20 Questions - Öjevind (II)
Öjevind Lång
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
"Nautilus" <m...@privacy.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:me1-984E73.1...@news.t-online.de...
> In article <7m9u0pF...@mid.individual.net>,
> �jevind L�ng <bredba...@ojevind.lang> wrote:
>
>> OK, stepping up. Animal kingdom.
Yes.
�jevind
Taemon
>>> OK, stepping up. Animal kingdom.
>> 1. Is it a live animal?
> Yes.
Breadbox!
T.
Clams Canino
"�jevind L�ng" <bredba...@ojevind.lang> wrote in message
news:7mau0jF...@mid.individual.net...
Quick early guess... is it that which is known only as a "great beast" ?
-W
Tamf Moo
>>> 1. Is it a live animal?
>> Yes.
> Breadbox!
oh, silly Taemon. a breadbox isn't an animal!
--
tamf
I see two Gandalfs and church bell. And two half lions chasing
a bull rat each over the lake. (Rorschach tests seen by "Illogic")
Öjevind Lång
news:S4qdnerx8b5W2J3W...@earthlink.com...
[snip]
>> >> OK, stepping up. Animal kingdom.
>> > 1. Is it a live animal?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> �jevind
>
> 2. Quick early guess... is it that which is known only as a "great beast"
> ?
No. And:
3. Not small enough to fit into a breadbox.
�jevind
Dirk Thierbach
|: OK, stepping up. Animal kingdom.
|: 1. Is it a live animal?
|: Yes.
|: 2. Quick early guess... is it that which is known only as a "great beast"
|: No
|: 3. Not small enough to fit into a breadbox.
4. Mammal?
- Dirk
Öjevind Lång
news:20091116101803...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...
Yes.
Öjevind
Dirk Thierbach
|: OK, stepping up. Animal kingdom.
|: 1. Is it a live animal?
|: Yes.
|: 2. Quick early guess... is it that which is known only as a "great
|: beast"
|: No
|: 3. Not small enough to fit into a breadbox.
|: 4. Mammal?
|: Yes.
5. Four legs?
- Dirk
Öjevind Lång
No.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
>> > |: OK, stepping up. Animal kingdom.
>> > |: 1. Is it a live animal?
>> > |: Yes.
>> > |: 2. Quick early guess... is it that which is known only as a "great
>> > |: beast"
>> > |: No
>> > |: 3. Not small enough to fit into a breadbox.
>> > |: 4. Mammal?
>> > |: Yes.
>> > 5. Four legs?
>> No.
> 6. Is it the kind of an animal that we would only find in Tolkien's
> Middle-earth?
7. Tentatively yes.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
>> >> > |: OK, stepping up. Animal kingdom.
>> >> > |: 1. Is it a live animal?
>> >> > |: Yes.
>> >> > |: 2. Quick early guess... is it that which is known only as a
>> >> > "great
>> >> > |: beast"
>> >> > |: No
>> >> > |: 3. Not small enough to fit into a breadbox.
>> >> > |: 4. Mammal?
>> >> > |: Yes.
>> >> > 5. Four legs?
>> >> No.
>> > 6. Is it the kind of an animal that we would only find in Tolkien's
>> > Middle-earth?
>> 7. Tentatively yes.
> 8. Does this animal ever change its outer appearance (as part of his
> normal life)?
No.
�jevind
Raven
news:7mdk1uF...@mid.individual.net...
> |: OK, stepping up. Animal kingdom.
> |: 1. Is it a live animal?
> |: Yes.
> |: 2. Quick early guess... is it that which is known only as a
> |: "great beast"
> |: No
> |: 3. Not small enough to fit into a breadbox.
> |: 4. Mammal?
> |: Yes.
> |: 5. Four legs?
> |: No.
> |: 6. Is it the kind of an animal that we would only find in Tolkien's
> |: Middle-earth?
> |: 7. Tentatively yes.
> |: 8. Does this animal ever change its outer appearance (as part of his
> |: normal life)?
> No.
9. Can it speak?
Korppi.
Öjevind Lång
meddelandet news:4b019c7d$0$56787$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>> |: OK, stepping up. Animal kingdom.
>> |: 1. Is it a live animal?
>> |: Yes.
>> |: 2. Quick early guess... is it that which is known only as a
>> |: "great beast"
>> |: No
>> |: 3. Not small enough to fit into a breadbox.
>> |: 4. Mammal?
>> |: Yes.
>> |: 5. Four legs?
>> |: No.
>> |: 6. Is it the kind of an animal that we would only find in Tolkien's
>> |: Middle-earth?
>> |: 7. Tentatively yes.
>> |: 8. Does this animal ever change its outer appearance (as part of his
>> |: normal life)?
>
>> No.
>
> 9. Can it speak?
Yes.
�jevind
Raven
> |: OK, stepping up. Animal kingdom.
> |: 1. Is it a live animal?
> |: Yes.
> |: 2. Quick early guess... is it that which is known only as a
> |: "great beast"
> |: No
> |: 3. Not small enough to fit into a breadbox.
> |: 4. Mammal?
> |: Yes.
> |: 5. Four legs?
> |: No.
> |: 6. Is it the kind of an animal that we would only find in Tolkien's
> |: Middle-earth?
> |: 7. Tentatively yes.
> |: 8. Does this animal ever change its outer appearance (as part of his
> |: normal life)?
> |: No.
> |: 9. Can it speak?
> Yes.
10. Does it belong to the Atani?
Kauv�.
Öjevind Lång
meddelandet news:4b01afa5$0$56771$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>> |: OK, stepping up. Animal kingdom.
>> |: 1. Is it a live animal?
>> |: Yes.
>> |: 2. Quick early guess... is it that which is known only as a
>> |: "great beast"
>> |: No
>> |: 3. Not small enough to fit into a breadbox.
>> |: 4. Mammal?
>> |: Yes.
>> |: 5. Four legs?
>> |: No.
>> |: 6. Is it the kind of an animal that we would only find in Tolkien's
>> |: Middle-earth?
>> |: 7. Tentatively yes.
>> |: 8. Does this animal ever change its outer appearance (as part of his
>> |: normal life)?
>> |: No.
>> |: 9. Can it speak?
>
>> Yes.
>
> 10. Does it belong to the Atani?
11. Not to the Edain, at least.
�jevind
Raven
> |: OK, stepping up. Animal kingdom.
> |: 1. Is it a live animal?
> |: Yes.
> |: 2. Quick early guess... is it that which is known only as a
> |: "great beast"
> |: No
> |: 3. Not small enough to fit into a breadbox.
> |: 4. Mammal?
> |: Yes.
> |: 5. Four legs?
> |: No.
> |: 6. Is it the kind of an animal that we would only find in Tolkien's
> |: Middle-earth?
> |: 7. Tentatively yes.
> |: 8. Does this animal ever change its outer appearance (as part of his
> |: normal life)?
> |: No.
> |: 9. Can it speak?
> |: Yes.
> |: 10. Does it belong to the Atani?
> 11. Not to the Edain, at least.
12. Is it a hobbit?
Gavran.
Derek Broughton
Clearly a three-legged fox...
--
derek
Clams Canino
"�jevind L�ng" <bredba...@ojevind.lang> wrote in message
Ummm, you added a number (11) for the answer....
-W
Öjevind Lång
news:8k59t6-...@morgen.pointerstop.ca...
LOL
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
meddelandet news:4b01e0a5$0$56796$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>> |: OK, stepping up. Animal kingdom.
>> |: 1. Is it a live animal?
>> |: Yes.
>> |: 2. Quick early guess... is it that which is known only as a
>> |: "great beast"
>> |: No
>> |: 3. Not small enough to fit into a breadbox.
>> |: 4. Mammal?
>> |: Yes.
>> |: 5. Four legs?
>> |: No.
>> |: 6. Is it the kind of an animal that we would only find in Tolkien's
>> |: Middle-earth?
>> |: 7. Tentatively yes.
>> |: 8. Does this animal ever change its outer appearance (as part of his
>> |: normal life)?
>> |: No.
>> |: 9. Can it speak?
>> |: Yes.
>> |: 10. Does it belong to the Atani?
> > Not to the Edain, at least.
> 11. Is it a hobbit?
No.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>> > 10. Does it belong to the Atani?
>>
>> 11. Not to the Edain, at least.
>
> Ummm, you added a number (11) for the answer....
Oops! I've corrected it in my reply to Raven.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
> In article <7melmiF3gcgh...@mid.individual.net>,
> Öjevind Lång <bredband....@ojevind.lang> wrote:
>
> > >> |: OK, stepping up. Animal kingdom.
> > >> |: 1. Is it a live animal?
> > >> |: Yes.
> > >> |: 2. Quick early guess... is it that which is known only as a
> > >> |: "great beast"
> > >> |: No
> > >> |: 3. Not small enough to fit into a breadbox.
> > >> |: 4. Mammal?
> > >> |: Yes.
> > >> |: 5. Four legs?
> > >> |: No.
> > >> |: 6. Is it the kind of an animal that we would only find in Tolkien's
> > >> |: Middle-earth?
> > >> |: 7. Tentatively yes.
> > >> |: 8. Does this animal ever change its outer appearance (as part of his
> > >> |: normal life)?
> > >> |: No.
> > >> |: 9. Can it speak?
> > >> |: Yes.
> > >> |: 10. Does it belong to the Atani?
> > > Not to the Edain, at least.
> > > 11. Is it a hobbit?
> > No.
>
>
> - Visa citerad text -
Yes.
Öjevind
Taemon
>>>> 4. Mammal?
>>>> Yes.
>> 5. Four legs?
> No.
Eh. Yeah, okay. Fantasy. Good question, I'd never have thought of mammals
not having four legs.
T.
Troels Forchhammer
<35ff6966-9b06-497f...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
�jevind L�ng <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
>
The answer to 6. had also mistakenly been numbered (as 7).
|: OK, stepping up. Animal kingdom.
|: 1. Is it a live animal?
|: Yes.
|: 2. Quick early guess... is it that which is known only as
|: a "great �beast"
|: No
|: 3. Not small enough to fit into a breadbox.
|: 4. Mammal?
|: Yes.
|: 5. Four legs?
|: No.
|: 6. Is it the kind of an animal that we would only find
|: in Tolkien's Middle-earth?
|: Tentatively yes.
|: 7. Does this animal ever change its outer appearance (as
|: part of his normal life)?
|: No.
|: 8. Can it speak?
|: Yes.
|: 9. Does it belong to the Atani?
|: Not to the Edain, at least.
|: 10. Is it a hobbit?
|: No.
|: 11. Does it appear in the main part of LOTR or the Hobbit?
>
> Yes.
In summary I take the above to mean that we are supposed to guess a
Man (one of the Big People) that lived towards the end of the Third
Age.
Is it a Man who lived west of the Great River?
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
"It would seem that you have no useful skill or talent
whatsoever," he said. "Have you thought of going into
teaching?"
- /Mort/ (Terry Pratchett)
Troels Forchhammer
"Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> spoke these staves:
>
<Snip>
> I'd never have thought of mammals not having four legs.
How many _legs_ (not limbs) would you say that you have yourself?
I take 'legs' to mean only the limbs that the animal (regularly)) use
for walking. I heard or read recently about some animal -- spiders? --
that had converted one set of legs to mandibles (if spiders that would
mean that they had originally been ten-legged), but these are no longer
counted as legs because they do not serve as legs -- precisely like the
arms of some mammals :)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
A good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows
how to read.
- /Guards! Guards!/ (Terry Pratchett)
Dirk Thierbach
> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>
>>>>> 4. Mammal?
>>>>> Yes.
>>> 5. Four legs?
>> No.
> Eh. Yeah, okay. Fantasy.
Was mainly meant to distinguish between Humans/Elves/Dwarves/Orcs and
other animals, in the spirit of binary search. Would have singled out
Apes, too, but IIRC they don't appear in LotR.
- Dirk
Öjevind Lång
wrote:
Correct.
>12. Is it a Man who lived west of the Great River?
Yes. Though if I see that you all get stuck, I'll add a qualifier to
this question. There is a complication of sorts, but I won't specifiy
its nature now.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
> In article <7mdu9sF3gkth...@mid.individual.net>,
> Öjevind Lång <bredband....@ojevind.lang> wrote:
>
> > "Raven" <jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> skrev i
> > meddelandetnews:4b01afa5$0$56771$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> > > 10. Does it belong to the Atani?
>
> > 11. Not to the Edain, at least.
>
> it correct, that the Numenoreans and the Dunedain count as Edain, but
> not Gondorians and Rohirrim and none of the other men farther south
> or east?
The Edain was the name for the three Houses of Elf-friends in the
First Age, the ancestors of the Númenoreans. Some of the Edain left
Beleriand and returned east before the catastrophic battles and the
fall of Morgoth, and some of those who remained and fought may have
chosen not to go to Númenor, but we don't seem to know much about what
happened to either group. I have the impression that their descendants
were no longer counted as Edain. The Númenoreans were also known as
Dúnedain, that being the only name for the descendants of the
Númenoreans after the Fall of Númenor. In the Third Age, many of the
people of Gondor were Dúnedain. In addition to them, there was also
the remnant of the Dúnedain living in the North, and at least one
Black Númenorean as late as the time of the War of the Ring. The being
this thread is about was not a Dúnadan.
Somewhere (in "The Peoples of Middle'earth"?) we are told that when
the Númenoreans first visited Middle-earth some centuries after their
exodus, they encountered people who spoke a language recognizably
related to theirs. We aren't told whether these people belonged to the
Edain, or whether they were descended from the close kin of the Edain
- those who never voyaged to Beleriand.
Taemon
> In message <news:he0sca$f2j$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
> "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> spoke these staves:
>> I'd never have thought of mammals not having four legs.
> How many _legs_ (not limbs) would you say that you have yourself?
Well, it depends. You might remember that in my native Dutch there are
different words for limbs of a human (armen en benen) then for animals
(poten). I was thinking "poten" but of course "benen" was meant. If you'd
ask me how many poten I have I'd have said four, and glowered to you for
being slightly rude.
> I take 'legs' to mean only the limbs that the animal (regularly)) use
> for walking. I heard or read recently about some animal -- spiders? --
> that had converted one set of legs to mandibles (if spiders that would
> mean that they had originally been ten-legged), but these are no
> longer counted as legs because they do not serve as legs -- precisely
> like the arms of some mammals :)
Yes - I once worked with tarantulas in a zoo. There was this boy who
apparently had recently learned that spiders have eight legs. So he set out
to count them and was much taken aback when he came to ten :-) I'm not sure
how works for other spiders, but if you look at a tarantula you will see a
pair of small extra "legs" in hanging over the mouthpiece.
T.
Troels Forchhammer
<aa55455e-fdc7-4dc8-83e7-bf777a0a11c5g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
13. Did this Big Person have their home within the borders of Gondor
at its greatest extent?
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom
of thought which they avoid.
- Soren Kierkegaard
Öjevind Lång
wrote:
> In message
> <aa55455e-fdc7-4dc8-83e7-bf777a0a11c5g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
> Öjevind Lång <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
Yes.
Öjevind
Raven
news:f4ac016d-3a1a-4e5d...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Yes.
14. A male?
Korpen.
Öjevind Lång
<jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
> "Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> skrev i meddelelsennews:f4ac016d-3a1a-4e5d...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Yes.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
> Anduin after Aragorn's coronation?- Dölj citerad text -
No. Actually, I regret my rider to question 12. Just go for a Big
Person west of the Anduin, and you'll be fine.
Öjevind
Dirk Thierbach
16. One of the Rohirrim? (What's the singular, BTW? A Rohir?)
- Dirk
Öjevind Lång
wrote:
(LOL. I have often wondered about that myself.) No, not one of the
Rohirrrim.
Öjevind
Raven
> |: No. Actually, I regret my rider to question 12. Just go for a Big
> |: Person west of the Anduin, and you'll be fine.
> |: 16. One of the Rohirrim? (What's the singular, BTW? A Rohir?)
> (LOL. I have often wondered about that myself.) No, not one of the
> Rohirrrim.
17. Did this man meet a hobbit?
Hrafn.
Öjevind Lång
<jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
> "Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> skrev i meddelelsennews:3284894e-44a3-4c2f...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Yes.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
> > Yes.
>
> 18. Is this man in the city of Gondor when he meets a hobbit for the
> first time?
No.
Öjevind
Raven
> No.
Is he ever close to the Ring?
Zagh.
Öjevind Lång
<jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
> "Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> skrev i meddelelsennews:cbd5c66d-5eae-4069...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Somewhat.
Öjevind
Raven
> Somewhat.
20. Does he serve Denethor?
Karasu.
Odysseus
Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
> In message <news:he0sca$f2j$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
> "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> spoke these staves:
>
> <Snip>
>
> > I'd never have thought of mammals not having four legs.
>
> How many _legs_ (not limbs) would you say that you have yourself?
>
> I take 'legs' to mean only the limbs that the animal (regularly)) use
> for walking. I heard or read recently about some animal -- spiders? --
> that had converted one set of legs to mandibles (if spiders that would
> mean that they had originally been ten-legged), but these are no longer
> counted as legs because they do not serve as legs -- precisely like the
> arms of some mammals :)
IIANM all arthropods have a pair of "legs" on each body segment, but in
many cases they've atrophied or been adapted to another purpose:
mandibles, wings, spinnerets, gills, antennae or whatever.
--
Odysseus
Öjevind Lång
<jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
No.
Öjevind
Count Menelvagor
i've been wanting to ask if he was beorn, but i think you said he
doesn't change shape. anyway, too late now. we're doomed.
Raven
news:d0260f27-8f83-4b87...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> i've been wanting to ask if he was beorn, but i think you said he
> doesn't change shape. anyway, too late now. we're doomed.
Besides, Beorn lived east of the Great River, and Gondor never
encompassed the site of Beorn's house.
Y�ma.
Raven
> No.
Is he on the side of Good?
K�kam.
Öjevind Lång
Of course not! Let's continue until you find the answer.
We are not talking about a shapeshifter here.
Ironically enough, I decided to choose a subject of inquiry that was
easy to discover, and then it turned out it wasn't easy at all.
This is probably the right place to clarify what I said in response
to question 12. The being we are talking about is identified as a Man,
but it *could* be questioned whether that constitutes the entirety of
the genetical makeup. Also, please don't get fixated on the Anduin.
And remember that I said that the being was "somewhat" close to the
Ring. That doesn't necessarily mean as much as even standing near the
person bearing the Ring.
If you don't find this helpful, I'll add a qualifier to yet another
of the responses above. My, how many times a "Yes" or a "No" can be
unintentionally misleading...
Öjevind
Derek Broughton
How many naked Men occur in the tale? He never changes his outward
appearance. I suppose he could be a Man who never changes his clothes.
Ghan Buri Ghan? (Or some spelling approximating that).
--
derek
Öjevind Lång
<jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
> > |: Somewhat. (But that doesn't need to be particularly near.)
> > |: 20. Does he serve Denethor?
> > No.
>
> 21. Is he on the side of Good?
No.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
21. Not on the side of Good.
> 22. Ghan Buri Ghan? (Or some spelling approximating that).
No.
Öjevind
Bill O'Meally
21. Is he known by a birth name (as opposed to a nickname or title
aquired later in life)?
--
Bill
"Wise fool."
Gandalf _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not!)
Öjevind Lång
> >> >> > No.
> > 21. Not on the side of Good.
> > > 22. Ghan Buri Ghan? (Or some spelling approximating that).
> > No.
23. We never learn his name.
>
> 23. Let's try a different direction, following the uncertainty of his
> genetical makeup.
> Does he ever spend an evening in the "Prancing Pony" in Bree?
YES!
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
We never lean his name.
Öjevind
Raven
> |: 24. Let's try a different direction, following the uncertainty of his
> |: genetical makeup.
> |: Does he ever spend an evening in the "Prancing Pony" in Bree?
> YES!
25. The sallow-faced Southerner who spoke with Bill Ferny?
Havran.
Öjevind Lång
<jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
Yes indeed, but your answer clocked in 4 minutes after Nautilus'. When
Merry and Paippin ("In Flotsam and Jetsam") relate their adventures to
Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas, Merry mentions that among the troops
marching out of Isengard there were "battalions of Men, too. Many of
them carried torches, and in their flare I could see their faces. Most
of them were ordinary men, rather tall and dark-haired, and grim but
not particularly evil-looking. But there were some others that were
horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-
eyed. Do you know, they reminded me at once of that Southerner at
Bree; only he was not so obviously orc-like as most of these were."
Aragorn says: "I thought of him too. We had many of these half-orcs
to deal with at Helm's Deep. It seems plain now that that Southerner
was a spy of Saruman's..."
On the other hand, I have never believed that the Uruk-hai were a
mixture of human and orc. The reason is that there is not the
slightest hint of it; the Uruk-hai of Isengard and Mordor are simply
described as unusually tall and brave orcs who can endure the
sunlight. Since Tolkien also tells us that Sauron managed to breed a
new kind of troll (called the Olog-hai) who could endure the sun when
under his influence, I see no reason to regard the Uruk-hai as some
kind of half-orcs.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
> Bill Ferny to the "Prancing Pony" the night the four hobbits meet
> Strider.
DINGDINGDING! We've got a winner! You clocked in before Raven, which
is only fair since your previous question clearly showed that you were
onto him.
I think it's fairly clear that the Southerner had som Orc blood.
Incidentally, when I replied to question 13, that yes, he "had his
home within the borders of Gondor at its greatest extent", then that
answer was also a bit questionable since he is described as a homeless
tramp. Well, nowover to you.
Öjevind
Raven
> DINGDINGDING! We've got a winner! You clocked in before Raven, which
> is only fair since your previous question clearly showed that you were
> onto him.
Yes, on the proviso that our answer were correct I conceded that defeat
on both your points as soon as I had sent my post and saw that of Nautilus.
Well well, sometimes the questioner puts what he considers a chestnut and it
turns out to be a Gordian knot.
Korpen.
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> > DINGDINGDING! We've got a winner! You clocked in before Raven, which
> > is only fair since your previous question clearly showed that you were
> > onto him.
> > I think it's fairly clear that the Southerner had som Orc blood.
> > Incidentally, when I replied to question 13, that yes, he "had his
> > home within the borders of Gondor at its greatest extent", then that
> > answer was also a bit questionable since he is described as a homeless
> > tramp. Well, nowover to you.
>
> > Öjevind
>
> Great!
> The second important hint was of course that he wasn't serve on the
> good side.
Yup. :-) If that had been known earlier, people would not have
speculated about Beorn, Faramir and Ghan-bûri-Ghan.
Öjevind
Troels Forchhammer
<3284894e-44a3-4c2f...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
�jevind L�ng <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
>
> On 19 Nov, 19:33, Dirk Thierbach <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de>
> wrote:
>>
<sniiiip>
>> 16. One of the Rohirrim? (What's the singular, BTW? A Rohir?)
>>
>> - Dirk
>
> (LOL. I have often wondered about that myself.)
Probably Rohir, yes (or 'rochir' if you wish to use correct Sindarin
rather than the Gondorized form). Roch = 'horse' + h�r = 'lord/master'
and -rim as the collective plural ending (people/folk).
On the other hand this might be equivalent to call anyone living in
Eregion a Jewel-smith (presuming that the people was collectively
called the 'People of the Jewel-smiths', M�rdainim? M�rdanoth?) Are all
the Rohirrim horse-lords or is that only a few of them that represents
the whole people?
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
The "paradox" is only a conflict between reality and your
feeling of what reality "ought to be".
- Richard Feynman
Troels Forchhammer
<3b3226b9-0122-4687...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
锟絡evind L锟絥g <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
>
> On the other hand, I have never believed that the Uruk-hai were
> a mixture of human and orc. The reason is that there is not the
> slightest hint of it;
Except of course Treebeard's explicit speculation, Gamlings statement
and Tolkien's statements in _Morgoth's Ring_ . . .
As for Gamling, he tells Aragorn that 'these creatures of Isengard,
these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has
bred, they will not quail at the sun.'
I take it that you accept that these orc-like men are indeed half-
orcs (or whatever the mix may be)? But Tolkien does mention (in MR)
that such Orc/Man mixes may come out two ways, and the other way that
he describes is very like Saruman's Uruks -- Uruks mixed with Men.
> the Uruk-hai of Isengard and Mordor are simply described as
> unusually tall and brave orcs
That is just the description of the uruk-hai, yes.
> who can endure the sunlight.
Actually I think you are probably right on that. As Merry and Pippin
are taken across Rohan, the Orcs from Moria complain about running in
the sun (not that they are incapable of doing it, but they obviously
do _not_ like it and they suffer physically from the ordeal, but they
do run), but I can't find any evidence that Grishn锟絢h or the other
Mordor-orcs had any problem (presuming that Grishn锟絢h is a Mordor
uruk-hai even though he described as 'a short crook-legged creature,
very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground.').
There _is_ however some hints that the Isengard uruks were even
larger and stronger than the Mordor uruks, which would be consistent
with descriptions in MR:
Finally, there is a cogent point, though horrible to
relate. It became clear in time that undoubted Men could
under the domination of Morgoth or his agents in a few
generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and
habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with
Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning.
There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age,
Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and
in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed:
the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs
large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile.
(MR, 'Myths Transformed' text X)
Here Tolkien is, I believe, post-rationalizing what he put in LotR,
and there is, to my mind, no doubt that his reference to 'Orc-men
treacherous and vile' is to the very people you describe in the
passages from 'Flotsam and Jetsam', and the other kind, the 'large
and cunning' Men-orcs would fit Isengard's uruk-hai to a T.
> Since Tolkien also tells us that Sauron managed to breed a new
> kind of troll (called the Olog-hai) who could endure the sun when
> under his influence, I see no reason to regard the Uruk-hai as
> some kind of half-orcs.
It is perhaps significant that Tolkien does not mention any increased
tolerance to sunlight as one of the possible benefits from
crossbreeding Men and Orcs. However, Saruman's uruks are, IMO,
nevertheless almost certainly cross-breeds: not because they are
better at enduring the Sun, but because they are larger than the
uruks of Mordor and because Tolkien both explained the mechanism
(though admittedly years later) and because he let so many characters
say that they are; not just Treebeard.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.
- Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague
(Thus speaks the quantum physicist)
Pseudonymus al-Faqha'ter III
wrote:
> Finally, there is a cogent point, though horrible to
> relate. It became clear in time that undoubted Men could
> under the domination of Morgoth or his agents in a few
> generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and
> habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with
> Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning.
> There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age,
> Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and
> in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed:
> the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs
> large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile.
That reminds me of one of the most horrible passages in the Book of
Unanswered Questions. I'm almost grateful that Tolkien censored *that*
part of LOTR.
Öjevind Lång
wrote:
> In message
> <3b3226b9-0122-4687-8f65-d14a099a7...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
> Öjevind Lång <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
> On the other hand, I have never believed that the Uruk-hai were
> > a mixture of human and orc. The reason is that there is not the
> > slightest hint of it;
>
> Except of course Treebeard's explicit speculation, Gamlings statement
> and Tolkien's statements in _Morgoth's Ring_ . . .
I'm not sure Treebeard's statement can be automatically taken to refer
to Uglúk and his gang. As for all Tolkien's differing statements and
specualtions after LotR had been published, they are often
inconsistent and unreliable.
> As for Gamling, he tells Aragorn that 'these creatures of Isengard,
> these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has
> bred, they will not quail at the sun.'
Yes, but thats till does not prove that the Uruk-hai were half human.
Anyway, Gamling was presumably not privy to Saruman's breedign
programs.
> I take it that you accept that these orc-like men are indeed half-
> orcs (or whatever the mix may be)? But Tolkien does mention (in MR)
> that such Orc/Man mixes may come out two ways, and the other way that
> he describes is very like Saruman's Uruks -- Uruks mixed with Men.
See above. I am not very convinced by Tolkien's later scribbles, which
Robert Foster excised from the refvbised and augemnted edition of his
Guide on the explicit grounds that Tolkien's claims in letters and
other post facto documents were inconsistent. (He made an exception
for the letters to Dick Plotz.)
> > the Uruk-hai of Isengard and Mordor are simply described as
> > unusually tall and brave orcs
>
> That is just the description of the uruk-hai, yes.
I hope you don't find me churlish for snipping the rest of your post;
it contains things that we either agree on or simply will not agree
on. I can only say that I find the fact that the Uruk-hai were taller
than other Orcs less than convincing as an argument for them being
partly human.
Öjevinbd
Öjevind Lång
<pseudony...@fats.teunc.org> wrote:
[snip]
> That reminds me of one of the most horrible passages in the Book of
> Unanswered Questions. I'm almost grateful that Tolkien censored *that*
> part of LOTR.
Give me a hint, please?
Öjevind
Troels Forchhammer
<2e958844-9ad6-4854...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
īŋŊjevind LīŋŊng <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
> On 22 Nov, 00:27, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> In message
>> <3b3226b9-0122-4687-8f65-d14a099a7...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>>>
I'd like to take this a step further, if you don't mind. Not that we
need to agree, but I'm not sure I fully understand your position. I'll
take the opportunity to try to order my own thoughts a bit more clearly
-- not with the intention of convincing you, but for my own sake.
Uruk-hai come in many variants and the question is to the differences
between Saruman's uruk-hai and other uruks, not, as I understand it, to
uruks in general (the 'black orcs of great strength').
Tolkien, IMO, goes out of his way to establish that Saruman's _uruks_
reacted differently to sunlight than others. This begins already in
'The Uruk-hai' with the descriptions of the unwillingness of the
Northerners to go on in sunlight, and is further confirmed by the orcs
themselves during the battle of Helm's Deep: "'What of the dawn?' they
jeered. 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or
day, for fair weather or for storm.'"
We have three sets of orcs that are described in the texts:
A: The fighting uruk-hai: the uruks of Isengard
B: Orcs that are cross-bred with Men by Saruman
C: Orcs that are (said to be) more tolerant to sunlight
Treebeard and Gamling equates B & C (actually suggesting that B is the
direct cause of C), whereas Saruman's uruks themselves firmly establish
that they are a subset of C. I agree that there does not, within LotR,
seem to be any direct and explicit statement that connects A and B.
I'm not entirely sure whether you believe that set B was actually
empty, or that the intersection of sets A and B was empty? Personally I
think that the existence of Saruman's breeding programme is extremely
well established within LotR, though I agree that evidence for a non-
empty intersection is quite a bit weaker.
Tolkien, however, fails (IMO) in establishing that other uruks did shun
sunlight. As I said earlier GrishnīŋŊkh and his group of Mordor orcs
(presumably also uruks, though I'm not sure that this is stated
explicitly) does as well as the Isengarders when they run across Rohan.
>>>īŋŊ On the other hand, I have never believed that the Uruk-hai were
>>> a mixture of human and orc. The reason is that there is not the
>>> slightest hint of it;
>>
>> Except of course Treebeard's explicit speculation, Gamlings
>> statement and Tolkien's statements in _Morgoth's Ring_ . . .
>
> I'm not sure Treebeard's statement can be automatically taken to
> refer to UglīŋŊk and his gang.
I can't see what else it could refer to in context? When Treebeard
speaks of orcs that do not shun the sunlight the only orcs we have
heard of from Isengard are those that dub themselves 'the fighting
Uruk-hai' -- UglīŋŊk and his lads and MauhīŋŊr and his gang who hid in
Fangorn, waiting for UglīŋŊk's party, and he speaks to Pippin and Merry
who only knows of the fighting Uruk-hai. Add to this that Tolkien has,
at this point, already started to set up the idea that Saruman's uruks
were somehow more resistant to sunlight than other orcs. Later on
Gamling is referring to the orcs they are facing at Helm's Deep, where
the Fighting Uruk-hai was in the front as seen when Aragorn speaks to
the enemy shortly after. It would in both cases seem to me, at least on
the face of it, a rather odd reading to exclude the Isengard orcs their
listeners were most familiar with.
> As for all Tolkien's differing statements and specualtions after
> LotR had been published, they are often inconsistent and
> unreliable.
In this case, however, the only statement we have outside LotR that
bears on this is not only consistent with LotR, but exlains the text
very well. Still, if you wish to discount external references, then we
will speak no more of it.
>> As for Gamling, he tells Aragorn that 'these creatures of
>> Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of
>> Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun.'
>
> Yes, but thats till does not prove that the Uruk-hai were half
> human.
Without making any judgement as to the weight of Gamling's statement,
I'll say that it seems to me very unlikely that his statement does
_not_ include the fighting Uruk-hai of Isengard.
> Anyway, Gamling was presumably not privy to Saruman's breedign
> programs.
If Tolkien wanted him to be so, then he was :)
When the author lets two independent characters express the same idea
without giving us any reason whatsoever to doubt it or call it in
question, then, in my opinion, we must believe it is the author's
intention that we must accept this idea as true.
Incidentally the existence of a programme to cross-breed orcs and men
is furter confirmed by Merry and Aragorn. Though they are speaking of
the other kind of cross-breeds: those that look like men with orkish
features, they do confirm the existence of the breeding-programme.
> Tolkien's later scribbles, which Robert Foster excised from the
> refvbised and augemnted edition of his Guide on the explicit
> grounds that Tolkien's claims in letters and other post facto
> documents were inconsistent. (He made an exception for the letters
> to Dick Plotz.)
Which was a very stupid decision to make. It is fine to exclude all
other evidence on the, very true, grounds that it is inconsistent, but
to include letters made to one specific person is just plain stupid.
Foster, however, also includes the Silmarillion stuff, some of which is
at least dubious (he repeats, for instance, the very problematic claim
that Gil-galad was the son of Fingon without as much as a note of
explanation). I very much appreciate the difficulty -- not to say
impossibility -- of making a guide such as Foster's that should cover
everything Tolkien wrote on the various matters, but to include the
Plotz letter is, IMO, an error that weakens his argument for not
including the other stuff (e.g. other letters). But the point was not
to discuss Foster, whose work is otherwise very admirable, sorry.
> I hope you don't find me churlish for snipping the rest of your
> post; it contains things that we either agree on or simply will
> not agree on.
Not at all -- I just hope that you will forgive me for continuing ;)
> I can only say that I find the fact that the Uruk-hai were taller
> than other Orcs less than convincing as an argument for them being
> partly human.
:-D
So would I -- my claim was that the Isengard uruks were tall than other
uruks; though of course you are free to disbelieve that GrishnīŋŊkh was
one of the Mordor Uruk-hai.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science
is blind.
- Albert Einstein
Pseudonymus al-Faqha'ter III
Well, it involves orcs and sex, which means that it is more than you,
I, or anyone else (however sex-obsessed) wants to know. Threfore, the
Decider has classed it D for disgusting.
Cat_in_awe
So who are the women in these cross-breeding experiments, Orcs or Men? (Or
if you go one way you get Men-orcs and if you go the other you get Orc-men?)
Clams Canino
"Cat_in_awe" <rl31...@excite.com> wrote in message news:hehhnj$s02
> So who are the women in these cross-breeding experiments, Orcs or Men?
(Or
> if you go one way you get Men-orcs and if you go the other you get
Orc-men?)
I'm not sure... but if anyone here wants to find out via sexual
experimentaion with a female Orc, I must volunteer the ever inquisitive,
and equally studious Troels. :)
-W
Troels Forchhammer
"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> spoke these staves:
> "Cat_in_awe" <rl31...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:hehhnj$s02
>>
>> So who are the women in these cross-breeding experiments, Orcs or
>> Men? (Or if you go one way you get Men-orcs and if you go the
>> other you get Orc-men?)
The description Tolkien gave late in life, from 'Myths Transformed' in
_Morgoth's Ring_ sounds to me as if he was imagining only Orc-women --
possibly the other option was too horrible for Tolkien to contemplate;
it is no use denying that Tolkien was at times more than a little old-
fashioned in these things ;-)
> I'm not sure... but if anyone here wants to find out via sexual
> experimentaion with a female Orc, I must volunteer the ever
> inquisitive, and equally studious Troels. :)
. . . I am . . . not quite sure what to say to that generous offer . .
.
But if this gal is representative of Orc women . . .
<http://www.lfgcomic.com/page/290>
:-P
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science
Clams Canino
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> But if this gal is representative of Orc women . . .
> <http://www.lfgcomic.com/page/290>
Hmmmm.........
She reminds me of the greenish girl on the bed with Kirk in the latest Star
Trek film.
But not Asian looking enough for Orcish.
-W (who imagines that Orcs look like the very *worst* possible looking of
the Asian types - as opposed to the more attractive specimens.)
Morgoth's Curse
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> �jevind L�ng wrote:
>>
>>>>>> 4. Mammal?
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>> 5. Four legs?
>>> No.
>
>> Eh. Yeah, okay. Fantasy.
>
>Was mainly meant to distinguish between Humans/Elves/Dwarves/Orcs and
>other animals, in the spirit of binary search. Would have singled out
>Apes, too, but IIRC they don't appear in LotR.
>
>- Dirk
"hundreds of long ladders were lifted up. Many were cast down in
ruin, but many more replaced them, and Orcs sprang up them like apes
in the dark forests of the South."
-"Helm's Deep"
and
Grishnnakh and Ugluk also call each other apes in "The Uruk-Hai"
Morgoth's Curse, quibbler extraordinaire
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Derek Broughton
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:11:59 +0100, Dirk Thierbach
> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>>Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> 4. Mammal?
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>> 5. Four legs?
>>>> No.
>>
>>> Eh. Yeah, okay. Fantasy.
>>
>>Was mainly meant to distinguish between Humans/Elves/Dwarves/Orcs and
>>other animals, in the spirit of binary search. Would have singled out
>>Apes, too, but IIRC they don't appear in LotR.
>
> "hundreds of long ladders were lifted up. Many were cast down in
> ruin, but many more replaced them, and Orcs sprang up them like apes
> in the dark forests of the South."
>
> -"Helm's Deep"
>
> and
>
> Grishnnakh and Ugluk also call each other apes in "The Uruk-Hai"
>
> Morgoth's Curse, quibbler extraordinaire
Please! Don't belittle such fine research!
--
derek
John Whistler
With apologies to Bobby Bare...
"I've never gone to bed with a female Orc
But I've sure woken up with a few"