tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post8861755606370220967..comments2023-11-07T06:20:12.181-08:00Comments on Tolkien: Medieval and Modern: Orc-language and why it is corrupt"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"http://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-942123752580754272014-05-29T22:19:43.400-07:002014-05-29T22:19:43.400-07:00I really find your analysis of Orc-language intere...I really find your analysis of Orc-language interesting. When Orc-language was brought up in class, I was confused when it was stated that orcs could not communicate across tribes because they could not use other languages, yet they obviously all know the Common Speech because they communicate with hobbits, men, dwarves, wizards, and each other. But then I was confused because if the orcs could use other languages, then the orc-language itself would not be a cause of the orcs being unable to communicate. That would mean that the orc language could not be evil for preventing communication. So this post clarifies a lot for me why the orcs' language is evil, but I also find what David said above is interesting, namely that Morgoth created the orcish speech. If Morgoth willfully corrupted the speech he gave to orcs, then it is not just evil because Morgoth made it. Remember that Morgoth was directly responsible for frost and rain, but Iluvatar says that these make Arda even more beautiful, and are therefore not Evil. So not everything Morgoth creates is Evil. But when he does something with the intent to usurp Eru (something Anti-Hamlet), that is Evil. Creating the orcs in the first place was evil, and the orcs are evil. Creating a language for them makes it easier for them to communicate and do evil deeds, so the language that is made for them would also be evil.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16769904890590318237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-80163033738831332072014-05-18T19:14:53.230-07:002014-05-18T19:14:53.230-07:00I’m interested in re-examining some of what you’ve...I’m interested in re-examining some of what you’ve said here in light of everything we’ve discussed about good and evil in the last few weeks. According to the view of evil as perversion of creation, then Morgoth’s twisting of the Orcs’ language seems comparable to his twisting of the Men/Elves who became Orcs. The language is evil then because it was made evil. I can’t make much sense of the view of evil as unwillingness to relinquish sub-creation, pride, or selfishness in relationship to the Black Speech. However, I think that your comment about the use of language as a tool of subjugation is precisely the reason that the Black Speech is evil according to our third definition of evil (refusing free will to others). One of the only examples we have of the language of Mordor in all of the Lord of the Rings is Gandalf’s quotation of two lines of the Ring-Speech. These two lines clearly show both the phonetic harshness of the language and its main use, which was solely to dominate the wills of others. The languages of the Orcs and of Sauron, I think, are evil because their only communication was through domination.<br /><br />--Marguerite MeyerMegarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16159000008816802020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-58506056507648207562014-05-01T13:25:28.382-07:002014-05-01T13:25:28.382-07:00--David Jaffe--David Jaffe"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"https://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-52593559033401223512014-05-01T13:25:13.121-07:002014-05-01T13:25:13.121-07:00I know there are a whole week's worth of newer...I know there are a whole week's worth of newer posts up already, but since I brought up the Orc's language in class I was specially interested in reading your thoughts on it here, and adding a couple comments. First of all, I really appreciate your point about lack of growth/change not indicating that the language is bad or evil, e.g. the Dwarves' secret speech. But I am not convinced that "dead" languages like Latin are relevant to this, since they changed and grew when they were still spoken by living men, whereas the Orcs' language seems to be described as somehow fundamentally incapable of developing or growing--exactly the reason why the Orcs do use Common Speech when they need to communicate.<br />Second, about your idea that "The language is evil simply because Orcs are evil," I would point out that in the Lhammas (pg 194 of HME 5) we are told that "the speech which he [Morgoth] taught [to the Orcs] he perverted wilfully to evil." This directly contradicts a claim in Appendix F of LotR that the orcs perverted language, but regardless of which version we accept we should, I think, at least consider the implications of both. Perhaps you would say then that this language is evil simply because Morgoth is evil? "But Morgoth himself spoke all tongues with power and beauty," much unlike the Orcs speaking a harsher version of Common Speech. I think there has to be something about the language itself that Tolkien thinks is bad or evil, somewhat apart from the badness of the speaker; what that quality is I'm not sure."Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"https://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-17639059082323980862014-04-26T16:39:09.189-07:002014-04-26T16:39:09.189-07:00Don’t forget that Tolkien’s definition of a “dead”...Don’t forget that Tolkien’s definition of a “dead” language was not the one we think of today, that is, not being spoken as a primary language. Instead, he considered languages such as Latin and Greek to be completely alive because they had an associated set of a tales and myths; on the other hand, he did not consider modern constructed languages such as Esperanto to be alive because they had no mythology (letter 131). We do not know to what extent orcs are supposed to have a mythology, but it seems unlikely that they are intended to have much of one. They appear to engage in only a few examples of what might be deemed any sort of creation, mostly making weapons and singing war-songs. It would not fit their character for orcs to come up with complex myths; myths attempt to explain how and why things are the way they are (for example, Creation myths across cultures or Tolkien’s mythology explaining why the Earth is round instead of flat) and orcs are unlikely to be concerned with such matters. Moreover, if Tolkien intended orcs to have such a mythology, he probably would have showed it to us; the fact that he did not would seem to indicate that Orcish is not a “real” language (in the sense of being alive). Alex Zavolukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07218002221816671009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-57627823419343686172014-04-26T15:00:11.856-07:002014-04-26T15:00:11.856-07:00I like the philological musing you're engaging...I like the philological musing you're engaging in here, very in the spirit of Tolkien, and I think you're on to something with your observations about the orcs. We might think of other figures whose language is warped by their character, Saruman and Gollum seem like the most obvious examples. Theoden when beguiled by Wormtongue or Boromir when succumbing to temptation might be other examples. Another question that occurs to me is whether this warping of language exists in a reciprocal relationship with our character, rather than simple cause and effect. In other words, are the orcs made more evil by their evil speech? I would suspect that Tolkien would say yes<br /><br />Finally, I'm not sure I agree with your statement:<br /><br />"It seems unlikely--language change is rarely intentional, so it seems unlikely that a people would ever say, 'Hm, these conquerors use SVO word order, but I don’t like them, so I won’t use it. These neighboring peoples, though, are pretty cool, and they use SOV word order. I think I’ll start using that!'"<br /><br />Dialect and native language can quite often be a tool of oppressed peoples, we can think of, for example, the use of Irish in Ireland or Scots and Gaelic in Scotland. To my eyes though, this doesn't detract from your argument. In fact, it strengthens it because intentionally not changing is itself an interaction with other languages, simply a negative one. <br /><br />dyingsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02087241514388178221noreply@blogger.com