Male and Female Orcs

[Galin]

I'm sure it's been posted at the BarrowDowns already, but a letter came up for sale at an auction on 11 and 12 July, 2002. It's dated 21 October 1963, and is addressed to a Mrs Munby in response to a number of questions posed by her son Stephen about The Lord of the Rings. The letter is long, but in one place it reads as follows:

'There must have been orc-women. But in stories that seldom if ever see the Orcs except as soldiers of armies in the service of the evil lords we naturally would not learn much about their lives. Not much was known'.

JRRT, 1963

As William Hicklin noted, once Tolkien decided that Morgoth could not 'create' but must pervert something into orcs, he seemed pretty consistent that orcs reproduced sexually, despite that he waffled about stock. For myself, I would need more proof than this person's description (quoted by Rumil above) -- noting that we would here have an unpublished paper (or notes) that Hammond and Scull for example, had yet to see.

And for those who give great weight to 'latest if unpublished' these notes (if truly extant) should also date to after 1963-ish, considering the letter above.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

The argument I have for Bolg son of Azog is that they were goblins. I think that goblins have a different origin than orcs, and they might breed differently.

This is a nomenclature issue though. Not only is 'goblin' said to be used as a translation for orc (same things, two different words), but Azog himself is referred to as an orc in the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings.


By the way, from what other forum does Rumil's quote come from?

[Rumil]

Hi all,

I find myself agreeing with Nerwen and Galin that this is either a bit made up or a rejected idea. And of course that orcs=goblins (in pretty much every respect save size perhaps).

Here's the link to the thread http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=199809 from TMP, a site about wargaming.

The keen-eyed will spot that I am Timbo W

[Nerwen]

Apropos of almost nothing–

I keep returning to this last sentence and vainly trying to work out what on earth the original poster was trying to say:

Originally Posted by Dryson Bennington

The only notion that I see occuring here is so called Tolkien fans caught not by the true nature of the story itself but by social engineers attempt to label a group of real life people to fit the method of a fantasy story to make them feel liek the story is actually real when it is not.

Both troubling and strangely fascinating– it looks like it means something, but what?

Also, I'm curious as to the source of the detailed yet seemingly non-Tolkienien statements he makes with such assurance. A game? A fan-fic? One of the dodgier wikis?

[Galin]

Thanks for the link Rumil. One quibble however...

Originally Posted by Rumil

(...) And of course that orcs=goblins (in pretty much every respect save size perhaps).

Many people seem to think goblins are smaller than orcs, but there are large goblins in The Hobbit for example: 'Out jumped the goblins, big goblins, great ugly-looking goblins, lots of goblins, before you can say rocks and blocks.' (Over Hill And Under Hill), and even in The Lord of the Rings, Saruman's Uruks are referred to as goblin-soldiers.


But even without these examples (others could be raised) the real difficulty with the idea that 'goblin' has been reserved for smaller kinds is the matter of translation: I often use hund and 'dog' in illustration because there are all kinds of dogs, large, small, (whatever), and various kinds of orcs as well... and if one has two texts for example, one German one English, where the original German word hund has been translated with English 'dog' -- why would anything think that a 'dog' is smaller or larger than a hund?

The idea in theory (Appendix F 'On Translation') is that the above statement from The Hobbit ('Out jumped the goblins...') is a fully English translation of something in Westron -- but we know one of the original words here, because we know 'goblin' has been used to translate orc. The arguably confusing thing is: in The Hobbit the word orc has usually been translated with 'goblin', while in The Lord of the Rings, there are probably many more instances of orc than goblin (I never counted instances of orc! but I'm guessing they outweigh instances of goblin).

In theory this is due to the translator, and would be like Tolkien saying that he preferred the word 'hund' and so used it even in the English account along with dog. This is 'perfectly Tolkien' as an explanation too, as we know he was a lover of languages and like to create languages -- someone who is finely attuned to words, how they sound, and 'sound-sense'.

So whatever the numbers of 'goblin' or orc in both books, the explanation JRRT landed on was that one is an original word (Quendi), the other is an English translation ('Elves'). I note that JRRT published this explanation in a later edition of The Hobbit, only after Appendix F had appeared in print, thus after he had fully landed on the conceit that these tales had been translated from an original Westron.

This finally provided the answer to explain 'goblin' in both books, and is in accord with the examples from both stories.

[Alfirin]

This is a bit similar to the confusion I get when some ME related sources, including possibly the Appendix itself (it's been a while since I read it som I'm not 100% sure) equate the Uruk-Hai with the term "Hobgoblin". This seems counter intuitive since the Hobgoblins are usually described as smaller and less dangerous than goblins whereas the Uruk-hai are of course bigger and more dangerous (I not that even Wikipedia makes not of this inconsistency). If you believe that 1. Hob means something along the lines of "half" and 2. the Uruk-hai are actually Orc-Human Hybrids, it would make lingustic sense, but it still seem counter intuitive.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

This is a bit similar to the confusion I get when some ME related sources, including possibly the Appendix itself (it's been a while since I read it som I'm not 100% sure) equate the Uruk-Hai with the term "Hobgoblin".

Tolkien actually never equates these terms (that I'm aware of), but you may be noting this on certain websites. The reason for this would seem to be: in the same explanation (published in later editions of The Hobbit, as noted) that reveals 'goblin' has been used to translate orc, Tolkien adds: or hobgoblin for the larger kinds.

Somewhere (in a letter I believe) I think Tolkien noted that 'hobgoblin' should probably refer to smaller kinds! but he had already published this in any case, to explain the use of this word in The Hobbit, which I think only occurs once. Thus some are equating hobgoblin or 'large goblin' with Saruman's 'larger' goblin soldiers.

And the statement (currently on Wikipedia): 'Tolkien then renamed them [Hobgoblins] as Uruks or Uruk-hai in an attempt to correct his mistake' is someone's opinion, the 'mistake' referring to Tolkien's statement in a letter. To my mind this really needs no correcting in any case, despite any external factors. If 'Hobgoblin' refers to larger kinds within the context of Middle-earth then so be it (in my opinion).


Note again that, despite this explanatory note appearing in The Hobbit it was added to a later edition, so JRRT had not published 'hobgoblin' for 'large goblin' until after he had published a tale in which the Uruk-hai appear. Tolkien would hardly rename Hobgoblins Uruk-hai to correct a 'mistake' he had yet to make.

If you believe that 1. Hob means something along the lines of "half" and 2. the Uruk-hai are actually Orc-Human Hybrids, it would make lingustic sense, but it still seem counter intuitive.

What the Uruk-hai really are is quite the debate, but anyway if you are thinking of the word Hobbit (and you need not be of course): internally, yet with reference to an invented translation, Hobbit comes from 'holbytla', so the altered beginning of 'Hobbit' relates to the meaning 'hole'.

Even though a Hobbit (a kuduk) is a halfling (banakil)!

It's nicely confusing

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Galin

Tolkien actually never equates these terms (that I'm aware of), but you may be noting this on certain websites. The reason for this would seem to be: in the same explanation (published in later editions of The Hobbit, as noted) that reveals 'goblin' has been used to translate orc, Tolkien adds: or hobgoblin for the larger kinds.

Somewhere (in a letter I believe) I think Tolkien noted that 'hobgoblin' should probably refer to smaller kinds! but he had already published this in any case, to explain the use of this word in The Hobbit, which I think only occurs once. Thus some are equating hobgoblin or 'large goblin' with Saruman's 'larger' goblin soldiers.

And the statement (currently on Wikipedia): 'Tolkien then renamed them [Hobgoblins] as Uruks or Uruk-hai in an attempt to correct his mistake' is someone's opinion, the 'mistake' referring to Tolkien's statement in a letter. To my mind this really needs no correcting in any case, despite any external factors. If 'Hobgoblin' refers to larger kinds within the context of Middle-earth then so be it (in my opinion).


Note again that, despite this explanatory note appearing in The Hobbit it was added to a later edition, so JRRT had not published 'hobgoblin' for 'large goblin' until after he had published a tale in which the Uruk-hai appear. Tolkien would hardly rename Hobgoblins Uruk-hai to correct a 'mistake' he had yet to make.





What the Uruk-hai really are is quite the debate, but anyway if you are thinking of the word Hobbit (and you need not be of course): internally, yet with reference to an invented translation, Hobbit comes from 'holbytla', so the altered beginning of 'Hobbit' relates to the meaning 'hole'.

Even though a Hobbit (a kuduk) is a halfling (banakil)!

It's nicely confusing

Pretty convincing, though if you assume the "hob" is from the same root as hobbit, it actually makes a stronger case for the little unimproved ones to be the Hobgoblins; the "gobins of the hole" or "who live in holes" i.e. the ones who are still affected by/afraid of light.

I usually interpret the "hai" suffix as being something along the lines of "great", "fierce", or "improved". After all we do have at least one other name with the same suffix, Olog-Hai (the souped up, can't be turned to stone as long as the power is there, trolls Sauron makes use of). Off the top of my head I can;t think of a case where "Olog" is used on it's own for a non-souped up troll (then again once you get past the Hobbit, where these terms haven't been used yet, you don't meet a lot of non-souped up trolls) but presumably that is what they are called. The Orcs also call the Drunedain "Oghor-Hai" despite the fact they are smaller than most men, but given how good the Drunedain are at killing Orcs this could be "hai" being used in the context of "fierce". Presumably, in Black speech, Wargs are likely referred to as "(whatever the Black Speech word for "wolf" is)"-"Hai" as well.

[Galin]

As for Hobgoblin I just think Tolkien chose an existing 'goblin word' from the Primary World and used it -- however 'wrongly' he thought he had applied it, after publication. Plus I don't know (I'm not a trained linguist myself) how accurate it is to say 'hob-' means 'hole' based on hobbit.

Holbytla means 'Hole-builder', and hobbit is a theoretical worn-down form of this word. Someone on line (elsewhere) posted that this type of assimilation (l becoming b, as it appears has occured at least) is common enough in languages, but I haven't really had time to look into this myself.


Anyway as far as -hai goes we now know it means 'folk' due to Words, Phrases, and Passages.

So Uruk-hai means 'orc-folk' -- but since uruk 'orc' became distinguished from snaga it means 'great-soldier orc-folk'