Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Grond
I find it odd, though no one has mentioned it, that Grishnakh and his Sauron cronies had no problem with the sun. It seems the Northern Misty Mountain Orcs fled to the forest to avoid the Sun but Grishnakh and company jogged right on up with the Uruks of Isengard.

I have mentioned it several times.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
Grond- I choose to believe that the Mordor orcs fell behind the Isengarders because they were weaker in sunlight. Otherwise the 'plan' of Grishnakh's that Tolkien alludes to appears to be putting his own troops closer to the bows of the Rohirrim.

Although what the book says is: "Either because they were quicker and hardier, or because of some plan of Grishnakh's, the Isengarders gradually passed through the Orcs of Mordor, and Grishnakh's folk closed in behind."
I'm afraid it does not say anything about sunlight there.

 

[aragil]

Troll-men revisited

Tar-Elenion, I apologize for missing the earlier reference to half trolls. I was looking for a reference regarding Mordor orcs in the sun, and came across 'troll-men' by happy accident. So I guess the situation is thus:

Saruman had Uruk-hai, he also had half orcs/ half men. The half orcs were tolerant of sun, and this was considered worth remarking on by both Treebeard and Gamling. The Uruk-hai cared nothing for the sun, and claimed as much in a way which makes it sound like a property peculiar to their race. Yet these two races were undoubtedly different because Tolkien no where states 'Uruk-hai were half-men/half-orcs', thereby allowing us to ignore their mutual sun-tolerance.

Sauron bred Olog-hai- a sun-tolerant variety of trolls, but then decided to not use them in his siege of Gondor, as they doubtlessly would not have in any way aided his cause. Instead he uses the troll-like men of Far Harad. Of course, Tolkien would never say:
The barricade was scattered as if by a thunderbolt.(TT, p. 184)
to refer to an actual thunderbolt (magical or storm-related); nor would he say:
And even at that moment the sun for a second faltered and was obscured, as though a dark wing had passed across it. (RotK, p. 43)
to describe the wing of a creature ridden by a Nazgul actually cutting in front of the sun. Therefore it is impossible for
and out of Far Harad black men like half-troll with white eyes and red tongues. (RotK, p. 148)
to refer to actual trolls (or half-trolls, which we know to be a genetic impossibility).

Finally, the Druedain are called by Elves and Men (except themselves) as something followed by 'men'. Yet it is apparently impossible that Tolkien would have the Orcs refer to them in a similar manner, therefore 'Oghor-hai' can not be interpreted as 'ogre-men', and therefore it becomes the exception in naming the Dru-folk.

 

[aragil]

Either because they were quicker and hardier, or because of some plan of Grishnakh's, the Isengarders gradually passed through the Orcs of Mordor, and Grishnakh's folk closed in behind.

They were indeed stronger and hardier, but might this have anything to do with the sunlight?

In the afternoon Ugluk's troop overtook the Northerners. They were flagging in the rays of the bright sun, winter sun shining in a pale cool sky though it was; their heads were down and their tongues lolling out.

Of course, by the narrowest possible reading the Isengarders only overtook the Northerners because of the sun thing, not because the Isengarders were stronger and hardier (it never says the Isengarders were stronger and hardier). Likewise the Isengarders pulled ahead of the Mordor orcs only because the Isengarders were stronger and hardier (or because of a plan of Grishnakh's to get his own boys shot first), not because the Isengarders were more tolerant of the sun. What a strange mix of orcs!

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Greenwood

Tar-Elenion

I first read LOTR in the early 1960's, more than a decade before The Silmarillion or any of the other works were published. I never thought Sauron had Uruk-hai. I always accepted the clear statements that the Uruk-hai were from Isengard. I always accepted the statements that uruks were in Mordor. I never thought of them as equivalent. The Uruk-hai proudly boast that they laugh at the sun. Treebeard says orcs fear the sun except for Saurman's orcs. He then suggests Saruman blended men and orcs to produce this tolerance. Other characters also point out the ability of Saruman's orcs to withstand the sun and others point out orc-man blends. It never occurred to me not to put all these together. It never occurred to me that Tolkien would be so confusing to his readers.

Good, then we are in agreement. There are alternative interpretations to the potions of the 'primary' text under discussion. We both came to our seperate conclusions without use of any of the rest of the corpus.
When the other materials came out, it reinforced my interpretation, so I see no problem with using it, to me it does not contradict or confuse the 'primary' source.

In Appendix F uruk is stated as being Black Speech. Uruk-hai is also clearly Black Speech. I have no problem with uruks being an Anglicization of uruk. I see absolutely no justification for uruks being an Anglicization of Uruk-hai. Why doesn't Tolkien say in Appendix F that the Uruk-hai come from Mordor and Isengard?

He does not need to. It is a given when he writes that 'uruk' is applied to both Mordor and Isengard Orcs. This is further reinforced when he says 'snaga' is used by the Uruk-hai (which word is referring back to 'uruk'), because it is used by both Mordor and Isengard Orcs. It is further reinforced by the fact that the Nazgul sends out Orcs to track down rebel Uruk-hai in Mordor, after the Morgul Orcs kill a bunch of Ungol Orcs, and allow for the escape of the prisoner. (It obviously can not be a reference to Saruman's Orcs which had nothing to do with the slaughter in Ungol, for at least one primary reason, Saruman's all got killed.

You argue that Uruk-hai is the Black Speech plural form of uruk. Are you arguing that Black Speech creates plurals by adding the suffix -hai? Are you also arguing that Black Speech also always capitalizes its plurals or that for some reason Tolkien always capitalizes Black Speech plurals when he renders them into printed text? Why would Tolkien do this? Our knowledge of Black Speech is fairly limited, but you have presented no evidence that Black Speech creates plurals by adding the suffix -hai. Indeed, based on the various opinions Cian has presented there seems to be no consensus among the 'experts' as to what -hai means.

No I am not arguing that at all. In my post wherein I laid out the varrious propositions for '-hai', I noted for the fourth some thing to the effect of 'race, folk (a plural suffix)'. By this I mean it is not a singular it as a group, ie a 'people', not a 'person'. I do not think there are any instances of it being used for 'a person'. If there are any, the various linguists might like to know.

I have said nothing about Black Speech capitalization. If I am not mistaken, BS itself would have no 'capitals'. The script used for writing BS is the Tengwar, and it has no capitals. I don't think any of the writing systems JRRT came up with for his Legendarium use 'capitals'. Cian, any comments?

Your defintion of uruks = Uruk-hai leaves many questions of Tolkien's usage of the words in LOTR a mystery. My suggestion that they are not equivalent leaves far fewer unanswered questions. Clearly, neither of us is going to move the other. As I have said at various times to Grond, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Okay.

Edited out the 'BOLD' script.

 

[Greenwood]

When the other materials came out, it reinforced my interpretation, so I see no problem with using it,

Tar-Elenion

That a secondary source agreed with you does not make either of you right. For thousands of years experts agreed with each other that the sun circled the earth. Mere agreement means nothing.

He does not need to. It is a given when he writes that 'uruk' is applied to both Mordor and Isengard Orcs. This is further reinforced when he says 'snaga' is used by the Uruk-hai (which word is referring back to 'uruk'), because it is used by both Mordor and Isengard Orcs. It is further reinforced by the fact that the Nazgul sends out Orcs to track down rebel Uruk-hai in Mordor, after the Morgul Orcs kill a bunch of Ungol Orcs, and allow for the escape of the prisoner. (It obviously can not be a reference to Saruman's Orcs which had nothing to do with the slaughter in Ungol, for at least one primary reason, Saruman's all got killed.

If uruk and Uruk-hai are equivalent, why does Tolkien invent two such similar yet different words? Why would the Black Speech have two different words that mean the same thing? The text does not say snaga is used by the uruk. It says "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave." In the second sentence it is the "lesser kinds" that refers back to the previous sentence, contrasting the lesser kinds to the great soldier orcs. The two sentences do not make uruk and Uruk-hai equivalent. As for the Nazgul sending out troops, he hasn't a clue what he is looking for (".... 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.") As for all of Saruman's orcs being dead, how would the Nazgul know this?

I have said nothing about Black Speech capitalization.

Neither have I. I asked about Tolkien's capitalization. I asked why Tolkien as the narrator/translator always capitalizes Uruk-hai, but only sometimes capitalizes uruks? I also asked why as narrator/translator Tolkien always chooses to use the work Uruk-hai when Saruman's troops speak of themselves, but the one time a Mordor orc does (Gorbag) the word Uruks is used instead? Your only response is to dodge the question by repeating they are the same word and to then attempt to prove they are the same word by citing examples that are only true if you first assume the two words are the same.

We are never going to agree on this.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Greenwood


Tar-Elenion

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

Is 'slave' a profession?

Like I say, he is, it seems, acting in his role as translator. Do Hobbit's know BS?

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

What Greenwood wrote: "Evidently the Druedain were considered to be somewhat goblin like, presumably because of their short, squat stature."

What JRRT wrote: "In some ways they resembled rather the Dwarves: in build and stature...", (See UT, PoME).

Note 14, hmm... "It seems that the term Pukel-men (...) was only used in Rohan of the images in Dunharrow."

What does it say in the narrative proper? "But in Rohan the identity of the statues of Dunharrow called "Pukel-men" with the "Wild Men" of the Druadan Forest was not recognized, neither was their "humanity"."

What did JRRT say specifically?: "Pukel-men. A Rohan name for the effigies of men of a vanished race." (See 'A Guide to Names in LotR: Things').

You may go ahead and present the next part of your argument (instead of me).

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Re: Some orcs don't mind the sun, some do

Originally posted by aragil
"He has taken up with foul folk, with the Orcs. Brm, hoom! Worse than that he has been doing something to them; something dangerous. For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, or has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!"

This is Treebeard's statement, as reported earlier by Greenwood. Here Treebeard states quite clearly that orcs which are not the half-orcs of Isengard 'cannot abide the Sun'. The only alternative reading that we have is from a private communication in 'Letters' that says Treebeard is not all-knowing. By this logic, Tolkien is deliberately trying to mislead his readers with the statements of Treebeard. Apparently Tolkien knew that his private letters would later be published, so that the privileged owners of 'Letters' would get the 'heads-up' not to listen to Treebeard. Thus his deliberately misleading passage about orcs and sun tolerance would only mislead those of us who did not buy the publication of his private letters. That wily professor!!

No one is disputing that Saruman's Orc's can endure the sunlight. _That_ is Treebeard's statement.
The rest is Treebeard speculating. He is asking rhetorical questions. They are not statements. As for Letter 153, JRRT said what he said. Apparently some reader was misled by Treebeard's actual (other) statements on Orcs. JRRT did not seem overly concerned about it.

Now, turning to the orcs of Mordor:
'East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men (Olog-hai? I thought trolls could not be bred with men!) and Variags and Orcs that hated the sunlight.'
(from 'The Battle of the Pelennor Fields', p.150 of my edition of RotK)

For right now I'll ignore the reference to troll-men, and focus on what is happening to the orcs. These are the orcs of Mordor which were sent to besiege Minas Tirith. I think it is reasonable to assume that this huge army includes any sun-resistant strains which Sauron might have posessed. Yet here Tolkien mentions that they hate sunlight in the midst of their rout. Why? It seems by the very fact that he mentions it that the sun is having an effect on the orcs. I acknowledge that this is not as direct a statement as some would like, but I think that in the greater context of the works it indicates that Sauron's breeds do not do so well in the sun (as Treebeard stated above). Before anybody uses it against me, I am aware that Treebeard says Saruman's orcs hate the sun, and here Tolkien says that Sauron's troops also hate the sun. But to say this is evidence that the two breeds are the same is to totally ignore the context of the statements. At Helm's deep the Uruk-hai claim that they care not for the sun. The next morning they are routed, the sun is brightly shining (it is described glinting off the gear of the riders), but there is no indication that the sun is having any effect on the orcs. At the Pelannor fields the orcs are given a darkness by Sauron. When the darkness is blown aside, Tolkien says that they hate the sun as they are being routed. I think that I am supported by the text here when I say that the reason Tolkien mentions their hatred of the sun is because they are affected by it, whereas the troops of Isengard are not!!

Nobody said the two breeds were the same. I think those posting here have all noted differences. Yes the sun is shining when Sauron's troops are routed. But interestingly enough, the Sun is shining for quite some time before that. The sun starts shinnig when the Rohirrim charge and start routing the Mordorians. The sun is shinning when the Witch King comes to slay Theoden, and be slain (his arrival causes a great shadow). The sun is shing after he is slain, (Merry stands blinking in the sunlight). At mid-morning when the day begins to turn against Gondor the wind is blowing, the rain is flying the sun is shining and the air is clear. Mordor is winning, and all hope is lost because the watchmen see afar the Corsairs of Umbar coming. The hosts of Mordor are enheartened and come yelling to the onset. All this while the sun is shining. Only when the Mordorians realize that the Ships are filled with their enemy, do they become bewildered and filled with dread. It does not make any mention of the Orcs being cowed by the sun. The sun did not rout them, surprise and fear did. We know they hated it, and as you pointed out so do Saruman's. Still no proof that Sauron's Orcs were any more effected that Saruman's.

 

[Greenwood]

I just received my copy of The War of the Jewels and looked up uruk in Quendi and Eldar. The Quendi and Eldar is Tolkien's essay on the langauges of Middle Earth. In Appendix C there is the following passage: "The word uruk that occurs in the Black Speech, devised (it is said) by Sauron to serve as a lingua franca for his subjects, was probably borrowed by him from the Elvish tongues of earlier times. It referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of of the regiments of Mordor. Lesser breeds seem to have been called snaga." (italics in original; emphasis added) In regard to the word snaga their is an editorial note from Christopher Tolkien in which he compares this to Appendix F in LOTR: "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'."

Thus we have here a statement by JRRT in which he specifically refers the word uruk to the elite orc troops of Mordor. There is no mention of Isengard here. Christopher Tolkien says that the manuscriot for Quendi and Eldar dates from 1959/1960, after LOTR's publication. Thus at least at this point in time Tolkien appears to be restricting uruk to the elite orc troops of Mordor. Christopher Tolkien's editorial note is clearly drawing attention to a comparison of the use of the word snaga here and in the LOTR Appendix F. He is not drawing attention to the word Uruk-hai.

(Once again, please note: I am not violating my rules on secondary sources. I have alwasy said Tolkien's posthumously published work could be looked at for evidence to clarify questions in the primary material. The secondary source is not definitive, so it is most helpful when it agrees with or clarigies the primary. Since it is not definitive, it cannot definitively refute the primary.)

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Re: Troll-men revisited

Originally posted by aragil
Tar-Elenion, I apologize for missing the earlier reference to half trolls. I was looking for a reference regarding Mordor orcs in the sun, and came across 'troll-men' by happy accident.

No problem. There is a _lot_ of material. I came across an obscure reference the other day, that I had to provide (in the interest of 'full disclosure') in a debate elsewhere, that could be used to to re-enforce the other sides position.

So I guess the situation is thus:
Saruman had Uruk-hai, he also had half orcs/ half men. The half orcs were tolerant of sun, and this was considered worth remarking on by both Treebeard and Gamling. The Uruk-hai cared nothing for the sun, and claimed as much in a way which makes it sound like a property peculiar to their race. Yet these two races were undoubtedly different because Tolkien no where states 'Uruk-hai were half-men/half-orcs', thereby allowing us to ignore their mutual sun-tolerance.

Of course Gamling also seemed to feel it was necessary to remark that the Dunlendings (hill men) were tolerant of the sun too. And of course the 'half-orcs' (men with goblin faces) marched with the Dunlendings (which the Orcs did not)('Flotsam').
An aside: Does the suggest that Saruman was using the Dunlendings for his breeding projects?

Sauron bred Olog-hai- a sun-tolerant variety of trolls, but then decided to not use them in his siege of Gondor, as they doubtlessly would not have in any way aided his cause. Instead he uses the troll-like men of Far Harad.

He did not use them? I had always presumed that they were those 'mountain trolls' (they appeared in both southern Mirkwood and the mountain borders of Mordor] wielding Grond.

Of course, Tolkien would never say:
The barricade was scattered as if by a thunderbolt.(TT, p. 184)
to refer to an actual thunderbolt (magical or storm-related); nor would he say:
And even at that moment the sun for a second faltered and was obscured, as though a dark wing had passed across it. (RotK, p. 43)
to describe the wing of a creature ridden by a Nazgul actually cutting in front of the sun. Therefore it is impossible for
and out of Far Harad black men like half-troll with white eyes and red tongues. (RotK, p. 148)
to refer to actual trolls (or half-trolls, which we know to be a genetic impossibility).

The men were from Far Harad, the Olog-hai were not.

Cian had posted about the ability of the Olog-hai to withstand sunlight. The point he is trying to make is (if I may be so bold, Cian correct me if I am wrong, but in any event this is how I read it) that if it were do due to breeding with Men, it seems unlikely that it would only endure while Sauron held sway over them (the fate and nature of the Eruhini being the sole discretion of Iluvatar). This is evidently some use of his 'sub-creational faculties' . When Sauron is 'destroyed' this goes to.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Greenwood
I just received my copy of The War of the Jewels and looked up uruk in Quendi and Eldar. The Quendi and Eldar is Tolkien's essay on the langauges of Middle Earth. In Appendix C there is the following passage: "The word uruk that occurs in the Black Speech, devised (it is said) by Sauron to serve as a lingua franca for his subjects, was probably borrowed by him from the Elvish tongues of earlier times. It referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of of the regiments of Mordor. Lesser breeds seem to have been called snaga." (italics in original; emphasis added) In regard to the word snaga their is an editorial note from Christopher Tolkien in which he compares this to Appendix F in LOTR: "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'."

Yes I already mentioned the passage in my 'Snaga' post (1-26-02, 3:54pm).

 

[aragil]

Some people's narrow readings...

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
The sun did not rout them, surprise and fear did. We know they hated it, and as you pointed out so do Saruman's. Still no proof that Sauron's Orcs were any more effected that Saruman's.

My question is why are we informed here that the orcs hate the sun. What do you possibly think that Tolkien was doing here mentioning the sun? Was he trying to fill up a word quota that his editor gave him? Why else would he have even bothered mentioning it?

Tolkien picked what Treebeard said. We have two options here:
1)Treebeard was being used to give some insight to the readers into the nature of orcs.
2)Tolkien was deliberately misleading his audience.

Why are you bothering to cite a private letter of the good professor's, which was referring to a specific incident, to support option #2, and essentially negate anything that Treebeard might ever say? You are in effect saying that we can't reasonably infer anything about the world of Tolkien by anything that any character in the book might say. Perhaps Tolkien should have written the entire book in the narrative format without dialogue, since the sole purpose of dialogue is apparently to confuse the reader. I guess if you think you know more about orcs than Treebeard, then you're free to your opinion- just don't say it is supported by Tolkien's works. As for me, I'll take Treebeard's words at face value.

 

[aragil]

Re: Re: Troll-men revisited

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
The men were from Far Harad, the Olog-hai were not.

The 'men' are confirmed as coming from Far Harad. The Olog-hai 'appear' in the late third age around Mirkwood and Mordor. We do not know where they came from, just that they were first bred and later deployed around Mordor and Dol Guldor.


I can't help but notice that by replying piece-meal to my theories you detract from one of their strong points- they are cohesive, and I do my best to make them apply to all uses of words, and to incorporate all of the works. It is easy to base a theory on the use of 'rebel Urukhai' in Mordor. It is much more difficult to make a theory which incorporates all of 'The Lord of the Rings', 'Morgoth's Ring', 'Unfinished Tales', 'Letters', and Webster's dictionary. I have done this. I would love to see a competing theory as complete, rather than having to respond to piece-meal detractions which tend to ignore the 'big picture'.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Greenwood
Tar-Elenion

That a secondary source agreed with you does not make either of you right. For thousands of years experts agreed with each other that the sun circled the earth. Mere agreement means nothing.

No, probobly not. But it sure does reinforce it. That a secondary source does not agree with your interpretation of the primary does not make the secondary wrong.

Sun circled the earth? Thats in the Legendarium too.

If uruk and Uruk-hai are equivalent, why does Tolkien invent two such similar yet different words? Why would the Black Speech have two different words that mean the same thing? The text does not say snaga is used by the uruk. It says "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave." In the second sentence it is the "lesser kinds" that refers back to the previous sentence, contrasting the lesser kinds to the great soldier orcs. The two sentences do not make uruk and Uruk-hai equivalent.

Tolkien invented alot of similar yet different words, he was a linguist. His Legendarium sprang out of his linguistic bent.

As for the Nazgul sending out troops, he hasn't a clue what he is looking for (".... 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.")

Except he is correct in each one. Gorbag etc. were 'rebel Uruk-hai',
Sam was an 'Elf' (or so it was reported), mithril mail was taken from Frodo, Hobbits are 'small dwarf-men'.

As for all of Saruman's orcs being dead, how would the Nazgul know this?

The Nazgul was at Cirith Ungol. Gorbag's boys and Shagrat's had slaughtered each other. Their dead bodies were all over the place, still locked in combat. Shagrat escaped alive. All this evidence and it is going to be assumed that Saruman had sent a bunch of his Orcs into Mordor, to 'rescue' Frodo (who had just been captured), unseen, and none of them was killed in the process? I dont buy it.
What did the Nazgul know? What had been gotten from Pippen when he looked into the Palantir, what all did Aragorn reveal?

Neither have I. I asked about Tolkien's capitalization. I asked why Tolkien as the narrator/translator always capitalizes Uruk-hai, but only sometimes capitalizes uruks? I also asked why as narrator/translator Tolkien always chooses to use the work Uruk-hai when Saruman's troops speak of themselves, but the one time a Mordor orc does (Gorbag) the word Uruks is used instead? Your only response is to dodge the question by repeating they are the same word and to then attempt to prove they are the same word by citing examples that are only true if you first assume the two words are the same.

Why did he sometimes choose to capitalize Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit, Orc, and sometimes not?

We are never going to agree on this.

Probably not.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Re: Re: Re: Troll-men revisited

Originally posted by aragil

I can't help but notice that by replying piece-meal to my theories you detract from one of their strong points- they are cohesive, and I do my best to make them apply to all uses of words, and to incorporate all of the works. It is easy to base a theory on the use of 'rebel Urukhai' in Mordor. It is much more difficult to make a theory which incorporates all of 'The Lord of the Rings', 'Morgoth's Ring', 'Unfinished Tales', 'Letters', and Webster's dictionary. I have done this. I would love to see a competing theory as complete, rather than having to respond to piece-meal detractions which tend to ignore the 'big picture'.

I do not know what you mean by 'piece-meal'. I have attempted to respond to points made in your posts.
For example your post 'Troll-men' 01-28-02 10:34am, you wanted to know why JRRT never referred to these elsewhere and I showed you that he had. They were the men from Far Harad mentioned several paragraphs earlier. You responded with a post with several points ie Gamling found it necessary to say the 'half-orcs' could withstand the sun and etc. I pointed out he said the same about Dunlendings and etc.

You found it odd that Sauron did not use the Olog-hai at Gondor, I pointed out the 'mountain trolls' passage and that the Olog-hai resided in the mountains of Mordor.

You quoted some metaphors from JRRT and _seemed_ to posit that the Far Haradians were the Olog-hai again, and mentioned the genetic impossiblities I pointed out that they were from 'F.H.' and the Olgo-hai were not. I mentioned Cian's post and responded with what how Sauron might be effecting the Olog-hai, and why it would stop.

By competeing theory do you mean like my '-hai', 'Snaga', and 'Uruk-hai' posts? (Those take a _long_ time for me to type out and the work week makes it difficult).

 

[Greenwood]

Is 'slave' a profession?

Like I say, he is, it seems, acting in his role as translator. Do Hobbit's know BS?

From my Webster's Dictionary: profession -- any vocation or business. also: vocation -- a particular occupation, business, or profession; a function or station. So yes, in the sense of a job slave is a profession. Once again, you resort to word games to hide the fact that you are ignoring the main point under discussion.
As for Tolkien, he is not the translator. He is the author. He wrote the entire book, he did not translate it. More words games on your part.

What does it say in the narrative proper? "But in Rohan the identity of the statues of Dunharrow called "Pukel-men" with the "Wild Men" of the Druadan forest was not recognized, neither was their "humanity"."

In The Ride of the Rohirrim in ROTK we find the following passage: "Merry felt that he had seen him before somewhere, and suddenly he remembered the Pukel-men of Dunharrow. Here was one of those old images brought to life, or maybe a creature descended in true line through endless years from the models used by the forgotten craftsmen long ago." Clearly Tolkien is telling us the Woses or Druedain are the Pukel-men. Or is Tolkien misleading us again as you so often imply with your word games rather than deal with the topic under discussion.

Yes I already mentioned the passage in my 'Snaga' post

Yes, you "mentioned" the passage, but you conveniently forgot to mention that Tolkien quite clearly says that uruk "referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of of the regiments of Mordor" with no reference to Isengard. We wonders, why my precious? Yes we wonders. Even now you do not address my points, but instead you play word and debating games.

It is also interesting that Christopher Tolkien sees fit to draw attention in an editorial note to the snaga definition in Appendix F of LOTR to compare and contrast it to the snaga definition in Quendi and Eldar? If, as you contend, the Uruk-hai are equivalent to the Uruks of Mordor why is CT think it is necessary to tell us to compare this use of the word snaga to the reference to snaga being used by the Uruk-hai (in Appendix F)? We wonders, yes, we wonders. You have repeatedly said that CT must have gotten his Anglicization definition of Uruk-hai that appears in the index of Unfinished Tales from his father's notebooks. This is the perfect place to put such a reference in an editorial note. Tolkien spends two pages in Quendi and Eldar discussing the derivation of the words orc and uruk, with nary a mention of the word Uruk-hai. If CT had some material of his father's that said "uruk is the Anglicization of Uruk-hai" why doesn't CT include it here? It is the perfect place for it. For that matter why doesn't CT cite the definition in the index of Unfinished Tales here? Once again, it is the perfect place for it. It seems a strange omission. CT frequently cites his other books in his editorial notes, Why not here when it seems directly applicable? Perhaps it is because the Anglicization definition doesn't appear in his fathers manuscripts? We wonders. I am sure you will now do one of your little word games and point to CT's introduction to Quendi and Eldar where he says: "for reasons of space my commentary is kept to a severe minimum". A minimum is one think. To completely ignore relevant JRR Tolkien notes that you claim must exist seems beyond believe. Unless those theorized notes in fact do not exist.

Tolkien invented alot of similar yet different words, he was a linguist.

Yes, but he didn't invent them for no reason. And he didn't invent two different words in the same language and then say they meant the same thing. You are always implying that Tolkien took great pleasure in misleading his readers.

Except he is correct in each one. Gorbag etc. were 'rebel Uruk-hai',
Sam was an 'Elf' (or so it was reported), mithril mail was taken from Frodo, Hobbits are 'small dwarf-men'.

No, the Nazgul was wrong in each case. Sam was not a "great Elf in bright armour". In fact Sam never wore the mithril coat that you claim gave rise to this report. And if the Nazgul seriously thought it might be a "great Elf in bright armour", how did he think a bunch of orcs got this armour off the "great Elf". Sam was not a "small dwarf-man". Sam doesn't look anything like a man. And Gorbag's boys were not "Uruk-hai", they were Uruks as Gorbag himself called them. The Nazgul was wrong in every case and didn't have a clue what was going on. That a pack of Saruman's rebel Uruk-hai could have attacked is far more likely than that a "great Elf in bright armour" sneaked past Minas Morgul got up the stairs, wiped out the Cirith Ungol Uruks and Gorbags Uruks and then left his armour behind.


I am tired of wasting my time with you since you continue to play word games and play debating games rather than actually engage in discussion.

 

[Greenwood]

Why are you bothering to cite a private letter of the good professor's, which was referring to a specific incident, to support option #2, and essentially negate anything that Treebeard might ever say? You are in effect saying that we can't reasonably infer anything about the world of Tolkien by anything that any character in the book might say. Perhaps Tolkien should have written the entire book in the narrative format without dialogue, since the sole purpose of dialogue is apparently to confuse the reader.

I can't help but notice that by replying piece-meal to my theories you detract from one of their strong points- they are cohesive, and I do my best to make them apply to all uses of words, and to incorporate all of the works. It is easy to base a theory on the use of 'rebel Urukhai' in Mordor. It is much more difficult to make a theory which incorporates all of 'The Lord of the Rings', 'Morgoth's Ring', 'Unfinished Tales', 'Letters', and Webster's dictionary. I have done this. I would love to see a competing theory as complete, rather than having to respond to piece-meal detractions which tend to ignore the 'big picture'.

Aragil

Yes, I noticed and called attention sometime ago to Tar-Elenion's habit of implying that Tolkien loves to mislead his readers and Tar-Elenion's habit of piece-meal replies that obscure the fact he does not address your whole argument. I am tired of wasting my time with him.

 

[Cian]

Greenwood:
Yes, but he didn't invent them for no reason. And he didn't invent two different words in the same language and then say they meant the same thing. You are always implying that Tolkien took great pleasure in misleading his readers.

Are you referring to Uruk and Uruk-hai here? If so the general force of the argument simply offers a "word" with slapped on collective. As Tolkien invented Nogoth and Nogothrim.

Stem *RUKU
ancient forms:
ruk-, rauk-, uruk-, urk(u), runk, rukut/s strengthened: gruk-, elaborated guruk-, ñguruk
CE: *rauku, *raukó
more "ancient": (uruk) urku/ó, adj. urká
Quenya: urko pl urqui (d.*urku or *uruku)
Sindarin: urug, orch (d. *urkó, adj. *úrká)
Adûnaic: urkhu, urkhu

Generally speaking: what Tolkien did invent was a very real interelated history of langs, and in the context of "found" texts ... Tolkien even took pleasure in asterisking some of his own forms as if they were unattested which they then are, in a historical sense, within the fantasy of translation.

 

[Cian]

Re: Re: Troll-men revisited

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
The men were from Far Harad, the Olog-hai were not. Cian had posted about the ability of the Olog-hai to withstand sunlight. The point he is trying to make is (if I may be so bold, Cian correct me if I am wrong, but in any event this is how I read it) that if it were do due to breeding with Men, it seems unlikely that it would only endure while Sauron held sway over them (the fate and nature of the Eruhini being the sole discretion of Iluvatar). This is evidently some use of his 'sub-creational faculties' . When Sauron is 'destroyed' this goes to.

Right First: "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: ..." and then it is said they could endure the sun so long as that will held sway over them.

I muchly like this idea from Tolkien, and see it as a component of the Dark Lord's "expenditure of will". I do not want to know the particulars of "how", and Tolkien does, naturally Imo, not digress. But the "mythic evidence" in this description at least, seems to be that the Olog-hai would lose what measure of sun-endurance they had following S's vanquishing (leading to a less mythic age).

 

[Greenwood]

Generally speaking: what Tolkien did invent was a very real interelated history of langs, and in the context of "found" texts ... Tolkien even took pleasure in asterisking some of his own forms as if they were unattested which they then are, in a historical sense, within the fantasy of translation.

Cian

Yes. Tolkien did indeed do this in his fantasy etymologies such as Quendi and Eldar, and in appendices on etymology to make the languages appear to have thousands of years of history. He did not, however, invent similar appearing words and then use them interchangeably with no explanation in his story-telling, thus confusing his readers. This would be poor writing and no editor/publisher would have stood for it. Can you give me any examples (other than uruks and Uruk-hai) where in LOTR or The Hobbit, Tolkien uses two different made-up words to mean exactly the same thing and where he does not explain to the reader, in the narrative, why these words are different? Before anyone accuses me of trying to stack the deck by restricting the question to The Hobbit and LOTR, let me explain again one of the crucial differences between those published works and the posthumously pubished manuscripts. The Hobbit and LOTR had to pass the scrutiny of an editor/publisher, the unpublished manuscripts did not. Wholly misleading usages will get weeded out by the publisher's editors in the first case. The unpublished manuscripts have not been subjected to this step. To forestall any attempts to excise out of my above statement a minor portion of it and then pronounce "But, The Silmarillion, etc were edited by Christopher Tolkien and presumably his publisher's editors" I will point out that for the most part the posthumously published works are heavily foot-noted and have considerable appendices and commentary. (Cian, the above comments are not directed at you.