Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

[Grond]

Re: Uruks

Originally posted by JeffF.
...The main claim is that the reports from Cirith Ungol are unreliable citing the report of an 'elf-warrior' when the readers know there is not one. By a thin line of logic they conclude that Uruk-hai from Isengard is no greater an aberration. The problem is the report of the elf-warrior IS credible from a military intelligence sense. After a career studying enemy spot reports and tactical intelligence my view is the enemy would view them as very accurate. That is not to say it is true, the readers know it is not, but from the Dark Lord's view. There was an elf-blade captured and from the Enemy's view the most likely source of this weapon is logically an elf. More it is of the rare sort of sword used by the Noldor (the kind that light upo when evil is near) making it likely that this possible elf warrior is a High Elf and not Sindar or Silvan. The Enemy would learn from the Nazgul that took over Cirith Ungol that there was a rebellion of Uruk-hai attempting to steal the items captured from Frodo.

I have been watching this argument ebb and flo for awhile and have been content to watch.... but JeffF, I must point out your error before others bash in. There was no elf blade recovered in Mordor. The blade recovered was Sam's blade of Westernesse made in Arnor. Your argument is still sound though because the mithril coat of armour, though forged by Dwarves, was unmistakably one made for an Elven princeling. And your argument would also be sound that a mithril coat of such value would belong to a high elf and not one of the Green Elves.

 

[aragil]

Jeff F- I thought that everyone here agreed that the Isengarders had a little mannish blood. First off there is the quote by Treebeard that Orcs other than Saruman's could not handle the sun that well. Then there is speculation by Treebeard that Saruman's Orcs got their sun-tolerance through breeding with men. Then there's Tolkien's quote from Morgoth's ring that Saruman did breed his orcs with men. Then there is Gamling's conversation with Aragorn. Gamling assumes that Aragorn is looking forward to the dawn because Orcs are generally cowed by the sun. Gamling says that this won't be the case with Saruman's troops:Goblin-men, Half-orcs, and Dunlendings. This statement is all inclusive, it does not neglect the Uruk-hai but includes them in the category of Half-orcs. The entire history of Gamling's nation (Rohan) has occurred during the reign of Uruks. If Uruks of Mordor were sun-tolerant, then it would hardly be worth Gamling's time to remark that Saruman's creatures were not effected by the dawn. Then we have a side by side comparison between Ugluk's Uruk-hai and Grishnakh's Uruks. During the day Grishnakh's Uruks fall behind Ugluk's troops, and they are running with their heads down. They do not lift their heads until the sun is up. Then we have the entire battle of the Pelannor, where Sauron's Orcs (we can assume he sent Uruks) begin routing the moment that the sun pokes out and Theoden charges, and there is no textual evidence that the Orcs ever stop routing. Uruks were noteworthy because they had great strength. If they also were immune to sunlight, we can assume Tolkien would have at least mentioned that fact in the appendix.
As for the distinguishing features of the Isengarders- there was really 2. One was that they didn't use Orcish equipment. Two was that they used equipment which was specifically desribed as 'mannish'. Mannish equipment was generally too large for Orcs to use (even the huge Orc chieftain in Moria was not quite man-height). Tolkien specifically states that one of the consequences of breeding Orcs with Men is that the Orcs became larger, presumably large enough to begin using 'bows of yew, in length and shape like the bows of Men.' You seem to be a military type, and are probably aware of the effect that English longbows had on French knights. Do you think the Orcs used shorter bows to give their enemies a better chance? Where the Uruk-hai then less sporting, using longer bows only because they didn't feel like giving their enemies an advantage? Remember when Aragorn says that the bows of Orcs didn't have the range to span the Anduin? Perhaps the Uruk-hai use the longer bows (not necessarily longbows) because they are large enough to use them, while the other Orcs of Aragorn's experience are not.
Finally, regarding 'rebel Uruk-hai'. I agree with you, Mordor Orcs in Mordor is far more likely than Isengard Orcs in Mordor. Unfortunately, Mordor did not have Uruk-hai. If you can show me where Mordor Orcs are referred to as Uruk-hai, then I'll gladly agree with you that 'rebel Uruk-hai' refers to Mordor Orcs. However, since I have seen no reference to Mordor Orcs as 'rebel Uruk-hai', we'll have to assume that Sauron's military intelligence was bad, and he therefore made a bad choice from bad intelligence. He did not know that there was a Mithril Coat until the 17th, the day after the 'rebel Uruk-hai' statement was made. He was therefore going off some other intelligence to determine 'great Elf'. Perhaps his military look-up book also said: 'any time Orcs attack Mordor Orcs leading to Halfling escape, the enemy Orcs are Isengarders'. We need only look at the Ugluk episode (the only other instance of this happening), and then Sauron's logic was apparently sound.

 

[Greenwood]

The Enemy would learn from the Nazgul that took over Cirith Ungol that there was a rebellion of Uruk-hai attempting to steal the items captured from Frodo.

This is the same circular reasoning that keeps being used over and over in this discussion. You are assuming Gorbag and his boys as Uruk-hai and then using this definition to prove the tracker's statement refers to Uruk-hai. But you have nothing to prove your initial assumption.

On the comment "Uruk-hai of Isengard." if all Uruk-hai were from Isengard why say "of Isengard?'

It is merely an older, more formal style of speech. To say that the phrase "Uruk-hai of Isengard" implies there are "Uruk-hai of Somewhere Else" is reaching. If you write "Julius Ceasar of Rome" or Cleopatra of Egypt does that imply that there are other Julius Ceasars or Cleopatras out there? Julius Ceasar of Athens? Cleopatra of Babylon? The phrasing is merely a somewhat archaic way saying where the speaker is from.

 

[Ged]

Greenwood,

This is not really relevant to the subject of this thread, but I thought it so unusual I had to post it.

Saruman "created" the Uruk-hai. In the movie the "leader" of the Uruk-hai was named Lurtz.

The character Lurtz was acted by Laurence Makoare.

Laurence Makoare was born in the town of "Orakai" in New Zealand.

Wierd, or what???

 

[Grond]

Originally posted by Greenwood


It is merely an older, more formal style of speech. To say that the phrase "Uruk-hai of Isengard" implies there are "Uruk-hai of Somewhere Else" is reaching. If you write "Julius Ceasar of Rome" or Cleopatra of Egypt does that imply that there are other Julius Ceasars or Cleopatras out there? Julius Ceasar of Athens? Cleopatra of Babylon? The phrasing is merely a somewhat archaic way saying where the speaker is from.

Just thought I'd jump back in to say that all of you are using circular logic to attempt to prove something that can't be proven. Your statement, Greenwood, that the phrase "Uruk-hai of Isengard" is simply a more formal style of speech is as circular as anything anyone else has said. How would you presume to know the mind of JRRT when he wrote that?

That is the problem in this thread. The author didn't adequately explain the usage of the term Uruk-hai and we are left to speculate. Great arguments have been made all the way around. We have the linguists who line up behind the author's son Chrisopher's assertion that Uruk-hai is simply the black speech pluralization of the BS word Uruk. It also appears that most of the Tolkien scholars appear to believe this. And, of course they would... if CT said it and they want to continue to have the cooperation of the Tolkien Estate, they darn well better support his assertions. The same question keeps coming back to me again and again concerning this subject. I've posted it before and I'll post it again. If this was an issue, why wasn't it addressed? It wasn't addressed because it wasn't an issue, at least not to JRRT or his estate. It is apparent that CT, the closest person to the author concerning his works, feels that Uruk-hai is simply the BS plural form of Uruk.

Unfortunately, it's kind of like the Battle of the Last Alliance we're discussing on another thread. With the author gone, we'll never really know what he meant for sure. All we can do is speculate and come up with our own opinions, which are different, one from the other and which may or may not be right.

 

[daisy]

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

See the resemblance?

AAAAAHHHHHH This thread will never die!!! It will go on and on and the aliens who land here on earth in a million years will find a huge vault full of the posts from this thread!!!

What is your final answer???
Uruk=Uruk-Hai
Or Uruk not=Uruk-Hai
Or Uruk=Kathie Lee Gifford.

Which is it???

 

[ShagratU]

disagreeing with Greenwood

Originally posted by Greenwood
Example 7 has been the subject of much debate here, so it is at best ambiguous, but Aragil and I argue that in the light of the eight earlier instances the weight of evidence is on example 7 also referring to Saruman's troops.

The problem is that nothing in the context suggests that it is a reference to Saruman¡¯s troops. All the rumours that the soldier-orc mentions are highly consistent with the information that Shagrat had to report, and which he seems to have reported not only to Barad-dur, but to Orc positions close to Cirith Ungol. ¡°7¡± is ambiguous, but in context, a reference to Uruks of Mordor seems much more likely than a reference to Isengarders.

Of course, if we accept Christopher Tolkien¡¯s view that ¡°Uruks¡± is just an Anglicization of ¡°Uruk-hai¡±, then no problem arises, and the reference is almost certainly to the ¡°filthy rebel¡± Gorbag and his troop.

Originally posted by Greenwood
The final example (12) has also been the subject of considerable debate here. I have expanded the quotation given to show the full context of the usage. It seems clear to me that "uruk" is being referred back to orch in discussing the derivation of the word. The subject of the last sentence is the word snaga, not "Uruk-hai" and in no way does it imply that "Uruk-hai" and "uruk" are equivalent as some have argued. If that were the case than it would mean that "Uruk-hai" was a singular noun, which it clearly is not in all the uses in LOTR.

The argument is that Uruk-hai here sounds like a collective or plural term for uruks. When the passage is read in the context of Appendix F, it appears to indicate that ¡°Uruk-hai¡± was the racial name for the great soldier-orcs of Isengard and Mordor. If ¡°Uruk-hai¡± applied only to the Isengarders, one would expect a definition in this section on ¡°Orcs and the Black Speech.¡± The silence is deafening!

Originally posted by Greenwood
As for the argument that "Uruk-hai" is always a plural noun so we can therefore assume uruk is it singular form, there is nothing to support this.

Except that the term is only used in a plural or collective sense, and that most, if not all, of Tolkien¡¯s invented languages contain plural or collective tags (-rim, -lai, -r, etc.) at the end of words. Olog-hai and Oghor-hai are also only ever used in a plural or collective sense. Also, the way in which the Appendix F section reads is highly suggestive, particularly in light of the description of the Olog-hai a few paragraphs later.

Originally posted by Greenwood
Tolkien never tells us how to refer to one individual member of the "Uruk-hai", so we don't know what the singular form would be. The singular form might be "Uruk-hai", just as the singular form of Nazgul is Nazgul. (I will return to example 12 below.)

All we can say with ¡°Nazgul¡± is that it clearly wasn¡¯t ¡°Anglicized¡± as ¡°Uruks¡± was, most likely because there were hordes of Uruks and only 9 ringwraiths. Uruks were doubtless commonplace for those areas on the receiving end of Orc raids, whereas the Nine were not.

I think it¡¯s quite possible that there are no plurals in Black Speech, but in that case, the language would almost certainly require collective tags, for which ¡°-hai¡± seems a likely candidate.

Originally posted by Greenwood
The use of the word "uruks" is more complex. The word "uruk" (no 's') is only used once (example 12) where it is lowercase and italicized. It is clear that Tolkien in this example is giving the etymology of the base word (uruk). There are two instances (examples 8 and 9) of the word "Uruks" (capitalized and with an 's') and in both cases it is clearly referring to large Mordor orcs and the capitalization makes the usage appear to be a proper name for a group. We are left with four instances (examples 10, 11, 13 and 14) of the use of the word "uruks" (lower case). In examples 10 and 13 the word is also italicized. I do not think it is an accident that Tolkien uses the lowercase in these instances.

There are three hefty objections to this argument. The first is that Tolkien is remarkably inconsistent in his use of capitalization; we get both ¡°Orcs¡± and ¡°orcs¡±, for instance. So drawing a distinction between ¡°uruks¡± and ¡°Uruks¡± seems no more reasonable than drawing a conclusion between ¡°Orcs¡± and ¡°orcs¡±, or ¡°Dwarves¡± and ¡°dwarves¡±.

Secondly, in the post-LotR text, ¡°The Battles of the Fords of the Isen¡±, Tolkien uses the capitalized ¡°Uruks¡± to refer to Saruman¡¯s uruks on several occasions. Of special note is the fact that one group of ¡°Uruks¡± described therein is Ugluk¡¯s band.

Thirdly, the italicization is inconsistent. In lower case, ¡°uruks¡± is sometimes italicized and sometimes not. No plausible reason other than oversight presents itself. Therefore, we should probably conclude that capitalization and italicization are just minor editorial inconsitencies.

Originally posted by Greenwood
In these cases Tolkien is using the word "uruks" as a general (generic) term for all large soldier orcs (this also explains example 12). These large soldier orcs are in the service of both Sauron (the "Uruks" proper) and Saruman (a new breed, the "Uruk-hai").

Except of course that ¡°Uruks¡± is used to describe Saruman¡¯s Uruk-hai in UT.

Originally posted by Greenwood
Both Tar-Elenion and ShagratU seem to have conceded that Saruman has a new breed of orc in his employ.

Throughout this discussion, I¡¯ve always maintained that Saruman¡¯s Uruk-hai have a hint of Man-blood. So there¡¯s no concession involved.

Originally posted by Greenwood
It seems to me that the above explanations of these words simply and clearly explain all their usages in LOTR without resorting to elaborate arguments about when characters are hearing translations and when they are not and various other convoluted explanations.

Of course the ¡°elaborate arguments¡± that you refer to are exactly the sort of thing that exercised Tolkien during the writing of LotR. When Tolkien explicitly tells us that a character is hearing a translation, then we can be sure he is hearing a translation. There¡¯s nothing convoluted about that.

However, an argument that relies on Tolkien¡¯s demonstrably inconsistent use of capitalization, and which then cannot be reconciled with some of his usages, does involve a certain amount of convolution!

Originally posted by Greenwood
To sum up orc is the broadest general category (all Uruks and Uruk-hai are orcs); uruks (lowercase) is a more restricted category and refers to large soldier orcs (all Uruks and Uruk-hai are uruks); but Uruks and Uruk-hai (uppercase) are each sub-categories of uruks belonging to Sauron and Saruman, respectively.

So what about Ugluk and his followers, who are explicitly described as both ¡°Uruk-hai¡± and ¡°Uruks¡±?

Originally posted by Greenwood
As to the related, but seperate, discussion of the meaning of the suffix "-hai", I still suggest that it is in some way related to a tolerance of sunlight in creatures that might normally be expected to dislike the sun. Saruman's Uruk-hai boast of their disdain for the sun when most orcs do not like the sun. The Olog-hai are a form of trolls that tolerate the sun when normal trolls cannot tolerate the sun. We are left with the Oghor-hai from Unfinished Tales. We are told in UT that Oghor-hai is the orc's name for the Druedain. We are also told that another name for the Druedain is Pukel which means goblin (=orc), so we have the Druedain being considered somewhat goblin-like (orc-like) in appearance, but they can tolerate the sun because they are not true goblins, but are indeed men. Thus we can make a sun connection for all three uses of the suffix "-hai".

This doesn¡¯t hold up to scrutiny. There is no indication that ¡°Pukel¡± or ¡°Oghor¡± mean ¡°Orc¡± in Tolkien¡¯s work. Unless you can prove that it does, your theory is baseless.

Moreover, asking the monosyllable ¡°-hai¡± to mean ¡°resistant to sunlight when not normally expected to be so¡± is asking a lot. To fit your theory, you have to find a way of cramming a minimum of two unrelated concepts into one syllable. This is very unlikely.

Finally, we have the precedent for Black Speech epithets and adjectives. They come before the noun that is modified. ¡°Nazgul¡± and ¡°Sharku¡± bear this out. The definition of ¡°-hai¡± as ¡°-folk¡± or ¡°-race¡± is the only one so far proposed that fits the available linguistic evidence.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Greenwood
7) In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Land of Shadow, Sam and Frodo overhear two orcs talking and one says: ".... 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."
Example 7 has been the subject of much debate here, so it is at best ambiguous, but Aragil and I argue that in the light of the eight earlier instances the weight of evidence is on example 7 also referring to Saruman's troops.

In light of what the Orc is referring to, (the events taking place at Cirith Ungol) wherein it was presumed based on the available evidence that an Elf-warrior was on the loose and, in fact, a "sort of small of dwarf-man" was held prisoner and escaped, and in fact a troop of rebel Uruk-hai (Gorbag's boys) attacked the Cirith Ungol garrison, then it sure does not seem ambiguous to me. Of course it may be ambiguous to those who wish to engage in "elaborate arguments" and "convoluted explanations" of why it must be referring to Saruman's Uruk-hai.

Both Tar-Elenion and ShagratU seem to have conceded that Saruman has a new breed of orc in his employ.

Yes, finally we have been convinced. Never mind that Shagrat has maintained this position for a very long time in other forums and I noted very early on in this thread that it was likely.

As to the related, but seperate, discussion of the meaning of the suffix "-hai", I still suggest that it is in some way related to a tolerance of sunlight in creatures that might normally be expected to dislike the sun. Saruman's Uruk-hai boast of their disdain for the sun when most orcs do not like the sun. The Olog-hai are a form of trolls that tolerate the sun when normal trolls cannot tolerate the sun. We are left with the Oghor-hai from Unfinished Tales. We are told in UT that Oghor-hai is the orc's name for the Druedain. We are also told that another name for the Druedain is Pukel which means goblin (=orc), so we have the Druedain being considered somewhat goblin-like (orc-like) in appearance, but they can tolerate the sun because they are not true goblins, but are indeed men. Thus we can make a sun connection for all three uses of the suffix "-hai".

I think I will use your earlier suggestion of explaining words "simply and clearly" and instead of engaging in "elaborate arguments" and "convoluted explanations" suggest that 'hai'= 'folk', 'race' etc.

Good to have you back, I am sure Shagrat has been looking forward to it.

 

[ShagratU]

Re: Agreement with Greenwood

Originally posted by aragil
I re-iterate that I see 'hai' being applied in the sense of a specific epithet.

But strangely, not in the way that epithets are applied in the other Black Speech examples we have!

Originally posted by aragil
The general grouping is 'uruks', and Saruman's Orcs are differentiated by adding 'hai'. Doubtless Greenwood and I see this in part due to our common background in Biology.
[snip]

But, as I've said before, Tolkien was not a Taxonomist in the strict sense, he was a Philologist.

This last sentence is the real point, isn't it?

I think you and Greenwood may be being slightly mislead by your scientific backgrounds. You are trying to impose a pattern on Tolkien's usages that actually doesn't exist, and which would even be rather inappropriate in the context of a "mythological" tale. The capitalization evidence simply doesn't fit with what you propose (Ugluk's bands being both "Uruk-hai" and "Uruks")

Originally posted by aragil
This reminds me of the apes of Lugburz, who (following Tolkien's capitalization procedures) seem to be uruk Uruk.

Well, they seem to be "uruk uruk", "uruk Uruk", "uruk uruk" and "uruk Uruk-hai"!

Originally posted by aragil
However, the Mountain Gorillas are a slightly different breed, and their naming reflects that they are only found in a secluded region. They are named Gorilla gorilla beringei. Although in the same species as the more common lowland gorilla, the mountain gorilla has had beringei added to the name to indicate that it is a slightly different breed with different characteristics. In my mind, the 'hai' of Uruk-hai is analogous to the beringei in the above example. Hai modifies Uruk to inform us that the Uruk-hai are larger, more cunning, and more sun-tolerant than the Uruks of Mordor. Ugluk and comrades say as much:

It seems much more likely that the Uruks are saying "We are the fighting Uruk-folk" than the equivalent of "We are the fighting Gorilla gorilla beringei! Are they expecting the Rohirrim to reply, "We are the horse-riding homo sapiens"?

Originally posted by aragil
Who are the 'we' in the above sentence? 'We' refers to the Uruk-hai.

Well, "Uruk-hai" is always modified by "fighting" or "of Isengard" when the Isengarders talk to other Orcs. It is only once used unmodified (at Helm's Deep), and then after it has been used twice with the "fighting" modifier.

Originally posted by aragil
Ugluk and company do not say that they are some of the Uruk-hai, or that they are they 'that branch of the Uruk-hai which comes from Isengard'. They use the term Uruk-hai to be all-inclusive.

Actually, they don't, as noted above.

Originally posted by aragil
If there were other varieties of Uruk-hai, then Grishnakh would be one of them. Yet he does not object to Ugluk using 'Uruk-hai' in the all-inclusive sense, nor does he mind that Ugluk says that 'the Uruk-hai' 'come from Isengard'.

But Ugluk never uses "Uruk-hai" in an unmodified (thus all-inclusive) sense. Nor does he say that "the Uruk-hai" come from Isengard. He says "We are the fighting Uruk-hai", and "the Uruk-hai of Isengard". That's very different to what you allege.

Originally posted by aragil
The Uruk-hai are not bothered by the light of day.

The Uruk-hai of Isengard are not bothered by the light of day.

Originally posted by aragil
We have no direct statement about the Uruks of Mordor, but I have posted evidence that the Orcs of Mordor are adversely affected by the sun. Grishnakh's Uruks fall behind the Uruk-hai and have their heads down until the sun goes down, when they begin to put on speed. The moment the clouds are blown away and the Rohirrim attack at the Pelannor the Orcs and Men of Mordor begin to route. While the Men regain their composure and later put up a fight, the Orcs are only further described as being routed into the river in the midst of hating the sun. Finally, there is the quote of Treebeard- stating that all Orcs other than Saruman's dislike the sun and speculating that the Isengarders' acquisition of sun tolerance might be due to crossing with humans.

I agree with all this.

Originally posted by aragil
If we all agree that Saruman's Orcs were more sun-tolerant than Sauron's, then it behooves us to look again at the above passages: 'We are the fighting Uruk-hai' by Ugluk and 'We are the Uruk-hai' by the Orcs at Helm's Deep. Neither of these passages make me think that the Isengarders are a select group of Uruk-hai, with characteristics different from other groups of Uruk-hai. Both of these passages seem to be defining Uruk-hai, in the one case as the Orcs of Saruman, and in the other as sun-tolerant Orcs. Unless there are Uruk-hai that don't fight, then both of these passages are devoid of what has been termed 'qualifiers'.

This logic doesn't hold. If a group of football fans chant, "We are the English", it doesn't mean that they are all the English. It seems perfectly natural for a group of Uruk-hai fighting Men to shout "We are the Uruk-hai". The presence of other Uruk-hai doesn't make this at all unlikely.

Originally posted by aragil
. Gorbag is speaking in a similar sense to Ugluk and co. He is intending to be inclusive about a breed of Orcs- who puts slips right? The Uruks. What he does not say is The Uruk-hai. The only way to make these two statements equivalent is to argue that the ring was translating into Westron for Sam's benefit, and Tolkien was translating from Westron into English for our benefit. Yet we know the English 'translation' for Uruks- it's 'Orcs', or as it's more properly applied, 'large Soldier Orcs'.

Sam knows "Uruks", and Uruks is an Anglicized word, the Anglicization indicating that it has been absorbed into Westron. It's quite the appropriate word to use in the context.

Originally posted by aragil
What the 'ring as translator' theory neglects is that Tolkien would have been a poor story-teller by employing such a trick. If he wants us to think of the Soldier-Orcs of Mordor and of Isengard as both having the name 'Uruk-hai', then this would be the place to do it, regardless of how fluent Sam is in Black Speech.

Except that would be linguistically unacceptable. Tolkien was a linguist first and foremost. Linguistic consistency was clearly the most important thing for him. He is also extremely careful about POV throughout the story.

Originally posted by aragil
I think there is a reason that he only uses Uruk-hai to refer to Isengard Orcs. I think the reason is that the Orcs of Isengard are a different (possibly derivative) breed than the Uruks of Mordor, and that this different breed has a different name: Uruk-hai.

It is only speculation that he only uses Uruk-hai to refer to Isengarders; the soldier-orc's comments do not appear to be in reference to Isengarders.

Another pertinent point is that "Uruk-hai" is Black Speech, and Black Speech comes from Mordor. Saruman does not appear to use Black Speech, and his Orcs speak a dialect that is evidently incomprehensible to Mordor Orcs. We know, however, that Mordor Orcs of different breeds understand "Uruk-hai". The term would therefore appear to stem from Mordor, not Isengard. Most likely, it is simply what Uruks call themselves, and has been preserved by Saruman's Uruks through his "tampering" with them.

 

[Greenwood]

response to ShagratU

The problem is that nothing in the context suggests that it is a reference to Saruman¡¯s troops.

In your opinion.

All the rumours that the soldier-orc mentions are highly consistent with the information that Shagrat had to report, and which he seems to have reported not only to Barad-dur, but to Orc positions close to Cirith Ungol

How does a mithril coat that would only fit an elf child make one think there is a great elf warrior on the loose? Saruman and all his orc minions would be considered rebels by everyone in Mordor.

Of course, if we accept Christopher Tolkien¡¯s view that ¡°Uruks¡± is just an Anglicization of ¡°Uruk-hai¡±, then no problem arises, and the reference is almost certainly to the ¡°filthy rebel¡± Gorbag and his troop.

The point is some of us do not except CT's view. We think he got it wrong. I have looked fairly carefully through CT's index in UT. I cannot find another case of anything being defined as an Anglicization of another word. In fact, I can't even find another instance of a word included in the index that is not in the text of UT which is the case with Uruk-hai. The only time Uruk-hai appears in UT is in CT's index.

The argument is that Uruk-hai here sounds like a collective or plural term for uruks. When the passage is read in the context of Appendix F, it appears to indicate that ¡°Uruk-hai¡± was the racial name for the great soldier-orcs of Isengard and Mordor. If ¡°Uruk-hai¡± applied only to the Isengarders, one would expect a definition in this section on ¡°Orcs and the Black Speech.¡± The silence is deafening!

Appendix F does not say that Uruk-hai was the name for the great soldier orcs of Isengard and Mordor, much as you would like it to say that. It says the word uruk was applied to these troops. What is deafening is not Tolkien's silence, but the fact that he wrote an entire chapter about Saruman's troops and called it "The Uruk-hai" and at every opportunity when referring to Saruman's troops Tolkien calls them Uruk-hai (examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). Why doesn't Gandalf use the term Uruk-hai (example 8)? We have no problems about translation effects of the Ring here. Why doesn't Tolkien use the term Uruk-hai when he is clearly referring to Mordor orcs (examples 7, 8, 10, 11, 13)? I would say Tolkien's usage is what is deafening.

Olog-hai and Oghor-hai are also only ever used in a plural or collective sense.

Olog-hai is used exactly two times (only in Appendix F) and Oghor-hai is not mentioned at all in LOTR, but only once in UT. Hardly a great deal of usage to base any argument on.

There are three hefty objections to this argument. The first is that Tolkien is remarkably inconsistent in his use of capitalization

I will have to look through LOTR carefully to see if this is really true. I do not know if Tolkien is as inconsistent as you say.

Secondly, in the post-LotR text, ¡°The Battles of the Fords of the Isen¡±, Tolkien uses the capitalized ¡°Uruks¡± to refer to Saruman¡¯s uruks on several occasions. Of special note is the fact that one group of ¡°Uruks¡± described therein is Ugluk¡¯s band.

The Battles of the Fords of Isen is not in LOTR, but was an unpublished manuscript of Tolkien's. If the HoME has shown us anything it is Tolkien's continual rewriting and changing of drafts. If Tolkien had ever made an attempt to include this narrative in an edition of LOTR I can assure you that any editor worth the name would have said: "Hey, John Ronald, how come you use Uruks here but Uruk-hai everywhere else when you talk about Saruman's troops?" As for your special note, I do not remember any mention of Ugluk's band in The Battle of the Fords of Isen. I cannot find him mentioned in the index. If you are referring to the band of orcs that disappear during the night of Theodred's fall, they cannot be Ugluk's group which waylaid the Fellowship at Parth Galen the next day.

So what about Ugluk and his followers, who are explicitly described as both ¡°Uruk-hai¡± and ¡°Uruks¡±?

Where and when?

There is no indication that ¡°Pukel¡± or ¡°Oghor¡± mean ¡°Orc¡± in Tolkien¡¯s work. Unless you can prove that it does, your theory is baseless.

See Christopher Tolkien's editorial note 14 in "The Druedain" chapter in UT: 'Pukel-men' represents Anglo-Saxon 'pucel' = goblin, demon. We already know that Tolkien uses goblin and orc interchangeably.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

The point is some of us do not except CT's view. We think he got it wrong. I have looked fairly carefully through CT's index in UT. I cannot find another case of anything being defined as an Anglicization of another word. In fact, I can't even find another instance of a word included in the index that is not in the text of UT which is the case with Uruk-hai. The only time Uruk-hai appears in UT is in CT's index.

Interesting, this would be the same index that CT put together using his fathers original rough draft index for LotR. The one that CT used for 'some tranlations and definitions'. And Uruk-hai is not used in UT? Why would CT feel the need to put that in his UT index for a word not included in UT? And where would he come up with it? From his fathers draft index for LotR?

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Re: response to ShagratU

Originally posted by Greenwood
See Christopher Tolkien's editorial note 14 in "The Druedain" chapter in UT: 'Pukel-men' represents Anglo-Saxon 'pucel' = goblin, demon. We already know that Tolkien uses goblin and orc interchangeably.

How about we use JRRT's own words for it:
"Púkel-men. A Rohan name for the effigies of men of a vanished race. It represents Old English púcel (still surviving as puckle), one of the forms of the puk- stem (widespread in England, Wales, Ireland, Norway and Iceland) referring to a devil, or to a minor sprite such as Puck, and often applied to ugly misshapen persons. The púkel-men are adequately described, and the element púkel may be retained-or replaced by some word of similar (possibly related) form and sense. The Dutch version has de Púkel-mensen, the Swedish Pukel-männen."

From 'A Guide to Names in LotR', which are notes JRRT made to assist people translating LotR into other languages.

 

[ShagratU]

Originally posted by Greenwood

In your opinion.

So what in the context suggests that the reference is to the Isengarders? If one abandons preconceptions, and assumes only that "Uruk-hai" here refers to large soldier-orcs of some sort, what makes one think of the Isengarders here?

Originally posted by Greenwood
How does a mithril coat that would only fit an elf child make one think there is a great elf warrior on the loose?

It doesn't. But there is much else that does:

"By all the signs, Captain Shagrat, I'd say there's a large warrior loose, Elf most likely, with an elf-sword anyway, and an axe as well maybe: and he's loose in your bounds, too, and you've never spotted him. Very funny indeed! "

"For what it saw was not a small frightened hobbit trying to hold a steady sword: it saw a great silent shape, cloaked in a grey shadow, looming against the wavering light behind; in one hand it held a sword, the very light of which was a bitter pain, the other was clutched at its breast, but held concealed some nameless menace of power and doom."

"- Yes! The Elf-warrior is loose! - he cried. - I'm coming. Just you show me the way up, or I'll skin you!"

"He told you more than once that the most dangerous of these spies was still loose, and you wouldn't listen. And you won't listen now. Gorbag was right, I tell you. There's a great fighter about, one of those bloody-handed Elves, or one of the filthy tarks. He's coming here, I tell you. You heard the bell."

"He was no longer holding the Ring, but it was there, a hidden power, a cowing menace to the slaves of Mordor; and in his hand was Sting, and its light smote the eyes of the orc like the glitter of cruel stars in the terrible elf-countries, the dream of which was a cold fear to all his kind."

Originally posted by Greenwood
The point is some of us do not except CT's view. We think he got it wrong. I have looked fairly carefully through CT's index in UT. I cannot find another case of anything being defined as an Anglicization of another word. In fact, I can't even find another instance of a word included in the index that is not in the text of UT which is the case with Uruk-hai. The only time Uruk-hai appears in UT is in CT's index.

Which perhaps indicates that Tolkien fils was drawing on some of the writings of Tolkien pere, as Tar-Elenion has suggested.

Originally posted by Greenwood
Appendix F does not say that Uruk-hai was the name for the great soldier orcs of Isengard and Mordor, much as you would like it to say that. It says the word uruk was applied to these troops. What is deafening is not Tolkien's silence, but the fact that he wrote an entire chapter about Saruman's troops and called it "The Uruk-hai" and at every opportunity when referring to Saruman's troops Tolkien calls them Uruk-hai (examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). Why doesn't Gandalf use the term Uruk-hai (example 8)? We have no problems about translation effects of the Ring here. Why doesn't Tolkien use the term Uruk-hai when he is clearly referring to Mordor orcs (examples 7, 8, 10, 11, 13)? I would say Tolkien's usage is what is deafening.

The essential point seems to be that non-Orcish characters don't use Black Speech. The narrator uses "Uruk-hai" once, from Pippin's point of view, after he has heard the term from Orcish mouths. Otherwise, only Orcs appear to use "Uruk-hai". Given that we don't know what Gorbag actually said (it may well have been "Uruk-hai"), we seem to have a general rule that the narrator (writing in "Westron") and non-Orcish characters use the "Anglicized" term.

Reluctance to use a pure Black Speech term fits very well with reactions to the Black Speech in Rivendell.

Originally posted by Greenwood
The Battles of the Fords of Isen is not in LOTR, but was an unpublished manuscript of Tolkien's. If the HoME has shown us anything it is Tolkien's continual rewriting and changing of drafts. If Tolkien had ever made an attempt to include this narrative in an edition of LOTR I can assure you that any editor worth the name would have said: "Hey, John Ronald, how come you use Uruks here but Uruk-hai everywhere else when you talk about Saruman's troops?"

Of course, such an editor would be wrong, as Tolkien describes Saruman's troops as "great uruks" in LotR, and as "Orcs" passim. Saruman's troops call themselves "Uruk-hai". The narrator doesn't, except when Pippin (who heard the term several times from the Orcs) recollects.

Originally posted by Greenwood
As for your special note, I do not remember any mention of Ugluk's band in The Battle of the Fords of Isen. I cannot find him mentioned in the index. If you are referring to the band of orcs that disappear during the night of Theodred's fall, they cannot be Ugluk's group which waylaid the Fellowship at Parth Galen the next day.

Why not?

Originally posted by Greenwood
See Christopher Tolkien's editorial note 14 in "The Druedain" chapter in UT: 'Pukel-men' represents Anglo-Saxon 'pucel' = goblin, demon. We already know that Tolkien uses goblin and orc interchangeably.

Here you are confusing real words and their meanings with Tolkien's invented mythology. "Pucel", which is related to Shakespeare's "Puck", means "goblin" or "demon" in Old English, not in Tolkien's mythology. By comparison, "orc" means "Hell" or "demon-" in Old English, but not in Tolkien's mythology.

In Tolkien's writings, "Pukel" does not mean "Orc". Therefore your point is invalid.

 

[ShagratU]

Originally posted by aragil

As for the distinguishing features of the Isengarders- there was really 2. One was that they didn't use Orcish equipment. Two was that they used equipment which was specifically desribed as 'mannish'.

Only the bows of the Isengarders are described as being Mannish.

Originally posted by aragil
Mannish equipment was generally too large for Orcs to use (even the huge Orc chieftain in Moria was not quite man-height).

This statement is textually unfounded. We do not know whether Orcs could use Mannish equipment or not. And note that description of the huge orc-chieftain implies very strongly that he is bigger than Ugluk and co.

Originally posted by aragil
Tolkien specifically states that one of the consequences of breeding Orcs with Men is that the Orcs became larger, presumably large enough to begin using 'bows of yew, in length and shape like the bows of Men.'

Given that uruks of all kinds seem to have been broad and squat with long arms, the use of such bows would not appear to have been beyond them.

Originally posted by aragil
Perhaps the Uruk-hai use the longer bows (not necessarily longbows) because they are large enough to use them, while the other Orcs of Aragorn's experience are not.

Or because they don't have a plentiful supply of suitable wood in Mordor or the Misty Mountains. It seems to me that the Isengarder bows are evidence of their contact with Men, and hint at their Mannish "taint", but that they don't really tell us much about how big an Isengarder Uruk was compared to a Mordor Uruk.

Originally posted by aragil
Finally, regarding 'rebel Uruk-hai'. I agree with you, Mordor Orcs in Mordor is far more likely than Isengard Orcs in Mordor. Unfortunately, Mordor did not have Uruk-hai.

Your reasoning is entirely circular here. All any of us know for sure is that "Uruk-hai" refers to large orcs. All the previous uses of the term have been in reference to Isengarders; however, this citation must be taken on its own merits. If it doesn't appear to refer to Isengarders, then one can reasonably infer that the Uruks of Mordor were also called "Uruk-hai".

Originally posted by aragil
However, since I have seen no reference to Mordor Orcs as 'rebel Uruk-hai', we'll have to assume that Sauron's military intelligence was bad, and he therefore made a bad choice from bad intelligence. He did not know that there was a Mithril Coat until the 17th, the day after the 'rebel Uruk-hai' statement was made. He was therefore going off some other intelligence to determine 'great Elf'.

I don't think Sauron really comes into the picture here. Shagrat evidently commanded more Orcs than just those in the Tower, and presumably made initial reports to Orc positions close at hand. The Orc conversation overheard by Sam and Frodo indicates this. The intelligence that the two Orcs have is very close to the beliefs that Shagrat would have been able to convey; that there was a large warrior, probably an Elf, loose (that's what the Orcs thought), that there was a dwarf-man (indeed there was), and, if we leave pre-conceptions aside, that insubordinate soldier-orcs were also part of the problem.

Originally posted by aragil
Perhaps his military look-up book also said: 'any time Orcs attack Mordor Orcs leading to Halfling escape, the enemy Orcs are Isengarders'. We need only look at the Ugluk episode (the only other instance of this happening), and then Sauron's logic was apparently sound.

You are forgetting something :

"Then when they had laid their fallen comrades in a mound and had sung their praises, the Riders made a great fire and scattered the ashes of their enemies. So ended the raid, and no news of it came ever back either to Mordor or to Isengard"

 

[Greenwood]

Response to Tar-Elenion and ShagratU

You both continually point to Christopher Tolkien's index in UT and treat it as if it was equivalent to JRRT himself. It is not. It is copyrighted by CT himself as are his Introduction and Commentary in UT. All he says is that he used his father's notes for some definitions, he does not tell us which. The Anglicization definition first appears in print in Foster's guide to Middle Earth that appeared before UT. You have no proof that CT (who admits to finding Foster's book useful) did not just use Foster's definition, perhaps thinking it was such a trivial thing why not? All your arguments are based on assumptions you cannot prove. You assume the Anglicization definition comes from JRRT himself, but you have no proof. You assume in all your arguments about usage in LOTR that the Anglicization definition is true and then use the results of that assumption to prove the assumption itself.

So what in the context suggests that the reference is to the Isengarders? If one abandons preconceptions, and assumes only that "Uruk-hai" here refers to large soldier-orcs of some sort, what makes one think of the Isengarders here?

One thinks of Isengarders because they are the only ones in the books who are referred to as Uruk-hai.

The essential point seems to be that non-Orcish characters don't use Black Speech. The narrator uses "Uruk-hai" once, from Pippin's point of view, after he has heard the term from Orcish mouths. Otherwise, only Orcs appear to use "Uruk-hai". Given that we don't know what Gorbag actually said (it may well have been "Uruk-hai"), we seem to have a general rule that the narrator (writing in "Westron") and non-Orcish characters use the "Anglicized" term.

Reluctance to use a pure Black Speech term fits very well with reactions to the Black Speech in Rivendell.

Your argument does not hold up. It is the narrator (Tolkien) who chooses the title "The Uruk-hai" for the chapter in TTT (example 4) and it is the narrator who uses Uruk-hai in example 6. The sentence does not read "Pippin thought 'I haven't known times this dark since my captivity with the Uruk-hai' ". And as for a reluctance to use Black Speech, Gandalf shows little such reluctance. The reaction to Black Speech was by the elves in Rivendell. Elrond says that none have dared use that tongue in Rivendell before. He does not admonish Gandalf to never use that tongue, just not in Rivendell. We also know from Appendix F that uruk is from Black Speech, so why would Uruks be allowed to be spoken but not Uruk-hai? If your response is that Uruks is an Anglicization and not pure Black Speech than you are falling back on your usual style of argument of assuming your Anglicization theory is correct in order to prove it is correct. If "-hai" is how nouns are turned into plurals in Black Speech why does Snaga when talking to Shagrat in ROTK say "one of the filthy tarks"? Why not "tark-hai"? Sam is not wearing the Ring when he overhears this exchange so your "Ring as imperfect translator" theory doesn't work here.

As for the orc troops that disappear from the battle at the fords of Isen in UT, I take it you are saying that they were Ugluk and his boys. I repeat that they cannot be if we accept Tolkien's chronology in Appendix B of ROTK. There we have Theodred falling in battle on February 25 and the orcs disappearing sometime that night. Ugluk and his band (with orcs from the Misty Mountains and Grishnakh and orcs from Mordor) attack the Fellowship above Rauros sometime during the day on February 26 and then start hot-footing it back across Rohan. By my map in TTT it is between 250 and 300 miles as the crebain flies from the fords to Rauros. How could Ugluk and his boys do that in half a day?

Here you are confusing real words and their meanings with Tolkien's invented mythology. "Pucel", which is related to Shakespeare's "Puck", means "goblin" or "demon" in Old English, not in Tolkien's mythology. By comparison, "orc" means "Hell" or "demon-" in Old English, but not in Tolkien's mythology.

In Tolkien's writings, "Pukel" does not mean "Orc". Therefore your point is invalid.

So Tolkien chooses to use words that all mean "demon" or "goblin" and Tolkien tells us that goblin = orc, but all of this is irrelevant?

The only thing that really is relevant here is that Tolkien never tells us what he meant when he used the suffix "-hai" so we are all just theorizing in the dark.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Re: Response to Tar-Elenion and ShagratU

Originally posted by Greenwood You both continually point to Christopher Tolkien's index in UT and treat it as if it was equivalent to JRRT himself. It is not. It is copyrighted by CT himself as are his Introduction and Commentary in UT. All he says is that he used his father's notes for some definitions, he does not tell us which. The Anglicization definition first appears in print in Foster's guide to Middle Earth that appeared before UT. You have no proof that CT (who admits to finding Foster's book useful) did not just use Foster's definition, perhaps thinking it was such a trivial thing why not? All your arguments are based on assumptions you cannot prove. You assume the Anglicization definition comes from JRRT himself, but you have no proof. You assume in all your arguments about usage in LOTR that the Anglicization definition is true and then use the results of that assumption to prove the assumption itself.

Your first sentence is a mis-characterization.

You have no proof that CT plagiarized from Foster. You have no proof that CT would consider it trvial. You have no proof that 'hai' in any way relates to 'sunlight resistance' which is based on your own convoluted reasoning. We do have proof that CT had access to and used his fathers notes, and specifically used definitions for some of the words in that index.

So Tolkien chooses to use words that all mean "demon" or "goblin" and Tolkien tells us that goblin = orc, but all of this is irrelevant?

I will again suggest:
How about we use JRRT's own words for defining 'pukel':
"Púkel-men. A Rohan name for the effigies of men of a vanished race. It represents Old English púcel (still surviving as puckle), one of the forms of the puk- stem (widespread in England, Wales, Ireland, Norway and Iceland) referring to a devil, or to a minor sprite such as Puck, and often applied to ugly misshapen persons. The púkel-men are adequately described, and the element púkel may be retained-or replaced by some word of similar (possibly related) form and sense. The Dutch version has de Púkel-mensen, the Swedish Pukel-männen."

'Often applied to ugly misshapen persons'. Kind of like the Druedain? No mention in JRRT's notes that it was applied to Orcs.

 

[ShagratU]

Re: Response to Tar-Elenion and ShagratU

Originally posted by Greenwood
You both continually point to Christopher Tolkien's index in UT and treat it as if it was equivalent to JRRT himself. It is not. It is copyrighted by CT himself as are his Introduction and Commentary in UT. All he says is that he used his father's notes for some definitions, he does not tell us which. The Anglicization definition first appears in print in Foster's guide to Middle Earth that appeared before UT. You have no prove that CT (who admits to finding Foster's book useful) did not just use Foster's definition, perhaps thinking it was such a trivial thing why not?

The point is that Christopher Tolkien is the best-placed person to know what "Uruk-hai" actually means. When he makes a definitive statement (as he does in UT), there's likely a very good reason for it. We know that JRRT used "Uruk-hai" in letters to his son; it's more than likely that he also used it in conversation. In short, Christopher Tolkien is the living person most likely to know exactly how the term was used. Given that there is no evidence that he is wrong in this case, I am inclined to believe him.

Originally posted by Greenwood
One thinks of Isengarders because they are the only ones in the books who are referred to as Uruk-hai.

So your argument is entirely circular. Given that it's possible that there are other Uruk-hai than the Isengarders, I would suggest that it is better to consider whether the two Orcs are likely to be referring to Isengarders or not before reaching a conclusion as to what the term means.

Originally posted by Greenwood
Your argument does not hold up. It is the narrator (Tolkien) who chooses the title "The Uruk-hai" for the chapter in TTT (example 4) and it is the narrator who uses Uruk-hai in example 6. The sentence does not read "Pippin thought 'I haven't known times this dark since my captivity with the Uruk-hai'

However, Tolkien's attention to POV is one of the more remarkable features of LotR, particularly when dealing with the Hobbit characters. That particular sentence is certainly written with Pippin's POV - it describes his thoughts - and Pippin had heard Ugluk describe his folk as "Uruk-hai".

Originally posted by Greenwood
We also know from Appendix F that uruk is from Black Speech, so why would Uruks be allowed to be spoken but not Uruk-hai? If your response is that Uruks is an Anglicization and not pure Black Speech than you are falling back on your usual style of argument of assuming your Anglicization theory is correct in order to prove it is correct.

"Uruks" is plainly an "Anglicization" ("Westronization"), in that it uses an "s" plural which does not appear in Black Speech. I would imagine that the main reason that non-orcish characters (including the hobbit "narrators") tend to use "Uruks" is simply because it's easier and more natural to use a word that has been adapted to your own lexicon than to use a foreign term. Think, for example, of how an English speaker pronounces "croissants", and how the French word of the same spelling is pronounced.

Originally posted by Greenwood
If "-hai" is how nouns are turned into plurals in Black Speech why does Snaga when talking to Shagrat in ROTK say "one of the filthy tarks"? Why not "tark-hai"? Sam is not wearing the Ring when he overhears this exchange so your "Ring as imperfect translator" theory doesn't work here.

"Tark" is not Black Speech, but an Orcish term used in debased Westron. Tolkien is quite clear on that point in Appendix F.

I don't think, incidentally, that "-hai" is a plural tag, though it is possible (a much better fit than "men" or "sun resistant when not normally expected to be so"). I think "-hai" means "-folk".

Originally posted by Greenwood
So Tolkien chooses to use words that all mean "demon" or "goblin" and Tolkien tells us that goblin = orc, but all of this is irrelevant?

Yes - utterly irrelevant. You are confusing real world terms with words that Tolkien derived from them for use in Middle Earth.

"Elf" and "troll" can both describe demons in English, but they don't mean "demon" in Middle Earth. Indeed, "elf", "goblin" and "troll" can all be synonyms in English, but they are not synonymous in Tolkien's world.

Tolkien delighted in giving new meanings to words that he took from real languages. "Orc" is a good example. Its real world definition would appear to be "Hell", but it doesn't mean the Void, or Utumno in Middle Earth.

Originally posted by Greenwood
The only thing that really is relevant here is that Tolkien never tells us what he meant when he used the suffix "-hai" so we are all just theorizing in the dark.

We do have plenty of linguistic evidence, however, particularly in the form of parallels. "-folk" appears by far the most likely definition in light of this evidence.

I'm still interested to hear how you think a monosyllable can convey "sun resistant when sun resistance is not usally expected"!

 

[ShagratU]

That's a very pertinent quote, Cian.

It might also be worth noting that Black Speech was specifically the language of Mordor. The very fact that "Uruk-hai" is pure Black Speech is indicative of it originating in Mordor. This would also suggest that the Uruk-hai ultimately originated in Mordor.

It seems evident that Saruman infused Man-blood into his Uruks; however, their name suggests that their group identity was forged at an earlier stage, when they were first bred in Mordor.

 

[Cian]

Tolkien states that the BS was: "... never used willingly by any other people," (other people than those we would expect it from of course, captains of Mordor & etc ...)

note: I chose to restate my post without the full quote ShagratU is referring to, but his point remains Man you guys are fast!

 

[Greenwood]

You have no proof that CT plagiarized from Foster. You have no proof that CT would consider it trvial. You have no proof that 'hai' in any way relates to 'sunlight resistance' which is based on your own convoluted reasoning. We do have proof that CT had access to and used his fathers notes, and specifically used definitions for some of the words in that index.

Tar-Elenion

I have never accused CT of plagiarism though you keep leveling that charge at me. If CT followed Foster's defintion (and you were the first one on this thread to raise that possibility) it would not constitute plagiarism. I have never said that I have proof about the suffix "-hai" is related to sun-tolerance. It is merely a suggestion that I freely admit is my own; you may dismiss it if you wish as I dismiss your defintions for "-hai". We all know that CT had access to his father's notes, but CT does not say in UT that all the definitions in his index are taken from his father's notes, merely that some are. You have absolutely no evidence which definitions are and which are not JRRT's. Until you can prove the Uruks defintion is from JRRT's own hand I am free to consider the possibility it is CT's (or Foster's) rather than JRRT's.

The point is that Christopher Tolkien is the best-placed person to know what "Uruk-hai" actually means. When he makes a definitive statement (as he does in UT), there's likely a very good reason for it. We know that JRRT used "Uruk-hai" in letters to his son; it's more than likely that he also used it in conversation. In short, Christopher Tolkien is the living person most likely to know exactly how the term was used. Given that there is no evidence that he is wrong in this case, I am inclined to believe him.

ShagratU

All you have are possibilities, not proofs. You accept CT's view on this matter. I (and evidently Aragil) do not. You say there is no evidence CT is wrong. I consider the 14 examples I have cited as evidence that CT is wrong. What we have is a disagreement on the interpretation of evidence. Clearly we are never going to reach agreement on the issue without new evidence being found. I am perfectly willing to "agree to disagree" on the matter.

So your argument is entirely circular. Given that it's possible that there are other Uruk-hai than the Isengarders, I would suggest that it is better to consider whether the two Orcs are likely to be referring to Isengarders or not before reaching a conclusion as to what the term means.

I see no evidence in LOTR that there are "other Uruk-hai than the Isengarders". You do. Aragil and I do not.

I'm still interested to hear how you think a monosyllable can convey "sun resistant when sun resistance is not usally expected"!

All "-hai" has to mean is light or sunlight. The contrast comes when the suffix is place in conjunction with another word. Thus Uruk-hai becomes something like "sunlight-orc", Olog-hai becomes "sunlight-troll" and Oghor-hai becomes "sunlight-goblinlike man". My suggestion is that Tolkien was having some fun creating oxymorons. It is merely a suggestion. I have no proof for it, as you have no proof for your suggestions. I do not demand that anyone else accept the idea. Aragil clearly has other views about the meaning of the suffix "-hai". Tolkien has given us very little Black Speech to work from and most (all?) of that is said to be debased words from other languages.

As Grond as said, barring contacting JRRT by seance or CT making a clearer statement of what his father's notes exactly say on this subject (in other words is the Anglicization definition JRRT's own or not?) this whole question will remain unresolvable. Aragil and I find your arguments unconvincing, as you find ours unconvincing.