Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points
Mic...@xenite.org
been relying upon so far.
Point 1: The Uruk-and-Tracker "rebel Uruk-hai" passage
Hardly twenty paces from where the hobbits lurked the small
orc stopped. 'Nar!' it snarled. 'I'm going home.' It pointed
across the valley to the orc-hold. 'No good wearing my nose
out on stones any more. There's not a trace left, I say.
I've lost the scent through giving way to you. It went up
into the hills, not along the valley, I tell you.'
'Not much use are you, you little snufflers?' said the big
orc. 'I reckon eyes are better than your snotty noses.'
'Then what have you seen with them?' snarled the other.
'Garn! You don't even know what you're looking for.'
'Whose blame's that?' said the soldier. 'Not mine. That
comes from Higher Up. 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.'
(From "The Land of Shadow" in THE RETURN OF THE KING)
Point 2: The use of "Uruks" as a plural throughout the story
With a quick movement Gandalf stepped before the narrow
opening of the door and thrust forward his staff: There
was a dazzling flash that lit the chamber and the passage
outside. For an instant the wizard looked out. Arrows
whined and whistled down the corridor as he sprang back.
'There are Orcs, very many of them,' he said. `And some
are large and evil: black Uruks of Mordor. For the moment
they are hanging back, but there is something else there.
A great cave-troll, I think, or more than one. There is
no hope of escape that way.'
(From "The Bridge of Khazad-dum" in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
`Yes,' said Gorbag. 'But don't count on it. I'm not easy
in my mind. As I said, the Big Bosses, ay,' his voice
sank almost to a whisper, 'ay, even the Biggest, can
make mistakes. Something nearly slipped you say. I say,
something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always
the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks. But
don't forget: the enemies don't love us any more than
they love Him, and if they get topsides on Him, we're done
too. But see here: when were you ordered out? '
(From "The Choices of Master Samwise" in THE TWO TOWERS)
And so it seemed that they would. The leading orcs came
loping along, panting, holding their heads down. They
were a gang of the smaller breeds being driven unwilling
to their Dark Lord's wars; all they cared for was to get
the march over and escape the whip. Beside them, running
up and down the line, went two of the large fierce uruks,
cracking lashes and shouting. File after file passed, and
the tell-tale torchlight was already some way ahead. Sam
held his breath. Now more than half the line had gone by.
Then suddenly one of the slave-drivers spied the two
figures by the road-side. He flicked a whip at them and
yelled: 'Hi, you! Get up!' They did not answer, and with
a shout he halted the whole company.
(From "The Land of Shadow" in THE RETURN OF THE KING)
Point 3: The Appendix F "Uruks-and-snaga" paragraph
*Orcs and the Black Speech*. Orc is the form of the
name that other races had for this foul people as it
was in the language of Rohan. In Sindarin it was
*orch*. 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-hai, *snaga*
'slave'.
Point 4: Passages where Orcs refer to themselves as "Uruk-hai"
'We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior.
We took the prisoners.'
(From "The Uruk-hai" in THE TWO TOWERS)
'Come down! Come down!" they cried. 'If you wish to speak
to us, come down! Bring out your king! We are the
fighting Uruk-hai. We will fetch him from his hole,
if he does not come. Bring out your skulking king!'
'The king stays or comes at his own will,' said Aragorn.
'Then what are you doing here?' they answered. 'Why do
you look out? Do you wish to see the greatness of our
army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai.'
'I looked out to see the dawn,' said Aragorn.
'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 come to kill, by sun or moon.
What of the dawn?'
(From "Helms Deep" in THE TWO TOWERS)
Point 5: UNFINISHED TALES and "The Battles of the Fords of Isen"
Behind them came two battalions of the fierce Uruks,
heavily armed but trained to move at great speed for
many miles...The garrison of the east bank, surprised
by the sudden assault of the massed Uruks, was swept
away...they were driven from the Fords along the line
of the Isen with the Uruks in pursuit.
Elfhelm thus heard and saw nothing of the fighting
between the retreating garrison and the Uruks south
of the Fords. Later in the morning most of Theodred's
Riders that had been driven south down the river by a
battalion of black Uruks came back battle-worn but in
good order...The Uruks had resisted any attempt to
burst eastwards, and were driving them towards the now
hostile country of the Dunlendish 'west-march'....They
thought that the Uruks had gone back to reinforce their
hold on the Fords, and expected there to meet in battle
again, and they wondered much to find the Rohirrim in
command. It was not until later that they discovered
whither the Uruks had gone.
At length, however, when both the forts were heavily
engaged, a troop of Uruks forced the passage between
them and began to cross the Fords.
(All passages above cited from the story)
Uruks: Anglicized form of Uruk-hai of the Black Speech;
a race of Orcs of great size and strength.
(From the index)
Now, let's lay a few ground rules. First, some people treat the
"Anglicized form of Uruk-hai" as a translation. To Anglicize a word is
NOT to translate it:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Anglicize
To make English or similar to English in form, idiom,
style, or character: Some immigrants anglicize their
names when they move to the United States.
So, "Uruks" in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" is NOT a translation
into English of "Uruk-hai".
Secondly, the Uruks in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" all fight for
Saruman, and they are to be identified with the same Uruks who fight
for him in THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
Now, specifically addressing the various points:
Point 1: The Uruk-and-Tracker "rebel Uruk-hai" passage
The Uruk and the tracker are conveying to the reader the fact that they
(and their superiors) are confused about what is going on. Hence,
their suppositions don't have to make sense to the reader, who only
needs to know that Frodo's purpose has not yet been discovered.
The suggestion that "a pack of rebel Uruk-hai" should check in to Minas
Morgul is ridiculous because they are declared to be "rebel Uruk-hai".
While Sauron might have enough information to speculate they were
bringing Pippin to Mordor, that speculation doesn't have to make sense.
What this passage does NOT do is associate the name "Uruk-hai" with any
group of Orcs associated with either Mordor or Minas Morgul (including
Gorbag's company, even though Shagrat calls Gorbag a rebel -- because
nowhere is Gorbag referred to as an Uruk-hai).
Point 2: The use of "Uruks" as a plural throughout the story
At no point in THE LORD OF THE RINGS does Tolkien refer to the Uruk-hai
(the Isengarders) as Uruks, except in the appendix. The "uruks"
mentioned throughout the story come either from Moria or Mordor. The
Appendix entry makes it clear that the Uruk-hai are Uruks, too.
Point 3: The Appendix F "Uruks-and-snaga" paragraph
Tolkien makes several points with this paragraph.
1) Orc is the form of the name that other races had for
this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan.
2) Related, no doubt, was the word *uruk* of the Black Speech,
3) though [Uruk] was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs
that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard.
NOTE: The above expression confirms that Gandalf's "black Uruks of
Mordor" in Moria are, in fact, FROM MORDOR.
4) The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, *snaga*
'slave'.
We can expand the last sentence to make its meaning crystal clear for
those people who have trouble with simple English.
"The lesser kinds [of Orcs] were called, [by the Uruks but] especially
by the Uruk-hai, *snaga* 'slave'."
In short, Tolkien distinguished between the Uruks and the Uruk-hai by
singling out the Uruk-hai as especially referring to lesser Orcs
(non-Uruks) as slaves.
Point 4: Passages where Orcs refer to themselves as "Uruk-hai"
Should be self-explanatory, but for those who miss the obvious, ONLY
THE ISENGARDERS ever identify themselves as Uruk-hai. No other Uruks
do so -- not in Moria, not in Mordor.
Point 5: UNFINISHED TALES and "The Battles of the Fords of Isen"
The Uruks in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" are Uruk-hai, and the
index entry explains that the story has Anglicized the name "Uruk-hai"
wherever "Uruks" occurs.
Christopher's comment that "the brief defining statements are not
restricted to matters actually mentioned in the book" in no way refers
to the Uruks entry. Nor does it universally encompass that entry
because there is nothing in it which refers to other texts. That is,
there is no other text where Tolkien has Anglicized "Uruk-hai" into
Uruks, since he used the two terms distinctively throughout THE LORD OF
THE RINGS.
In short, if anyone wishes to show conclusively (or logically) that
J.R.R. Tolkien used "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai" interchangeably (meaning
that all Uruks are Uruk-hai), they need to produce any of the
following:
1) Any statement by either Christopher or J.R.R. Tolkien to the effect
that all Uruks are Uruk-hai (the UT index entry is NOT such a statement
for the reasons given above).
2) Any passage where any Uruk clearly NOT from Isengard is referred to
as one of the Uruk-hai (the Uruk-and-tracker passage is NOT such a
passage -- nor is the passage where Shagrat calls Gorbag a rebel).
3) Any passage where any character says something to the effect of "all
Uruks are Uruk-hai".
4) Any statement by either J.R.R. Tolkien or Christopher Tolkien that
Uruks and Uruk-hai may be used interchangeably (the UT index does NOT
make such a statement).
Lacking any such evidence, you have nothing to stand on.
Hence, all Uruk-hai are Uruks, but not all Uruks are Uruk-hai, because
the Uruk-hai were a specific group of Uruks who lived in Isengard and
served Saruman. They distinguished themselves from other Orcs, other
Orcs (including Uruks of Mordor) distinguished them as separate, and
J.R.R. Tolkien distinguished them as separate from other Uruks.
Christopher Kreuzer
> Let's see if I can cover the most pertinent passages that people have
> been relying upon so far.
And let's add a few more as well...
"There are Orcs, very many of them [...] And some are large and evil:
black Uruks of Mordor." (Gandalf, 'The Bridge of Khazad-dum')
"The Uruk-hai" (Title of Chapter 3, Book 3, /The Lord of the Rings/)
"I don't trust you little swine. You've no guts outside your own sties.
But for us you'd all have run away. We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We
slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of
Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to
eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here, and we shall lead you
back by the way we choose." (Ugluk, 'The Uruk-hai')
"...a quarrel seemed on the point of breaking out again between the
Northerners and the Isengarders. [... Ugluk:] 'Very well [...] I'll look
after it. Let the fighting Uruk-hai do the work, as usual." ('The
Uruk-hai')
"But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as
usual. Don't stand slavering there! Get your rabble together! The other
swine are legging it to the forest. You'd better follow." (Ugluk talking
to Grishnakh, 'The Uruk-hai')
"If you wish to speak to us, come down! Bring out your king! We are the
fighting Uruk-hai. We will fetch him from his hole, if he does not come.
Bring out your skulking king! [The king stays or comes at his own will.]
Then what are you doing here? Why do you look out? Do you wish to see
the greatness of our army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai. [I looked out
to see the dawn.] What of the dawn? We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop
the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. We come to
kill, by sun or moon. What of the dawn?" ('Helm's Deep')
"Something nearly slipped you say. I say, something has slipped. And
we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and
small thanks." (Gorbag to Shagrat, 'The Choices of Master Samwise')
"No hours so dark had Pippin known, not even in the clutches of the
Uruk-hai." ('The Siege of Gondor')
"'Garn! You don't even know what you're looking for.' 'Whose blame's
that?' said the soldier. 'Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. 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.'" (Soldier-orc to tracker-orc, 'The Land of Shadow')
"The leading orcs came loping along, panting, holding their heads down.
They were a gang of the smaller breeds being driven unwilling to their
Dark Lord's wars; all they cared for was to get the march over and
escape the whip. Beside them, running up and down the line, went two of
the large fierce uruks, cracking lashes and shouting." ('The Land of
Shadow')
"A troop of heavy-armed uruks from Barad-dur charged into the Durthang
line and threw them into confusion." ('The Land of Shadow')
"In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great
strength, first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475 they swept across
Ithilien and took Osgiliath." (Appendix AIiv - Gondor and the Heirs of
Anarion)
"At that time [around T.A. 2995] Sauron had arisen again, and the shadow
of Mordor reached out to Rohan. Orcs began to raid in the eastern
regions and slay or steal horses. Others also came down from the Misty
Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman, though it
was long before that was suspected." (Appendix AII - The House of Eorl)
T.A. 2901: "Most of the remaining inhabitants of Ithilien desert it
owing to the attacks of Uruks of Mordor." (Appendix B, The Tale of
Years)
"*Orcs and the Black Speech.* Orc is the form of the name that other
races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan. In
Sindarin it was orch. 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-hai, snaga 'slave'." (Appendix FI - The
Languages and Peoples of the Third Age)
"Uruks: Anglicized form of Uruk-hai of the Black Speech; a race of Orcs
of great size and strength." (Index entry to /Unfinished Tales/)
<snip>
> Now, let's lay a few ground rules. First, some people treat the
> "Anglicized form of Uruk-hai" as a translation. To Anglicize a word
> is NOT to translate it:
<snip>
Agreed. But the words are STILL synonymous!
> So, "Uruks" in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" is NOT a translation
> into English of "Uruk-hai".
But then what does the word 'Uruks' mean?
If it is an anglicized form of Uruk-hai, than IT IS SYNONYMOUS and you
can replace all references to Uruks with "Uruk-hai". Like Gandalf's
comment: "black Uruks of Mordor" = "black Uruk-hai of Mordor".
Are you splitting hairs to say that in some contexts 'uruks' is an
anglicized version of Uruk-hai, and in other contexts 'uruks' means
something else? What else can it mean?
Or are you splitting hairs to say that uruk-hai can mean two things?
That it can be (a) the non-anglicized form of uruks, or that it can be
(b) the specific tribal name of a specific group of orcs. Meaning (a) is
what the UT index entry says, but meaning (b) is not specifically stated
anywhere, as far as I can tell.
> Secondly, the Uruks in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" all fight
> for Saruman, and they are to be identified with the same Uruks who
> fight for him in THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
Yes... (isn't this obvious?)
> Now, specifically addressing the various points:
>
> Point 1: The Uruk-and-Tracker "rebel Uruk-hai" passage
>
> The Uruk and the tracker are conveying to the reader the fact that
> they (and their superiors) are confused about what is going on.
> Hence, their suppositions don't have to make sense to the reader, who
> only needs to know that Frodo's purpose has not yet been discovered.
But the suppositions _do_ have to refer back to what has happened. The
orcs can't just talk about anything at random. They reader has to make
the connection with what has happened, namely that "small dwarf-man"
refers to the captive hobbit (Frodo), that "great Elf in bright armour"
refers to Sam, and that "pack of rebel Uruk-hai" refers to orcs fighting
among themselves (like Shagrat's and Gorbag's forces do). These are the
obvious and logical links that a reader makes. If Tolkien meant
something else, then he should have written the whole passage more
clearly.
> The suggestion that "a pack of rebel Uruk-hai" should check in to
> Minas Morgul is ridiculous because they are declared to be "rebel
> Uruk-hai".
Not quite sure where this "check in" business is from, but if you mean
the Cirith Ungol orcs checking in with Minas Morgul, then you are
talking rubbish. They were not considered rebels when they were expected
to check in. The point where they would be called rebels would be when
they started fighting the Morgul orcs. This seems to have led to those
"Higher Up" to start talking about a pack of rebel orcs.
Also, remember that all orcs seem very ready to rebel or at least accuse
each other of being rebels:
"That's cursed rebel-talk, and I'll stick you, if you don't shut it
down, see?" (Soldier-orc to the tracker-orc, 'The Land of Shadow')
So talk about rebels seems to be common in Mordor.
We even have Shagrat calling Gorbag a rebel:
"The Black Pits take that filthy rebel Gorbag!" ('The Tower of Cirith
Ungol')
So the "rebel Uruk-hai" are either (a) from Isengard - your scenario, or
(b) they are Gorbag's orcs - the logical choice.
> While Sauron might have enough information to speculate
> they were bringing Pippin to Mordor, that speculation doesn't have to
> make sense.
You are making no sense here at all.
> What this passage does NOT do is associate the name "Uruk-hai" with
> any group of Orcs associated with either Mordor or Minas Morgul
> (including Gorbag's company, even though Shagrat calls Gorbag a rebel
> -- because nowhere is Gorbag referred to as an Uruk-hai).
Gorbag is quite plainly a Uruk-hai. He says:
"...something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor
Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks." ('The Choices of Master
Samwise')
He is referring to himself as one of the Uruks = anglicized version of
the term Uruk-hai; hence Gorbag is one of the Uruk-hai.
> Point 2: The use of "Uruks" as a plural throughout the story
>
> At no point in THE LORD OF THE RINGS does Tolkien refer to the
> Uruk-hai (the Isengarders) as Uruks, except in the appendix. The
> "uruks" mentioned throughout the story come either from Moria or
> Mordor. The Appendix entry makes it clear that the Uruk-hai are
> Uruks, too.
You are missing the real point here. Nearly all the uses of "uruk-hai"
(except the chapter title, the narrative description of Pippin's
thoughts, and the Appendix F example) are where an ORC is speaking.
The uses of "uruks" are nearly all restricted to non-orcs speaking
(Gandalf) or to the NARRATIVE VOICE. These uses are the anglicized term
'uruks' as we would expect.
The use of "Uruk-hai" in the chapter title of that name, immediately
starts to drag us into the perspective of the Uruks by using their
plural form of their name, rather than the Anglicized version.
The Appendix F paragraph is a special case because Tolkien is writing
about language, so he has to be very precise with the terms he uses, so
he has to say "Uruk-hai" and avoids using the Anglicized plural of
'uruks'.
One anomaly is the reported use of 'uruks' by Gorbag:
"Always the poor Uruks to put slips right..." ('The Choices of Master
Samwise')
One possibility here is a distinction that could be drawn between
aggressive and passive cases. You would refer to the FIGHTING Uruk-hai
(aggressive form) but in other contexts would refer to the POOR Uruks
(passive case). This is pure speculation though, and I prefer to think
that Tolkien should have had Sam report Gorbag saying "Always the poor
Uruk-hai to put slips right...", but this sounds wrong and Tolkien could
have changed it accordingly.
Yet another explanation could centre on the different languages used.
Gorbag is speaking in the Black Speech when Sam overhears him (Sam
understands him because of the Ring). In the other cases (where Merry
and Pippin hear the orcs talking, or the orcs are yelling at Aragorn)
the Common Speech is being used.
> Point 3: The Appendix F "Uruks-and-snaga" paragraph
>
> Tolkien makes several points with this paragraph.
>
> 1) Orc is the form of the name that other races had for
> this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan.
>
> 2) Related, no doubt, was the word *uruk* of the Black Speech,
>
> 3) though [Uruk] was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs
> that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard.
>
> NOTE: The above expression confirms that Gandalf's "black Uruks of
> Mordor" in Moria are, in fact, FROM MORDOR.
AND that the soldier-orcs from Isengard are also Uruks.
> 4) The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, *snaga*
> 'slave'.
>
> We can expand the last sentence to make its meaning crystal clear for
> those people who have trouble with simple English.
>
> "The lesser kinds [of Orcs] were called, [by the Uruks but] especially
> by the Uruk-hai, *snaga* 'slave'."
We can also replace Uruk-hai with the anglicized version, Uruks:
"The lesser kinds [of Orcs] were called, [by the Uruks but] especially
by the Uruks, *snaga* 'slave'."
Do you see the problem with your "expansion"?
The sentence really says:
"The lesser kinds [of Orcs] were called, especially by the Uruks,
*snaga* 'slave'."
And Ugluk calls an orc "Snaga", marking Ugluk as one of the Uruk-hai.
And surprise, surprise, Shagrat calls an orc "Snaga", marking Shagrat as
one of the Uruk-hai.
> In short, Tolkien distinguished between the Uruks and the Uruk-hai by
> singling out the Uruk-hai as especially referring to lesser Orcs
> (non-Uruks) as slaves.
No. Uruks and Uruk-hai are synonyms.
> Point 4: Passages where Orcs refer to themselves as "Uruk-hai"
>
> Should be self-explanatory, but for those who miss the obvious, ONLY
> THE ISENGARDERS ever identify themselves as Uruk-hai. No other
> Uruks do so -- not in Moria, not in Mordor.
Then why does Ugluk say?:
"...the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work..." (The Uruk-hai)
If Uruk-hai were from Isengard, he would not need the qualifier "of
Isengard". This sentence is constructed just like "Uruks of Mordor",
except "Uruk-hai" has been used instead of "Uruks".
Also, uruk can probably be translated as 'soldier-orc', which shoots
large holes in your arguments.
> Point 5: UNFINISHED TALES and "The Battles of the Fords of Isen"
>
> The Uruks in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" are Uruk-hai, and the
> index entry explains that the story has Anglicized the name "Uruk-hai"
> wherever "Uruks" occurs.
Hence the terms 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' are synonymous.
<snip>
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Michael Urban
<Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>
>Now, let's lay a few ground rules. First, some people treat the
>"Anglicized form of Uruk-hai" as a translation. To Anglicize a word is
>NOT to translate it:
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Anglicize
>
> To make English or similar to English in form, idiom,
> style, or character: Some immigrants anglicize their
> names when they move to the United States.
>
>So, "Uruks" in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" is NOT a translation
>into English of "Uruk-hai".
Of course not - a translation would be 'goblins', 'hobgoblins',
'orcs', or 'especially big and nasty orcs who don't have to use
SPF-50 sunblock'.
Mr. Martinez is engaging in a verbal quibble bordering on deliberate
ignorance. Surely no one would say that if I anglicize "istari"
to (the very ugly) "istars", making it 'similar to English in form',
I am somehow creating a spurious plural because it is 'not a
translation'? Or, contrariwise, would Mr. Martinez expect Tolkien
to use an term that so substantially changed the meaning from 'big
Isengard orcs' to 'big orcs' and simply list it as an 'anglicized
form'?
This just seems like a lot of work to try to make the index entry
mean something other than what it appears to mean in its plainest
interpretation.
Aurious
can replace all references to Uruks with "Uruk-hai". Like Gandalf's
comment: "black Uruks of Mordor" = "black Uruk-hai of Mordor".
I always took it that the Uruk-hai were an elite group of Uruks
controlled by Saruman. Their armor and weaponry was different then
mordors.
Mic...@xenite.org
[Considerable snippage for brevity]
> > Now, let's lay a few ground rules. First, some people treat the
> > "Anglicized form of Uruk-hai" as a translation. To Anglicize a word
> > is NOT to translate it:
> Agreed. But the words are STILL synonymous!
Nope.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=synonymous
Having the same or a similar meaning: synonymous words.
Equivalent in connotation: "a widespread impression that...
Hollywood
was synonymous with immorality" (Doris Kearns Goodwin).
"Uruk-hai" refers to the Isengarders. "Uruks" can refer to the
Isengarders, or to any other group of Uruks.
> > So, "Uruks" in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" is NOT a translation
> > into English of "Uruk-hai".
>
> But then what does the word 'Uruks' mean?
More than one "Uruk". The Anglicization of "Uruk-hai" to Uruks is
acceptable in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" because there is no
chance for the reader to confuse the Uruk-hai with other groups of
Uruks. There ARE no other Uruks in that story (only Uruk-hai).
> > Secondly, the Uruks in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" all fight
> > for Saruman, and they are to be identified with the same Uruks who
> > fight for him in THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
>
> Yes... (isn't this obvious?)
Only when people here in the news groups find it convenient.
Otherwise, it has to be spelled out detail-by-detail -- and even then
you guys will often respond by saying, "No it's not" when it's
convenient to do so.
> > Now, specifically addressing the various points:
> >
> > Point 1: The Uruk-and-Tracker "rebel Uruk-hai" passage
> >
> > The Uruk and the tracker are conveying to the reader the fact that
> > they (and their superiors) are confused about what is going on.
> > Hence, their suppositions don't have to make sense to the reader, who
> > only needs to know that Frodo's purpose has not yet been discovered.
>
> But the suppositions _do_ have to refer back to what has happened.
Sure. There has already been speculation that a great Tark or Elf
warrior is on the loose. That doesn't mean there IS a great Tark or
Elf warrior.
But the reader is not expected to go out on a limb and assume,
completely contrary to what Tolkien has already stipulated, that
Uruk-hai somehow live in or near Mordor.
> > The suggestion that "a pack of rebel Uruk-hai" should check in to
> > Minas Morgul is ridiculous because they are declared to be "rebel
> > Uruk-hai".
>
> Not quite sure where this "check in" business is from, but if you mean
> the Cirith Ungol orcs checking in with Minas Morgul, then you are
> talking rubbish.
Nope. Steuard insisted that the Uruk-hai, if they were to convey
Pippin and Merry as hostages to Mordor, would logically have to check
in with the guards at Minas Morgul.
The whole point of this exercise, however, is to show that the Orcs
aren't (at this point in the story) able to use logic because they are
confused about what is happening and have too little information to
work with. Hence, their suppositions are NOT going to sound logical.
> So talk about rebels seems to be common in Mordor.
I'll agree that it's used as an insult by the Orcs. Which doesn't in
any way contradict the point I made about rebels not being subservient
to Sauron.
> So the "rebel Uruk-hai" are either (a) from Isengard - your scenario, or
> (b) they are Gorbag's orcs - the logical choice.
Well, it's impossible for "rebel Uruk-hai" to be Gorbag's Orcs since
Gorbag's Orcs are not Uruk-hai (only Tolkien can identify any
particular group of Orcs as Uruk-hai, and he doesn't identify Gorbag's
Orcs as Uruk-hai).
> > While Sauron might have enough information to speculate
> > they were bringing Pippin to Mordor, that speculation doesn't have to
> > make sense.
>
> You are making no sense here at all.
That is the point. See above.
> > What this passage does NOT do is associate the name "Uruk-hai" with
> > any group of Orcs associated with either Mordor or Minas Morgul
> > (including Gorbag's company, even though Shagrat calls Gorbag a rebel
> > -- because nowhere is Gorbag referred to as an Uruk-hai).
>
> Gorbag is quite plainly a Uruk-hai. He says:
No, Gorbag is quite plainly an Uruk. At no point in the story does he
identify himself as one of the Uruk-hai.
> > Point 2: The use of "Uruks" as a plural throughout the story
> >
> > At no point in THE LORD OF THE RINGS does Tolkien refer to the
> > Uruk-hai (the Isengarders) as Uruks, except in the appendix. The
> > "uruks" mentioned throughout the story come either from Moria or
> > Mordor. The Appendix entry makes it clear that the Uruk-hai are
> > Uruks, too.
>
> You are missing the real point here.
No, the point is that you guys refuse to accept Tolkien's use of the
words "Uruks" and Uruk-hai" is different from your own.
You have yet to cite a passage where Tolkien uses "Uruk-hai" to refer
to any Orc that is not an Isengarder. And since "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai"
are not synonyms, you're dead in the water.
Mic...@xenite.org
>
> I always took it that the Uruk-hai were an elite group of Uruks controlled by Saruman.
> Their armor and weaponry was different then mordors.
That is the point. The news group regulars have decreed that Tolkien
is wrong and all Uruks are called Uruk-hai.
Michelle J. Haines
> Let's see if I can cover the most pertinent passages that people have
> been relying upon so far.
Not entirely certain I want to step into this morass, and IDHTBIFOM, but...
Doesn't the Black Speech plural for Trolls also end in "-hai"?
Olag-hai is what pops into my memory, but I'm sure that's not quite
right, and someone will correct me.
Michelle
Flutist
Tamim
Quite correct, but M. Martinez thinks that the black speech was somehow
modified so that Sarumans orcs could monopolize the name Uruk-hai.
Bruce Tucker
in two seconds. You are either unwilling to or incapable of
understanding the difference between "Tolkien did not say 'X'" and
"Tolkien said 'Not X'".
Tolkien did not, in LotR, explicitly say that any Uruk-hai were not
from Isengard, or unambiguously refer to any non-Isengarder uruks as
Uruk-hai.
That does NOT mean that Tolkien DID say that the only Uruk-hai in LotR
were Isengarders, or that to infer from the information given that
there were, in fact, non-Isengarder Uruk-hai is to contradict Tolkien's
express statements - yet that is what you have repeated insisted.
A parallel: Tolkien does not, AFAIK, in LotR explicitly refer to
Legolas or any of his family as being of Sindarin origins. That does
NOT mean that he intended for Legolas' ancestry to be assumed to be
non-Sindarin. However, the latter conclusion would be no different from
your insistence that "Gorbag is quite plainly an Uruk" because "at no
point in the story does he identify himself as one of the Uruk-hai."
Your arguments that Tolkien intended "Uruk-hai" to refer only to
Isengarders in LotR is a good one, but you need to understand the
difference between your interpretations of and conclusions from
Tolkien's writings and Tolkien's writings themselves.
As an example: "His usage is very clear: he applies 'Uruk-hai' only to
the Isengarders." You are incorrect. He uses "Uruk-hai" only to refer
to (a) Isengarders and (b) uruks of indeterminate origin and loyalty
whom YOU infer - but Tolkien does not state - to be Isengarders. This
usage is ambiguous in places, such as at Cirith Ungol, and all you
huffing, puffing, and insulting anyone who disagrees with you cannot
change that.
If you can point to any passage where Tolkien says that the term
Uruk-hai is only to be used for Isengarders, please cite it; otherwise
all you can do is argue an inference from the evidence and try to
convince that your inference is more likely than anyone else's. You
cannot rightly claim (as you do) that your inference is Tolkien's
explicit command, or that anyone who disagrees with you is ignoring
Tolkien's explicit instructions or saying that "Tolkien is wrong".
- Bruce Tucker
(sick of your bullshit)
Christopher Kreuzer
Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "There are Orcs, very many of them [...] And some are large and evil:
> black Uruks of Mordor." (Gandalf, 'The Bridge of Khazad-dum')
Here, Gandalf is speaking in Westron (later translated to English by
Tolkien). He first uses the word 'Orcs', a plural form of the word
'orc', commonly used by many peoples to refer to the orcs. He then uses
the word 'Uruks', which is an anglicized plural of the Black Speech word
'uruk'. IN THE BLACK SPEECH, the plural would be: Uruk-hai. But we don't
learn all this until much, much later.
For now, we know that 'Uruks' are large, black orcs, and that these ones
are from Mordor.
> "The Uruk-hai" (Title of Chapter 3, Book 3, /The Lord of the Rings/)
Here, Tolkien first introduces the phrase 'Uruk-hai'. The reader
recognises that this is a different word, but might associate it with
the earlier word 'Uruks'. In the course of the chapter, the reader
learns that 'Uruk-hai' is the term some of the orcs (who are conversing
in the Common Speech as they are with orcs from different tribes) use to
refer to themselves AS A GROUP.
> "I don't trust you little swine. You've no guts outside your own
> sties. But for us you'd all have run away. We are the fighting
> Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are
> the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives
> us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here, and
> we shall lead you back by the way we choose." (Ugluk, 'The Uruk-hai')
Specifically, we learn that the large soldier-orcs from Isengard refer
to themselves as Uruk-hai. Further, they use a signature phrase: "the
fighting Uruk-hai" to identify themselves. This seems to have different
connotations to the unqualified chapter title: The Uruk-hai.
The impression so far, is that we have an elite group of large
soldier-orcs from Isengard that call themselves "the fighting Uruk-hai",
in the manner that elite military groups give themselves names. The
similarity of the name also suggests that they may be in some way
related to the 'Uruks' we very briefly encountered in Moria. This is
supported by the fact that these "fighting Uruk-hai" from Isengard are
large orcs.
> "...a quarrel seemed on the point of breaking out again between the
> Northerners and the Isengarders. [... Ugluk:] 'Very well [...] I'll
> look after it. Let the fighting Uruk-hai do the work, as usual." ('The
> Uruk-hai')
This is another example of the leader of the elite military group using
their title. Remembering that their title (in the dialect of Isengard)
has been translated into the Common Speech to communicate to the other
orcs (from Mordor and Moria).
> "But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work,
> as usual. Don't stand slavering there! Get your rabble together! The
> other swine are legging it to the forest. You'd better follow."
> (Ugluk talking to Grishnakh, 'The Uruk-hai')
This new phrase: "the Uruk-hai of Isengard" introduces a note of
uncertainty. Is this phrase synonymous with "the fighting Uruk-hai"? We
cannot be certain yet. It appears to be synonymous, but at the least,
this is another way to use the phrase "Uruk-hai".
We can also confirm that 'Uruk-hai' is a plural noun, and further
appears to be a group noun, identifying a race. We also increasingly
suspect that 'Uruk-hai' are 'Uruks', but we cannot be absolutely
certain.
> "If you wish to speak to us, come down! Bring out your king! We are
> the fighting Uruk-hai. We will fetch him from his hole, if he does
> not come. Bring out your skulking king! [The king stays or comes at
> his own will.] Then what are you doing here? Why do you look out? Do
> you wish to see the greatness of our army? We are the fighting
> Uruk-hai. [I looked out to see the dawn.] What of the dawn? We are
> the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair
> weather or for storm. We come to kill, by sun or moon. What of the
> dawn?" ('Helm's Deep')
The forceful, identifying use of the phrase "the fighting Uruk-hai" at
the Battle of the Hornburg (at Helm's Deep), reinforces the earlier
usage of the phrase. Unless Aragorn is conversing with them in the Black
Speech, it seems that they are using Westron here. There is one use of
"Uruk-hai" on its own, but in this context, it would seem to be a
similar identifying phrase to "the fighting Uruk-hai".
> "Something nearly slipped you say. I say, something has slipped. And
> we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and
> small thanks." (Gorbag to Shagrat, 'The Choices of Master Samwise')
The next time we hear an orc identifying himself, the circumstances are
very different. Samwise, with the aid of the Ring, comprehends a
conversation he is eavesdropping on: a conversation in a dialect of the
Black Speech between an orc-captain of Cirith Ungol (Shagrat) and an
orc-captain of Minas Morgul (Gorbag). Gorbag uses the word 'Uruks', but
here we have to stop and consider how this word is transmitted to us.
From what we learn later, Sam would have heard the word "Uruk-hai" being
used, and this is what he would have recorded in the Red Book. It
appears that Tolkien, to avoid confusion with "the fighting Uruk-hai"
phrase used earlier, translates from the Red Book using the anglicized
version of Uruk-hai, namely 'Uruks'.
> "No hours so dark had Pippin known, not even in the clutches of the
> Uruk-hai." ('The Siege of Gondor')
Here, the narrative voice uses 'Uruk-hai' to directly identify with the
chapter of that name, and with "the fighting Uruk-hai" we encountered
there. A direct connecting device, which explains why the narrative
voice avoids using the word 'Uruks'.
> "'Garn! You don't even know what you're looking for.' 'Whose blame's
> that?' said the soldier. 'Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. 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.'" (Soldier-orc to tracker-orc, 'The Land of Shadow')
This encounter with orcs, with Sam and Frodo listening to the
conversation, sees the orcs using the Common Speech (Westron). In common
with nearly all the other places where orcs talk about Uruks, we hear
them use the phrase 'Uruk-hai', which is to be expected. They are using
the Common Speech, but the grammar is still that of the Black Speech.
(The exception, Gorbag's use of 'Uruks', has been discussed above.)
The downside to this use of 'Uruk-hai' here, is that there is a
possibility of confusion with the "fighting Uruk-hai" and "Uruk-hai of
Isengard" phrases we encountered earlier. This confusion is not cleared
up until the Appendices.
> "The leading orcs came loping along, panting, holding their heads
> down. They were a gang of the smaller breeds being driven unwilling
> to their Dark Lord's wars; all they cared for was to get the march
> over and escape the whip. Beside them, running up and down the line,
> went two of the large fierce uruks, cracking lashes and shouting."
> ('The Land of Shadow')
This is the narrative voice. It uses 'Uruks', the anglicized version of
'Uruk-hai'. The capitalisation is inconsistent, but that is no surprise.
It is worth noting that in the 'Uruk-hai' chapter, the narrative voice
used the phrase "Isengarders" and not the phrase "Uruk-hai". The phrase
'Uruk-hai' was reserved solely for the orcs talking ABOUT THEMSELVES.
> "A troop of heavy-armed uruks from Barad-dur charged into the Durthang
> line and threw them into confusion." ('The Land of Shadow')
>
> "In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of
> great strength, first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475 they swept
> across Ithilien and took Osgiliath." (Appendix AIiv - Gondor and the
> Heirs of Anarion)
>
> "At that time [around T.A. 2995] Sauron had arisen again, and the
> shadow of Mordor reached out to Rohan. Orcs began to raid in the
> eastern regions and slay or steal horses. Others also came down from
> the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of
> Saruman, though it was long before that was suspected." (Appendix AII
> - The House of Eorl)
>
> T.A. 2901: "Most of the remaining inhabitants of Ithilien desert it
> owing to the attacks of Uruks of Mordor." (Appendix B, The Tale of
> Years)
These four quotes are all examples of the narrative voice using 'Uruks'.
> "*Orcs and the Black Speech.* Orc is the form of the name that other
> races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan. In
> Sindarin it was orch. 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-hai, snaga 'slave'."
> (Appendix FI - The Languages and Peoples of the Third Age)
And here, finally, some of the potential confusion is cleared up. We
learn that 'Uruk' can refer to the large soldier-orcs from both Mordor
and Isengard, so the 'Uruk-hai' of the eponymous chapter are indeed
Uruks.
But in order to discern what Uruk-hai means, we have to read the rest of
the section about the Black Speech. Specifically the bit about Olog-hai:
"Olog-hai they were called in the Black Speech." (Appendix F)
It is a short step from here to deduce that 'uruk', which can mean 'orc'
in the Black Speech (but was later applied to a subset of orcs), has
been modified by the suffix '-hai', in the same way that 'olog' has been
modified by the suffix '-hai'. This appears to be a pluralising suffix,
so we can now make the logical connection between 'uruks' and
'uruk-hai'.
Uruk-hai: plural form of uruk, using Black Speech grammar.
Uruks: plural form of uruk, using English grammar.
Adding that the anglicization of uruk-hai probably reflects the way the
plural was formed in Westron, as English is used to represent Westron.
Though this English/Westron identification is not exact.
> "Uruks: Anglicized form of Uruk-hai of the Black Speech; a race of
> Orcs of great size and strength." (Index entry to /Unfinished Tales/)
Here we find confirmation that the deductions using the Appendix F
material were correct. We learn that 'Uruk-hai' is a Black Speech
phrase, and that 'Uruks' is the anglicized version of it.
To rephrase what was said above: 'Uruk-hai' is the Black Speech-plural
form of 'Uruk' (or more precisely the group noun for the race; cf.
Olog-hai). In the Black Speech, add the '-hai' suffix, and in English
add the '-s' suffix to form the corresponding forms.
In conclusion, Tolkien's use of the phrases 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' can
appear confusing, but the usages in the text generally follow the rule
that the Uruks and orcs refer to the Uruks as the 'Uruk-hai' and the
narrator and other races call them Uruks. The exceptions have been
discussed above, but are summarised here for clarity:
1) Gorbag uses the word 'Uruks' (Sam hears him in Cirith Ungol).
This is the most puzzling exception. The only distinction between this
case and all the other times hobbits (over)hear orcs talking about
Uruks, is that here Sam is understanding Gorbag's use of the Black
Speech. The other cases involve orcs using the Common Speech.
2) Narrator uses 'Uruk-hai' (describing Pippin's thoughts).
This is a literary device to take the reader back to the Uruk-hai
chapter.
3) Translator uses 'Uruk-hai' (Appendix F).
This is needed as a linguistic explanation.
Finally, some people seem to think that the Isengard orcs could
monopolise the phrase 'Uruk-hai', and that Shagrat, for example, was not
a 'Uruk-hai' (by this new definition). I would ask those people to
explain this:
"The lesser kinds [of orcs] were called, especially by the Uruk-hai,
snaga 'slave'." (Appendix F)
"The cursed horse-boys have got wind of us. But that's all your fault,
Snaga. You and the other scouts ought to have your ears cut off. But we
are the fighters. We'll feast on horseflesh yet, or something better."
(Ugluk speaking to a scout, 'The Uruk-hai')
"You won't go again, you say? Curse you, Snaga, you little maggot!"
(Shagrat speaking to a smaller orc, 'The Tower of Cirith Ungol')
Christopher Kreuzer
> Aurious wrote on June 29:
>>
>> I always took it that the Uruk-hai were an elite group of Uruks
>> controlled by Saruman. Their armor and weaponry was different then
>> mordors.
Those were "the fighting Uruk-hai". That phrase appears to be the Common
Speech form of the tribal name that the Isengard Uruk-hai gave
themsleves.
1) Orcs
1a) Uruks/Uruk-hai (large soldier-orcs)
- Mordor Uruks seen in Moria
- Captain-orcs seen in Mordor (Shagrat, Gorbag, others)
- "the fighting Uruk-hai" (Isengard Uruks, includes Ugluk)
1b) Snagas (smaller scout and tracker-orcs)
1c) Many other orc tribes (maybe Moria orcs)
> That is the point. The news group regulars have decreed that Tolkien
> is wrong and all Uruks are called Uruk-hai.
That is a gross misrepresentation.
You are the one distorting the uruk taxonomy.
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote on June 28:
>
> [Considerable snippage for brevity]
<snip>
See other post.
Mic...@xenite.org
>
> OK, let's try one more time...
Yes. Let's. And we'll begin by noting that the more convoluted the
argument needed to refute Tolkien's very simple usage, the less likely
the argument is to be more correct than Tolkien.
Having noted that vital fact, let's get on with it....
> > "There are Orcs, very many of them [...] And some are large and evil:
> > black Uruks of Mordor." (Gandalf, 'The Bridge of Khazad-dum')
>
> ...He then uses the word 'Uruks', which is an anglicized plural of the
> Black Speech word 'uruk'. IN THE BLACK SPEECH, the plural would
> be: Uruk-hai.
Slow down, son. You're making unsubstantiable assumptions here. Just
because Tolkien used "Uruks" as an Anglicized form of "Uruk-hai" in
"The Battles of the Fords of Isen" (written many years after he wrote
"The Bridge of Khazad-dum") in no way means that "Uruk-hai" is to be
used interchangeably with "Uruks".
So, you're wrong to begin with.
> > "The Uruk-hai" (Title of Chapter 3, Book 3, /The Lord of the Rings/)
>
> Here, Tolkien first introduces the phrase 'Uruk-hai'. The reader recognises that
> this is a different word, but might associate it with the earlier word 'Uruks'. In the
> course of the chapter, the reader learns that 'Uruk-hai' is the term some of the orcs
> (who are conversing in the Common Speech as they are with orcs from different
> tribes) use to refer to themselves AS A GROUP.
[snip]
> Specifically, we learn that the large soldier-orcs from Isengard refer to themselves as
> Uruk-hai. Further, they use a signature phrase: "the fighting Uruk-hai" to identify
> themselves. This seems to have different connotations to the unqualified chapter title:
> The Uruk-hai.
Not in the least. The Uruk-hai are the Uruk-hai. There are not two
groups of Uruk-hai (since non-fighting Uruks would be contrary to
Tolkien's description of Uruks in general: large soldier-orcs).
So, you're wrong here, too.
> The impression so far, is that we have an elite group of large soldier-orcs from Isengard
> that call themselves "the fighting Uruk-hai", in the manner that elite military groups give
> themselves names. The similarity of the name also suggests that they may be in some
> way related to the 'Uruks' we very briefly encountered in Moria. This is supported by the
> fact that these "fighting Uruk-hai" from Isengard are large orcs.
Here you are correct.
> > "But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work,
> > as usual. Don't stand slavering there! Get your rabble together! The
> > other swine are legging it to the forest. You'd better follow."
> > (Ugluk talking to Grishnakh, 'The Uruk-hai')
>
> This new phrase: "the Uruk-hai of Isengard" introduces a note of uncertainty.
No, there is no uncertainty, since no other Uruk-hai are ever
mentioned. Trivializing Tolkien's usage by implying that the use of
qualifying descriptive adjectives ("fighting") and prepositional
phrases ("of Isengard") implies we would have to stop and analyze every
such reference in the story (such as "Hobbit of the Shire", "Elf of
Lorien", etc.).
The difference between "Uruk-hai" (in Tolkien's usage) and "Hobbit" or
"Elf" is that the latter two terms are generic racial names. "Uruk-hai"
has, like "Penni", become useful only as a tribal name -- as your
citations have demonstrated.
There is, to this point in the story (and beyond, of course) no
indication that "Uruks" = "Uruk-hai". The Uruk-hai have been singled
out by Tolkien for special recognition (from other Uruks) by being
given their own unique name (Uruk-hai) and chapter (The Uruk-hai).
[snip further insignificant trivialization]
> > "Something nearly slipped you say. I say, something has slipped. And
> > we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and
> > small thanks." (Gorbag to Shagrat, 'The Choices of Master Samwise')
>
> The next time we hear an orc identifying himself, the circumstances are very different.
> Samwise, with the aid of the Ring, comprehends a conversation he is eavesdropping
> on: a conversation in a dialect of the Black Speech between an orc-captain of Cirith
> Ungol (Shagrat) and an orc-captain of Minas Morgul (Gorbag). Gorbag uses the
> word 'Uruks', but here we have to stop and consider how this word is transmitted to us.
> From what we learn later, Sam would have heard the word "Uruk-hai" being used,
No, that is an unsupportable assumption. Sam would have heard a word,
but there is no indication in any text anywhere that he would have
heard "Uruk-hai". He could have heard "Uruki" (assuming "-i" denotes a
plural form in Westron strictly for illustrative purposes and not for
the sake of asserting that must be so) just as likely as he could have
heard anything like "Urukhoth", "Uruk-gorgor", or "Uruk-hai".
The bottom line is that Tolkien doesn't tell us anywhere what plural
form would have been used by Gorbag in his natural speech to refer to
Uruks.
So, you're wrong here, too.
> > "'Garn! You don't even know what you're looking for.' 'Whose blame's
> > that?' said the soldier. 'Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. 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.'" (Soldier-orc to tracker-orc, 'The Land of Shadow')
>
> This encounter with orcs, with Sam and Frodo listening to the conversation, sees the
> orcs using the Common Speech (Westron). In common with nearly all the other places
> where orcs talk about Uruks, we hear them use the phrase 'Uruk-hai', which is to be
> expected....
Yes. "Uruk-hai" names a specific group of Uruks whom the reader has
already encountered: the Isengarders. So the reader is immediately
aware that the Mordorians are considering, however unlikely, the
possibility that some of Saruman's soldiers have entered Mordor without
"checking in" (as it were).
> ...They are using the Common Speech, but the grammar is still that of the Black
> Speech.
I am sure the linguists will be glad to know that they may safely
assume that Black Speech grammar conforms to English grammar without
any support from the Tolkien texts whatsoever.
However, insofar as this particular passage is concerned: It only
refers to the Isengarders.
'Nuff said.
> > "The leading orcs came loping along, panting, holding their heads
> > down. They were a gang of the smaller breeds being driven unwilling
> > to their Dark Lord's wars; all they cared for was to get the march
> > over and escape the whip. Beside them, running up and down the line,
> > went two of the large fierce uruks, cracking lashes and shouting."
> > ('The Land of Shadow')
>
> This is the narrative voice. It uses 'Uruks', the anglicized version of 'Uruk-hai'.
No, it simply uses "Uruks", which is consistent with the rest of story
(from Gandalf's utterance of the name in "The Bridge of Khazad-dum" up
through the Appendix).
Tolkien's only explanation of the Uruk-words is provided in Appendix F,
where he writes:
*Orcs and the Black Speech*. Orc is the form of the name that other
races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan.
In Sindarin it was *orch*. 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-hai, *snaga*
'slave'.
He most specifically does NOT say that "Uruks" is an anglicization of
"Uruk-hai".
> ...It is worth noting that in the 'Uruk-hai' chapter, the narrative voice used the
> phrase "Isengarders" and not the phrase "Uruk-hai". The phrase 'Uruk-hai'
> was reserved solely for the orcs talking ABOUT THEMSELVES.
Exactly. That is precisely how the reader understands that the
Uruk-hai are the Isengarders. No other Uruks in the book use the name
of themselves. Nor does the narrative voice use the name with
reference to any other group of Uruks.
So, basically, you remain confused on the subject through too much
obfuscation and over-analysis.
In the end, only Tolkien's usage determines to whom the name "Uruk-hai"
refers, and Tolkien only used the name to refer to the Uruks of
Isengard, as distinct from all other Uruks.
Hence, all Uruk-hai are Uruks, but not all Uruks are Uruk-hai.
Q.E.D. (again).
Aurious
> as usual. Don't stand slavering there! Get your rabble together! The
> other swine are legging it to the forest. You'd better follow."
> (Ugluk talking to Grishnakh, 'The Uruk-hai')
I think this sentence is a brag. The "Uruk-hai" seem to favor and are
loyal to Isengard therefore when they say the Uruk-hai of Isengard they
are trying to show superiority. When they talk about rebel
"Uruk-hai" they probally mean those loyal to Isengard. My wet concrete
understanding of the Uruk-hai are that they are an elite group of Uruks
that are prefer and are loyal to Isengard, and have different weapons
and armor then their mordor brethren
Mic...@xenite.org
>
> Doesn't the Black Speech plural for Trolls also end in "-hai"? Olag-hai is what pops
> into my memory, but I'm sure that's not quite right, and someone will correct me.
Many people will be quick to tell you that "Olog-hai" is indeed
translated as "Troll-folk", and that linguists therefore feel safe
translating "Uruk-hai" as "Orc-folk".
That point is not in contention.
It's the disregard for Tolkien's strict application of "Uruk-hai" to
the Isengard Uruks that is being discussed here.
Mic...@xenite.org
> Quite correct, but M. Martinez thinks that the black speech
> was somehow modified so that Sarumans orcs could
> monopolize the name Uruk-hai.
Well, THAT is very wrong.
All I have said is that it is consistent within Tolkien's linguistic
examples for the name "Uruk-hai" to have become applied only as a
tribal name. No modification of the Black Speech is required for that
to happen.
Mic...@xenite.org
> Michael, I can see what the source of the controversy and confusion is
> in two seconds. You are either unwilling to or incapable of
> understanding the difference between "Tolkien did not say 'X'" and "Tolkien said 'Not X'".
Nope. You're just unwilling to accept Tolkien's usage in the matter,
and would prefer to show us all how petty and childish you can be.
If you're really sick of bullshit, please spare us all any further
examples of your own.
In any event, if you can cite a passage where Tolkien uses "Uruk-hai"
to refer to any non-Isengard Uruks, DO SO.
Otherwise, let Steuard continue running in circles. He speaks well
enough for the rest of you on this matter.
None of you can change what Tolkien wrote, but Steuard can (and should)
change the FAQ to accurately reflect Tolkien's usage and not advocate
the news group's incorrect usage.
Mic...@xenite.org
> > Aurious wrote on June 29:
>
> >> I always took it that the Uruk-hai were an elite group of Uruks
> >> controlled by Saruman. Their armor and weaponry was different then
> >> mordors.
>
> Those were "the fighting Uruk-hai". That phrase appears to be the Common Speech
> form of the tribal name that the Isengard Uruk-hai gave themsleves.
No. If that were really the case, then "tall Dunedain" and "tall Elf"
would be racial names.
> > That is the point. The news group regulars have decreed that Tolkien
> > is wrong and all Uruks are called Uruk-hai.
>
> That is a gross misrepresentation.
It is a completely accurate statement.
Until such time as any of you can show that J.R.R. Tolkien actually
used Uruk-hai to refer to any non-Isengarders, you're in the sad
position of decreeing that Tolkien is wrong and you are right.
Your choice.
the softrat
wrote:
>If it is an anglicized form of Uruk-hai, than IT IS SYNONYMOUS and you
>can replace all references to Uruks with "Uruk-hai".
Yes!!!
He *can* be taught!
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
At first there was nothing. Then God said 'Let there be light!'
Then there was still nothing. But you could see it.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
Um, Michael. You ignored (again) the 'snaga' argument. Can you explain
why Tolkien says that the Uruk-hai call the lesser orcs 'snaga', and
also explain why Shagrat calls a smaller orc 'snaga', and how you can
then still insist that Shagrat cannot be called one of the 'Uruk-hai'?
Tamim
> Mic...@xenite.org <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
> <snip>
> Um, Michael. You ignored (again) the 'snaga' argument. Can you explain
> why Tolkien says that the Uruk-hai call the lesser orcs 'snaga', and
> also explain why Shagrat calls a smaller orc 'snaga', and how you can
> then still insist that Shagrat cannot be called one of the 'Uruk-hai'?
I disagree with MM on the general issue, but that argument is easy to
counter. The appendixes say that they were called snaga _especially_ by
the Uruk-hai, not exclusively by Uruk-hai.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Slow down, son. You're making unsubstantiable assumptions here. Just
> because Tolkien used "Uruks" as an Anglicized form of "Uruk-hai" in
> "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" (written many years after he wrote
> "The Bridge of Khazad-dum") in no way means that "Uruk-hai" is to be
> used interchangeably with "Uruks".
The index entry for 'Uruks' in /Unfinished Tales/ is quite plainly a
general definition. There is no reason to think that it is intended to
only refer to the occurrences in the book. Index entries here have a
general definition, plus references to where the word is found in the
book. Clear?
<snip>
>> Specifically, we learn that the large soldier-orcs from Isengard
>> refer to themselves as Uruk-hai. Further, they use a signature
>> phrase: "the fighting Uruk-hai" to identify themselves. This seems
>> to have different connotations to the unqualified chapter title: The
>> Uruk-hai.
>
> Not in the least. The Uruk-hai are the Uruk-hai. There are not two
> groups of Uruk-hai (since non-fighting Uruks would be contrary to
> Tolkien's description of Uruks in general: large soldier-orcs).
Think of it as a war-cry. "We are the fighting Uruk-hai!"
I agree with you that Uruk-hai IN THIS CONTEXT has a different meaning
to the more general Uruk-hai/Uruks coinage. And that Tolkien emphasized
this on several occasions. But you go too far in denying a general use
of Uruk-hai as an equivalent to Uruks, or "the race of Uruks".
Think of "we are the fighting Uruk-hai" as "we are the bad-ass
orc-soldiers of Isengard". But Uruks/Uruk-hai would be more like
"orc-soldiers" in general.
<snip>
>> This new phrase: "the Uruk-hai of Isengard" introduces a note of
>> uncertainty.
>
> No, there is no uncertainty, since no other Uruk-hai are ever
> mentioned. Trivializing Tolkien's usage by implying that the use of
> qualifying descriptive adjectives ("fighting") and prepositional
> phrases ("of Isengard") implies we would have to stop and analyze
> every such reference in the story (such as "Hobbit of the Shire",
> "Elf of Lorien", etc.).
This is interesting, and deserves a separate post.
<snip>
> There is, to this point in the story (and beyond, of course) no
> indication that "Uruks" = "Uruk-hai". The Uruk-hai have been singled
> out by Tolkien for special recognition (from other Uruks) by being
> given their own unique name (Uruk-hai) and chapter (The Uruk-hai).
Appendix F makes it crystal-clear that Uruks = Uruk-hai.
The chapter "The Uruk-hai", when set against earlier and later usage of
'uruks' makes two things clear: (a) that Uruk-hai is an orc expression,
and (b) that one group is being identified with the expression "fighting
Uruk-hai".
<snip>
> The bottom line is that Tolkien doesn't tell us anywhere what plural
> form would have been used by Gorbag in his natural speech to refer to
> Uruks.
Have you read Appendix F?
>>> "'Garn! You don't even know what you're looking for.' 'Whose blame's
>>> that?' said the soldier. 'Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. 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.'" (Soldier-orc to tracker-orc, 'The Land
>>> of Shadow')
<snip>
> Yes. "Uruk-hai" names a specific group of Uruks whom the reader has
> already encountered: the Isengarders. So the reader is immediately
> aware that the Mordorians are considering, however unlikely, the
> possibility that some of Saruman's soldiers have entered Mordor
> without "checking in" (as it were).
<wavering> :-)
It's a nice idea, I'll give you that!
>> ...They are using the Common Speech, but the grammar is still that
>> of the Black Speech.
>
> I am sure the linguists will be glad to know that they may safely
> assume that Black Speech grammar conforms to English grammar without
> any support from the Tolkien texts whatsoever.
No. They are using 'Uruk-hai' as a direct transporting of their words
into the Common Speech dialect they use. Hence the '-hai' suffix is
brought over with the transported, and unchanged word.
<snip>
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
>> This new phrase: "the Uruk-hai of Isengard" introduces a note of
>> uncertainty.
>
> No, there is no uncertainty, since no other Uruk-hai are ever
> mentioned. Trivializing Tolkien's usage by implying that the use of
> qualifying descriptive adjectives ("fighting") and prepositional
> phrases ("of Isengard") implies we would have to stop and analyze
> every such reference in the story (such as "Hobbit of the Shire",
> "Elf of Lorien", etc.).
Hobbit of the Shire, as opposed to Hobbit of Bree.
Elf of Lorien, as opposed to Elf of Mirkwood.
Uruk-hai of Isengard, as opposed to Uruk-hai of Mordor.
Uruks of Isengard, as opposed to Uruks of Mordor.
> The difference between "Uruk-hai" (in Tolkien's usage) and "Hobbit" or
> "Elf" is that the latter two terms are generic racial names.
> "Uruk-hai" has, like "Penni", become useful only as a tribal name --
> as your citations have demonstrated.
Would Eldar (People of the Stars) and Eldar (Elves that journeyed
westwards from Cuivienen) be another example?
Mic...@xenite.org
>
> Elf of Lorien, as opposed to Elf of Mirkwood.
> Uruk-hai of Isengard, as opposed to Uruk-hai of Mordor.
Just feel free to show us where Tolkien wrote "Uruk-hai of Mordor" or
anything like that.
> > The difference between "Uruk-hai" (in Tolkien's usage) and "Hobbit" or
> > "Elf" is that the latter two terms are generic racial names.
> > "Uruk-hai" has, like "Penni", become useful only as a tribal name --
> > as your citations have demonstrated.
>
> Would Eldar (People of the Stars) and Eldar (Elves that journeyed westwards from
> Cuivienen) be another example?
Not all Elves are Eldar at the end of the Third Age. But all Eldar are
Elves.
Not all Hobbits are Shire-folk, but all Shire-folk are Hobbits.
Not all Uruks are Uruk-hai, but all Uruk-hai are Uruks.
Mic...@xenite.org
Um, Christopher, I have addressed that point many times. Tolkien
specifically singles out the Uruk-hai as distinct from other Uruks in
ESPECIALLY using "snaga" to speak of the lesser (non-Uruk) Orcs.
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote on June 29:
>>
>> Hobbit of the Shire, as opposed to Hobbit of Bree.
>> Elf of Lorien, as opposed to Elf of Mirkwood.
>> Uruk-hai of Isengard, as opposed to Uruk-hai of Mordor.
>
> Just feel free to show us where Tolkien wrote "Uruk-hai of Mordor" or
> anything like that.
You snipped this:
Uruks of Isengard, as opposed to Uruks of Mordor.
Since Uruks can be substituted for Uruk-hai (and vice-versa), then the
Uruk-hai constructions above follow naturally.
Mic...@xenite.org
> > Slow down, son. You're making unsubstantiable assumptions here. Just
> > because Tolkien used "Uruks" as an Anglicized form of "Uruk-hai" in
> > "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" (written many years after he wrote
> > "The Bridge of Khazad-dum") in no way means that "Uruk-hai" is to be
> > used interchangeably with "Uruks".
>
> The index entry for 'Uruks' in /Unfinished Tales/ is quite plainly a general definition.
For the use of "Uruks" in the story "The Battles of the Fords of Isen",
which only mentions the Uruk-hai (the Isengarders).
There is no justification for putting words into Christopher Tolkien's
mouth and saying that the UT index entry has any relevance to THE LORD
OF THE RINGS.
> >> Specifically, we learn that the large soldier-orcs from Isengard
> >> refer to themselves as Uruk-hai. Further, they use a signature
> >> phrase: "the fighting Uruk-hai" to identify themselves. This seems
> >> to have different connotations to the unqualified chapter title: The
> >> Uruk-hai.
>
> > Not in the least. The Uruk-hai are the Uruk-hai. There are not two
> > groups of Uruk-hai (since non-fighting Uruks would be contrary to
> > Tolkien's description of Uruks in general: large soldier-orcs).
>
> Think of it as a war-cry. "We are the fighting Uruk-hai!"
Which is irrelevant.
The bottom line is that none of you has produced a single citation
where J.R.R. Tolkien uses "Uruk-hai" to refer to any group of Uruks
OTHER than the Isengarders.
In fact, I cannot help but think of the Jesus Seminar. You guys make
them look like a group of ultraconservative fundamentalists.
You're going to dedicate the rest of your lives to forming a consensus
on what J.R.R. Tolkien really should have written, and present that
consensus as the basis of all your arguments, rather than actually rely
on Tolkien himself to tell his story in his own words.
> > There is, to this point in the story (and beyond, of course) no
> > indication that "Uruks" = "Uruk-hai". The Uruk-hai have been singled
> > out by Tolkien for special recognition (from other Uruks) by being
> > given their own unique name (Uruk-hai) and chapter (The Uruk-hai).
>
> Appendix F makes it crystal-clear that Uruks = Uruk-hai.
No, Appendix F makes it clear that Tolkien distinguished the Uruk-hai
from the rest of the Uruks.
Again, it's only Tolkien's usage that matters.
Any argument which requires the reader to get out the Super Secret
Mordor Decoder Ring to extract the true meaning from randomly selected
passages just doesn't hold up water.
In any event, post the requested citation and this will all pass
quickly.
Aurious
Mic...@xenite.org
by writing on June 29:
> In article <1119982731.181524.270...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <Mich...@xenite.org> wrote:
>
> >Now, let's lay a few ground rules. First, some people treat the
> >"Anglicized form of Uruk-hai" as a translation. To Anglicize a word is
> >NOT to translate it:
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Anglicize
>
> > To make English or similar to English in form, idiom,
> > style, or character: Some immigrants anglicize their
> > names when they move to the United States.
>
> >So, "Uruks" in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" is NOT a translation
> >into English of "Uruk-hai".
>
> Of course not - a translation would be 'goblins', 'hobgoblins', 'orcs', or 'especially big and
> nasty orcs who don't have to use SPF-50 sunblock'.
Correct so far.
> Mr. Martinez is engaging in a verbal quibble bordering on deliberate ignorance.
Nope. Mr. Martinez was simply addressing a point raised by Steuard
Jensen.
See
(http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.arts.books.tolkien/msg/53de490277dcb239?dmode=source&hl=en)
Steuard's message of November 27, 2002:
> > > In fact, the index to _Unfinished Tales_ defines "Uruks" as
> > > "Anglicized form of _Uruk-hai_ of the Black Speech; a race of Orcs
> > > of great size and strength."
> >
> > The ONLY Uruks encountered in "The Battle of the Fords of Isen" are
> > URUK-HAI. This entry is therefore a non-sequitur in the larger
> > discussion, because it has nothing to do with other Uruks.
>
> This entry is the only direct translation of the word "Uruks" by JRR
> or Christopher Tolkien that I know of.
Now...
> Surely no one would say that if I anglicize "istari" to (the very ugly) "istars",
> making it 'similar to English in form', I am somehow creating a spurious plural
> because it is 'not a translation'?...
Surely no one would say such a thing.
> ...Or, contrariwise, would Mr. Martinez expect Tolkien to use an term that so
> substantially changed the meaning from 'big Isengard orcs' to 'big orcs' and
> simply list it as an 'anglicized form'?
I don't "expect" Tolkien to do anything. I simply look at what he does
do and I go by that. I project nothing into the stories.
His usage is very clear: he applies "Uruk-hai" only to the Isengarders.
He does NOT, in any way, in any published text, use "Uruk-hai" and
"Uruks" interchangeably to refer to all Uruks in Middle-earth.
The index entry in UNFINISHED TALES is only concerned with the
Uruk-hai, who are mentioned in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen". In
fact, the index entry says "a race of Orcs of great size and strength"
-- implying there are more than one "race of Orcs". Clearly, the
implied context is that the literal meaning of "uruk" (Orc) is not
being invoked here. Hence, there is no indication that the literal
meaning of "Uruk-hai" (orc-folk, presumably) is being invoked in any
general sense (with respect to all Uruks).
> This just seems like a lot of work to try to make the index entry mean something other
> than what it appears to mean in its plainest interpretation.
All the index entry refers to is the Uruk-hai, the Uruks of Isengard,
and nothing more. All the work has gone in to belaboring the obvious
since several news group regulars insist on belaboring the impossible.
Mic...@xenite.org
Nope. You're still contradicting J.R.R. Tolkien, and his trump card
still wins.
Like I said, just post a citation of ANY PASSAGE where Tolkien actually
uses "Uruk-hai" to refer to any non-Isengarder Uruks, and you will have
made your point.
Otherwise, simply repeating your wishful thinking only underscores the
fact that you cannot make your point.
Larry Swain
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> Mic...@xenite.org <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>
>>Let's see if I can cover the most pertinent passages that people have
>>been relying upon so far.
>
>
> And let's add a few more as well...
>
> "There are Orcs, very many of them [...] And some are large and evil:
> black Uruks of Mordor." (Gandalf, 'The Bridge of Khazad-dum')
>
> "The Uruk-hai" (Title of Chapter 3, Book 3, /The Lord of the Rings/)
>
> "I don't trust you little swine. You've no guts outside your own sties.
> But for us you'd all have run away. We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We
> slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of
> Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to
> eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here, and we shall lead you
> back by the way we choose." (Ugluk, 'The Uruk-hai')
You know what's interesting about this one? Ugluk says "We took the
prisoners", but when the chapter opens Merry and Pippin are in the claws
of Grishnakh's orcs. HMMM, suggestive.
>
> "...a quarrel seemed on the point of breaking out again between the
> Northerners and the Isengarders. [... Ugluk:] 'Very well [...] I'll look
> after it. Let the fighting Uruk-hai do the work, as usual." ('The
> Uruk-hai')
>
> "But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as
> usual. Don't stand slavering there! Get your rabble together! The other
> swine are legging it to the forest. You'd better follow." (Ugluk talking
> to Grishnakh, 'The Uruk-hai')
Yes and here too....he has to distinguish the Uruk-hai of Isengard when
talking directly to Grishnakh...also suggestive...as suggestive as the
chapter title.
>
> <snip>
>
>>Now, let's lay a few ground rules. First, some people treat the
>>"Anglicized form of Uruk-hai" as a translation. To Anglicize a word
>>is NOT to translate it:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Agreed. But the words are STILL synonymous!
>
And in your defence Steuard, you weren't using them as translations the
one of the other. Michael is just making that up.
>>So, "Uruks" in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen" is NOT a translation
>>into English of "Uruk-hai".
>
>
> But then what does the word 'Uruks' mean?
>
> If it is an anglicized form of Uruk-hai, than IT IS SYNONYMOUS and you
> can replace all references to Uruks with "Uruk-hai". Like Gandalf's
> comment: "black Uruks of Mordor" = "black Uruk-hai of Mordor".
Exactly. If Uruks is the anglicized form of Uruk-hai, that is the
making plural since in Black Speech -hai is a plural marker, then
Uruks=Uruk-hai, QED.
> Are you splitting hairs to say that in some contexts 'uruks' is an
> anglicized version of Uruk-hai, and in other contexts 'uruks' means
> something else? What else can it mean?
>
> Or are you splitting hairs to say that uruk-hai can mean two things?
> That it can be (a) the non-anglicized form of uruks, or that it can be
> (b) the specific tribal name of a specific group of orcs. Meaning (a) is
> what the UT index entry says, but meaning (b) is not specifically stated
> anywhere, as far as I can tell.
I think he just fell into a trap of his own making.
>
>>Now, specifically addressing the various points:
>>
>>Point 1: The Uruk-and-Tracker "rebel Uruk-hai" passage
>>
>>The Uruk and the tracker are conveying to the reader the fact that
>>they (and their superiors) are confused about what is going on.
>>Hence, their suppositions don't have to make sense to the reader, who
>>only needs to know that Frodo's purpose has not yet been discovered.
>
>
> But the suppositions _do_ have to refer back to what has happened. The
> orcs can't just talk about anything at random. They reader has to make
> the connection with what has happened, namely that "small dwarf-man"
> refers to the captive hobbit (Frodo), that "great Elf in bright armour"
> refers to Sam, and that "pack of rebel Uruk-hai" refers to orcs fighting
> among themselves (like Shagrat's and Gorbag's forces do). These are the
> obvious and logical links that a reader makes. If Tolkien meant
> something else, then he should have written the whole passage more
> clearly.
Now, now Steuard. Tolkien and Michael are under no obligation to make
it clearer for you than he already has. ;) But I agree: the passage is
carefully constructed and it makes little sense to have "small
dwarf-man" refer to Frodo, "great Elf in bright armour" refer to Sam,
and "pack of rebel Uruk-hai" (especially since the latest references to
rebellion were Shagrat and Gorbag!!) refer to Saruman's forces.
>
>>The suggestion that "a pack of rebel Uruk-hai" should check in to
>>Minas Morgul is ridiculous because they are declared to be "rebel
>>Uruk-hai".
>
>
> Not quite sure where this "check in" business is from, but if you mean
> the Cirith Ungol orcs checking in with Minas Morgul, then you are
> talking rubbish. They were not considered rebels when they were expected
> to check in. The point where they would be called rebels would be when
> they started fighting the Morgul orcs. This seems to have led to those
> "Higher Up" to start talking about a pack of rebel orcs.
NOt only so, but if they were bringing Pippin to Mordor as Michael
suggests then they wouldn't be rebels, they'd be obeying Sauron's
orders. In which case, they wouldn't need to sneak in, but declare
themselves at the Gate with a prize desired in the Tower!
>
>>While Sauron might have enough information to speculate
>>they were bringing Pippin to Mordor, that speculation doesn't have to
>>make sense.
>
>
> You are making no sense here at all.
No kidding. All the information Sauron has suggests that Pippin is
either dead or in Aragorn's hands and the Ring is on its way to Minas
Tirith--that's why he strikes so soon before he is ready. There is no
reason for him to suppose that Pippin was brought to Mordor--and if he
were, it wouldn't be by a band of "rebels", for by bringing Pippin to
Mordor they would no longer be rebels, but obedient, order obeying soldiers.
>
>>What this passage does NOT do is associate the name "Uruk-hai" with
>>any group of Orcs associated with either Mordor or Minas Morgul
>>(including Gorbag's company, even though Shagrat calls Gorbag a rebel
>>-- because nowhere is Gorbag referred to as an Uruk-hai).
>
>
> Gorbag is quite plainly a Uruk-hai. He says:
>
> "...something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor
> Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks." ('The Choices of Master
> Samwise')
>
> He is referring to himself as one of the Uruks = anglicized version of
> the term Uruk-hai; hence Gorbag is one of the Uruk-hai.
Not only so, but is using language that is so close to Ugluk's
complaints as well that the two MUST be associated in Tolkien's mind.
The structural parallel too of hobbits in the clutches of orcs borne to
Saruman and of a hobbit in the clutches of orcs borne to Sauron (by way
of Cirith Ungol) are meant to be associated as well. THere are a number
of such structural parallels throughout the work that makes this one all
the more probable. So the parallel in structure and parallel in
language add some support to the contention.
And you know, as a side point, are we to entertain the idea that Saruman
had an army of orcs superior to the orcs of Mordor and the army of
Sauron? Doesn't that go rather against TOLKIEN's description of
Isengard and Saruman as poor imitations of Sauron and Mordor?
>
>
>>Point 2: The use of "Uruks" as a plural throughout the story
>>
>>At no point in THE LORD OF THE RINGS does Tolkien refer to the
>>Uruk-hai (the Isengarders) as Uruks, except in the appendix. The
>>"uruks" mentioned throughout the story come either from Moria or
>>Mordor. The Appendix entry makes it clear that the Uruk-hai are
>>Uruks, too.
>
Untrue. Tolkien does refer to other orcs as Uruk-hai. The chapter
title Uruk-hai, as I've stated before, must include more than the
Isengarders. For one thing, the chapter opens and closes with Merry and
Pippin literally in the clutches of MORDOR orcs....so if they aren't
Uruk-hai, then Tolkien is being hyperbolic. For another, Gorbag and his
bunch are of a size and kind equal to Ugluk (though not in number which
is why Gorbag doesn't try anything with force), also suggesting that the
Mordor orcs are Uruk-hai.
>
>
>>Point 4: Passages where Orcs refer to themselves as "Uruk-hai"
>>
>>Should be self-explanatory, but for those who miss the obvious, ONLY
>>THE ISENGARDERS ever identify themselves as Uruk-hai. No other
>>Uruks do so -- not in Moria, not in Mordor.
>
>
> Then why does Ugluk say?:
>
> "...the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work..." (The Uruk-hai)
>
> If Uruk-hai were from Isengard, he would not need the qualifier "of
> Isengard". This sentence is constructed just like "Uruks of Mordor",
> except "Uruk-hai" has been used instead of "Uruks".
>
> Also, uruk can probably be translated as 'soldier-orc', which shoots
> large holes in your arguments.
Especially since he is making that distinction to Grishnak....
R. Dan Henry
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>1) Gorbag uses the word 'Uruks' (Sam hears him in Cirith Ungol).
>
>This is the most puzzling exception. The only distinction between this
>case and all the other times hobbits (over)hear orcs talking about
>Uruks, is that here Sam is understanding Gorbag's use of the Black
>Speech. The other cases involve orcs using the Common Speech.
Sam isn't exactly *hearing* what Gorbag is saying; he's magically
gathering the *meaning*, so naturally, it uses his (Sam's) grammar.
>2) Narrator uses 'Uruk-hai' (describing Pippin's thoughts).
>
>This is a literary device to take the reader back to the Uruk-hai
>chapter.
Also, Pippin spent enough time with the Uruk-hai to fix a few of their
expressions in his mind and may well have used the term "Uruk-hai" in
some of his thoughts.
--
R. Dan Henry
danh...@inreach.com
Then I laughed as one fey and said...
But which Orcs are the Metal group "3 inches of blood" referring to in
their track called "Revenge of the Orcs"?
Steuard Jensen
<1119982731.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
[snip]
I think your idea to organize the discussion like this is a good one.
I've started to put together a similar and substantial reply of my
own, but Real Life(TM) is rather busy for me at the moment.
Hopefully, I'll be able to whip something into shape by the weekend.
Until then, best wishes to everyone who's still seeking out the
answers on this topic.
Oh, and for the record, if and when I do get a longer reply into shape
(and get comments on it from you and everyone else), I'll probably
stick it (or a revised version) on my website and modify the FAQ to
mention the debate and point to that longer discussion. You've
finally shown me that there _are_ counter-arguments to the evidence
that I had previously considered to be "final", even though I think
that those counter-arguments fail completely. :) In a neutral FAQ,
readers should be allowed to decide for themselves.
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
<3LidnSHwANK...@rcn.net>:
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
[snip]
> Now, now Steuard.
I don't have the time to respond to the lengthy discussion in this
thread yet, but I thought I'd point out that the previous post was
written by Christopher Kreuzer, not by me. :)
Steuard Jensen
Öjevind Lång
>"*Orcs and the Black Speech.* Orc is the form of the name that other
races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan. In
Sindarin it was orch. 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-hai, snaga 'slave'
>." (Appendix FI - The
Languages and Peoples of the Third Age)
Thank you, Christopher. I think that quote clinches the matter - "uruk"
may mean "orc" in the Black Speech, but clearly, Tolkien used the word
interchangeably with "Uruk-hai", as can also be seen in several of the
other quotes from the text. From the sum of the quotes you provide, it
is clear that the Uruks, or Uruk-hai, were specially large and fierce
orcs who were less shy of the sun than other orcs and existed not only
in Mordor and Isengard but also in the Misty Mountains. (The last
circumstance, that they were also found in the Misty Miuntains, is
clear from one of your other quotes.)
Öjevind
Mic...@xenite.org
>Thank you, Christopher. I think that quote clinches the matter - "uruk" may mean "orc" in
> the Black Speech, but clearly, Tolkien used the word interchangeably with "Uruk-hai",
> as can also be seen in several of the other quotes from the text.
Piffle. If Christopher could really prove that, this whole discussion
would have ended years ago, because the same ill-logical nonsense has
been posted by others before.
What remains clear is that Tolkien only used Uruk-hai to refer to the
Uruks of Isengard, and that he did not use "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai"
interchangeably to refer to all Uruks, and that you guys continue to
run on empty in this matter.
Instead of repeating the same nonsense over and over again, Öjevind,
why don't YOU produce the one citation that would end it all?
What's the matter? Tolkien didn't write it for you?
Gosh. That can only mean he didn't use the name "Uruk-hai" the way the
Tolkien News Group Seminar wants him to.
Your preferences don't care.
What a shame.
So, who else wants to get up and repeat the same crap that has already
been refuted by Tolkien 100 times?
Larry Swain
Mic...@xenite.org wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote on June 29:
>
>>OK, let's try one more time...
>
>
> Yes. Let's. And we'll begin by noting that the more convoluted the
> argument needed to refute Tolkien's very simple usage, the less likely
> the argument is to be more correct than Tolkien.
Michael, since you've realized this why do you continue to offer
convoluted arguments to change what Tolkien actually wrote to your
imagined reading? Boggles the mind.
>
>
>>Specifically, we learn that the large soldier-orcs from Isengard refer to themselves as
>>Uruk-hai. Further, they use a signature phrase: "the fighting Uruk-hai" to identify
>>themselves. This seems to have different connotations to the unqualified chapter title:
>>The Uruk-hai.
>
>
> Not in the least. The Uruk-hai are the Uruk-hai. There are not two
> groups of Uruk-hai (since non-fighting Uruks would be contrary to
> Tolkien's description of Uruks in general: large soldier-orcs).
He didn't claim there were non-fighting Uruk-hai. He observed the
literal nomenclature and noted the difference between that and the title.
>
> So, you're wrong here, too.
No, he's absolutely right. You're just inventing your usual straw men.
>
>>>"But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work,
>>>as usual. Don't stand slavering there! Get your rabble together! The
>>>other swine are legging it to the forest. You'd better follow."
>>>(Ugluk talking to Grishnakh, 'The Uruk-hai')
>>
>>This new phrase: "the Uruk-hai of Isengard" introduces a note of uncertainty.
>
>
> No, there is no uncertainty, since no other Uruk-hai are ever
> mentioned.
Certainly it does. If there are no other Uruk-hai why is it necessary
when Ugluk is blustering to Grishnak for him to say "the Uruk-hai of
Isengard"? It may suggest, but admittedly does not prove, that Grishnak
is Uruk-hai too, from Mordor.
Trivializing Tolkien's usage by implying that the use of
> qualifying descriptive adjectives ("fighting") and prepositional
> phrases ("of Isengard") implies we would have to stop and analyze every
> such reference in the story (such as "Hobbit of the Shire", "Elf of
> Lorien", etc.).
> The difference between "Uruk-hai" (in Tolkien's usage) and "Hobbit" or
> "Elf" is that the latter two terms are generic racial names. "Uruk-hai"
> has, like "Penni", become useful only as a tribal name -- as your
> citations have demonstrated.
So? That still doesn't change the oddity of the usage. The fact that
he says "uruk-hai of isengard" in that context is suggestive in the face
of your claim that all Uruk-hai are from Isengard. Its like Elrond
introdcuing himself at the Council of Elrond as "Elrond of Elrond's
family". Redundant and repetitive and unnecessary if all uruk-hai are
from Isengard. And we know Tolkien is much more careful than that.
As for the title of the chapter, since the chapter includes other orcs
beside the Uruk-hai, and the chapter begins and ends with Merry and
Pippin in the most danger they ever have been in the hands of Mordor
orcs, it makes little sense to call the chapter "The Uruk-hai" if the
name applies only to the Isengarders.
> There is, to this point in the story (and beyond, of course) no
> indication that "Uruks" = "Uruk-hai". The Uruk-hai have been singled
> out by Tolkien for special recognition (from other Uruks) by being
> given their own unique name (Uruk-hai) and chapter (The Uruk-hai).
As for the chapter title, see above. As for the unique name, only
Ugluk, not the narrator, uses it. It is just like you to believe orc
talk wholesale. So to say that Tolkien does it is a little fishy.
>>
>>The next time we hear an orc identifying himself, the circumstances are very different.
>>Samwise, with the aid of the Ring, comprehends a conversation he is eavesdropping
>>on: a conversation in a dialect of the Black Speech between an orc-captain of Cirith
>>Ungol (Shagrat) and an orc-captain of Minas Morgul (Gorbag). Gorbag uses the
>>word 'Uruks', but here we have to stop and consider how this word is transmitted to us.
>>From what we learn later, Sam would have heard the word "Uruk-hai" being used,
>
>
> No, that is an unsupportable assumption. Sam would have heard a word,
> but there is no indication in any text anywhere that he would have
> heard "Uruk-hai". He could have heard "Uruki" (assuming "-i" denotes a
> plural form in Westron strictly for illustrative purposes and not for
> the sake of asserting that must be so) just as likely as he could have
> heard anything like "Urukhoth", "Uruk-gorgor", or "Uruk-hai".
Probably not, since Tolkien already lets us know that -hai is a plural
noun marker.
>
> The bottom line is that Tolkien doesn't tell us anywhere what plural
> form would have been used by Gorbag in his natural speech to refer to
> Uruks.
>
> So, you're wrong here, too.
Your wishful thinking. There are only 2 attested forms: Uruks or
Uruk-hai to describe multiple uruks. He heard one of the two, not some
other Fecal Faced invention conjured up to avoid the truth.
>
>
>>>"'Garn! You don't even know what you're looking for.' 'Whose blame's
>>>that?' said the soldier. 'Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. 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.'" (Soldier-orc to tracker-orc, 'The Land of Shadow')
>>
>>This encounter with orcs, with Sam and Frodo listening to the conversation, sees the
>>orcs using the Common Speech (Westron). In common with nearly all the other places
>>where orcs talk about Uruks, we hear them use the phrase 'Uruk-hai', which is to be
>>expected....
>
>
> Yes. "Uruk-hai" names a specific group of Uruks whom the reader has
> already encountered: the Isengarders. So the reader is immediately
> aware that the Mordorians are considering, however unlikely, the
> possibility that some of Saruman's soldiers have entered Mordor without
> "checking in" (as it were).
1) doesn't fit the context
2) doesn't fit the structure
3) makes absolute no sense in the plot of the story
4) makes nonsense of the parallelism inherent in the statement
5) is contradictory: if Mordor orcs are bring a "small dwarf-man" to
Mordor, they are obeying Sauron, not rebels, so any straw one could
grasp that this reference might be to Isengarders is contradicted by the
very statement itself.
>
>>...They are using the Common Speech, but the grammar is still that of the Black
>>Speech.
>
>
> I am sure the linguists will be glad to know that they may safely
> assume that Black Speech grammar conforms to English grammar without
> any support from the Tolkien texts whatsoever.
The term I think Conrad was looking for was morphology, the morphology
of the word conforms to what we know of Black Speech. But then any
careful reader would know that, and your dismissive fallacy does not
negate his point.
>
>
>
>>...It is worth noting that in the 'Uruk-hai' chapter, the narrative voice used the
>>phrase "Isengarders" and not the phrase "Uruk-hai". The phrase 'Uruk-hai'
>>was reserved solely for the orcs talking ABOUT THEMSELVES.
>
>
> Exactly. That is precisely how the reader understands that the
> Uruk-hai are the Isengarders. No other Uruks in the book use the name
> of themselves.
That's debateable. The tracker is most naturally read as referring to
Mordor orcs, your claims notwithstanding. And there are certainly clues
that Shagrat and Gorbag are as well.
Nor does the narrative voice use the name with
> reference to any other group of Uruks.
The narrative voice NEVER uses it. Ever.
>
> So, basically, you remain confused on the subject through too much
> obfuscation and over-analysis.
Projection again, Michael. You really should be careful of that.
Mic...@xenite.org
>
The Uruk-hai were simply Uruks who, having sworn their service to
Saruman, lived in (or near) Isengard.
--
Tolkien News Group Seminar: Rewriting Tolkien the way THEY want him to
read.
"Since when has proof meant anything to believers?" - Tamim, June 30,
2005
Mic...@xenite.org
> Quoth Larry Swain <thesw...@operamail.com> in article
<3LidnSHwANKb617fRVn...@rcn.net>:
>
> > Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Now, now Steuard.
>
> I don't have the time to respond to the lengthy discussion in this thread yet, but I
> thought I'd point out that the previous post was written by Christopher Kreuzer, not by
> me. :)
That has always been Larry's problem. Even when you put the facts
clearly in front of him, he still sees only the nonsense in his mind.
There is no point in following up to his every little rant. He
couldn't get the facts straight if you laid them out for him without
ever letting him touch them.
But you, Steuard, should just post the new FAQ entry so that the
groaning can start and people here can start coping with reality.
Since no one has been able to show (once again) that Tolkien used
"Uruk-hai" to refer to any Uruks other than the Isengarders, we're
right back where we started: with your FAQ clearly in the wrong.
Mic...@xenite.org
> on it from you and everyone else), I'll probably stick it (or a revised version) on my
> website and modify the FAQ to mention the debate and point to that longer discussion.
> You've finally shown me that there _are_ counter-arguments to the evidence that I had
> previously considered to be "final", even though I think that those counter-arguments fail
> completely. :) In a neutral FAQ, readers should be allowed to decide for themselves.
That is very much a step in the right direction, but I will appreciate
your allowing me to contribute to the description of the counterpoints,
since I have historically not exactly praised your efforts to summarize
such points in the past.
That would be in the best interests of keeping the peace, such as it
is, between us.
Christopher Kreuzer
> Aurious wrote on June 29:
>>
>> Werent the Uruk-hai a mix between orcs and humans?
>
> The Uruk-hai were simply Uruks who, having sworn their service to
> Saruman, lived in (or near) Isengard.
Who were "the Uruk-hai of Isengard" then?
Christopher Kreuzer
> Mic...@xenite.org wrote:
>> Christopher Kreuzer wrote on June 29:
>>
>>> OK, let's try one more time...
<snip>
>> So, you're wrong here, too.
>
> No, he's absolutely right.
Thanks, Larry.
Just want to clear up a few points of confusion. Nothing to do with the
arguments in the thread as such, but more the names being thrown around.
<snip>
> The term I think Conrad was looking for was morphology
You are really confusing me (and yourself it seems) here. Elsewhere in
this thread you've confused me with Steuard, and now you appear to be
confusing me with Conrad (who isn't even active at the moment, as far as
I can tell).
<snip>
[usage of 'Uruk-hai']
> Nor does the narrative voice use the name with
>> reference to any other group of Uruks.
>
> The narrative voice NEVER uses it. Ever.
Well, technically speaking the term is used in the narrative voice here:
"No hours so dark had Pippin known, not even in the clutches of the
Uruk-hai." (The Siege of Gondor)
Though I'll pass on whether this is technically, technically the
narrative voice, since the narrative voice takes umpteen different forms
in LotR, from an omniscient overview to narrating the thoughts of
characters (as here).
And I'm not even going to get started on whether the use of 'Uruk-hai'
in the chapter title counts as narrative voice. If I had to say what
that was, I'd call it the authorial voice. Actually, as we are told at
some point that the Red Book has chapters, and IIRC these match the
chapters in LotR (you have to omit from the count the chapter 'The
Choices of Master Samwise', presumably added by Sam or his descendents),
then the chapter titles are probably translated directly from the Red
Book, and so they represent the authorial voice of Frodo/Sam!
The Appendix F use of 'Uruk-hai' is, of course, not the narrator, but
can be seen as a note from the translator, probably incorporating
material from earlier translators.
Oh, and before I forget, a note for Tar-Elenion. I've been largely
following this thread, rather than the other one ("What is the
difference between orcs and goblins"). But I've just got around to
reading that thread, and I was rather taken aback to find your
(Tar-Elenion's) posting of an old essay (which I'd never read before) on
this Uruks/Uruk-hai issue. I was taken aback because it rather cogently
presented many of the arguments I'd had been making (based on reading
the initial Jensen-Martinez discussion in that thread), so it looks like
I've been re-inventing the wheel, so to speak! But it was also pleasing
to realise that it is possible to independently make the same arguments
from the same texts.
Christopher Kreuzer
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:44:01 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 1) Gorbag uses the word 'Uruks' (Sam hears him in Cirith Ungol).
>>
>> This is the most puzzling exception. The only distinction between
>> this case and all the other times hobbits (over)hear orcs talking
>> about Uruks, is that here Sam is understanding Gorbag's use of the
>> Black Speech. The other cases involve orcs using the Common Speech.
>
> Sam isn't exactly *hearing* what Gorbag is saying; he's magically
> gathering the *meaning*, so naturally, it uses his (Sam's) grammar.
That makes a great deal of sense. Thanks.
>> 2) Narrator uses 'Uruk-hai' (describing Pippin's thoughts).
>>
>> This is a literary device to take the reader back to the Uruk-hai
>> chapter.
>
> Also, Pippin spent enough time with the Uruk-hai to fix a few of their
> expressions in his mind and may well have used the term "Uruk-hai" in
> some of his thoughts.
That also makes sense, though I now wonder who came up with the title
"Uruk-hai" for the chapter. Are we to suppose that Sam or Frodo (or
maybe even Pippin or Meery) came up with the title, or are we to suppose
that Tolkien chose his own chapter titles (story-internally of course -
treating Tolkien as the translator of a copy of the Red Book)?
I get the Sam/Frodo possibility from the following:
"At the beginning there were many leaves covered with Bilbo's thin
wandering hand [= The Hobbit]; but most of it was written in Frodo's
firm flowing script [= The Lord of the Rings]. It was divided into
chapters but Chapter 80 was unfinished, and after that were some blank
leaves." (Description of the Red Book, The Grey Havens)
Frodo tells Sam the last pages are for him.
If one counts the number of chapters in TH (19) and LotR (62), we see
that there are 81 chapters. It is possible to assume something like the
following: chapter 80 is unfinished and is the 'Grey Havens' chapter,
which Sam finishes later, and Sam adds 'The Choices of Master Samwise'
chapter later; OR the unfinished chapter is 'The Scouring of the Shire',
and Sam finishes it and adds chapter 81 (The Grey Havens) later (it
seems unlikely that Frodo, in any case, could write the chapter title
for that).
Or maybe something else altogether.
So returning to 'Uruk-hai' as chapter title, why is this form used,
instead of "The Uruks", or "The Orcs" (noting the difference between orc
and uruk, of course)? The 'The Riders of Rohan' chapter is not called
"The Eorlingas".
Christopher Kreuzer
> In article <Ht%we.59925$G8.5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> <snip>
>> Christopher wrote:
>> So returning to 'Uruk-hai' as chapter title, why is this form used,
>> instead of "The Uruks", or "The Orcs" (noting the difference between
>> orc and uruk, of course)?
>
> Something like that.
Hmm. Is there a textual history to the uruks/uruk-hai usage?
>> The 'The Riders of Rohan' chapter is not called
>> "The Eorlingas".
>
> Eorlingas is an Anglo-Saxonization.
> ;)
LOL!
Tar-Elenion
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
<snip>
> Christopher wrote:
> instead of "The Uruks", or "The Orcs" (noting the difference between orc
> and uruk, of course)?
As I recall, it was orginally titled The Orcs, or The Orc Raid.
Something like that.
> The 'The Riders of Rohan' chapter is not called
> "The Eorlingas".
Eorlingas is an Anglo-Saxonization.
;)
--
Tar-Elenion
He is a warrior, and a spirit of wrath. In every
stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long
ago did thee this hurt.
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher kreuzer wrote:
>
>> "*Orcs and the Black Speech.* Orc is the form of the name that other
> races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan. In
> Sindarin it was orch. 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-hai, snaga 'slave'
>
>> ." (Appendix FI - The Languages and Peoples of the Third Age)
>
> Thank you, Christopher. I think that quote clinches the matter
<snip>
I'm not so sure it does.
One of the problems with the Appendices in general is that they are
rather compressed and for reasons of space (and time) Tolkien had to cut
much of the material out.
I rather suspect that if Tolkien had:
(a) Expanded what he had written here; and
(b) Included a full Index to LotR
...then we might find an index entry in LotR (which would probably be
similar to the index entry in /Unfinished Tales/) that explains with
great clarity the relationship between the terms 'uruks' and 'uruk-hai'.
OR, such a clarification would have been incorporated into the Appendix
F note above.
But unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint, there is
enough room for a few different opinions. I stand by the arguments I am
using (which I have since discovered have a long history) and have yet
to be convinced of the other arguments being used.
Tar-Elenion
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>
> Oh, and before I forget, a note for Tar-Elenion. I've been largely
> following this thread, rather than the other one ("What is the
> difference between orcs and goblins"). But I've just got around to
> reading that thread, and I was rather taken aback to find your
> (Tar-Elenion's) posting of an old essay (which I'd never read before) on
> this Uruks/Uruk-hai issue. I was taken aback because it rather cogently
> presented many of the arguments I'd had been making (based on reading
> the initial Jensen-Martinez discussion in that thread), so it looks like
> I've been re-inventing the wheel, so to speak! But it was also pleasing
> to realise that it is possible to independently make the same arguments
> from the same texts.
Great minds think alike. ;)
Interestingly, Michael has held the same veiw that we do, that both
Sauron and Saruman had Uruk-hai, perhaps as late as the end of 1998.
There was some attempt to find out what he learned to cause him to
change his mind when this was brought up several years ago, but I don't
think that it was actually answered.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Interestingly, Michael has held the same veiw that we do, that both
> Sauron and Saruman had Uruk-hai, perhaps as late as the end of 1998.
> There was some attempt to find out what he learned to cause him to
> change his mind when this was brought up several years ago, but I
> don't think that it was actually answered.
He was captured by a group of rebel Uruks? :-)
Calling themselves the Uruk-hai of course.
Tar-Elenion
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> Tar-Elenion <tar_e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <Ht%we.59925$G8.5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> > spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> > <snip>
> >> Christopher wrote:
> >> So returning to 'Uruk-hai' as chapter title, why is this form used,
> >> instead of "The Uruks", or "The Orcs" (noting the difference between
> >> orc and uruk, of course)?
> >
> > As I recall, it was orginally titled The Orcs, or The Orc Raid.
> > Something like that.
>
> Hmm. Is there a textual history to the uruks/uruk-hai usage?
I am not quite sure what you mean. I think the first use of 'uruk' comes
in the word 'Uruktharbun' a name for Dimrill-dale, from about 1939 (I
think the name has something to do with Azog's head being mounted on a
stake). As I recall Uruks was not used in the initial drafts of the
Khazad-dum chapters, Orcs was, and this was changed at somepoint (I'm
not sure when). The second version of the Uruk-hai chapter has the word
Uruk-hai present. but the initial draft is not extent. JRRT was using
both terms in Letters in 1944. Lowdham's Report has the word Uruk in it
used to mean goblin, orc, in Adunaic, I think from 1945. But that is
just going off of memory, which is sometimes faulty of late.
>
> >> The 'The Riders of Rohan' chapter is not called
> >> "The Eorlingas".
> >
> > Eorlingas is an Anglo-Saxonization.
> > ;)
>
> LOL!
It is funny. But accurate.
:)
Michael Urban
without really having given the matter much thought, I had assumed
that 'Uruk-hai' referred exclusively to Saruman's orcs, mostly on
the strength of the chapter title and the self-identification within
that chapter. Certainly others have assumed the same (e.g.,
Decipher's LotR card game). But I find the evidence of 'rebel
Uruk-hai' and especially the citation in the Unfinished Tales index
to be quite convincing, and the argument of 'he doesn't use it that
way anywhere else' to be very weak: just because Tolkien did not
happen to use it to refer to Sauron's uruks (which is itself very
debatable) in no way implies that he thought that it _could_ not
be used that way.
The word 'perian' for Hobbits is only used by the Gondorians. Can
we infer from this that the Sindarin word would not be used, for
example, by the Sindarin speaking elves of Rivendell because Lindir
uses the word 'hobbits' instead of 'periain' (and 'men' instead of
'edain' in the same sentence)? Possibly - after all, the halflings
were better known to the Gondorians and Rohirrim in legend than to
the Elves - but it would be a very debatable inference indeed.
Concluding that 'Uruk-hai' is no more specific than 'uruks' is not
'wishful thinking' or going along with a crowd; it is simply taking
Tolkien's writing with the most straightforward interpretation.
The implication that no reasonable person who adheres to authorial
intention could possibly reach that conclusion is unwarranted and
insulting.
R. Dan Henry
<tar_e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Interestingly, Michael has held the same veiw that we do, that both
>Sauron and Saruman had Uruk-hai, perhaps as late as the end of 1998.
>There was some attempt to find out what he learned to cause him to
>change his mind when this was brought up several years ago, but I don't
>think that it was actually answered.
That the opposite view makes for more effective trolling?
Mic...@xenite.org
> <tar_elen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Interestingly, Michael has held the same veiw that we do, that both
> >Sauron and Saruman had Uruk-hai, perhaps as late as the end of 1998.
> >There was some attempt to find out what he learned to cause him to
> >change his mind when this was brought up several years ago, but I don't
> >think that it was actually answered.
>
> That the opposite view makes for more effective trolling?
I leave the trolling to people like you, who obviously have nothing
better to do with your lives, since you clearly never contribute to
on-topic discussion.
But I have never held the point of view that Sauron had Uruk-hai
serving him at the end of the Third Age (that is, either in THE LORD OF
THE RINGS or "The Battles of the Fords of Isen").
In October 1998, I did write the following:
BEGIN CITATION
>From Appendix F to THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
"*Orcs and the Black Speech*. Orc is the form of the name that other
races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan.
In Sindarin it was *orch*. 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-hai, *snaga*
'slave'."
"Uruk-hai" would be Black Speech for "Orc folk", more-or-less (as I
stick my
neck out into a linguistic area again). Although only Saruman's orcs
specifically called themselves "Uruk-hai", it is not clear from this
entry in
the Appendix that only they would be called "Uruk-hai". Tolkien does
use the
word "Uruk" to refer to the soldier-orcs in other passages (or its
anglicized plural, "Uruks").
We do get to know two great orc captains of Mordor fairly well: Gorbag
and
Shagrat. Grishnahk was also an orc captain from Mordor, but because he
was
shorter than Ugluk (the Isengarders' leader) he may not have been an
Uruk.
It's hard to say.
Anyway, if someone wants to use "Uruk-hai" to refer to all the great
soldier-orcs, is there any reason to object?
END CITATION
The answer to the question is clearly YES, there is plenty of reason to
object.
Tolkien did not use "Uruk-hai" to refer to any Uruks other than the
Isengarders. At the time, I had not looked for any specific Uruk-hai
references that might be applied to non-Isengarders. Since then, I
have (as have others), and no one has found any such passages.
So Tolkien's usage dictates that "Uruk-hai" only applies to the
Isengarders (within the context of the stories THE LORD OF THE RINGS
and "The Battles of the Fords of Isen").
I didn't change my mind about anything. I simply found the answer to
the question.
Mic...@xenite.org
> Interestingly, Michael has held the same veiw that we do, that both Sauron and
> Saruman had Uruk-hai, perhaps as late as the end of 1998.
As I pointed out in my followup to Mr. Troll (R. Dan Henry), that was
never the case.
Mic...@xenite.org
Who were the Riders of Rohan?
Who were the Bardings of Dale?
Who were the Beornings between the Carrock and the Gladden?
Who were the Men of Numenor?
Who were the Edain of Beleriand?
Who were the Mithrim (of Mithrim)?
Mic...@xenite.org
> For whatever its worth, when I began reading this discussion,
> without really having given the matter much thought, I had assumed
> that 'Uruk-hai' referred exclusively to Saruman's orcs, mostly on
> the strength of the chapter title and the self-identification within
Which is precisely what Tolkien intended, except that you are not
"assuming" anything, but merely accepting his authorial identification
of the characters as Uruk-hai.
> Certainly others have assumed the same (e.g., Decipher's LotR card game).
No, Decipher had to go strictly by what was in the movies, and Peter's
Uruk-hai are nothing like Tolkien's.
> ... But I find the evidence of 'rebel
Uruk-hai' and especially the citation in the Unfinished Tales index
> to be quite convincing,
Considering that neither passage in any way changes Tolkien's position
that the Uruk-hai are the Isengarders and no other Uruks, your message
is just another waste of bandwidth.
Reiterating the same failed arguments that the other news group
regulars have posted doesn't make them work any better.
Unless you can show that Tolkien used "Uruk-hai" to refer to any
non-Isengarders, you're in the same sad position that the others are
in: without any evidence to support your point of view.
Provide a relevant citation and you'll make the point.
Steuard Jensen
<1120163115.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
> Steuard Jensen wrote on June 30:
> > Oh, and for the record, if and when I do get a longer reply into
> > shape (and get comments on it from you and everyone else), I'll
> > probably stick it (or a revised version) on my website and modify
> > the FAQ to mention the debate and point to that longer discussion.
> That is very much a step in the right direction, but I will
> appreciate your allowing me to contribute to the description of the
> counterpoints, since I have historically not exactly praised your
> efforts to summarize such points in the past.
Absolutely. My plan is to write the thing myself ("too many chefs"
and all), but to take as many statements of the "Uruk-hai =
Isengarders" side as possible from your own posts in this current
round of debate. I may edit them a little (for length and focus, so
they fit into the structure of the summary), but I'll do my best to
keep that to a minimum.
I will then post the summary here, and I hope that you (and anyone
else who wants to) will point out any and all misrepresentations or
prejudiced presentations that you see. In particular, it will be
necessary to extract relevant quotes from longer posts and
paragraphs. I will do my best to be sensitive to that, but if you
find cases where my removal of context could confuse readers of the
summary, I'll want to hear about it.
Once I have your comments in hand, I'll edit the document and re-post
it. Hopefully, not too many repetitions will be necessary before you
feel that the "Uruk-hai = Isengarders" position has been presented
fairly. At this point, I'm still not sure whether I will try to make
the overall document a totally neutral summary (which could be a lot
of work, given the strength of my opinion on this question) or whether
I will go ahead and draw my own conclusions at the end. But in either
case, I will make my own position in the debate very clear from the
start so that readers will recognize that potential bias as they go.
And even if I do claim at the end that I believe the evidence supports
"my side", I will make it clear that you don't agree (assuming that
neither of us has changed our positions by then!).
Sound good?
Steuard Jensen
Mic...@xenite.org
>
> Once I have your comments in hand, I'll edit the document and re-post
> it. Hopefully, not too many repetitions will be necessary before you
> feel that the "Uruk-hai = Isengarders" position has been presented
> fairly. At this point, I'm still not sure whether I will try to make
> the overall document a totally neutral summary (which could be a lot
> of work, given the strength of my opinion on this question) or whether
> I will go ahead and draw my own conclusions at the end.
You present the FAQ as an authoritative and neutral source of
information. If you have no intention of making it a neutral document,
even on one question, then you need to change your description of the
FAQ to explain that it is biased and does NOT attempt to represent
positions on the various questions neutrally and fairly.
> ...But in either case, I will make my own position in the debate very
> clear from the start so that readers will recognize that potential
> bias as they go.
That is insufficient. See above.
> And even if I do claim at the end that I believe the evidence supports
> "my side", I will make it clear that you don't agree (assuming that
> neither of us has changed our positions by then!).
That is insufficient.
If you're going to promote your FAQ across the Internet the way you
have been recently, you need to be as fair and unbiased as you possibly
can be.
Put YOUR personal views in a totally separate document.
--
Tolkien News Group Seminar: Rewriting Tolkien the way THEY want him to
read.
"Since when has proof meant anything to believers?" - Tamim, June 30,
2005
Tolkien was wrong, but the Tolkien news group will fix him with FAQs!
Tar-Elenion
Mic...@xenite.org says...
> Tar-Elenion wrote on June 30:
> > Interestingly, Michael has held the same veiw that we do, that both Sauron and
> > Saruman had Uruk-hai, perhaps as late as the end of 1998.
>
> As I pointed out in my followup to Mr. Troll (R. Dan Henry), that was
> never the case.
>
the prior quotes from you that were provided:
(Note, this first one you responded to in your followup to R. Dan Henry)
------------
From: Michael Martinez (Mich...@xenite.org)
Subject: Re: Balrogs
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.fan.tolkien
Date: 1998/10/01
From Appendix F to THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
"*Orcs and the Black Speech*. Orc is the form of the name that
other races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan.
In Sindarin it was *orch*. 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-hai,
*snaga* 'slave'."
"Uruk-hai" would be Black Speech for "Orc folk", more-or-less (as I
stick my neck out into a linguistic area again). Although only
Saruman's orcs specifically called themselves "Uruk-hai", it is not
clear from this entry in the Appendix that only they would be called
"Uruk-hai". Tolkien does use the word "Uruk" to refer to the soldier-
orcs in other passages (or its anglicized plural, "Uruks").
We do get to know two great orc captains of Mordor fairly well: Gorbag
and Shagrat. Grishnahk was also an orc captain from Mordor, but because
he was shorter than Ugluk (the Isengarders' leader) he may not have been
an Uruk. It's hard to say.
Anyway, if someone wants to use "Uruk-hai" to refer to all the great
soldier-orcs, is there any reason to object?
------
From: Michael Martinez (micha...@swcp.com)
Subject: Re: The legions of Morgul
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Date: 1996/11/16
On 11/15/96 4:11AM, in message
<19961115111400.GAA19...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ozzm...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <5684l8$254_...@thepope.basis.com>, micha...@basis.com (Michael
> Martinez) writes:
>
> >The Uruks (Uruk-hai) were bred in Mordor. The Isengarders were called
> >"rebels" by some of Sauron's Orcs. The half-Orcs were bred by Saruman,
> >but it's not clear whether they were larger than the Uruk-hai
>
> I had always thought that the Uruk-hai were Sarumans orks, and not
> Saurons.
Saruman's Orcs were Uruk-hai, but the Uruk-hai were not all Saruman's
Orcs. Frmo "Of Other Races" in Appendix F to LOTR:
"*Orcs and the Black Speech*. Orcs is the form of the name that
other races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan.
In Sindarin it was *orch*. 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-hai,
*snaga* 'slave'."
There are many usages of the term "Uruk" for various Orcs of Moria,
Isengard, and Mordor throughout LOTR.
-----------
From: Michael Martinez (Mich...@xenite.org)
Subject: Re: Orc's Lifespan? (Was Re: Numenorean Woses)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Date: 1998/11/07
In article <36447012.11295...@nntp.madisontelco.com>,
pagan...@madisontelco.com wrote:
>
>Doesn't this make it seem likely that the Uruks were new orcs?
Aragorn
>had been fighting orcs for 80 years. He knew all about them. Whether
>or not they were half human, there was some kind of orc breeding
going
>on at Isengard.
Sauron bred the Uruk-hai. They first appeared in the 25th century
when they attacked Ithilien. They were then used by Sauron to colonize
the Misty Mountains, where they appear to have taken control of most if
not all the tribes. Saruman may indeed have introduced a mannish strain
into his Uruk-hai to create the Half-orcs, but were Ugluk and his
soldiers Half-orcs, or were they just a variant of Uruks?
---------------
You, at that time, did not say that you never had that position, what
you did say was:
"Perhaps in a few years you'll understand that some of us, having
learned something about Tolkien's works, change our minds.
That I once held the erroneous view you continue to espouse doesn't
make it any less erroneous. It just, if anything, makes you look
rather desperate."
Michael Urban
<Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>
>> Certainly others have assumed the same (e.g., Decipher's LotR card game).
>
>No, Decipher had to go strictly by what was in the movies, and Peter's
>Uruk-hai are nothing like Tolkien's.
For the record, Decipher did _not_ have to follow the movies
strictly; their license covers both the movies and books (and there
are cards covering characters like Radagast). _Many_ cards carry
book quotations that are not in the movies, as well as some linguistic
inventions like the Quenya designations for the individual Nazgul,
derived from Tolkien's writings, and certainly not the movies.
But I think Decipher's main goal was to have a convenient 'racial'
term with which they could distinguish Isengard and Mordor uruks
(using 'goblins' for Moria orcs). Did the word 'uruk-hai' occur
in the movies at all? I cannot remember.
ste...@nomail.com
> But I think Decipher's main goal was to have a convenient 'racial'
> term with which they could distinguish Isengard and Mordor uruks
> (using 'goblins' for Moria orcs). Did the word 'uruk-hai' occur
> in the movies at all? I cannot remember.
Saruman says 'my fighting Uruk-hai' in the first movie.
I do not recall it being said anywhere else.
Stephen
Tar-Elenion
Aragorn says it when he encounters Eomer:
"We track a band of Uruk-Hai westward across the plain"
Gimli at Helm's Deep:
"This is not a rabble of mindless Orcs. These are Uruk-hai."
And Gamling:
"There is one passage. It leads into the mountains. But they will not
get far. The Uruk-hai are too many."
At least according to this transcription:
http://www.seatofkings.net/script_ttt.html
Steuard Jensen
<1120230992.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> Steuard Jensen wrote:
> > At this point, I'm still not sure whether I will try to make the
> > overall document a totally neutral summary (which could be a lot
> > of work, given the strength of my opinion on this question) or
> > whether I will go ahead and draw my own conclusions at the end.
> You present the FAQ as an authoritative and neutral source of
> information. If you have no intention of making it a neutral document,
> even on one question, then you need to change your description of the
> FAQ to explain that it is biased and does NOT attempt to represent
> positions on the various questions neutrally and fairly.
[Just to check, you are okay with me using quotes or near-quotes from
your posts in the summary, subject to your approval, right?]
Let me clarify: I would do my best to make the FAQ entry itself brief
and neutral. Presumably, I would simply explain that there is
disagreement on whether "Uruk-hai" and "Uruks" was synonymous. I
haven't thought about the wording yet.
The revised FAQ entry would link to this much longer discussion of
that point, much as the FAQ entry on Bombadil links to my extensive
essay on that topic. The longer discussion would do its best to
present both sides of the argument fairly, and to avoid any
misrepresentations along the way. It would make it clear from the
start that its author has a potential bias. And it _might_ have a
concluding section clearly labeled as my own opinion in which I
asserted that I believed the evidence for one side to be compellingly
stronger than the other.
That's not particularly different from my Bombadil essay, in which I
explicitly recognize the merits of both major positions but do explain
my own preference as well. The FAQ entry on Bombadil does not favor
one over the other.
One other thing. When I assert that the FAQ is neutral (or tries to
be), there _are_ some limits on what I mean by that. For example, the
question on whether Sauron had a physical form at the time of LotR
currently states quite strongly that he did, and provides compelling
evidence that he did. Even though there are a number of fans out
there who disagree (especially after the "floating eyeball" of the
movies), the textual evidence just doesn't support that position. So
the FAQ doesn't give their claims "equal time" in the name of
neutrality, but it does go to considerable effort to answer them.
In short, I do reserve the right to take a stand when I truly believe
a controversy to be resolved (in whole or in part). In such cases, I
will _always_ try to provide compelling evidence of that in the FAQ
(or in a linked essay), and if that supposedly compelling evidence is
called into question even on grounds that I consider relatively weak,
I will go back to a more neutral presentation of the issue.
That's precisely the history of the Uruk-hai question. When the dust
settled on this debate in 2002, nobody had provided a remotely
reasonable objection to either Christopher Tolkien's comment
introducing the UT index or to the "pack of rebel Uruk-hai" quote in
Mordor. Hence, I took the matter as settled, and put the FAQ entry
into something like its current form. (For what it's worth, the
creator of the Encyclopedia of Arda looked over it and said that he
approved; he and I had been having an ongoing discussion of another
aspect of the entry at the same time. So if there were biases, I at
least went to some effort to make sure that they weren't
newsgroup-only biases.) Now that you have given counterarguments to
both of those pieces of evidence, however weak I may think they are,
I'm planning to adjust the FAQ accordingly.
Does everyone out there think that this general approach is
reasonable? If not, how would you change it?
Steuard Jensen
Mic...@xenite.org
>
> [Just to check, you are okay with me using quotes or near-quotes from
> your posts in the summary, subject to your approval, right?]
Yes.
> Let me clarify: I would do my best to make the FAQ entry itself brief
> and neutral. Presumably, I would simply explain that there is
> disagreement on whether "Uruk-hai" and "Uruks" was synonymous. I
> haven't thought about the wording yet.
I understand.
I'll have to see the details when you propose them. This is, as we
discussed previously, only the first of many points (I PROMISE, I won't
make the "moron" and other insults in further discussions with you).
> One other thing. When I assert that the FAQ is neutral (or tries to
> be), there _are_ some limits on what I mean by that. For example, the
> question on whether Sauron had a physical form at the time of LotR
> currently states quite strongly that he did, and provides compelling
> evidence that he did.
This is a broader issue that I will discuss with you in greater detail
at a later time.
I'm willing to make small steps toward improvement.
Mic...@xenite.org
> In article <1120227596.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Certainly others have assumed the same (e.g., Decipher's LotR card game).
> >
> >No, Decipher had to go strictly by what was in the movies, and Peter's
> >Uruk-hai are nothing like Tolkien's.
>
> For the record, Decipher did _not_ have to follow the movies
> strictly; their license covers both the movies and books (and there
> are cards covering characters like Radagast). _Many_ cards carry
> book quotations that are not in the movies, as well as some linguistic
> inventions like the Quenya designations for the individual Nazgul,
> derived from Tolkien's writings, and certainly not the movies.
I sit corrected (for the second time, I think -- I believe this was
pointed out to me a couple of years ago).
ste...@nomail.com
> Does everyone out there think that this general approach is
> reasonable? If not, how would you change it?
> Steuard Jensen
It is overly reasonable. :) Feeling obligated to change
the FAQ based on the objections of a single individual
seems like a dangerous precedent. Given that your FAQ
is entitled "Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ" you could instead
rely on the general consensus of the newsgroup.
Stephen
Tamim
>> Steuard Jensen
Whatever MM is, he is at least not just any individual. I think it is
pretty much a consensus that he is one of the biggest experts on
Tolkien in the newsgroups. So even if he is wrong (like he is on this
issue), IMO his viewpoint is important enough to be mentioned in the
faq.
Mic...@xenite.org
If the FAQ were correct, or if it at least acknowledged its own bias,
and if Steuard were not actively promoting it as a neutral,
authoritative resource across the Internet, it would not matter what
the FAQ said.
But Steuard has worked to elevate the FAQ's status and earn a
widespread trust for it.
Therefore, it is important that the FAQ be corrected on these various
points. It doesn't matter how often people in the news group tell each
other that all Uruks were called Uruk-hai. The indisputable truth,
based on Tolkien's usage, is that only the Isengard Uruks were called
Uruk-hai.
Psychological studies have shown that the more often false information
is presented authoritatively, the more believable it becomes. The news
group regulars whose consensus has driven the creation of these
erroneous FAQs are so insulated from the actual Tolkien texts by their
own preferred versions of them that they reinforce their misguided
beliefs every time they post their nonsense arguments.
The "logic" behind the news group's position remains, even after this
week's numerous attempts to refine that position, essentially the same
thing:
That the rebel Uruk-hai referred to by the Uruk Frodo and Sam overhear
MUST be Mordorian Uruk-hai because no one in the news group believes
they can be Isengarders.
There is no logic to the position, there is no textual support for it,
and there is no way that it can ever be proven to be true. The FAQ at
least needs to acknowledge that this is an assertion based on belief
and not on any text published by either J.R.R. Tolkien or Christopher,
because neither Tolkien has ever -- in any published text -- tied the
name "Uruk-hai" to any group other than the Isengarders.
You may not agree with J.R.R. Tolkien on the matter, you don't have to
agree with him on the matter, but if you're going to write a FAQ about
Tolkien and promote it as an authoritative resource, you had damned
well better be able to defend it against people who care enough about
the subject matter to compare your FAQ's claims to the original texts.
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote on June 30:
>> Mich...@xenite.org <Mich...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>> Aurious wrote on June 29:
>>>> Werent the Uruk-hai a mix between orcs and humans?
>>
>>> The Uruk-hai were simply Uruks who, having sworn their service to
>>> Saruman, lived in (or near) Isengard.
>>
>> Who were "the Uruk-hai of Isengard" then?
Ugluk was able to say both that he was part of:
"the Uruk-hai of Isengard"
[Uruk-hai that come from Isengard]
and he could also say:
"we are the fighting Uruk-hai"
And no-one would pipe up and say: "Uruk-hai of where?" because they
would understand that Ugluk is saying that he of the Uruk-hai, much as
Eomer would say he was a Man.
> Who were the Riders of Rohan?
Eomer would be able to say:
"we are the Riders of Rohan"
but would be unlikely to say:
"we are the Riders"
because the reply would be "the Riders of what?"
> Who were the Bardings of Dale?
>
> Who were the Beornings between the Carrock and the Gladden?
That would be the Rohirrim.
"It was in forgotten years long ago that Eorl the Young brought them out
of the North, and their kinship is rather with the Bardings of Dale, and
with the Beornings of the Wood" (Appendix AII)
The qualifiers are NEEDED here (unlike in the 'Uruk-hai of Isengard'
case). If you remove the qualifiers, the sentence makes no sense in
context:
"It was in forgotten years long ago that Eorl the Young brought them out
of the North, and their kinship is rather with the Bardings and with the
Beornings." (Appendix AII - modified)
Location information is being lost here.
If we look at Ugluk's statement to Grishnakh:
"But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as
usual." (The Uruk-hai)
We see that Ugluk is telling Grishnakh that they will discuss this
later, but that for now the Uruk-hai of Isengard will do the work. In
other words, NOT the Uruk-hai of Mordor (Grishnakh's forces).
Ugluk is plainly distinguishing HIS Uruk-hai from the Uruk-hai that
Grishnakh brought with him:
"...there was Grishnakh again, and at his back a couple of score of
others like him: long-armed crook-legged Orcs."
Which incidentially indicates that Grishnakh WAS a Uruk.
If Ugluk had simply said "Uruk-hai" without the "of Isengard"
qualification, then he would have been referring to ALL the Uruk-hai
present, including the forces of Grishnakh.
Remember that at all the times that Ugluk uses the term "Uruk-hai", he
is addressing the Northern orcs (from Moria) that are smaller and do not
appear to be Uruk-hai, therefore he does not need to add the "of
Isengard" qualifier. Ugluk does not seem to be aware that a Mordor Uruk
(Grishnakh) is present the first time Ugluk browbeats the Moria orcs
about the fact that he is the leader of a troop of Uruk-hai. It is only
when Grishnakh is present with several Uruk-hai from Mordor, like him,
that Ugluk feels the need to add the "of Isengard" qualification.
> Who were the Men of Numenor?
There were non-Numenorean Men.
There were non-Isengard Uruk-hai.
> Who were the Edain of Beleriand?
There were non-Beleriandic Edain.
There were non-Isengard Uruk-hai.
> Who were the Mithrim (of Mithrim)?
I've forgotten.
Christopher Kreuzer
> spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>> Tar-Elenion <tar_e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>>> <snip>
>>>> Christopher wrote:
>>>> So returning to 'Uruk-hai' as chapter title, why is this form used,
>>>> instead of "The Uruks", or "The Orcs" (noting the difference
>>>> between orc and uruk, of course)?
>>>
>>> As I recall, it was orginally titled The Orcs, or The Orc Raid.
>>> Something like that.
Which leads me to wonder why Tolkien changed it to 'The Uruk-hai'.
>> Hmm. Is there a textual history to the uruks/uruk-hai usage?
>
> I am not quite sure what you mean.
This is what I meant. Thanks.
> I think the first use of 'uruk'
> comes in the word 'Uruktharbun' a name for Dimrill-dale, from about
> 1939 (I think the name has something to do with Azog's head being
> mounted on a stake). As I recall Uruks was not used in the initial
> drafts of the Khazad-dum chapters, Orcs was, and this was changed at
> somepoint (I'm not sure when). The second version of the Uruk-hai
> chapter has the word Uruk-hai present. but the initial draft is not
> extent. JRRT was using both terms in Letters in 1944. Lowdham's
> Report has the word Uruk in it used to mean goblin, orc, in Adunaic,
> I think from 1945. But that is just going off of memory, which is
> sometimes faulty of late.
Pity. I thought there might be more than that.
Christopher Kreuzer
I agree with Stephen.
the softrat
Urban) wrote:
>
>Concluding that 'Uruk-hai' is no more specific than 'uruks' is not
>'wishful thinking' or going along with a crowd; it is simply taking
>Tolkien's writing with the most straightforward interpretation.
>The implication that no reasonable person who adheres to authorial
>intention could possibly reach that conclusion is unwarranted and
>insulting.
And the reason we all love Michael Wormtongue.
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"I don't want to tell you any half-truths unless they are
completely accurate." -- Dennis Rappaport, boxing manager
Tar-Elenion
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> Mic...@xenite.org <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I've forgotten.
The Mithrim were the (Sindarin) Elves who dwelt in Hithlum about the
great lake that was later given their name. See Quendi and Eldar in
WotJ, particularly the Sindarin section 3 and Author note 11. If you
don't have it, maybe I will quote it for you.
Christopher Kreuzer
emphasis should be on the following three simple conditions, which
should successfully explain everything:
(a) Uruk-hai is a term used by ORCS or those who learnt it from orcs.
(b) Uruks is a term used by NON-ORCS or the narrative voice.
(c) The use of Uruk-hai and its qualifiers depends on who is present.
The corollary of (a) is that NO ORCS use the term Uruks.
Once more unto the breach!
> Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "There are Orcs, very many of them [...] And some are large and evil:
>> black Uruks of Mordor." (Gandalf, 'The Bridge of Khazad-dum')
>
> Here, Gandalf is speaking in Westron (later translated to English by
> Tolkien). He first uses the word 'Orcs', a plural form of the word
> 'orc', commonly used by many peoples to refer to the orcs. He then
> uses the word 'Uruks', which is an anglicized plural of the Black
> Speech word 'uruk'. IN THE BLACK SPEECH, the plural would be:
> Uruk-hai. But we don't learn all this until much, much later.
Gandalf is a non-Orc, using the term Uruks, rather than Uruk-hai. This
is consistent with condition (b) given above.
<snip>
>> "The Uruk-hai" (Title of Chapter 3, Book 3, /The Lord of the Rings/)
>
> Here, Tolkien first introduces the phrase 'Uruk-hai'. The reader
> recognises that this is a different word, but might associate it with
> the earlier word 'Uruks'. In the course of the chapter, the reader
> learns that 'Uruk-hai' is the term some of the orcs (who are
> conversing in the Common Speech as they are with orcs from different
> tribes) use to refer to themselves AS A GROUP.
>
>> "I don't trust you little swine. You've no guts outside your own
>> sties. But for us you'd all have run away. We are the fighting
>> Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are
>> the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives
>> us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here, and
>> we shall lead you back by the way we choose." (Ugluk, 'The Uruk-hai')
>
> Specifically, we learn that the large soldier-orcs from Isengard refer
> to themselves as Uruk-hai.
This is consistent with condition (a), whereby Uruk-hai is a term used
by orcs. From condition (c), we also need to consider the context.
Ugluk is addressing a group of lesser orcs from Moria. These are said to
be smaller, so the context is that he is putting them in their place and
telling them, in no uncertain terms, that he and his lot are Uruk-hai:
big soldier-orcs that the Moria orcs had better obey.
There is also another orc present, the Mordor orc called Grishnakh. Plus
at least one of the orcs guarding Merry and Pippin is from Mordor (the
yellow-fanged one) - a note in Appendix F describes the curse of this
"Mordor-orc" as being in the Black Speech of the Black Tower.
However, despite there being several types of orcs present, it is clear
to whom Ugluk is speaking when he says:
"...we must stick together. I don't trust you little swine. You've no
guts outside your own sties. But for us you'd all have run away. We are
the fighting Uruk-hai!" (The Uruk-hai)
The phrase "I don't trust you little swine" makes clear he is talking to
the Moria orcs, and trying to cow them into following his orders. The
qualifier here ("fighting") could be both macho posturing and a way to
emphasise that they did the fighting, and not the Moria orcs.
<snip>
>> "...a quarrel seemed on the point of breaking out again between the
>> Northerners and the Isengarders. [... Ugluk:] 'Very well [...] I'll
>> look after it. Let the fighting Uruk-hai do the work, as usual."
>> ('The Uruk-hai')
This is consistent with condition (a), whereby Uruk-hai is a term used
by orcs. From condition (c), we also need to consider the context.
Here, Ugluk is plainly talking to the Northeners, the Moria orcs
(Grishnakh has long gone, seeking reinforcements of Mordor orcs). Ugluk
refers to himself and his band of Uruk-hai as simply "the fighting
Uruk-hai", which is the same as before. There is no need for any further
qualifiers, because they are the only Uruk-hai around.
<snip>
>> "But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work,
>> as usual. Don't stand slavering there! Get your rabble together! The
>> other swine are legging it to the forest. You'd better follow."
>> (Ugluk talking to Grishnakh, 'The Uruk-hai')
This is consistent with condition (a), whereby Uruk-hai is a term used
by orcs. From condition (c), we also need to consider the context.
Here, Ugluk is talking to Grishnakh who has returned with a group of
orcs that are like him (Grishnakh): "long-armed crook-legged Orcs." In
this context, we need to consider why Ugluk suddenly feels the need to
add a qualifier to the phrase 'Uruk-hai'. The qualifier is "of
Isengard", and Ugluk is saying that HIS orcs, "the Uruk-hai of Isengard"
can do the work without any help from Grishnakh's orcs.
The obvious conclusion is that Ugluk is distinguishing his Uruk-hai
(which are from Isengard) from the Uruk-hai of Mordor, led by Grishnakh.
<snip>
>> "If you wish to speak to us, come down! Bring out your king! We are
>> the fighting Uruk-hai. We will fetch him from his hole, if he does
>> not come. Bring out your skulking king! [The king stays or comes at
>> his own will.] Then what are you doing here? Why do you look out? Do
>> you wish to see the greatness of our army? We are the fighting
>> Uruk-hai. [I looked out to see the dawn.] What of the dawn? We are
>> the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair
>> weather or for storm. We come to kill, by sun or moon. What of the
>> dawn?" ('Helm's Deep')
These uses of 'Uruk-hai' are consistent with condition (a), whereby
Uruk-hai is a term used by orcs. From condition (c), we also need to
consider the context.
The orcs are talking to Aragorn, not to other orcs, so there is no need
to distinguish where the Uruk-hai have come from. In any case, it is
unlikely that there are any Uruk-hai here from anywhere other than
Isengard.
>> "Something nearly slipped you say. I say, something has slipped. And
>> we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and
>> small thanks." (Gorbag to Shagrat, 'The Choices of Master Samwise')
This appears to be a use of 'Uruks' that is inconsistent with condition
(b), as it appears to be Gorbag, an orc, using a term that condition (b)
tells us is only used by non-orcs. However, closer examination of the
context tells us that Sam (seemingly thanks to the Ring) is
understanding the meaning of the words he hears (presumably in the Black
Speech). This is a unique situation, and the effect is to transfer
Gorbag's words into the narrative voice.
In other words, the narrator is telling us what Sam understood, rather
than Gorbag's words being put directly on the page. Thus we discover
that this is a case of condition (b) and that the narrative voice is
telling us how Sam (who is not an orc and has never encountered the term
Uruk-hai) comprehends what Gorbag is saying. The only word Sam has heard
for the plural of uruk is 'uruks', as used by Gandalf. So that is what
he perceives Gorbag as saying.
<snip>
>> "No hours so dark had Pippin known, not even in the clutches of the
>> Uruk-hai." ('The Siege of Gondor')
Here the narrator is telling us what Pippin thought. At first glance it
appears to be a case of the narrative voice and condition (b), requiring
the use of the term 'Uruks', but the crucial point here is that we are
told what Pippin is thinking. As Pippin has heard the Uruk-hai use the
term 'Uruk-hai', it makes perfect sense for the narrative voice to
divulge that Pippin thinks of them by that term, making this a case of
condition (a).
>> "'Garn! You don't even know what you're looking for.' 'Whose blame's
>> that?' said the soldier. 'Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. 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.'" (Soldier-orc to tracker-orc, 'The Land of
>> Shadow')
This is consistent with condition (a), whereby Uruk-hai is a term used
by orcs. From condition (c), we also need to consider the context.
It is not clear what group of Uruk-hai is being referred to here (Mordor
or Isengard). Indeed, it appears that the orc-soldier and orc-tracker
are themselves uncertain. Hence the only possible term to use is the
most general one possible: Uruk-hai.
<snip>
>> "The leading orcs came loping along, panting, holding their heads
>> down. They were a gang of the smaller breeds being driven unwilling
>> to their Dark Lord's wars; all they cared for was to get the march
>> over and escape the whip. Beside them, running up and down the line,
>> went two of the large fierce uruks, cracking lashes and shouting."
>> ('The Land of Shadow')
See below.
<snip>
>> "A troop of heavy-armed uruks from Barad-dur charged into the
>> Durthang line and threw them into confusion." ('The Land of Shadow')
>>
>> "In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of
>> great strength, first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475 they swept
>> across Ithilien and took Osgiliath." (Appendix AIiv - Gondor and the
>> Heirs of Anarion)
>>
>> "At that time [around T.A. 2995] Sauron had arisen again, and the
>> shadow of Mordor reached out to Rohan. Orcs began to raid in the
>> eastern regions and slay or steal horses. Others also came down from
>> the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of
>> Saruman, though it was long before that was suspected." (Appendix AII
>> - The House of Eorl)
>>
>> T.A. 2901: "Most of the remaining inhabitants of Ithilien desert it
>> owing to the attacks of Uruks of Mordor." (Appendix B, The Tale of
>> Years)
These five examples are the narrative voice using the term 'uruks'. This
is consistent with condition (b) given above.
<snip>
>> "*Orcs and the Black Speech.* Orc is the form of the name that other
>> races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan. In
>> Sindarin it was orch. 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-hai, snaga 'slave'."
>> (Appendix FI - The Languages and Peoples of the Third Age)
This is a translator's note, and the correct terms 'Uruk' and
'Uruk-hai' are used, and the anglicized term 'Uruks' is avoided, though
it may have been better if it had been explained here or in the
abandoned LotR index, rather than awaiting the index entry for 'Uruks'
in /Unfinished Tales/.
Morgil
Perhaps the best way would be to have a segment called
"Why do some people disapprove of the FAQ?" in the FAQ.
It could then detail the basic complaints made against
the FAQ by Michael and anyone else, such as "FAQ contains
biased information, "refering to FAQ kills off potentially
interesting discussions", etc.
Morgil
Tar-Elenion
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> Mic...@xenite.org <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
<snip>
>
> >
> > Who were the Beornings between the Carrock and the Gladden?
>
> That would be the Rohirrim.
>
> "It was in forgotten years long ago that Eorl the Young brought them out
> of the North, and their kinship is rather with the Bardings of Dale, and
> with the Beornings of the Wood" (Appendix AII)
>
> The qualifiers are NEEDED here (unlike in the 'Uruk-hai of Isengard'
> case). If you remove the qualifiers, the sentence makes no sense in
> context:
>
> "It was in forgotten years long ago that Eorl the Young brought them out
> of the North, and their kinship is rather with the Bardings and with the
> Beornings." (Appendix AII - modified)
>
This all did seem kind of strange.
The 'Beornings of the Wood' is Aragorn giving a history lesson about the
Rohirrim in TTT.
The Appendix A statement is not Beornings between the Carrock and
Gladden but rather:
"The Eotheod had moved to those regions in the days of King Earnil II
from lands in the vales of Anduin between the Carrock and the Gladden,
and they were in origin close akin to the Beornings and the men of the
west-eaves of the forest."
Or else:
"Of this kind were the peoples of the upper vales of Anduin: the
Beornings, and the Woodmen of Western Mirkwood; and further north and
east the Men of the Long Lake and of Dale. From the lands between the
Gladden and the Carrock came the folk that were known in Gondor as the
Rohirrim, Masters of Horses. They still spoke their ancestral tongue,
and gave new names in it to nearly all the places in their new country:
and they called themselves the Eorlings, or the Men of the Riddermark."
App F
the softrat
wrote:
>
>Perhaps the best way would be to have a segment called
>"Why do some people disapprove of the FAQ?" in the FAQ.
>It could then detail the basic complaints made against
>the FAQ by Michael and anyone else, such as "FAQ contains
>biased information, "refering to FAQ kills off potentially
>interesting discussions", etc.
>
>Morgil
It seems to me that I read this already,.....
Oh, well, Deja vue all over again!
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Mr Bullfrog says, "Time's fun, when you're having flies!"
Christopher Kreuzer
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 06:59:58 +0300, Morgil <more...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps the best way would be to have a segment called
>> "Why do some people disapprove of the FAQ?" in the FAQ.
>> It could then detail the basic complaints made against
>> the FAQ by Michael and anyone else, such as "FAQ contains
>> biased information, "refering to FAQ kills off potentially
>> interesting discussions", etc.
>
Where? In the FAQ?
A "controversial questions" bit of the FAQ might be a good idea. It
would help people understand which questions were not "settled" so to
speak. Maybe Michael would like to provide a list... :-)
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
[General FAQ stuff]
Steuard, I was looking at this page:
http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Changes.html#Changes
And I was wondering if you still had the list of changes made in the
other versions? Or at least the changes for the last few years? It is
just that people can sometimes miss earlier changes, and it is tiresome,
and nearly impossible, to read the whole FAQ again to work out what has
changed.
stealth...@remove-yahoo.com
Perhaps you need, either as a subset, or as a seperate entiry a
Frequently Disputed Questions.
But, is there a threshhold? How many people does it take to make an
topic worthy of inclusion. If one objects, is it sufficient.
It smacks oddly of attempts to appease past present and future
bullies.
--
Sindamor Pandaturion
[remove -remove- to reply]
Steuard Jensen
<mpuxe.60769$G8.5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
> A "controversial questions" bit of the FAQ might be a good idea. It
> would help people understand which questions were not "settled" so
> to speak. Maybe Michael would like to provide a list... :-)
Hmm. It's always been my impression that much of the _point_ of the
FAQ was to give an overview of the "controversial questions". That's
why there's no FAQ for "How many Nazgul were there?" or for "What were
the races of the members of the Fellowship?" :) If a given question
is controversial, the FAQ entry _must_ make that clear, or else
Michael's accusation that I'm passing off my opinion as fact is right.
And as I described in some detail earlier in this thread, my threshold
for presenting a debate as "settled" is very high.
That doesn't mean that I'll make the FAQ "neutral" any time someone
comes along and insists that the Balrog's wings were really the result
of fluffy bedroom slippers! But when someone as knowledgeable as
Michael gives arguments that a FAQ statement isn't true, I'll tend to
take them seriously even if I think they're very weak or strained (but
not if I think they're flat out false). I'm not sure of any other
policy that could successfully avoid my own biases (or for that
matter, the biases of the newsgroup community as a whole, though
that's much less of an issue).
Steuard Jensen
Stan Brown
(Steuard Jensen) wrote:
>But when someone as knowledgeable as
>Michael gives arguments that a FAQ statement isn't true
If he gave _arguments_, maybe. But when all he gives is flat
statements (particularly wrong ones) coupled with abuse, then what's
the point?
In evidence I adduce his recent denunciation of my FAQ entry as
"wrong" because it says Ar-Pharazôn knew about the Ring. The only
problem is that it says no such thing.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Tar-Elenion
the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 13:13:36 GMT, sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu
> (Steuard Jensen) wrote:
>
> >But when someone as knowledgeable as
> >Michael gives arguments that a FAQ statement isn't true
>
> If he gave _arguments_, maybe. But when all he gives is flat
> statements (particularly wrong ones) coupled with abuse, then what's
> the point?
>
> In evidence I adduce his recent denunciation of my FAQ entry as
> "wrong" because it says Ar-Pharazôn knew about the Ring. The only
> problem is that it says no such thing.
The way I read your FAQ entry was that:
1). Ar-Pharazon did not know about the Rings of Power, and hence would
not confiscate it on that basis from Sauron.
2). Ar-Pharazon may have felt no compunction to confiscate the, as he
would have perceived it, normal ring that Sauron was wearing.
3). The Ring might have been invisible, and hence Ar-Pharazon did not
even know Sauron was wearing a ring.
4). Or Ar-Pharazon may have tried to confiscate it (still not knowing it
was a Ring of Power) and Sauron used the power of the Ring to 'change
his mind'.
This is correct, yes?
Troels Forchhammer
<news:MPG.1d30eec49...@news.comcast.giganews.com>
Tar-Elenion <tar_e...@hotmail.com> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
FAQ of the Rings, E8. "So why didn't Ar-Pharazôn take the Ring away
from Sauron?"
<http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-Pharazon>
> The way I read your FAQ entry was that:
> 1). Ar-Pharazon did not know about the Rings of Power, and hence
> would not confiscate it on that basis from Sauron.
It is strongly asserted that Ar-Pharazôn did /not/ know about the One
Ring (and, I'd say, probably nothing about Rings of Power at all, but
that point isn't made in the FAQ).
> 2). Ar-Pharazon may have felt no compunction to confiscate the, as
> he would have perceived it, normal ring that Sauron was wearing.
Aye, perhaps he "would not be so petty as to order his hostage stripped
of even a plain gold ring", as it is said.
> 3). The Ring might have been invisible, and hence Ar-Pharazon did
> not even know Sauron was wearing a ring.
This, of course, is compared to the Three, which did not make their
wearers invisible, but which were themselves invisible (until they lost
their powers).
> 4). Or Ar-Pharazon may have tried to confiscate it (still not
> knowing it was a Ring of Power) and Sauron used the power of
> the Ring to 'change his mind'.
Yes. I agree completely with Stan on the inference "then obviously no
mortal could take it from him."
> This is correct, yes?
That is how I read the FAQ as well (and, incidentally, how I interpret
the situation -- there is no clear answer, but if some speculations
must be given more weight than others, these seem the best candidates).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the
opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
- Niels Bohr
Tar-Elenion
Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid says...
> In message
> <news:MPG.1d30eec49...@news.comcast.giganews.com>
> Tar-Elenion <tar_e...@hotmail.com> enriched us with:
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> FAQ of the Rings, E8. "So why didn't Ar-Pharazôn take the Ring away
> from Sauron?"
> <http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-Pharazon>
>
> > The way I read your FAQ entry was that:
> > 1). Ar-Pharazon did not know about the Rings of Power, and hence
> > would not confiscate it on that basis from Sauron.
>
> It is strongly asserted that Ar-Pharazôn did /not/ know about the One
> Ring (and, I'd say, probably nothing about Rings of Power at all, but
> that point isn't made in the FAQ).
I inferred it from "The Elves had kept the whole matter of the Rings a
close secret...".
>
> > 2). Ar-Pharazon may have felt no compunction to confiscate the, as
> > he would have perceived it, normal ring that Sauron was wearing.
>
> Aye, perhaps he "would not be so petty as to order his hostage stripped
> of even a plain gold ring", as it is said.
>
> > 3). The Ring might have been invisible, and hence Ar-Pharazon did
> > not even know Sauron was wearing a ring.
>
> This, of course, is compared to the Three, which did not make their
> wearers invisible, but which were themselves invisible (until they lost
> their powers).
>
> > 4). Or Ar-Pharazon may have tried to confiscate it (still not
> > knowing it was a Ring of Power) and Sauron used the power of
> > the Ring to 'change his mind'.
>
> Yes. I agree completely with Stan on the inference "then obviously no
> mortal could take it from him."
>
> > This is correct, yes?
>
> That is how I read the FAQ as well (and, incidentally, how I interpret
> the situation -- there is no clear answer, but if some speculations
> must be given more weight than others, these seem the best candidates).
--
Larry Swain
Mic...@xenite.org wrote:
> Steuard Jensen wrote on June 30:
>
>>Quoth Larry Swain <thesw...@operamail.com> in article
>
> <3LidnSHwANKb617fRVn...@rcn.net>:
>
>>>Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>Now, now Steuard.
>>
>>I don't have the time to respond to the lengthy discussion in this thread yet, but I
>>thought I'd point out that the previous post was written by Christopher Kreuzer, not by
>>me. :)
>
>
> That has always been Larry's problem. Even when you put the facts
> clearly in front of him, he still sees only the nonsense in his mind.
Non sequitur Michael....do try and use valid reasoning, will ya ol' boy?
>
> There is no point in following up to his every little rant. He
> couldn't get the facts straight if you laid them out for him without
> ever letting him touch them.
Damn, Michael, your penchant for projection is worrisome....best see the
doctor for some medication.
>
> But you, Steuard, should just post the new FAQ entry so that the
> groaning can start and people here can start coping with reality.
Ah yes, how predictable.
Larry Swain
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>>Mic...@xenite.org wrote:
>>
>>>Christopher Kreuzer wrote on June 29:
>>>
>>>
>>>>OK, let's try one more time...
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>So, you're wrong here, too.
>>
>>No, he's absolutely right.
>
>
> Thanks, Larry.
>
> Just want to clear up a few points of confusion. Nothing to do with the
> arguments in the thread as such, but more the names being thrown around.
>
> <snip>
>
>>The term I think Conrad was looking for was morphology
>
>
> You are really confusing me (and yourself it seems) here.
Not really. Just not keeping track of who the poster is carefully
enough, but keeping track of the ideas expressed. Sorry to misidentify you.
>
> <snip>
>
> [usage of 'Uruk-hai']
>
>
>>Nor does the narrative voice use the name with
>>
>>>reference to any other group of Uruks.
>>
>>The narrative voice NEVER uses it. Ever.
>
>
> Well, technically speaking the term is used in the narrative voice here:
>
> "No hours so dark had Pippin known, not even in the clutches of the
> Uruk-hai." (The Siege of Gondor)
I guess I've always put that down to being Pippin's thoughts, rather
than the narrative voice. ONe could quibble.
>
> And I'm not even going to get started on whether the use of 'Uruk-hai'
> in the chapter title counts as narrative voice. If I had to say what
> that was, I'd call it the authorial voice.
So would I, which is why I think it important to note that there are
orcs from Moria, MOrdor, and Isengard there and that M&P open the
chapter in the hands of Mordor orcs, and in the end of the chapter have
just escaped the clutches of a Mordor orc, its only the inbetween stuff
of running through Rohan where they are in the hands of the
Isengarders---and not in any immediate danger as they are at the
beginning and the end. So it makes more sense to me if the chapter
title, the authorial voice, refers not just to Isengarders, but to those
who threaten the safety of the heroes of the chapter: that would be both
Isengarders and Mordor soldier-orcs.
> Oh, and before I forget, a note for Tar-Elenion. I've been largely
> following this thread, rather than the other one ("What is the
> difference between orcs and goblins"). But I've just got around to
> reading that thread, and I was rather taken aback to find your
> (Tar-Elenion's) posting of an old essay (which I'd never read before) on
> this Uruks/Uruk-hai issue. I was taken aback because it rather cogently
> presented many of the arguments I'd had been making (based on reading
> the initial Jensen-Martinez discussion in that thread), so it looks like
> I've been re-inventing the wheel, so to speak! But it was also pleasing
> to realise that it is possible to independently make the same arguments
> from the same texts.
I like Tar's essay when he first wrote it and thought it needed a wider
audience even then.
Larry Swain
Mic...@xenite.org wrote:
> Steuard Jensen wrote:
>
>>Once I have your comments in hand, I'll edit the document and re-post
>>it. Hopefully, not too many repetitions will be necessary before you
>>feel that the "Uruk-hai = Isengarders" position has been presented
>>fairly. At this point, I'm still not sure whether I will try to make
>>the overall document a totally neutral summary (which could be a lot
>>of work, given the strength of my opinion on this question) or whether
>>I will go ahead and draw my own conclusions at the end.
>
>
> You present the FAQ as an authoritative and neutral source of
> information. If you have no intention of making it a neutral document,
> even on one question, then you need to change your description of the
> FAQ to explain that it is biased and does NOT attempt to represent
> positions on the various questions neutrally and fairly.
>
>
>>...But in either case, I will make my own position in the debate very
>>clear from the start so that readers will recognize that potential
>>bias as they go.
>
>
> That is insufficient. See above.
So Michael, are you going to change some of your materials too to
reflect that others have a different view?
>
>
>>And even if I do claim at the end that I believe the evidence supports
>>"my side", I will make it clear that you don't agree (assuming that
>>neither of us has changed our positions by then!).
>
>
> That is insufficient.
>
> If you're going to promote your FAQ across the Internet the way you
> have been recently, you need to be as fair and unbiased as you possibly
> can be.
>
> Put YOUR personal views in a totally separate document.
Larry Swain
Tamim wrote:
> In alt.fan.tolkien ste...@nomail.com wrote:
>
>>In rec.arts.books.tolkien Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>>Does everyone out there think that this general approach is
>>>reasonable? If not, how would you change it?
>
>
>>> Steuard Jensen
>
>
>>It is overly reasonable. :) Feeling obligated to change
>>the FAQ based on the objections of a single individual
>>seems like a dangerous precedent. Given that your FAQ
>>is entitled "Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ" you could instead
>>rely on the general consensus of the newsgroup.
To Steuard: I think there are a lot of people who take it as Michael
does on the first reading and have never thought about it beyond that.
There should be a change in the FAQ to address and outline reasons why
that reading exists, though I would give no credence to MM's
interpretation of the tracker scene.
>
> Whatever MM is, he is at least not just any individual. I think it is
> pretty much a consensus that he is one of the biggest experts on
> Tolkien in the newsgroups.
Not by a long shot. I don't know whose consense you're referring to
here, Tamim. Frankly, I'd take Conrad, Stueard, Chrisopher K, Troels,
FotW, Stan from this group, Helen from teh Tolkien Society, Carl
Hofstetter, Wayne Hammond who occasionally reads this group and posts,
and others over MM anyday. That isn't to say MM doesn't know a lot
about the texts, but that he is "one of the biggest experts" just isn't
true.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip list>
> That isn't to say MM doesn't know a lot about the texts, but that
> he is "one of the biggest experts" just isn't true.
Hey! You left out yourself! :-)
And quite a few other names besides. I'm not going to trot out a list,
but I will just say that IMO (very humble) your list is incomplete, and
I would still include MM in it.
And in any case, authority and status matter not a whit if someone
advances arguments that are rubbish or unsupported by the texts.
Troels Forchhammer
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
"Experts on Tolkien"
> And quite a few other names besides. I'm not going to trot out a
> list, but I will just say that IMO (very humble) your list is
> incomplete, and I would still include MM in it.
I agree on all counts.
> And in any case, authority and status matter not a whit if someone
> advances arguments that are rubbish or unsupported by the texts.
And one must obviously make a distinction between being an expert in
the actual texts, and having the capability to reach logical
conclusions from them. The two do not always accompany each other, and
no-one is capable of always being 'correct' (in the sense of supporting
the hypothesis that is most strongly confirmed by the textual
evidence).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Ash nazg durbatuluk,
ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk
agh burzum ishi krimpatul.
- Tolkien in The Fellowship of the Ring
Larry Swain
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip list>
>
>>That isn't to say MM doesn't know a lot about the texts, but that
>>he is "one of the biggest experts" just isn't true.
>
>
> Hey! You left out yourself! :-)
You flatter me too much. Quite aside from both the very good, and good
natured discussions I've, as well as the more acrimonious discussions
with various people, I've never ceased to be humbled by the denizens of
this group. As soon as I think I know something and get big for the
britches re: Tolkien, someone in this group will be sure to put me in my
place---painful at times, but in the end always appreciated. But thanks
for the compliment anyway.
>
> And quite a few other names besides.
All too true, the list was not nearly complete enough, apologies to
those I left out!
I'm not going to trot out a list,
> but I will just say that IMO (very humble) your list is incomplete, and
> I would still include MM in it.
=
Oh, I would to. Don't mistake me on that. My objection was mostly to
the superlative "biggest", and the conclusion drawn from it.
All the best,
Larry Swain
Steuard Jensen
present the "Uruk-hai = Isengarders" position fairly, those statements
have not yet been checked over by anyone on that side of the debate.
Given that I disagree with many of that side's claims and conclusions,
it is naturally rather difficult for me to present them properly. So
if they are not yet a fair portrayal of that position, please let me
know! I'm sure that a reasonable amount of editing will be required.
Also, if anyone knows of evidence that I've left out or of significant
arguments or counter-arguments on either side that I haven't
mentioned, I'm eager to incorporate that, too. Again, let me know.
It may take a few days, but I want to get this right.
"Uruk-hai" and "Uruks": Is There a Difference?
by Steuard Jensen
(First posted 4 July 2005)
Introduction
There has been considerable debate at times over the precise meaning
of the term "Uruk-hai" in Tolkien's books. Appendix F of LotR tells
us that
"the word /uruk/ of the Black Speech... was applied as a rule only
to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and
Isengard."
So what is the word for a group of more than one Uruk? Two terms are
used in Tolkien's works: "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai". But are they
synonymous, or does "Uruk-hai" refer to one specific "tribe" of Uruks?
Everyone seems to agree that when the race of Uruks first appeared
(not long before TA 2475), the two terms were probably equivalent.
But regarding usage at the time of LotR there are two basic
positions, whose essential claims are as follows:
<UH=U>: "Uruk-hai = Uruks".
As the terms are used by the characters in LotR, "Uruk-hai"
and "Uruks" are entirely equivalent. The former is a Black
Speech plural and the latter is an English one. The choice of
which term to use may depend on the speaker's native tongue,
personal experience, or other factors, but not on meaning.
<UH=I>: "Uruk-hai = Isengarders".
As the terms are used by the characters in LotR, all Uruk-hai
are Uruks, but not all Uruks are Uruk-hai. The Uruk-hai are a
specific group of Uruks who live in Isengard and serve
Saruman.
Some "hybrid" positions might also be possible (perhaps the
Isengarders had started using the name "Uruk-hai" for their own
"tribe", but the Uruks of Mordor still used it as a general term), but
such positions have not been common in newsgroup debates thus far.
[An amusing way to put the two positions in more familiar terms is to
use a set of alternative definitions. Take "Uruk" to mean "Major
League Baseball Player" and "Isengarders" to mean "Chicago White Sox".
The question is then whether "Uruk-hai" means <UH=U>: "Major Leaguers"
or <UH=I>: "White Sox". This is mostly just for fun, but it can be
helpful at times. And yes, I'm mildly embarrassed to be using a
sports analogy, but it fits reasonably well.]
In the recent newsgroup debate that inspired this essay, the leading
advocate of <UH=I> has been Michael Martinez, and I have been one
leading advocate of <UH=U>. Michael has presented a summary of the
debate and of the <UH=I> position in a newsgroup post with Message-ID:
<1119982731.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.arts.books.tolkien/msg/137fe767fe6c9afe
That post and its followups, together with the earlier thread
beginning with Message-ID:
<1119478760.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.tolkien/msg/0021b0350ea39401
is a good source to see the arguments firsthand.
The <UH=I> position statement above and many of the arguments below
are based very closely on statements by Michael in those threads (with
his permission). The <UH=U> statement and arguments are primarily my
own, but I am grateful to many knowledgeable people in the Tolkien
newsgroups and elsewhere for great contributions to my understanding
of this question. If my summaries below are in any way inaccurate as
compared with the original statements of either side, I apologize
profusely; please let me know, and I will be sure to fix them in any
future version of this essay.
The Evidence
The only way to decide between these competing positions is to compare
them with the evidence in Tolkien's writings. I have attempted to
collect all of the available evidence here, and have labeled the
individual examples A, B, C, .... For each piece of evidence, I
attempt to address three questions:
1. If <UH=U> were true, how naturally would this example fit?
2. If <UH=I> were true, how naturally would this example fit?
3. If this were the *only* evidence, which position would it favor?
Rather than giving direct answers to the first two questions, I will
simply explain what each quote means from the given perspective and
list some possible inconsistencies (often raised as objections by the
other side) and the corresponding counterarguments. Readers can judge
how naturally the evidence fits each position for themselves. The
third question is clearly related to the first two, but even when both
<UH=U> and <UH=I> are perfectly sensible one or the other could be a
more likely first impression.
Before going into detail, here is a list of the evidence to be
considered. Many of the list items are collections of similar
passages in the books; I have sorted the list in the order in which
people are most likely to encounter the first example in their reading
of Tolkien. Because this ordering gives no indication of which
evidence is most important, I have labeled points which I personally
consider to be the most significant (for either side) with a '*'.
A. "Black Uruks of Mordor": Gandalf in Moria, and other uses.
*B. "The fighting Uruk-hai": Isengarders speak of themselves.
C. "Uruk-hai of Isengard": Ugluk to Grishnakh.
D. "Always the poor Uruks": Shagrat and Gorbag's conversation.
E. "Clutches of the Uruk-hai": Pippin in Minas Tirith.
*F. "A pack of rebel Uruk-hai": the tracking Orcs in Mordor.
G. "Snaga" and the Uruk-hai: "Orcs and the Black Speech" in App. F.
H. "Olog-hai" and "Oghor-hai": translating "-hai" as "folk".
I. "A figure of speech": Urukhai [sic] and Uruks in Letter #78.
*J. "Anglicized form": the UT index entry for "Uruks".
And now, on to the specifics.
A. "Black Uruks of Mordor": Gandalf in Moria, and other uses.
When the Fellowship is about to be attacked in the Chamber of
Mazarbul in Moria, Gandalf looks out and reports on their enemies:
"'There are Orcs, very many of them,' he said. 'And some are
large and evil: black Uruks of Mordor.'"
As readers, this is our first encounter with Uruks. Frodo and Sam
also meet Orcs in Mordor who the narrator describes as Uruks. As
the hobbits are about to be mistaken for Orcs themselves, we read:
"They were a gang of the smaller breeds being driven unwilling
to their Dark Lord's wars... Beside them, running up and down
the line, went two of the large fierce /uruks/, cracking lashes
and shouting."
And later, their escape is made possible when
"A troop of heavy-armed /uruks/ from Barad-dur charged into the
Durthang line and threw them into confusion."
The first appearance of Uruks is described when Appendix A.I.iv
discusses the Stewards:
"In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs
of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475
they swept across Ithilien and took Osgiliath."
And the appearance of Saruman's troops in Rohan is mentioned when
Appendix A.II introduces the Third Line of the Kings of the Mark.
Around TA 2989,
"Orcs began to raid in the eastern regions and slay or steal
horses. Others also came down from the Misty Mountains, many
being great uruks in the service of Saruman, though it was long
before that was suspected."
With one exception discussed later (in point D), I believe that
those are all of the uses of "Uruks" in LotR. (If not, it's at
least a representative sample.)
On to those three questions:
1. If <UH=U> were known to be true, no special reasoning needs to
be done to explain these quotes. Gandalf and the narrator are
using the Common Tongue, represented here as English. This is
the native language of the narrator and well-known to Gandalf,
so it is reasonable for them to use the English-style plural.
2. If <UH=I> were known to be true, no special reasoning needs to
be done to explain these quotes. But it may be noteworthy that
the vast majority of these examples (including all of those in
the main text) refer to Orcs from Mordor rather than Isengard.
This would be expected if the Isengarders were often called by a
more specific name instead.
3. If this were the only evidence, it wouldn't favor *either*
position: these are quotes where "Uruk-hai" isn't mentioned at
all. All that this tells us is that there were Uruks in the
service of both Mordor and Isengard.
B. "The fighting Uruk-hai": Isengarders speak of themselves.
Chapter 3 of Book III is entitled "The Uruk-hai", which clearly
refers to some subset of the Orcs who are holding Merry and Pippin
captive. Ugluk soon introduces his troops:
"I don't trust you little swine. ... But for us you'd all have
run away. We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great
warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman
the Wise...".
Later, when debating who will watch over the prisoners, he says
"Leave them to me then! ... Let the fighting Uruk-hai do the
work, as usual."
The Orcs of Isengard use the term again in "Helm's Deep", when
Aragorn looks out over the wall to see the dawn. They say,
"Bring out your king! We are the fighting Uruk-hai. We will
fetch him from his hole, if he does not come."
and later,
"Why do you look out? Do you wish to see the greatness of our
army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai."
and
"We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or
day, for fair weather or for storm."
With one exception (discussed in point C below), I believe that
these are all of the times that the term "Uruk-hai" appears in
these two chapters.
1. If <UH=U> were known to be true, there is again no special
reasoning required to explain these quotes. In each case,
essentially the only Uruks present were Isengarders (Grishnakh
was present for the first quote and he may have been an Uruk,
but the vast majority of other Orcs present were the smaller
Northerners). Orcs' native tongues seem to be dialects of the
Black Speech, so although they were using the Common Tongue it
is not surprising for them to use the Black Speech plural rather
than the Anglicized one.
It may also be notable that the term "Uruk-hai" is never used in
these chapters by anyone but Ugluk himself. When one of
Pippin's guards complains about his orders, he says (in the
Common Tongue), "Curse the Isengarders!" And when the narrator
refers to the different Orc tribes in Chapter 3, they are always
called "Isengarders", "Orcs of Mordor" or "soldiers of Mordor",
and "Northerners", never "Uruk-hai".
2. If <UH=I> were known to be true, there is once again no special
reasoning required to explain these quotes. The Isengarders
routinely identify themselves as "the Uruk-hai" or "the fighting
Uruk-hai", and they clearly take great personal pride in the
name. Indeed, <UH=I> claims that these examples clearly and
fully establish "Uruk-hai" as a tribal name.
An objection is sometimes raised that the Isengarders almost
always use the full phrase "fighting Uruk-hai" to identify
themselves, the suggestion being that "Uruk-hai" is a general
racial name and that the modifier "fighting" designates their
particular tribe. But there is no real evidence for such an
interpretation, and "fighting" seems like an unlikely term to
single out one particular group of Uruks (all of whom were
soldiers). Also, if "fighting" were part of a tribal name, it
would presumably be capitalized as a proper noun.
3. If this were the only evidence, I think that most people would
agree that <UH=I> was the natural conclusion. (I've heard from
at least one reader who didn't get that impression, but it is my
impression that most people do.)
C. "Uruk-hai of Isengard": Ugluk to Grishnakh.
In "The Uruk-hai", after Grishnakh returns with forty other Orcs of
Mordor to watch over the prisoners, Ugluk says,
"But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty
work, as usual."
1. If <UH=U> were known to be true, then it is important that Ugluk
adds the qualifier "of Isengard" here. The "soldiers of Mordor"
that Grishnakh has brought are very likely Uruks, so Ugluk now
has to specify which group of Uruk-hai he's talking about.
2. If <UH=I> were known to be true, there's still nothing here that
needs to be explained; it's yet another example of Ugluk using
the name of his tribe. Some have objected that "Uruk-hai of
Isengard" would be redundant under <UH=I>, but such usage is not
at all uncommon in ordinary English: "Chicago White Sox" is
redundant in exactly the same way, and it's used all the time.
3. If this were the only evidence, it could easily be read either
way and hence wouldn't favor either side.
D. "Always the poor Uruks": Shagrat and Gorbag's conversation.
In "The Choices of Master Samwise", Sam hears Gorbag talking to
Shagrat about things going wrong in Mordor:
"Something nearly slipped, you say. I say, something /has/
slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to
put slips right, and small thanks."
It seems clear from this context that he is using the word "Uruks"
to refer to himself and Shagrat.
1. If <UH=U> were known to be true, this quote would require some
explanation. Shagrat and Gorbag speak the Black Speech (or a
dialect of it) as their native tongue, so we would guess that
like the Isengarders, they would use the word "Uruk-hai" rather
than "Uruks" to refer to their race. However, it is possible
(though certainly never directly implied) that they did!
The quote above is what Sam understood the Orcs to be saying,
but although the text is in English they were not actually
speaking the Common Tongue. When Sam put on the Ring earlier in
the chapter, we read that
"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."
So the Orcs were speaking their own language, and the text above
is Sam's "translation". We have no idea what word Gorbag used
that Sam understood as "Uruks", but *if* <UH=U> were known to be
true, the natural conclusion would be that it was "Uruk-hai".
In any case, Gorbag almost certainly did not actually say
"Uruks", which we only see used as a Common Speech word.
2. If <UH=I> were known to be true, this quote would require no
special explanation. The "translation" issue discussed above
implies that we do not know what word Gorbag actually used, but
there would be no reason to think that he said "Uruk-hai".
3. If this were the only evidence and the "translation" issue was
not taken into account, it would be a strong indication that
unlike Ugluk, Gorbag called his race (and Shagrat's) "Uruks",
not "Uruk-hai". Hence, it would favor <UH=I>. But once the
implications of Sam's "translation" are taken into account, this
passage doesn't seem to give evidence for either side.
E. "Clutches of the Uruk-hai": Pippin in Minas Tirith.
When Pippin is waiting on Denethor while Faramir lies sick, we read
that
"No hours so dark had Pippin known, not even in the clutches of
the Uruk-hai."
1. If <UH=U> were known to be true, this might be mildly
surprising: the native language of both Pippin and the narrator
is the Common Tongue, so one might have expected "Uruks" to have
been used here.
However, within the story Pippin has only heard the word "Uruks"
used once (by Gandalf), but he has heard "Uruk-hai" used many
times by Ugluk. (A word for a specific Orc breed probably was
not often used in the Shire.) So the Black Speech term might be
more familiar to him, especially when thinking about his time as
a captive. The narrator's use of the term could thus be
referring to Pippin's own usage while describing his internal
mood. It could also have been a reference back to the chapter
title for the benefit of the readers.
But in any case, the only issue for <UH=U> is one of *likely*
usage. The meaning of the quote is not in doubt, as the terms
are taken to be equivalent.
2. If <UH=I> were known to be true, this would require no special
explanation. The reference is to Pippin's captivity under the
control of the Isengarders, so the term "Uruk-hai" is used.
Some have occasionally objected that Pippin was at one point
literally "in the clutches" of Grishnakh, who was not an
Isengarder. But the intent here is clearly to refer to the
whole experience, in which the Isengarders were in charge
throughout. After all, Pippin also spent a considerable time
"in the clutches" of the Northerners before the Isengarders took
over the prisoners, and they weren't Uruks at all. So this is
not a valid objection to <UH=I>.
3. If this were the only evidence, it might favor <UH=I>, but not
strongly so.
F. "A pack of rebel Uruk-hai": the tracking Orcs in Mordor.
When Frodo and Sam are making their way north from Cirith Ungol,
they are almost overtaken by a pair of Orcs who have been tracking
them. One was "of a small breed, black-skinned, with wide and
snuffling nostrils: evidently a tracker of some kind. The other
was a big fighting-orc, like those of Shagrat's company". The
hobbits hide and overhear them: "being of different breeds they
used the Common Speech after their fashion." The tracker complains
that he's lost the scent (which he says "went up into the hills").
Then we read:
"'Not much use are you, you little snufflers?' said the big
orc. 'I reckon eyes are better than your snotty noses.'
"'Then what have you seen with them?' snarled the other. 'Garn!
You don't even know what you're looking for.'
"'Whose blame's that?' said the soldier. 'Not mine. That comes
from Higher Up. 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.'
"'Ar!' said the tracker. 'They've lost their heads, that what
it is. And some of the bosses are going to lose their skins
too, I guess, if what I hear is true: Tower raided and all, and
hundreds of your lads done in, and prisoner got away.'"
The trackers have been following Frodo and Sam's trail from Cirith
Ungol (primarily by smell, it seems), and the big soldier lists
what he has been told to look for by the bosses "Higher Up". The
point relevant to us, of course, is that one of the possibilities
in the list is "a pack of rebel Uruk-hai".
1. If <UH=U> is assumed to be true, this full list corresponds
closely to Shagrat's likely report of the events at Cirith
Ungol.
* The possibility that a "great Elf" was involved was first
raised by Gorbag in "The Choices of Master Samwise". After
observing that someone had cut Shelob's cords on Frodo and that
"No one, /no/ one has ever stuck a pin in Shelob before," he
says that
"there's someone loose hereabouts as is more dangerous than
any other damned revel that ever walked since the bad old
times, since the Great Siege... 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."
Later, in "The Tower of Cirith Ungol" as Sam searches for Frodo,
the Orc whom Shagrat calls "Snaga" meets Sam on the stairs:
"It stopped short aghast. 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."
When Snaga runs back up the stairs, Sam even yells, "The
Elf-warrior is loose!" Snaga reports back to Shagrat that
"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's got past the Watchers, and that's /tark's/ work. He's
on the stairs."
When Shagrat finally encounters Sam himself, Sam
"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."
So Shagrat has good reason to report that an Elf warrior had
been present in Cirith Ungol. As for the "bright armour",
Shagrat took Frodo's mithril coat with him, and it would not
have been unreasonable to assume that the great Elf's armor was
just as good.
* The reason to search for a "small dwarf-man" is obvious: that
clearly describes Frodo, the prisoner who has escaped.
* So what of the "pack of rebel Uruk-hai"? Under <UH=U>, both
Shagrat and Gorbag's troops could be called "Uruk-hai". In "The
Tower of Cirith Ungol", Shagrat calls Gorbag a "rebel" when
complaining about his knife wound:
"The Black Pits take that filthy rebel Gorbag!"
And he blames Gorbag for the conflict in the first place:
"It was Gorbag started it, trying to pinch that pretty
shirt."
When Sam eventually goes to find disguises for himself and
Frodo, he recognizes that
"'The Morgul-stuff, Gorbag's gear, was a better fit and
better made,' said Sam; 'but it wouldn't do, I guess, to go
carrying his tokens into Mordor, not after this business
here.'"
Sam clearly expects forces in Mordor to soon be on the lookout
for any of Gorbag's troops. Finally, Shagrat had reason to
suspect that some of Gorbag's troops had escaped the tower and
might be at large. Snaga said to him that
"I've told you twice that Gorbag's swine got to the gate
first, and none of ours got out. Lagduf and Muzgash ran
through, but they were shot. I saw it from a window, I tell
you. And they were the last."
So as far as Shagrat knows, some of Gorbag's troops may have
gotten out through the gate. In fact, he may have thought that
very likely: Snaga reported that Gorbag's archers had been there
after the last of Shagrat's troops were killed, but no archers
were left to stop Shagrat when he left himself.
With all that in mind, it seems likely that the Orcs searching
for those escaping from Cirith Ungol would have been ordered to
watch for any of Gorbag's troops who might have escaped. And
under <UH=U>, it sounds like that's exactly what happened: the
bosses "Higher Up" ordered the tracking soldier to look for "a
pack of rebel Uruk-hai".
2. If <UH=I> is assumed to be true, then the list of people to
search for is not so closely linked to Shagrat's experience at
Cirith Ungol. The "small dwarf-man" is still almost certainly
the missing hobbit prisoner, and the "great Elf" may still have
been inspired by Sam as described above.
Finally, under <UH=I> the bosses "Higher Up" have ordered the
Orcs following Frodo and Sam's trail to look for a pack of rebel
Isengarders, possibly together with the others. To quote
Michael Martinez's arguments for <UH=I> directly,
"The Uruk and the tracker are conveying to the reader the
fact that they (and their superiors) are confused about what
is going on. Hence, their suppositions don't have to make
sense to the reader, who only needs to know that Frodo's
purpose has not yet been discovered."
In any case, according to <UH=I> the earlier usage of "Uruk-hai"
and "Uruks" has already made their distinct meaning clear. To
quote Michael Martinez again,
"Tolkien has, by the time the reader reaches this point in
the book, clearly and fully established that the Uruk-hai
come from Isengard (just as he has clearly and fully
established that the Hobbits come from the Shire, and the
Elves come from places like the Grey Havens, Rivendell,
Lothlorien, and northern Mirkwood)."
The <UH=U> side often objects that this argument essentially
means choosing one answer and refusing to consider further
evidence: one could similarly conclude after the first few
chapters of LotR that all hobbits come from the Shire, and then
refuse to accept that any hobbits live in Bree (or elsewhere).
But <UH=I> counters that the presence of hobbits in Bree is
discussed very clearly by the narrator, not simply suggested by
a passing comment like this use of "Uruk-hai". As Michael
Martinez puts it,
"It is precisely because all previous uses have been applied
to the Isengarders that the average reader must be given
explicit clarification if the new use has a different
application.
"That is, it is incumbent upon the author himself to provide
the reader with a clear context which says, 'THIS use of
"uruk-hai" is different from all previous uses.'"
At any rate, the main objection of <UH=U> to the <UH=I>
interpretation here is simply that it seems extremely unlikely.
Why would the bosses "Higher Up" in Mordor think that a group of
Isengarders was in Mordor? <UH=I> responds that Sauron knew
that hobbits had been captured by Saruman's Orcs and taken
toward Isengard, but that he had no idea what had happened to
them later. Michael Martinez summarizes the <UH=I> reading as
follows:
"Sauron knew that the Uruk-hai had captured one or more
Hobbits, and he knew they had been ordered to take the
captive(s) to Mordor but had refused.
"So, the supposition that "a pack of rebel Uruk-hai" have
shown up with a "dwarf-man" captive is not unreasonable.
After all, the Uruk-hai have been defeated in Rohan and at
Isengard. Sauron KNOWS that Isengard has been lost. He just
doesn't know what has become of the captive(s) (one of which
he has confronted through the Palantir)."
Still, <UH=U> insists that this leaves several crucial questions
unanswered. Why would the Isengarders be bringing a hobbit
prisoner to Mordor? If they were planning to turn him over to
Sauron (either on some new orders from Saruman or in rebellion
against him), why would they not have delivered him to Sauron's
border guards at Minas Morgul? Michael Martinez answers,
"The suggestion that 'a pack of rebel Uruk-hai' should check
in to Minas Morgul is ridiculous because they are declared to
be 'rebel Uruk-hai'."
But then the question from <UH=U> remains, if they weren't
planning to give the prisoner to Sauron's forces, what were they
doing in Mordor? Michael Martinez continues,
"While Sauron might have enough information to speculate they
were bringing Pippin to Mordor, that speculation doesn't have
to make sense."
The <UH=U> position is that while we should not expect to
understand the thinking of the bosses "Higher Up" in Mordor in
any detail, their guesses should at least be plausible, and that
a pack of Isengarders sneaking a valuable prisoner into Mordor
for no discernible reason is not. <UH=I> clearly disagrees.
Even setting aside the question of the Isengarders' motive,
<UH=U> still has doubts about this scenario. The order to
search for rebel Uruk-hai was clearly associated with the search
for people escaping from Cirith Ungol. But Shagrat's garrison
kept a careful watch on the pass: they were aware of someone
fighting with Shelob, and they had even been aware of Gollum.
In "The Choices of Master Samwise", Shagrat tells Gorbag:
"We were awake all right. We knew there were funny things
going on. ...lights and shouting and all. But Shelob was on
the go. My lads saw her and her Sneak."
Moreover, Shagrat's patrol met Gorbag's along the path, trapping
Sam between them. So with such vigilance, how could a whole
"pack" of Isengarders have made it through totally unnoticed?
From the <UH=U> perspective, the bosses "Higher Up" not only had
no reason to think that there were Isengarders in Mordor, they
had reason not to: if any had tried to come in, they would have
been seen.
The <UH=I> response is the same as before. Because Mordor knew
that Isengarders had taken some hobbits prisoner, the presence
of a hobbit was sufficient reason to search for Isengarders as
well. And in the end, the speculations of the bosses "Higher
Up" doesn't need to make sense to the reader: the purpose of
this scene is simply to show that the "Higher Ups" have not
figured out Frodo's purpose in Mordor.
3. If this were the *only* evidence, the natural reading would be
that Gorbag's troops were being called "Uruk-hai". Thus, it
would favor <UH=U>.
G. "Snaga" and the Uruk-hai: "Orcs and the Black Speech" in App. F.
Under "Of Other Races", Appendix F.I includes a section entitled
"Orcs and the Black Speech". It begins with the following
paragraph:
"Orc is the form of the name that other races had for this foul
people as it was in the language of Rohan. In Sindarin it was
/orch/. 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-hai,
/snaga/ 'slave'."
(The essay "Quendi and Eldar" in /The War of the Jewels/ includes
comments on the etymology of /uruk/ and related words. That
section includes a statement similar to the one in Appendix F:
"The word /uruk/ that occurs in the Black Speech... referred,
however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the
regiments of Mordor. Lesser breeds seem to have been called
/snaga/.")
To understand the final sentence of the Appendix F quote above, it
can be helpful to collect the uses of the word "snaga" in the text
of the book. The first comes in "The Uruk-hai", as Ugluk addresses
his troops' concerns:
"'I know,' growled Ugluk. 'The cursed horse-boys have got wind
of us. But that's all your fault, Snaga. You and the other
scouts ought to have your ears cut off. But we are the
fighters. We'll feast on horseflesh yet, or something better.'"
The second use of "snaga" is by Shagrat, responding to his lone
remaining companion's refusal to go back down the stairs in "The
Tower of Cirith Ungol":
"'You won't go again, you say? Curse you, Snaga, you little
maggot!'"
After that, the name "Snaga" is used repeatedly by the narrator in
that chapter to refer to the smaller Orc. The first example is
after Shagrat speaks of new Orcs coming to the tower:
"'They won't come, not before you're dead anyway,' answered
Snaga surlily."
So Ugluk and Shagrat both use the term "Snaga" to refer to their
smaller comrades (and the narrator picks up that usage in the
latter case), one time each. We do not see any examples of "lesser
kinds" of Orcs or other speakers of Black Speech dialects talking
about "lesser" Orcs, so it is impossible to judge how often those
speakers would have used the term.
1. If <UH=U> were known to be true, this would not require special
explanation. The final sentence in the App. F quote above would
be interpreted more precisely as
"The lesser kinds [of Orcs] were called, [by Orcs and
possibly other Black Speech speakers but] especially by the
Uruk-hai, /snaga/ 'slave'."
An objection is sometimes raised that this sentence should
actually be interpreted as
"The lesser kinds [of Orcs] were called, [by the Uruks but]
especially by the Uruk-hai, /snaga/ 'slave'."
Such a reading would imply that the Uruk-hai are distinct from
other Uruks. But most supporters of <UH=U> see no reason to
prefer this interpretation over the first one above, and in fact
consider it less natural. They believe that the sentence as
written is perfectly consistent with (for example) lesser kinds
of Orcs occasionally calling other lesser Orcs "snaga", or with
the Nazgul sometimes using that name.
In any case, we are told that the term "snaga" is used
especially by the Uruk-hai, and the two times it is used in
dialog the speakers are indeed Uruk-hai according to <UH=U>: one
from Isengard, one from Mordor.
2. If <UH=I> were known to be true, this would not require special
explanation. Both interpretations of the final sentence
discussed above are consistent with <UH=I>, and the second
interpretation (which at least one <UH=I> supporter considers to
be the natural one) supports this position directly.
As for the uses of the term "snaga", although Isengarders are
not seen using the term "especially" more than other Uruks, the
number of examples is too low for this to be a serious
objection.
3. If this were the only evidence, its implication would depend on
which interpretation of the final sentence one views as more
natural. If one reads that sentence as "...[by Uruks but]
especially by the Uruk-hai...", then it clearly favors <UH=I>.
On the other hand, if one reads it as "...[by Orcs and possibly
other Black Speech speakers but] especially by the Uruk-hai...",
then the equal usage of "snaga" by Isengarders and Mordor Orcs
would mildly favor <UH=U>.
H. "Olog-hai" and "Oghor-hai": translating "-hai" as "folk".
In Appendix F.I, there is also a section about "Trolls". It speaks
of a new troll-race that appeared at the end of the Third Age:
"Olog-hai they were called in the Black Speech."
And in the essay on "The Druedain" in /Unfinished Tales/, we read
that the Orcs feared the statues made by that people, because they
"believed them to be filled with the malice of the /Oghor-hai/
(for so they named the Druedain)".
These examples from the Third Age and the First, together with
"Uruk-hai" itself (which must have originated sometime shortly
before TA 2475), have led most linguists to conclude that the
suffix "-hai" was a collective plural in the Black Speech, meaning
something like "-folk".
1. If <UH=U> were known to be true, this would require no special
explanation. The word "Uruk-hai" would simply mean "Uruk-folk",
which could reasonably be shortened to "Uruks".
2. If <UH=I> were known to be true, the conclusion is that while
"Uruk-hai" may have originally meant simply "Uruk-folk", by the
end of the Third Age this particular collective term had evolved
to be a specific tribal name. As Michael Martinez points out,
"Tolkien frequently utilized tribal names which -- when
translated literally -- meant "the people", "the folk",
etc. The various Elven group names have similar meanings,
especially the words which various Avari groups used to refer
to themselves".
(This last point refers to an author's note in "Quendi and
Eldar" in /The War of the Jewels/.) Again in Michael's words,
"The fact that the literal meaning of "Uruk-hai" (in the
Black Speech) is "Orc-folk" has no bearing on the fact that
Tolkien only used it as a self-ascribed tribal name for the
Uruks of Isengard."
3. If this were the only evidence, it might mildly suggest that
"Uruk-hai" was still a general racial name by the end of the
Third Age just as "Olog-hai" was (and thus favor <UH=U>), but
only very weakly so.
I. "A figure of speech": Urukhai [sic] and Uruks in Letter #78.
In Letter #66, Tolkien wrote to his son Christopher who was in the
Royal Air Force in South Africa during World War II,
"Well, there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai."
(This seems to have been in response to Christopher "grousing"
about "life in camp".) This is clearly a reference to the chapter
"The Uruk-hai" in LotR, which Christopher had seen in draft form.
The more relevant quote for our discussion comes in Letter #78
(also to Christopher), in which Tolkien seems to be continuing a
discussion using that metaphor. He says that
"Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine
Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker".
(In both letters the spelling "Urukhai" is simply an artifact of
his convention at the time.)
1. If <UH=U> were known to be true, this example requires no
special explanation. It has been suggested in the past that
Tolkien was using the terms "Urukhai" and "Uruks"
interchangeably here; if that were true, it would be exactly
what <UH=U> would expect.
2. If <UH=I> were known to be true, this example requires no
special explanation. The Isengarders (Urukhai) are a subset of
Uruks, so the quote makes perfect sense. And even if Tolkien
were using the terms interchangeable here as some suggest, his
metaphorical comments need not have reflected the terms' usage
by characters in Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age.
3. If this were the only evidence, those who believe that Tolkien
was using the terms interchangeably here might lean toward
<UH=U>. But that reading is not certain, and even if it were
the evidence is not very strong.
J. "Anglicized form": the UT index entry for "Uruks".
The index to /Unfinished Tales/ gives a brief definition of the
term "Uruks" in its index entry. That entry reads in full:
"/Uruks/ Anglicized form of /Uruk-hai/ of the Black Speech; a
race of Orcs of great size and strength. 373-5, 377"
The page references are to the story "The Battles of the Fords of
Isen", which uniformly refers to Saruman's soldier Orcs as "Uruks".
1. If <UH=U> were known to be true, this example would need no
explanation at all: the definition in the index is a direct
statement of the usage advocated by <UH=U>.
2. If <UH=I> were known to be true, then this index entry must not
apply to the usage in LotR at all. It must apply only to the
use of the term "Uruks" in UT, where it is used exclusively to
refer to Isengarders. Thus, in UT and *only* in UT, "Uruks" is
used as an Anglicized form of "Uruk-hai".
A series of objections are often raised to this conclusion,
and they are generally answered as follows:
* If this were true and the information in the UT index applied
only in the specific context in which each term was used in
that book, that information would be all but useless in
Tolkien scholarship.
ANSWER: That may be so, but Christopher Tolkien was under no
obligation to write it in a particular way for fans'
convenience.
* In his introduction to the index, Christopher Tolkien writes
that
"The brief defining statements are not restricted to
matters actually mentioned in the book; and occasionally I
have added notes on the meaning of hitherto untranslated
names."
The first half of this statement seems to say directly that
the applicability of definitions in the index is not
restricted to their use in UT. At the very least, it makes it
clear that the UT index discusses matters beyond the scope of
the book. And while an "Anglicization" is not a translation,
it may well count as a "note on the meaning" of the names
"Uruks" and "Uruk-hai", which had not been translated before.
ANSWER: To quote Michael Martinez,
"Christopher's comment... in no way refers to the Uruks
entry. Nor does it universally encompass that entry
because there is nothing in it which refers to other texts.
That is, there is no other text where Tolkien has
Anglicized 'Uruk-hai' into Uruks, since he used the two
terms distinctively throughout /The Lord of the Rings/."
* In background on the essay "The Istari" given in the overall
introduction to UT, Christopher Tolkien discusses his father's
early efforts to produce an index to LotR:
"it seems that my father began to work on it in the summer
of 1954, after the first two volumes had gone to press. He
wrote of the matter in a letter of 1956: 'An index of names
was to be produced, which by etymological interpretation
would provide quite a large Elvish vocabulary. ...I worked
at it for months, and indexed the first two volumes (it was
the chief cause of the delay of Volume III), until it
became clear that size and cost were ruinous.'"
Christopher goes on to explain that his "father's original
rough draft" for the index "has been preserved", and that
"From it I derived the plan of my index to /The
Silmarillion/, with translation of names and brief
explanatory statements, and also, both there and in the
index to this book, some of the translations and the
wording of some of the 'definitions.'"
Because the words "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai" appear repeatedly in
the first two volumes of LotR, it seems very likely that they
were included in Tolkien's draft index. So it seems
reasonable to guess that Christopher Tolkien's definition of
"Uruks" in the UT index was in part "derived" from Tolkien's
own definition intended for an index to LotR.
ANSWER: There is no actual evidence for that guess. If <UH=I>
is seen as being fully established by the text of LotR itself,
that would be a strong indication that the guess is incorrect.
* The definition in the index entry could easily have mentioned
Isengard if the "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai" it discussed were
specifically associated with that fortress, to avoid precisely
this sort of confusion. That it gave a general-sounding
definition instead could suggest that it was not meant to be
limited in this way.
ANSWER: The context of "The Battles of the Fords of Isen"
already makes the specific reference to Isengarders clear. We
cannot expect that Christopher Tolkien could write the index
so as to avoid every conceivable confusion by fans.
* The index defines Uruks as "a race", not as "a tribe" or some
more specific unit. This might be surprising if the "Uruk-hai"
under discussion were a specific tribal group.
ANSWER: This is just nitpicking about wording. Even if there
were truth to the argument, we don't know how different the
Isengarders were from other Uruks; perhaps "race" is a
reasonable term.
3. If this were the only evidence, it would obviously lead people
to believe <UH=U>.
A Personal Conclusion
In the introduction and the discussion of the evidence above, I have
done my best to be impartial and to avoid favoring one side over the
other. This seems like the best way to collect information before
making a decision, and it is the only fair way to present the facts to
those who wish to make up their own minds.
However, as I made clear from the start, I do have a strong opinion on
this question myself. I certainly agree that most readers would come
away from the chapters "The Uruk-hai" and "Helm's Deep" with the
strong impression that <UH=I> was true.
However, first impressions are not always accurate. I do not believe
that there is any remotely plausible reason that the bosses "Higher
Up" in Mordor would have sent their search parties out looking for a
pack of Isengarders escaping from Cirith Ungol, for the reasons
discussed under point F above. On the other hand, I believe that the
identification of that hypothetical "pack of rebel Uruk-hai" with
Gorbag's troops is very natural, and very strong. This alone seems to
me to be reason to support <UH=U>, or at least to call <UH=I>
seriously into question.
The information in Appendix F is not nearly so strong, but some of it
does at least give an open-minded reader more reason to consider
<UH=U>. The equal use of "snaga" between Uruks of Isengard and Mordor
in the text mildly hints at <UH=U> as mentioned under point G. And
the introduction of the term "Olog-hai" for the new breed of trolls
opens the possibility that both names ending in "-hai" refer to whole
breeds, not to specific tribes.
Finally, I believe that the index entry in /Unfinished Tales/ firmly
settles the matter. I believe that Christopher Tolkien intended the
index to be a general resource for Tolkien scholarship, not a limited
guide to usage in UT whose statements are false (without warning) when
applied to the exact same terms as used in closely related texts. I
would believe this even if his introduction did not make it clear that
at least some entries had broader applicability, and even if he had
not cited his father's draft index for LotR as a source. I do not
believe that the counter-arguments to the <UH=U> reading of the index
entry or of Christopher Tolkien's statements are valid. Thus, I see
this index entry as the final proof of what was already implicit in
LotR itself: that "Uruk-hai" is equivalent to "Uruks", and that it is
not a specific name limited to Uruks from Isengard.
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
Quoth "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> in article
<dxuxe.60779$G8.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
> ...I was wondering if you still had the list of changes made in the
> other versions? Or at least the changes for the last few years? It
> is just that people can sometimes miss earlier changes, and it is
> tiresome, and nearly impossible, to read the whole FAQ again to work
> out what has changed.
Unfortunately, I don't have a list of the dates of changes over time.
I've started managing it with CVS in the past year or so, but that
falls far short of what you're looking for (even if I made the logs
public). In fact, I've started to feel that lack myself (and started
to recognize that the "changes" section really isn't that useful
except to people who read that far in the FAQ when it's posted to the
newsgroups every single month).
I've contemplated changes in the way I store information in the
FAQ-generating source file to include better date info, but I haven't
had anywhere near the time it would take to do it "right". And even
then, it would only help in the future, unless I went back to Google
and compiled all of the previous "changes" sections together,
including dates. (Anyone want to do so? :) )
Steuard Jensen
the softrat
(Steuard Jensen) wrote:
>
>"Uruk-hai" and "Uruks": Is There a Difference?
>
> by Steuard Jensen
>
>(First posted 4 July 2005)
>
Tolkien clearly.
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
_The_ morally smug elitist snob
(and 'insufferably arrogant', too)
Steuard Jensen
<Ogoye.5$45....@news.uchicago.edu>:
> Also, if anyone knows of evidence that I've left out or of significant
> arguments or counter-arguments on either side that I haven't
> mentioned, I'm eager to incorporate that, too.
Looks like I've found the first correction/addition myself. In the
evidence related to point G, regarding the paragraph about "uruks" and
"snaga" in Appendix F, I added a quote from /The War of the Jewels/ at
the last minute. But I forgot to include any discussion of it in the
arguments that followed! I've now added that, as follows:
(This is in "unidiff" format: lines beginning with "-" have been
removed and lines beginning with "+" have been added. A few
surrounding lines are provided for context.)
------- In the discussion of question 1: -------
of Orcs occasionally calling other lesser Orcs "snaga", or with
the Nazgul sometimes using that name.
+ The similar passage in /The War of the Jewels/ may indicate
+ which reading was intended here. That passage concerns words
+ in the Black Speech in general, not words used by Orcs or Uruks
+ in particular. Thus, it appears that "snaga" was a general
+ Black Speech word, which corresponds to the first interpretation
+ above.
+
In any case, we are told that the term "snaga" is used
especially by the Uruk-hai, and the two times it is used in
dialog the speakers are indeed Uruk-hai according to <UH=U>:
one
------- and in the discussion of question 3: -------
On the other hand, if one reads it as "...[by Orcs and possibly
other Black Speech speakers but] especially by the
Uruk-hai...",
then the equal usage of "snaga" by Isengarders and Mordor Orcs
- would mildly favor <UH=U>.
+ would mildly favor <UH=U>. If we take the /War of the Jewels/
+ evidence into account, the "other Black Speech speakers" reading
+ seems to be more likely.
------- -------
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
> I'm refining these Uruk-hai comments slightly, having realised that
> the emphasis should be on the following three simple conditions,
> which should successfully explain everything:
> (a) Uruk-hai is a term used by ORCS or those who learnt it from orcs.
> (b) Uruks is a term used by NON-ORCS or the narrative voice.
> (c) The use of Uruk-hai and its qualifiers depends on who is present.
>
> The corollary of (a) is that NO ORCS use the term Uruks.
[snip]
I like this discussion, and I agree that it does an admirable job of
explaining the observed usage of these terms. I've made some very
similar points in my exceedingly long essay posted last night, but I
think not so clearly. Having seen this, I may eventually adjust my
essay to take this approach more clearly. Thanks!
Steuard Jensen
Seymour C. Moore
news:Ogoye.5$45....@news.uchicago.edu:
> NOTE: This is a first draft.
[Huge snip]
Is there an abridged version? ;-)
C
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> I've contemplated changes in the way I store information in the
> FAQ-generating source file to include better date info, but I haven't
> had anywhere near the time it would take to do it "right". And even
> then, it would only help in the future, unless I went back to Google
> and compiled all of the previous "changes" sections together,
> including dates. (Anyone want to do so? :) )
Well, I personally can't do that right now! But I'm reassured to know
that your FAQ history could be extracted (kicking and screaming no
doubt) from Google if anyone was interested.
Just for the record, to make any such investigations easier, would you
be able to give a brief overview of when the major changes were made? I
believe you first brought out your FAQ in 1999, and incorporated several
FAQs into the Meta-FAQ at some point after that, but I'm not entirely
sure - I couldn't find this information on the Meta-FAQ pages.
http://tolkien.slimy.com/newsgroups/
I know that the Loos FAQs were last updated in 1996, but the link above
says that the Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ was last updated in October 2003.
Is this still correct?
Aha! This page has the information I was after:
Created 17 August 1999
Last updated 5 July 2005
And I've just remembered this message (2 March 2005, by Steuard Jensen):
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.tolkien/msg/8a33a3cadf2f26a6
...which has details of some of the FAQ histories.
Now there, you say that the Meta-FAQ was created 29 May 2002, and also
that your FAQ became stable at some indeterminate point after it was
created, but what I was wondering was if you can recall when any major
updates were made (as opposed to minor changes). Maybe a better way to
put this, to make it easier to excavate your FAQ history from Google,
would be to ask whether there were any long periods when no updates were
made? And when those periods were?
Oh, and has the posting frequency of the FAQ always been monthly? And
when did the FAQ notice posting start and was that always a four-day
posting frequency?
I think I've run out of questions now... :-)
Christopher Kreuzer
That's OK. You might also want to look at the essay Tar-Elenion posted
(or reposted - I'm not entirely clear) on 29 June 2005. He also
(independently) uses many of the same arguments, but there is at least
one extra bit about a possible link between Uruk-hai and "bad folk".
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.arts.books.tolkien/msg/ff00f7a6b6fe9f3d
Also slightly tangential to the main question is this post from 2 July
2005, where I consider which of the orcs we meet could be Uruks:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.arts.books.tolkien/msg/e04df7bbdcc7b92f