Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

[Grond]

YOu guys will never give up and we'll be no closer to the answer now than we will be in a month. Darn, I just wish I could get an address for Christopher Tolkien. He's the only person on the face of the earth who could possibly shed some insight into the mix. Of course, I'm not sure Greenwood would accept his opinion on the matter, but any new blood would be better than this constant rehashing.

 

[ShagratU]

The ring as translator.

Having discussed this with Tar-elenion on another forum, and by e-mail, I would like to make some points regarding the ring's "translation" of Gorbag and Shagrat's conversation.

As Tar-elenion has pointed out, Tolkien states that the reason Sam could understand Gorbag and Shagrat was because of the ring. Finding a plausible reason for the heroes to be able to understand Orcs is clearly something that exercised Tolkien during the writing of LotR, as the HoME series indicates. Here, his solution is that the ring either acts as a translation device for Sam, or conveys the Orcs' thoughts directy into his head. That is how he is able to understand them.

It therefore follows that the words that Tolkien uses for the Orcs' speech will all be words that Sam can understand. He would presumably be able to understand nothing of their "untranslated" conversation.

Via the ring-translation, Gorbag's words appear as "poor Uruks". Uruk is a word that Sam understands; Gandalf provided a definition for it in Moria;"There are Orcs...and some of them are very large and evil' black Uruks of Mordor." Sam therefore knows that Uruks are a large kind of Orc.

Sam doesn't, of course, know what "Uruk-hai" means (he might be able to guess, however). A careful analysis of the text will reveal that the word has never been used in his presence before he enters Mordor. Therefore, Tolkien could not possibly have used the Black Speech "Uruk-hai" here. Sam doesn't know any Black Speech (except perhaps "ghash").

This doesn't mean that Gorbag didn't use the word however. Unless Black Speech, or whatever Black Speech-derived Orcish dialect Gorbag was speaking, uses "s" to indicate a plural - and it doesn't appear to -, then he must have used a word other than "Uruks". It's a fair bet that this word was "Uruk-hai."

When Tolkien has Frodo (with the ring) and Sam (without) encounter the soldier-orc and the tracker, he can fall back on his earlier explanation of why Orcs can be understood; they are of different breeds. These two Orcs are evidently speaking the Common Speech. The soldier uses "Uruk-hai", which is Black Speech, and the tracker evidently understands. Frodo and Sam, of course, have never heard this term before - unless they have heard amid Black Speech/Orcish talk that they could not understand.

It's a fair guess that both the tracker and the soldier understand "Uruk-hai" because as a fairly recent Black Speech coinage, it is a constant in both of their dialects.

Once Gorbag's statement is recognized as a "translation", and not his actual words, it appears that no Orc ever uses "Uruks" (rather than something that means ¡°Uruks¡±. We know for certain, however, that Orcs from both Isengard and Mordor use "Uruk-hai".

 

[ShagratU]

Re: Re: Sorry couldn't resist

Originally posted by aragil

Narrator or other character calling Isengarders Uruks: 0

There are two instances in LotR of the Isengarders being called "Uruks". One, in Appendix F on "Orcs and the Black Speech", has already been mentioned;

"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."

But we also have, in the Appendices:

"Orcs began to raid in the eastern regions and slay or steal horses. Others also came down from the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman, though it was long before that was suspected."

So whatever the Isengarders are, they are also "Uruks" in LotR. This of course ties in perfectly with the usage in "The Battles of the Fords of the Isen".

It's well worth noting that the only time the narrator uses "Uruk-hai" is from Pippin's point of view, when he recalls his time in their clutches, and where he of course heard the word several times.

Otherwise, the narrator, and non-Orcish characters use "Uruks", naturally enough if that is the "Anglicization", i.e. the form in which it has come into Westron. Gorbag, translated via the ring for a listener who doesn't know "Uruk-hai" is represented as using the Anglicized form. But when Orcs are speaking "untranslated", they use "Uruk-hai", it appears.

 

[ShagratU]

Originally posted by JeffF.
"this (Uruks) was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard."


The enclosure (Uruks) being mine. This statment clearly states exactly what you said Appendix F faile to mention that is that Uruks is the name for both the great soldier orcs that issued from Mordor and Isengard.

This is quite correct, as is the "great uruks in the service of Saruman", also from the Appendices.

Originally posted by JeffF.
Plus the fact that App. F states that the term 'snaga'
was used by the Uruk-hai as a derogatory term for the lsesser ocs and the only time this happens is when a Mordor Uruk uses it.

This is not quite correct. Ugluk refers to a scout as "Snaga" in "The Uruk-hai"

 

[ShagratU]

Are the Uruk-hai of Isengard the same as the Uruk-hai of Mordor?

A seperate issue from the linguistic ones is whether the Uruks of Isengard are the same breed as the Uruks of Mordor. I think it's quite clear that they are not, although Uruk-hai and Uruks would appear to be interchangeable terms for either sort.

The key thing about the Isengard Uruks is that they are remarkable. Several characters remark on their unusual nature; Aragorn, Legolas, Treebeard, Eomer and Gamling.

Aragorn is surprised by the equipment of the dead Isengarders; Legolas notes that 'Seldom will Orcs journey in the open under the sun. yet these have done so,'; Treebeard remarks on the Isengarder's indifference to the sun; Eomer states that the Isengarders are "stronger and more fell than all other kinds" of Orc; Gamling refers to "these creatures bred by the foul craft of Saruman, these half-orcs and goblin-men", and it's clear from the context that his comments at least in part refer to the Uruks of Isengard.

Now, one character's opinion might well be wrong; Tolkien says that Treebeard is wrong about some things in a letter. However, we get a consensus from no fewer than five characters, all of whom are either experienced Orc-fighters or extremely long-lived, that the Isengard Orcs are different from other kinds.

The main difference appears to be that the Isengarders are completely indifferent to sunlight. Equipment aside, the Isengarders seem to be completely Orcish in appearance. They are certainly large for Orcs, but they don't appear to be totally off the scale of Orcishness; Ugluk, "a large black Orc" doesn't sound as imposing as "a huge orc-chieftain, almost Man-high".

The Isengard Uruks are also certainly shorter than Men. When Merry speaks of the half-orcs (who are described as horrible "Men", not as Orcs, as the Uruk-hai are passim.), he contrasts their "goblin-faces" with their "Man-height". This visual contrast, coming after almost all the Uruks of Isengard have trooped past, would be impossible if the Uruk-hai generally approached the height of Men. Also, Gimli's comments at Helm's Deep make it clear that the Isengard Orcs were much easier for him to deal with than the Dunlendings, and that height was the main factor in this.

Tolkien also tells us that the Isengarders have long arms ("Helm's Deep") and that they run with bowed backs ("The Uruk-hai"). Both Uruks of Mordor and of Isengard are described as "squat". Like other Uruks, the Isengarders are "black" or "swart"; their distinguishing physical features, if any, appear to be stronger, thicker legs. We might therefore infer that they are even stockier and heavier in build (on average) than other Uruks, and perhaps sometimes a little taller. But generally, I would imagine that both kinds of Uruk would be around Dwarf-stature, with the lesser kinds being more akin to Hobbits in height.

From their Orcish appearance, their sunlight-indifference and also the mention of both "Men-Orcs" and "Orc-Men" in Morgoth's Ring, I would conclude that the Isengard Uruks are crossbred, but that the proportion of Man-blood is less than the "Orc-Men", who are visually identifiable as hybrids. Perhaps the Isengard Uruks are about 3/4 Orc, or perhaps the Man-strain in them is even smaller.

 

[Cian]

And this must be the Shagrat(O,U) I quoted earlier here (ahh ... hope you don't mind actually ). I've noted your orc-commentary in several MB's I think ... welcome to our longish go at this.

 

[ShagratU]

Originally posted by Cian
And this must be the Shagrat(O,U) I quoted earlier here (ahh ... hope you don't mind actually ).

No worries!

It's good to see a discussion run and run like this!

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
Tar-Elenion-
<snip>
This bears directly on your (and other notable scholars') theory that Uruk is an anglicized version of Uruk-hai. The language of Middle-Earth which Tolkien has decided to 'translate' as English is Westron. According to the 'anglicization theory', the best translation would have had Westron speakers using the 'anglicized' form, i.e. Uruk.<snip>

This is a mis-characterization of my position (I thought you were going to stop that). Uruk is not an 'anglicized' version of Uruk-hai. Uruk is Black Speech and likely the singular. 'Uruks' with an S is anglicized. I have never said Uruk is anglicized.
No one here is willing to argue that the plural marker in Black Speech is 's', and there is no evidence that it is (and I and I am sure Cian would like to see someone argue that and provide evidence). 'Uruks' is anglicized because it is a Black Speech word ('uruk') using an English plural marker ('s') to denote more than one Uruk. Is that clear?

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Re: Re: Re: Sorry couldn't resist

Originally posted by ShagratU
But we also have, in the Appendices:
"Orcs began to raid in the eastern regions and slay or steal horses. Others also came down from the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman, though it was long before that was suspected."

So whatever the Isengarders are, they are also "Uruks" in LotR. This of course ties in perfectly with the usage in "The Battles of the Fords of the Isen".

Yes!
Hello, Shagrat.
The quote provided above is from App. A, II (House of Eorl), 'Kings of the Mark', 'Third Line'.
Perhaps Greenwood needs to revise his original 'thesis' (ie the first post on the thread) to include this use of the word.
Greenwood?

 

[aragil]

Tar-Elenion- I meant Uruks. Uruks is the usage in question by Gorbag, not Uruk.

Shagrat- Welcome to the forum, might I suggest you try the 'best Orc pentathlete' thread? You're in the running, but currently trailing both Ugluk and Grishnakh.
Doubtless your 'great Uruk' quote is a triumph for Tar-Elenion, but I plan to argue against it when I have the time. Grond should also be pleased, as he maintains that 'hai' should be translated 'great', hence great Uruk = Uruk-hai (or hai Uruk).

 

[aragil]

Cian- I guess 'Morbeth' was the Sindarin term for Black Speech, apparently- Mor:black as in Mordor=Black Land
beth:some derivative of peth=word?

Of course you probably recognized the mor=black before. Oh well, I didn't. I still don't know if Tolkien coined the word, though.

 

[Cian]

Yep, I did recognise the first part, seemingly standing for "black" thanks for responding btw, even if we haven't sourced it. [aside: Sindarin adj. morn "black, dark" ~ Mordor > morn-dor (<- David Salo) corresponding to Q. morna, -ndore (-ndóre)].

On the seeming second element, as I say, beth may be someone thinking either that this is the normal form for "word" (actually the lenited form: "lenition" is a form of mutation seen in Sindarin (and Welsh)). Or someone may be using peth and considering it the second element of a compound, which can mutate similarly ~ like Nindalf <> nîn + talf.

Tolkien did have Elvish words for "language, tongue", lam, lambë, so I was just wondering about the source. I've seen Quenya offering Mornalambë for "Black Speech" from David S.

Oh well ... back to the main here.

 

[ShagratU]

"-hai"

Originally posted by aragil
Doubtless your 'great Uruk' quote is a triumph for Tar-Elenion, but I plan to argue against it when I have the time.

What is there to argue against?

Originally posted by aragil
Grond should also be pleased, as he maintains that 'hai' should be translated 'great', hence great Uruk = Uruk-hai (or hai Uruk).

Of course, the quotation says "great uruks". If "hai" is translated as "great", we get "Uruk-great", which doesn't fit, unless we conclude that Black Speech has no plurals. Languages which have no plurals generally use counters ("ash nazg"?) and group qualifiers ("-hai"?) to indicate whether a singular or plural state is implied.

Throughout the text of LotR, "Uruk-hai" clearly indicates a plural state. It is never, ever used as a singular. The obvious inference, backed up by UT and by Appendix F, is that "Uruk" is the singular, and "Uruk-hai" is either a simple plural qualifier or a word meaning "race" or "folk".

Thus if "-hai" is something like, say, the Chinese -men ("comrade" = tongzhi, "comrades" = tongzhi-men) or its Russian equivalent, or the Japanese -tachi, everything fits.

If "-hai" simply means "folk" or "race", everything fits again. If "-hai" is a plural qualifier, then the Uruk-hai would mean "the Uruk-folk" by default.

 

[aragil]

OK, 'argue' was a poor choice of words. How about 'I look forward to meaningfully discussing the implications of the passage from Appendix A with you in the future'.
As for hai meaning great, that is Grond's theory. I was saying to him 'good for you, your stubborness looks to be paying off' (stubborness intended to be an endearing term). The 'pluralifying' is for him to work out, as 'hai'='great' is not my theory.
My theory is that 'hai' means 'men' (English 'men', not Chinese 'men'). The devious (and wonderful) thing about my theory is that usage would be in much the same manner as 'folk' or 'people', and it is possible that it fits in the usages 'Olog-hai' and 'Ogor-hai' as well as with our goodly Uruks. Or is that Uruk-hai? I get confused. Anyway, I laid out the groundwork for how 'hai' might mean 'men' in http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44669#post44669
I am not overly concerned about the Appendix referring to Isengarders as Uruks. This does have some bearing on my 'probability' post, but even there the odds will still be overwhelmingly against 'Uruks' vs 'Uruk-hai' being used equivalently. In my opinion calling Saruman's troops 'Uruks' is much the same as calling them Orcs (it literally the same BS uruk=orc, but that's not what I meant), which Tolkien does throughout the narrative. I would bet money that Saruman bred his Orc/human hybrids from Uruks, so they would be an off-shoot of that breed, and could equally be called in the general sense 'uruks' or 'orcs', but there most-specific name might be 'Uruk-hai'. I said as much in: http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42280#post42280
Tar-Elenion, I will speak for Greenwood here by pointing out that he has already ammended his first post to include a 13th quote (reference to slave-driving uruks in the Durthang line), so I'm sure he'd be happy to include a 14th quote. I wonder if we have missed any other quotes?- I'd begun to take it for granted that we had found them all. Anyway, Greenwood does not need to change his thesis either- he already acknowledged that Saruman's Orcs could be referred to as 'Uruks', several times actually:
http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=38500#post38500 (in note to Wildcat)
http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=40576#post40576
http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41330#post41330
http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41637#post41637

Back to Shagrat: As for Gorbag's 'uruks' statement, I disagree on two counts.
1)Tolkien does not say that the ring 'translated' for Sam, Tolkien says that the ring allowed him to 'understand' what was said by the two Orcs. People who are bilingual do not translate one language to the other in their heads. Instead they 'understand' the meanings of words from both languages in their heads- no translation necessary. By the passage quoted, it appears that the ring could equally allow Sam such an understanding, rather than necessarily 'translating' all the words into Westron (or English, or Kuduk, or whatever other language might use the word Uruks).
2)Tolkien as narrator (or translator) is not constrained to print words as the characters in his story heard or understood them. Tar-Elenion loves to point to the usage of the Black-Speech word 'snaga': (http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43996#post43996). Sam would not have understood any of the conversation between Shagrat and Snaga unless the ring were still giving him 'power of understanding', nor would he have understood the word 'snaga' to mean slave. Yet Tolkien has no problems putting these in the text. Why should he treat Gorbag differently?
Sadly, I also disagree with your (and Jeff F's) reading of the entry for Uruk in Appendix F. It says that the word uruk was applied to soldier-Orcs of Isengard. It does not say that Uruk was the name for them. If the theory of the reader is that Uruk and Uruk-hai refer to the same creatures, then to that reader the above passage will imply that the soldier Orcs of Saruman were named Uruks. But I don't believe that Uruk-hai and uruk refer to the same creatures, so I get a different reading. Both readings are equally valid in relation to the passage.
As for your analysis of Saruman's Orcs vs. Sauron's Orcs, I pretty much agree completely (and enthusiastically). My take has always been that anything Saruman created which was over 1/2 man was an 'orc-man' (orc-men wielding axes, the Southerner in Bree, goblin-men, men with goblin faces, what have you); while anything over 1/2 orc was a 'man-orc': Saruman took an orc, gave it a little man's blood (not to drink), and by doing so he made 'it' larger and more cunning (and openly disdainful of the sun). However, in the latter case the 'it' would still refer to an orc- which is how Saruman's troops are referred to for the most part in the narrative- Helm's Deep, etc. I don't think that goblin-men were the likeliest candidate for the man-orcs, as per Tar-Elenion's suggestion. Goblin men sound like men with Orc blood to me, which would make them orc-men, like the Southerner and all other men with varying degrees of 'orc-blood' in them.
My one disagreement comes from the fact that I do believe that the Orcs of Saruman were larger than the Uruks of Mordor. First of all, I believe that Grishnakh and his band were Uruks. Members of Ugluk's group seem to be described as larger than those of Grishnakh's, althought the only direct comparison we see is between Ugluk and Grishnakh. However, when Ugluk calls up his mates they are described as being almost the same size as Ugluk. Who knows, maybe Saruman sent all of his biggest Orcs on such an important mission. But in the departure of Boromir the slain Isengard Orcs are definitely described as using bows after the manner of men. I don't think Orcs of Dwarvish stature could do this. And after all, Morgoth's ring does say that the 'men-Orcs' were bred to be large. I assume this means that they were larger than whatever stock Saruman started with (i.e. most likely Uruks like Grishnakh).

So the funny thing here is that we both agree that the Isengarders are different from the Mordor Uruks, but we do two different things with this idea. From a linguistic standpoint you seem to say that Uruks is an anglicization, probably of Uruk-hai. Therefore, though the Orcs of Saruman are peculiarly different than those of Mordor, they are both 'Uruk-hai'.
I, on the other hand, say that the Orcs of Saruman are very different from those of Sauron. They are crossed with men (in however small a percentage), and therefore they are sufficiently different to deserve their own name. I have not seen any instance where 'Uruk-hai' is (unambiguously) applied to Mordor Orcs, so I assume that the name Uruk-hai is the name that seperates Saruman's Orcs from those of Sauron. Looking at other usages of the BS word 'hai', it appears to me likely that the word 'hai' means 'men'. If Saruman were to call his Orcs 'Uruk-men', this would differentiate them from the Uruks of Mordor in exactly the way that Saruman's troops are different from those of Mordor- they have some men's blood running in their veins. Perhaps this is how Tar-Elenion and I disagree too, although he has tended to counter every point I have ever tried to make on this thread, so I have assumed that our differences are deeper.
I am not saying either way of resolving Uruk/Uruk-hai is better in and of itself, just noting the different uses of what is basically the same observation.
Anyway, welcome again to the thread and forum, Shagrat. We've been eagerly awaiting your arrival since http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=40523#post40523 some 18 pages ago. And like I said before, you better do something if you want win the laurels as 'best Orc pentathlete'. I put in a good word for you, but nobody seems to have responded with votes.

 

[ShagratU]

Originally posted by aragil

My theory is that 'hai' means 'men' (English 'men', not Chinese 'men'). The devious (and wonderful) thing about my theory is that usage would be in much the same manner as 'folk' or 'people', and it is possible that it fits in the usages 'Olog-hai' and 'Ogor-hai' as well as with our goodly Uruks. Or is that Uruk-hai? I get confused. Anyway, I laid out the groundwork for how 'hai' might mean 'men' in http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44669#post44669

It seems that the "-hai = Men" theory falls down for a number of reasons. Some of these, I think, have already been pointed out, but I'll just shamelessl rehash them if I may.

Firstly, nothing links the Olog-hai to Men. They don't look like Men; Tolkien says that some wondered if they were giant Orcs; and they're not Men (or giant Orcs); "trolls they were." That's fairly conclusive.

Secondly, as Tar-Elenion has pointed out (perhaps on this thread, but certainly elsewhere), Tolkien seems to have concluded at the time of LotR that trolls and Orcs - and thus biologically equivalent Men - could not interbreed. One can reasonably infer that there would be something of a physical incompatibility problem that even sorcery might struggle to overcome!

Thirdly, we know that Mordor Orcs understand ¡°Uruk-hai¡±. It is a term that is used and understood by different breeds of Mordor Orc, as the passage with the soldier-orc and the tracker demonstrates. If ¡°Uruk-hai¡± means ¡°Orc-men¡±, then we would have expected Grishnakh to comment on it! But instead we get a real sense of ¡°pan-Orcishness¡± as Ugluk insists, ¡°Aye, we must stick together!¡± and Grishnakh says he¡¯s come back to help some of Ugluk¡¯s ¡°stout fellows.¡± It appears to be all Orcs together against Men.

Grishnakh insults Ugluk, but he never once accuses him of being part ¡°Whiteskin¡± or whatever. He accuses Ugluk of being a cannibal, but not of being part-Man. Given the disdain that the Isengarders show for the ¡°Whiteskins, it¡¯s highly unlikely that they are actually boasting of their Mannish origin!

Originally posted by aragil
I am not overly concerned about the Appendix referring to Isengarders as Uruks. This does have some bearing on my 'probability' post, but even there the odds will still be overwhelmingly against 'Uruks' vs 'Uruk-hai' being used equivalently. In my opinion calling Saruman's troops 'Uruks' is much the same as calling them Orcs (it literally the same BS uruk=orc, but that's not what I meant), which Tolkien does throughout the narrative. I would bet money that Saruman bred his Orc/human hybrids from Uruks, so they would be an off-shoot of that breed, and could equally be called in the general sense 'uruks' or 'orcs', but there most-specific name might be 'Uruk-hai'. I said as much in: http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42280#post42280

Remember, though that the "great uruks" quote shows exactly how the word "uruk" was applied to the Isengarders; as Appendix F suggests, in the same way as the it was to the great soldier-orcs of Moria. If we consider the "black Uruks" of the "Battles of the Fords of the Isen", we can see that "Uruk" is equally applicable to Isengarders as it is to "Mordorians".

It's also well worth noticing how "uruks" is used in the Appendix; it's emphatically not just the same as calling them "Orcs", because the term is used to distinguish the great soldier-orcs in Saruman's service from their lesser relations in the Misty Mountains.

Originally posted by aragil

Back to Shagrat: As for Gorbag's 'uruks' statement, I disagree on two counts.
1)Tolkien does not say that the ring 'translated' for Sam, Tolkien says that the ring allowed him to 'understand' what was said by the two Orcs. People who are bilingual do not translate one language to the other in their heads. Instead they 'understand' the meanings of words from both languages in their heads- no translation necessary. By the passage quoted, it appears that the ring could equally allow Sam such an understanding, rather than necessarily 'translating' all the words into Westron (or English, or Kuduk, or whatever other language might use the word Uruks).

¡°He heard them both clearly, and he understood what they said. Perhaps the ring gave understanding of tongues, or simply understanding, especially of the servants of Sauron its maker, so that if he gave heed, he understood and translated the thought to himself¡±

The text pretty much says that the ring acted as a simultaneous translator/interpreter, either by giving Sam understanding of the Orc-language, or enabling him to ¡°translate it to himself¡±. Either way, what the Orcs said was rendered into a form that Sam could understand. That rules out the (un-translated) Black Speech ¡°Uruk-hai¡±. So it couldn¡¯t have appeared here whatever Gorbag actually said. If Tolkien had included it, he would be leaving a chunk of un-translated Orc-speech in the middle of a ¡°translation¡±.

We can be certain that Gorbag didn¡¯t actually say the word ¡°Uruks¡±. What we can be certain of is that he said a word that translates as ¡°Uruks¡±. From all the linguistic evidence, Black Speech and its Orcish derivatives don¡¯t use ¡°s¡± to indicate a plural. Gorbag must have said a word containing the element ¡°Uruk¡±, but he can¡¯t have just said ¡°Uruks¡±. He wasn¡¯t speaking Westron. If ¡°Uruks¡± is indeed the ¡°Anglicized¡± form of ¡°Uruk-hai¡±, as Christopher Tolkien thinks, then it¡¯s highly likely that Gorbag actually said ¡°Uruk-hai.¡±

Originally posted by aragil
Tolkien as narrator (or translator) is not constrained to print words as the characters in his story heard or understood them.

In this case, he is! The whole point of the ring-translation effect is that Gorbag¡¯s words are conveyed in a way that Sam can understand. What we hear is what Sam effectively hears. Sam doesn¡¯t speak Black Speech or any of its Orcish derivatives, so it is impossible for ¡°Uruk-hai¡± to feature in the ¡°translation¡±. ¡°Uruk-hai¡± is un-translated Black Speech.

Originally posted by aragil
Sam would not have understood any of the conversation between Shagrat and Snaga unless the ring were still giving him 'power of understanding', nor would he have understood the word 'snaga' to mean slave. Yet Tolkien has no problems putting these in the text. Why should he treat Gorbag differently?

It seems clear to me that ¡°Snaga¡± is, to all intents and purposes, that particular Orc¡¯s name. It¡¯s what he answers to, and it¡¯s his identity. It doesn¡¯t appear to be used as an insult or a title, but simply as a name. Therefore it¡¯s translated as a name, because that¡¯s how Shagrat was using it. ¡°Shagrat¡± probably means something too, but that isn¡¯t translated either.

Originally posted by aragil
Sadly, I also disagree with your (and Jeff F's) reading of the entry for Uruk in Appendix F. It says that the word uruk was applied to soldier-Orcs of Isengard. It does not say that Uruk was the name for them. If the theory of the reader is that Uruk and Uruk-hai refer to the same creatures, then to that reader the above passage will imply that the soldier Orcs of Saruman were named Uruks. But I don't believe that Uruk-hai and uruk refer to the same creatures, so I get a different reading. Both readings are equally valid in relation to the passage.

But that other pertinent passage, the ¡°great uruks¡± reference from elsewhere in the Appendices completely invalidates your reading! We know for certain that ¡°uruks¡± was used to describe Saruman¡¯s great soldier-orcs. If any further evidence is needed, we can point to ¡°The Battle of the Fords of the Isen¡± in UT, which post-dates LotR.

The UT description is particularly interesting, of course, because it describes Uruks that we already know very well ¨C Ugluk¡¯s band. In UT, they are unequivocally described as ¡°Uruks¡±.

 

[ShagratU]

Originally posted by aragil
As for your analysis of Saruman's Orcs vs. Sauron's Orcs, I pretty much agree completely (and enthusiastically). My take has always been that anything Saruman created which was over 1/2 man was an 'orc-man' (orc-men wielding axes, the Southerner in Bree, goblin-men, men with goblin faces, what have you); while anything over 1/2 orc was a 'man-orc': Saruman took an orc, gave it a little man's blood (not to drink), and by doing so he made 'it' larger and more cunning (and openly disdainful of the sun). However, in the latter case the 'it' would still refer to an orc- which is how Saruman's troops are referred to for the most part in the narrative- Helm's Deep, etc. I don't think that goblin-men were the likeliest candidate for the man-orcs, as per Tar-Elenion's suggestion. Goblin men sound like men with Orc blood to me, which would make them orc-men, like the Southerner and all other men with varying degrees of 'orc-blood' in them.

Yes, I think the ¡°Men-Orcs¡± must be creatures that are described as ¡°Orcs¡± rather than ¡°Men¡±, which rules out all other candidates except the Isengard Uruk-hai.

Originally posted by aragil
My one disagreement comes from the fact that I do believe that the Orcs of Saruman were larger than the Uruks of Mordor.

So do I, but not very much larger.

Originally posted by aragil
First of all, I believe that Grishnakh and his band were Uruks.

I completely agree. J

Originally posted by aragil
Members of Ugluk's group seem to be described as larger than those of Grishnakh's, althought the only direct comparison we see is between Ugluk and Grishnakh. However, when Ugluk calls up his mates they are described as being almost the same size as Ugluk.

Note that Ugluk is not actually said to be larger than Grishnakh. They are grouped together for comparison with the smaller Orcs around them, which suggests that they were closer in size (if not shape) to each other than they were to the Northerners.

Grishnakh is described as ¡°short¡±, but he¡¯s also ¡°very broad¡±. I would conclude from this that he¡¯s actually rather large too. It¡¯s perfectly possible to be both short and large, as many international prop-forwards demonstrate! Also, Grishnakh is clearly very, very strong ¨C he runs with a Hobbit under each arm. He also has large hands, much like the Isengarders, and long arms, which the Isengarders had too.

But overall, I agree that he is probably somewhat smaller than Ugluk, and certainly shorter.

Originally posted by aragil
Who knows, maybe Saruman sent all of his biggest Orcs on such an important mission. But in the departure of Boromir the slain Isengard Orcs are definitely described as using bows after the manner of men. I don't think Orcs of Dwarvish stature could do this. And after all, Morgoth's ring does say that the 'men-Orcs' were bred to be large. I assume this means that they were larger than whatever stock Saruman started with (i.e. most likely Uruks like Grishnakh).

I imagine the Isengard Uruks to be larger on average than the Mordor Uruks, but not remarkably so. They certainly use long bows (though I doubt these are longbows), but remember that they also have long arms and (presumably) broad chests; they are described as ¡°squat and broad¡± at Helm¡¯s Deep. Those features would facilitate the use of a longer bow than whatever Orcs customarily used.

Originally posted by aragil
the funny thing here is that we both agree that the Isengarders are different from the Mordor Uruks, but we do two different things with this idea. From a linguistic standpoint you seem to say that Uruks is an anglicization, probably of Uruk-hai. Therefore, though the Orcs of Saruman are peculiarly different than those of Mordor, they are both 'Uruk-hai'.
I, on the other hand, say that the Orcs of Saruman are very different from those of Sauron. They are crossed with men (in however small a percentage), and therefore they are sufficiently different to deserve their own name. I have not seen any instance where 'Uruk-hai' is (unambiguously) applied to Mordor Orcs, so I assume that the name Uruk-hai is the name that seperates Saruman's Orcs from those of Sauron. Looking at other usages of the BS word 'hai', it appears to me likely that the word 'hai' means 'men'. If Saruman were to call his Orcs 'Uruk-men', this would differentiate them from the Uruks of Mordor in exactly the way that Saruman's troops are different from those of Mordor- they have some men's blood running in their veins.

It¡¯s very odd then, that other Orcs treat them as Orcs, and not as ¡°half-Men¡± or whatever. The Isengarders appear all-orcish, and not even Grishnakh accuses them of being anything less than Orcs. It¡¯s therefore highly unlikely that their name indicates that they are only part Orc!

Originally posted by aragil
Anyway, welcome again to the thread and forum, Shagrat. We've been eagerly awaiting your arrival since http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=40523#post40523 some 18 pages ago.

Thanks! I wouldn¡¯t wait for my rambling and convoluted contributions, though!

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by ShagratU
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by aragil
Sam would not have understood any of the conversation between Shagrat and Snaga unless the ring were still giving him 'power of understanding', nor would he have understood the word 'snaga' to mean slave. Yet Tolkien has no problems putting these in the text. Why should he treat Gorbag differently?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It seems clear to me that ¡°Snaga¡± is, to all intents and purposes, that particular Orc¡¯s name. It¡¯s what he answers to, and it¡¯s his identity. It doesn¡¯t appear to be used as an insult or a title, but simply as a name. Therefore it¡¯s translated as a name, because that¡¯s how Shagrat was using it. ¡°Shagrat¡± probably means something too, but that isn¡¯t translated either.

I disagree here. Shagrat and Snaga are speaking Westron. Sam is not wearing the Ring, and Snaga is one of the lesser breeds. I think Shagrat is actually calling him 'snaga' (slave) and using the BS word which they would both be familiar with.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
I am not overly concerned about the Appendix referring to Isengarders as Uruks. This does have some bearing on my 'probability' post, but even there the odds will still be overwhelmingly against 'Uruks' vs 'Uruk-hai' being used equivalently. In my opinion calling Saruman's troops 'Uruks' is much the same as calling them Orcs (it literally the same BS uruk=orc, but that's not what I meant), which Tolkien does throughout the narrative. I would bet money that Saruman bred his Orc/human hybrids from Uruks, so they would be an off-shoot of that breed, and could equally be called in the general sense 'uruks' or 'orcs', but there most-specific name might be 'Uruk-hai'.

This is interesting. You think the Orc/human hybrids came from Uruks while Shagrat thinks Uruks came from the hybrids. Is that inference (on my part) accurate guys?

Tar-Elenion, I will speak for Greenwood here by pointing out that he has already ammended his first post to include a 13th quote (reference to slave-driving uruks in the Durthang line), so I'm sure he'd be happy to include a 14th quote. I wonder if we have missed any other quotes?- I'd begun to take it for granted that we had found them all. Anyway, Greenwood does not need to change his thesis either- he already acknowledged that Saruman's Orcs could be referred to as 'Uruks', several times actually:

That is not what I meant by 'change his thesis'. You were more correct
in your initial sentence. And yes.

As for your analysis of Saruman's Orcs vs. Sauron's Orcs, I pretty much agree completely (and enthusiastically). My take has always been that anything Saruman created which was over 1/2 man was an 'orc-man' (orc-men wielding axes, the Southerner in Bree, goblin-men, men with goblin faces, what have you); while anything over 1/2 orc was a 'man-orc': Saruman took an orc, gave it a little man's blood (not to drink), and by doing so he made 'it' larger and more cunning (and openly disdainful of the sun). However, in the latter case the 'it' would still refer to an orc- which is how Saruman's troops are referred to for the most part in the narrative- Helm's Deep, etc. I don't think that goblin-men were the likeliest candidate for the man-orcs, as per Tar-Elenion's suggestion. Goblin men sound like men with Orc blood to me, which would make them orc-men, like the Southerner and all other men with varying degrees of 'orc-blood' in them.

I dont think that was my suggestion. My suggestion has been that the 'Men-orcs large and cunning' are the 'goblin-faced Men' that Merry spoke of at Isengard, while the 'Orc-men treacherous and vile' are those like the 'Southerner' (though the variety of terms does get confusing). Shagrat has a different theory.

 

[aragil]

Of course, I'd argue that Shagrat and Snaga (or the Orc formerly referred to as a snaga) are speaking Black Speech (BS-ing, as it were), and that Sam 'understands' what they are saying in the same way that he 'understands' the conversation of Gorbag and Shagrat. But I'm not going to argue too much here, because I don't feel that Tolkien is constrained to type exactly what Sam heard. At this point in the narrative the readers are reasonably familiar with the term Uruk-hai, and if Tolkien were to have used it in the text rather than Uruks, I doubt that the reader would have found this usage problematic. I do not believe that whatever word Gorbag used was Uruk-hai. As Tar-Elenion pointed out, Westron had a much more intuitive (at least for us Westerners) way of 'pluralacizing' (don't know the correct word here)Uruk: Urukin. Likewise, in Sauron Defeated on p. 436 we learn how Adunaic makes the word Uruk plural, although I don't have my books handy so I can't recall exactly how that is done. The point here, is that Gorbag did not necessarily say 'Uruk-hai', and there might be another BS word out there that makes Uruk plural in a similar manner to Adunaic and Westron, without resorting to the use of 'hai'. Again I don't have my books handy, but I thought a lot of the BS words were derived from Sindarin (BS uruk from S yrch, BS olog from S torog), which was also the base language for Adunaic and Westron. I could be wrong here, but that's how I remember it. Perhaps Cian or somebody knows how Sindarin 'pluralicizes'?

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
This is interesting. You think the Orc/human hybrids came from Uruks while Shagrat thinks Uruks came from the hybrids. Is that inference (on my part) accurate guys?

This is certainly correct for my theory- Saruman's Orc/human hybrids used Sauron's older Uruk strain, as well as some sort of men (maybe Dunlendings?). I'd be surprised if Shagrat's theory was the reverse, but I'll let him speak for himself. I just think that Uruks appeared in TA 2475, long before Saruman was in Isengard, or had displayed any truly 'evil' tendencies.

Sorry if I inferred you were telling Greenwood to give up his argument.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
I dont think that was my suggestion. My suggestion has been that the 'Men-orcs large and cunning' are the 'goblin-faced Men' that Merry spoke of at Isengard, while the 'Orc-men treacherous and vile' are those like the 'Southerner' (though the variety of terms does get confusing). Shagrat has a different theory.

Sorry if I was attributing the wrong hybrid to your 'orc-men' theory. Even with Goblin-faced men, my point still holds. Goblin-faced men sound like men with goblin blood (and faces), not goblin with men's blood. Goblin-faced seems to be an adjective describing men, in English. Of course, I don't think that BS needs to follow the same rule, so my theory of Uruk-hai as 'Orc-men' is actually meant to apply to the creatures Tolkien refers to as 'men-Orcs'. Anyway, as I've said before, I think that Saruman produced a continuum of hybrids, ranging from the barely-orcish (but still noticeably Goblin-featured) Southerner at Bree, to the barely-human (but still large and sun-tolerant) Ugluk. I think that Tolkien has broadly classified this continuum into 'men-orcs' and 'orc-men', intending these two classes to contain all manner of orc/men hybrids, including his Uruk-hai.

Shagrat- I've got a message brewing to further discuss with you, but it will have to wait until after work.