[Galin]

Old thread I know, but my opinion is a bit different from the posts in it. First, responding to Wikipedia (quoted for interest above)...

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In The Lord of the Rings, "Orc" is used predominantly, and "goblin" mostly in the Hobbits' speech.

IIRC the actual examples in The Lord of the Rings do not reveal that goblin appears mostly when Hobbits are speaking, which gives rise to the somewhat popular idea that 'goblin' represents a Hobbit-word, while others said orc.

As an example, a passage where the terms are used interchangeably goes:

Interchangeability is fine, but does not go far enough in my opinion.

This change can be seen either as a part of the shift towards the use of Elvish words that occurred during the period between the writing of The Hobbit and the writing of The Lord of the Rings, or a translation of the Hobbits' more colloquial manner (if we "accept" the books' authenticity and regard Tolkien merely as a translator).

I would say the change rather reflects that Tolkien preferred the word orc to the word goblin in both sound and suitability (see below) -- neither word is Elvish in any case.

So essentially the race is more formally named "Orc", and "goblin" is a colloquial term for Orcs used by Hobbits and sometimes picked up by Men and Elves.

But Tolkien explained that the Hobbits said orc.

And here is where I'm not sure people will agree, but to my mind orc is not a translation, but the actual word used by Hobbits. No one in Middle-earth ever said the English word 'goblin' of course -- this is a translation.


Tolkien loved words, and was finely attuned to sound and (his perception of) sound-sense. Tolkien liked the sound of orc for these creatures; it seemed to fit. And like 'Elves' for his Quendi, he knew that 'goblin' didn't really suit his goblins in any event.

And why can't orc be actual Westron? It's not very far from actual Sindarin Orch for example (which ends in a sound like in German ach, not English church). In Tolkien's day the word orc was hardly generally known, and the meaning of the Old English word (as far as JRRT was concerned) was 'demon'. The inspiration could be Primary World, but just like certain other real world inspirations, like Moria for instance, Tolkien could characterize such words as Westron or Elvish.

But how to explain his use of both orc and goblin? in the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings Tolkien reveals his mode as translator, and translation provided the answer. 'Samwise' is a translation of what other Hobbits really called Sam: Banazîr (Ban for short), for example of a name, and after The Lord of the Rings was published, Tolkien wrote a guide for translators of his book, and there he explained the relationship of orc to 'goblin':

Orc 'This is supposed to be the Common Speech name of these creatures at that time; it should therefore according to the system be translated to English, or the language of translation. It was translated 'goblin' in The Hobbit, except in one place; but this word, and other words of similar sense in other European languages (as far as I know), are not really suitable. The orc in The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, though of course partly made out of traditional features, is not really comparable in supposed origin, functions, and relation to the Elves. In any case orc seemed to me, and seems, in sound a good name for these creatures. It should be retained.'

From JRRT's Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings

Orc is Common Speech, a name of these creatures at that time (see below where this is repeated) -- thus orc should be translated, which JRRT mostly did in The Hobbit in theory -- but despite the system, Tolkien essentially tells translators not to translate instances of orc for The Lord of the Rings, he wants it 'retained'. Why? again 'goblin' is not really suitable with respect to modern connotations and the creatures of his story, and in any case it seems to Tolkien in sound a good name for these creatures.

And when another edition of The Hobbit arose in the 1960s, Tolkien took the opportunity to explain the words to his readership at large:

'(2) Orc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds). Orc is the hobbits' form of the name given at that time to these creatures, and it is not connected at all with our orc, ork, applied to sea-animals of dolphin-kind.' JRRT The Hobbit

This is really all the reader needs, and nicely covers all examples in The Lord of the Rings as well. Examples help show interchangeability, but as I say this doesn't go far enough, as Tolkien's explanation allows the reader to imagine the underlying word... all instances of 'goblin' are translations of the word orc in any case (unless by context it is obvious that 'goblin' is translating another internal word, like orch), as all instances of 'Sam' are really instances of Ban in the original. There can be no distinctions here: a translator does not intend 'dog' to be distinct from hund if one has chosen English to translate an original German text.


Take any example then, and it's just a matter of the way the translator has rendered it. Any instance of 'goblin' is really an instance of orc in the imagined original -- or any instance of orc could have been translated with 'goblin'.

In the end the explanation is simple enough: the words are not only interchangeable, but one is used to translate the other (just not in every instance). No distinction of any kind is intended.

_______________

A)

There is a matter in which examples help disprove an interpretation of Tolkien's published explanation -- an interpretation (raised in the thread) which goes: since Hobgoblin refers to larger kinds, then 'goblin' refers, or possibly refers, to smaller kinds.

However Tolkien's explanation works fine as: hobgoblin refers to larger kinds, goblin refers to all kinds. If we had a compound word in English for larger dogs, like 'gredog' (greatdog) for imaginary instance, would that mean that the word 'dog' only refers to smaller kinds?

Examples show that 'goblin' is not reserved for smaller kinds, and the former interpretation will not hold up in my opinion.

B)

A futher issue involves 'unpublished' or draft texts: obviously there's nothing wrong with knowing the texts 'behind the scenes', but similar to the matter of the two towers (the question: which towers are the two towers), the simple text published by Tolkien himself can become part of a confusing muddle once draft text or letters are introduced, and be lost or obscured in the pile. Tolkien was not against changing his mind, but what he chose to reveal to his readership is distinct from alternate views he may have held at various times, which remained his private papers as far as he was concerned, by comparison.