Originally posted by Bacchus
Now MM is fond of using the reducio ad adsurdium in refuting this line of thought. Since Tolkien never specifically stated that Orcs did not carry Uzis (or hand grenades), maybe they did. It's an effective debate technique, because it's difficult to answer. But again, the argument is only suggestive. Tolkien never explicitly discussed a number of things. Are we to assume that none of these things occurred? Sex is the most obvious example. We should be fairly safe in assuming that it occurred in ME, despite the fact that T never goes into gory details.
Let's use some of my speculative essays to discuss this point a little further. For example, in a couple of them, I argue that Elvish regret is somehow bound up with the Rings of Power. I even go so far as to speak of Elvish shame.
Tolkien never, in any published text I have read, refers to this shame. He does refer to their sense of regret, and he ties it to their lengthening years.
Is it enough to say that getting older should cause regret? I don't think anyone would conclude that. The accumulated experience of all those years leads to the regret. The nature of Elvish regret, being nowhere explained, is ambivalent. So, I have proposed one cause for that regret which is arguable based on the texts.
Elrond says the Elves are willing to suffer a great loss -- virtually the loss of their delight in Middle-earth -- in order to bring about the defeat of Sauron. His words imply a sense of burden or obligation which Tolkien doesn't explore. So, even if my deductions are wrong, we know from this and other passages (such as Gildor's exchange with Frodo) that the Elves have their own concerns.
Therefore, it is reasonable to infer what those concerns might be. We don't have to fall back on the "Tolkien never said they didn't have concerns" argument, because (in fact) he DID say it, just not in that way.
Where Orcish Uzis and hand grenades come in, Tolkien did NOT say they had them indirectly. The argument that "Tolkien didn't say they did NOT have them" still fails because all it does is rewrite Tolkien.
It's not what Tolkien fails to deny, it is what Tolkien fails to imply, that determines whether an inference is genuinely acceptable.
If he fails to imply that the Elves did something wrong, that they might be atoning for something in their past, then we have no basis for inferring what that wrong thing might have been. (Of course, my essays do have the advantage of including passages from Tolkien's Letters, where he indicates that creating the Rings of Power was wrong.)
So, we cannot say, "Tolkien didn't deny that rebel Uruk-hai applies to Gorbag's company". There is nothing to that argument.
The real question is, can we say, "Tolkien implies there is something more to rebel Uruk-hai than the Isengarders?"
There is nothing in the tracker Orcs' speech which suggests such an implication is intended. It is just one passing comment, and there are no others like it.
As to the instant case, MM claims that there is no basis to infer that "rebel Uruk-hai" could refer to Gorbag's band of Uruks. I disagree. As he points out, Gorbag has been called a rebel, and a uruk. The only basis for inferring that the rebel Uruk-hai comment must refer to Isengarders is a painstaskingly precise parsing of language, coupled with the (IMO) flawed logic discussed above.
No, the only basis for inferring that the comment refers to the Isengarders is the fact that all previous uses of Uruk-hai refers only to the Isengarders.
To suggest that, suddenly, the phrase now applies to a different group of Orcs without any supporting evidence, is equivalent to suggesting that "Ent" applies to a nearby tree in Gondor -- a tree incapable of self-animation, speech, or thought, but which sort of looks like Treebeard.
There is no need for Tolkien to be painstakingly careful in his use of either Uruk-hai or Ent. He is quite liberally spreading these terms throughout the story, but they always consistently refer only to specific creatures. He doesn't use these words interchangeably to refer to other creatures.
Now, a good word which Tolkien uses more generally is "man"; and another example is "elf". He refers to "the Elves" and "the Elves", and he refers to "men" and he refers to "men".
In some cases, "the Elves" are High Elves, in some cases they are all Elves, and in some cases they are Elves of Lothlorien.
In some cases, "men" are men of Rohan, in some cases they are all men, and in some cases they are men of Gondor (or of Bree, or wherever).
How is it that we are not confused by Tolkien's casual uses of these words to refer to various sub-groups as well as their entire races?
We are provided with enough information in each usage to know whom Tolkien is identifying.
He offers absolutely nothing in the text to sugest that "rebel Uruk-hai" shoudl refer to any group other than the Isengarders. No one else is ever explicitly identified as a member of the Uruk-hai: not Gorbag, nor any of his company.
So, no special considerations or parsings are required to determine that the rebel Uruk-hai are, indeed, the only Uruk-hai who have ever been named: the Uruk-hai of Isengard.
On the other hand, a great deal of Tolkien's writing must be ignored in order to justify the use of Uruk-hai to refer to Gorbag's company, who are never identified as Uruk-hai.
It is the same as if we suddenly apply the word "men" to Elrond's people. There is no textual support for making such an identification. Neither is there any textual support for identifying "rebel Uruk-hai" with Gorbag's company.
