Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

[Tar-Elenion]

Re: Re (2): Re: Re: Re: reply (part 2)

Originally posted by aragil
There is a big difference between Hunt for the Ring and the later events in Mordor. That difference is experience. Before the Hunt for the Ring Mordor knew nothing of the Shire. Afterwards, as the Mouth says, Mordor knows it well. The words of the soldier are post Hunt for the Ring. At this point Mordor knew the Shire well. Grishnakh had no problem recognizing halflings, the logical conclusion would be that the tracker and the Soldier wouldn't either.

The 'experience' only lasted several days some six months before when four Black Riders entered the Shire. Not much time there. But even if Sauron (and the Mouth) did then know it well that hardly suggests everyone in Mordor knew it.
Grishnakh is obviously a special servant not a lowly soldier or tracker. Grishnakh knew about the significance of Gollum and the Ring. Did the tracker and soldier know? By "logical conclusion" shouldn't they? Shagrat and Gorbag did not either, and they were higher placed than the soldier and tracker. Shagrat and Gorbag did not even know what Frodo was.

They were upset with an unclear order from the Higher Ups. They don't seem to think any of the described culprits were particularly likely. Neither do I.

They were given their orders based on the information available.
None of that information suggests anything whatsoever about Isengarders.

I was speaking in the context of the Black Speech term Uruk. Adunaic is a different language. Doubtless the two words spring from a common root in Quenya or Common Elvish, but they are not the same term. Whatever Tolkien had in mind for Adunaic has no effect on what he had in mind for the Black Speech, which is what we're discussing.

That is not what you wrote: "The implication is that between 1942 and 1948 JRRT had no intention of using the word "Uruk" in any form to refer to soldier Orcs of Mordor."
They both mean Orc. JRRT used the term 'uruk' during the time period you note for other than Isengarders. This suggests that he knew what he wanted to use the term for, Orcs in general. I think JRRT knew exactly what he was doing, and he intended it to be a BS term for Orcs. But even if you are correct and he at first only intended it to be used for the Isengarders then where would they get it from?

There is evidence that earlier Isengard Uruk-hai had attacked servants of Sauron in order to steal away halflings. This is from the text. This is evidence.

Provide a quote saying they attacked servants of Sauron in order to steal away the halflings.

It was a mistake to call Sam an great Elf. It doesn't matter whether he was believed to be an great Elf or not. That belief was in error. Frodo is given dwarvish characteristics in the term "a sort of dwarf-Man". The term "dwarf" is an adjective modifying "Man". This gives the "Man" dwarvish characteristics. Clear enough?
Some common Dwarven characteristics: Short, beard, stocky. Only short applies to Frodo, hence it would be easier to call him a "short-man", or a "half-sized man=halfling". Dwarf-man is inaccurate.

Grasping at straws.
An Elf was 'seen'. There is nothing suggesting any Isengarders were seen or believed to be in the vicinity. The orders are related only to the events at Cirith Ungol. Nothing was there that could even be mistaken for Isengarders.
The phrase "a sort of small dwarf-man" then accurately depicts Frodo. Short like a dwarf (only smaller) and otherwise resembling a Man. JRRT chose to provide that description. Hence that description is accurate. What would have been "easier" in your opinion is not important.

Ugluk told Grishnakh that he was a member of the fighting Uruk-hai, and that they were servants of Saruman. Ugluk killed troops loyal to Mordor in order to take the halflings to Isengard. None of this is speculation- it is fact based on the text. I speculated that this was pertinent information which Grishnakh would have communicated on. Gandalf agrees with me:

the Dark Lord knows that two hobbits were taken in the Emyn Muil and borne away towards Isengard against the will of his own servants

Obviously the Dark Lord knows that his own troops were opposed by Isengarders, else how would he know that they were going to Isengard. Ugluk says that the Isengarders are the fighting Uruk-hai, servants of Saruman. In all probability this is how Grishnakh would have described them. Feel free to post a reasonable alternative. I'd imagine that "against the will of his own servants" was a reference to his servants being killed by the Isengarders. This seems like a reasonable conclusion based on the text. Perhaps you could offer a different reasonable conclusion?

Ugluk killed Northerners. They were operating under their own orders.
Anything other than what Gandalf says Sauron knows is speculation and without basis.
Grishnakh does not call Saruman's Orcs "fighting Uruk-hai". He calls them Isengarders: "Curse the Isengarders".
In all probability Grishnakh told the Nazgul something to the effect of: 'I ordered the Isengarders to bring the prisoners back to Lugburz with me. They refused, I need troops to get them to obey'. I'm sure he did so with appropriate "orc-talk" (use your imagination).

As far as what Sauron would want his underlings to know, it seems they all know too much. Grishnakh has personal knowledge of the Ring. Gorbag knows something 'has slipped'. The tracker tells the soldier to I seriously doubt any of this is information that Sauron would want to be generally known to his troops. The fact is that they learn about this stuff, whether Sauron wills it or no.

Grishnakh is obviously a special operative. The Witch King's demise was, well, rather public. On the otherhand "no news of the raid ever came back either to Mordor or Isengard".

1) Shagrat seems plenty confident to go out of the tower, even though he is injured. He does not say that he thinks all of Gorbag's men are dead, nor does he say that he suspects some are still living. His actions, however, support the former.
2) <snip quotes> Shagrat's men are still shot down by archers, but here we see that those archers were sent to guard the gates from any messenger being sent out. They were not covering a retreat by the remainder of Gorbag's lot. We even get an explicit statement "All Gorbag's men have been killed".
3) The Nazgul who came there does not appear to be the source of the rumor, as he never encountered a great Elf or a sort of dwarf-Man.
4) I provide evidence from the text which backs up my speculation. You choose to ignore it.

1) Shagrat has to go out to report what happened. In LotR it Shagrat is not told that all of Gorbag's men are dead.
2) We get no such statement in LotR. I wonder why not? Did JRRT change his mind? Did he decide that Shagrat would not know? Did he decide that Sam would not know?
3) The information could come from two different sources, Shagrat and the Nazgul.
4) The only real evidence you need to provide is evidence that it was believed that the Isengarders attacked Cirith Ungol.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: reply (part 1)

Originally posted by aragil
Treebeard makes a declarative statement: If you have any evidence to refute this, please provide it. Otherwise accept that it is Saruman's Orcs and not Sauron's which can endure the sun. Treebeard later speculates that Saruman has been crossing Orcs with Men. This is confirmed by Tolkien in Morgoth's Ring. If you have any evidence to refute Treebeard's supposition, please provide it.

The fact that Sauron's Orcs run in the sun with out 'flagging' like the Northerners is evidence enough. Sauron's Orcs do not even complain about the Sun. They endure it quite well. JRRT does not note any effect on them (unless it is causing them to lower their heads)

Aragorn says that with dawn will come hope. Gamling says that Half-orcs, goblin-men, and wild-men will not be affected by the dawn. He seems to be describing all of Saruman's forces. You seem to think he is not describing the Uruk-hai, which means he is neglecting the majority of Saruman's forces. The Uruk-hai later claim that they care not for the dawn, indicating that they are the half-orcs which Gamling describes. This is entirely self consistent.
There is no evidence that the goblin-men consider themselves to be anything other than Uruk-hai. In which case Pippin's comments in the Shire could in fact be regarding Uruk-hai. Even Robert Foster, in his guide to Middle-earth recognizes that. If you can provide text refuting that, then please do so.

The Uruk-hai of Isengard were all killed so they cannot be in the Shire. JRRT in the narrative voice always refers to the Uruk-hai of Isengard as Orcs and Goblins never as goblin-men or half-orcs. Aragorn does not call the Uruk-hai half-orcs, he does call the goblin-faced men half-orcs. The comparisons drawn between those like the 'Southerner' are to the goblin-faced men not the Uruk-hai.

Really? I thought the way Orcs ran was quite fast.

Yes, I think I previously mentioned that.

Isengarders are never mentioned with their heads down. Why would the sun not be in their eyes? Why would the Isengarders run with their heads up if it was so darned uncomfortable? Why would JRRT mention the sun going down if it has no effect on the Mordor lot?

Are the Mordor Orcs mentioned with their backs bowed?
When you bow your back it is natural for the head tilt forward. It would be a given.
He mentioned the sun going down because the sun was going down at that time. He does tend to be quite descriptive.

The "hosts of Mordor" referred to here is never described as anything but Orcs. There is absolutely no reference to men. I am "picking" every single mention of Mordor troops there are here, and "choosing" to post them all. If I have missed one, please provide it. Otherwise accept the fact that I posted it all and there was no mention of men.

The hosts of Mordor include all the troops. But lets just say you are correct and the hosts of Mordor include only Orcs. Then we know that the Orc legions of Morgul did not flee the sun. Why not?

Also:
"Now he looked to the River, and hope died in his heart, and the wind that he had blessed he now called accursed. But the hosts of Mordor were enheartened, and filled with a new lust and fury they came yelling to the onset."
Is this just speaking of Orcs (and just those of Mordor exclusive of the Morgul legions)? But the sun was shining, like it had been all morning. Why were only those Orcs enheartened, and filled with new lust and fury? Did no one else care?

 

[jallan]

Nóm posted on Sam's hearing the word Uruks:

if you don't mind a little side question from an observer - why wouldn't this be "orcs"?

From Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, letter 144:

The name has the form orch (pl. yrch) in Sindarin and uruk in the Black Speech.

This equates them. However see the chapter "The Bridge of Khazad-dûm":

There are Orcs, very many of them,' he said. 'And some are large and evil: black Uruks of Mordor.' Gandalf here distinguishes Uruks of Mordor as a particular kind of Orc. Assming that Gandalf's use here is normal (at least for those who knew something about Orcs and their kind), then Sam from listening to Gandalf and probably others speaking of such things, would also distinguish between Orc as a general term and Uruk as a particular kind of Orc.

From Appendix F:

In Sindarin it was orch. Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'.

From The War of the Jewels, (HoME 11): "Quendi and Sindar", Appendix C. Elvish names for the Orcs:

The word uruk that occurs in Black Speech, devised (it is said) by Sauron to serve as a lingua franca for his subjects, was probably borrowed by him for the Elvish tongues of earlier times. It referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor. Lesser breeds seem to have been called snaga.

The meaning here seems to be that uruk was the general word for orc, but in actual use normally only referred to the large soldier Orcs.

Of course, as I mentioned in my last post, any argument about what Sam would hear is probably bogus. Sam hears Nazgûl instead of 'Ringwraith'. Of course he knew both terms. But Sam is hardly likely to have known Lugbúrz which ought therefore to have been translated for him as the Dark Tower.

We might also imagine Sam picking up Lugbúrz with his ears and Dark Tower with his mind, associating the two, and so writing down Lugbúrz. We might ....

Linguistic arguments based on this passage are weak.

Aragil posted:

I respect Frodo's abilities as a writer and a linguist, therefore if he used two distinct terms here, then I believe it was because he was referring to distinct creatures.

Ouch!

From the chapter "Lothlórien":

Frodo could understand little of what was said, for the speech that the Silvan folk east of the mountains used among themselves was unlike that of the West. Legolas looked up and answered in the same language.

Tolkien later decided this was wrong, and blamed it on Frodo's linguistic ignorance. From Appendix F, footnote:

In Lórien at this period Sindarin was spoken, though with an 'accent', since most of its folk were of Silvan origin. This 'accent' and his own limited acquaintance with Sindarin misled Frodo (as is pointed out in The Thain's Book by a commentator of Gondor). All the Elvish words cited in I, ii, chs 6, 7, 8 are in fact Sindarin, and so are most of the names of places and persons. But Lórien, Caras Galadhon, Amroth, Nimrodel are probably of Silvan origin, adapted to Sindarin.

From Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, letters 205, footnote 2:

'A star shines on the hour of our meeting' (The Lord of the Rings, Book I, Chapter 3). The reading in the letter, omentielmo, is the same as in the first edition of the book, but Tolkien later changed it to omentielvo. The Elvish language Quenya makes a distinction in its dual inflexion, which turns on the number of persons involved; failure to understand this was, Tolkien remarked, 'a mistake generally made by mortals'. So in this case. Tolkien made a note that the Thain's Book of Minas Tirith', one of the supposed sources of The Lord of the Rings, had the reading omentielvo, but that Frodo's original (lost) manuscript probably had omentielmo; and that omentielvo is the correct form in the context. (The Ballantine paperback edition of The Lord of the Rings has the erroneous reading 'omentilmo'.)

Aragil, you can hardly at the same time claim that Tolkien changed concepts about Uruks and Uruk-hai during the writing of The Lord of the Rings yet claim that Frodo's linguistic understanding is perfect, especially when it is really Tolkien writing, not Frodo.

There are internal contradictions in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien made revisions in the second edition, but did not eliminate all of them.

Any argument that Tolkien must have done things perfectly, as you understand perfection, is invalid.

Tolkien sometimes changed his mind during the writing of The Lord of the Rings, and sometimes after it.

Tolkien, or Frodo if you prefer, also uses both Elves and Eldar, Orcs and Goblins.

But the evidence from Appendix F and Unfinished Tales, as well as the mention of Uruk-hai by the Mordor Orc all strongly indicate the identity of meaning of Uruks and Uruk-hai. in Tolkien's mind, and pending further evidence, I prefer to think he knew more than you do.

To disgregard this evidence is "special pleading".

Can you locate any other supposed error of any kind in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen", a narrative thick with proper names, geographical references, interlaced chronology, complex Appendices?

To claim that the Orcs of the Misty Mountains are Uruks is also special pleading. Of the Orcs whom the Fellowship meet in Moria one is described as:

... a huge orc-chieftain, almost man-high, ....

. If this chieftain is huge, yet still not the height of a man, then most were much smaller than Men, and therefore not Uruks, though that chieftain probably is one of the Uruks of Mordor that Gandalf spotted.

The common run of the Misty Mountain Orcs would seem to be of this smaller stock, called maggots by Saruman's Uruk-hai, while the Dark Tower Orcs are called apes.

Have Mordor troops ever been attacked by Isengarders in order to steal away spies from the Rat land of the Shire? Actually, yes they have- just 20 days earlier, an event that is doubtless still on every Mordorian's mind.

This is absurd! How would "every Mordorian's mind" know of the existence of this single troop of Orcs among so many, or that anything bad had happened to it, or know anything about the Shire?

As to the sun-tolerance, it is irrelevant.

Yes, Saurman's Uruk-hai are better at resisting the Sun than most Orcs and are believed to have been in part interbred with Men, which probably explains this difference.

Obviously in such a situation there would likely be both kinds: Orcs with a little of the Man breed in them, and Men with a little of the Orc-breed in them, and all kinds of in-betweens.

Trying to distinguish Saruman's Uruk-hai from man-orcs is probably impossible, because such as Gamling, believing, probably rightly, the story that Saruman has cross-bred his Orcs with Men, will use "half-orcs and goblin-men" to describe the Uruk-hai in Saruman's host along with whatever beings that seem like Men that Saruman might have in his forces, other than the Dunlendings.

Trying to dig out exact percentages of human blood in Saruman's Uruk-hai or what percentage of Saruman's forces might have been pure Orc is futile.

Saruman's Uruk-hai seem to lack the ape-like arms Tolkien gives to the Mordor Uruks and to Grishnákh and his followers, perhaps because partly man-bred. Or are the maggots are also short-armed? Does Saruman also have some ape Uruk-hai?

Aragil denies identity between Uruk-hai and Uruks, other than that both are Orcs, and insists that Uruk-hai have man-blood in them.

Tar-Elenion goes too far in my opinion in insisting that all Uruks must be alike, be equally unhindered by the sun.

Saruman's Uruk-hai are noted in texts supplied by Aragil for greater ability to tolerate the Sun that that of other Orcs, , but how much greater than other types of Uruks and other types of Orcs it is vain to debate.

But the greater sun-tolerance of Saruman's Uruk-hai has no necessary connection at all as to whether Uruk-hai and Uruks are equivalent.

It is a different issue.

Orcs of different sizes are still Orcs. Uruks with different amounts of sun-tolerance may be equallly Uruks and equally Uruk-hai, or at least may call themselves so.

Some human ancestry need affect the way in which they use the term Uruk.

The maggots have better sight in the dark than Saruman's Uruk-hai, perhaps because the sun-tolerance of Saruman's Uruk-hai comes with a price.

Grishnákh and his followers do better in the sun than the northerners, or at least do not complain so much ... we don't know which. Tolkien doesn't tell us specifically, so again, nothing can be proved.

Should Grishnákh and his followers should even be counted strictly as Uruks? Possibly they are "sort of Uruks".

That there is tension in the narrative between the terms Uruk-hai and Uruks is reasonable enough if Tolkien first invented the term Uruk to refer to Saruman's solider Orcs, and then later extended it to also refer to the large Orcs of Mordor.

The result would be that Saruman's Uruks would seem to be (now incorrectly) reserving the name for themselves alone.

On the other hand, names are sometimes used differently in different contexts. Saruman's Uruk-hai have no reason to think about other Uruks, especially if short Grishnákh is not an Uruk, or not a full Uruk.

 

[Grond]

jallan,
what is the answer then? Are Uruks and Uruk-hai the same in your opinion or different. You give a lot of information but fail to make a stand on your fellings.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by jallan
The common run of the Misty Mountain Orcs would seem to be of this smaller stock, called maggots by Saruman's Uruk-hai, while the Dark Tower Orcs are called apes.
...
Saruman's Uruk-hai seem to lack the ape-like arms Tolkien gives to the Mordor Uruks and to Grishnákh and his followers, perhaps because partly man-bred. Or are the maggots are also short-armed? Does Saruman also have some ape Uruk-hai?

Two passages noting the "long arms" of the Isengarders, and one passage likening them to apes:

'No hope of escape!' thought Pippin. 'But there is a hope that I have left some of my own marks unspoilt on the wet ground.' He groped with his two tied hands at his throat, and unclasped the brooch of his cloak. Just as long arms and hard claws seized him. he let it fall. 'There I suppose it will lie until the end of time,' he thought. 'I don't know why I did it. If the others have escaped, they've probably all gone with Frodo.'
TT, The Uruk-hai
...
Aragorn turned and sped up the stair; but as he ran he stumbled in his weariness. At once his enemies leapt forward. Up came the Orcs, yelling, with their long arms stretched out to seize him.
TT, Helm's Deep
...
Hundreds of long ladders were lifted up. Many were cast down in ruin, but many more replaced them, and Orcs sprang up them like apes in the dark forests of the South.
TT, Helm's Deep

I don't think the physical differences between Saruman's Uruks and Sauron's Uruks are extremely great, noticable certainly (and surely to other orcs), just not huge. Saruman's seem on average to be larger (though the 'huge orc-chieftain' in Moria seems more physically imposing) and to have straighter legs, the Mordor Uruks could have longer arms (or it could be a factor of them being shorter and bowlegged that makes their arms appear longer and more apelike, or a combination).

jallan wrote:
Tar-Elenion goes too far in my opinion in insisting that all Uruks must be alike, be equally unhindered by the sun.

That is not intended to be my position (though I do admit it may seem like it, especially when I attempt to counter arguments that they are as fully effected by the sun as, say, the Northerners). I think the Uruks of Sauron were much less effected by the sun than the lesser breeds, though they may be a _little_ more effected than Saruman's Uruks.

Your post was excellent by the way.

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by jallan
From the chapter "Lothlórien":Tolkien later decided this was wrong, and blamed it on Frodo's linguistic ignorance. From Appendix F, footnote:From Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, letters 205, footnote 2:Aragil, you can hardly at the same time claim that Tolkien changed concepts about Uruks and Uruk-hai during the writing of The Lord of the Rings yet claim that Frodo's linguistic understanding is perfect, especially when it is really Tolkien writing, not Frodo.
There are internal contradictions in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien made revisions in the second edition, but did not eliminate all of them.
Any argument that Tolkien must have done things perfectly, as you understand perfection, is invalid.
Tolkien sometimes changed his mind during the writing of The Lord of the Rings, and sometimes after it.
Tolkien, or Frodo if you prefer, also uses both Elves and Eldar, Orcs and Goblins.

jallan- I think that you are under the wrong impression of what I am trying to do here. The whole point of this thread, back when it was started last year, was to see if from the text of Lord of the Rings the term Uruks seemed to describe creatures which were reasonably distinct from Uruk-hai. You could think of it as answering the question "Does the use of Uruks in UT seem inconsistent with it's use in LotR?" Please think of my posts in this light. The particular quatation of Gorbag's seems very similar to one of Ugluk's:

Ugluk's quote
'Very well,' said Uglúk. 'Leave them to me then! No killing, as I've told you before; but if you want to throw away what we've come all the way to get, throw it away! I'll look after it. Let the fighting Uruk-hai do the work, as usual.
...
Gorbag's quote
Something nearly slipped you say. I say, something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks.

This quote to me shows Uruks and Uruk-hai being used in a very similar context. Noticably, the Mordor Orc says "Uruks", the Isengard Orc says "Uruk-hai". We also have Gandalf and the narrator in The Land of Shadow say 'uruks' when referring to Mordor troops, while the Isengarders always refer to themselves as Uruk-hai. However, Tar-Elenion and ShagratU (who used to be very active on this thread) argued that Gorbag's statement was a special case owing to the translation effects of the Ring. I didn't really buy it, but in the interest of having some agreement on this thread (something which doesn't occur very often) I have since been arguing under this assumption. That Tolkien does things perfectly is not my argument!! It is a concilliatory gesture on my part- obviously it has not gotten me very far.

Originally posted by jallan
But the evidence from Appendix F and Unfinished Tales, as well as the mention of Uruk-hai by the Mordor Orc all strongly indicate the identity of meaning of Uruks and Uruk-hai. in Tolkien's mind, and pending further evidence, I prefer to think he knew more than you do.
To disgregard this evidence is "special pleading".
Can you locate any other supposed error of any kind in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen", a narrative thick with proper names, geographical references, interlaced chronology, complex Appendices?

(Grond- I think this pretty explicitly states jallan's feeling on the matter). First off, I am not overly fond of the term "special pleading". Second, I don't think I'm engaging in that activity. I have not ignored any appendix entry or statements by Mordor Orcs. I have largely neglected Unfinished Tales, because that was deliberately left out of the opening question of this thread (600+ posts ago). Again, think of this thread as attempting to answer the question "Does the use of Uruks in UT seem inconsistent with it's use in LotR?"
Having said that, I don't feel that the Appendix F mention equates the terms 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai'. The entry stems from the Black Speech word "Uruk", and states that this word is used to describe soldier-Orcs of Mordor and Isengard. This can be read two ways:
1) The soldier-orcs of these two lands can be referred to collectively with any term including 'uruk',
2) The soldier-orcs of these two lands can each be referred to with seperate terms, both of which include the word 'uruk'.

Originally posted by jallan
To claim that the Orcs of the Misty Mountains are Uruks is also special pleading. Of the Orcs whom the Fellowship meet in Moria one is described as: "snipped quote". If this chieftain is huge, yet still not the height of a man, then most were much smaller than Men, and therefore not Uruks, though that chieftain probably is one of the Uruks of Mordor that Gandalf spotted.
The common run of the Misty Mountain Orcs would seem to be of this smaller stock, called maggots by Saruman's Uruk-hai, while the Dark Tower Orcs are called apes.

I think you might have misunderstood part of my argument here. I certainly don't think the Northerners travelling with Uglúk were uruks(though perhaps the larger, bolder ones which stayed behind were), nor do I think that all of the Orcs in Moria were Uruks. I do think there were Uruks in the Misty Mountains- mainly because Gandalf identifies them in Moria. The huge chieftain seems like an excellent example, not only because of his size but also because he is described as 'swart' which matches the appendix entry for the uruks in the time of Denethor: "black orcs of great strength". There were also likely Uruks described in the Misty Mountains much earlier:

Azog's description from Appendix A:
Thereupon Azog came forth, and he was a great Orc with a huge iron-clad head, and yet agile and strong. With him came many like him, the fighters of his guard.

Bolg's description from the Hobbit:
There a host of Wargs came ravening and with them came the bodyguard of Bolg, goblins of huge size with scimitars of steel.

Note also the chronology of the Third Age:
TA 2475- first deployment of Uruks in Ithilien and Osgiliath
c.TA 2480- Orcs begin to make strongholds in the Misty Mountains, Sauron populates Moria with his creatures.
The proximity of these two dates makes me believe that Sauron used Uruks to help lead his colonization efforts in the mountains- The Great Goblin was also probably a Uruk.
I think the description from the Hobbit describes Uruks for several reasons. First, there is the mention of the Long Arms:

From the Hobbit
"A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones," thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the ores of the mountains, go along at a great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground.
From the Lord of the Rings
In the twilight he saw a large black Orc, probably Uglúk, standing facing Grishnákh, a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground.
...
Behind him came Shagrat, a large orc with long arms that, as he ran crouching, reached to the ground.

Shagrat we know is a Uruk. I suspect Grishnakh is a Uruk both because of this passage and because it makes sense to me that Sauron would only send his best soldiers to try and recover the Ring. In any case, the continued mention of arms reaching almost to the ground is sufficiently remarkable to me to make me think that we're dealing with the same variety of Orcs in all three cases. There is further collaboration from the earlier draft of the Moria episode:

From HoME VII
'There are goblins: very many of them,' he said. 'Evil they look and large: black Orcs.

This is making the same distinction as the passage from The Hobbit- goblins being the smaller variety, Orcs being larger. It is worth noting that this and the passage from the Hobbit were written in roughly the same era- before Tolkien used the term 'Uruks'. In a later re-write the 'black Orcs' in Moria became 'Uruks', I think it is reasonable to assume that if Tolkien had again re-written the passage from the Hobbit then they too would have become Uruks.
I think there is even more evidence from the opening of the chapter The Uruk-hai, although unfortunately I can't attest to this because Christopher Tolkien has given us virtually nothing of the original drafting of this chapter in the HoME series. He does say that the original drafting of this chapter in particular is very similar to the final form, so I think it is valid to regard the description of Ugluk, Grishnakh, and the northerners as being similar to the first draft. Worth noting is that here Ugluk and Grishnakh are described as orcs, the northerners are described as goblins. Something to keep in mind, anyway.
However, we even get an explicit statement of Uruks in the Misty Mountains:

From Appendix A, The House of Eorl
In 2989 Théodwyn married Éomund of Eastfold, the chief Marshal of the Mark. Her son Éomer was born in 2991, and her daughter Éowyn in 2995. At that time Sauron had arisen again, and the shadow of Mordor reached out to Rohan. Orcs began to raid in the eastern regions and slay or steal horses. Others also came down from the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman, though it was long before that was suspected.

This seems to be a pretty explicit statement that some of the orcs of the Misty Mountains were in fact Uruks.

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by jallan
This is absurd! How would "every Mordorian's mind" know of the existence of this single troop of Orcs among so many, or that anything bad had happened to it, or know anything about the Shire?

I think my language was confusing here. By every Mordorian I meant the "higher ups" responsible for giving the order to find the rebel Uruk-hai involved in the Cirith Ungol incident. Uglúk's band was remarkable, not just for their talented leader, but also because it was, to the best of my knowledge, the first time servants of Isengard had outright attacked creatures loyal to Sauron. Also, judging by Grishnkakh's words, it was the first time that Mordor units had encountered the White Badges of Saruman. Up to this point Saruman had been misleading Sauron's agents, etc. but he was probably considered to be nominally subservient to Sauron. Once Uglúk whacks off the heads of those Moria Orcs, Sauron would (IMO) consider Saruman to be an open rebel. I imagine some message would then be sent out to his captains that Saruman's servants were not to be trusted. If you believe that Uruks and Uruk-hai refer to different things, then the message might be that Saruman's Uruk-hai are not to be trusted.

Originally posted by jallan
As to the sun-tolerance, it is irrelevant.
Yes, Saurman's Uruk-hai are better at resisting the Sun than most Orcs and are believed to have been in part interbred with Men, which probably explains this difference.
Obviously in such a situation there would likely be both kinds: Orcs with a little of the Man breed in them, and Men with a little of the Orc-breed in them, and all kinds of in-betweens.
Trying to distinguish Saruman's Uruk-hai from man-orcs is probably impossible, because such as Gamling, believing, probably rightly, the story that Saruman has cross-bred his Orcs with Men, will use "half-orcs and goblin-men" to describe the Uruk-hai in Saruman's host along with whatever beings that seem like Men that Saruman might have in his forces, other than the Dunlendings.
Trying to dig out exact percentages of human blood in Saruman's Uruk-hai or what percentage of Saruman's forces might have been pure Orc is futile.

I don't think sun-tolerance is irrelevant. I'm trying to make a case that the term Uruk-hai refers to Isengarders, while the term Uruks refers to Mordor Orcs. If there were no difference between the two varieties of Orcs, there would be no reason for me to claim that they are referred to with different names. It is precisely because of the different characteristics of the Isengarders that this thread even exists. Chief among these characteristics is sun-tolerance. Both the soldier-Orcs of Mordor and Isengard are larger and stronger than the earlier breeds. The Isengarders have been mixed with some amount of men's blood, and have apparently become sun-tolerant. This is the basis for saying that Isengarders are different than Mordorians- any discussion about difference in naming (real or perceived) must stem from this difference in characteristics.
As for which term refers to which variety of hybrid- I absolutely agree with you 100%. I think there are two very broad 'varieties' of hybrid, ones that are more orcish, and ones that are more mannish. Personally I think that both varieties fall under the collective term "Uruk-hai", but that is just me. I said this many times in the deep past of this thread, but I'll admit that it may seem as if I was trying to be more precise in recent posts.

Originally posted by jallan
Saruman's Uruk-hai seem to lack the ape-like arms Tolkien gives to the Mordor Uruks and to Grishnákh and his followers, perhaps because partly man-bred. Or are the maggots are also short-armed? Does Saruman also have some ape Uruk-hai?
Aragil denies identity between Uruk-hai and Uruks, other than that both are Orcs, and insists that Uruk-hai have man-blood in them.

To Tar-Elenions description of long-armed Isengarders, I'll add the fact that Grishnakh calls Uglúk an Ape after Uglúk disparages the Nazgul.
In any case I don't think I deny identity between Saruman's soldier Orcs and those of Sauron. The vast majority of my posts are going to point out the differences- that's the nature of my position on this thread. However, I am happy to point out that there are very strong similarities. First off, Uglúk's troop is described as swarthy, just like the Uruk in Moria and just like the Uruks in the time of Denethor. This relationship actually runs even deeper than in the published text. The orc-chieftain who spears Frodo was extant (and clad in black) in the first full account of the chamber of Marzubul. The first conception of the capture of Merry and Pippin was that they were captured by "Black orcs of Misty Mountains" (HoME VII, p 346-347, note 18) who later bear them to Isengard. These of course later became a band of native Isengarders, but it is apparent to me that they were first thought of as being related to the earlier Chieftain. Remember, his band wasn't originally described as "black Uruks of Mordor", but as "Black Orcs" (unaffiliated). Also, there is my earlier quote about the "great uruks in the service of Saruman" who came down from the Misty Mountains in TA 2991-2995. From UT The Palantiri note 7 we learn that Saruman's 'possible' special breeding program could have started no earlier than TA 2990. To me this suggests that Saruman began with Uruks out of the Misty Mountains, and then crossed them with men in order to get his hybrid army. If this is the case then I would expect Saruman's troops to share more than a passing resemblance to Sauron's Uruks- I certainly wouldn't deny similarities between the two.

Originally posted by jallan
Tar-Elenion goes too far in my opinion in insisting that all Uruks must be alike, be equally unhindered by the sun.

I have never before agreed so heartily with a statement on this thread. He has said before that Saruman's troops might be more sun tolerant than Sauron's, however the way he has vehemently denied any quote which suggests this does seem a bit extreme.

Originally posted by jallan
Orcs of different sizes are still Orcs. Uruks with different amounts of sun-tolerance may be equallly Uruks and equally Uruk-hai, or at least may call themselves so.
Some human ancestry need not affect the way in which they use the term Uruk.

I agree that this is a possible reading. However, given the earlier strong identification from Helm's Deep that the Uruk-hai don't mind the sun, I prefer to think that these two are related. I agree that there are other readings, but I think mine is equally valid.

Originally posted by jallan
That there is tension in the narrative between the terms Uruk-hai and Uruks is reasonable enough if Tolkien first invented the term Uruk to refer to Saruman's solider Orcs, and then later extended it to also refer to the large Orcs of Mordor.
The result would be that Saruman's Uruks would seem to be (now incorrectly) reserving the name for themselves alone.
On the other hand, names are sometimes used differently in different contexts. Saruman's Uruk-hai have no reason to think about other Uruks, especially if short Grishnákh is not an Uruk, or not a full Uruk.

This is why Gorbag's quote becomes so important. It was added in revision, after Tolkien had decided to include uruks in the forces of Sauron. It is used in virtually an identical context to an earlier quote by Uglúk, as I suggested earlier. Nobody is arguing that Uruks and Uruk-hai are absolutely equivalent- Uruk-hai is pure Black Speech (pure bs!), while Uruks is an an anglicized Black Speech term. It is then puzzling that Gorbag would use the term "Uruks" while speaking in Black Speech/Orcish, while Ugluk and the Isengarders would continually use the term "Uruk-hai". For me the preferred solution to this is that "uruks" and "Uruk-hai" really are different terms which distinguish the soldier-orcs of Mordor from those of Isengard. I think that invoking the "translation" powers of the Ring is "special pleading", but I'm not going to insist that my interpretation is the only one out there.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
The whole point of this thread, back when it was started last year, was to see if from the text of Lord of the Rings the term Uruks seemed to describe creatures which were reasonably distinct from Uruk-hai. You could think of it as answering the question "Does the use of Uruks in UT seem inconsistent with it's use in LotR?"

In other words are you asking does Fords of Isen seem inconsistant with LotR because Fords of Isen says...:

"Behind them came two battalions of the fierce Uruks, heavily armed but trained to move at great speed for many miles."

...instead of saying:

"Behind them came two battalions of the fierce Uruk-hai, heavily armed but trained to move at great speed for many miles."
??

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
I think there are two very broad 'varieties' of hybrid, ones that are more orcish, and ones that are more mannish. Personally I think that both varieties fall under the collective term "Uruk-hai", but that is just me. I said this many times in the deep past of this thread, but I'll admit that it may seem as if I was trying to be more precise in recent posts.

Clarify please.
By saying: "I think that both varieties [of hybrid] fall under the collective term "Uruk-hai...", do you mean that the 'goblin-faced men' spoken of by Merry, the Southerner from Bree, the Orc-men in Fords of Isen and the 'fighting Uruk-hai of Isengard' are all "Uruk-hai" ??

 

[jallan]

Grond posted:

jallan,
what is the answer then? Are Uruks and Uruk-hai the same in your opinion or different. You give a lot of information but fail to make a stand on your fellings.

I think from The Lord of the RIngs alone you cannot even prove that Uruk-hai is a plural form. It might be both singular and plural, just as Nazgûl is, and similarly for Olog-hai.

As Aragil documents, Tolkien used Uruk-hai long before he used Uruks or uruks or uruk.

It is often thought that the -hai element in Juruk-hai is a plural marker literally meaning smething like '-folk'.

If this is true, then Tolkien would hardly be aware of coining the workd Uruks. It would likely exist as the obvious Anglicized form, ready to use, as soon as the word Uruk-hai was created.

That the form Uruks exists, though Nazgûls does not, might suggest that Uruk in Black Speech was a singular form and there was a differing plural form.

Even that is not proved. The suffix -hai might be a race marker used in both singular and plural. There might be another optional way of indicating plural alone in Black Speech, without the -hai ending.

The main text of The Lord of the Rings provides no answers.

The "rebel Uruk-hai" mentioned by the soldier-Orc seems to refer to Gorbag and his crew. Can you prove it? Of course not.

The mention of a "great Elf" seems to echo the speculations of the Orcs when they find Frodo lying comatose. But can you prove it comes from those speculations through either Shagrat or one of the rebels who has been captured? No, for someone else may have theorized a "great Elf" independently.

Can you prove from The Lord of the Rings, including the Appendices, that the Elves, the "People of the Stars" are not aliens from another word?

The only use of the word Eldar in the main text of The Lord of the Rings is Gandalf's statement to Frodo:

And here in Rivendell there live still some of his chief foes: the Elven-wise, lords of the Eldar from beyond the furthest seas.

Does Eldar apply specifically and only to a particular kind of Elf that comes from beyond the furthest seas.

"Furthest seas" cannot mean the sea which is so close to the west of the Shire, reputedly visible from the top of any of the three Elf towers just beyond the western border. It must mean the Pacific Ocean, which would contain the "furthest" seas from Rivendell.

So one would argue from this text alone.

Phrases and sentences may sometimes mean more or less than is apparent on the surface, or be interpreted differently than they would be with fuller knowledge.

Even in The Appendices, written a few years after completion of the text of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien had made changes in some underlying features of his world.

The language which Tolkien had formerly represented as descended from the language originally spoken by the exiled Noldor when they returned to Middle-earth now becomes Sindarin, awhich had begun to differ from the language spoken by the Noldor before the Noldor ever crossed into the West.

Almost certainly many of the details of the realms of Gondor and Arnor and Rohan were invented when he wrote the Appendices.

Did Tolkien only invent Elrond laying a task on Aragorn when he wrote it in Appendix A?

You can prove nothing one way or the other.

This is when Tolkien penned:

Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'.

Well, the only "great soldier-orcs' that issue from Isengard at this time, so far as we are told in the main text, are those who call themselves Uruk-hai.

That suggests that the Uruk-hai are Uruks, but does not prove it. Tolkien might be writing awkardly here.

This text does not indicate whether Uruk-hai is a normal Black Speech plural for Uruks or whether Uruk-hai identifies a particular kind of Uruk.

But this text suggests strongly to me that Tolkien thought the Isengard Uruk-hai were a kind of Uruk.

It says nothing about whether he thought at this time that Uruk-hai meant exactly the same as Uruks.

One of the scouting Orcs had been called {i]Snaga[/i] by Uglúk, and later an Orc named Snaga is promient in the story, being berated by Shagrat in the Tower of Cirith Ungol and eventually dying in a fall when frightened by Sam.

Now Tolkien explains that this duplicated name is not really a proper name at all, but a somewhat derogatory class title applied to the smaller Orcs?

Was this always Tolkien's thought? Or did Tolkien notice that he had used the same name twice, and, as he often did, come up with an explanation for something puzzling in the text?

A duplicated name is not the kind of error that needs explanation, but Tolkien might have enjoyed providing one in any case. Or snaga might indeed have meant 'slave' to Tolkien from its first use.

At least when he wrote this note, Tolkien thought that snaga was used in the speech of both Isengard and Mordor. If Tolkien had written "especially by the Uruks" we would probably understand him to mean both the Uruks of Mordor and the Uruk-hai of Saurman, for he has spoken of Uruks issuing from both Mordor and Isengard.

But he writes "Uruk-hai". Do we then understand that snaga was more used as a name for lesser Orcs by Saruman's Uruk-hai, perhaps because the Saruman's Uruk-hai were indeed more different from other Orcs, for example in their resistance to light? Or is Tolkien simply using a native term, Uruk-hai[/i,] instead of the English Uruks?

You can't prove either.

But it seems to me likely from the Appendix note that Tolkien recognized all Uruk-hai as being Uruks.

Certainly it appears in letter 78 and in "The Battles of the Ford of Isen" that Uruks is used to cover Uruk-hai.

That "The Battles of the Ford of Isen" was not published in Tolkien's lifetime and was not completed is irrelevant. It, like many other such iincomplete writings, shows us what he was thinking at one time, and his thoughts, even late thoughts, should not be ignored.

The text, though not complete, is obviously very carefully composed and written as shown by the complexity of its subject matter. It is exactly the kind of text where any author would be trying to be extremely precise.

Why disparage it, when it agrees with what Tolkien wrote in Appendix F? Here also we see Uruks coming out of Isengard.

So Uruk-hai are Uruks.

But are all Uruks also Uruk-hai?

I feel that the Appendix F sentence reads better if we take Uruk-ha to mean simply Uruks.

I don't find it convincing that Tolkien wants us to imagine the Orcs so confused about what had happened in the Tower of Cirith Ungol that they blamed it on Saruman's Orcs.

I do not find it at all odd that, that Tolkien would use Uruk-hai and Uruks somewhat interchangeably if they were interchangeable.

The main evidence seems to me to be the outright statement in the index to Unfinished Tales under Uruks:

Anglicized form of Uruk-hai of the Black Speech; a race of Orcs of great size and strength.

Neither "Uruk-hai" nor "Black Speech" are mentioned anywhere in Unfinished Tales, so this part of this entry is a very odd one for Chritopher Tolkien to invent.

CT claims that some of the material in the Index comes from his father's draft index to The Lord of the Rings, and this is exactly what would have fitted well there, and does not fit well in the index to UT.

Where else does Christopher Tolkien invent such things that he should not be trusted?

The worst he has been blamed for in linguistic matters is probable transcription errors in "The Etymologies" (part of which he makes clear were not very legible).

Certain non-linguistic inventions in the published Silmarillion were admitted in CT's own introduction, but have been mostly, perhaps completely, covered in the HoME series, and concern almost entirely the Fall of Doriath and minor corrections in the material.

What in the index to Unfinished Tales that can be shown to be in error from other writings or that CT would have any reason to want to change?

Because of ambiguity in the main text, Aragil can produce explanations mostly opposing what is found in other documents, but in fact no more likely to be true than what we find in the other documents.

What reason to distrust these other documents?

I see no problem with Tolkien inventing Uruk-hai, then deciding Sauron would have large Orcs of similar kind, but not, it seems, arising from breeding of Orcs and Men and not so easily able to bear sunlight.

Tolkien also began to use more often Common Speech Uruks instead of the Black Speech Uruk-hai.

Some of the tension between the accounts of Saruman's Uruk-hai Tolkien's later usage of Uruks would arise because Tolkien was not thinking of Sauron's Orcs much when first writing about the Uruk-hai.

A reader is a little suprised when the Mordor soldier Orc uses the phrase Uruk-hai, because the reader is only familiar with the term in respect to Saruman's Uruk-hai. Tolkien might not perceive this difficulty. Would he remember when and where exactly he had used Uruks and when and where he had used Uruk-hai, if to him they meant the same thing?

This is just as possible as Aragil's hypothesis.

It is equally unproveable.

 

[Grond]

Great response!!

There's an old saying, "Ask and it shall be answered!" I asked and you have provided me with one of the best responses I've seen (as we say here in the South) "in a coon's age!"

Thanks for your insightful, inciteful and well thought out response jallan.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

bump

 

[Ancalagon]

Excellent choice for a bump T-E, the only difficulty is where to join the fray, as it is far advanced and well-argued!?

 

[Tar-Elenion]

I 'bumped' as there are some things in it I wish to use elsewhere and did not wish to have keep 'diving' for it. You are welcome to join in wherever you wish, though there is likely little new to add.

 

[Melko Belcha]

I'm sorry, I did not read the whole thread. But in Unfinished Tales - The Battle of the Fords of Isen, the Uruk-hai are always called Uruks or black Uruks. And in that it is clear that the Uruks and the Orc-men are not the same.

UT - The Battle of the Fords of Isen

Behind them came two battalions of the fierce Uruks........As soon as the enemy had gained possession of the eastern end of the Fords there appeared a company of men or Orc-men

And in The Hunt for the Ring it is said that the Dunlending that told the Nazgul where the Shire was had Orc blood in him, and he was the squit-eyed southerner in Bree, the one Frodo thought "looks more than half like a goblin".

 

[Ancalagon]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
I'm sorry, I did not read the whole thread.

I know it is epic, but you would do great service to the contributors of this thread if you read it fully. Threads such as this one serve as an excellent resource for learning about the intricacy of Tolkiens work, hence the reason those who have contributed to this thread have taken so much time and effort to fully research their answers before posting. Rather a shame there are not more like this available on the forum, as everyone would be much the wiser for reading them.

 

[aragil]

flogging a long dead horse ...

... or am I trying to prod it back to life?

Originally posted by jallan
A reader is a little suprised when the Mordor soldier Orc uses the phrase Uruk-hai, because the reader is only familiar with the term in respect to Saruman's Uruk-hai. Tolkien might not perceive this difficulty. Would he remember when and where exactly he had used Uruks and when and where he had used Uruk-hai, if to him they meant the same thing?

Never did respond to this. Thread-fatigue, I guess. The only (last?!!) thing I'll add is that Tolkien probably was aware of the different uses of Uruk-hai/Uruks when he wrote the soldier-tracker scene. Again, when he first wrote the scene, he had never used the term 'Uruks'. Also, when he first wrote the scene, the whole bit was different, and there was neither a mention of 'Uruk-hai'. A few pages later (when the Hobbits, disguised as Orcs, are found by a group of Orcs headed towards the Black Gate), Tolkien uses 'uruks' for the first time. I have no idea when he did his revisionist bit for 'Uruks'- placing the term in the Chamber of Marzubul and in Gorbag's speech. The first draft for the appendices still has them as 'black orcs' attacking in Denethor's time. However, it is entirely possible (IMO probable) that he added 'rebel Uruk-hai' in the soldier/tracker scene when he was adding 'uruks' elsewhere. That's all I got- hopefully not too controversial- I don't really think it matters one way or another.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

This was originally written for a discussion at Michael Martinez' SF-Fandom site:
http://www.sf-fandom.com/vbulletin/

Uruk-hai and Uruks.

In this essay I will offer evidence that the terms Uruks and Uruk-hai are interchangeable and both terms refer to the 'great-soldier orcs' that issued from both Mordor and Isengard.
That Saruman had Uruk-hai in his service is undoubted. There are numerous direct references to the Uruk-hai of Saruman in the main narrative text of LotR. These primarily occur in the chapters The Uruk-hai and Helm's Deep. Within these chapters the Isengarders refer to themselves as "fighting Uruk-hai" or the "Uruk-hai of Isengard", and once simply as "the Uruk-hai" when addressing Aragorn before the walls of Helm's Deep. There are two other occurances of the term Uruk-hai within the main narrative, once in narrative format when reporting Pippin's feelings in the chapter Minas Tirith ("No hours so dark had Pippin known, not even in the clutches of the Uruk-hai"), and once in the chapter Land of Shadow when Sam and Frodo overhear a conversation between a soldier-orc and a tracker in Mordor in a passage which reads: " 'Whose blame's that?' said the soldier. 'Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together.'" Up until this last use all references in LotR to Uruk-hai have been to the Isengarders.
There are four uses of the term 'Uruks' in the main narrative, once in Khazad-dum when Gandalf refers to: "black Uruks of Mordor" (Bridge of Khazad-dum), once when Sam overhears Gorbag say: "Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks" (The Choices of Master Samwise) while in Shelob's Lair, and twice in narrative format in The Land of Shadow ("large fierce uruks" and "heavy-armed uruks"). All these references are to the Orcs of Mordor.
In App. A we have two uses of the term 'uruks' once in reference to Mordor ("In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor"), and once in reference to Saruman ("Others [Orcs] also came down from the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman, though it was long before that was suspected"). With this second we have the first use of the term 'Uruks' for Saruman's Uruk-hai.
In App. F there is also the following passage: "Orcs and the Black Speech. Orc is the form of the name that other races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan. In Sindarin it was orch. Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'." In the essay Battles of the Fords of Isen, published in Unfinished Tales there are nine (if my count is correct) uses of the term 'uruks' for the Isengarders. There are a few other uses of the term 'Uruks' and 'Urukhai' in the available corpus, including App. B, Letter 66 and the essay Quendi and Eldar in War of the Jewels (and the LotR Index).
From the Fords of Isen narrative and the App. A statement as well as App. F, it is undoubted that the great soldier-orcs of Isengard can be called 'Uruks' or 'Uruk-hai'.
But what of the great soldier-orcs of Mordor? We have one instance of an Uruk using the term 'Uruks'; as cited above Gorbag refers to 'poor Uruks' in a converstion with Shagrat, but that is not necessarily what he said, but rather what Sam 'heard'. Both Shagrat and Gorbag are captains in Mordor's armies and they do not seem to have been speaking Westron. It is possible that they were speaking the Black Speech (App. F notes: "When Sauron arose again, it [BS] became once more the language of Barad-dûr and of the captains of Mordor") or perhaps some debased form there of. That Sam was able to understand the two seems to be an effect of the Ring, which he was wearing at the time: "He heard them both clearly, and he understood what they said. Perhaps the Ring gave understanding of tongues, or simply understanding, especially of the servants of Sauron its maker, so that if he gave heed, he understood and translated the thought to himself. Certainly the Ring had grown greatly in power as it approached the places of its forging; but one thing it did not confer, and that was courage. At present Sam still thought only of hiding, of lying low till all was quiet again; and he listened anxiously. He could not tell how near the voices were, the words seemed almost in his ears."
It is _possible_ that Gorbag actually used the term 'Uruk-hai' and Sam, through the Ring, heard the word 'Uruks' (which he would have been familiar with from Gandalf's use of it in Moria). This is, of course, not provable, but possible within the context of the story.
We also have one instance of a Mordor Orc explicitly using the term 'Uruk-hai'. Frodo and Sam overhear a soldier stating his orders to his tracker companion "First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together" which a "Higher Up" has sent them out to look for. These relate back to the events at Cirith Ungol. The "dwarf-man" is a reference to Frodo, the Orcs did not know what a Hobbit was ("'Lugbúrz wants it, eh? What is it, d'you think? Elvish it looked to me, but undersized. What's the danger in a thing like that?'") Gorbag believed that an Elf-warrior was about: "`By all the signs, Captain Shagrat, I'd say there's a large warrior loose, Elf most likely, with an elf-sword anyway, and an axe as well maybe: and he's loose in your bounds, too, and you've never spotted him. Very funny indeed! ' Gorbag spat. Sam smiled grimly at this description of himself.". When Sam enters the Tower of Cirith Ungol he does so crying out: " 'That's done it!' said Sam. `Now I've rung the front-door bell! Well, come on somebody!' he cried. `Tell Captain Shagrat that the great Elf-warrior has called, with his elf-sword too!'". When Snaga and Sam encounter each other: "[Snaga] stopped short aghast. For what it saw was not a small frightened hobbit trying to hold a steady sword: it saw a great silent shape, cloaked in a grey shadow, looming against the wavering light behind; in one hand it held a sword, the very light of which was a bitter pain, the other was clutched at its breast, but held concealed some nameless menace of power and doom.
For a moment the orc crouched, and then with a hideous yelp of fear it turned and fled back as it had come. Never was any dog more heartened when its enemy turned tail than Sam at this unexpected flight. With a shout he gave chase.
`Yes! The Elf-warrior is loose!' he cried. 'I'm coming. Just you show me the way up, or I'll skin you!'"
After this encounter Snaga says to Shagrat: "There's a great fighter about, one of those bloody-handed Elves, or one of the filthy tarks. He's coming here, I tell you. You heard the bell. He's got past the Watchers, and that's tark's work. He's on the stairs. And until he's off them, I'm not going down. Not if you were a Nazgûl, I wouldn't.'"
Shagrat later fled the Tower and would have reported this to the 'Higher Up', which is why the Orcs would be sent out looking for an Elf and a dwarf-man. This leaves the "rebel Uruk-hai".
The other major event at the Tower was the battle between Gorbag and Shagrat and their respective companies.Gorbag (who had earlier suggested that he and Shagrat take some 'trusty lads' and go off and det themselves up somewhere away from the 'big bosses') wanted to "pinch" Frodo's mithril mail. Shagrat, it seems, objected and this caused a battle between the two opposing forces. Of this Sam notes: "The courtyard lay in deep shadow, but he could see that the pavement was strewn with bodies. Right at his feet were two orc-archers with knives sticking in their backs. Beyond lay many more shapes; some singly as they had been hewn down or shot; others in pairs, still grappling one another, dead in the very throes of stabbing, throttling, biting. The stones were slippery with dark blood.
Two liveries Sam noticed, one marked by the Red Eye, the other by a Moon disfigured with a ghastly face of death; but he did not stop to look more closely."
Of the aftermath of the battle Snaga says: "'...I've told you twice that Gorbag's swine got to the gate first, and none of ours got out. Lagduf and Muzgash ran through, but they were shot. I saw it from a window, I tell you. And they were the last.'"
(con't)

 

[Tar-Elenion]

(con't)
It seems rather obvious that Shagrat, along with reporting the 'Elf' and the 'dwarf-man' would have reported the battle between Gorbag and himself. We also know that as Sam and Frodo were fleeing from Cirith Ungol a Nazgul arrived and soon after many soldiers came in responce to his cries. They could easily observe what happened (and Sam after collecting Orc gear for he and Frodo to disguise themselves in says: " `The Morgul-stuff, Gorbag's gear, was a better fit and better made,' said Sam; `but it wouldn't do, I guess, to go carrying his tokens into Mordor, not after this business here." Sam recognizes that what occured in the Tower will become known). It thus becomes clear that what the 'Higher Up' sent the Orcs out to look for were those involved with the events at Cirith Ungol. That is the 'dwarf-man' who escaped, the 'Elf' that was believed to be present, and any Orcs who might have fled the Tower (the "rebel Uruk-hai"). As no Isengarders were present and there was nothing to suggest any Isengarders were present this leaves only those Orcs who were actually involved and may have fled to account for the "rebel Uruk-hai", and those were great soldier-orcs of Mordor, hence Sauron had Uruk-hai in his service, and thus the terms 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' are fully interchangeable and refer to both Isengarders and Mordoreans.
There are two other passages I find relevant to this. One is from Letter 78 where in JRRT writes to his son Chritopher, in part:
"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, and that there are probably abnormally many of such creatures in Deutschland and Nippon - but certainly these unhappy countries have no monopoly: I have met them, or thought so, in England's green and pleasant land)." Here JRRT uses the terms 'Urukhai' and 'Uruks' interchangeably and is using them to refer, in particular, to (some) of the Germans and Japanese during WWII (and also to some of his own countrymen). This also shows that the term 'Uruk-hai' was not exclusive to Isengarders.
There is also an entry in the Index to UT:
"Uruks Anglicized form of Uruk-hai of the Black Speech; a race of Orcs of great size and strength."
It is possible that this entry was drawn from JRRT. CT writes: "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, with translation of names and brief explanatory statements, 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
CT also writes of this Index: "The brief defining statements are not restricted to matters actually mentioned in the book; and occassionally I have added notes on the meaning of hitherto untranslated names."
UT, Index
According to what CT has written, this Index entry could have been drawn from JRRT's own draft of an Index for LotR, making it relevant to the use of 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' in LotR, if it was drawn from that draft Index then it stands to reason that all the uses of 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' in LotR are interchangeable and refer to the same race of creature, "great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard." This would again mean that the "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to those Orcs involved in the events at Cirith Ungol who may have fled in or after the fighting there, as suggested by the evidence presented above. This seems particularly likely since CT noted that the "defining statements are not restricted to matters actually mentioned in the book" and the entry in question is just that, a "defining statement" (as opposed to a translation) and the term 'Uruk-hai' does not actually appear in the narrative.

If, as I think the evidence suggests, 'Uruks' is simply an anglicization for Uruk-hai and the two terms are interchangeable and can be (and are) applied to both the the Isengarders and the Mordorean soldier-orcs we are left with no plot holes and fully consistant uses of the terms throughout the texts.

A brief post script, Letter 78 and the essay Quendi and Eldar in WotJ provide the possiblity of an attested to translation for 'Uruk-hai'. Letter 78 says "Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker". The pertinent portion of this is "folk made bad". In Q&E we learn that 'uruk' was borrowed by Sauron from the Elvish tongues when he was devising the Black Speech in the Second Age,
and was related to words meaning 'horrible'.
If Uruks are "folk made bad" and 'uruk' is related to horrible, and 'horrible' and 'bad' are synonmous, then it could very well be that a reasonable translation of Uruk-hai (which is used interchangeably with its anglicization 'uruks') is:
Uruk-hai: *bad-folk, *horrible-folk.

 

[Snaga]

I’ve been looking carefully at what we know about the Black Speech, and the language of the orcs more generally. I am probably foolish to post my conclusions on this thread, but here goes anyway!

The curious thing is, there is precious little that can be definitely said to be “pure” Black Speech; namely the inscription on the Ring. This not only dates from the early years of Sauron’s rule, but it is as authoritative a source we could hope for: ie the words of Sauron himself.

Apart from this, we have only the names of various orcs, the names used by orcs for various people or things, and the curse of the Mordor orc, directed at the Isengarders in TTT I Ch3 ‘The Uruk-Hai’, and a few other terms identified in the Appendices, and in other Tolkien writings.

But it is curious that most if not all of these can be rejected as not “pure” Black Speech. This form was forgotten by the orcs after Sauron’s defeat at the hands of the Last Alliance.

The orcs spoke many dialects, related, but sufficiently diverse that the three groups of orcs crossing Rohan had to resort to the common speech in order to be understood. Although Sauron reintroduced the Black Speech on his return to Mordor at the end of the Third Age, this was only used by the captains of Mordor. We are told that the soldiers of the Dark Tower spoke a ‘debased form’; and this is form used by the cursing Mordor orc.

Pluralisation is a particularly interesting issue. Firstly the word Nazgul is a B.S. word, which can be both singular or plural (similar to the English ‘sheep’). On the other hand it appears that pluralisation can take other forms. Uruk-Hai appears to be a collective noun, capable only meaning a plural. Others have argued that this is actually a plural of ‘uruk’. The suffix –hai in fact predates Sauron’s form of B.S., since it is attested to in relation to the oghor-hai, referring to the pukel-men in the first age. It is doubtful therefore, if when it is being used, it is actually a form in ‘pure’ B.S. The Isengarders’ use it about themselves, but they would presumably not use pure B.S. The only other ‘verbal’ use of it is between the small tracker orc and the larger solder orc. These are not ‘Captains of Mordor’ so we can assume their discussions would typically be held in a debased form. Yet, Frodo and Sam can understand their speech, and thus we must assume that their dialogue is also in the Common tongue; and that the tribal dialect problem still existed in Mordor and that ‘debased forms’ were not universally understood.

This is then give us two different uses of ‘Uruk-hai’. The Isengarders are apt to announce: “We are the Uruk-Hai”; a collective noun. In the other it is a plural, in the phrase “pack of Uruk-Hai”. This suggests a parallel with Nazgul: which can be singular, plural or collective. We have no case to prove that the phrase “I am an Uruk-Hai” is correct, but it seems possible.

Is this rule always observed? No. We have the counter-example of ‘tark’, which is pluralized in the orkish version of the Common tongue in the form ‘tarks’.

So what can we make of Gorbag’s use of the term “uruks”? Clearly he is using a plural case. Is this an ‘incorrect’ (or anglicised) plural of uruk, that would be more correctly written as “uruk-hai”? This seems unlikely, as I will show.

Other uses of “Uruks” include Gandalf inserting a non-standard term into the Common Tongue; and two italised cases of use by the narrator in ROTK II 2 “The Land of Mordor”. It seems highly unlikely that in any of these cases an “incorrect” form would be adopted.

What then could the terms refer too? Uruk is clear:

The form in Adunaic urku, urkhu may be direct from Quenya or Sindarin; and this form underlies the words for Orc in the languages of Men of the North-West in the Second and Third Ages. The Orcs themselves adopted it, for the fact that it referred to terror and detestation delighted them. 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 the regiments of Mordor.

This is a clue: it refers to the elite Mordor orcs ‘specially’ but not exclusively. So what of the use of Uruks in “The Battle of the Fords of Isen” to refer to some of Saruman’s forces? It appears to be used to very definitely distinguish the great orcs (who are would be “men-orcs”) of Saruman’s armies from his “orc-men”. From the taunts of the Isengarders at Helms Deep we can see that there is no distinction between these in the term “Uruk-Hai” between these two groups, but Uruks are still definitely orcish.

Thus Uruks can refer to some Isengarders, and the elite Mordor orcs. Whereas Uruk-Hai appears not refer to Mordor orcs, only soldiers of Isengard, both orc-men and men-orcs.