Male and Female Orcs

[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'

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by 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'

So in that case, it may not be proper to use "Uruk-Hai" to describe a single big orc (The phrase "an Uruk-hai" may be incorrect Actually now that I look at it Tolkein never does use it that way, singularly they are "an Uruk") In that case please disregard my latter statements under those circumstances a single souped up troll would be "an Olog" a singe Wose would be an Oghor and a warg would be whatever a Warg was (though it is likey Orcish has a different word for Wargs than ordinary wolves)

[Rumil]

Very nice one skip!

Alfirin, no disagreement from me re orcs and goblins.

'Hob' appears in all sorts of folklore monster-type names etc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hob_(folklore) (also see disambiguation page), and 'hobbledehoy' http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-hob1.htm for an ungraceful man, also 'Old Hob' referring to the devil.

I'm surprised JRRT never analysed the philology, maybe he did!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galin

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'

I did know that, actually, and it's one of the reasons I'm sceptical of this fellow Rumil quotes–

This is where the addition of human remains would be important to the creation of your "Man-Orc" or Uruk-Hai

Now, while Uglúk & Co. call themselves "Uruk-hai", the word does not mean "Man-Orc hybrid" (and is a plural). So– failing some evidence that Tolkien changed his mind about that one too– I'd say even if this person has come upon some previously unknown document, he's embellished the contents pretty heavily.

[Rumil]

Hi Nerwen,

I'm rather hoping that you're right, it would be terrible to think that PJ was one-up on the Downer concensus regarding orc-spawning canonicity .

[Galin]

Good catch Nerwen!

I would also add that The Drúedain belongs to the very late period of Tolkien's writing, and a note to that text reads...

'To the unfriendly who, not knowing them well, declared that Morgoth must have bred the Orcs from such a stock the Eldar answered: 'Doubtless Morgoth, since he can make no living thing, bred Orcs from various kinds of Men, but the Drúedain must have escaped his Shadow; for their laughter...'

Sure one can note that this 'origin' is a statement or belief of internal characters in any event... but anyway... we could possibly be into the early 1970s with this one (basically the idea published in the 1977 Silmarillion comes from internal characters as well, who didn't certainly know the true origin of Orcs, despite that it was the Wise of Eressea who believed that captured Elves were the original stock).


Another note from the 1960s reads...

'The Council seems to have been unaware, since for many years Isengard had been closely guarded, of what went on within its Ring. The use, and possibly special breeding, of Orcs was kept secret, and cannot have begun much before 2990 at earliest. The Orc-troops seem never to have been used beyond the territory of Isengard before the attack on Rohan.' UT, The Palantiri, endnote 7

Hmm.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Rumil

Hi Nerwen,

I'm rather hoping that you're right, it would be terrible to think that PJ was one-up on the Downer concensus regarding orc-spawning canonicity .

Oh, but we've surely misjudged PJ anyway–

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, in a recently-discovered letter to his publisher

Changes to be made in the next edition

1. Glorfindel's re-appearance in Middle-earth raises too many questions. It might be best to leave him out of the story altogether, and give his role (and unicorn) to another character.
2. Tom Bombadil is simply an embarrassment. I have no idea what I was thinking of; please remove all chapters in which he appears.
3. I am also increasingly dissatisfied with Faramir. His nobility is perhaps a little cloying and his rejection of the Ring comes too easily. He must be made more threatening and corrupt. Likewise, I have failed to make Denethor evil and mad enough to be an effective antagonist, and the scene of his death needs to be more dramatic.
4. Gimli is too grim and serious for a dwarf and needs to be made more amusing.
5. Frodo is much too stoical– making him complain more would surely render him more sympathetic and 'human'.
6. Would Théoden's healing carry more weight if he were literally possessed by Saruman?
7. I see now that it was a mistake to avoid a direct appearance by Sauron– he should appear, but of course in some frightening and symbolic form.
8. I also regret having the Elves play so small a part in the events of the War. Perhaps a battalion of them could come to the aid of Minas Tirith. (Or Rohan?)
9. Finally, I have completely changed my ideas on the fate of mortals after death: instead of leaving the Circles of the World, their spirits merely go to Valinor. Perhaps Gandalf could explain this to one or more of the hobbits.

Yours Faithfully,

J.R.R.T.

P.S. Do you think Wargs ought to look more like hyaenas?

[Galadriel55]

Nerwen, please tell me that's not really there! We've spent years accusing PJ of "over-creativeness", and now you say that JRRT planned all that stuff?!