It's been popular belief on my server, that when one speaks in their own native tongue, it sounds normal human speech, however when you speak in common or orcish (and you aren't a Human/Orc), weird accents and traits. However, the big problem I personally have with Orcish, and many others have, is that it is NOT the Throm'ka, Zug Zug, etc. that you'd expect. That is actually a seperate form of Orcish, because never have any other races ever said those words, only the Orcs. However, if that's the Orcish Language... what gives? Why aren't undead, etc. speaking it? --Valkors 15:14, 11 April 2006 (EDT)
- "nonexistant in modern languages"? that word order is common to all germanic languages (English, German, etc...). It's the other way in romanic languages, but don't believe that it is unique to germanic languages. Anyhow it's no english speciality. --Hurax 12:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're correct, it's not unique to germanic languages. Japanese exhibits the same word order. With this in mind, and seeing as how it is exhibited in germanic languages too, should the article be changed to make it sound less like it is a unique aspect of the language? Space pinapple (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Should someone add that as a scourage you could talk to any scourage from both factions. I can type "Guards! Help me!". I need to go back to Razor Hill and write it down. Zmario (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Question about policies on "official" translations. Grommash has been officially translated as Giant's Heart. Grombolar has been officially translated as Bowels of the Giant. From this we can decisively infer that Grom means giant, Mash means heart, and Bolar means bowels. Can this information go into the Primer (where I instinctively placed it) or should it go under Word List (Speculation) instead? Common sense seems to be at odds with the technical law, here. --P.W (talk) 10:31, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Please add the sources to the transaltions you added, if they are based on deduction then they should be in the speculation list, and even if they are in the speculation list you should explain your deduction and add the sources. If not, they will be removed. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 16:42, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
Thrall should count as an orcish wordEdit
I tried to add "Thrall" as an orcish word but it was quicky removed, my problem here is that "Thrall" is a legitamate word in the orcish language. My proof is that in the book Warcraft: Lord of the Clans, when Aedelas Blackmoore names the future warchief Thrall, he tells the young orc that is name means slave, and that he did that as a way of having authoroty over the orc, therefor "Thrall" is a legitimate orcish word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emilldor (talk · contr).
- Huuum... sorry, where is your point here?
- Aedelas named the orc "Thrall", this is the common word for slave, not an orcish word for slave.
- Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 20:24, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
- Emildor please see . Thrall is an english word, a noun. it can be used as a word for slave, i.e. "you are my thrall", or slavery, i.e. "you are in my thrall (service)" In warcraft it's a Common word. Aedelas Blackmoore was explaining to his slave what "Thrall" means because it is not a very often used term, not because it was a word from the Orcish language, which Blackmoore wouldn't know much of. 20:29, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
Kek ? Edit
- Probably one of those randomly-generated three-letter words. --Super Bhaal (talk) 20:24, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
Battle for UC Edit
- In Battle for the Undercity , on alliance side , Thralls sentence "The Undercity belongs to the Horde once more! LOK'TAR!" is translated to orcish as "Mog Osh'kazil gul'rok il mog Ro'th zaga maza TOV'OSH". Using this we can speculate meaning of several words:
- "Osh'Kazil" = "Undercity"
- "gul'rok" = "to belong"
- "il" = "to"
- "mog" = "the"
- "Ro'th" = "Horde"
- "zaga" = "once"
- "maza" = "more"
From unknown reason word Lok'tar is translated as Tov'osh despite fact that Lok'tar itself already is a orcish word.
That part was taken (removed) from the main page, because this is something that's purely taken from the in-game generic translator, word-by-word, equal-letters, and has nothing to do with actual orcish in any larger degree than how players' orcish is translated to Alliance players... --19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
My analysis. Edit
Lok = Let's;
Mok = Son;
Gol = Axe;
Mak = Duel;
Osh / Ash = Heart;
Gar = Warrior;
Gar'Mak = "Warrior's duel" = Anguish;
Mag = Purity;
Magosh = "Pure heart" = A blessing;
Mok-thorin = "Son of ???" = Enemy;
Ka = Engage / Met.
184.108.40.206 20:42, October 31, 2014 (UTC)
"A Courser Language" Edit
Anyone with a cursory understanding of linguistics will tell you that this kind of characterization, for any language, is meaningless and arbirtrary. I realize that "Orcish" and "Common" are fictional and all, but the article essentially champions the aesthetic superiority of English. There are several real languages that use repetition, or changes in volume as an essential part of everyday use.
If there's in-universe sources on the perceived harshness of Orcish, then that's fine. Otherwise, this article is just projecting views on the real-life English language. It's a bad road to go down when you start characterizing certain linguistic elements as "harsh" or "unsubtle", simply because they're not used in English. 220.127.116.11 03:46, October 11, 2015 (UTC)
- I will point out that the text you removed is verbatim from the Horde Player's Guide (pg. 135), so that is why it was there. However, unless there is a really good reason, we shouldn't be using verbatim text without any good point to it.
- The text can stay removed, because it isn't particularly insightful. Your argument about presuming aesthetic superiority of English is silly though, because it presumes "Common" is the same or similar to English which may be true, but there is no evidence for it. -- (talk · contr) 10 Oct 2015 9:09 PM Pacific