In Chapter 1 of LotR, Gandalf is talking to Bilbo and says, “All your long life we have been friends”. A couple pages later, Lobelia and Otho show up to Bag End and, talking to Merry, Lobelia says, “Anyway we want to see [Frodo] and we mean to see him.” The “we” in these two sentence mean slightly different things. In the first case, Gandalf’s “we” includes the person he is addressing, Bilbo: Gandalf and Bilbo have been friends for a long time. In the second case, Lobelia’s “we” excludes the person she is addressing, Merry: Lobelia and Otho want to see Frodo, but they don’t care about Merry’s wants. In linguistic theory, these are referred to a the inclusive and exclusive readings of the pronoun. In this post I will run through a more careful description of the inclusive/exclusive distinction, then look at some places in LotR where the inclusive vs. exclusive readings have a potential impact on our understanding of the nuance of the scene. At the end, I’ll take a very quick look at a place where I expected the distinction to be relevant, but it turned out not to be.
Inclusivity and Exclusivity
In a conversation, there are at least two people who take turns fulfilling two roles: the speaker and the addressee. The speaker says something to the addressee, and then they swap roles. The individual who is speaking at any time uses the “first person” pronouns (I, we), and refers to the addressee using “second person” pronouns (you). The first person plural (we) is used when the speaker is referring to themselves plus other(s). That “plus other(s)” does a lot of work. There are many ways that “others” can be conceptualized. The inclusive/exclusive distinction we are looking at today is just one.
An inclusive pronoun means that the speaker includes the addressee(s) as part of “we”. Near the end of the book, in the second to last chapter, “Homeward Bound”, after Gandalf has left the Hobbits, Merry tells his three companions, “Well here we are, just the four of us that started out together.” Merry here is the speaker, the other three hobbits are the addressees. The pronoun “we” refers to everyone in the conversation.
In the first chapter of the Two Towers, after the breaking of the fellowship at Tol Brandir, while Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli debate what they should do next, Aragorn says, “… we that remain cannot forsake our companions….” He is making a claim that encompasses all three remaining members of the fellowship.
An exclusive pronoun is the opposite. The speaker is excluding the addressee. Let’s look at a few clear cases. In Chapter 3 of Book 1, Frodo, Pippin, and Sam wake up in the morning during their walking tour to Crickhollow. Frodo wanders off for a view of the surrounding countryside. When he returns without any water, Pippin says, “We thought you had gone to find some.” Pippin is talking about what he and Sam thought. Clearly he does not believe that Frodo shared their thought on the matter. We is exclusive.
In the Two Towers, when the two Hobbits meet Treebeard, Treebeard is unsure what to make of them, these small beings who do not seem to fit into the list of living creatures. Merry explains to him, “We’re hobbits.” He is not suggesting that Treebeard is also a hobbit with his use of we. The Ent is excluded.
In many languages around the world, these two conceptualizations of “we” are represented by distinct words. None of the European languages do this, nor do many of the most common languages outside Europe, such as Arabic and Chinese. But it is actually pretty common around the world. According the World Atlas of Linguistic Structures, about 31% of their sample languages have this distinction. Indeed, Tolkien included this distinction in his artificial languages: Quenya ‘exclusive we’ is me, and ‘inclusive we’ is ve. (We’ll look at Quenya in detail in a future post.)
When translating the Lord of the Rings into a language with a distinction between inclusive and exclusive pronouns (including Quenya), the translator must consider each use of “we”, “us”, “our” to decide the relationship between the speaker and the addressee. In most cases, it is clear which pronoun to use. The example cases above are all pretty obvious. There are situations, though, where things are not so clear. The translator would need to decide what they think is going on in the head of the speaker.
In the rest of this section, I am going to look at two cases where decisions must be made, and what the ramifications of any such decision would be. I am going to tackle the relationship between Frodo and Gildor and the parlay between Théoden and Saruman. Then I will look at cases where there is less to say that I expected when I started combing the text.
Frodo and Gildor
The first case I want to consider is in Fellowship of the Ring, Chapter 3, when Frodo, Sam, and Pippin meet Gildor’s band of travelers. Pippin asks the Elves about the Black Riders. They do not give a direct answer, but instead invite the Hobbits to join them for the evening, and there is a little discussion about this. The relevant fragments are below, and I have added in some annotations about who I think Gildor and Frodo are talking about. Gildor says:
‘We [Elves] think you [Hobbits] had best come now with us. It is not our custom, but for this time we [Elves] will take you [Hobbits] on our road, and you shall lodge with us tonight, if you will. […] Come now with your friends and join our [Elves’] company! You had best walk in the middle so that you may not stray. You may be weary before we [Elves and Hobbits] halt.
‘Why? Where are you [Elves] going?’ asked Frodo.
‘For tonight we [?] go to the woods on the hills above Woodhall. It is some miles, but you shall have rest at the end of it, and it will shorten your journey tomorrow.’
The Fellowship of the Rings, Three is Company
At first there are two parties, the Elves and the Hobbits. Gildor as an Elf uses “we” to talk about his group exclusive of the other. It’s “we” vs “you”, Elves vs Hobbits. Then he suggests that the two groups join into one group, and “we” becomes inclusive. Gildor is concerned that the Hobbits may get tired before the new combined company halts for the night. It would make no sense for him to say the Hobbits might grow tired before the Elves stop, if the Hobbits weren’t going to be with them.
Consider the next thing Frodo says: “Where are you going?” He does not say, “Where are we going?” He is not including himself in Gildor’s group. Not yet. He’s waiting until he hears more details to decide what to do. He is being prudent. He is trusting of the Elves, but he isn’t just doing whatever they say.
Because of this, Gildor’s next use of “we” is unclear. He could be saying “We [Elves and Hobbits] go to woods on the hills above Woodhall”; or he could be saying “We [Elves] go to the woods on the hills above Woodhall”. In the first (inclusive) option, Gildor would be assuming, despite Frodo’s momentary hesitation, that the Hobbits will accompany him. He already accepted them as part of his group, now he’s giving his suggestion on what they should do together. In the second (exclusive) option, Gildor would be taking a momentary step back. He welcomed Frodo into the group, but Frodo hesitated, so now he retreats back to a “we” and “you” stance until Frodo accepts the invitation. He provides details on his own plans, leaving Frodo free to make the decision to join or not. “My group is going to the woods above Woodhall, and you are welcome to join us.”
The continuation of that line, Gildor explaining that the Hobbits will rest at the Elves’ destination, suggests to me that the inclusive reading is correct. It sounds to me like a suggested plan: “We travel together, and you shall get the rest you need.” An exclusive reading would feel a bit more disjointed: “Our Elvish group is going to the woods, and you shall get the rest you need.” There would need to be an unspoken “and if you join us” tucked in there; but a conditional is a big thing to casually omit. The exclusive reading, feels unnatural.
There are no serious consequences to which reading was intended in this case. It’s just a touch of nuance in the negotiation between Frodo and Gildor. I find the inclusive reading more likely, but reasonable people could disagree. A translator working with a language with an inclusive/exclusive distinction would have to take a stand.
Theoden and Saruman
The next case I would like to consider is the confrontation between King Théoden and Saruman at Isengard. The battles at Helm’s Deep and Isengard are concluded, Saruman is effectively trapped in his tower, and Gandalf leads Théoden and a small party to confront the wizard. Saruman makes several speeches about the desire to help Rohan and the wisdom of peace, while Théoden remains silent. Gimli and Éomer offer their opinions, but Théoden is struggling, we are told, with either anger or doubt. I pick up from when Saruman concludes:
…’I say, Théoden King: shall we have peace and friendship, you and I? It is ours to command.’
‘We will have peace,’ said Théoden at last thickly and with an effort. Several of the Riders cried out gladly. Théoden held up his hand. ‘Yes, we will have peace,’ he said, now in a clear voice, ‘we will have peace, when you and all your works have perished – and the works of your dark master to whom you would deliver us. […] When you hang from a gibbet at your window for the sport of your own crows, I will have peace with you and Orthanc. […]’
The Riders gazed up at Théoden like men startled out of a dream.
The Two Towers, The Voice of Saruman
The first we, said by Saruman, is an inclusive we: he says directly, “you and I”.
How about Théoden? His first, labored reply: “We will have peace”. Is this we inclusive or exclusive? An inclusive reading would mean that Théoden is saying Isengard and Rohan will have peace together. He then goes on to describe how Saruman and he will be at peace once Saruman is dead. It is a mutual peace bought via the death of one. Théoden then makes his point clearer by dropping the plural we and resorting to the singular I.
An exclusive reading would mean that Théoden from the beginning is saying that Rohan will have peace, once Saruman is dead. He would be making no promises or predictions about Saruman having any peace, even after death. It is harsh and clear from the get-go.
The reaction of some of the Riders do not fit in a reading where Théoden is speaking exclusive of Saruman from the beginning. At first, some of the Riders cheer when their King announces peace, but then are shocked when he gives the dire conditions on that peace. They do not react as if Théoden was clearly against Saruman from the beginning; their understanding of the situation seems to change as the speech progresses. This argues against an interpretation (or at least a translation) where Théoden is exclusive from the beginning.
Perhaps it isn’t that the Riders’ understanding changes; they have an accurate perception of their King. Rather, Théoden changes. At first he struggles to respond. The wizard’s power of persuasion is still strong and the king is fighting for mental freedom. His first utterance echoes Saruman: We [you and I] will have peace. That’s inclusive we. Then he finally breaks free of the spell: We [Rohirrim] will have peace, when you are dead. That’s exclusive we. And then, just to drive the point home, he drops the plurality entirely: I will have peace, when you are dead.
This third option is the way I like to read this scene. Gandalf began Théoden’s healing in Edoras, but Théoden fully breaks free when he confronts his tormentor. Tolkien makes excellent use of the inherent non-specificity of “we” in English in the King’s speech. Théoden’s thoughts are unclear via his speech (since English is not precise in this regard) and are gradually revealed to both his men and to the reader. But if this scene is translated into a language having an inclusive/exclusive pronoun distinction, you could show the internal struggle through his choice of pronouns.
Boromir at the Council of Elrond
When I first thought about the inclusive/exclusive distinction for this post, a Boromir quote from the Council jumped to my mind: “In Gondor, we are already under attack by the forces of Mordor.” This, I thought would be perfect. Does Boromir mean inclusive “we, the people of the West”, or exclusive “we, the people of Gondor”? But, then, I opened the text and found out that line isn’t in the book. It was a line written for the Bakshi animated movie. Alas. I thought, though, that it might be worth analyzing how he spoke to the Council anyways.
While the line was not in the book, the sentiment certainly is. However, it never seems to come out in the pronoun use. Every spokesperson, not just Boromir, uses the exclusive “we” as they describe what is happening in their lands and to their people. Logically, they must be exclusive, because the events are restricted to one group and not to the whole. Elrond, as the head of the Council, typically speaks inclusively, since he is guiding what they collectively are to discuss and to do. He speaks exclusively on two occasions, describing the events of the Last Alliance in the Second Age, of which he was a party, and discussing the strength of Rivendell. He speaks inclusively about the Council and exclusively about his particular groups.
So, in the end, there is not much to say on this topic from the perspective of “we”. Boromir (and the others) speak very straightforwardly with no subtlety in their pronoun choice. All of the cases are of the straightforward kind I used to illustrate the concept in the first place.
Frodo and Strider
Another place I thought might be interesting was the negotiation between Strider and Frodo at Bree. Strider is trying to get Frodo to add him to the group. Like the conversation with Gildor, there is a question of whether two separate groups should join into one. There is an inherent exclusive-inclusive dynamic at work.
There is an important difference between the two negotiations, though, that changes the results. Gildor was part of a company of Elves. He could say “we” meaning “we Elves” or “we Elves and Hobbits”. Aragorn is alone. Aragorn is singular. He has no “exclusive we”. When he speaks exclusively, he says “I”. If this were a discussion about group dynamics, there would be plenty to say; but this is about we, so there is no real meat on these particular bones.
In Conclusion
There are lots of other conversations in the Lord of the Rings where inclusivity and exclusivity arise: The Three Hunters talking to Éomer and the Riders of Rohan, Gollum vs Frodo and Sam, Denethor and Faramir, the list goes on. Some of these interactions would be very fruitful to delve into, but I am not doing so here, for various reasons.
For example, after Frodo and Sam leave the Fellowship and encounter Gollum and Faramir, the more interesting question, to my mind, will be in number, dual vs triplural, that is, “we two” vs “we three (or more)”. This distinction was found in Old English, and Tolkien worked it into Quenya as well, so it is highly relevant to discussions of Tolkien’s work. I will write a separate post about that in the future.
The take away here, though, is that the apparently simple word we hides a deal of complexity. This complexity is tied up in how people and groups relate to each other. English and the other widely spoken languages keep it hidden and implied; but other languages build that complexity into their pronoun systems. In an upcoming blog post, I am going to show how this works out in my Conlang project.
A Hobby for the Tome 