-
Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you. Register
H
Harad
Guest
And that is exactly its charm.
Well, it's nice to see that we have outside observers, even if they're not always posting. Almost makes me embarrased about titling five posts as 'posts to myself'. But it doesn't. Between Greenwood, ShagratU, Tar-Elenion, and myself (and Grond and Cian), we are evidently entertained by this debate. Personally, I am enjoying myself, and think that the issue has further rammifications (ability of Saruman as an Orc breeder vs abilities of Sauron and Morgoth, depth of Saruman's treachery to both White Council and Sauron, linguistics of Black Speech and how it compares with other ME languages, etc). Plus, I think that I am right on something that most ME experts are wrong on (I'm not alone in my thinking- Greenwood agrees with me). There is the slightest chance that we could be adding a tiny grain of knowledge to the conventional wisdom of Middle-Earth, which would be nice to do considering how much pleasure I have derived from reading about Middle-Earth. I guess what I am saying is that I don't feel like we're going in circles, or that our debate is pointless. I know more about the issue than I did 30 posts ago, and I definitely know much more about the issue than I did at the beginning of this thread. The fact that I still believe the same thing as when I first posted on the issue does not mean that the thread is pointless at all. In fact, I gleaned tons of new information this morning, and I plan to write it down as my next post as soon as I get home from work. And it won't be a waste of my time, even if for no other reason than the fact that I am going to enjoy typing it out!
Tar-Elenion
Elite
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 745
Tar-Elenion
Elite
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 745
Of course, if you believe that the Uruk-hai used scimitars, you appear to be accepting that the Uruks of Mordor are also Uruk-hai. The Isengarders did not use scimitars....
To prove Christopher Tolkien wrong, you have to apply his theory and see if it works. If we accept, for the purposes of testing the theory, that "Uruks" is merely an Anglicized version of "Uruk-hai", where is the evidence that Christopher Tolkien is wrong?
Please indicate specifically where problems arise if we accept Christopher Tolkien on the issue!
Two major objections here. First, other Black Speech words place the adjectival element in front; nazgul, sharku. Word order is very important linguistically; consider how different French and English are on the placement of adjectival elements.
The second objection is that there is nothing to suggest that "Oghor" means "goblin-like man". There is considerable evidence to suggest that it doesn't. If "Oghor" meant "goblin-like man", we would expect it to include Black Speech elements for "goblin" and "man". But that would give us "Urukku", which is a far cry from Oghor.
But I (and others) have evidence against your idea. You have yet to put forward an argument indicating why you believe that "-hai" as "-folk" cannot fit.
And all that we have conforms to linguistic rules that your interpretation (and aragil's) would violate.
But neither of you have shown why! Why would "-hai" as "-folk" not fit with Tolkien's usage?
Aragil and I have done so repeatedly. That is why this thread is 25 pages long. The fact that you and Tar-Elenion do not agree with us does not mean we haven't done it.
Do you have any other examples of Black Speech words that use hyphenated suffixes? Do you have any other examples (except for the three under discussion) of the use of "-hai"? Tolkien has given us damn little to work with here. How do you know the rules for hyphenated suffixes are the same as for word elements in an unhypenated word? As for Oghor, there seems to be little to suggest what it means. We do know from other names that Tolkien applied to the Druedain that tghere was evidently something goblinlike about them. Bit as I have said repeatedly in earlier posts on this thread, the meaning of "-hai" is irrelevant to the central question of the thread. Afterall, Aragil and I agree about the central question of Uruk-hai vs. Uruks, but have different views on "-hai".
We have shown why. Repeatedly. That you do not accept our arguments is not the same thing as our not giving arguments.
Grond
Morgoth's Mace
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2001
- Messages
- 3,035
As an objective outside observer I can say that the entire case indicating that the Uruk-hai are strictly a Saruman hybrid rests solely on the repeated reference to them in The Two Towers. The only concrete evidence presented in the argument is the absence of the term appearing to refer to Mordor Uruks except for the "rebel Uruk-hai" comment made by a Mordor Uruk and the Isengarders themselves referring to themselves as "Uruk-hai of Isengard". All of the other arguments are simply rhetoric and interpretations of great-orc, man-orc, orc-men and the like.
The linguists have presented their argument based on their understanding of the linguistics of the Black Speech and other experts in Tolkien's languages.
I disagree with your assertion Greenwood that either you or Aragil has shown why the linguistic term Uruk-hai doesn't work. All you've done is repeated emphasized the references of Uruk-hai in the chapter of the same name and the other references in the Helm's Deep chapter while conveniently interpreting the "Uruk-hai of Isengard" and "rebel Uruk-hai" references to your own definition of the term. Neither of you have offerred any evidence as to why -hai would not work as folk. I also find it interesting that you so quickly discount the input of CT who assuredly would know more than any other living person about the worlds of Middle-earth. I think everyone discounts his involvement in the works and assumes he only began working on his father's works after JRRT's death. This is not true. It was CT who made many of the maps that we use in arguments in many different topics. Since the maps weren't made by JRRT, does that mean we can't trust them. Surely he reviewed them and approved them. I cannot believe that CT would not have known exactly and precisely what the term Uruk-hai meant; yet, his interpretation must be completely discounted in order for Uruk-hai to work as a Saruman exclusive breed. That is the most disconcerting thing in this argument. CT's opinion is being totally discounted as coming from an unrelated third party.
As an aside, I have sent a letter to CT, in care of both Houghton-Mifflan and HarperCollins asking them to forward it to him. Maybe, just maybe he will respond over the next few months and give us his input. I feel that will be the only way this argument may be put to rest. And I'm not even sure that will do it.
The linguists have presented their argument based on their understanding of the linguistics of the Black Speech and other experts in Tolkien's languages.
I disagree with your assertion Greenwood that either you or Aragil has shown why the linguistic term Uruk-hai doesn't work. All you've done is repeated emphasized the references of Uruk-hai in the chapter of the same name and the other references in the Helm's Deep chapter while conveniently interpreting the "Uruk-hai of Isengard" and "rebel Uruk-hai" references to your own definition of the term. Neither of you have offerred any evidence as to why -hai would not work as folk. I also find it interesting that you so quickly discount the input of CT who assuredly would know more than any other living person about the worlds of Middle-earth. I think everyone discounts his involvement in the works and assumes he only began working on his father's works after JRRT's death. This is not true. It was CT who made many of the maps that we use in arguments in many different topics. Since the maps weren't made by JRRT, does that mean we can't trust them. Surely he reviewed them and approved them. I cannot believe that CT would not have known exactly and precisely what the term Uruk-hai meant; yet, his interpretation must be completely discounted in order for Uruk-hai to work as a Saruman exclusive breed. That is the most disconcerting thing in this argument. CT's opinion is being totally discounted as coming from an unrelated third party.
As an aside, I have sent a letter to CT, in care of both Houghton-Mifflan and HarperCollins asking them to forward it to him. Maybe, just maybe he will respond over the next few months and give us his input. I feel that will be the only way this argument may be put to rest. And I'm not even sure that will do it.
Originally posted by Greenwood
Aragil and I have done so repeatedly. That is why this thread is 25 pages long. The fact that you and Tar-Elenion do not agree with us does not mean we haven't done it.
I really don't think you have.
On review of the entire thread, your early standpoint appears to have been that the terms "Uruk-hai" and "Uruks" refer to separate classes of being. In this light, you claimed that the UT Isen text was inconsistent with LotR. At one point (page 3), you even asserted that:
"Nowhere in LOTR are Saruman's troops referred to as uruks."
Now, of course, we would now all agree that this statement is patently false.
You also wrote (on page 4) that:
"And if uruks is an Anglicization, why does an orc of Mordor use it? Is he just back from a jaunt to Merrie Olde England?"
Well, we know why now!
He (Gorbag) doesn't actually use the term, the ring translates it for Sam (who knows the "Anglicized" Uruks).Your position at the start of the thread would appear to be that "uruks" are quite distinct from "Uruk-hai", and you and aragil's attempts to define "-hai" as "-sun" or "-men" seem to arise from this position. Of course, we know now that Saruman's Uruk-hai are described as "Uruks" or "uruks" by Tolkien.
It seems to me, therefore, that you are now fighting something of a rearguard action, your earlier position having been demolished.
I have yet to see those arguments (and I have just reviewed the thread). Be so kind as to summarize them for me!
As far as I can see, "-hai" as "folk" fits perfectly well.
We have Ugluk describing his people as "the fighting Uruk-folk" and "the Uruk-folk of Isengard" when talking to other Orcs.
We have the Isengarders themselves saying, "We are the fighting Uruk-folk!" and "We are the Uruk-folk" when talking to Men.
We have Pippin recalling his despair "in the clutches of the Uruk-folk".
And then we have our soldier-orc talking about "a pack of rebel Uruk-folk".
Finally, in Appendix F, we have:
"Related. no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-folk, snaga 'slave'."
For comparison, we have "Olog-folk" and "Oghor-folk", referring to a new kind of troll (Ologs?), and to the Druedain (Oghor=wose?).
The usage fits perfectly!
Here you are persisting in confusing the "external" (real world) with the "internal" (Middle Earth).
"Pucel", the Old English word from which Tolkien derived his Pukel can mean "demon" or "goblin". It can also mean "elf".
"Elf", which Tolkien uses to mean an immortal man-like being, can also mean "demon" or "goblin".
"Hobgoblin", which Tolkien uses to denote a large kind of Orc ( Orcs are "rational incarnates" corrupted by diabolic forces in Middle Earth), can mean "demon" or "elf". It can also mean a small kind of "goblin".
"Goblin", which Tolkein uses to denote a member of the race of rational incarnates" corrupted by diabolic forces in Middle Earth, can mean "elf" or "demon".
"Orc", which Tolkien uses to denote a member of the race of rational incarnates" corrupted by diabolic forces in Middle Earth, can mean "Hell" or "Hellish", or perhaps "demonic" in the real world.
As the above examples demonstrate, it is sheer folly to try to take an "external" meaning of a word that Tolkien adopts for "internal" use, and try to apply it to the "internal" situation.
To persist in doing so rather undermines your case!
Tar-Elenion
Elite
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 745
'Saruman-glob', attested to as 'Saruman-fool'.
Also, as has been noted, JRRT himself did not always hyphenate Urukhai, see Letter 66 ("Well, there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai.") and Letter 78 ("Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker.").
Interesting, that use of 'folk', considering that 'uruk' was 'borrowed' from the Elvish, which are from stems that yield 'terrible' and 'horrible' (ie _bad_) and applied to creatures of the Enemy that inspired fear(Cian can give more linguistic insight). Hmm... 'urukhai' - *bad-folk
. And both Cian and I own editions of LotR where it is not always hyphenated.
Other words?
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 of 'goblinlike'.
Irrelevant to your position, but quite relevant to ours.
I have never said they were "separate classes of being". They are of course related to each other, both being large, soldier orcs, with Saruman's Uruk-hai being derived from Uruks. There is also nothing wrong (as you seem to imply with your phrasing "your early standpoint") with refining one's position over time. Indeed this is a normal and useful outgrowth of any discussion. Your comments also conveniently ignore the fact that I made it quite clear in my first post that I was asking other members of the forum for help in finding other instances of the use of the words Uruks and Uruk-hai in LOTR and I have not been disappointed. A couple of such usuages have been found and I have included them in the expanded list of examples a few pages back. As for my earlier statement (that you quote above) being patently false, I disagree. The only instance that has been produced of orcs in Saruman's service being referred to in LOTR as uruks is in Appendix A. I freely admit that I was unaware of the quote when I made my earlier statement and it does require me to clarify my statement. First, my statement should have spelled Uruks with a capital "U". Second, as I pointed out earlier the quotation in Appendix A refers to a time 25 - 30 years before the time of LOTR; a time when Saruman may not have developed his Uruk-hai from the original uruks stock.
The only thing we "know now" is your rationalization for the usage of Uruks in Gorbag's statement. Tolkien, as the author of the piece chose to use Uruks here instead of Uruk-hai when a Mordor orc spoke of himself, just as Tolkien chose to always use Uruk-hai whenever one of Saruman's elite orcs spoke of himself. Aragil and I do not think this is coincidence, nor do we accept you convoluted explanations. (My apologies to Aragil if I have misrepresented his views at any point in this post.)
As I have said above, positions have been refined during the course of the discussion (just as you and Tar-Elenion have apparently changed and/or dropped side issues), there is nothing wrong with this. I will let Aragil speak for himself, but I have stated, repeatedly that my suggestion about "-hai" was merely that, a suggestion. It is not central to the main topic under discussion. Saruman's Uruk-hai have never been described as Uruks.
Tar-Elenion contended, and may still contend though he has dropped it from the discussion, that Snaga in the Tower of Cirith Ungol chapter is not the proper name of a specific orc (I do not remember; you may also accept his position.) Just about everyone else, including Christopher Tolkien, treats it as a character's name. I could now make blanket pronouncements that "we now know" Snaga is a name in this instance and Tar-Elenion is therefore wrong though I think he has probably not changed his view.
You have contended that the orcs that disappeared from the fords of Isen after Theodred fell were Ugluk and his boys. I have shown from the timing of events in the story that this is a physical impossibility. I could say "we now know ShagratU was wrong", as a way of attacking all your arguments. On second thought, I would probably be better off arguing that you are right and that Tolkien did mean these orcs to be Ugluk and his boys. The physical impossibility caused by the timing of events in LOTR still stands and proves my arguments about why Tolkien's posthumously published writings are secondary sources in comparison to LOTR and cannot be used to definitvely refute things in LOTR.
I could also retype Tolkien's words into my own. It proves nothing but your ability to type.
That you both have editions with typographical errors proves nothing but that typographical errors exist. That Tolkien might omit the hyphen in a personal (war-time?) letter to his son, where such niceties would of course be of no concern to him also proves nothing.
Grond
If Christopher Tolkien says that "Uruks is an Anglicization of Uruk-hai" is his father's definition, found in his father's writings, I will accept that. What bothers me is that the first time this definition appears anywhere in print is apparently in Robert Foster's book which predates Christopher Tolkien's index in Unfinished Tales. CT has said he found Foster's work useful. That indicates to me that CT must have used Foster's work for something more important than as a paperweight for his father's papers. While we have discussed this issue for weeks, I can easily see CT considering it a trivial item when he was preparing his index for UT and just adopting Foster's definition. Contrary to Tar-Elenion's repeated characterizations, this would not be plagiarism. If it were then every Tolkien encyclopedia and companion volume ever published would be plagiarism and the Tolkien estate would have hauled them all into court. As I pointed out in an earlier post, this definition doesn't even fit the style of the other definitions in the UT index. No other word is defined as an Anglicization. Is Uruks the only Anglicization in Tolkien? As far as I can tell it is the only defintion that defines a word, Uruk-hai, that is not even in UT.
In an earlier exchange with Tar-Elenion I gave quotes from CT showing that he says he has at times changed his father's writing to eliminate inconsistencies (this is before the HoME series), even in one case saying how a change he made brought his father's writing in line with Foster. Yes, CT said in that same editorial note that he had now found additional writings of his father's that caused him to change things back, but he also said that this latest change did not solve everything and that it could itself be wrong. The point here is that just because something has been published by CT does not automatically make it equivalent to JRRT.
I long ago learned that "experts" make mistakes, even those who know more about their chosen field than anyone else. I do not automatically accept an "expert's" opinion just because they are supposed to be an expert, particularly when the opinion does not make sense to me.
I agree with you that barring new evidence turning up neither side in this discussion is going to change their opinions. (And perhaps not even then. )
If Christopher Tolkien says that "Uruks is an Anglicization of Uruk-hai" is his father's definition, found in his father's writings, I will accept that. What bothers me is that the first time this definition appears anywhere in print is apparently in Robert Foster's book which predates Christopher Tolkien's index in Unfinished Tales. CT has said he found Foster's work useful. That indicates to me that CT must have used Foster's work for something more important than as a paperweight for his father's papers.
While we have discussed this issue for weeks, I can easily see CT considering it a trivial item when he was preparing his index for UT and just adopting Foster's definition. Contrary to Tar-Elenion's repeated characterizations, this would not be plagiarism. If it were then every Tolkien encyclopedia and companion volume ever published would be plagiarism and the Tolkien estate would have hauled them all into court. As I pointed out in an earlier post, this definition doesn't even fit the style of the other definitions in the UT index. No other word is defined as an Anglicization. Is Uruks the only Anglicization in Tolkien? As far as I can tell it is the only defintion that defines a word, Uruk-hai, that is not even in UT.In an earlier exchange with Tar-Elenion I gave quotes from CT showing that he says he has at times changed his father's writing to eliminate inconsistencies (this is before the HoME series), even in one case saying how a change he made brought his father's writing in line with Foster. Yes, CT said in that same editorial note that he had now found additional writings of his father's that caused him to change things back, but he also said that this latest change did not solve everything and that it could itself be wrong. The point here is that just because something has been published by CT does not automatically make it equivalent to JRRT.
I long ago learned that "experts" make mistakes, even those who know more about their chosen field than anyone else. I do not automatically accept an "expert's" opinion just because they are supposed to be an expert, particularly when the opinion does not make sense to me.
I agree with you that barring new evidence turning up neither side in this discussion is going to change their opinions. (And perhaps not even then.
)Agreed, and there was no implication of "wrongness" in my post!
I was merely suggesting that you appear to have retreated somewhat from your original position.But there is nothing "convoluted" about my explanation! Tolkien says quite clearly that Gorbag and Shagrat's words were translated by the ring. It therefore is patently obvious that Black Speech words that the ringbearer had never heard before would be translated in the text. Where's the convolution?
Yes they have. In UT. I may be wrong in suggesting that the some of these Uruks are Ugluk's band, but Tolkien quite clearly describes Saruman's elite Orcs as Uruks in this post-LotR text.
What it proves is that the interpretation of "-hai" as "-folk" works perfectly well. When I asked you why you thought "-hai" didn't work, you said:
I have found no evidence that you have. Therefore, I will ask you again. Please explain why "-hai" as "-folk" does not work in the context of Tolkien's writings.
Last edited:
Tar-Elenion
Elite
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 745
So naturally he 'borrows' the 'defintion' from RF? This is absolutely absurd. CT had access to his father's materials, and no need to 'borrow' any defintions from Foster. He had no need to bring his father's works into line with Foster. The statement is completely specious.
In the Eorlings entry, the Anglo Saxon plural is noted.
And as for Uruk-hai not being in UT it further reinforces the case that the defintion came from his father's writings. There would be no need to include it otherwise.
You are going to need to refresh my memory on this. _CT_ has said that he made a change to bring his fathers writings in line with Foster? Where does this occur? Please provide the citation and quote.
Which editorial note are you speaking of?
And if Fords of Isen was inconsistant with LotR why didn't he alter it?
Last edited:
Tar-Elenion
Elite
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 745
You are correct, I have not changed my veiw. The App. F and Q&E both note that the lesser breeds were called 'snaga'. That is what Shagrat is calling this lesser breed Orc. POV is important.
Sure it does. It proves that JRRT himself, the one who invented the words, and put them together, used them with out a hyphen. You are of course at liberty to dismiss it, but it proves exactly that.
In any event we still have 'Saruman-glob' attested to as 'Saruman-fool'.
Last edited:
Actually, Tolkien does not say "quite clearly that Gorbag and Shagrat's words were translated by the ring". Tolkien merely suggests the possibility. What Tolkien says in the book is: "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." [Emphasis added.] This is hardly a definitive statement that the Ring is acting as a translator. Perhaps the orcs were speaking a version of "ordinary language" as did the orcs that captured Merry and Pippin. Sam is not wearing the Ring later when he overhears Shagrat and Snaga talking, but still he understands them. Neither Frodo nor Sam are wearing the Ring when they overhear the tracker orc and the soldier orc talking, yet they understand them. Again when Frodo and Sam are overtaken in Mordor by orc troops the uruk driver speaks to them and they have no trouble understanding, but neither is wearing the Ring. You have latched on to what was suggested by Tolkien as a possibility (a possibility that doesn't fit with all the later instances in LOTR) to argue that Gorbag may have really said Uruk-hai when Tolkien has in fact written in the text that Gorbag said Uruks. I call that explanation "convoluted". Especially when you then have to give a different explanation for Gandalf referring to the "Uruks of Mordor" (example 8) and when the large soldier orcs of Mordor are referred to as uruks by Tolkien on three other occasions in LOTR (examples 10, 11 and 13). Never does Tolkien unambiguously refer to Mordor soldier orcs as Uruk-hai.
Unfinished Tales is a collection of manuscripts. One of the major things the HoME series shows us is how much Tolkien rewrote and tinkered with his texts. I cannot but restate that all of Tolkien's posthumously published material is secondary to LOTR. You and Tar-Elenion continue to blindly ignore that fact.
And so might other interpretations. And even if I accepted "-hai" as "-folk" (which I have not), it would not change the fact that in LOTR, Tolkien applies it to Saruman's elite orc troops, not Sauron's.
You don't know this. CT said some of the definitions came from his father. He did not say all. The definitions that didn't come from his father came from somewhere. Either he made them up himself or perhaps he merely followed someone else. The point is we do not know. That you insist this defintion came from JRRT himself does not make it so.
That is pulling an argument out of thin air. It reinforces nothing. I could make up anything I want, point out that it isn't included in something and therefore it proves my point. And you try to characterize my arguments as specious? I would say your arguments are desperate.
In a war-time letter to his son where orthography would be of trivial importance to him. For that matter, since we know that the hyphen has been omitted in typographical error in published versions of LOTR how do you know the editor of the book of Tolkien's letters didn't make a similar typographical error? Have you seen the originals? I am not stating here that there is a hyphen in the original letter, just that you don't know for sure and even if there isn't (and there probably isn't), it doesn't prove a thing. You continue to be blind to the difference between published material that an author prepared for publication (LOTR) and unpublished and private material which an author never expected anyone but close friends and/or family to see in that form.
Tar-Elenion
Elite
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 745
It fits in perfectly with all the other instances. As is noted in App. F Orcs of different breeds speak Common to each other, Black Speech was the 'language of Barad-dur and the captains of Mordor'. The explanation is not convoluted, it is provided by the author.
"...rebel Uruk-hai" is unambiguously refering to Mordor soldier orcs.
Your explanations to make it seem ambiguous are what I call "convoluted".
And you continue to blindly ignore the fact that Fords of Isen is fully compatible with LotR. You dismiss it out of hand because it does not support your position.
Except when he does not apply it to Saruman's troops, ie "rebel Uruk-hai", oh wait, I forgot, with "convoluted explanations" we can declare it "ambiguous", and 'safely ignore' it.
No, he did not say that Greenwood. No matter how many times you suggest that CT made them up or used other peoples explantions, it does not make it true. He said he got some of the definitions from the draft index for LotR his father made. The other 'definitions' to his father's words he got from elsewhere in his father's writings. He had no need to make them up himself or 'borrow' from others.
LOL
Desperate is dismissing texts simply because they do not agree with your position. Desperate is attempting to declare passages ambiguous because they do not aggree with you belief. Desperate is suggesting CT simply made up defintions to his father's words or 'borrowed' them from other people because it does not agree with your position. Desperate is dismissing JRRT's own use of words.
Trival hmm. Where did JRRT say it orthography was trivial to him in any situation? Can you provide a quote or citation to back up your assertion? Your questions are specious, unless or until you can prove that the original letters had hyphens, I am going to accept that they were published as written. I understand, it does not agree with a position you hold, so it should be dismissed, but I don't dismiss texts etc. as easily as you.
However it is beside the point. We have 'Saruman-glob' attested to as 'Saruman-fool'. Word order is important, 'uruk-hai', 'sunlight-orc', does not work. What does work is Orc-folk, especially when we take into account Letter 78 ("Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker.").
Interesting, that use of 'folk', considering that 'uruk' was 'borrowed' from the Elvish, which are from stems that yield 'terrible' and 'horrible' (ie _bad_) and applied to creatures of the Enemy that inspired fear (Cian can give more linguistic insight, I think he mentioned 'evil'). Hmm... 'urukhai' - *bad-folk .
Last edited:
Share this page
Similar threads
Today's events
Similar threads
-
📖👀 Chapter 3 (📔Book III) The Uruk-Hai
- Started by Rivendell_librarian
- Replies: 4
-
-
Why did good in LOTR eventually win? Did evil stand a chance?
- Started by AaronAzrael
- Replies: 10
-
Seeking Help: 3D Models for Uruk-Hai Armor Project
- Started by Frequ
- Replies: 0
-
