Q: Where Did the Phrase ‘Le Hannon’ Come From?
ANSWER: Not from J.R.R. Tolkien, as far as I am aware. This appears to be a case of fannish extrapolation based on the Qenya lexicon and whatever rules of transformation have been adopted by Tolkien linguists. However, I am not a linguist and I have not trod those swirling pathways enough to be able to tell you the history of le hannon, nor even the reasoning of how one derives such an expression from Eruhantalë, which is only found (so far as I know) in Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle-earth. But then I don’t scan every linguistic newsletter and essay that comes out from the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship so you would do better to ask those folks about the history of the expression.
What I am willing to say is that the usual translation, “thank you”, is not literal; at least, it does not seem literal to me. It is the word le that leads me to extend my neck and await the headsman’s axe on this matter. Let me explain with a little bit of history and ranting.
In Letter No. 211, J.R.R. Tolkien answered some questions that Rhona Beare had submitted to him.
The use of O on II p. 339 is an error. Mine in fact, taken over from p. 338, where Gilthoniel O Elbereth is, of course, a quotation of I p. 88, which was a ‘translation’, English in all but proper names. Sam’s invocation is, however, in pure Elvish and should have had A as in I p. 250. Since hobbit-language is represented as English, O could be defended as an inaccuracy of his own; but I do not propose to defend it. He was ‘inspired’ to make this invocation in a language he did not know (II 338). Though it is, of course, in the style and metre of the hymn-fragment, I think it is composed or inspired for his particular situation.
It means, more or less: ‘O Elbereth Starkindler (in the past tense: the title belongs to mythical pre-history and does not refer to a permanent function) from heaven gazing-afar, to thee I cry now in the shadow of (the fear of) death. O look towards me, Everwhite!‘ Everwhite is an inadequate translation; as is equally the snow-white of I 88. The element ui (Primitive Elvish oio) means ever; both fan– and los(s) convey white, but fan connotes the whiteness of clouds (in the sun); loss refers to snow.
If you have an entire afternoon to spare, Helge Fauskanger analyzes the hymn and provides a clear identification (for those who don’t know any Elvish at all) of how the translations are to be placed against the words. And so Fauskanger shows us that Tolkien translates Fanuilos, le linnathon as Fanuilos, to thee I will chant. And that means le is translated as “to thee”.
Going back to Eruhantalë, linguists break this word down to Eru (God, the One) and hantalë (give thanks to). Of course, how do we know that hantalë is not supposed to be two words, hanta and –lë? That would mean that Sindarin le is equivalent to Quenya lë, right? Nope. Apparently not. It seems to depend on two things: who you ask and how well you understand what these linguists tell you (they, like many people engaged in jargonistic discussion, seldom actually speak in plain English). In his Quenya affixes article, Fauskanger explains Quenya lë this way:
–lë is typically used to derive verbal nouns: horta– “speed, urge”, hortalë “speeding, urging” (KHOR), intya– “guess, suppose”, intyalë “imagination” (lit. *”guessing, supposing”, INK), vesta– “wed”, vestalë “wedding” (BES). These verbal nouns may be formed directly from the stem when it ends in a vowel: tailë “lengthening” (TAY [or *TAI] “extend, make long(er)”), cuilë “life, being alive” (KUY “come to life”). In the case of basic stems ending in a consonant, the ending –lë may be added to a nasal-infixed form of them: mancalë “commerce” from manca– “trade”, that is in turn derived from MBAKH “exchange”, or quentalë “account, history” from KWET- “speak”. The ending –lë is also used to derive concrete nouns from an adjective: oia “everlasting”, oialë “everlasting [?age]” (Tolkien’s handwriting was illegible; OY), aica “sharp”, aicalë “a peak” (AYAK), merya “festive”, meryalë “holiday” (MBER).
But wait. The Elvish Linguistic Fellowship tosses variations of le all over the map in their guide to “Common Eldarin Pronouns”, so to someone like me –lë sure looks like it could be used as a pronoun and suffix ala:
- Ainulindalë “Ainu(r) + sing + to thee” (the Music of the Ainur)
- Eruhantalë “Eru + gift(of thanks) + to thee” (Thanksgiving to Eru)
- Erulaitalë “Eru + praise + to thee” (Praise of Eru)
- Nurtalë Valinóreva “hiding + to thee”, “Valinor + of” (the Hiding of Valinor)
- Tintallë “kindle + to thee” (Kindler)
Now, many examples you will find in Quenya lexicons of words ending in –lë don’t make sense if you assume the suffix is a personal pronoun. And while I haven’t looked at them all, I noticed something funny: a lot of the words where –lë does not work as a pronoun are actually derived from pre-Lord of the Rings lexicons. In other words, these Quenya dictionaries are practicing what Carl Hostetter has criticized as “conflation and singularity” (see his essay “Elvish as She is Spoke”). Is it really Quenya if J.R.R. Tolkien did not call it Quenya? I guess this debate will divide the Linguistic Halls for all eternity. There is an intuitive argument that pledges good faith in Tolkien’s intention to carry things forward; but as anyone who understands the complex relationship between The Book of Lost Tales and The Silmarillion knows, a lot of stuff falls away. People err egregiously when they trek back in time to those earlier works and pick up fallen things to include in later contexts.
For my own part I know I am guilty of many linguistic sins when it comes to analyzing Tolkien’s world, but I kind of like to think that he used –lë to denote a certain personal perspective in some words, especially words starting with a proper noun (specific names of people and places, for example). This may only be me reading something into all the words, but it would add a layer of complexity to Elvish if Tolkien really did intend to use pronouns in this way. But Vinyar Tengwar 43 has something interesting to say about this idea, too:
antale ‘give’ (At. I): This consists of anta ‘give’ (V:348 s.v. ANA1-) + the pronominal suffix –le ‘thou’. All other versions have anta ‘give’ (At. I deletion, IIa-VI).
This article analyzes Tolkien’s translations (there were six) of the Latin Pater Noster prayer into Quenya, in a work titled “Ataremma” (full title of the article is “‘Words of Joy’: Five Catholic Prayers in Quenya (Part One) by J.R.R. Tolkien, Edited by Patrick Wynne, Arden R. Smith, and Carl Hostetter”). The editors provide reference dates scattered throughout the 1950s and 1960s, so this is definitely Quenya by J.R.R. Tolkien and not Quenya as derived from old stuff.
My interpretation of the pronominal use of –lë may be wrong, in which case I have just ignorantly launched my own branch of pseudo-Quenya, but I think that what we have here is an argument in support of the le hannon translation as “thank you”, rather than a proof that Tolkien himself devised the phrase and translation. Not that the linguists need my help in these matters, but if you’re going to write about Elvish on the Web I have three requests:
- Write in plain, simple English (because I hate looking up words like declension and lenition — real people don’t talk this way)
- Give some freaking references (numbered notes and unlinked abbreviations explained on other Web pages do not count) and citations
- Justify your use of pre-LoTR sources for analyzing LoTR-era and later texts with explanations (and “we couldn’t find anything else to work with” is NOT acceptable)
My complaints (about the unintelligible gibberish linguists confer in) are extensible to every professional and academic discipline with its own jargon. If you want to talk amongst yourselves, fine, you’re even welcome to put that garbage lingo on the Web. But if you take it upon yourselves to write something to teach others, you fail utterly, miserably, and completely when you resort to jargon-laced blathering without making any attempt to explain (what seems so obvious to you) to the people you want to read (and understand) what you write. The absolute worst references intended for the masses in mathematics, physics, and Tolkien Studies make too few or no attempts at all to communicate with people in a reasonable way.
And that ivory toweristic approach to explaining things is what leads people to ask questions like, “Where did the phrase le hannon come from?” If it really did come from J.R.R. Tolkien, no one seems to have said that in plain, simple English with clear and precise references to the published source of information.
Of course, we could also blame Google for making it so hard to find good non-commercial Websites in their search results. Maybe all this information is out there and we just can’t easily find it because Google just really sucks these days. But that is another rant for an entirely different Website.
# # #
Have you read our other Tolkien and Middle-earth Questions and Answers articles?
