?????? Orcrist is made by WEYA ?????

I tought all this time it would made by UC.

[quote=""RevAnakin""]It seems to me to be a more "functional" than say the HEWs. I am not talking prop, but design of the sword. It would be very difficult to fight with the HEWs effectively. This would honestly be a great horseman's sword.[/quote]

Well, sorry Darlak, but I have to agree. The chinese blade you're referencing would be particularly deadly in the hands of a skilled fighter against cavalry or heavy infantry, but the HEWs would be not be as effective in close combat, infantry to infantry. Doubtless, there are other swords better for hand-to-hand combat than Orcist, but I think it would be better than the HEWs style.

[quote=""Elvenguard13""]what do you think the chances are of Weta showing their Orcrist off at comic con? Would be cool if they did but, like Kit, they may not be aloud to show and discuss it this early.[/quote]

I seriously doubt it. But they will have plenty of other things, some from The Hobbit, on display.

[quote=""Dark Shadow""]?????? Orcrist is made by WEYA ?????

I tought all this time it would made by UC. [/quote]

lol, nice one. I think the Weta booth at Comic Con is always way more boring than it could be. Weta is one of the coolest companies and their comic con booths are way understated.

[quote=""Darlak""]Sorry for the double-post, but I just felt I had to reply to this.

If you would have a "functional" HEWS, it'd be one of the best swords a man could have. The HEWS is built very much like the Chinese dadao, an anti-cavalry sword, which had a broad curved blade, and long handle, often as long or longer than the blade itself. While it would be impractical to handle it as a normal sword, it could cut through anything if used correctly. See, the long handle allows for gathering craploads of momentum with nothing more than a flick of your wrists, similarly to how you would hit someone with a fighting stick. So basically, the design allowed for very fast, and very hard hitting slashes. It was designed to kill both horse and rider in one strike, and it did the job perfectly.

Orcrist on the other hand, is a great lump of sharpened metal, which you would have to swing way over your head to gather the same momentum as a dadao, or HEWS. So basically, Orcrist is the impractical weapon here, and not HEWS. There are also very few examples of designs similar to Orcrist throughout history, and most of those designs quickly developed into more practical designs.

It is true that Orcrist wouldn't be utterly useless on horseback, but then again, there area countless weapon styles that'd do the job a hundred times better. Like a broadsword, which would function as both a lance, and hard hitting slashing weapon when mounted. Until you meet a Chinese guy with a dadao, that is =P[/quote]

I have to agree with you Darlak, something which I have done with only about half the posts you've made over the years.

I'm not looking forward to the Hobbit either.... significant changes in the story and "blasted 3-D" .

Glad you've e xp lained about the HEWS. One reason, in fact THE REASON it's not in my collection is that I always thought it was totally impractical, in fact totally unrealistic,in the way it was used by the elves in the Last Alliance as shown in the movie.

I know nothing about Chinese weapons, the dadao in particular, but relying on your knowledge, I'd say that the HEWS would be very effective if the elves were on horseback, in which case it might now be in my collection....but they weren't...and it isn't.

Orcrist I am vvery ambivalent about for a number of reasons.....not to mention that Weta screwed up the inscription -- one letter...it's either backwards or just wrong, depending on how Tolkien spelled 'orc'.

[quote=""Deimos""]mention that Weta screwed up the inscription -- one letter...it's either backwards or just wrong, depending on how Tolkien spelled 'orc'. [/quote]

I am sorry, but it is correct. Below is a picture of the whole rune guide from the RoTK appendix E.


If you look through, there is no "c" character by itself. There is "ch" #13, but that is to represent all sounds of the soft "ch" like in "bach" as Deimos noted below, I admit I was wrong in my first translation, it was late." A "ka" sounds like in "orc" are represented in Tolkien's runes with an English "k." Also, as shown in a few translations, English "orc" has a translation to Sindarian to "Orch" and since "crist" is Sindarian for "cleaver," we get in English "Orc Cleaver." Now, the Sindarian "Orch" is then translated into runic "Orkh" because there is no "C" in runes and "ch" is reserved for "Cheese" sounds. So you are correct in saying that "orc" is actually spelled "orc" in the common English tongue, but not so in Sindarian --> Runes.

So, looking at Appendix E we have the following:
O #50, R #29, KH #20, R #29, I #39, S#35, T #8.



Making Weta's translation correct and not backwards or flipped.

Please excuse the bad photoshop, it was done pretty quick...

Why did they and you choose # 20 (kh) for K????

Why not # 18 (k)?

Tolkien preferred the spelling of orc as ork and wanted to change it in later editions---post-publication of LOTR.

And in his Adventures of Tom Bombadil (which I have) he spells it ork

And since we are using “The Canon” check this out:

Go to the first page of Appendix E where Tolkien e xp lains pronunciations of consonants.

Refer to the entries on:

C – hard , always like a K
CH ---like in Bach, a softer sound, he calls an aspirant because you use your breath a little. it is NOT as you
say pronounced like "cheese"...Tolkien clearly states it is not pronounced like 'church'
K --- same value as C . So [he goes on to say] KH is like CH, also an aspirant consonant

So to spell orcrist as orchrist instead of orkrist is wrong.
It has no soft ch or kh sound. It is hard and harsh k sound.

Also, on the page preceding the chart you posted, there is this: "....
The oldest cirth were Nos 1,2,5,6,8,9,12,18,19,22, 29,31..." There is no #20 in that early list---the letter.
kh (or ch) didn't even exist.

Using your etymology you get "orchrist"... --christ or ----rist translates to nothing.
But "--krist" means cleaver so the word is really a contraction of orc/ork--crist/krist omitting the redundent c (or k).

And that is why that third letter should be reversed, should be # 18 and not #20

[quote=""Deimos""]

Go to the first page of Appendix E where Tolkien e xp lains pronunciations of consonants.

Refer to the entries on:

C – hard , always like a K
CH ---like in Bach, a softer sound, he calls an aspirant because you use your breath a little. it is NOT as you
say pronounced like "cheese"...Tolkien clearly states it is not pronounced like 'church'
K --- same value as C . So [he goes on to say] KH is like CH, also an aspirant consonant

So to spell orcrist as orchrist instead of orkrist is wrong.
It has no soft ch or kh sound. It is hard and harsh k sound.

Also, on the page preceding the chart you posted, there is this: "....
The oldest cirth were Nos 1,2,5,6,8,9,12,18,19,22, 29,31..." There is no #20 in that early list---the letter.
kh (or ch) didn't even exist.
[/quote]

You are totally correct on the "church" part, was like 2 AM here when I wrote it.

When you say -rist translates to nothing, then that means or- translates to nothing if -crist is being used. Then "Orcrist" or "Orkrist" should be written "Orccrist" and/or "Orkkrist" which mean all of us are wrong including Tolkien?

What I am saying is that common tongue English "Orc" or as Tolkien preferred "Ork" when translated into Sindarian is "Orch." Which is why I would use #20. There are two steps.

1. Translate "Orc Cleaver" to Sindarian --> "Orch Crist" **
2. Translate to runic notation --> "Orkhrist" because there was no 'ch' rune during the time of Gondolin and it is known in many languages to drop a letter from either the end of prefix or beginning of a suffix when it came to proper names.***

**Appendix F 'Of Other Races' paragraph starting with "Orcs and the Black Speech." Quote, "In Sindarian it was orch."

***As noted in appendix E, page before Runes, we have a bit of an issue with Nos. 20... Quote, "The principal additions, however, the introductions of two new series, 13-17, and 23-28, were actually most probably inventions of the Noldor of Eregion, since they were used for the representations of sounds not found in Sindarian." Reading the entire 'The Cirth' section has no mention of Nos. 3, 7, 10, 11, 20, or 21. Where did they come from? They were not "principal additions" nor were they the "oldest cirth." But yet can we think of cirth without Nos. 3 - letter 'f' ? My guess is that they were in between the "oldest" and the "principal additions." Also the "principle additions" include Nos. 13 which is 'ch' and in the quote above it was added by the Noldor of Eregion. The original Nos. 13 represented 'h' by itself. Nolder of Eregion settled sometime in the second age where Gondolin (place where Orcrist was forged for those who don't know) existed from First Age c. 126 – 510. Therefore Sindarian "Orch" would have to be spelled "Orkh" with Nos. 20 and "-rist" represents "crist" with a dropped 'c' becuase it is the beginning of a suffix that has the same sound as the end of the prefix "Orkh."

Ok, we agree to disagree...Wish there were a Tolkien languages e xp ert around that could settle this....

What I am getting at is the only thing we actually disagree on is that you think John Howe, P. Lyon, or whoever designed the sword is wrong, I think it is right.

I am NOT saying that you are wrong, let it be known. Trust me, if I were to translate what Elrond told Gandalf was "Orcrist" into the runes, I surely would have spelled it "Orkrist" as well at first note with Nos. 18. Elrond was speaking in common tongue English and his Elvish is very heavily Erebor'ish' Elvish where the letter 'c' is common. As well as, Orcrist is a mixture of Common English "orc" and Sindarian "crist," where orchrist would be Sindarian-Sindarian.

It is simply a dialect difference. Queen's English spells American "color" as "colour." Does it make it wrong? No. Orchrist (runic Orkhrist) would be the ancient Sindarian way of saying it and Orkrist is more "modern" in a sense. Though there isn't complete and utter solid proof that either are completely correct.

When translating the runes myself I asked, "Why in the world would they use 'kh?'" Then I read the entire Appendix on languages, and read the discovery of Orcrist as well as it's realization with Elrond. Given that the appendix distinctly says Orch is Sindarian for Orc and that the rune for 'ch' was created after the Fall of Gondolin leaving on 'kh', I see no flaw in Weta's design.

Beyond Elvish, Tolkien himself wrote LoTR, Hobbit, ect as a preservation of and creation of Anglo-Saxon history and myth. Given the huge changes in the English and Anglo-Saxon languages over the last 2000 years, Tolkien would surely appreciate the idea of different dialects, spellings, and/or the quirks in the English language where two spellings can mean the same thing. So whether or not we could bring the man back to life and ask him to translate it himself, I hardly see him coming back and saying either is specifically wrong given what he has already written (or at least published for that matter).

kit, correct me if im wrong, but i believe peter lyon was given the opportunity to design orcrist this time around. im also excited to see Thorin's first sword and axe, along with kili's sword.

[quote=""Deimos""]Ok, we agree to disagree...Wish there were a Tolkien languages e xp ert around that could settle this....[/quote]

There are lots of them at lotrplaza if you dare to argue with them, lol. I'm not gonna lie, while I may be a bit of a canon junkie, I'm not a big linguistics fan and never read very far into the languages, beyond their history anyway. It gives me a headache, especially since Tolkien went back and changed so many things or never made up his mind on things. Not necessarily in languages but in the canon as a whole, anyhow. But ruined the movie? Hell no, man. There's no way you're even going to be able to read those runes in the film! I'm in the same boat as the rest of ya'll on the 3D issue, but there are some good 3D films and Peter Jackson will do it justice. Plus, you don't have to see it in 3D. I guess what I'm saying is don't be totally let down, Deimos, and don't knock the film 'til ya try it!

[quote=""Fingolfin""]There are lots of them at lotrplaza if you dare to argue with them, lol. [/quote]

You don't say..... very interesting...verrrrrry innnterrrrresting....must toddle on over there....

[quote=""Fingolfin""]...I'm not a big linguistics fan and never read very far into the languages, beyond their history anyway. It gives me a headache, especially since Tolkien went back and changed so many things or never made up his mind on things. Not necessarily in languages but in the canon as a whole, anyhow. But ruined the movie? Hell no, man. There's no way you're even going to be able to read those runes in the film! I'm in the same boat as the rest of ya'll on the 3D issue, but there are some good 3D films and Peter Jackson will do it justice. Plus, you don't have to see it in 3D. I guess what I'm saying is don't be totally let down, Deimos, and don't knock the film 'til ya try it! [/quote]

I'm ambivalent on both things, but separately...Orcrist because I just don't care for it overall, and the rune thing just adds to my dissatisfaction with it (unless I find that Rev is right and I am wrong, that will help somewhat) and the film, well, gross story changes.

But, as someone else has mentioned, I may fall in love with both after seeing them...so obviously I will see the movie, and I hope I can see the sword in real life before I have to decide on buying it or not.

Yeah, I haven't been on the plaza in ages, Deimos. But there are some REAL purists, geniuses, creative minds, and the like over there and the one thing they have in common is they're all madly in love with the works of JRR Tolkien. You'll probably get some good input from people there, and probably some people saying that PJ is the devil and it doesn't matter because the movies are junk as well. Just a fair warning.

I think some people just need to let go of some stuff. I remember there was a super long argument about how people hated the Aragorn/Arwen love story. It's there people, not e xp licitly stated but there. But unfortunately, of the most intelligent people can't see past what is black and white.

[quote=""RevAnakin""]I think some people just need to let go of some stuff. I remember there was a super long argument about how people hated the Aragorn/Arwen love story. It's there people, not e xp licitly stated but there. But unfortunately, of the most intelligent people can't see past what is black and white.[/quote]

It's a shame, some people just can't take it and let their imagination run wild, like you're supposed to when reading a story. But I think since The Lord of the Rings has been elevated to almost a bible-like status in the fantasy world that people don't want to touch it or interpret it in any other way than what is e xp licitly stated at times.

Agreed Fin...

On Orcrist, I think it fits wonderfully in the Gondolin set. Sting would be a perfect counter knife to a 1- 1 1/2 hand sword like Orcrist.

i completely back up Rev and am anticipating seeing it at comic con.

[quote=""RevAnakin""]Agreed Fin...

On Orcrist, I think it fits wonderfully in the Gondolin set. Sting would be a perfect counter knife to a 1- 1 1/2 hand sword like Orcrist.[/quote]

I think orcrist is meant to be a 1 hander for elves and humans which equates to a 1.5/2 hander for a dwarf.

As I said before, I was really surprised at how well Hadhafang felt in-hand. I'm really excited now to see if Orcist will feel just as good. It might be a little too curved for my taste, but hey I'm not going to be fighting with it so it doesn't really matter anyway!

I think I'm gonna e xp lode... I want Orcrist

Not long too wait though, and I'm looking forward to seeing some of the stuff at comic con. I heard they are releasing more images at comic con so we may get more glimpses of Orcrist being used by Thorin.

[quote=""Aragorn""]I think orcrist is meant to be a 1 hander for elves and humans which equates to a 1.5/2 hander for a dwarf.[/quote]

That's what I am hoping for. I want a good one handed, single sided sword to swing around.

Interesting though, because that single sided blade, falchion style blade is much more the "beater" than it is a "biter." In my opinion, it would have made more sense for Gandalf to have the falchion style sword. 2 reasons. 1. Glamdring (foehammer) and "Beater" as names as make more sense as a single sided blade or short one handed true beater in the oakeshott XIII-XIV sense. 2. The current Glamdrings seems to be a beast to handle while dual wielding a 7 foot staff too.

Hindsight, Glamdring and Orcrist general styles should be switched. I mean, if we want an exact "Biter," than Orcrist should be long and skinny for piercing, maybe a bastard sword with a Strider-like thin blade.

Whatever is done is done, but interesting to think about.

like the one in the cartoon.

If you say so Just of course more realistic!

I made a new thread on the Fanatics Plaza for the sword inscription.

Actually it is just the UC Glamdrings that are a beast to handle one handed or even 2 handed. THis is because the factory grinds on the mass produced UC's are far too shallow and not deep enough.

The mssc glamdring is actually a lot more reasonable and manageable to swing one handed. It is not quite as good as a dedicated one hander or even some 1 and a half swords but in battle I think it is quite possible for the wielder to use a glamdring one handed so long as it is properly balanced. But then again glamdring isn't really meant to be a one hander.

When you swing glamdring with two hands, the weight is absolutely perfect. The blade becomes very maneuverable and you have the added bonus of the weight behind each blow as well. So fast and yet powerful.

Hypothetically speaking, if I were blasted back into past and had to wield glamdring I'll probably arm myself with a secondary short sword as well for indoor encounters etc.



[quote=""RevAnakin""]. 2. The current Glamdrings seems to be a beast to handle while dual wielding a 7 foot staff too.
.[/quote]

[quote=""RevAnakin""]...I made a new thread on the Fanatics Plaza for the sword inscription.[/quote]

Just saw your post, Rev, but so far no one, fanatic or otherwise, has responded.

We shall see what we shall see....

[quote=""Fingolfin""]There are lots of [linguistic e xp erts] at lotrplaza if you dare to argue with them, lol. .[/quote]

Thanks again, Fin, for alerting me to that forum. I just might join it, I think...

[quote=""Aragorn""]Actually it is just the UC Glamdrings that are a beast to handle one handed or even 2 handed. THis is because the factory grinds on the mass produced UC's are far too shallow and not deep enough.

The mssc glamdring is actually a lot more reasonable and manageable to swing one handed. It is not quite as good as a dedicated one hander or even some 1 and a half swords but in battle I think it is quite possible for the wielder to use a glamdring one handed so long as it is properly balanced. But then again glamdring isn't really meant to be a one hander.

When you swing glamdring with two hands, the weight is absolutely perfect. The blade becomes very maneuverable and you have the added bonus of the weight behind each blow as well. So fast and yet powerful.

Hypothetically speaking, if I were blasted back into past and had to wield glamdring I'll probably arm myself with a secondary short sword as well for indoor encounters etc.[/quote]

Right, for sure. Weta's design is a perfect two handed sword. "Beater" to me seems like a nickname that would come from a much less graceful sword

[quote=""Deimos""]Just saw your post, Rev, but so far no one, fanatic or otherwise, has responded.

We shall see what we shall see....



Thanks again, Fin, for alerting me to that forum. I just might join it, I think... [/quote]

Only thing that annoys me is how slow the forum is. Takes me like 2-3 minutes to publish a post.

[quote=""RevAnakin""]Only thing that annoys me is how slow the forum is. Takes me like 2-3 minutes to publish a post.[/quote]

Yeah, their server can get really irritable and be picky at times. Seems as though the Shadow and Flame is having server problems as well.

[quote=""Fingolfin""]Yeah, their server can get really irritable and be picky at times. Seems as though the Shadow and Flame is having server problems as well. [/quote]
Yeah right and its very very anoying.

[quote=""ecthelion""]like the one in the cartoon.[/quote]

Was doing some research on Orcrist. Turns out through process of elimination the best bet of its original owner was you Ecthelion!

[quote=""RevAnakin""]Was doing some research on Orcrist. Turns out through process of elimination the best bet of its original owner was you Ecthelion![/quote]

It's definitely possible that Orcist was the blade of Ecthelion, although unlikely because Ecthelion went down in the Grand Fountain in Gondolin and it would've been very difficult to retrieve his weapons, especially with the chaos of the fall of the city.

[quote=""Fingolfin""]It's definitely possible that Orcist was the blade of Ecthelion, although unlikely because Ecthelion went down in the Grand Fountain in Gondolin and it would've been very difficult to retrieve his weapons, especially with the chaos of the fall of the city.[/quote]

If we had that attitude, we would never have gotten Glamdring then. Remember Turgon was killed when his tower toppled on him. If Glamdring survived, Orcrist and Sting survived. It was certainly a sacking.

[quote=""Fingolfin""]It's definitely possible that Orcist was the blade of Ecthelion, although unlikely because Ecthelion went down in the Grand Fountain in Gondolin and it would've been very difficult to retrieve his weapons, especially with the chaos of the fall of the city.[/quote]
So wouldn't that put the sword up for grabs? Sounds like the same odds as Deagol finding the Ring while being dragged along under water by a fish.

[quote=""Thranduil""]So wouldn't that put the sword up for grabs? Sounds like the same odds as Deagol finding the Ring while being dragged along under water by a fish.[/quote]

The GREAT SACKING OF GONDOLIN!

You rock Thran, we posted at the same time

[quote=""Fingolfin""]It's definitely possible that Orcist was the blade of Ecthelion, although unlikely because Ecthelion went down in the Grand Fountain in Gondolin and it would've been very difficult to retrieve his weapons, especially with the chaos of the fall of the city.[/quote]

Oh how I wish I could comment about this!

[quote=""Nasnandos""]Oh how I wish I could comment about this![/quote]

...As if the waiting wasn't hard enough already...could you make us suffer any worse?

Just kidding. Thanks for all the insight you provide (when you can)!

[quote=""Nasnandos""]Oh how I wish I could comment about this![/quote]

Can you comment on the choice of that 4th letter. Why they used Nos. 20 instead of Nos. 18. That would make my life a whole lot easier on two different forums

[quote=""RosereIII""]...As if the waiting wasn't hard enough already...could you make us suffer any worse?

Just kidding. Thanks for all the insight you provide (when you can)![/quote]



I can't wait till October!

EDIT: sorry Rosere, I misread your post. I thought you were asking when Kit could talk about the replicas It'll be in October when he can talk, after pictures are released. I can't wait!

At this point, someone should just hack the UC server and post all the images online! Then we are home free

Although, I have this skill, I don't feel like going to jail anytime soon. But if someone else wants to, there is that option. Of course I would never condone such an action!

[quote=""RevAnakin""]Can you comment on the choice of that 4th letter. Why they used Nos. 20 instead of Nos. 18. That would make my life a whole lot easier on two different forums [/quote]

No I can't even talk about that, but I will say I asked the same questions myself after translating the inscription last year, and I got an answer.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]No I can't even talk about that, but I will say I asked the same questions myself after translating the inscription last year, and I got an answer.[/quote]

Well, hopefully it was more than, "We found it in Etymologies." Because that seems to be the public consensus: Weta designers used the Etymologies translation rather than published and widely accepted Hobbit and Lord of the Rings spelling. I was going on the defense for Weta, but I have about given up!

I have an answer for this, but can't discuss what I know about the TH inscription until it's time.

I'll just mention a LOTR fact that many here already know. A certain Tolkien linguistics e xp ert named David Salo wrote the translations, and wrote the runic inscriptions out for the designers to use in LOTR. No one at Weta or 3 foot 6 did them. That's why they hired David. I used to have a photocopy of his handwritten runes from Sting, and what was on the prop was exactly what he indicated. He also created words and add-ons to make the languages more complete, outside of what Tolkien created. He is also very familiar with the places where Tolkien himself made mistakes, and the places where Tolkien had certain contradictions in certain words and meanings.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]A certain Tolkien linguistics e xp ert named David Salo wrote the translations, and wrote the runic inscriptions out for the designers to use in LOTR. .[/quote]

Well that was a question many people had. Thank you, that does help us a lot. Many of us did not know if he returned.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]Oh how I wish I could comment about this![/quote]

Nooooooo!! You can't speak of my favorite character and leave me hanging for six more months!!!


Lol sorry Kit, I know it's just as hard for you to not spill the beans.

[quote=""Fingolfin""]Nooooooo!! You can't speak of my favorite character and leave me hanging for six more months!!!


Lol sorry Kit, I know it's just as hard for you to not spill the beans.[/quote]


Ecthelion is your favorite character?

its obviously mine lol rev are you goin to comic con?

I am all about comic-con next year! I have been wanting to go for a long time, a friend of mine from covers it and has all the cool press access.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]No I can't even talk about that, but I will say I asked the same questions myself after translating the inscription last year, and I got an answer.[/quote]

You got "an answer"? One answer???

Jeez, Kit, check out the discussion about this at the LOTR fanatics at LOTRplaza.

Rev posted the question and to date their are 66 replies.
Fin wasn't kidding when he said they have scholars and linguistic e xp erts.

At first the discussion tilted in Rev's favor (Rune #20) , but near the end it swung back toward Rune #18 (my choice).

In any case it is lively, and I am holding out that the conclusion will be that Weta /Salo used the wrong rune.

("wrong rune"....say that five times really fast )

I am not going to comic con this year, trying to cut back working so I can take more classes and get my engineering job faster so I can go to every conic con!

Deimos: I am still waiting for more input. In all actuality there are only three of us in the debate. Hell, I'm even swinging back to my own original translation to use nos. 18. But really I'm on one side "Lord of the Rings" is on the other, and the third is fairly in the middle. It seems to me that there is something none of us have seen. One more piece to the puzzle that would push Salo towards that side. With that in mind and it was a true mistake, that is an e xp ensive mistake.

SDCC pics.





I'm sure many more and clearer to come tomorrow.