Thoughts on translation. "Son of the Sunlit Swordsman"

[Ringrist]

Hello good folks,

I'm looking for thoughts and help on translating a character name into Sindarin:

"Son of the Sunlit Swordsman".

What I ended up with is: "Astvagorion".

But I am not fully sure of it, especially the beginning. "Athvagorion" would sound better to me but based on the links below it would perhaps be "Ast" rather in this case. Then again the whole word "sunlit" ("Ast" as in "Asfaloth") is a bit uncertain based on the word list at eldamo.org. Also, would you put them in this order or change the order in some parts?

I used these sources to come up with the name and help with the translation:

36 - How to make names (1)

If you would like to create a Sindarin name (for either a person or a place) but don't know where to start, this lesson will take you all through the stages you need. Names in Sindarin are compounds,...

sindarinlessons.weebly.com

Eldamo : Sindarin Words

https://eldamo.org/content/words/word-1073854657.html ("Ast")

Also, if you have better sources for crafting these names, please let me know! Any thoughts/help is much appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Welcome, Ringrist. You may have to wait a couple of days for one of our language mavens to swing by, so be patient, and check back in.

Meanwhile, why not browse our forums? Lots of lore here! 🙂

 

[Ringrist]

Thanks mate! Yeah, been looking into thesse a little bit already after joining. First time here, though, a looooong time LotR fan. You guys have some really amazing stuff in here!

 

[Ringrist]

I actually have one more character name that would be great to hear feedback on as well whenever an expert happens to have a little bit of time to share.

Smiling Sage which I translated as "Raengolodh". Another version I was wondering would be "Raenolodh" but I ended up with "Raengolodh" because of noticing Tolkien has a character called "Pengolodh" which means Teaching Sage. Any thoughts if "Raengolodh" would be the proper translation here?

Thanks!

 

[Ent]

You guys have some really amazing stuff in here!

Not to mention some really amazing members who have a vast knowledge of stuff Tolkien..!
And a well maintained Forum in every respect (in my own personal view).

 

[Backyard Professor]

Just a quick linguistic clarification meant to be helpful on the proposed name “Astvagorion.”
As it stands, that form doesn't look Sindarin. So far as I can tell some elements ast, (does have to do with the heat of the sun) vagor, and the consonant cluster stv do not correspond to any attested Sindarin roots, phonology, or morphological patterns in Tolkien’s corpus. So while it looks Elvish at first glance, it doesn’t appear to derive from anything Tolkien actually built.

Here is my proposal for a Sindarin rendering of “Son of the Sunlit Swordsman,”:

megil = “sword” (√MAK)
megilthor = “swordsman”
anorui = “sunlit”
-ion = “son of”
This yields a correct Sindarin name:
Megilthor Anoruion
“Son of the Sunlit Swordsman.”

Sindarin for “sword” = megil (from √MAK “sword, edge”).
A swordsman = megilthor (“sword-warrior,” attested pattern -thor = warrior, hero).
megilthor = swordsman

Sindarin uses anor for “the Sun.”
To say “sunlit / of the sun,” the genitival adjective is typically made with -ui (“having the quality of, -like”) or with lenited adjective compounds.

But Tolkien shows us a perfect word already through the grammatical pattern usage in Sindarin:

anorui — “sunlit, sun-illuminated”
(built from Anor + -ui)
Thus:
anorui megilthor = the sunlit swordsman

It follows Tolkien’s actual phonology, compounds cleanly, and fits right into a Silmarillion-style naming tradition.

 

[Elhath Reborn]

In Sindarin, adjectives follow their nouns.
https://eldamo.org/content/words/word-1624892583.html

 

[Backyard Professor]

In Sindarin, adjectives follow their nouns.
https://eldamo.org/content/words/word-1624892583.html

Yes, adjectives normally follow nouns in simple phrases, but in Sindarin proper names Tolkien freely used reversed order and compound stems (e.g., Mithrandir, Glorfindel, Celeborn, Calenhad). Megilthor Anoruion is a name-structure, not a noun phrase, so the normal adjective order doesn't apply.

 

[Elhath Reborn]

Yes, adjectives normally follow nouns in simple phrases, but in Sindarin proper names Tolkien freely used reversed order and compound stems (e.g., Mithrandir, Glorfindel, Celeborn, Calenhad). Megilthor Anoruion is a name-structure, not a noun phrase, so the normal adjective order doesn't apply.

My eyes were caught in the end-part of your message, namely

anorui megilthor = the sunlit swordsman

which made me remind the readers of this thread of the important rule of adjectives following their nouns in proper Sindarin syntax.

As for Megilthor Anoruion and its intended meaning "Son of the Sunlit Swordsman", I think a lot of people will also quickly recall the minimalistic possession-structure on the Gate of Moria, i.e. Ennyn Durin Aran Moria "Gates [of] Durin, King/Lord [of] Moria", which makes Megilthor Anoruion be interpretable as "Swordsman [of] Sunlit Son" in my eyes. But maybe there are other attestations that give grounds to your anglicization of it — perhaps here?

Btw, would you please also provide the name of the Tolkien book and its page number where we can find the attested pattern -thor = "warrior, hero"?

 

[Backyard Professor]

My eyes were caught in the end-part of your message, namely

anorui megilthor = the sunlit swordsman

which made me remind the readers of this thread of the important rule of adjectives following their nouns in proper Sindarin syntax.

As for Megilthor Anoruion and its intended meaning "Son of the Sunlit Swordsman", I think a lot of people will also quickly recall the minimalistic possession-structure on the Gate of Moria, i.e. Ennyn Durin Aran Moria "Gates [of] Durin, King/Lord [of] Moria", which makes Megilthor Anoruion be interpretable as "Swordsman [of] Sunlit Son" in my eyes. But maybe there are other attestations that give grounds to your anglicization of it — perhaps here?

Btw, would you please also provide the name of the Tolkien book and its page number where we can find the attested pattern -thor = "warrior, hero"?

Here’s what I found when looking into this. Tolkien actually shows pretty clearly that a lot of Sindarin name-parts come straight from roots and only show up in personal names, not as “regular words” people would use in everyday speech. So forms like –orn, –or, –gorn, and similar pieces appear in names, but they don’t exist as normal dictionary nouns. PE17 even says these endings are “of various origin” (PE17:113), which is Tolkien’s way of saying, “These come from different places, and they’re mainly for names.”

A good example is the “thorn” in Arathorn. On PE17:113 Tolkien explains that thorn means “steadfast,” but we only see this meaning inside the name Arathorn. He never uses thorn as a regular Sindarin adjective in sentences. It’s a name-only meaning built from the root THOR. Tolkien does this with many name-elements.

We see the same thing with THOR- / THORON- in the Etymologies (LR:439) and VT 46:19. Forms like thor, thoron, thorn, thurnin show up mostly in names: Cil-thoron, Thorondor, Sorontar, and so on. Tolkien even added a note saying the root idea behind thor was “swooping down,” which matches the “swooping, leaping down” meaning in Carpenter’s dictionary (p.82) and the 2024 Sindarin Dictionary (p.333). So THOR-related forms are definitely real, but they mostly appear in names, not as free words meaning “warrior” or something like that.

So about –thor: Tolkien never says thor is a standalone Sindarin word meaning “warrior.” It isn’t. What it is, is a name-element that comes from the root THOR/THORON “eagle.” In names it can pick up a heroic or powerful flavor, but that’s part of how Tolkien builds personal names, not how normal vocabulary works. So Megilthor uses –thor exactly the way Tolkien uses other name-elements.

On syntax: Anoruion is a normal Sindarin patronymic, the same way we get Thranduilion, Arathornion, Finrodion, etc. In Sindarin names, the last part usually means “son of X.” So Megilthor Anoruion means “Megilthor, son of Anorui,” not “Swordsman of Sunlit Son.” This follows the same pattern as Ennyn Durin Aran Moria, where Tolkien stacks name-pieces without writing “of” every time.

About adjectives: In regular Sindarin sentences, adjectives go after nouns. But in names, compound parts like anorui, aran-moria, aran-dúnedain act as single, fused units, not as separate noun + adjective pieces. Tolkien treats name-elements differently from normal prose.

So overall: Megilthor Anoruion fits the same way Tolkien builds names everywhere else. And using –thor as a root-based name-element is completely in line with how Tolkien handles THOR-family forms in his other Sindarin names.

 

[Elhath Reborn]

Thank you for opening your reasoning. And for repeating the part about nouns-with-adjectives vs. compound-making which nobody has disagreed with.

I am optimistic regarding people who know and honestly accept e.g. the Moria Gate inscription, its translation by Tolkien and all of Tolkien's own Sindarin material, that they should be able to properly choose how Neo-Sindarin combinations like Megilthor Anoruion are to be translated into English.

And as an active student of Tolkien's invented languages since 1998, I recommend for everyone to utilize in double-checking resources like Eldamo (and its handy search-tool) for reliable & source-quoting information on what Tolkien's attested Eldarin roots, words and elements actually mean and on how Tolkien builds names.

 

[Backyard Professor]

Thank you for opening your reasoning. And for repeating the part about nouns-with-adjectives vs. compound-making which nobody has disagreed with.

I am optimistic regarding people who know and honestly accept e.g. the Moria Gate inscription, its translation by Tolkien and all of Tolkien's own Sindarin material, that they should be able to properly choose how Neo-Sindarin combinations like Megilthor Anoruion are to be translated into English.

And as an active student of Tolkien's invented languages since 1998, I recommend for everyone to utilize in double-checking resources like Eldamo (and its handy search-tool) for reliable & source-quoting information on what Tolkien's attested Eldarin roots, words and elements actually mean and on how Tolkien builds names.

I am looking VERY FORWARD to learning with you! I am not at all in-depth in Sindarin as I wish to be, but am an ardent student, so if it is OK with you, pleases, may I pick your brain, and have your ideas as I share mine also? This is TRULY EXCITING!
Tolkien’s linguistic world is too rich to explore alone.
I also appreciate your mention of the Moria Gate inscription approach. I agree: keeping Tolkien’s own constructions front and center is the safest compass when experimenting with Neo-Sindarin possibilities. I share that goal entirely.
I’ve used Eldamo often and value it for quick root confirmation and tracking semantic drift, especially when double-checking against PE and VT. It’s a helpful map — provided we still return to Tolkien’s own texts as our anchor, which it sounds like you also do.
Looking forward to future exchanges — respectful debate, shared excitement, and the slow work of really learning how Tolkien built his names. It should be fun diving into attested patterns, mutation expectations, and those rare but telling late adjustments Tolkien made.
Here’s to good company on the road through Elvish philology!
Heh - it just dawned on me, we also have The King’s Letter to guide formal register — Tolkien’s own Sindarin for title, honorific, and diplomatic style, which pairs nicely with the Moria door text for ritual instruction. Both keep us safely within attested syntax rather than forced compounding. It's been a little while since I read Carl Hostetter's analysis of it in VT (Sept 1993): 12-34, but I remember his notes were amazing!

 

[Elthir]

Hmm. Why not use Magor "Swordsman, sword" based on Tolkien's Menelvagor "Swordsman of the Sky" (The Fellowship of The Ring), and Magor "the Sword" - used as a name for a Man in Silmarillion texts, Magor Dagorlind.

__________

Edit I now have a vague memory - I think Elhath cited from a source that I don't own - that this type of naming (using a "simple noun" like this, compared to something like Mormegil) is not usual in Sindarin, despite the mannish Magor example.

And of course, if I've recalled that correctly, we shouldn't make an exception the rule.
_________


That seems easier (to me anyway) (but see edit above) than wondering about the semantic boundaries of -thor. It also seems to be part of the form which Ringrist proposed in the first post above: "Astvagorion"

Then again I'm no expert, so I could easily be missing or forgetting something (again, see edit above). Anyway, just to add. . .

. . . and not that anyone said otherwise, but for the thread, PE17 wasn't the last idea Tolkien had with respect to the name Arathorn, as, in a late letter, letter 347, dated December 1972, JRRT explained this name as containing an abbreviated form of thorono "eagle".

🦅

 

[Backyard Professor]

Magor is certainly a real Tolkien form, and you remembered correctly that it shows up in Menelvagor and in early names like Magor Dagorlind. I think the key thing to notice is that Magor belongs to an older naming system Tolkien used, and he did not continue that pattern in his later Sindarin revisions. By his later work, especially in PE17, he turns away from Magor as the usual word for swordsman and standardizes different name-elements instead.

This is why, I am saying we have to be careful using Magor as a current, all-purpose form. It is valid historically, but it belongs to an earlier stage of Tolkien’s linguistic ideas, not the late, finalized Sindarin system.

As for thor, I believe the main point is not that it means warrior. Not in the sense of a common dictionary word anyway. Tolkien makes an interesting note in PE17 that thorn (the attested adjectival form) means steadfast, and that he only uses it in names, not in ordinary speech. So thor shows up in proper names as a heroic element rather than an everyday noun.

Your note about letter 347 is also useful because Tolkien mentions thorono as eagle there. This shows how flexible Tolkien’s name-building could be, but also how cautious we need to be when mixing material from different years. PE17 (1960s) reflects a very detailed, late linguistic system, while letter 347 is from 1972 and refers only to Arathorn’s name, not a universal rule for all thor-forms.

So you’re not wrong to notice Magor, and it absolutely has a place in the history of Sindarin. The only reason some of us hesitate to use it freely today is because Tolkien later shifted away from that structure and did not retain Magor as the standard form in his later linguistic writings.

 

[Elthir]

(. . .) This is why, I am saying we have to be careful using Magor as a current, all-purpose form. It is valid historically, but it belongs to an earlier stage of Tolkien’s linguistic ideas, not the late, finalized Sindarin system.

Magor is found, for example, on changes made to the Later Quenta Silmarillion typescript, which dates to about 1958. And the website Parf Edhellen (although obviously not JRRT's own website) currently characterizes it as hailing from the "Late Period (1950 - 1973)". . .

. . . . but even if these things were not so, the form Menelvagor was published by Tolkien himself, giving the form magor (without mutation), in my opinion, a firm place in Sindarin, no matter when it was devised in the external timeline.

(. . .) PE17 (1960s) reflects a very detailed, late linguistic system, while letter 347 is from 1972 and refers only to Arathorn’s name, not a universal rule for all thor-forms.

With respect to the letter I raised, I was only noting that Tolkien later imagined a different meaning for Arathorn, in case anyone reading the thread wondered.

 

[Amalcarin]

Magor is found, for example, on changes made to the Later Quenta Silmarillion typescript, which dates to about 1958. And the website Parf Edhellen (although obviously not JRRT's own website) currently characterizes it as hailing from the "Late Period (1950 - 1973)". . .

. . . . but even if these things were not so, the form Menelvagor was published by Tolkien himself, giving the form magor (without mutation), in my opinion, a firm place in Sindarin, no matter when it was devised in the external timeline.

Also Q. makar “swordsman” (cognate to S. magor) appears in Quendi and Eldar from 1959–60 (VT39/11).

 

[Elthir]

👍 Amalcarin

hey Ringrist, if you're still around here, I'd say just drop the first request and go with Magor Dagorlind just for sound alone!

 

[Backyard Professor]

Thanks, Elithir — genuinely appreciated.

I think we’re simply working from two compatible but differently weighted angles. Yes, Magor absolutely exists in the Legendarium record, and yes, Menelvagor gives a published instance of the element. So it is definitely real within Tolkien’s world.

My only caution has been about applying Magor as if it were a standard, productive, late-Sindarin lexeme in normal usage. The form comes from an earlier stage of Tolkien’s language development and was never re-integrated clearly into the later, more systematic PE17 framework, where elements like megil, megilthor, and thor- (as a name-only element) receive explicit late treatment. That is why I emphasized not that Magor is wrong, but that it belongs to a previous conceptual layer of Tolkien’s own revisions and so should be handled with awareness of its internal date.

In any case, no conflict here. You are tracing the historical validity of the attested form, and I am tracking Tolkien’s later tightening of semantic boundaries. Both perspectives help build a fuller picture of how his linguistic thought evolved.

All good from my side — happy to have the interchange, and I’ll keep developing the late-Sindarin angle.

 

[Backyard Professor]

Also Q. makar “swordsman” (cognate to S. magor) appears in Quendi and Eldar from 1959–60 (VT39/11).

Thanks for the additional references. VT 45 is especially helpful here, because in that entry Tolkien explicitly deletes the gloss “swordsman” for mahtar and replaces it with the broader term “warrior.” It is the later reworking of the LR etymologies, so it is apparently more "updated." That small editorial deletion matters, since it shows Tolkien moving away from the earlier, more concrete “sword-man” sense tied directly to √MAK. This aligns with the later PE17 material, where Tolkien tightens the vocabulary and shifts weapon-based forms into more limited or name-only functions (for example, megilthor versus a general noun “magor”). So magor remains historically attested, but its usable sense belongs to that earlier conceptual phase rather than the finalized late-Sindarin system. That’s the distinction I’m trying to keep clear: not invalidating the form, just situating it in its proper period of Tolkien’s own revisions.

I’m simply noting that: VT 39 is 1959–60; PE17 is 1967–69ish; Letter 347 is 1972, and it was in the latest period that Tolkien refined the vocabulary and name-elements (e.g., -thor restricted, megilthor preferred, megil as core noun). So, it appears to me to be the timing that is the entire question not legitimacy.

I agree that makar and its Sindarin cognate magor do appear in the 1959–60 material, and they show Tolkien’s earlier stage where √MAK “cut, sword” produced both forms across the Eldarin languages. But √MAK is not A Sindarin lexicon entry, or a late-Sindarin productivity claim for magor, nor a PE17 or post-1965 re-systematization. In VT 45: 30-32 the entry as swordsman was entirely struck out.

My point is simply about chronology and Tolkien’s latest thinking: magor comes from that earlier system, while in the late Sindarin period (PE17 and onward), Tolkien reshaped the sword and warrior vocabulary with megil, megilthor, and a much narrower use of elements like -thor. So magor remains historically valid, but it isn’t part of the final late-Sindarin productive set. No disagreement needed — we’re each just prioritizing different layers of Tolkien’s revisions.

 

[Amalcarin]

The form comes from an earlier stage of Tolkien’s language development and was never re-integrated clearly into the later, more systematic PE17 framework, where elements like megil, megilthor, and thor- (as a name-only element) receive explicit late treatment.

Q. makar “swordsman” (cognate to S. magor) is explicitly derived from the stem √MAK “cut, hew with a sharp edge” in Quendi and Eldar from 1959–1960 (VT39/11). The same stem appears in The Shibboleth of Fëanor from 1968 or later with a somewhat different meaning “to forge metal (which rang at the stroke of hammers)” and such derivatives as makil “a forged sword blade, a cutting sword” and, again, makar “forger”, said to be “often used in later use of a warrior” (VT41/10).

Also, could you please clarify what in PE17 are you referring to? The word megil seems only to appear in the phrase i·arben na megil and “The Knight of the Long Sword” on p. 147 without any insights into its etymology or use, and the notes on pp. 112–3 which give the second element of the name Arathorn as thorn “steadfast” do not say anything at all about such an element as -thor in megilthor (there is simply no such form there, as far as I can see).