Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

[Tar-Elenion]

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

The simple fact is Ar-Adunakhor is listed as the nineteenth ruler in App. A. He later said to be the 20th. One or the other is wrong, hence an error. This is fully explained by CT. Anyone with the texts can read them and make up their own mind.
If you do not think that the error is corrected, that is your choice.

The context of why CT changed the words needs to be taken into consideration. He more than adequately explains.

That you have a problem with 'secondary sources' is your concern. The 'secondary' sources can complement and clarify the 'primary', giving a vastly greater knowledge of what the intent of the author was. Your whole problem with the secondary sources seems to be that when they do not agree with your personal interpretation of something, you simply dismiss them. While this tactic is sometimes used in the field of Tolkien debate and discussion, it is not good scholarship. If a passage directly contradicts something in the 'canon' (LotR, RGEO, and arguably 'A Guide to Names', with secondary status given to the Hobbit and AoTB (since the context they were written and presented in needs to be taken into consideration), then it can likely be dissmissed (although not always), I could give some examples, and if you want to start another thread on the subject I _might_. However when it does not contradict LotR etc it should be carefully considered and used, particularly with the late works such as the 'Fords of Isen', which was actually written after the 2nd edition of LotR. Your dismissal of various texts simply because they do not agree with your personal position is irrelevant. Your attempts to 'frame' a debate in such a manner that your position can not be countered, is taking the easy way out.

As for 'word games', 'annoying', and other the such specious remarks that you keep directing at me, feel free to continue with them, if it makes you feel better. I will simply ignore them.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Re: Exploring possibilities

Originally posted by aragil
Just taking a few moments here to try to address UT, and bring possibilities into the larger context of the thread:

In Morgoth's ring, Tolkien says, regarding Saruman:

"Finally, there is a cogent point though horrible to relate. It became clear in time that undoubted Men could under the domination of Morgoth or his agents in a few generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning. 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: interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile..."

I read from this passage that Saruman created two reasonably distinct offspring from his breeding program, men-orcs and orc-men. I would say that orc-men were mostly mannish, and they were probably useful as spies since they could blend in with men (think Bree and the scouring of the Shire). The other variety would be men-orcs, probably mostly orcish, who would be more disciplined than regular orcs, and would be sun-tolerant (if that did not already exist).

While 'Orc-men' and 'Man-orcs' are noted to have been produced by Saruman in MR, the term is applied to only _some_ of Saruman's troops, I do not think this applies to Saruman's Uruks. As has been noted, JRRT does not say that Saruman bred Men and Orcs to produce Uruk-hai, or even use the term Uruk-hai, in the essay.

Now, regarding the often-quoted passage from UT:

"In its van were some Dunlending horsemen and a great pack of the dreadful Orcish wolfriders, feared by horses. Behind them came two battalions of the fierce Uruks... The garrison of the east bank, surprised by the sudden assault of the massed Uruks was swept away... they were driven from the Fords... with the Uruks in pursuit".
"As soon as the enemy had gained possession of the eastern end of the Fords there appeard a company of men or orc-men (evidently dispatched for the purpose), ferocious, mail-clad, and armed with axes... Theodred fell, hewn down by a great orc-man."

Notice that the distinction here is the uruks and orc-men. Man-orcs are not mentioned, but uruks are. If man-orcs were bred from uruks (what other variety of orc would Saruman use, the whimpy kind?), it would (in my opinion) be fair to refer to them as uruks. If Tolkien distinguished between orc-men and men-orcs in Morgoth's ring, it would be fair to do so now. I believe this is exactly what he is doing here- the uruks are the 'men-orcs', and the orc-men are, well, the orc-men.

But we also have two different types of possible crossbreeds mentioned in LotR those 'goblin-faced men' and the 'Southerner' who was less horrible looking (see my quote below). These could fall into the 'orc-man' and 'man-orc' catagories as well. Once again this leaves the Uruk-hai as distinct.

Are there passages in the LotR proper where uruks are equated with man-orcs? Yes- in Helm's Deep. Two passages follow:

"But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun."

and

"The Orcs yelled and jeered. 'Come down! Come down!' they cried. 'If you wish to speak to us, come down! Bring out your king! We are the fighting Uruk-hai. We will fetch him from his hole, if he does not come down. Bring out your skulking king!'
" 'The king stays or comes at his own will,' said Aragorn.
" 'Then what are you doing here?' they answered. 'Why do you look out? Do you wish to see the greatness of our army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai.'
" 'I looked out to see the dawn,' said Aragorn.
" 'What of the dawn?' they jeered. 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. .... "

There is another passage from Flotsam and Jetsam:
Merry describes the marching of Saruman's troops: " 'He emptied Isengard. I saw the enemy go: endless lines of marching Orcs; and troops of them mounted on great wolves. And there were battalions of Men, too. Many of them carried torches, and in the flare I could see their faces. Most of them were ordinary men, rather tall and dark-haired, and grim but not particularly evil-looking. But there were some others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed.
"'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 the Southerner was a spy of Saruman's...'".

Both of these passages are in reference to (or spoken by) the troops of Saruman. In one case we have a character in the story refering to Saruman's troops as half-breeds who can withstand the light of day, and in context it seems to be the peculiar property of half-breed orcs that they can withstand sunlight. It could be argued that Gamling is wrong -the creatures of Saruman aren't half breeds but Uruks who could ordinarily withstand sunlight. I would object by noting that Aragorn is right there. Aragorn definitely knows all about Uruks- he fought in Southern Gondor in his youth, he claims to know more about orc-kind than any man in Middle-Earth, and he recently fought Uruks in Moria (Gandalf gave the positive ID). The only way that Gamling would be wrong is if Tolkien were intentionally trying to mislead the reader by having Gamling speak out of ignorance, and then choosing to have Aragorn remain silent.

However Gamling also states the obvious in that passage:
"But these creatures of Isengard, thes half-orcs and goblin-men, that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun... And neither will the men of the hills". Aragorn certainly knows that the hill men are not effected by the sun. Does Aragorn know about 'half-orcs' and 'goblin-men'? These are very recent 'creations'. Merry notes that 'goblin-faced men' marched from Isengard. And they did so seperately from Sauron's Orc troops.

Now, turning to the statements of the orcs, they say that both they are the Uruk-hai, and that they do not quail in the sunlight. There is no direct statement made here that they are orc-men or men-orcs. However, we can refer back to Gamling's statement. If 'normal' uruks could withstand the light of day, then Gamling would hardly need to narrate the fact that these orcs could withstand the light of day. Uruks were first seen in TA 2475, Rohan was established by Eorl in TA 2510. The whole history of Rohan occurs within the time that Uruks had been attacking Gondor. It would not only be reasonable to assume that Gamling was aware of Uruks, it would be unreasonable to assume that Gamling did not know of Uruks. By this line of logic I will now contend that the Uruk-hai are the same creatures that Gamling (and Treebeard, Aragorn, and Tolkien in Morgoth's ring) refers to as half-orcs.

The 'half-orcs' or 'goblin-men', march with Saruman's mannish troops (see Merry's statement above). Saruman's Uruks do not seem to have been mustered in mixed companies with Men. At Helm's Deep the Uruk-hai fight in their own units (and also in 'Fords of Isen', the Uruk battalions are seperate from those of the 'men' or 'orc-men' armed with axes).
Indeed the only places where Men and Orcs seem to intermix are the actual attempted storming of the Deeping Wall, and the wolf-riders seem to ride with some Dunlending horsemen among them, though I suppose it is possible that they only came into close proximity when they started their attack on the Rohir horseherds.

From Gamling's quote we can infer that uruks probably were affected by the sun. So either the orcs were idly boasting and were about to cower in the sun, or else they were saying that they would not cower in the sun, and hence were Saruman's half-orcs. Of course they also say that they are the Uruk-hai, which can be interpreted as either meaning that they are uruks with the special distinctions of being half-orcs and sun-tolerant, or else it could mean that Uruk-hai is a term quite separate from Uruk, and refers to the traits of being both half-orc and sun tolerant.

Try reading the what the Orcs are saying with a different emphasis. 'We are the FIGHTING Uruk-hai' (originally suggested by M. Read).
With that emphasis that are boasting about being the elite fighters of Orc-kind.

 

[Greenwood]

That you have a problem with 'secondary sources' is your concern. The 'secondary' sources can complement and clarify the 'primary', giving a vastly greater knowledge of what the intent of the author was. Your whole problem with the secondary sources seems to be that when they do not agree with your personal interpretation of something, you simply dismiss them. While this tactic is sometimes used in the field of Tolkien debate and discussion, it is not good scholarship. If a passage directly contradicts something in the 'canon' (LotR, RGEO, and arguably 'A Guide to Names', with secondary status given to the Hobbit and AoTB (since the context they were written and presented in needs to be taken into consideration), then it can likely be dissmissed (although not always), I could give some examples, and if you want to start another thread on the subject I _might_. However when it does not contradict LotR etc it should be carefully considered and used, particularly with the late works such as the 'Fords of Isen', which was actually written after the 2nd edition of LotR. Your dismissal of various texts simply because they do not agree with your personal position is irrelevant. Your attempts to 'frame' a debate in such a manner that your position can not be countered, is taking the easy way out.

Tar-Elenion

Let me first thank you for adopting the style of posting used by nearly everyone else on the forum. It is much easier to read and follow. I must leave shortly for other commitments so I cannot spend a long time on this post so I will try to be brief. You say above that my "whole problem" with secondary sources is that if they do not agree with my "personal interpretation" I "simply dismiss them". I will state out again, I pointed out the limitations of secondary sources on other threads before this current discussion started and I believe I have been consistent in arguing within the stated limits. As to the characterization (given extra emphasis by you) that I am defending my "personal interpretation", this is of course true. But, so are you. The difference is that I am basing my "personal interpretation" on words that can be proven to be JRR Tolkien's. You are basing your interpretation on words that you cannot demonstrate are any more than Christopher Tolkien's interpretation of his father's words. The words you base your interpretation on, in fact may not be even an interpretation of JRRT's words, but may in fact be CT's alone or CT may have based his interpretation on someone elses interpretation. (This was your own suggestion which you now say was not a serious one, but you give no reason why it should not be given serious consideration.)

In regard to secondary sources, you further state that this "tactic is sometimes used in the field of Tolkien debate and discussion, it is not good scholarship". First, I object to the characterization of the limits of secondary sources as merely being a "tactic". Second, from your statement "is sometimes used in the field of Tolkien debate and discussion" I am not alone in pointing out the limitations of Tolkien's posthumously published works. Might it be that you dismiss these limitations because they cause you problems in defending your interpretations? We will return to the question of "good scholarship" in a moment. First, let me discuss your statement: "However when it does not contradict LotR etc it should be carefully considered and used,". I am not entirely sure what your "etc" is referring to, but this statement is exactly what I have been saying in refard to secondary sources all along. When they do not contradict the primary source (LOTR), they can be "considered and used". The emphasis here should be on "considered" when there is no contradiction. They can be considered, but they are not definitive. Since they are not definitive, they cannot be used to contradict the primary source.

Finally, let us move on to your "good scholarship" comment, especially in your reference to the example you gave from Appendix A. As you say there is an inconsistency in LOTR in the Appendices. CT quotes a letter from his father (in not 11 of the section The Line of Elros in UT) in which his father recognizes the inconsistency. JRRT gives two possible reasons for it and says he does not know how it occurred and cannot then resolve it. JRRT obviously never considered the inconsistency important enough to resolve since this letter was written a couple oy years before the second edition of LOTR came out and the inconsistency was not resolved in it. In introduction to The Silmarillion, CT describes the problems of working with his fathers manuscripts, particularly because of his father's habit of extensively emending them. CT says that at times one change changes another and it is not always obvious which is the latest. Therefore CT must do the best he can and make choices. For this reason consistency between The Silmarillion and his father's published work is not to be expected or looked for. Do you think this problem magically disappeared when CT came to the manuscripts that went into UT? As for The Line of Elros section, in the introduction CT says that "it is a fine manuscript in which the dates of the Kings and Queens of Numenor and of their reigns have been copiously and sometimes obscurely emended: I have endeavoured to give the latest formulation". Once again a statement of the difficulyies of working with Tolkien's manuscripts and an admission that CT has used his own judgement and interpretation in producing the published text. In CT's note 11 that explains the "correction" you cite, CT again says he is using his own judgement and interpretation in an effort to remove the inconsistency. In citing this example you seem to have ignored the last sentence of CT's note: "It may be that a more complex situation underlies the passage than a mere error of omission." In other words, the "correction" may not be correct! As I pointed out in my earlier post these are not real people being chronicled here. There is no absolute truth. In his note 1 to The Line of Elros, CT also points to things in the manuscripts that are in contradiction to LOTR, though the manuscripts he refers to he also calls "the latest writing", evidently done long after LOTR. Apparently JRRT was changing his mind about things. All of the above highlights the limitations I (and apparently others) have pointed to in regard to using Tolkien's posthumously published work, i.e. Tolkien's style of extensive emendation, the difficulty of reading it, the fact that the final published version is another person's interpretation (not JRRT's), the fact that there may be missing texts and of course the fact that JRRT is free to change is mind. All of these facts place limitations on the use of Tolkien's posthumously published work. When I point oit these limitations and refuse to allow them to be used to refute JRRT's own words in LOTR, you accuse me of not using "good scholarship". I would say the reverse is the case.

So much for being brief.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Greenwood
Let me first thank you for adopting the style of posting used by nearly everyone else on the forum. It is much easier to read and follow. I must leave shortly for other commitments so I cannot spend a long time on this post so I will try to be brief.

You are welcome. I am grateful that someone [aragil] saw fit to explain them in a manner that a computer illiterate could follow in reply to my request regarding your complaint. It is much more convenient for me as well.

You say above that my "whole problem" with secondary sources is that if they do not agree with my "personal interpretation" I "simply dismiss them". I will state out again, I pointed out the limitations of secondary sources on other threads before this current discussion started and I believe I have been consistent in arguing within the stated limits.

I think the point here is that there are two alternative interpretations (if there were not there would be no debate). Nothing can be mutually resolved either way. One goes to the 'secondary' sources to clarify. For example one person can say Saruman's Uruk-hai are not Uruks. Another says they are and points to Appendix F. The responce might be that Uruks is not clearly used for Saruman's Uruk-hai. One then goes to the other sources in the Legendarium (preferably the latest, as this tends to show JRRT's final conception), such as 'Fords of Isen', and shows a clear use of 'Uruks' for Saruman's Uruk-hai. The limits stated seem to be those that you yourself have made. I did not agree to them. I see this as making an argument, saying 'prove me wrong', 'oh, by the way you can't actually use anything that proves me wrong'. The debate is either endless or pointless. An analogogy ws recently drawn for me: I challenge someone to a game of tennis. I have the best forehand in the world. I then say only forehand shots count (thanks G.). Loading the deck.

As to the characterization (given extra emphasis by you) that I am defending my "personal interpretation", this is of course true. But, so are you. The difference is that I am basing my "personal interpretation" on words that can be proven to be JRR Tolkien's. You are basing your interpretation on words that you cannot demonstrate are any more than Christopher Tolkien's interpretation of his father's words. The words you base your interpretation on, in fact may not be even an interpretation of JRRT's words, but may in fact be CT's alone or CT may have based his interpretation on someone elses interpretation. (This was your own suggestion which you now say was not a serious one, but you give no reason why it should not be given serious consideration.)

My 'suggestion', was not intended to be serious, merely to show the lengths that someone might go to, to dismiss something that does not agree with them, and hopefully forestall any such attempt. I do not think they should be given serious consideration because they either make CT a liar (which no one here has called him), or a plagiarist (which no one here has called him). CT has been very forthright on what he has changed and why. This was one of the reasons he has published his father's writings. Other active 'Tolkien scholars' have access to these manuscripts. There has been no indication from them that CT made anything up.

In regard to secondary sources, you further state that this "tactic is sometimes used in the field of Tolkien debate and discussion, it is not good scholarship". First, I object to the characterization of the limits of secondary sources as merely being a "tactic". Second, from your statement "is sometimes used in the field of Tolkien debate and discussion" I am not alone in pointing out the limitations of Tolkien's posthumously published works.

There are limitations. That is why it needs to be taken in context. Sometimes a secondary source simply contradicts, or is way to early to be taken seriously. Sometimes it clarifies. However when a 'secondary' source clarifies a 'primary' and it is then dismissed, this tends to be because it does not agree with a personal point of veiw. This is bad scholarship. This can be taken to an extreme. I do not believe Gandalf is an 'angelic' spirit (a Maia), prove to me that he is. Passages are cited from HoME, Letters, UT. I say 'you can not use those'. They are secondary sources. CT made them, JRRT did not publish them, they muddle LotR, LotR never says Gandalf is a Maia, JRRT could have changed his mind. You can only use LotR.

Might it be that you dismiss these limitations because they cause you problems in defending your interpretations? First, let me discuss your statement: "However when it does not contradict LotR etc it should be carefully considered and used,". I am not entirely sure what your "etc" is referring to, but this statement is exactly what I have been saying in refard to secondary sources all along. When they do not contradict the primary source (LOTR), they can be "considered and used". The emphasis here should be on "considered" when there is no contradiction. They can be considered, but they are not definitive. Since they are not definitive, they cannot be used to contradict the primary source.

The "etc" refers to the 'canon' statement (LotR, RGEO etc., see above post you are responding to).
What you seem to have also been saying is that for example 'Fords of Isen' is a secondary source that muddles 'LotR' which is otherwise perfectly clear. If it were perfectly clear there would be no debate. 'Fords of Isen' does not contradict LotR. It clarifies what is otherwise open to interpretation (see my 'uruks, urukhai' example above). Others on this thread have used 'Fords' with LotR to back up their points which I disagree with (for example Aragil), I do not dismiss the narrative, I counter with my own argument utilizing the available sources. I think you are the only one to have placed 'limitations' on the sources to be utilized. I do not consider 'limitations' such as: JRRT did not publish 'Fords', he could have changed his mind, CT may have written it or changed it, to be valid. Show me a direct contradiction to the primary source, and I may consider dismissing 'Fords'. Otherwise it is perfectly relevant.

Finally, let us move on to your "good scholarship" comment, especially in your reference to the example you gave from Appendix A. <big snip of discourse>

I am well aware (and did not ignore) what CT noted about the App. A error.
Once again, App. A says Ar-Adunkhor is the 20th king. It lists him as the 19th. Problem? in my opinion, yes. (If someone else does not regard this as a problem, that is their choice). Solution, go to UT and PoME, see what happened. Make a decision, problem solved. What the decision could be could be debated. I have nothing more to say on this subject, here. As I suggested in my prior post, if you wish to start another thread on matters specifically relating to errors and contradictions, start one and I _may_ join in.

Apparently JRRT was changing his mind about things. All of the above highlights the limitations I (and apparently others) have pointed to in regard to using Tolkien's posthumously published work, i.e. Tolkien's style of extensive emendation, the difficulty of reading it, the fact that the final published version is another person's interpretation (not JRRT's), the fact that there may be missing texts and of course the fact that JRRT is free to change is mind. All of these facts place limitations on the use of Tolkien's posthumously published work. When I point oit these limitations and refuse to allow them to be used to refute JRRT's own words in LOTR, you accuse me of not using "good scholarship". I would say the reverse is the case.

Again, I regard limitations such as 'JRRT kept changing his mind', 'it is somebody (CT's?) else's interpretation', JRRT may have changed his mind again' or 'missing texts' as irrelevant. CT has been very forthright in what he changed, how it was changed and why it was changed in HoME. This was one of his reasons for publishing it. Again various 'Tolkien scholars' have access to the originals, no major problems have been reported. Prove that 'Fords of Isen' was substantially altered by CT. CT has been very good about noting changes he made (in cases down to a very minute detail). Prove that 'Fords' is CT's own interpretation. If you believe 'Fords' contradicts LotR, prove it. If 'Fords' refutes JRRT's words in LotR, prove it. Just because you believe that to be the case does not make it so. If there is a missing text so what? It may be found, it may not. If it is and is published so much the better. If it further clarifies or adds new material great. Until then I work with what is available.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Sauron's Uruk-hai

It has been contended that only Saruman had Uruk-hai, and that the 'great-soldier orcs' of Mordor are not Uruk-hai. This seems to be because in LotR 'Uruks' is (almost) always only used for the great Orcs from Mordor, and 'Uruk-hai' is (almost) always only used for the those of Isengard, and (almost) never the other way around.

There is one reference to 'Uruk-hai ' by Mordor Orcs that indicates that Sauron's Uruks are Uruk-hai as well and thus the terms are interchangible.


The passage is:
(Essentially two Orcs (a smaller tracker and a larger soldier) are hunting for Frodo and Sam (though they do not know it)).
The tracker speaking:
"'Garn! You don't even know what your looking for.'"
"'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."
"'Ar!' said the tracker. .They have lost their heads, that's what it is. And some of the bosses are going to lose there skins too, I guess, if what I here is true: Tower raided and all, and hundreds of your lads done in, and prisoner got away...'".

Now those who believe that Sauron's Uruks were not Uruk-hai say that 'rebel Uruk-hai' is referring to Saruman's great-soldier orcs and not to Mordor's.

Two theories seem to have been put forth.

One is that some of Saruman's Uruk-hai went to Mordor and joined up with Sauron after Saruman was defeated. Then some of those rebelled. The problems with this are:
Where did they come from:
Isengard was virtually emptied to assault Helm's Deep. At the end of the battle the Orcs fled into the waiting Huorns "...and from that shadow none ever came again." And we know that after the battle "No Orcs remained alive; their bodies were uncounted."
However there were still some in Isengard when the Ents attacked it. But Pippen says: "I don't think many orc-folk, of any size, escaped. Not from the Huorns: there was a wood full of them all round Isengard by that time, as well as those that had gone down the valley."
Given these statements it seems that all of Sarumans Orcs were killed.
But it is possible that Pippen's statement allows for some few to have escaped. Let's say some did.
How did they get to Mordor? Morder is some distance away through enemy territory. It would be unlikely at the best that they mde it there. If they did, was there enough time for them to 'enlist' with Sauron, be trusted, be kept together, and then rebel in the ten days between the fall of Isengard and the trouble at Cirith Ungol? Slim at best.
And why would they go to Mordor at all.? Saruman's Orcs were not particularly friendly with Sauron's. Mordor is a long way off. The Misty Mountains are close by and good strong Uruk-hai could set themselves up like kings among the lesser Orcs therein.
No, the possibility of some of Saruman's Uruk-hai being in Mordor is none.

The other theory seems to be that the 'Higher Up' _believed_ that some of Saruman's Uruk-hai got to Mordor and were causing trouble but was wrong, just as he was wrong about the 'great Elf-warrior'.

But was the 'Higher Up' (a euphamism for the Nazgul), wrong? And would there be any reason for him to believe that somehow a pack of Uruk-hai from Isengard somehow travelled a huge distance through enemy territory and snuck into Mordor and killed everybody in Cirith Ungol?

These Orcs have been sent out to track down the source of the trouble in Cirith Ungol. They have been dispatched by a 'Higher Up' who told them they may be looking for and Elf-warrior, a small dwarf-man, or rebel Uruk-hai.
How does the 'Higher Up' know what they should be looking for? He has been told. Shagrat dispatched messages from Cirith Ungol to let the 'Higher Ups' know about the capture of Frodo (a 'small dwarf-man'):
"Any trespasser found by the gaurd is to be held... Full description sent... Thats plain enough, and that's what I am going to do.".
He must have also let the 'Higher Up' know what had happened in Shelob's lair. There the Orcs note that Shelob's cords have been cut, and Shelob herself stabbed, and something is loose. Shagrat asks what it is, and is told:
"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...".
So we know that the 'Higher Up' who dipatched the tarcker and soldier Orcs, must have been told about the 'Elf-warrior' (who was actually Sam) and the 'small dwarf-man' (Frodo). But there was no mention or sign of rebel Uruk-hai, so where does that come from?
Well lets see, in the 'Tower of Cirith Ungol' chapter we learn the Orcs of Gorbag and Shagrat have a battle and kill each other, Sam sees: "Beyond lay many more shapes; som singly as they had been hewn down or shot; others in pairs, still grappling one another, dead in the very throes of stabbing, throttling, and biting...
"Two liveries Sam noticed, one marked by the Red Eye, the other by a Moon disfigured with the gastly face of death...".
As Snaga notes: "Gorbag's swine got to the gate first and none of ours got out. Lagduf and Muzgash ran through, but they were shot... And they were the last."
Shagrat is not happy and says "The Black Pits take that filthy rebel Gorbag!"
Shagrat is later able to flee from Cirith Ungol himself, with the mithril coat and Frodos other goods.
As Frodo and Sam leave the Tower "Out of the black sky there came dropping like a bolt a winged shape, rending the clouds with a ghastly shriek."
This is as we learn a Nazgul who lands on the walls and can see what happened. The Uruk-hai of Morgul and those of the Tower of Cirith Ungol have slain each other.
Loyal Shagrat survives and lives to tell his tale (after which he is probably executed).

The 'Higher Up' sends out Orcs to look for a 'great Elf warrior, a 'small dwarf-man' or a 'pack of rebel Uruk-hai', OR all of them together.
The 'rebel Uruk-hai' are Gorbag's troops.
Sauron and Saruman both have Uruk-hai.
'Uruks' is interchangable with 'Uruk-hai'.
'Uruks' is an Anglicization of 'Uruk-hai'

 

[aragil]

I still maintain that the passage from RotK can be taken to refer to Saruman's troops. In the case of the 'big-elf warrior', the report has the right number (an individual), but is entirely wrong in the description (Elf vs. Hobbit). In the case of rebel Uruk-hai, the report might also have the right number (a pack), but still be equally wrong in the qualitative description (Uruks of Cirith Ungol vs. Uruk-hai of Isengard). Imagine how galling it would be for one of the Nazgul (resident of M. Morgul) to say:
'Be on the look-out for troops of mine that I sent up to C. Ungol, who later annhilated the garrison there and aided in the escape of two spies. Be aware, my orcs should be considered heavily armed and dangerous, as I tended to give them better equipment than those of C. Ungol in the event that the two should fight.'
It would be easier for the Mordor forces to assume that the attack was another one staged by Saruman in order to try and capture more Hobbits. Look at the similarities with the episode at the Emyn Muil- Hobbits captured, orcs of Mordor killed, no Hobbits brought to Barad-dur. In the case of the Emyn Muil Grishnakh was able to make it back to a Nazgul, report that the Uruk-hai (as they proudly called themselves) were making there way back to Isengard with orders to deliver halflings to Saruman. Grishnakh was awarded 2 score of orcs, which he led back to Ugluk's troop just in time to get them all killed. Meanwhile, the Nazgul was free to report back to Mordor about the rebellion of the Uruk-hai, which then would have been the talk of the land. How did Shagrat fare in his report? The little tracker orc confirms that he was removed from his post, and earlier Snaga had made some dicouraging remarks to Shagrat about what he could expect upon delivery of his report. Could Shagrat have tried to lie to make his position look better? Sure- 'We were attacked by more of those damned rebel Uruk-hai, just like Grishnakh's lads up at the Emyn Muil', instead of 'I was unable to impress upon the Morgul orcs that we should follow orders, and subsequently lost my entire command due to infighting'. Given the infinite realm of possibility here, I think that it is equally likely that 'rebel' refers to the troops of Isengard who were in open rebellion against Mordor, instead of the troops of Morgul who were disobeying orders, but by no means were marching against Cirith Ungol.

 

[aragil]

Why I still think that -hai might mean 'man':
(Specifically responding to Tar Elenion post http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42958#post42958, which was in response to my own post http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42725#post42725.)

Usage 1: Uruk-hai
The essence of my argument here is that we have definitive evidence that Saruman mixed men with orcs- from Tolkien himself, Merry, Aragorn, Gamling, and Treebeard. We have fairly definitive evidence that these half-breeds were the only orcs that felt comfortable in the sunlight. We also have orcs claiming to be Uruk-hai, and also claiming to be immune to sunlight. To me this means that the half-orcs that could withstand the sunlight were also the Uruk-hai, hence the translation of Uruk-hai as 'orc-men'. The fact that uruks were distinguished from 'orc-men' in the Isen chapter in UT does not bother me at all, since Tolkien himself distinguishes between 'orc-men' and 'men-orcs' in Morgoth's Ring. Anything more man-like (goblin-men, men with goblin faces) would be an orc-man, while anything more orcish would be a man-orc. I could also point out that while Tolkien clearly refers to 'men-orcs' in Morgoth's ring, he never seems to refer to them in the rest of the narrative- there are 'uruks' at the fords of Isen, and battalions of orcs at the battle of Helm's Deep. Why would Saruman go through the trouble of breeding men-orcs, and then consistently use plain orcs in his major battles? Well, why didn't Superman ever ask a smart journalistic-type like Clark Kent for help?

Usage 2: Olog-hai
First off, I don't think that 'Olog-hai' is translated as 'troll-race'. If this were the case, then stone trolls, cave trolls, and hill trolls would all be equally 'Olog-hai'.
What we do know about the Olog-hai is that they are tolerant of the sun. The only other instance of one of the dark races becoming tolerant of sun is from the crossing of orcs and men, producing sun-tolerant orcs. I believe that the same could be true of trolls. Otherwise you are combining different varieties of trolls, all sun-intolerant, and as a result of the mixing you somehow acquire sun tolerance. I don't see how this would work, hence the necessity of bringing in other genetic material. The same worked with orcs and men, why not trolls and men. The trolls don't need to 'breed' with the men, just somehow acquire human genetic material (TA gene-splicing?).

Usage 3: Oghor-hai
My point in this passage was not to say that the Druedain were actually related to orcs, but rather to look at their relationship with the orcs in order to infer what orcs might mean in labelling the Druedain as 'Oghor-hai'. I think that it is instructive here to look at all the names of the Druedain:
1: Drughu- self applied
2: Druedain- Sindarin, literally 'Dru-men'
3: Wose- modernization of old-English wasa, meaning 'Wild Man'
4: Wild-men- by the Rohirrim
5: Pukel-men- by the Rohirrim, from Anglo-Saxon meaning 'goblin/demon-men'
6: Oghor-hai- by the orcs, meaning unknown
In looking at the six examples above, the only way that #6 would be in agreement with #2-#5 (labels given to the Druedain by other peoples) would be if 'hai' meant 'men'. This might be an even stronger argument for 'hai' meaning 'men' than usage #1, but given the evidence as a whole for usages 1-3 (as opposed to coming up with different explanations in each case), I think that the evidence strongly supports the translation of 'hai' as 'men'.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
I still maintain that the passage from RotK can be taken to refer to Saruman's troops. In the case of the 'big-elf warrior', the report has the right number (an individual), but is entirely wrong in the description (Elf vs. Hobbit).

Wrong in the description, but for what reason? They have not seen Sam. They have seen his effects, and the effects of his weapon (an elf-sword). The assumption that it is an Elf running around (probably reinforced after fFrodo is found with the cloak and mail) is more than reasonable.

In the case of rebel Uruk-hai, the report might also have the right number (a pack), but still be equally wrong in the qualitative description (Uruks of Cirith Ungol vs. Uruk-hai of Isengard). Imagine how galling it would be for one of the Nazgul (resident of M. Morgul) to say:
'Be on the look-out for troops of mine that I sent up to C. Ungol, who later annhilated the garrison there and aided in the escape of two spies. Be aware, my orcs should be considered heavily armed and dangerous, as I tended to give them better equipment than those of C. Ungol in the event that the two should fight.

So instead the Nazgul says: 'That filthy traitor Saruman sent a bunch of his Uruk-hai (you know, the big bad mean mothers that kick our butts all the time) here to hunt down these here little Hobbit creatures (what are they? never you mind, they are nothing important, oh and keep an eye out for them too, why? no reason we just got us some questions). Anyway they got up here to Cirith Ungol (whats that? how? well they fought there way through all those wimpy horsey boys, and managed to smash on through them there filthy tarks, I told you they were big bad mothers didnt I?) Anyways they attacked Cirith Ungol to get this here Hobbit (why yes it did take an awful lot of them to bust in here) so they killed all our boys (what's that? how did this big huge company of Uruk-hai get past me in Minas Morgul? well they are really sneaky) but we think some (what? why are they dressed up like Morgul Orcs? well they killed a bunch of my Orcs and took their weapons, they're bad like I said) so you have to (what? you thought I said they were sneaky, so I did not know they were around? well like I said they were bad, they fought across hundreds of miles took out my boys changed clothes launched an assault on Ungol killed everybody 'cept Shaggy) so we think some of them got away, and you got to go look for them (yes they are big bad and mean) (whats that, how come you recognize Joe and Pete and Chuck in the Morgul uniforms since they are Saruman's Uruk-hai, well you know every body has a twin) so you got to go look for them, but be careful they are big bad mean (whats that, you'd prefer a cushy job like fighting the tarks?)

Imagine how foolish a Nazgul is going to look saying that not only didn't he know that a pack of Saruman' troops big enough to successfully storm Cirith Ungol had in slipped under his nose but also they had killed a bunch of Morgul Orcs and stolen their gear, and he did not know anything about it.

Too much 'mind reading' for me.
Besides the Nazgul was not from Minas Morgul (see below)

It would be easier for the Mordor forces to assume that the attack was another one staged by Saruman in order to try and capture more Hobbits. Look at the similarities with the episode at the Emyn Muil- Hobbits captured, orcs of Mordor killed, no Hobbits brought to Barad-dur. In the case of the Emyn Muil Grishnakh was able to make it back to a Nazgul, report that the Uruk-hai (as they proudly called themselves) were making there way back to Isengard with orders to deliver halflings to Saruman. Grishnakh was awarded 2 score of orcs, which he led back to Ugluk's troop just in time to get them all killed. Meanwhile, the Nazgul was free to report back to Mordor about the rebellion of the Uruk-hai, which then would have been the talk of the land.

I disagree. I doubt anything was said about what happened with Grishnakh. Such matters would be kept quite secret. The only one who would know would be the Nazgul, and while he would tell Sauron and the other Nazgul I doubt they would commonly gossip.

Much easier to say Gorbag got greedy, Gorbag is dead. Some of his boys got away, go find them. Orcs fight amongst themselves all the time. No reason for Mordor forces to assume anything different.
Besides the Nazgul was not from Minas Morgul (see below)

How did Shagrat fare in his report? The little tracker orc confirms that he was removed from his post, and earlier Snaga had made some dicouraging remarks to Shagrat about what he could expect upon delivery of his report. Could Shagrat have tried to lie to make his position look better? Sure- 'We were attacked by more of those damned rebel Uruk-hai, just like Grishnakh's lads up at the Emyn Muil', instead of 'I was unable to impress upon the Morgul orcs that we should follow orders, and subsequently lost my entire command due to infighting'. Given the infinite realm of possibility here, I think that it is equally likely that 'rebel' refers to the troops of Isengard who were in open rebellion against Mordor, instead of the troops of Morgul who were disobeying orders, but by no means were marching against Cirith Ungol.

Shagrat hated Gorbag (and calls him a rebel), wished him in the Black Pits and killed him. I doubt he felt any better about about those members of Gorbag's company that escaped. Any attempt to mislay the blame would merely end up protecting those he hated and I'm sure would like to have roasted slowly over a fire, or worse. I also don't think he would be able to get away with lying to the 'Big Bosses'.

But what it comes down to is that the Nazgul who arrived at Cirith Ungol (in responce to Shagrat's message) knew what happened.
By the description given it was obvious that Morgul and Ungol Orcs had killed each other. There could be no mistaking it. There is no suggestion that the Nazgul tried to cover it up. The opposite in fact. He immediately started 'sending out his deadly cries'. It was realized there would quite soon be a responce. I dont think the Nazgul would climb on down and take care of getting rid of the bodies himself. Also the Nazgul that arrived was not from Minas Morgul. The messages Shagrat dispatched were "...sent to Lugburz at once, and to Lugburz only." So it is not a case of a Nazgul trying to cover up that _his_ Orcs from Morgul were the rebel Uruk-hai. They were not his. In fact he could make himself look better in the eyes of his subordinates ('The Nazgul over there in Morgul he was weak, cant maintain discipline and order, I'm not. Things are going to be different around here now.')

 

[Cian]

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
-------------
Cian posted earlier:

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

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

I couldn't find anything further here Tar-E. He did give a response (not in a linguistic forum) on "-hai" back in 1993, before all of HoMe was published ("Soory" is so spelt purposely I'd say):

"Soory, I've drawn a blank on this one, though I tend to favor the interpretation that it means "superior" (The Eldarin collective terms, i.e., -lim, -rim, -hoth, yield nothing that could reasonably be related to -hai)." C. Hostetter 1993

The other opinions on "hai" were:
David Salo ~ "people, group"
Helge F. ~ "folk"
Lisa Star includes it in her (given in three parts) study of JRRT's collectives.

(well, to give all those opinions over here now )

 

[Grond]

Grond is back after reading the entirety of TT again and reading the Uruk-hai chapter a whopping four times. I have much more posting to do and will start later tomorrow. I also have come up with Richard's (Grond's) definition of -hai. It happens to mean "greater". I base this upon the repeated referral of Saruman's uruks as "greater orcs" in both the UT and the HoMe and, yes Greenwood, in the original text of the chapter Uruk-hai. Ironically this ties in with Cian's latest post where he finds it defined as "superior" by Hostetter. How this ties in to the Greater Uruks of Saruman and the Uruks (maybe greater) of Saruon.....well, you people will just have to wait.

More to follow and to you Cian, you were right..... I couldn't stay away; especially since an impasse has been reached where stubborness appears to have festered in the thread. I have seen entirely too many excuses from all sides and not enough "open-mindedness". That's all for now but as old Arnold said in the original "Terminator".....'I'll be back!!!'

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
Why I still think that -hai might mean 'man':
(Specifically responding to Tar Elenion post http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42958#post42958, which was in response to my own post http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42725#post42725.)

Usage 1: Uruk-hai
The essence of my argument here is that we have definitive evidence that Saruman mixed men with orcs- from Tolkien himself, Merry, Aragorn, Gamling, and Treebeard. We have fairly definitive evidence that these half-breeds were the only orcs that felt comfortable in the sunlight. We also have orcs claiming to be Uruk-hai, and also claiming to be immune to sunlight. To me this means that the half-orcs that could withstand the sunlight were also the Uruk-hai, hence the translation of Uruk-hai as 'orc-men'. The fact that uruks were distinguished from 'orc-men' in the Isen chapter in UT does not bother me at all, since Tolkien himself distinguishes between 'orc-men' and 'men-orcs' in Morgoth's Ring. Anything more man-like (goblin-men, men with goblin faces) would be an orc-man, while anything more orcish would be a man-orc. I could also point out that while Tolkien clearly refers to 'men-orcs' in Morgoth's ring, he never seems to refer to them in the rest of the narrative- there are 'uruks' at the fords of Isen, and battalions of orcs at the battle of Helm's Deep. Why would Saruman go through the trouble of breeding men-orcs, and then consistently use plain orcs in his major battles? Well, why didn't Superman ever ask a smart journalistic-type like Clark Kent for help?

Yes, Saruman mixed Men with Orcs.
1a). We do not have definitive evidence that only the 'half-breeds', felt comfortable in sunlight. As has been mentioned, but still not addressed, in the Uruk-hai chapter there are three different groups of Orcs, Saruman's, Sauron's and the Northerners. _Only_ the 'Northerners' complain about the sun. Sauron's never once mention anything about having a problem with it.
1b). As I have noted about the 'orc-man' and 'man-orc' previously, we also have the 'Southerner' in Bree who as Aragorn says, was plainly one of Saruman's spies. Merry says he was not so 'orc-like' as the 'half-orcs' who warched with the Dunlendings. Saruman used the one variety as soldiers, the other as spies among Men. This still has not been addressed.

Usage 2: Olog-hai
First off, I don't think that 'Olog-hai' is translated as 'troll-race'. If this were the case, then stone trolls, cave trolls, and hill trolls would all be equally 'Olog-hai'.
What we do know about the Olog-hai is that they are tolerant of the sun. The only other instance of one of the dark races becoming tolerant of sun is from the crossing of orcs and men, producing sun-tolerant orcs. I believe that the same could be true of trolls. Otherwise you are combining different varieties of trolls, all sun-intolerant, and as a result of the mixing you somehow acquire sun tolerance. I don't see how this would work, hence the necessity of bringing in other genetic material. The same worked with orcs and men, why not trolls and men. The trolls don't need to 'breed' with the men, just somehow acquire human genetic material (TA gene-splicing?).

2a).The quoted portion I put in italics has yet to be proven. In the Uruk-hai chapter, only the 'Northerners' have a problem with the sun. Saruman's do not mention anything about the sun. It has not been proven that the 'Uruk-hai' are 'half-orcs'.
2b).If we accept what JRRT said about the Olog-hai, that they did not come from Orcs that they were not akin to Orcs, and they were in fact "quite unlike" (in 'body, mind, size, and power') 'even the largest of Orc-kind' who would either be the Uruk-hai or the Men-orcs ('large and cunning') and if either of these came from Men, then Olog-hai would in fact be quite unlike them, they would have no common genetic material. If the Olog-hai came from Men, they they would not be 'quite unlike' those others, they would have common genetic material.
2c). I do not know when gene-splicing became possible for 'people'. I do not know what JRRT knew about 'gene-splicing'. I do not know if 'gene splicing' would work between two different complex beings that are not 'biologically akin'. I do know that JRRT said that scientific and biological difficulties were among his chief worries in the Legendarium (see Letter 153). I dont think there is any evidence for 'gene-splicing' within the Legendarium. If you have some I would be interested to see it.

Usage 3: Oghor-hai
My point in this passage was not to say that the Druedain were actually related to orcs, but rather to look at their relationship with the orcs in order to infer what orcs might mean in labelling the Druedain as 'Oghor-hai'. I think that it is instructive here to look at all the names of the Druedain:
1: Drughu- self applied
2: Druedain- Sindarin, literally 'Dru-men'
3: Wose- modernization of old-English wasa, meaning 'Wild Man'
4: Wild-men- by the Rohirrim
5: Pukel-men- by the Rohirrim, from Anglo-Saxon meaning 'goblin/demon-men'
6: Oghor-hai- by the orcs, meaning unknown
In looking at the six examples above, the only way that #6 would be in agreement with #2-#5 (labels given to the Druedain by other peoples) would be if 'hai' meant 'men'. This might be an even stronger argument for 'hai' meaning 'men' than usage #1, but given the evidence as a whole for usages 1-3 (as opposed to coming up with different explanations in each case), I think that the evidence strongly supports the translation of 'hai' as 'men'.

3a). Your example 4 should actually read 'Wild Men' not Wild-men(see my quote from LotR below or UT)
3b). In your examples 3 and 4 they are just a 'translation' of one for the other (Wose, Woses; Wild Man, Wild Men), both used by the Rohirrim "You hear the Woses, the Wild Men of the Woods". 'Wose' is being used to represent the actual 'Rohirric' and Wild Man used to represent the 'Common Speech' translation (footnote 14 in UT, the Druedain). These should be put together.
3c). Please note in UT the the Druedain section, footnote 4, which is specifically noted as an Author note it uses the term "Drug-folk". Also note in footnote 6 which is drawn from isolated notes 'when the Eldar discover that the Dru-folk are enemies of Morgoth they add the title Adan' and also " Drunos 'a family of the Dru-folk'" (nos, nosse, 'clan, family, house'), and "Druwaith 'the wilderness of the Dru-folk'" (waith, 'wilderness').
4c). Your second example "Druedain- Sindarin, literally 'Dru-men'", well sort of. (Bear with me Cian is better at this than I am, and should feel free to give additional insight). Literally 'adan' (the singular) is an adaption to Sindarin of the Quenya 'atan' (see WotJ, Quendi & Eldar). The plural Quenya name for Men Atani literally means 'the Second Folk' (see Q&E) but is normally translated 'Men'. It comes from the Common Eldarin 'tata', 'atta' two.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Grond
Grond is back after reading the entirety of TT again and reading the Uruk-hai chapter a whopping four times. I have much more posting to do and will start later tomorrow. I also have come up with Richard's (Grond's) definition of -hai. It happens to mean "greater". I base this upon the repeated referral of Saruman's uruks as "greater orcs" in both the UT and the HoMe and, yes Greenwood, in the original text of the chapter Uruk-hai. Ironically this ties in with Cian's latest post where he finds it defined as "superior" by Hostetter. How this ties in to the Greater Uruks of Saruman and the Uruks (maybe greater) of Saruon.....well, you people will just have to wait.

The only problem with this is the 'Oghor-hai'. The Orcs did not like the Druedain. I do not know why they would name them 'greater' anything.

 

[aragil]

Further defense

Usage 1: Uruk-hai
1a) I realize that Tolkien never says 'The orc-men of Saruman, being a direct translation of Uruk-hai, were the only orcs to feel comfortable in the light of the sun.' We do have Gamlings quote, which implies that it is the half-orcs of Saruman who feel comfortable in the sun. He says nothing of true orcs. If true orcs could also fight well in the sun, then Aragorn (the self-proclaimed expert on orc-kind) was right there to say otherwise. I think therefore that though Tolkien does not explicitly say that only Saruman's troops were immune to sunlight, the most reasonable reading of this passage would be so.
1b) I did address the Southerner of Bree and Merry's quote. Orc-men hybrids which are more man-like fall into the category of 'orc-men', whether they are 'men with goblin faces', 'goblin-men', or 'that southerner from bree'. I don't think that orc-human hybridization produces the exact same level of 'orcishness' every time, it produces varying degrees, hence orc-men, men with goblin faces, and men-orcs.

Usage 2: Olog-hai
My defense of gene-splicing (or whatever the third age equivalent was) is that nothing in the troll genome had tolerance to sun. If 'breeding' was to produce a sun tolerant troll, that the genetic information for sun tolerance had to be introduced from an outside source. Men in Tolkien's world clearly had that trait, therefor they were an acceptable genetic donor.

Usage 3: Oghor-hai
3a & 3b: 'Woses' and 'Wild Men' were used on separate occasions by the Rohirrim, but if you like then we can condense them to a single name.
3c: I am well aware of the use of 'Dru-folk', and not that it is not a name given to the Druedain by another group of people, and so didn't include it in my list. It is in a note by the author, as you pointed out.
4c: Edain is the plural of adan, is Sindarin, and means 'men' for all practical purposes. This still leaves us with the Druedain being gifted with 4 names by other races, 3 of which unambiguously mean 'something-men', with me claiming that the fourth name also means 'something-men'.

 

[Greenwood]

I think the point here is that there are two alternative interpretations (if there were not there would be no debate). Nothing can be mutually resolved either way. One goes to the 'secondary' sources to clarify. For example one person can say Saruman's Uruk-hai are not Uruks. Another says they are and points to Appendix F.

Tar-Elenion

The point is not that there are two alternative interpretations. The point is that the alternative interpretation that causes all the problems is from a secondary source. Evidently the first person to publicly state that uruks is an Anglicization of Uruk-hai and hence interchangeable, was Foster in his Tolkien compendium. (I am accepting your word for that Foster says this since I do not have Foster's book.) Where did this come from? We do not know. You theorize Foster got it from Tolkien's manuscripts, but you do not seem to know. Have you seen these manuscripts? You merely surmise that it must be in a Tolkien manuscript because Christopher Tolkien uses the same definition in Unfinished Tales. You throw around loaded words like "plagiarist" and "liar" at the suggestion that CT may have followed Foster for his "Anglicization" definition, but neither of these words is warranted. The various Tolkien companion volumes since Foster have used the "Anglicization" definition. Are they all "plagiarists" or "liars" for following Foster and CT? No one would suggest it. Such secondary sources routinely follow earlier published material. Plagiarism does not come into it. CT says he found Foster's work useful. Useful how? As a paper weight? If CT found Foster useful, it must mean he used it for something. How do you know it wasn't the "Anglicization" definition. It certainly isn't in LOTR. Where did it come from? CT does not say where it came from. I do not know where CT got it from. Neither do you. CT admits to using Foster, which has the "Anglicization" definition. The possibility exists CT got it from Foster. For you to summarily dismiss the possibility because you don't think so, I would not classify as bad scholarship. "Experts" follow each other all the time. To ignore the possibility when one author has already stated his familiarity with an earlier authors work I would classify as a lack of critical scholarship. You say that there is no conflict between the Fords of Isen manuscript where Saruman's elite orc troops are called Uruks and LOTR where these same troops are always called Uruk-hai. But the only reason you can make this argument is because of the Anglicization definition in UT. Without that definition there would be a conflict. How do you know CT didn't use Foster's definition so that the conflict could be avoided? In his notes on The Line of Elros, CT admits to changing his father's manuscript in The Silmarillion to remove a descrepancy.

You counter with statements that "CT has been very forthright in what he changed, how it was changed and why it was changed in HoME." This is true, but we are not talking about HoME. We are talking about Unfinished Tales. Does the subject of uruks being an Anglicization of Uruk-hai come up anywhere in HoME? So far no one has produced any such citation. You accuse me of wanting to ignore Unfinished Tales because it goes against my interpretation, yet when I cite quotations from CT about the difficulties he had in working with his father's manuscripts, when I cite CT's own words that he had to use his own judgement to make the most coherent version, when I cite CT's own words that he at times changed his father's manuscript in an effort to resolve inconsistencies, your response is that this is all irrelevant. Who is doing the ignoring here? Your comparison to the question of Gandalf's nature is specious. LOTR leaves the question of the nature of the Istari unaddressed. LOTR does not say Gandalf is a Maia, but LOTR does not say he isn't either. If LOTR said the latter then you would indeed have a problem. Of course, you can look to the posthumously published material for clues. There is nothing in LOTR to contradict.

If the Anglicization definition did not exist in UT, would we even be having this discussion? I doubt it.

There is one reference to 'Uruk-hai ' by Mordor Orcs that indicates that Sauron's Uruks are Uruk-hai as well and thus the terms are interchangible.

" ..... 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."
"'Ar!' said the tracker. .They have lost their heads, that's what it is. ......."

Aragil and I have repeatedly given reasonable explanations for how this statement could be referring to Saruman's Uruk-hai. You dispute it and say that it is unreasonable for the "higher-ups" to believe Saruman's troops could be there causing trouble. I would say it is equally unreasonable for them to believe a great elf in bright armor could have slipped in. At best we have an ambiguous statement by a Mordor orc here. We do however, have a completely unambiguous statement by a Mordor orc earlier in the ROTK. Gorbag says: " .... I say something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks. ....." If the Mordor orcs consider themselves Uruk-hai, why doesn't Gorbag use the term? And why. later in ROTK does Tolkien refer to the large orcs in Mordor as uruks? Why not use one term throughout the text? Why create all this confusion if there is only one kind of large orc?
You point to Appendix F: "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'." You say that this shows that uruks is equal to Uruk-hai. If this is the case why does Tolkien use the word uruk (no -s) in the first sentence but the word Uruk-hai in the second? Why not just use Uruk-hai in both sentences and avoid any confusion? You make it seem like Tolkien is intentionally trying to confuse his readers.

 

[Grond]

Well one can certainly infer that when the Orcs of Mordor refer to Rebel Uruk-hai, they are in fact meaning rebel Uruk-hai of Isengard. One can also certainly infer that they mean rebel Uruk-hai of Sauron.

In the Two Towers, Chapter Uruk-hai, Ugluk says, "...You seem to know a lot. More than is good for you I guess. Perhaps those in Lugburz might wonder how, and why. But in the meantime, the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as usual..." Now you have the Isengarders referring to themselves as Uruk-hai of Isengard. Of course, I'm sure that they were just announcing themselves as the exclusive Uruk-hai who are exclusively from Isengard. But, could they not mean a group of great orcs from Isengard as opposed to a group of great orcs from Cirith Ungol? Who's to say. Greenwood?? Your thoughts on this passage.

 

[Cian]

Bombadillodillo,
Since I quote David on his hyphen comment I'm just going to put a tag on it being given as a "possible" (as you note) and leave it at that.
My own note: whether Black Speech -kh- represents a spirant or not (see Helge's comments on the question of Orc-names), it, if not in every instance where otherwise distinguished, is seen to represent ach-Laut in Tolkien's writings. Cheers.

 

[Greenwood]

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

Tar-Elenion

When I quoted the above passages from LOTR and said that any reasonable reader would read assume Snaga was a proper name, you countered: "The capitalization is, it seems, a function of JRRT acting in his role as 'translator' of the narrative." and that because of the note in Appendix F Snaga had to mean slave rather than being a proper name. However, many languages have made proper names (surnames) from what was once a reference to a person's profession. Examples from English: Miller, Smith, Fisher, Taylor (with the i changed to a y), etc. Thus snaga can easily mean slave and still be a name depending on the context.

Also to return to my suggestion that -hai might have something to do with an ability to tolerate sunlight in a group that normally does not. We have the Uruk-hai, some form of orc that is openly disdainful of sunlight when we know that normal orcs avoid the sun. We have Olog-hai, a form of troll that can abide the sun when trolls are normally turned into stone by the sun. Finally we have the Oghor-hai which you say breaks the pattern because they are a form of men and men do not have any trouble with the sun. The Druedain are called by the orcs the Oghor-hai. We see in note 14 by Christopher Tolkien in The Druedain in Unfinished Tales that the term Pukel-men (another name applied to the Druedain) is derived from the Anglo-Saxon pucel which translates as goblin or demon. Evidently the Druedain were considered to be somewhat goblin like, presumably because of their short, squat stature. True goblins shun the sunlight, the Druedain though goblin-like are really men and have no problem with sunlight. Thus we now have a connection with an ability to tolerate sunlight in all three instances of the usage of the suffix -hai. NOTE: I am not violating my rules about the use of secondary sources. All the information about the Druedain come from the same secondary source, Unfinished Tales. None of this contradicts anything in LOTR. In fact, as you are fond of saying it clarifies a question from LOTR

 

[Greenwood]

In the Two Towers, Chapter Uruk-hai, Ugluk says, "...You seem to know a lot. More than is good for you I guess. Perhaps those in Lugburz might wonder how, and why. But in the meantime, the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as usual..." Now you have the Isengarders referring to themselves as Uruk-hai of Isengard. Of course, I'm sure that they were just announcing themselves as the exclusive Uruk-hai who are exclusively from Isengard. But, could they not mean a group of great orcs from Isengard as opposed to a group of great orcs from Cirith Ungol? Who's to say. Greenwood?? Your thoughts on this passage.

Grond

It seems to me the simplest interpretation is that Gorbag is identfying himself (and his "boys") as being Uruk-hai and that they are from Isengard. Tar-Elenion has argued that the statement implies that there are other Uruk-hai from places other than Isengard. I think this is really stretching things. If I say: "I am John Smith from Tulsa" it does not automatically prove that there is another John Smith from somewhere else. There may be, but that is not the intention of my declaration and my declaration does not prove it. The statement is true even if I am the only John Smith in the world as long as my name is John Smith and I am from Tulsa. My declaration is simply to announce my name and my place of origin. (I intentionally picked a common name so I could not be accused of "stacking the deck".) To insist that the phrase "Uruk-hai of Isengard" automatically means there are Uruk-hai from places other than Isengard is to play word games. It reminds me of the old Groucho Marx line: "I shot an elephant in my pajamas! How he got in my pajamas I'll never know." Yes, you can argue that the first sentence implies the elephant was wearing the pajamas, but it is a stretch.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Greenwood

Tar-Elenion
The point is not that there are two alternative interpretations. The point is that the alternative interpretation that causes all the problems is from a secondary source. Evidently the first person to publicly state that uruks is an Anglicization of Uruk-hai and hence interchangeable, was Foster in his Tolkien compendium. (I am accepting your word for that Foster says this since I do not have Foster's book.) Where did this come from? We do not know. You theorize Foster got it from Tolkien's manuscripts, but you do not seem to know. Have you seen these manuscripts? You merely surmise that it must be in a Tolkien manuscript because Christopher Tolkien uses the same definition in Unfinished Tales.
<snip>
CT says he found Foster's work useful. Useful how? As a paper weight? If CT found Foster useful, it must mean he used it for something. How do you know it wasn't the "Anglicization" definition. It certainly isn't in LOTR. Where did it come from? CT does not say where it came from. I do not know where CT got it from. Neither do you. CT admits to using Foster, which has the "Anglicization" definition. The possibility exists CT got it from Foster. For you to summarily dismiss the possibility because you don't think so, I would not classify as bad scholarship. "Experts" follow each other all the time. To ignore the possibility when one author has already stated his familiarity with an earlier authors work I would classify as a lack of critical scholarship. You say that there is no conflict between the Fords of Isen manuscript where Saruman's elite orc troops are called Uruks and LOTR where these same troops are always called Uruk-hai. But the only reason you can make this argument is because of the Anglicization definition in UT. Without that definition there would be a conflict. How do you know CT didn't use Foster's definition so that the conflict could be avoided?

There are two alternative interpretations. I first read LotR back in the 70's, before The Silmarillion even came out, much less any of the UT or HoME. I never thought that the Uruk-hai of Isengard were 'half-orcs'. I never thought that Sauron's 'great soldier-orcs' were not Uruk-hai. I have always thought them both to be Uruk-hai. I have always thought that 'Uruks' was an 'anglicization' of Uruk-hai. I have never thought that that the Black Speech plural of 'Uruk' would be 'Uruks'. I have always thought that 'rebel Urukhai' was refering to Sauron's Orcs. The first time I considered any of those other possibilities was when I first started reading the various Tolkien forums on the net and people were suggesting it, I did not buy it then and I do not buy it now. If none of the other sources had been published, and we were still debating this, I would still argue that the 'half-orcs' are not Uruk-hai, based simply on Merry's descriptions at Isengard (of course with the material that has been published I can further back up my argument). I would still argue that 'rebel Uruk-hai' is refers to Gorbag's Orcs (and note, I only used LotR, no outside sources (though I could have) to present my case).
I would still argue that 'Uruk-hai' is interchangeable with 'Uruks', based on App. F, and the 'rebel Uruk-hai' (of course I can now further back that up with other sources).
I think this is the first place I have ever seen it argued that 'Uruks' is not an 'anglicization'. The reason I can make the argument is because I dont think 's' is a BS plural, it is an English plural. 'Uruk' is a singular. Uruk-hai is not a singular ('I am the fighting Uruk-hai'? I dont think so). What you say I surmise is the only reasonable conclusion. That he made it up or he 'borrowed' it are not reasonable. There is absolutely no good reason for him to do either. Things that he altered in the Sil. he did for a reason and he has said what they were.
Why should CT be at all concerned about conflicting with Foster? He certainly did not spend 25 or 30 years of his life organizing researching and publishing his father's manuscripts so that they would not conflict with what Robert Foster wrote.

In his notes on The Line of Elros, CT admits to changing his father's manuscript in The Silmarillion to remove a descrepancy.

And guess what. He has admitted the error, and corrected it in The Silmarillion.

You counter with statements that "CT has been very forthright in what he changed, how it was changed and why it was changed in HoME." This is true, but we are not talking about HoME. We are talking about Unfinished Tales. Does the subject of uruks being an Anglicization of Uruk-hai come up anywhere in HoME? So far no one has produced any such citation.

It does not. Perhaps it does not because there is no need to correct it. It would be unnecessary to correct it if it is accurate. Do you expect CT to now start a whole new series of works going through everything he has published and saying this is correct, and this is correct...?

You accuse me of wanting to ignore Unfinished Tales because it goes against my interpretation, yet when I cite quotations from CT about the difficulties he had in working with his father's manuscripts, when I cite CT's own words that he had to use his own judgement to make the most coherent version, when I cite CT's own words that he at times changed his father's manuscript in an effort to resolve inconsistencies, your response is that this is all irrelevant. Who is doing the ignoring here?

He does note the changes he made to various writings presented in UT. He does note those things that he changed to resolve inconsistancies. Now show me where he notes changes that he made to the 'Fords of Isen' narrative, and we might have something to discuss. Otherwise he is presenting his father's work.

Your comparison to the question of Gandalf's nature is specious. LOTR leaves the question of the nature of the Istari unaddressed. LOTR does not say Gandalf is a Maia, but LOTR does not say he isn't either. If LOTR said the latter then you would indeed have a problem. Of course, you can look to the posthumously published material for clues. There is nothing in LOTR to contradict.

LotR does not say Saruman's Uruk-hai are not Uruks. LotR even implies differently. Now I can go to the other sources and clarify. There is nothing in LotR to contradict. Thank you for making my case.

It is late I will address the rest of your post later.

 

[Cian]

Tar-Elenion:
"I have always thought that 'Uruks' was an 'anglicization' of Uruk-hai. I have never thought that that the Black Speech plural of 'Uruk' would be 'Uruks'.

Agreed. UT index aside, Uruks is an anglicization, just like "Silmarils", "Balrogs" ...

Anyone who disagrees (if so), please explain their alternative opinion for -s (in any of these examples really).

Again, to "anglicize" is to make English in quality or characteristics.