Tar-Elenion
Elite
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 745
I have mentioned it several times.
Last edited:
Originally posted by aragil
Grond- I choose to believe that the Mordor orcs fell behind the Isengarders because they were weaker in sunlight. Otherwise the 'plan' of Grishnakh's that Tolkien alludes to appears to be putting his own troops closer to the bows of the Rohirrim.
Originally posted by Greenwood
Tar-Elenion
I first read LOTR in the early 1960's, more than a decade before The Silmarillion or any of the other works were published. I never thought Sauron had Uruk-hai. I always accepted the clear statements that the Uruk-hai were from Isengard. I always accepted the statements that uruks were in Mordor. I never thought of them as equivalent. The Uruk-hai proudly boast that they laugh at the sun. Treebeard says orcs fear the sun except for Saurman's orcs. He then suggests Saruman blended men and orcs to produce this tolerance. Other characters also point out the ability of Saruman's orcs to withstand the sun and others point out orc-man blends. It never occurred to me not to put all these together. It never occurred to me that Tolkien would be so confusing to his readers.
In Appendix F uruk is stated as being Black Speech. Uruk-hai is also clearly Black Speech. I have no problem with uruks being an Anglicization of uruk. I see absolutely no justification for uruks being an Anglicization of Uruk-hai. Why doesn't Tolkien say in Appendix F that the Uruk-hai come from Mordor and Isengard?
You argue that Uruk-hai is the Black Speech plural form of uruk. Are you arguing that Black Speech creates plurals by adding the suffix -hai? Are you also arguing that Black Speech also always capitalizes its plurals or that for some reason Tolkien always capitalizes Black Speech plurals when he renders them into printed text? Why would Tolkien do this? Our knowledge of Black Speech is fairly limited, but you have presented no evidence that Black Speech creates plurals by adding the suffix -hai. Indeed, based on the various opinions Cian has presented there seems to be no consensus among the 'experts' as to what -hai means.
Your defintion of uruks = Uruk-hai leaves many questions of Tolkien's usage of the words in LOTR a mystery. My suggestion that they are not equivalent leaves far fewer unanswered questions. Clearly, neither of us is going to move the other. As I have said at various times to Grond, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
When the other materials came out, it reinforced my interpretation, so I see no problem with using it,
He does not need to. It is a given when he writes that 'uruk' is applied to both Mordor and Isengard Orcs. This is further reinforced when he says 'snaga' is used by the Uruk-hai (which word is referring back to 'uruk'), because it is used by both Mordor and Isengard Orcs. It is further reinforced by the fact that the Nazgul sends out Orcs to track down rebel Uruk-hai in Mordor, after the Morgul Orcs kill a bunch of Ungol Orcs, and allow for the escape of the prisoner. (It obviously can not be a reference to Saruman's Orcs which had nothing to do with the slaughter in Ungol, for at least one primary reason, Saruman's all got killed.
I have said nothing about Black Speech capitalization.
Is 'slave' a profession?Originally posted by Greenwood
Tar-Elenion
When I quoted the above passages from LOTR and said that any reasonable reader would read assume Snaga was a proper name, you countered: "The capitalization is, it seems, a function of JRRT acting in his role as 'translator' of the narrative." and that because of the note in Appendix F Snaga had to mean slave rather than being a proper name. However, many languages have made proper names (surnames) from what was once a reference to a person's profession. Examples from English: Miller, Smith, Fisher, Taylor (with the i changed to a y), etc. Thus snaga can easily mean slave and still be a name depending on the context.
Also to return to my suggestion that -hai might have something to do with an ability to tolerate sunlight in a group that normally does not. We have the Uruk-hai, some form of orc that is openly disdainful of sunlight when we know that normal orcs avoid the sun. We have Olog-hai, a form of troll that can abide the sun when trolls are normally turned into stone by the sun. Finally we have the Oghor-hai which you say breaks the pattern because they are a form of men and men do not have any trouble with the sun. The Druedain are called by the orcs the Oghor-hai. We see in note 14 by Christopher Tolkien in The Druedain in Unfinished Tales that the term Pukel-men (another name applied to the Druedain) is derived from the Anglo-Saxon pucel which translates as goblin or demon. Evidently the Druedain were considered to be somewhat goblin like, presumably because of their short, squat stature. True goblins shun the sunlight, the Druedain though goblin-like are really men and have no problem with sunlight. Thus we now have a connection with an ability to tolerate sunlight in all three instances of the usage of the suffix -hai. NOTE: I am not violating my rules about the use of secondary sources. All the information about the Druedain come from the same secondary source, Unfinished Tales. None of this contradicts anything in LOTR. In fact, as you are fond of saying it clarifies a question from LOTR
Originally posted by aragil
"He has taken up with foul folk, with the Orcs. Brm, hoom! Worse than that he has been doing something to them; something dangerous. For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, or has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!"
This is Treebeard's statement, as reported earlier by Greenwood. Here Treebeard states quite clearly that orcs which are not the half-orcs of Isengard 'cannot abide the Sun'. The only alternative reading that we have is from a private communication in 'Letters' that says Treebeard is not all-knowing. By this logic, Tolkien is deliberately trying to mislead his readers with the statements of Treebeard. Apparently Tolkien knew that his private letters would later be published, so that the privileged owners of 'Letters' would get the 'heads-up' not to listen to Treebeard. Thus his deliberately misleading passage about orcs and sun tolerance would only mislead those of us who did not buy the publication of his private letters. That wily professor!!
Now, turning to the orcs of Mordor:
'East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men (Olog-hai? I thought trolls could not be bred with men!) and Variags and Orcs that hated the sunlight.'
(from 'The Battle of the Pelennor Fields', p.150 of my edition of RotK)
For right now I'll ignore the reference to troll-men, and focus on what is happening to the orcs. These are the orcs of Mordor which were sent to besiege Minas Tirith. I think it is reasonable to assume that this huge army includes any sun-resistant strains which Sauron might have posessed. Yet here Tolkien mentions that they hate sunlight in the midst of their rout. Why? It seems by the very fact that he mentions it that the sun is having an effect on the orcs. I acknowledge that this is not as direct a statement as some would like, but I think that in the greater context of the works it indicates that Sauron's breeds do not do so well in the sun (as Treebeard stated above). Before anybody uses it against me, I am aware that Treebeard says Saruman's orcs hate the sun, and here Tolkien says that Sauron's troops also hate the sun. But to say this is evidence that the two breeds are the same is to totally ignore the context of the statements. At Helm's deep the Uruk-hai claim that they care not for the sun. The next morning they are routed, the sun is brightly shining (it is described glinting off the gear of the riders), but there is no indication that the sun is having any effect on the orcs. At the Pelannor fields the orcs are given a darkness by Sauron. When the darkness is blown aside, Tolkien says that they hate the sun as they are being routed. I think that I am supported by the text here when I say that the reason Tolkien mentions their hatred of the sun is because they are affected by it, whereas the troops of Isengard are not!!
Originally posted by aragil
Tar-Elenion, I apologize for missing the earlier reference to half trolls. I was looking for a reference regarding Mordor orcs in the sun, and came across 'troll-men' by happy accident.
So I guess the situation is thus:
Saruman had Uruk-hai, he also had half orcs/ half men. The half orcs were tolerant of sun, and this was considered worth remarking on by both Treebeard and Gamling. The Uruk-hai cared nothing for the sun, and claimed as much in a way which makes it sound like a property peculiar to their race. Yet these two races were undoubtedly different because Tolkien no where states 'Uruk-hai were half-men/half-orcs', thereby allowing us to ignore their mutual sun-tolerance.
Sauron bred Olog-hai- a sun-tolerant variety of trolls, but then decided to not use them in his siege of Gondor, as they doubtlessly would not have in any way aided his cause. Instead he uses the troll-like men of Far Harad.
Of course, Tolkien would never say:
The barricade was scattered as if by a thunderbolt.(TT, p. 184)
to refer to an actual thunderbolt (magical or storm-related); nor would he say:
And even at that moment the sun for a second faltered and was obscured, as though a dark wing had passed across it. (RotK, p. 43)
to describe the wing of a creature ridden by a Nazgul actually cutting in front of the sun. Therefore it is impossible for
and out of Far Harad black men like half-troll with white eyes and red tongues. (RotK, p. 148)
to refer to actual trolls (or half-trolls, which we know to be a genetic impossibility).
Originally posted by Greenwood
I just received my copy of The War of the Jewels and looked up uruk in Quendi and Eldar. The Quendi and Eldar is Tolkien's essay on the langauges of Middle Earth. In Appendix C there is the following passage: "The word uruk that occurs in the Black Speech, devised (it is said) by Sauron to serve as a lingua franca for his subjects, was probably borrowed by him from the Elvish tongues of earlier times. It referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of of the regiments of Mordor. Lesser breeds seem to have been called snaga." (italics in original; emphasis added) In regard to the word snaga their is an editorial note from Christopher Tolkien in which he compares this to Appendix F in LOTR: "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'."Yes I already mentioned the passage in my 'Snaga' post (1-26-02, 3:54pm).
Originally posted by Greenwood
Tar-Elenion
That a secondary source agreed with you does not make either of you right. For thousands of years experts agreed with each other that the sun circled the earth. Mere agreement means nothing.
If uruk and Uruk-hai are equivalent, why does Tolkien invent two such similar yet different words? Why would the Black Speech have two different words that mean the same thing? The text does not say snaga is used by the uruk. It says "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave." In the second sentence it is the "lesser kinds" that refers back to the previous sentence, contrasting the lesser kinds to the great soldier orcs. The two sentences do not make uruk and Uruk-hai equivalent.
As for all of Saruman's orcs being dead, how would the Nazgul know this?
Neither have I. I asked about Tolkien's capitalization. I asked why Tolkien as the narrator/translator always capitalizes Uruk-hai, but only sometimes capitalizes uruks? I also asked why as narrator/translator Tolkien always chooses to use the work Uruk-hai when Saruman's troops speak of themselves, but the one time a Mordor orc does (Gorbag) the word Uruks is used instead? Your only response is to dodge the question by repeating they are the same word and to then attempt to prove they are the same word by citing examples that are only true if you first assume the two words are the same.
We are never going to agree on this.
Originally posted by aragil
I can't help but notice that by replying piece-meal to my theories you detract from one of their strong points- they are cohesive, and I do my best to make them apply to all uses of words, and to incorporate all of the works. It is easy to base a theory on the use of 'rebel Urukhai' in Mordor. It is much more difficult to make a theory which incorporates all of 'The Lord of the Rings', 'Morgoth's Ring', 'Unfinished Tales', 'Letters', and Webster's dictionary. I have done this. I would love to see a competing theory as complete, rather than having to respond to piece-meal detractions which tend to ignore the 'big picture'.
Is 'slave' a profession?
Like I say, he is, it seems, acting in his role as translator. Do Hobbit's know BS?
Yes, you "mentioned" the passage, but you conveniently forgot to mention that Tolkien quite clearly says that uruk "referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of of the regiments of Mordor" with no reference to Isengard. We wonders, why my precious? Yes we wonders. Even now you do not address my points, but instead you play word and debating games.Yes I already mentioned the passage in my 'Snaga' post
Tolkien invented alot of similar yet different words, he was a linguist.
Why are you bothering to cite a private letter of the good professor's, which was referring to a specific incident, to support option #2, and essentially negate anything that Treebeard might ever say? You are in effect saying that we can't reasonably infer anything about the world of Tolkien by anything that any character in the book might say. Perhaps Tolkien should have written the entire book in the narrative format without dialogue, since the sole purpose of dialogue is apparently to confuse the reader.
I can't help but notice that by replying piece-meal to my theories you detract from one of their strong points- they are cohesive, and I do my best to make them apply to all uses of words, and to incorporate all of the works. It is easy to base a theory on the use of 'rebel Urukhai' in Mordor. It is much more difficult to make a theory which incorporates all of 'The Lord of the Rings', 'Morgoth's Ring', 'Unfinished Tales', 'Letters', and Webster's dictionary. I have done this. I would love to see a competing theory as complete, rather than having to respond to piece-meal detractions which tend to ignore the 'big picture'.
Greenwood:
Yes, but he didn't invent them for no reason. And he didn't invent two different words in the same language and then say they meant the same thing. You are always implying that Tolkien took great pleasure in misleading his readers.
Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
The men were from Far Harad, the Olog-hai were not. Cian had posted about the ability of the Olog-hai to withstand sunlight. The point he is trying to make is (if I may be so bold, Cian correct me if I am wrong, but in any event this is how I read it) that if it were do due to breeding with Men, it seems unlikely that it would only endure while Sauron held sway over them (the fate and nature of the Eruhini being the sole discretion of Iluvatar). This is evidently some use of his 'sub-creational faculties' . When Sauron is 'destroyed' this goes to.
Generally speaking: what Tolkien did invent was a very real interelated history of langs, and in the context of "found" texts ... Tolkien even took pleasure in asterisking some of his own forms as if they were unattested which they then are, in a historical sense, within the fantasy of translation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?