has already cited examples.
------------

What does the first sentence above mean? You lost me.
Then you are saying that JRRT only chooses to "Anglicize" Uruk-hai when he refers to orcs in Mordor? (See the examples in the first post in this thread.) Why would he?

------------
Quote
Seeing that JRRT 'Anglicized' words he invented in many cases, then yes (Cian has cited circumstances), He is choosing to do just that.
------------

Then I guess you are saying that JRRT only chooses to "Anglicize" Uruk-hai when he refers to orcs in Mordor? Seems odd to me. Can you suggest why JRRT would do that?

------------
Quote
Are you now going to argue that Black Speech used the English 's' as a plural?
------------

That was Cian's suggestion to explain Gorbag's use of the word Uruks instead of Uruk-hai.

------------
Quote
Which LotR does not have an Index?
------------

Houghton Mifflin hardcover editions from the mid 1960s.

After rereading this thread in its entirety one last time before unsubscribing I realize I got waylaid by Greenwood. Many posts ago he put forth the hypothesis that Uruk-hai could possibly have been a Man-orc or Orc-man

Click to expand...

Grond

Actually, it was Ossiriand Blade who put forth that hypothesis. Tar-Elenion then said: "There is nothing in the corpus that indicates 'hai' is used for 'half'. The Uruk-hai are not 'Half-orcs' (a cross breed of Men and Orcs)". I said there was evidence that the Uruk-hai are a cross-breed and things went downhill from there. In my opinion there is evidence that Uruk-hai are a blend of men and orcs, but the evidence is in dispute so we have agreed to disagree. In any event, the question is irrelevant to the original point of the thread which I have been trying to get back to in my last few posts.

This is an interesting thread, perhaps the best I've read in the short time I've been accessing this site. Nice to see well-reasoned arguments on both sides, backed up by research, even if everybody can't necessarily agree.

Actually, this has cleared something up for me. When I watched the film (I know I shouldn't bring it up here, but just this once...) my first feeling was that Saruman breeding Lurtz and his type was a deviation from JRRT. I went back to the books, and sure enough in Foster's guidebook (I'm not claiming he is an authority by the way) he said the Uruks (Or Uruk-Hai I can't remember) were bred by Sauron 500 years before the time of the War of the rings. I'm now convinced by Greenwood's argument that the Uruk-Hai specifically were bred by Saruman, and were a stronger sub-set of the general Uruks around (specifically in Mordor).

Isn't this interesting? The film actually got it right!

More evidence that old PJ and his collaborators know more about Middle Earth than many self-styled Tolkien experts.

Tar-Elenion

The question of the use of the word "snaga" seemed to me to be worth a seperate response rather than lumping it in with my longer comments to you in an earlier post. You said, based on the following entry in Appendix F of Return of the King: "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'." that snaga is always used as the word "slave' in LOTR. At the time I could not find the passage you referred to in The Two Towers, but I said that in Return of the King it was Snaga was clearly used as a proper name. You kindly supplied the passage from The Two Towers, but completely ignored the much more extensive uses of the word in Return of the King. Both passages are given below.

From The Uruk-hai chapter in The Two Towers we have the following short passage: "'I know,' growled Ugluk. 'The cursed horse-boys have got wind of us. But that's all your fault, Snaga. You and the other scouts ought to have your ears cut off."

From The Tower of Cirith Ungol chapter in Return of the King we have the following passages:
".... An orc-voice rose in anger, and he [Sam] knew it again at once, harsh, brutal, cold. It was Shagrat speaking, Captain of the Tower.
" 'You won't go again, you say? Curse you, Snaga, you little maggot! If you think I'm so damaged that it's safe to flout me, you're mistaken. ......'
" 'They won't come, not before you're dead anyway,' answered Snaga surily. 'I've told you twice that Gorbag's swine got to the gate first, .....' "
Two paragraphs later: " 'I'm not going down those stairs again,' growled Snaga, be you captain or no. ......' "
On the next page: "As far as Sam could see, Shagrat hunted Snaga round the roof, until ducking and eluding him the smaller orc with a ylep darted back into the tower and disappeared. ...."
A couple of pages further on: " 'All right,' growled Snaga. 'But I'll come and have a look at you all the same, and see what you're up to.' "

The single usage of the word Snaga in TTT is I suppose open to interpretation, given that it is only a single use. Normally, I would interpret it as a the name of the orc being addressed by Ugluk, but I will grant you the possibility that Ugluk is merely calling him "Slave". However, I find it very hard to see how, in the much more extensive uses of the word in ROTK that any reasonable reader would interpret Snaga as anything but the name of the orc being addressed by Shagrat. It would seem to me that, at least in the case of it's use in the Cirith Ungol chapter, the word "Snaga" is not used as equivalent to the word "slave" as stated in Appendix F. Either we have an inconsistency on Tolkien's part or he is using it in more than one way in the books. The fact that "Snaga" appears in two places in LOTR is indeed odd and I suppose might be an argument for it meaning slave. Or it might be a slip on Tolkien's part or it might be that "Snaga" was a common orc name.Or perhaps it is an orc name in Mordor, but as Tolkien states in Appendix F, the word is used to mean slave among the Uruk-hai, which of course Ugluk is and according to the thesis that started this thread, the Mordor orcs are not. In this case we have no inconsistencies. The passage you cited in TTT fits Tolkien's statement in the Appendix and the passage I referred to in ROTK fits my contention that Snaga is used there as a proper name and both are then in accordance with Appendix F. Any comments?

------------
Tar-Elenion:
Are you now going to argue that Black Speech used the English 's' as a plural?
------------

------------
Greenwood:
That was Cian's suggestion to explain Gorbag's use of the word Uruks instead of Uruk-hai.
------------

Greenwood, that is, and was, not my suggestion. I would not offer, or even imply it, so please do not attribute it to me.

The parenthetical was just another way to challenge you, or anyone who wants to (certainly not me!!! ack!) to somehow definitively prove uruks as not an anglicization by somehow showing that BS pluralizes like English dog/dogs. It was simply a tongue in cheek challenge (note smiley or exclamation !) that I didn't, and don't, think anyone would actually undertake.

For further clarity: I do not in any way think this could be done, or is even likely to have even been considered by JRRT, ie plural -s as a linguistic element of Saurons Esperanto.

I hope this issue is clear now Onward then.

There isn't much "theory" to it. Uruk is a pure Black Speech word but Uruks is not because the plural marker -s comes from another language, and to 'anglicize' a Black Speech word is to give it English quality or characteristics.

Also this is not the only case where Tolkien does this as I've shown.

I've the same question as Tar-Elenion has asked though. Are you, or anyone, going to argue that BS pluralizes in -s?