S. genitive grammar.
Sindarin has several ways of expressing genitive (“of”) relationships between nouns. In one note from around 1966-67, Tolkien said Old Sindarin had three distinct ways of expressing a genitive:
Note 3 forms of Genitive in Old Sindarin. [1] Without ending (in noun or article) follows an absolute noun and is then adjectival, implying any kind of relationship. So roch heryn = Lady(’s) horse, because connected with the lady (Arwen). [2] Purely possessive (singular) is -a, plural -on ... [3] Subject[ive] = ān/n, -āna. roch na-heryna, the horse of (the) Lady. Objective. dagnir an Glaurung, Slayer of Glaurung = he who slew Glaurung. an preceded article in form eni (PE17/97).
This quote is difficult to parse, but the three genitive constructions are:
The suffixal genitive -a/-on was archaic and rarely seen, but both juxtapositional and prepositional genitives appear regularly in Tolkien’s writings.
Juxtapositional Genitives: Tolkien described the formation of a genitive via juxtaposition in several places:
The genitive when strictly so (esp. when implying identity, as “the city of Minas Tirith”) and not implying any movement of or from or partitive relation is expressed by mere juxtaposition (notes on The Lord of the Rings, late 1950s or early 1960s, PE17/25).
Since all final vowels disappeared in Sindarin, it cannot be determined whether or not this language had in the primitive period developed inflexional -ō. Its presence in Telerin of Aman makes its former presence in Sindarin probable. The placing of the genitive noun second in normal Sindarin is also probably derived from inflexional forms (Quendi and Eldar essay, around 1960, WJ/370).
In S. the simple genitive was usually expressed by placing the genitival noun in adjectival position (in S. after the primary noun). So Vol I., p. 319, Ennyn Durin Aran Moria: “doors (of) Durin King (of) Moria”, Vol. III, p. 41 Ernil i Pheriannath “Prince (of) the Halflings”, Vol. I, p. 320 Fennas nogothrim “gateway (of) dwarf-folk” (The Road Goes Ever On, 1967, RGEO/67).
The second quote indicates a possible origin for the juxtapositional genitive in Sindarin: it may be the result of ancient genitival suffix -ō being lost along with all other final vowels in Sindarin. Hence *andondī Durinō > S. ennyn Durin. These juxtapositional genitives are common in names in the legendarium:
None of the above show any mutation, as opposed to the examples where the second element is an actual adjective which typically does undergo soft mutation:
This Sindarin behavior is distinct from that of Noldorin in the 1930s and 40s, where the genitival noun usually underwent soft mutation as if it were an adjective. Compare:
Definite Juxtapositional Genitives: The vast majority juxtapositional genitives with singular nouns do not have a definite article, but there is at least one that does, namely:
If we expand our scope to include (apparent) juxtapositional genitives with plural nouns, the examples become numerous:
However, in his book Gateway to Sindarin, David Salo pointed out that these genitival i(n) might instead be a plural form of en (GS/151); see below. There are also plenty of examples of plural genitives without an article:
Prepositional Genitives, na: Tolkien introduced the preposition na “with, of” in genitive constructs very early, and it dates all the way back to Gnomish of the 1910s (where it was a genitive definite article; see Conceptual Development below). In addition to the PE17/97 quote above (where na was described as a “subjective genitive”), Tolkien discussed this preposition in a number of places:
NĀ¹- ... N na with, by, prefix an-. Also used as genitive sign (The Etymologies, 1930s, Ety/NĀ¹).
The original sense of Eldarin ana was plainly “at side of, alongside, besides”, hence also “moreover, in addition, plus” (seen in use of an- as an intensive prefix), and so an or na in some languages has the sense “along with, with, accompanied by, provided with, associated with” and the like. Cf. Bel. na which forms virtually adjectival expressions: as Taur na Foen “The Forest of Foen” (i.e. which included the mountain called the Foen) (Common Eldarin: Noun Structure, early 1950s, PE21/79).
na is rather a multi-functional word in appearance! Its functions in Quenya/Sindarin can however probably be derived from ANA/NĀ “allative” base. In Sindarin it is a preposition and in na-Thón functions like French “á”, provided with, marked by, with etc. (draft of a 1955 letter to Mr. David Masson, PE17/82).
√ANA/NĀ to, towards - added to, plu- ... na (< nā) “to, towards” of space/time. with vocalic mutation. before vowel n’ ... S na, before vowels nan (nasal mutation), means “with” in sense of possessing, provided with, especially of characteristic feature. Orod na Thôn “Mount of the Pine Tree(s)”. na “to” and na “with” are therefore distinct before vowels and b, d, g, p, t, c, m, s but same before h, f, þ, r (rh), l (lh) ... For this na(n) Quenya used suffix -va. S i·arben na megil and “The Knight of the Long Sword” = Q arquen andamakilwa. Thus after arose [?] genitive, as Aran lintaciryalíva, S aran cîr lim or aran na chîr lim = [Q] Aran linta ciryalion (Quenya Notes, 1957, PE17/146-147).
In the last quote Tolkien contrasts a juxtapositional genitive aran cîr lim (no mutation) with a prepositional genitive aran na chîr lim “*king of swift ships”. He also contrasts the genitival preposition na “with, of” with the allative preposition na “to, toward”, distinguishable mainly because the genitival preposition causes nasal mutation but the allative preposition causes soft mutation: na thaur “of a forest (taur)” vs. na daur “to a forest”. Attested examples are (mostly) consistent with nasal mutation, and there are a couple of Noldorin examples from the 1930s where the preposition takes the form nan before vowels:
There are two Sindarin counterexamples to this suffix causing nasal mutation, however: Dor-na-Daerachas “Land of Great Dread” (rather than *Naerachas) and Mîr n’Ardhon “Jewel of the World” (rather than *Mîr nan-Ardhon). These could represent conceptual vacillations on the nature of the preposition or the operation of nasal mutation or both. There is also an apparent variant of this preposition appearing before plural nouns, nia, attested in two places:
It is probably a combination of the plural article in and na. It is unclear how this nia variant arose, or what specific mutation it might cause (soft, nasal or mixed).
Prepositional Genitives, en: Genitives can also be formed with the preposition en. The relationship between this preposition and na is not entirely clear. One common theory is that en is a definite variant of na. The most complete notes we have on en and its origin are the notes on the “3 Genitives” of Sindarin, mentioned at the beginning of this entry. In it Tolkien said:
Subject[ive] = ān/n, -āna. roch na-heryna, the horse of (the) Lady. Objective. dagnir an Glaurung, Slayer of Glaurung = he who slew Glaurung. an preceded article in form {ani >>} eni. mellyn enin Edhellion [friends of the Elves] (PE17/97).
This paragraph seems to imply en originated from an + the definite article i, undergoing i-affection, with an (archaic?) definite plural form enin. However, this is immediately followed by another paragraph where Tolkien seems to explore another etymology:
The possessive has article ena usually, especially later, reduced to en before vowel (not when g is lost), na before consonant. Plural is enan > en n/, nan. Hauð en ellas [Mound of the Elf-maid]. nan ellas. i-mbair en N(d)engin, the houses of the Slain (PE17/97).
Here Tolkien seems to suggest that the ancient form was ena, possibly derived via a-affection from the ancient “emphatic” or “adjectival” definite article ina introduced by Tolkien in the late 1940s (PE23/86, 105). This “possessive article” ena is not entirely consistent with the genitival preposition en seen in Tolkien’s other writings, since it only takes the form en before vowels and is na before consonants.
It is unclear whether ena is a competing etymology with eni, or whether en is a blending of ancient (definite preposition) eni and (adjectival/possessive article) ena [< *inā]. Some attested forms support the notion that en is not exclusively a definite genitive “of the”, since (a) there are examples whose glosses have “of” but no “the” and (b) there are examples where en is used with proper names that theoretically do not need a definite article:
Based on examples like these, Thorsten Renk proposed that en was not exclusively definite in his article on The Sindarin Case System. However, glosses are not a completely reliable way of determining whether or not something is definite in Sindarin: English glosses frequently have “the” even though i is not present in the equivalent Sindarin. In the case of Echoriath, perhaps it is definite for the same reason that groups of mountains can be definite in English: “the Alps, the Rockies”. For purposes of Neo-Sindarin, I think it is easiest to assume en is the definite form of na.
One interesting feature of en is that it seems to cause mixed mutation, an idea first proposed by David Salo (GS/79). The preposition originally ended in a vowel, and up to a point this vowel induced the phonetic changes on following consonants leading in the direction of soft mutation. But at one point this vowel vanished, bringing the nasal into contact with the consonant, leading to further sound changes due to various nasal effects. See the entry on mixed mutation for further discussion and the exact rules for this mutation.
Prepositional Genitives, in: In the PE17/97 notes mentioned above, Tolkien gave a plural form enin for definite prepositional eni, and for the possessive article ena he said the “plural is enan > en n/”, which Christopher Gilson suggested probably means that its plural induces normal nasal mutation. The form enin appears only in this note, but hints of en n/ can be seen elsewhere. Examples of plurals with the prepositional en include:
See the entry on mixed mutation for how these plural genitives with e(n) might work. However, in a list of Sindarin titles for various stories (MR/373), Tolkien used e(n) only in the singular and its corresponding plural seems to be i(n):
In this list: e(n) appears only before singular nouns, i(n) only before plural nouns, and proper names (such as Beren, Hador, Gondolin) are consistently unmarked by either. On this basis David Salo suggested the plural of e(n) was i(n) (GS/151), and the appearance of i(n) in juxtapositional genitives was in fact a plural e(n). This would help explain why plural i(n) is so common in genitival constructions, but singular i almost never occurs.
Archaic Genitive Suffixes: In the aforementioned notes from PE17/97, Tolkien said that Old Sindarin had some inflectional genitives:
glim maewion, maewia, (the) voices of gulls. lais geledhion, or galaðon, the leaves of trees. -a is gen[itive] -ō. ion is ia > g[enitive] iōm, later n [?restored].
Tolkien followed this up with “X Don’t have inflected genitive!” However, in notes from 1968 he seems to have reversed himself, saying:
A genitival a of relationship, pl. -on, occurred in O.S., but only preserved in names of the [? or ?]. Dagnir Laurunga (NM/355).
The last bit of this statement refers to the phrase written on Túrin’s tomb: Túrin Turambar Dagnir Glaurunga “Túrin Turambar, Bane [Slayer] of Glaurung” (S/226). Here the suffix -a in Glaurunga must certainly be this archaic genitive. The “full genitive” form elenathon of the class plural elenath is mentioned in Tolkien’s notes on words in The Lord of the Rings (PE17/25). The genitive plural suffix -on is also a factor in the name Caras Galadhon “City of Trees”, but Tolkien reconceived of this as an adaptation of a Nandorin name Caras Galadon (PE17/60), a language where this genitive suffix apparently remained active.
It seems likely these suffixes -a/-on were remnants of earlier ideas from Gnomish and Noldorin of the 1910s through 1930s. To the extent that they were feature of Sindarin as Tolkien imagined it in the 1950s and 60s, they were definitely archaic and no longer used in “modern” Sindarin.
Functional Differences between Juxtapositional and Prepositional Genitives: Given that there are at least two (non-archaic) genitive constructs in Sindarin (prior to 1969), what is the difference in meaning between the two? In many cases it seems the two are interchangeable, in much the same way that “the man’s sword” and “the sword of the man” mean essentially the same thing in English. However, among the quotes given above there are hints of some distinctions in meaning:
The genitive when strictly so (esp. when implying identity, as “the city of Minas Tirith”) and not implying any movement of or from or partitive relation is expressed by mere juxtaposition (notes on The Lord of the Rings, late 1950s or early 1960s, PE17/25).
In the PE17/97 note Tolkien instead said of the juxtapositional genitive: “Without ending (in noun or article) follows an absolute noun and is then adjectival, implying any kind of relationship”. In that document, Tolkien also said prepositional na was “subjective” and an was “objective”, indicating that the modified noun was the subject or object of an implicit verbal relationship between the two nouns. In notes from 1957 Tolkien said na(n) meant “ ‘with’ in sense of possessing, provided with, especially of characteristic feature”, comparable to Quenya -va (PE17/147) and in 1955 Tolkien compared its function to French “á”, thereby meaning “provided with, marked by, with” (PE17/82).
There is a lot of ambiguity here, but it seems that the juxtapositional genitive is used when describing identity: ost Minas Tirith “[the] city [of] Minas Tirith”. However, na is used when denoting a partitive or compositional relationship: Orod-na-Thôn “Mountain of Pine” and Taur-na-Neldor “Forest of Beech” (LotR/469). Given its comparison to Q. -va, I suspect (but cannot prove) that na(n) and en would also be used for a pure possessive relationship: aran na chîr lim “*king of [= having] swift ships”, Dor-en-Ernil “Land of [= belonging to] the Prince”.
I also think that where two nouns are in a juxtapositional genitive, the second functions as an adjectival descriptor of the first, and as such the second noun would almost never be definite. This assumes that the regular appearance of plural i(n) in juxtaposed nouns is actually a plural prepositional en, as described above.
Genitives vs. the Common Eldarin Article (CEA): Towards the end of his life, Tolkien made a radical change to the singular definite article. In notes on the Common Eldarin Article (CEA) from 1969 (first published in 2024), he decide the singular article was (mostly) e rather than i, taking the form en before vowels (PE23/135). Although Tolkien did not specifically address genitive constructions in CEA, his use of e(n) for the ordinary definite article strongly implies it would not be used as a definite genitive preposition.
Assuming this is the case, the CEA system probably relied heavily (if not exclusively) on the juxtapositional genitive. In this system, a phrase like Haudh-en-Arwen “Ladybarrow, *Barrow of the Lady” [originally en = “of the”] would be reinterpreted as using an ordinary definite article e(n), with essentially the same meaning “Barrow [of] the Lady”. The result would be a very “Welsh-like” genitive system, which likewise primarily uses juxtaposition to form genitives, with or without an intervening definite article that marks the entire noun phrase as definite. Compare definite CEA-style Sindarin haudh en arwen “[a] barrow [of] the lady = the lady’s barrow” to Welsh “crug y wraig” [mutated], vs. indefinite haudh arwen “[a] barrow [of a] lady = [a] lady’s barrow” and Welsh “crug gwraig” [unmutated].
The fate of the preposition na(n) “of, with” in the CEA system is unclear. Perhaps Tolkien abandoned it along with definite preposition en “of the”, or perhaps he retained it but with a more restricted semantic sense.
Conceptual Development: In the Gnomish Grammar of the 1910s, the language had a distinct genitive case:
The genitive, denoting derivation and used by itself usually as a possessive or partitive but also employed with all prepositions etc. of ablative or derivative sense. It is occasionally used by itself in an ablative sense, as in bara from home, away, out, abroad ... gen[itive] abl[ative] -a, -n; [plural] -ion, -thon (GG/10).
Rather interestingly, Gnomish also had a distinct genitive definite article: na· or nan· before vowels:
The forms na·, nan derive as follows: i + n genitive + a suffixal genitive giving ina. nan from ina· for euphony before a vowel but aided by i in·, a· an· and other variations. The forms ina and inan· or inon· occur archaically (GG/9).
It is likely this variant article is the inspiration for the later Noldorin and Sindarin genitival preposition na. Furthermore, Gnomish had its own genitival/ablative preposition: a(n), as described in the Gnomish Lexicon:
a· prefix causing initial consonant change (n· mutation), a mark of genitive employed now both with and without -a termination - (also often syncopated leaving only the mutation) ... a(n·) with vowel mutation. = Q ô. from {signifying motion} and used as addition to {both} ablative {and allative} cases. Is always suffixed to article in those cases. See grammar (GL/17).
Both the preposition and article can be seen in genitival expressions from this conceptual period. Examples of a(n) include:
The article na was sometimes (but not always) accompanied by the genitive inflection:
Also note how these forms mostly had soft mutation, since nasal mutation was not yet a feature of the language; hints of nasal mutation can be seen in examples like Fôs na Ngalmir, however.
The preposition a(n) “of” mostly disappeared after the 1910s, aside from a few outliers such as [ᴱN.] Loth-a-ladwen (LB/149), [N.] Rath a Chelerdain (WR/388), and (archaic?) dagnir an Glaurung (PE17/97), though its more ancient form remained the basis for S. en “of the” (< ani); see above. Meanwhile, the article na morphed into a preposition by the time of The Etymologies of the 1930s (Ety/NĀ¹), and this preposition continued to appear in Sindarin of the 1950s and 60s as discussed above. As for the genitive inflections -a, -n, -ion, it seems these were transferred to the Ilkorin language in the 1930s and later into Nandorin, though these suffixes survived conceptually as an archaic feature of Old Noldorin (Ety/THOR; PE21/59) and Old Sindarin (PE17/97, NM/355).
The (definite?) preposition en “of the” was not introduced until the switch to Sindarin in the early 1950s (WJ/92). There are a lot of complexities in the conceptual developments in between Gnomish and Sindarin, and I explore them in more detail in my essay on Sindarin Articles and Mutations from Parma Eldalamberon #23.
Neo-Sindarin: For purposes of Neo-Sindarin, I would assume both juxtapositional and prepositional genitives are more or less equivalent except as outlined above:
I would use neither of these genitive constructs for “of” referring to origin. I would use the preposition o instead: Celebrimbor o Eregion “Celebrimbor of [= from] Eregion”.
I would assume na(n) “of” is indefinite causing nasal mutation, with definite singular e(n) “of the” inducing mixed mutation and definite plural i(n) “of the” inducing nasal mutation. Wherever an i(n) is found between nouns, I would assume it was a plural preposition, since I assume the second noun in juxtapositional genitives is always indefinite. I would also assume those few instances of e(n) appearing with a plural noun are either abandoned ideas or abberations. For example Haudh-en-Ndengin was revised to (singular) Haudh-en-Nirnaeth (WJ/169), and there is a variant Hauð i nenghin from 1962 that seems to use a plural definite article (with nasal mutation) instead of en (PE17/133).
The above assumes you continue to use the pre-1969 system where the singular definite article is i rather than CEA-style e(n). If you do want to use the CEA definite article, I recommend assuming there are only juxtapositional genitives, with e(n) [singular] and i(n) [plural] marking the noun phrase as definite as in Welsh: haudh arwen “mound [of a] lady”, haudh en arwen “mound [of] the lady”, haudh in erwin “mound [of] the ladies”. In the CEA system, I would assume na(n) would always be indefinite and limited to partitive and compositional relationships: Orod-na-Thôn “Mountain of Pine”.
| Examples (old-genitive) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLAURUNGA | [← Glaurung] | ⇒ TÚRIN TURAMBAR DAGNIR GLAURUNGA | ✧ S/226 | ||||||
| heryna | ← heryn | ⇒ roch na-heryna | ✧ PE17/97 | ||||||
| maewia | [← #maew] | ✧ PE17/97 | |||||||
| elenathon | ← elen | class-plural | ✧ PE17/25 | ||||||
| aiwon | [← aew] | plural | ✧ PE17/97 | ||||||
| aewon | [← aew] | plural | ✧ PE17/97 | ||||||
| aewion | [← aew] | plural | ✧ PE17/97 | ||||||
| Edhellion | [← Edhel] | plural | ⇒ mellyn enin Edhellion | ✧ PE17/97 | |||||
| Edhellon | [← Edhel] | plural | ✧ PE17/97 | ||||||
| geledhion/galaðon | “of trees” | [← galadh] | plural | ⇒ lais geledhion/galaðon | ✧ PE17/97 | ||||
| maewion | “of gulls” | [← #maew] | plural | ⇒ glim maewion | ✧ PE17/97 | ||||
| Laurunga | [← Glaurung] | soft-mutation g-mutation | ✧ NM/355 | ||||||
References ✧ NM/355; PE17/25, 97; PE21/79; RGEO/67; WJ/370
Related
Element In
Derivations
N. genitive grammar.
| Examples (genitive) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rewinion | “of the hunters” | [← rewinion] | plural | ⇒ Duil Rewinion | ✧ SM/225 | ||||
Element In
G. genitive grammar.
References ✧ GG/10-12, 15
Related
Element In