|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points
| Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70328] |
Di, 28 Juni 2005 20:18 |
|
Let's see if I can cover the most pertinent passages that people have
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70370 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 04:32 |
|
Michael [at] xenite.org <Michael [at] 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')
"...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
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70812 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 15:56 |
|
In article <1119982731.181524.270060 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<Michael [at] 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70814 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 17:51 |
|
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".
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70817 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 19:21 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote on June 28:
[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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70818 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 19:22 |
|
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.
That is the point. The news group regulars have decreed that Tolkien
is wrong and all Uruks are called Uruk-hai.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70820 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 19:35 |
|
Michael Urban engaged in the verbal equivalence bordering on ignorance
by writing on June 29:
> In article <1119982731.181524.270... [at] g14g=AD2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <Mich... [at] 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.co=ADm/search?r=3D2&q=3DAngl icize
>
> > 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', o=
r '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 igno=
rance.
Nope. Mr. Martinez was simply addressing a point raised by Steuard
Jensen.
See
( http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.arts.books.tolkien/m sg/53de490277d=
cb239?dmode=3Dsource&hl=3Den)
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 tha=
t 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 so=
mething 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70825 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 21:32 |
|
Michael [at] xenite.org wrote:
> 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
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70826 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 21:55 |
|
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Michelle J. Haines <mhaines_enigo [at] enigo.com> wrote:
> Michael [at] xenite.org wrote:
>> 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.
Quite correct, but M. Martinez thinks that the black speech was somehow
modified so that Sarumans orcs could monopolize the name Uruk-hai.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70827 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 22:12 |
|
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'".
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)
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70828 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 23:44 |
|
OK, let's try one more time...
Christopher Kreuzer <spamgard [at] 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
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70829 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 23:54 |
|
Michael [at] xenite.org <Michael [at] xenite.org> wrote:
> 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
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70830 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 23:54 |
|
Michael [at] xenite.org <Michael [at] xenite.org> wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote on June 28:
>
> [Considerable snippage for brevity]
<snip>
See other post.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70834 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 00:25 |
|
> "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')
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
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70835 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 00:26 |
|
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.
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).
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70836 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 00:28 |
|
Michelle J. Haines wrote on June 29:
>
> 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70837 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 00:29 |
|
Tamim wrote June 29:
> 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70839 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 00:31 |
|
Bruce Tucker wrote on June 29:
> 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70840 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 00:34 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote on June 29:
> Mich... [at] xenite.org <Mich... [at] xenite.org> wrote:
> > 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70842 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 00:46 |
|
On 29 Jun 2005 08:51:00 -0700, "Aurious" <theblackcygnus [at] msn.com>
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:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
At first there was nothing. Then God said 'Let there be light!'
Then there was still nothing. But you could see it.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70846 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 01:09 |
|
Michael [at] xenite.org <Michael [at] 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'?
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70847 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 01:16 |
|
In alt.fan.tolkien Christopher Kreuzer <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Michael [at] xenite.org <Michael [at] 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70849 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 01:38 |
|
Michael [at] xenite.org <Michael [at] xenite.org> wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote on June 29:
<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
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70850 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 01:48 |
|
Michael [at] xenite.org <Michael [at] xenite.org> wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote on June 29:
<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?
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70855 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 02:24 |
|
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.
> > 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70856 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 02:26 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote on June 29:
> Um, Michael. You ignored (again) the 'snaga' argument.
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70858 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 02:38 |
|
Michael [at] xenite.org <Michael [at] xenite.org> wrote:
> 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70859 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 02:39 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote on June 29:
> Mich... [at] xenite.org <Mich... [at] xenite.org> wrote:
> > 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70861 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 03:03 |
|
|
Werent the Uruk-hai a mix between orcs and humans?
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70863 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 04:13 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote on June 29:
> Since Uruks can be substituted for Uruk-hai (and vice-versa)
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70865 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 06:33 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> Michael [at] xenite.org <Michael [at] 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....
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #70868 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 06:37 |
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:44:01 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
<spamgard [at] 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
danhenry [at] inreach.com
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #71276 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 12:23 |
|
Michael [at] xenite.org wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote on June 29:
> > Um, Michael. You ignored (again) the 'snaga' argument.
>
> 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.
But which Orcs are the Metal group "3 inches of blood" referring to in
their track called "Revenge of the Orcs"?
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #71297 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 18:10 |
|
Quoth Michael [at] xenite.org in article
<1119982731.181524.270060 [at] 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
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #71299 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 18:26 |
|
Quoth Larry Swain <theswain [at] operamail.com> in article
<3LidnSHwANKb617fRVn-tA [at] 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
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #71315 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 19:06 |
|
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'
>=2E" (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.)
=D6jevind
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #71318 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 19:24 |
|
=D6jevind L=E5ng wrote on June 30:
>Thank you, Christopher. I think that quote clinches the matter - "uruk" ma=
y 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, =D6jevind,
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?
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #71323 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 21:06 |
|
Michael [at] 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #71338 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 22:20 |
|
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.
--
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
|
|
|
| Re: Bulleting the Uruk-hai = Uruks points [message #71340 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 22:23 |
|
Steuard Jensen wrote on June 30:
> Quoth Larry Swain <thesw... [at] operamail.com> in article
<3LidnSHwANKb617fRVn... [at] rcn.ne=ADt>:
>
> > 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 K=
reuzer, 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.
--
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
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 12:44:06 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,10024 Sekunden |
