• 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

Originally posted by Greenwood

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

In Appendix A, the 18th ruler of Numenor listed is Tar-Calmacil. The 19th ruler listed is Ar-Adunakhor. Ar-Adunkhor is later said to be the 20th.
It seems Tar-Ardamin who ruled in between the two was left out.
 

Tar-Elenion

Here again you take a small quotation, use it out of context, and then attempt to ignore what was being debated by shifting to something else. You do it far too often for me to believe it is an accident. And no, I will not take the time to give multiple examples. I will just document this one. Below are the series of exchanges that culminated in your quote given above. It is quite clear that throughout the series of exchanges we were discussing CT's index in Unfinished Tales, not the Fords of Isen. You are the one who suddenly invoked the Fords of Isen.

It has taken considerable time and effort to reconstruct the chain of debate reproduced below, but debate by ordeal seems to be your chosen style. I see no reason to continue the debate if you are going to persist in this tactic. If you wish to honestly debate questions without little debating tricks like snipping short pieces out of longer passages and using them out of context or of debate by misdirection and sudden shifts, I will accomodate you, otherwise the discussion is at an end.



In the post that started this thread I said:
"Cian and other forum members pointed out the Index entry (by Christopher Tolkien) in Unfinished Tales that says: "Uruks -- Anglicized form of Uruk-hai of the Black Speech." "


After a series of exchanged posts Grond said:
"I am going to write a letter to CT himself and see what/if he responds."


To which I responded:
"Actually, I would find CT's take on the whole question interesting given that his entry in the index of UT conflicts with the apparent meaning in LOTR. It would not surprise me if the various Tolkien scholars were relying on CT's index entry in UT, a not unreasonable thing for them to do, but it does demonstrate the dangers of not going back to the primary source that I have been stressing. What I wonder about is that the Tolkien reference book (by JEA Tyler) that Greymantle cited on the earlier thread actually predates the publication of UT. So, did CT use an outside source when making up his index or is Greymantle's copy of the reference book a later edition that incorporated material from UT? "


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


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


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


You added:
" I did not say that the whole index could be definitively taken as JRRT's. What I did say was that the entry in question was not necessarily CT's.
" But lets add some further circumstantial evidence. Robert Foster in his 'Complete Guide to Middle-earth' (which is useful despite some errors) notes the same thing, that 'uruks' is the "Anglicized" plural. It is odd that both CT and RF would use the same term, in the same circumstance, except that RF also had access to the (at that time) unpublished materials. So perhaps RF made it up, and CT (he did note that he found the Guide quite useful) simply lifted the terminology from RF. Or perhaps they are both drawing from the same source, JRRT and his index, with translations and wording.
"Circumstantial, but intriguing none the less. "


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


You responded:
"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."

You added:
"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? "


I then responded:
"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."
After quoting my: "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 responded:
"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?"

Then you added, suddenly invoking the Fords of Isen:
"The words of JRRT that I was refering to are those found in the 'Fords of Isen' narrative."
 
In Appendix A, the 18th ruler of Numenor listed is Tar-Calmacil. The 19th ruler listed is Ar-Adunakhor. Ar-Adunkhor is later said to be the 20th.
It seems Tar-Ardamin who ruled in between the two was left out.
Click to expand...

This is yet another example of one of your little debating tricks that you insist on resorting to rather than sticking to the subject.

Throughout this long thread we have been discussing uruks vs. Uruk-hai. In the middle of this discussion you throw in a comment about an error in Appendix A. This alleged error has nothing to do with the thread. It is just another one of your red herrings and time wasters. Stick to the topic or stop wasting everyone's time.
 
Greenwood
Yes, I said 'JRRT's words in UT'.
You misunderstood what I was refering to, and so I clarified it.
Which I pointed out in my above post.

I have explained why I was posting in the 'snippet manner' you have referred to.

You can except it or not. That is your choice.
 
Last edited:

You opened the door by saying that posthumously published works cannot be used to refute something in LotR.

I responded that they could, and it had been done, and an error in LotR was corrected.

You said there is no error in LotR.

I responded that there was in App. A.

You asked what it was.

I answered.

If you don't want an answer don't ask the question.
 
Last edited:

Your assertion that I 'completely ignored' the use of 'Snaga' in RotK is simply inaccurate, at best.
I said the word was used in both places, this is not ignoring it. You said you could not find the one in TT, I provided the one in TT. You did not ask for or indicate that you needed the ones in RotK.
 
Last edited:
In the corpus the Black Speech word '-hai' is used for three different groups.

The Uruk-hai, the 'great soldier-orcs' apearing in the Third Age.
The Olog-hai, the Black Trolls bred by Sauron.
The Oghor-hai, the Druedain, so named by Orcs.

Several theories have been postulated on what 'hai' means or refers to.

One suggestion was that it means 'half' (and so half-orc, half-troll).
A second suggestion was that it referred to a sun tolerant ability in creatures that could not normally withstand the sun.
A third suggestion was that it meant 'Man' (so Orc-man, Troll-man).
A fourth was that it means folk or race (a plural suffix).

Which is consistant throughout?

We are provided with no definition for 'Oghor'. While some postulate that Uruk-hai are 'Half-orcs' (Orcs crossed with Men), it is not supportable that Olog-hai are 'Half-trolls'. In Appendix F it says that some believed they were giant Orcs, but it is noted that they were quite unlike Orcs in body and mind. It is then stated that "Trolls they were". So 'half' does not seem to fit.

The second suggestion fits for both Olog-hai and Uruk-hai. However the Oghor-hai are the Druedain, and thus Men. Men are not 'normally sunlight intolerant'. So the 'sun tolerance' theory does not fit.

The third suggestion falls into the same category as the first. While the Druedain are Men, and some theorize that the Uruk-hai are 'Orc-men' (or 'Man-orcs'), the Olog-hai are stated to be Trolls.
So it to seems to fail.

This leaves the fourth suggestion, 'hai' meaning 'folk' or 'race'. This is consistant throughout.
Lets also look at Letter 78:
"And of course, as you already discover, one of the discoveries of the process is the realization of the values that often lurk under dreadful appearances. Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable (though I fear it must be admitted that there are human creatures that seem irredeemable short of a special miracle,...)".

'Uruks' here is referring back to 'Urukhai', and are referring to '_folk_ made bad'. 'Orc-folk is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Orcs, that is _folk_ made bad by the intention of their maker'.

The fourth possibility is also the one accepted by the Tolkien linguists. I can find no case of the term being used to refer to an individual, only groups.
Are there any circumstances where it is used to refer to an individual?

-------------
Cian posted earlier:

Leave them at the door or not, the linguistic "opinions" from David and others regarding BS -hai (that I posted in the other thread) ... well let's just say that from my experience in reading David, Helge, Lisa Star, Carl Hostetter, are very familiar with Tolkiens world too
--------------------

Cian,
Do you know of any comments by Carl Hostetter on '-hai', and 'Uruks' as the 'anglicized' form of 'Uruk-hai'. It could be enlightening due to his access to the manuscripts.
 
Last edited:
Tar-Elenion

You continue to play word games and debating games rather than discuss the topic.

Yes, I said 'JRRT's words in UT'.
You misunderstood what I was refering to, and so I clarified it.
Which I pointed out in my above post
Click to expand...

I have provided a long extract of the posts in questions showing clearly that we were discussing the "Anglicization" theory advanced in CT's index in UT. When you could not support your position that this entry could be proven to be JRRT's you merely suddenly shifted to the Fords of Isen manuscript and claimed that was waht you were talking about. When I pointed this out in my last long post you merely tried to shift the discussion again and once again provided nothing to prove the index entry was JRRT's. Another cheap debating trick rather than addressing the issue.


You are playing word games again. You have completely ignored the use of the word Snaga in ROTK. Responding to my request for information about where it is used in TT in no way deals with its use in ROTK. I stated that Snaga is used as a proper name in ROTK and I took the trouble to provide all the uses of it from ROTK. Any reasonable reader can see it is a proper name. You continue to completely ignore this and my demonstration that of how the two occurrences of the word, once in TT, once (in a single sense) in ROTK fit the entry in Appendix F. You constantly ignore what you seem unable to come up with a response for.

Several theories have been postulated on what 'hai' means or refers to.
Click to expand...

But in my posts I have only advanced one theory about what the suffix -hai might mean. You once again try to muddy and cloud the discussion. My theory is that -hai might refer to in some way to the sun (or the fact that a creature normally shunning the sun has been changed into one that ignores the sun). The only two uses of the suffix in LOTR, Uruk-hai and Olog-hai can be clearly shown to refer to creatures for which the above is true. The only other use of the suffix "in the corpus" as you are fond of saying is for the Oghor-hai in UT. Other than saying it is used by the orcs to refer to the Druedain we are given no clue as to its meaning. It could mean anything. I could come up with a "sun" explanation as easily as you come up with your "folk" explanation. There is nothing to back up either in the case of the Oghor-hai.

Your entire last post is once again an effort to shift attention from the fact that you continue to refused to deal directly in a coherent manner with the contents and topic of the post that started this thread.


[In the interests of clarity I will state that I have added the following section in an edit.]


The is yet another debating word game. You throw in an a matter off subject, I ask for a clarification, you give it, I point out the whole thing is irrelevant to the matter under discussion and then you say: "If you don't want an answer don't ask the question." A word game.

But, just to deal with your example. UT does not correct an error in Appendix A. None of these kings were real people. (Or do you believe they were?) Reading the CT's note in UT makes it obvious what is involved here. An inconsistency in the Appendix was pointed out to JRRT by a reader. In a letter he suggested several possibilities for the origin of the inconsistency. JRRT clearly never felt it rose to the level of being important because he made no effort to resolve or elimnate the inconsistency in the second edition. In The Simarillion CT attempted to resolve the inconsistency by changing his father's manuscript before publication. He later decided that his change was not the best way to resolve the inconsistency and was now, in UT, offering yet another alternative to resolve the inconsistency. All of this demonstrates twwo things. One, the dangers of secondary sources and trying to rely on them -- now neither The Silamrillion not UT agree with LOTR. Two, CT admits to changing his fathers words when he sees fit (he did it in The Sil). Once again a demonstration of why I have said secondary sources are different than the primary source.

[End of edit. Now back to my original.]


I have repeatedly given extensive backing for my contentions. I have given at length my reasoning. You, on the other hand, engage in transparent debating tricks and word games in an effort to hide the fact that you do not deal with the substance of my arguments. I have given you repeated opportunities to cease your games and to honestly discuss the issues. Any reasonable person might draw the conclusion that you persist in your style of debate because you cannot answer my arguments. I see no reason to continue to waste my time debating you. Any one reading this thread can draw their own conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Tar-Elenion wrote:


Your argument from this three uses of "-hai" is very strong. It seems very unlikely that Olog-hai means Troll-men. I also strongly contend that -hai is not a plural suffix, for of the four languages I have studied and the little I know of others, I know of no language that uses a hyphenated suffix to denote the plural. Moreover, I am almost positive that of the languages that Tolkien used as models for the construction of the languages in MiddleEarth none use such suffix plurals. I find it most likely that -hai is not a suffix but means folk, which is why Uruk-hai is always used as a plural since the term folk refers to a group.

However, I might argue that "-hai" means something more like "breed" since the orcs and trolls are really not folk and probably don't think of themselves even as such. There are breeds of trolls and orcs, not really folks. The term folk connotates some kind of civilization and neither trolls nor orcs had civilization. They are bastards of men (and in the case of trolls of ents perhaps). Moreover, civilization requires households and laws. Concerning laws, the orcs live by the most brutish form of survival of the fittest and rule by might. And we never see female orcs -- probably because orc procreation is brought about through rape and is the reason why Tolkien does not go into depth into it.

Oghor-hai was I believe considered a derogatoy term used of the Druedain and indeed it would be if -hai meant breed and "-hai" was the consequence of organized rape.

. . . . .

Grond, now no peeking.
 
Last edited:

Bombadillodillo,
Generally, JRRT uses collective suffixes in his langs of course, and of note, he does not always hyphenate Urukhai in any event.

For a hyphenated example of "folk" see Adûnaic kadar-lâi which means, according to Tolkien, "city folk"

~ (-lâi) may come from Avarin Kinn-lai ~ itself perhaps a reflex of *Quende-lië ~ well attested "a-infixion" (See Elvish stem LI) can explain the form in the Avarin clan name suffix. Stem LI > Q. lië "people".

Tar-Elenion, weekends are tough for me to respond, but I'll hopefully address the questions you raised (re: Carl Hostetter), as best I can, come monday-ish if not sooner. Cheers
 
Last edited:
I am almost positive that of the languages that Tolkien used as models for the construction of the languages in MiddleEarth none use such plural suffixes.
Click to expand...

That was a foolish thing for me to have claimed and I realized it shortly after I posted. Thanks for the correction.

But the collective suffix as you call it -- a very appropriate term -- is not the same as a plural inflection and seems always to signify something more than a mere plural inflection, as the "-s" inflection in English. The collective suffix usually signifies something about the group as a whole.

But I would be interested in what you think of my translation of "-hai" as a collective suffix signifying breed.

I am not a linguist, but I have dabbled in it a little, and do love studying languages and wordcraft.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Cian


Generally, JRRT uses collective suffixes in his langs of course, and of note, he does not always hyphenate Urukhai in any event.
Click to expand...

Cian

I have listed all the instances of the use of the term Uruk-hai in LOTR in the first post of this thread. In every case Tolkien uses a hyphenated suffix. Is there another instance of Uruk-hai in LOTR that I have missed?

Bombadillodillo

Excuse me for not addressing your posts on this thread earlier.

Your suggestion that the suffix -hai is used by Tolkien to indicate a breed is interesting and it seems to me it would fully fit Tolkien's usage in LOTR. The Uruk-hai and the Olog-hai certainly seem to be a different breed than the creatures they are apparently derived from. As I said in an earlier post, my suggestion that it might have something to do with the sun tolerance of the Uruk-hai and the Olog-hai was merely an over the top of my head thing and I am perfectly willing to discard it for a different suggestion that fits all of Tolkien's usage in LOTR. As I also said in an earlier post to Tar-Elenion on the subject of -hai, the single instance of Oghor-hai in UT gives us no basis for deciding on what the usage of it there means, thus we have great latitude in interpreting it there.

I will give you suggestion more thought, but at first look it appears to have considerable merit.
 

Well I didn't say LotR (however in one of my editions it is so spelt in RotK, but obviously not in others). I'm just basing that statement on Letters where it's apparently not hyphenated (spelled Urukhai twice [different letters], in both new and old editions at least).

A probable reason for a hyphenated form: "... simply to avoid the pronunciation of -kh- as a fricative." David Salo

In any case my main thing was to show a hyphenated example including "folk", as in Adûnaic kadar-lâi

:Only getting on here quick again due to an e-bay thing:
 
Last edited:
Why -hai might mean men....

Before anybody completely dismisses the possibility that -hai might mean 'men', I would love to defend it.

Usage 1: Uruk-hai
This of course is the usage most germaine to this thread, and so of course it has been the most often discussed. If hai meant 'men', then a direct translation of the term Uruk-hai would be orc-men. Tolkien applies the terms 'orc-men' and 'man-orcs' to the troops of Saruman in Morgoth's ring. Gamling refers to the troops of Saruman as 'goblin-men', and adds that they are tolerant to light. The troops of Saruman refer to themselves as 'Uruk-hai', and they also say that they are resistant to light. I think that the reference to sun tolerance pretty well links 'Uruk-hai' and 'goblin-men' to be the same creatures. 'Goblin-men' is reasonably close to 'orc-men', which is the name that Tolkien gives them in Morgoth's ring. I think that it would be fair to say that Tolkien often times uses such descriptive names as 'orc-men' when rendering proper nouns into their own language, so I think that 'orc-men' could be a translation of 'Uruk-hai'.
Finally I'll note that 'Hai-uruk' would be the direct translation of 'men-orcs'. This might violate some grammatical rule of the Black-Speech, and might account for the reason that Tolkien in UT differentiates between Uruks and orc-men. Drawing back on an example in our world, Eskimos have something like 20 (or was it 200, can't recall) different names for snow. In English there is just snow. If we were using English to describe a mixed snow scene, we would just say that there was snow. The Eskimos would distinguish, and say 'wet-snow' and 'dry-snow', or something along those lines. Back to Tolkien, in English there is a way to distinguish 'orc-men' and 'men-orcs', in Black Speech there might just be the term 'Uruk-hai' to cover both varieties. This would explain the passage in 'The fords of isen' in UT. Uruks would be a description of men-orcs, which we remember Tolkien describing as large and cunning (but probably still orcish, and probably descended from pure uruks), and then the orc-men wielding axes would be the other half of the equation from Morgoth's ring, those who were treacherous and vile. In my opinion this completely explains why Tolkien differentiates in the passage from UT.

Usage 2: Olog-hai
This is referring to the creatures of Sauron that were sun-tolerant. For the sake of future contentions, here is the description of them from appendix F, which as far as I know is the only passage regarding this breed in all of Tolkien's works:

But at the end of the Third Age a troll-race not before seen appeared in southern Mirkwood and in the mountain borders of Mordor. Olog-hai they were called in the Black Speech (why oh why no translation here?). That Sauron bred them none doubted, though from what stock was not known. Some held that they were not Trolls but giant Orcs; but the Olog-hai were in fashion of body and mind quite unlike even the largest of Orc-kind, whom they far surpassed in size and power. Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race, strong, agile, fierce and cunning, but harder than stone. Unlike the older race of the Twilight they could endure the Sun, so long as the will of Sauron held sway over them. They spoke little, and the only tongue that they knew was the Black Speech of Barad-dur. (how does Cian use all those cool accents?)

The question here is wether or not this passage could reasonably be interpreted as having the possibility of Trolls crossed with men, in which case 'Olog-hai' could be translated as 'troll-men'. Tolkien says that they are Trolls, but this is to contradict the assertion that they are large orcs, with no troll-ish blood in them. It does not preclude them being a hybrid. I believe that Tolkien more than once refers to the half-orcs of Saruman as 'orcs', the half elves as 'elves', etc. In the same passage Tolkien distances the olog-hai from 'the older race of the Twilight', which presumably includes both the hill-trolls of the Hobbit and Return of the King, as well as the cave-troll of Fellowship of the Ring. This means that the olog-hai were more different from cave and hill-trolls than those two groups were from eachother. Presumably he would then have to bring in outside blood to make these new trolls so different. I'll bring to your attention that here he says that Sauron bred the olog-hai, which means he actively controlled what genetic material was going into subsequent generations. Saruman likewise bred his orc-men, so I think that it is possible that the Olog-hai were bred with men. Tolkien says that the stock from which the Olog-hai were bred was unknown, so I will not say that they definitely came from men, but given that they became sun tolerant, and that breeding with orcs and men produced sun tolerant orcs, I think that there is definitely the possibility that the Olog-hai had mannish blood in them.

Usage 3: Oghor-hai
Well, what do we know about this one? It was used by the orcs to describet the Druedain. It was probably not the friendliest term, as there was a great deal of mutual hatred between the races. There probably was not a lot of understanding on the parts of the orcs as to what the Druedain were. They were generally short, about 4', with little head hair, and fairly ungraceful limbs. The orcs probably associated them with men, since they were entirely unlike Elves and lacked the prominent facial hair of the Dwarves. That being said, it would not be surprising if the orcs called them some sort of insulting name like 'ogre-men'. I'll remind everyone that the Druedain made statues of themselves squatting on statues of dead orcs, and they lived solitary lives in the forest- pretty ogre-like if you ask me. Now this is where it begins to get very interesting. In UT we learn that there is a great bit of enmity between the races of orcs and Druedain. Surrounding footnote 5 in the text is speculation that the wild-men contributed to the genetic materials of the orcs.
But some thought, nonetheless, that there had been a remote kinship, which accounted for their special enmity. Orcs and Drugs each regarded the other as rendegades.
Of course, this is continued speculation by Tolkien on the origin of orcs, but it brings about a very interesting point. The final footnote in UT (#14), describes the origin of the term pukel-men.
It seems that the term "Pukel-men" (again a translation: it represents Anglo-Saxon pucel "goblin, demon," a relative of the word puca from which Puck is derived) was only used in Rohan of the images of Dunharrow.
Now I look to my Webster's dictionary, under ogre:
ogre n. French probably.<Middle Germanic Ogor, Hungarian, probably influenced by French orc. 1 in fairy tales and folklore, a man-eating monster or giant. 2 a hideous, coarse, or cruel man.
From what I know of Tolkien, he definitely knew about the word ogre, and it's origin (middle Germanic, also influenced by French orc, which he also knew a lot about). I'll point out the obvious here- The translation of the Rohirric phrase is 'goblin-men'. If '-hai' means 'men', then the translation of the Black speech is 'Oghor-men'. Oghor is fairly close to Ogor, which is a phrase from middle germanic/french, meaning a hideous man, and is related to the term 'orc' which Tolkien has equated with goblin. Tolkien definitely knew the connotation of ogor, he described the Druedain as hideous by human standards, and he speculated that they might be related to orcs. He then had the Rohirrim describe statues of them (also the people themselves on p. 400 or UT) as 'goblin-men'. Is it possible that he would have the orcs refer to them as 'ogre-men', keeping in mind that the word ogre in English is at least influenced by the word orc? In my opinion the answer is a resounding YES! A further note on the naming of the Druedain, from footnote 6 in UT: dru comes from their own term for themselves, 'Drughu', adopted into Sindarin as Dru, to which the Elves later added the suffix adan, meaning 'man'. Hence Druedain actually means 'Dru-men'.

So here we have reasoned arguments as to how '-hai' might be interpreted as 'men', consistent with all three uses found in Tolkien's works. In my previous post on this thread
http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2146&perpage=15&pagenumber=7
I have shown how the Uruk-hai can reasonably be interpreted as being half-orc/half-men, and the invention of Saruman, distinct (but probably descended from) the uruks of Mordor. I would love to see replies to these two posts, and I admit I was rather disappointed that my last post was ignored, as it took me most of an afternoon to compose.

ps. Tar-Elenion- if you'd like to further differentiate quotes from other text, simply surround it with the {QUOTE} and {/QUOTE} tags- but using square brackets rather than the curlies. You can further distinguish it with {B} and {/B} (bold type), or {I} and {/I} (italic type) tags (again use square brackets). I agree with Greenwood that your posts are hard to read, and it becomes difficult to distinguish when you are quoting yourself from a previous post, and when you are adding somehing new to the debate.
 
Aragil,

Your argument makes a lot of sense to me. I do recant my opinion that "-hai" means breed. The reason is that all the various kinds of orcs were different breeds. Therefore, it wouldn't make sense to call them orc-breed. It now seems silly but I understand how I got on that track. However, I think I can now dismiss the contention that "-hai" means folk for the same reason. Wouldn't all the trolls be troll-folk and all the orcs orc-folk and not just a particular breed of them?

The biggest disagreement I had with translating "-hai" as men was that it didn't seem to make much sense with trolls, but I like your account for that.

Regarding the translation of "-hai" as having to do with their tolerance of the sun, that too makes sense, except perhaps in the case of the Oghor-hai, although they too if they have similar lineage to orcs should shun the day. But if all three of these races (and it seems that the Urukhai most certainly were) were partly of manstock that might account for their tolerance of the sun.
Nevertheless, "-hai" might mean of the day, especially significant for trolls of normal stock who turned to stone in day.

One last point here. If "-hai" meant men, wouldn't it be a derogatory term in black speech, but the Uruk-hai seem to take pride in the fact that they are called Uruk-hai and doesn't seem to be used in black speech as a derogatory term at all. Just trying throw a few curve balls. But do we know the word for men in black speech?


Cian,

Concerning the variant spelling of Uruk-hai as Urukhai, I don't think that black speech is really concerned with grammatic rules to begin with. Moreover, Khazad-dum is not spelled K-hazad-dum and yet it too is not a fricative palatal (Kh) but a voiceless palatal (k) followed by the aspirant (h). Dwarfs were surely more concerned with orthography and correct pronunciation than orcs who likely could not read anyway. And after all that, your point Cian still holds.


(Finally, I apologize for not having read all the posts, but the debate of Tar-Elenion was difficult to follow.)
 
Last edited:
Well, I see while I am off considering Bombadillo's hypothesis, he recants it.

Aragil

I had not yet dismissed the possibility that -hai means men, I wanted to consider Bombadillo's suggestion for a while. As to whether or not the Uruk-hai were a blend of man and orc, I have always thought so. However, since this point was not central to my original question on this thread and since Tar-Elenion was insisting on purposely mixing the two seperate questions together in an apparent effort to confuse the issue, I had dropped discussion of the matter. I in fact agree with you that the case seems quite clear that the Uruk-hai were a blend of orcs and men.

Now I will go off and consider Aragil's arguments (which I have always found intelligent and well-thought out in the past).


(I am gratified that I am not alone in finding Tar-Elenion's posting style difficult to read. My apologies to the readers of this thread for adopting it for a few posts.)
 
I shall now address the 'Snaga' issue.

There are two differerent Orcs referred to as 'Snaga' in LotR.

1) In the 'Uruk-hai' chapter Ugluk refers to one of his scouts as 'Snaga':
"'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."

2) In the 'Tower of Cirith Ungol' chapter one Orc is referred to as 'Snaga' several times:
"[Shagrat speaking]'You won't go again, you say? Curse you, Snaga, you little maggot!'"
"'They won't come, not before you're dead anyway,' answered Snaga surily."
"'I'm not going down those stairs again,' growled Snaga, be you captain or no."
"As far as Sam could see, Shagrat hunted Snaga round the roof...".
"'All right,' growled Snaga. 'But I'll come and have a look at you all the same...'"


It has been suggested that since the word 'Snaga', 'Slave' is capitalized in these instances it is a proper name, particularly in the instance of its use in the 'Cirith Ungol' chapter. However, there are numerous instances of capalitization being used where it is not a proper name. Orcs refer to 'Big Bosses' and 'the Biggest' (presumably the Nazgul and Sauron), 'Sneak' (Gollum), 'Her Ladyship' (Shelob), 'Shriekers' (Nazgul), 'Higher Ups' (likely Nazgul) and there are Hobbits (and ruffians) referring to 'the Chief' (Lotho it was supposed) and 'Big Man' (Bill Ferny), 'Shirriff(s)' (the police), 'Shirriff-leader', 'Cheif Shirriff' as well as 'Shirriffing' and 'Bounders'.

While taken by themselves it would seem that we have two different Orcs with the personal name 'Snaga' (though JRRT does not repeat any other personal Orc names in LotR). However, when taken in context with App. F (wherein it is noted that the word 'snaga' is Black Speech for 'slave', and that the lesser kinds of Orcs were called 'snaga' especially by the Uruk-hai), and in 'Quendi and Eldar' (wherein it is said that 'uruk' "... referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor. Lesser breeds seem to have been called snaga"), a different picture emerges.

It has been suggested that 'Snaga' is merely a common orc name. However, this is not suggested by JRRT in either App. F or in Q&E. He says that that is how the lesser breeds were called by the greater.

It has been suggested that as only Saruman had Uruk-hai (an unproven contention), the use of 'Snaga' in the 'Uruk-hai' chapter along with the statement in App. F, allows for the use of 'Snaga' Ugluk to simply be calling the scout 'Slave', and is not a proper name at all. This is consistant. The capitalization is thus a narrative choice by JRRT in his role as 'translator'.

It has been suggested that the B.S. 'snaga' is merely a common Orc name in Mordor and is the proper name of the Orc referred to in the 'Tower' chapter, where it is capitalized, (and, it seems, is thus used to mean 'slave' only among Saruman's Orcs). Snaga is capitalized for both Orcs, any argument that it is a proper name based on this in only one case and but is not the other is inconsistant. In Q&E JRRT was referring specifically to Sauron's Orcs. There is no mention of Saruman's Orcs. Taken in context the Orcs of Mordor called the lesser kinds 'snaga'. JRRT defines the word, and says who used it and how it was used, there is no suggestion that this was simply a proper name among Orcs in Mordor (or in Isengard).

So taken in context, the use of 'Snaga' in LotR is that of the 'great soldier-orcs' calling those of the lesser breeds 'slave'.
The capitalization is, it seems, a function of JRRT acting in his role as 'translator' of the narrative.
 
Originally posted by Bombadillodillo

But I would be interested in what you think of my translation of "-hai" as a collective suffix signifying breed.
Click to expand...

I would consider 'breed', in the same category as 'folk' or 'race' (that is roughly synonomous), in other words a 'group' of related 'people' . It can be used in what I noted as the fourth suggestion (I will perhaps 'edit' it in). In App. F JRRT noted that there were various 'breeds' of orcs. He also noted that the Olog-hai were a "troll-race" and they were called "Olog-hai".
 
Re: Why -hai might mean men....

My apologies, I had to 'snip' parts of your post to get under the minimum length. I tried to keep them in context.

Thank you for explaining to me the way to use 'QUOTES', I will try it in this responce and see if I have got it.




While 'Orc-men' and 'Man-orcs' are noted to have been produced by Saruman in MR, the term is applied to only _some_ of Saruman's troops, I do not think this applies to Saruman's Uruks. As has been noted, JRRT does not say that Saruman bred Men and Orcs to produce Uruk-hai, or even use the term Uruk-hai, in the essay. Gamling refers to _some_ of Saruman's troops as 'goblin-men' and 'half-orcs' and notes that "they will not quail at the sun", he also adds that "neither will the men of the hills". This close link between the two is interesting. Merry describes the marching of Saruman's troops: " 'He emptied Isengard. I saw the enemy go: endless lines of marching Orcs; and troops of them mounted on great wolves. And there were battalions of Men, too. Many of them carried torches, and in the flare I could see their faces. Most of them were ordinary men, rather tall and dark-haired, and grim but not particularly evil-looking. But there were some others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed."
Note that the 'goblin-faced men', are marching with the Men (Dunlendings). Saruman's Uruks do not seem to have been mustered in mixed companies with Men (though they do seem to enjoy Man-flesh ). At Helm's Deep the Uruk-hai fight in their own units (and also in 'Fords of Isen', the Uruk battalions are seperate from those of the 'men' or 'orc-men' armed with axes).
Indeed the only places where Men and Orcs seem to intermix are the actual attempted storming of the Deeping Wall, and the wolf-riders seem to ride with some Dunlending horsemen among them (I wonder what those horses were thinking?), though I suppose it is possible that they only came into close proximity when they started their attack on the Rohir horseherds.

These are some reasons why I think Saruman's Uruk-hai are not actually the 'Orc-men' or 'Half-orcs' or 'goblin-men'. Hence I do not think 'hai' is translated as 'men'.




Another explanation might be taken from Merry:
"Do you know, they [the 'men with goblin-faces' that marched with the Dunlendings] reminded me at once of that Southerner at Bree; only he was not so obviously orc-like as most of these were."

The 'Southerner' may be of the one type, and the 'goblin-faced men' and Orc-men of 'Fords' may be the other.




Why no translation? I look at the use of 'troll-race' in the passage.

An Olog-hai passage is given in PoME: "Some held that they were a cross-breed between trolls, and the larger Orcs; others that they were indeed not trolls at all but giant Orcs. Yet there was no kinship* from the beginning between the stone-trolls and the Orcs; while the Olg-hai** were in fashion of mind and body even the largest of Orc-kind...".
* An earlier version notes that an evil power had cross bred Orcs and Trolls, but this was, naturally, not kept in the later version.
**Originally Horg-hai.
When originally making the Appendices they were much longer, JRRT had to shorten them for reasons of space and cost. PoME gives some detail of how they were originally intended to read.



A few problems with that. Orcs could be interbred with Men because, whether corrupted from Elves or Men they were biologically akin. Letter 151: "Elves and Men are evidently in biological terms one race, or they could not breed and produce fertile offspring." But if we accept that Trolls have no kinship with Orcs, there would be none with Men either.
Not being akin is also in keeping with what was written about Trolls in App. F: "In their beginning far in the twilight of the Elder Days, these were creatures of dull and lumpish nature and had no more language than beasts."
As App F. says "Trolls they were".



There is also what the Eldar said "To the unfriendly who not knowing them well, declared that Morgoth most of bred Orcs from such a stock the Eldar answered: 'Doubtless Morgoth... bred Orcs from various kinds of Men, but the Druedain must have escaped his shadow; for their laughter and the laughter of Orcs are as different as is the light of Aman from the darkness of Angband."



And above I have posted some counters to the arguments. I think I have also respond in some measure to how the 'half-orcs/half-men' can be reasonably interpreted as something other than the Uruk-hai in this post above just under your first argument. I understand what you mean about spending large amounts of time composing posts, I dont type and it takes quite a while to put out these things.
Again thanks for the explanation on how to use the 'quote function, I am glad you said how. Perhaps Greenwood will be less annoyed now.

Whoohoo, it worked.
 
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…