Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Snaga
What then could the terms refer too? Uruk is clear:

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.

That Saruman's Uruk-hai are "men-orcs" is an unproven assertion. In 'Fords of Isen the Uruks are clearly distinguished from the 'half-orcs' and are not referred to as any sort of 'half-orc'.

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.

As my post above shows, the "rebel Uruk-hai" referred to in in the conversation between the soldier-orc and the tracker can only refer to Mordor Orcs.
To disprove this evidence must be presented that Isengarders were present or believed to be present at Cirith Ungol. To date no one has been able to provide any such evidence ((and not just here, but in any number of forums and the newsgroups where I have argued this).

 

[Snaga]

I've read this thread, and I am aware that these points have been raised before.

Originally Posted By Tar-Elenion
That Saruman's Uruk-hai are "men-orcs" is an unproven assertion. In 'Fords of Isen the Uruks are clearly distinguished from the 'half-orcs' and are not referred to as any sort of 'half-orc'.

I think you misunderstand me. You are correct that in the Fords of Isen the Uruks are clearly distinguished from the 'half-orcs'. Thus the term Uruk-Hai is not used by the author, who wishes to distinguish between the two groups in an essay that is written from the standpoint of an omniscient observer. By contrast, Lord of the Rings is written differently, feigning to be written by Frodo from the observations of himself and others. Here, the distinction between orcs and half-orcs is imperfectly observed, and the term Uruk-Hai is used without distinction. Thus it is my belief that while 'Uruk' is only ever used of orcs, Uruk-Hai is a collective term for a more diverse group: Sarumans orc-bred armies.

Originally Posted By Tar-Elenion
As my post above shows, the "rebel Uruk-hai" referred to in in the conversation between the soldier-orc and the tracker can only refer to Mordor Orcs.
To disprove this evidence must be presented that Isengarders were present or believed to be present at Cirith Ungol. To date no one has been able to provide any such evidence ((and not just here, but in any number of forums and the newsgroups where I have argued this).

Whilst "rebel Uruk-Hai" may refer to Mordor Orcs, why should we assume it refers to them correctly? Frodo and Sam are badly misidentified by the orcs, who quite clearly have no confidence in the instructions from their "Higher Ups". There are many possibilities: (1) that Shagrat mis-reported; (2) that Shagrat reported correctly, but was misinterpreted; (3) that Shagrat was correctly interpreted but the orders misidentified the quarry; (4) that the orcs did not understand their orders; and most likely of all (5) that the orcs are being sarcastic.

Therefore, because the text leaves us unclear as to what these orcs meant in their use of the term "Uruk-Hai" we must look elsewhere. What we can be much clearer about is that if the orcs had wanted to pluralise 'uruk' they would in fact have used 'uruks': the correct plural form when this term is used in the Common tongue; as attested to both by the author and Gandalf.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Snaga
I think you misunderstand me. You are correct that in the Fords of Isen the Uruks are clearly distinguished from the 'half-orcs'. Thus the term Uruk-Hai is not used by the author, who wishes to distinguish between the two groups in an essay that is written from the standpoint of an omniscient observer. By contrast, Lord of the Rings is written differently, feigning to be written by Frodo from the observations of himself and others. Here, the distinction between orcs and half-orcs is imperfectly observed, and the term Uruk-Hai is used without distinction. Thus it is my belief that while 'Uruk' is only ever used of orcs, Uruk-Hai is a collective term for a more diverse group: Sarumans orc-bred armies.

Uruk-hai is only used of the great-soldier orcs from Mordor and and Isengard. The Uruk-hai are never _directly_ referred to as any sort of half-orc in LotR. When referring to Uruk-hai directly, they are always termed as 'Orcs' or 'Goblins'.

Whilst "rebel Uruk-Hai" may refer to Mordor Orcs, why should we assume it refers to them correctly? Frodo and Sam are badly misidentified by the orcs, who quite clearly have no confidence in the instructions from their "Higher Ups". There are many possibilities: (1) that Shagrat mis-reported; (2) that Shagrat reported correctly, but was misinterpreted; (3) that Shagrat was correctly interpreted but the orders misidentified the quarry; (4) that the orcs did not understand their orders; and most likely of all (5) that the orcs are being sarcastic.

Shagrat correctly reported the facts from his onwn observations. Frodo is not mis-identified. Sam was believed to be an Elf-warrior based on the observation of the evidence.
"`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.'"

Therefore, because the text leaves us unclear as to what these orcs meant in their use of the term "Uruk-Hai" we must look elsewhere.

No, it is not unclear. The Orcs were referring to the events at Cirith Ungol. To prove that the "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to Isengarders, evidence must be presented that Isengarders were involved or believed to be involved in the events at Cirith Ungol.

What we can be much clearer about is that if the orcs had wanted to pluralise 'uruk' they would in fact have used 'uruks': the correct plural form when this term is used in the Common tongue; as attested to both by the author and Gandalf.

'Uruks' is an anglicization. To prove differently you need to show that 's' is a plural marker in Westron (or Black Speech).

As the index in UT says:
"Uruks Anglicized form of Uruk-hai of the Black Speech; a race of Orcs of great size and strength."

 

[Snaga]

Uruk-hai is only used of the great-soldier orcs from Mordor and and Isengard. The Uruk-hai are never _directly_ referred to as any sort of half-orc in LotR. When referring to Uruk-hai directly, they are always termed as 'Orcs' or 'Goblins'.

Wrong. It never clearly refers to Mordor orcs, except in your one confused example.

At Helms Deep we have Gamling describing Saruman's forces as 'half orcs and goblin-men'; and later both Merry and Aragorn attest to their presence. And yet the narrator only ever uses the term 'Orc' in the entire chapter. But these Orcs, who must therefore include men-orcs and orc-men, repeatedly call themselves the Uruk-Hai. It clearly refers to all of them.

The Orcs were referring to the events at Cirith Ungol. To prove that the "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to Isengarders, evidence must be presented that Isengarders were involved or believed to be involved in the events at Cirith Ungol.

Wrong again. I do not have to prove any such thing. I have already said that the Orcs were referring to events at Cirith Ungol, but misidentifying their quarry, for whatever reason. I have presented numerous reasons how this might come about. In order for you to prove your presumption you would have to prove that (a) Shagrat correctly reported events at Cirith Ungol; and (b) he was correctly understood; and (c) that those that he reported to correctly passed on this information to the tracker and soldier orc; and (d) that these two both understood this information; and (e) that they were not being sarcastic in their conversation.

'Uruks' is an anglicization. To prove differently you need to show that 's' is a plural marker in Westron (or Black Speech).

I did that already. The Gandalf example, or the 'tarks' example.

As for CT's index in UT, I will stick to the author's own words.

 

[aragil]

LOL! I should know better by now, but ...

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Uruk-hai is only used of the great-soldier orcs from Mordor and and Isengard. The Uruk-hai are never _directly_ referred to as any sort of half-orc in LotR. When referring to Uruk-hai directly, they are always termed as 'Orcs' or 'Goblins'.

Given the 'circumstantial' evidence surrounding the references, I don't think any direct statement need be made. If we were to put this to a vote, I'd be willing to bet that 90% or more of the forum would agree that the Uruk-hai of Isengard are orc/human hybrids. Any takers?

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Shagrat correctly reported the facts from his onwn observations. Frodo is not mis-identified. Sam was believed to be an Elf-warrior based on the observation of the evidence.

LOL!! And what hidden tome contains Shagrat's report, that you can so confidently state exactly what he said?

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
No, it is not unclear. The Orcs were referring to the events at Cirith Ungol. To prove that the "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to Isengarders, evidence must be presented that Isengarders were involved or believed to be involved in the events at Cirith Ungol.

Oh excellent- we now get to dictate what the other side must prove in order to have a convincing argument!! Glad you came up with such an unbiased test for proof- you must be worried that you've now made your own case so much more difficult!

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
'Uruks' is an anglicization. To prove differently you need to show that 's' is a plural marker in Westron (or Black Speech).
As the index in UT says:
"Uruks Anglicized form of Uruk-hai of the Black Speech; a race of Orcs of great size and strength."

'Uruks' could as well be an orcization, or anything else. Snaga doesn't need to prove anything. And please, before you Trotter out the UT index again, can we acknowledge that it is copyrighted by Christopher Tolkien, not JRR? Perhaps it comes from JRRT's notes, perhaps not- there is no way to tell.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Snaga
Wrong. It never clearly refers to Mordor orcs, except in your one confused example.

The example is not confused. The evidence from LotR has been directly quoted. To prove that the "rebel Uruk-hai" does not refer to Orc's in Sauron's service you need to provide evidence that other Orcs (Isengarders) were were involved in or belived to be involved in the events at Cirith Ungol.

Or should I thank you for admitting that the example I provided is the one place it does clearly refer to Mordor Orcs?

At Helms Deep we have Gamling describing Saruman's forces as 'half orcs and goblin-men'; and later both Merry and Aragorn attest to their presence. And yet the narrator only ever uses the term 'Orc' in the entire chapter. But these Orcs, who must therefore include men-orcs and orc-men, repeatedly call themselves the Uruk-Hai. It clearly refers to all of them.

Gamling describes some of Sauron's forces as half-orcs and goblin-men. Gamling does not directly refer to Saruman's Uruk-hai as half-orcs and goblin-men hence my statement was correct. Merry and Aragorn refer to the half-orcs and goblin faced men march seperately from and are distinguished from the Orcs.

"'Then all at once there was a tremendous stir. Trumpets blared and the walls of Isengard echoed. We thought that we had been discovered, and that battle was going to begin. But nothing of the sort. All Saruman's people were marching away. I don't know much about this war, or about the Horsemen of Rohan, but Saruman seems to have meant to finish off the king and all his men with one final blow. 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. Do you know, they reminded me at once of that Southerner at Bree: only he was not so obviously orc-like as most of these were.'
'I thought of him too,' said Aragorn. 'We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep. It seems plain now that that Southerner was a spy of Saruman's; but whether he was working with the Black Riders, or for Saruman alone, I do not know. It is difficult with these evil folk to know when they are in league, and when they are cheating one another.'"

This is further made clear by the description in 'Fords of Isen'.

Wrong again. I do not have to prove any such thing. I have already said that the Orcs were referring to events at Cirith Ungol, but misidentifying their quarry, for whatever reason. I have presented numerous reasons how this might come about. In order for you to prove your presumption you would have to prove that (a) Shagrat correctly reported events at Cirith Ungol; and (b) he was correctly understood; and (c) that those that he reported to correctly passed on this information to the tracker and soldier orc; and (d) that these two both understood this information; and (e) that they were not being sarcastic in their conversation.

No, I am correct. I have provided direct quotes showing that the information that was known to Shagrat is entirely consistant with the information relayed in the conversation between the soldier and tracker.
No one has been able to provide evidence that Isengarders were present or believed to be present at Cirith Ungol and thus "rebel Uruk-hai" referred to Isengarders.

I did that already. The Gandalf example, or the 'tarks' example.

'Uruks' as used by Gandalf is 'anglicization'. 'Tark' is a debased form of the Quenya 'tarkil'. 'Tarks' is an anglicization. If you can provide evidence that 's' is a plural marker in either of these speech forms I am sure the various Tolkien linguistic experts, including those authorized by the Estate, would be delighted to know, would be delighted to know.

As for CT's index in UT, I will stick to the author's own words.

As CT said:
"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
"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."

Providing evidence that other Orcs (Isengarders) were believed to be involved in the events at Cirith Ungol is the only way to prove that "rebel Uruk-hai" does not refer to Sauron's Orcs.
What the soldier and tracker had to say is entirely consistant with what Shagrat knew (and what could be observed at Cirith Ungol).

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
LOL! I should know better by now, but ...
Given the 'circumstantial' evidence surrounding the references, I don't think any direct statement need be made. If we were to put this to a vote, I'd be willing to bet that 90% or more of the forum would agree that the Uruk-hai of Isengard are orc/human hybrids. Any takers?

Argumentum ad populum.
And a strawman to boot.

LOL!! And what hidden tome contains Shagrat's report, that you can so confidently state exactly what he said?[

What the soldier and tracker conversed about is entirely consistant with the information Shagrat would have had. I have quoted the relevant passages above.

Oh excellent- we now get to dictate what the other side must prove in order to have a convincing argument!! Glad you came up with such an unbiased test for proof- you must be worried that you've now made your own case so much more difficult!

Ad hominem attacks render your argument less than credible.

As the key portion of this argument is contained in the phrase "rebel Uruk-hai" and I have provided evidence that it refers to the events at Cirith Ungol and using direct quotes from LotR have shown what knowledge Shagrat would have had and what would have been observed at Cirith Ungol, and that this is entirely consistant with the "rebel Uruk-hai" passage my argument is made.
On the otherside is the argument that "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to Isengarders. I have requested evidence that Isengarders were present or believed to be present at Cirith Ungol, just like the Elf-warrior and small sort of dwarf-man were present or believed to be present at Cirith Ungol. So far no such evidence has ever been provided here or in any other forum or newsgroup where I have discussed this.

'Uruks' could as well be an orcization, or anything else. Snaga doesn't need to prove anything. And please, before you Trotter out the UT index again, can we acknowledge that it is copyrighted by Christopher Tolkien, not JRR? Perhaps it comes from JRRT's notes, perhaps not- there is no way to tell.

Another strawman.
There is no attested plural marker 's' in the languages of Middle-earth. What CT says about the index re. explanations (and what he does not say) has been quoted.

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Argumentum ad populum.
And a strawman to boot.

Populate the forum with all the strawmen you care to. I'm not sure what you think the point of posting here is, but you are not convincing anyone of your argument. If you think that you can prove that Gamling's reference does not refer to Uruk-hai, then let's start a poll. Otherwise you are stuck with Argumentum ad unum.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
What the soldier and tracker conversed about is entirely consistant with the information Shagrat would have had. I have quoted the relevant passages above.

However, what has been said ad infinitum on this thread (and here it is yet again- for all the good it seemingly does) is that the orcs were clearly unsatisfied with their orders. There is clearly room for ambiguity here, whether you see it or not.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Ad hominem attacks render your argument less than credible.

I wasn't aware that I had made any. What I did do is point out that you are entirely stacking the deck in your favor: "To prove that the "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to Isengarders, evidence must be presented that Isengarders were involved or believed to be involved in the events at Cirith Ungol." And who, besides you, ordains that this and no other constitutes proof? Make up all the rules you want, but don't lecture me on credibility.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
As the key portion of this argument is contained in the phrase "rebel Uruk-hai" and I have provided evidence that it refers to the events at Cirith Ungol and using direct quotes from LotR have shown what knowledge Shagrat would have had and what would have been observed at Cirith Ungol, and that this is entirely consistant with the "rebel Uruk-hai" passage my argument is made.
On the otherside is the argument that "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to Isengarders. I have requested evidence that Isengarders were present or believed to be present at Cirith Ungol, just like the Elf-warrior and small sort of dwarf-man were present or believed to be present at Cirith Ungol. So far no such evidence has ever been provided here or in any other forum or newsgroup where I have discussed this.

You have made this your main argument because, frankly, without it you don't have anything tying Uruk-hai to Mordor. However, the fact that there is so much ambiguity (whether you choose to admit it or not) makes the whole argument rather weak. I'm happy to allow that your interpretation is valid- I've even done some justice (IMO) to the "Uruks=anglicized Uruk-hai" argument in another thread. However, my reading of this passage will never be that it refers accurately to Gorbag's lot. This just takes away too much from the reading- the fun here is that the bad guys (From the Big Bosses to the Tracker and Soldier) are completely befuddled as to what is happening in the world around them. "Whose is the Kingly face in the Palantir?" "Why does the wind turn against them at Pelannor?" "What has nearly killed Shelob?" "What has decimated the entire Tower of Cirith Ungol- was it an Elf, a Dwarf, a Pack of Rebels, the whole lot of them acting in concert?" Mordor has no clue, and that is the joy of the passage!! Your pursuit of which report could have been made where and when by whom probably provides some scholarly satisfaction, but (IMO) it misses out on the true enjoyment of Tolkien's written word. So by all means, if you are not impressed with the coincidence of Ugluk's Uruk-hai attacking Sauron's troops to abduct M&P, and the Soldier's accusation that Uruk-hai have attacked Cirith Ungol to get at yet another prisoner, then keep asking for proof. I'll be here enjoying the work.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Another strawman.
There is no attested plural marker 's' in the languages of Middle-earth. What CT says about the index re. explanations (and what he does not say) has been quoted.

Strawman indeed! The truth is that there is a grand total of one passage of what can be called true BS (the Ring inscription), and one passage of Orcish (the Moria Orc's insult to Ugluk) in the entire corpus. Again, it is very easy to make demands for proof when you know there will be none forthcoming. The 's' ending seems to be applied rather frequently to Black Speech words. Given the extreme paucity of actual grammar rules for BS, this is as close to evidence as anyone will ever get.
As for UT, the fact remains that we do not know if the definition came from CT or JRRT- we're all aware of the evidence. As Cian said some time ago, JRRT's original notes for the index are going to be published, so there is some hope for closure here. However, as I have pointed out before, the actual index for LotR seems to differentiate the terms 'uruks' an 'uruk-hai'. Hardly evidence in your favor.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

As an aside:

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Ad hominem attacks render your argument less than credible

Aragil responded:
I wasn't aware that I had made any. What I did do is point out that you are entirely stacking the deck in your favor:...

My initial statement was in responce to this:

aragil wrote:
Oh excellent- we now get to dictate what the other side must prove in order to have a convincing argument!! Glad you came up with such an unbiased test for proof- you must be worried that you've now made your own case so much more difficult!

"you must be worried that you've now made your own case so much more difficult!"

This is an ad hominem.

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
"you must be worried that you've now made your own case so much more difficult!"
This is an ad hominem.

It's admittedly sarcastic and smart-alecky (I prefer 'wry observation'), but it is not intended as (nor do I think it is) an attack.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
Populate the forum with all the strawmen you care to. I'm not sure what you think the point of posting here is, but you are not convincing anyone of your argument. If you think that you can prove that Gamling's reference does not refer to Uruk-hai, then let's start a poll. Otherwise you are stuck with Argumentum ad unum.

The argument was a strawman because it was not about whether the Isengarders were hybrids or not, it was about _direct_ references to them as Half-orcs etc. Gamling's statement is an implied reference, which people infer as referring to the Uruk-hai.

Do you speak for everyone?

However, what has been said ad infinitum on this thread (and here it is yet again- for all the good it seemingly does) is that the orcs were clearly unsatisfied with their orders. There is clearly room for ambiguity here, whether you see it or not.

No ambiguity in the orders given based on the events at Cirith Ungol. It was believed there was an Elf warrior on the loose (Snaga even saw it). Frodo is a sort of small dwarf-man. Some of Sauron's Orcs rebelled. All three of those fit with what the tracker and soldier were told to look for.
No Isengarders present, no evidence of Isengarders present.
Reason to send scouting parties out to look Sam, Frodo and any of Sauron's Uruk-hai that rebelled and may have escaped. No reason to send them out to look for Isengarders.

What I did do is point out that you are entirely stacking the deck in your favor: "To prove that the "rebel Uruk-hai" refers to Isengarders, evidence must be presented that Isengarders were involved or believed to be involved in the events at Cirith Ungol." And who, besides you, ordains that this and no other constitutes proof? Make up all the rules you want, but don't lecture me on credibility.

It is the only way to prove the argument. It is as simple as that.

You have made this your main argument because, frankly, without it you don't have anything tying Uruk-hai to Mordor.

Wrong. App.E, a letter and the index to UT.

Strawman indeed!

Correct. This:
"And please, before you Trotter out the UT index again, can we acknowledge that it is copyrighted by Christopher Tolkien, not JRR?"
is a strawman, no argument was being made about who holds the copyright. Indeed The Silmarillion, and HoME are all copyrighted by CT (et. al.).

The truth is that there is a grand total of one passage of what can be called true BS (the Ring inscription), and one passage of Orcish (the Moria Orc's insult to Ugluk) in the entire corpus. Again, it is very easy to make demands for proof when you know there will be none forthcoming. The 's' ending seems to be applied rather frequently to Black Speech words. Given the extreme paucity of actual grammar rules for BS, this is as close to evidence as anyone will ever get.

The truth is that 's' is an english plural marker and is used as an Anglicization in any number of words throughout the corpus.

As for UT, the fact remains that we do not know if the definition came from CT or JRRT- we're all aware of the evidence. As Cian said some time ago, JRRT's original notes for the index are going to be published, so there is some hope for closure here. However, as I have pointed out before, the actual index for LotR seems to differentiate the terms 'uruks' an 'uruk-hai'. Hardly evidence in your favor.

CT took definitions and explanations from his father's index to put the UT index together.
As I have pointed out, the index to LotR differentiates the terms 'Elf' and 'Elven-folk'.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
It's admittedly sarcastic and smart-alecky (I prefer 'wry observation'), but it is not intended as (nor do I think it is) an attack.

It is a direct and derogatory comment on me personally, not my argument, and presented as though it has some relevance to my argument. That is an ad hominem attack.

 

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
"you must be worried that you've now made your own case so much more difficult!"

This is an ad hominem.

If you consider that an ad hominem, I must ask, do your internal organs ever just spontaneously burst through your gauze-thin skin?

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
The argument was a strawman because it was not about whether the Isengarders were hybrids or not, it was about _direct_ references to them as Half-orcs etc. Gamling's statement is an implied reference, which people infer as referring to the Uruk-hai. Do you speak for everyone?

I have no idea how many I speak for. However, it appears to me that two noted members of this thread (jallan and ShagratU) would both side with you for Uruks=Uruk-hai, but would agree with me that Gamling was referring to the Uruk-hai with his statement. As far as I know, you're the only one who cares that there is no 'direct' statement, nor should we expect there to be. According to the "Uruk-hai=human/orc hybrids" theory, the Uruk-hai are a new race, so the non-orcish characters wouldn't know what to call them other than 'half-orcs', etc. The forces of darkness refer to them as 'Uruk-hai'. Who would be left to make a direct statement that "uruk-hai=half-orcs"? I would say this is your very own strawman. If you're curious as to whether or not I speak for everyone, then why don't we follow my suggestion and have a poll? I'm sure it would be informative.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
No ambiguity in the orders given based on the events at Cirith Ungol. It was believed there was an Elf warrior on the loose (Snaga even saw it). Frodo is a sort of small dwarf-man. Some of Sauron's Orcs rebelled. All three of those fit with what the tracker and soldier were told to look for.
No Isengarders present, no evidence of Isengarders present.
Reason to send scouting parties out to look Sam, Frodo and any of Sauron's Uruk-hai that rebelled and may have escaped. No reason to send them out to look for Isengarders.

Snaga did not see an elf-wariior because none existed. It was a mistaken identity. If mistaken identities don't result in ambiguity, than what does?

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Wrong. App.E, a letter and the index to UT.

I'll assume you meant appendix F, which never says anything about "Mordor Uruk-hai". The letter refers to Germans, Japanese, and some English- still no reference to Mordor Uruk-hai. The index for UT 1) is not authoratative; and 2)mentions nothing of Mordor Uruk-hai.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
The truth is that 's' is an english plural marker and is used as an Anglicization in any number of words throughout the corpus.

The truth is that 's' is also a plural marker in many real world languages. It could also be a plural marker in one of Tolkien's languages- there's simply no evidence for or against it.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
CT took definitions and explanations from his father's index to put the UT index together.
As I have pointed out, the index to LotR differentiates the terms 'Elf' and 'Elven-folk'.

I would think the point here is that we don't know which definitions come from CT and which from JRRT. As easy as it is for you to assume that 'Uruk-hai' is one of JRRT's, it is equally easy for me to assume otherwise. As there is yet no definitive word on which it is, I suggest you stop pushing your assumption around the thread and wait for Wayne Hammond's final word on the matter, like the rest of us.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
It is a direct and derogatory comment on me personally, not my argument, and presented as though it has some relevance to my argument. That is an ad hominem attack.

It is not about you, it is about the method you employ in your argument. If you consider it to be derogatory, then I recommend you adopt a new style! If you're going to sit there and declare what needs to be proved, and do so in such a way that clearly favors your own argument, then you should be aware that some will see the humor in this. Sorry to offend, but it was most definitely NOT a derogatory comment towards you, but a bit of a chuckle at your style of arguing.

Originally posted by Parrot
If you consider that an ad hominem, I must ask, do your internal organs ever just spontaneously burst through your gauze-thin skin?

That was quite funny! Was it extremely funny? I don't know- let's ask T-E!

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
I have no idea how many I speak for.

Then why make the claim:
"you are not convincing anyone of your argument"?

However, it appears to me that two noted members of this thread (jallan and ShagratU) would both side with you for Uruks=Uruk-hai, but would agree with me that Gamling was referring to the Uruk-hai with his statement. As far as I know, you're the only one who cares that there is no 'direct' statement, nor should we expect there to be. According to the "Uruk-hai=human/orc hybrids" theory, the Uruk-hai are a new race, so the non-orcish characters wouldn't know what to call them other than 'half-orcs', etc. The forces of darkness refer to them as 'Uruk-hai'. Who would be left to make a direct statement that "uruk-hai=half-orcs"?

There is no direct reference to the Uruk-hai in LotR (or elsewhere in the corpus) as 'half-orcs'. I pointed that out in responce to Snaga's argument that:
"Here, the distinction between orcs and half-orcs is imperfectly observed, and the term Uruk-Hai is used without distinction."
You attempted to change that to argument about Isengarders being hybrids:
"If we were to put this to a vote, I'd be willing to bet that 90% or more of the forum would agree that the Uruk-hai of Isengard are orc/human hybrids".

That is why it is a strawman.

I would say this is your very own strawman.

My argument is not a strawman. Snaga stated that "the term Uruk-Hai is used without distinction". I pointed out the distinction, the Uruk-hai are never _directly_ referred to as half-orcs (and the converse is true as well, half-orcs are never referred to as Uruk-hai, indeed when directly referred to the 'half-orcs' are never referred to as orcs but rather as men). When directly referred to in either narrative or authorial voice they are always Orcs or Goblins.

Snaga did not see an elf-wariior because none existed. It was a mistaken identity. If mistaken identities don't result in ambiguity, than what does?

"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."

Snaga says he did see an Elf (or a tark). What he did not see was a hobbit (nor did he see an Isengarder).

I'll assume you meant appendix F, which never says anything about "Mordor Uruk-hai". The letter refers to Germans, Japanese, and some English- still no reference to Mordor Uruk-hai. The index for UT 1) is not authoratative; and 2)mentions nothing of Mordor Uruk-hai.

They all back up my assertion in that they show that Uruk-hai are not exclusive to Isengard.
1) Yes it is authoritative.
2) It includes all the great-soldier orcs, Mordorean or Isengarder.

The truth is that 's' is also a plural marker in many real world languages. It could also be a plural marker in one of Tolkien's languages- there's simply no evidence for or against it.

Certainly there is evidence against it. The index explanation in UT that Uruks is an anglicization, and that JRRT commonly uses anglicizations in the same manner.

I would think the point here is that we don't know which definitions come from CT and which from JRRT. As easy as it is for you to assume that 'Uruk-hai' is one of JRRT's, it is equally easy for me to assume otherwise. As there is yet no definitive word on which it is, I suggest you stop pushing your assumption around the thread and wait for Wayne Hammond's final word on the matter, like the rest of us.

Your assumption would be 'less easy', because CT does not state that any of the 'definitions' are his.

It is not about you, it is about the method you employ in your argument. If you consider it to be derogatory, then I recommend you adopt a new style! If you're going to sit there and declare what needs to be proved, and do so in such a way that clearly favors your own argument, then you should be aware that some will see the humor in this. Sorry to offend, but it was most definitely NOT a derogatory comment towards you, but a bit of a chuckle at your style of arguing.

Then you should have addressed the argument and not directed your 'comment' at me. You stated: "you must be worried that you've now made your own case so much more difficult!".
Again, that was directed at me personally, not my argument.

That was quite funny! Was it extremely funny? I don't know- let's ask T-E!

Interesting. You state that you were not making an ad hominem, you apologize for offending, you claim that your statement was not derogatory, and then when another poster makes an ad hominem attack you encourage it by declaring how funny it was.

 

[Bombadillodillo]

Wow,

And the debate is still waged.

First post:

01-19-2002 11:15 PM.

 

[Lantarion]

Listen, this is a very interesting and difficult thread and it warrants further discussion. It does not, however, warrant the kind of behaviour exhibited. So please either calm down and stop poking at each others' ribs, and discuss the matter in an orderly fashion; or the thread will be closed and re-opened at a further date.
Agreed? Now let's continue - and any further attacks or rib-poking will event in the closing of the thread.

Originally posted by aragil
The truth is that 's' is also a plural marker in many real world languages. It could also be a plural marker in one of Tolkien's languages- there's simply no evidence for or against it.

Tar-Elenion, you countered this very well. Can we now then say that 'Uruks' is an Anglicized form of the Black-speech 'Uruk-hai', referring to the same race of Orcs?
Here is the direct quote from UT:

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

It is my opinion and observation that Tolkien uses the terms Uruk-hai and Uruk(s) interchangably throughout his texts. It is similar to the question of capitalization of names of races or people (e.g. hobbits and Hobbits), and as I see it Tolkien merely wanted to maintain a steady flow of English in certain passages where the term Uruk-hai might have been too alien a word to use properly, for example in describing a battle scene or chase, and that the use of the word would have ended the consistant continuity of the written language.

 

[Snaga]

Originally Posted By Tar-Elenion
'Uruks' as used by Gandalf is 'anglicization'. 'Tark' is a debased form of the Quenya 'tarkil'. 'Tarks' is an anglicization.

I didnt realise that Gandalf spoke English. Or that the orcs did! It seems to me they were both speaking Westron. As were the Isengarders when they used "Uruk-Hai", or indeed the soldier and tracker!

Why anglicise in some dialogue and not in others? It is illogical and inconsistent.

Even the cases where the narratorial voice uses 'uruks' it is italised, to indicate it is NOT an english word. It would be bizarre to use a word from B.S. or orcish, not translate it into English, but then add an -s on as a plural marker, if that is not the right word. If any of the linguistic experts who you are relying upon can show that Tolkien italices words which are anglicization, and not the correct form, then that might be more convincing than your unproven assertion.

 

[Lantarion]

In case you didn't realize, the whole of the LotR is written in English - hence the characters 'speak' English but truly are talking in Westron. Tolkien provides Anglicizations for the reader so that the text flows better.
And your point on the italicized tect was rather unclear, but here is a passage where 'Uruks' is used without it being italicized:

From 'Unfinished Tales', The battles of the Fords of Isen
Behind them came two battalions of the fierce Uruks, heavily armed but trained to move at great speed for many miles. [...]

The same page includes many references to Uruks, being unitalicized.

I don't see what that proves though; italicized or not, 'Uruks' seems to indicate the same thing as 'Uruk-hai'.

 

[Melko Belcha]

This is the only thing I have ever found that Tolkien wrote about Saruman breeding Half-orcs.

Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed
There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile.

There is no mention of Uruk-hai, only Men-orcs and Orc-men.

From LotR and UT we know that the southerner at Bree had Orc blood, and from UT we learn that Orc-men fought at The Battle of the Fords of Isen.

Unfinished Tales - The Hunt for the Ring
Some while ago one of Saruman's most trusted servants (yet a ruffianly fellow, an outlaw driven from Dunland, where many said that he had Orc-blood) had returned from the borders of the Shire, where he had been negotiating for the purpose of "leaf" and other supplies............This Dunlending was overtaken by seceral of the Black Riders as they approached the Tharbad crossing...........The Witch-king had now a clearer understanding of the matter........Seeing that his Master suspected some move between the Shire and Bree (the position of which he knew) would be an important point, at least for information. He put therefore the Shadow of fear on the Dunlending, and sent him on to Bree as an agent. He was the squint-eyed southerner at the Inn. *C.T. note: See The Fellowship of the Ring. When Strider and the Hobbits left Bree Frodo caught a glimpse of the Dunlending ("a swallow face with sly, slanting eyes") in Bill Ferny's house on the outskirts of Bree, and thought: "He looks more than half like a goblin."*

Unfinished Tales - The Battle of the Fords of Isen
The Garrison of the east bank surprised by the sudden assault of the massed 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....

We learn from Merry and Aragorn that half-orcs fought at Helm's Deep.

TTT - Flotsam and Jetsam
'But there were others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed. Do you know, they reminded me at once of that Southerner at Bree, only he was not so obviously orc-like as most of these were.'
'I thought of him too,' said Aragorn. 'We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep.'

Merry says that the men he saw were more orc-like then the southerner at Bree, so the southerner at Bree must have been a Man-orc, while the ones he saw marching from Isengard were Orc-men.

The ruffians in the Shire were also half-orcs.

RotK - The Scouring of the Shire
...they were disturbed to see half a dozen large ill-favored Men lounging against the inn-wall; they were squint-eyed and sallow-faced.
'Like that friend of Bill Ferny's at Bree,' said Sam.
'Like many that I saw at Isengard,' muttered Merry

RotK - The Scouring of the Shire
Merry himself slew the leader, a great squint-eyed brute like a huge orc.

It dosn't just come out and say it, but putting the quotes together, Frodo thought the southerner in Bree looked half like a goblin, then Merry and Aragorn both thought of the southerner when they saw the half-orcs (Aragorn's words) of Isengard, and then Sam thought of the southerner from Bree when he saw the ruffians in the Shire, and Merry thought of the men he saw at Isengard.

Nowhere is the any reference to Uruk-hai in any of those quotes. Neither Aragorn or Merry thought of the Uruk-hai when they saw the half-orcs at Helm's Deep or Isengard, they thought of the southerner at Bree (who from UT we know has Orc-blood). Merry didn't think of the Uruk-hai when he saw the ruffians in the Shire, he thought of the half-orcs (Aragorn's words) that he saw at Isengard.

In HoME 9: Sauron Defeated we see that Tolkien actually had written Orc-men for the ruffians in The Scouring of the Shire, why he removed Orc-men CT does not say, but the description of the ruffians and the Orc-men remained the same.

Sauron Defeated - The Scouring of the Shire.
'Well, I am staggered,' said Pippin. 'Of all the ends to our journey this is that last I expected: to fight half-orcs in the Shire itself to rescue Cosimo the Pimple of all people!'

The hobbits drew their swords and pressed near him; but he backed away. Very orc-like all his movements were, and he stooped now with his hands nearly touching the ground.

The orc-man looked at them with such a leer of hatred as they had not seen in all their adventures.

And then as with a groan and a curse the orc-man [?toppled] over him he stabbed upwards, and Sting passed clean through his body.

If they gave themselves up they were kindly treated, and fed (for they were usually half-starved after hiding in the woods), and then shown to the borders. This sort were Dunlendings, not orc-men/half-breeds, who had originally come because their own land was wretched, and Saruman had told them there was a good country with plenty to eat away North.

The chief of the orcish men at Bywater said that he had told the Boss that it was no good sending hobbits, and that the men ought to have gone, but the Boss had said no.

(C. Tolkien) The original reading of C 'Merry himself slew the largest of the ruffians' was altered to '...the leader, a great squint-eyed brute like a huge orc'; with this cf. the description of the orc-man 'Sharkey' at Bag End in the A version. (The A version I have given above)