Pronoun usage in canon/noncanon forms of dovahzul

Drem yol lok. I have some questions about the textbook's lesson on pronouns --  I'm trying to stay as canonical as possible, but I have no problem using noncanon words if it's what all the other cool kids here are doing. I was hoping someone who is a little more fluent could answer them for me. I apologize in advance if it's a little wordy, I tend to dissect a lot before I jump into something. Here's the lesson I'm referencing: (https://www.thuum.org/learn/grammar/pronouns.php)

• I condensed the lists of pronouns given in the lesson into a single table and underlined every noncanon pronoun.
• *The textbook suggests that using dovah as the accusative form of zu'u is permitted when the speaker is A DRAGON (hi koraav dovah, "you see me
  (a dragon)").

Eng.    Nom.      Accusative                 Possessive        Reflexive

I           zu'u         (dovah)zu'u*            dii                         zu'u

You       hi             hi                             hin/him                   hi

He       rok            rok                           ok                         rok

She       rek           rek                             ek                       rek

It           nii           nii                              -                          nimaar

They    nust        niin                            -                          niin

We       mu          mu                            un                         mu

Here are the list of assumptions that the textbook provides for creating the noncanon pronouns.

In the nominative:  unknown nominatives are the same as the accusative.

In the accusative:  unknown accusatives are the same as the nominatives.

In the possessive: There are ways of circumventing unknown possessives.

In the reflexive: unknown reflexives are the same as the accusative.

Here are my two questions:

• Is this table correct, and can we safely use the noncanon pronouns?
• How is the reflexive case used? The lesson header claims that "all reflexives end in -maar", but the actual reflexive table only lists one canon reflexive (nimaar, itself), and 6 other noncanon cases. This leaves me with three possibilities:

1. The rule to create a reflexive pronoun is to apply -maar to all accusative case (zu'umaar, himaar, rokmaar, nimaar, etc.). This rule is the one that makes the most intuitive sense to me.
2. There is no distinction between the reflexive and accusative case (zu'u means both I, me, and myself). Context would then decide which one to use. This seems to be what the textbook is implying.
3. Nimaar is the only reflexive pronoun that all pronouns combine into. Context again decides whether nimaar means myself, yourself, himself, etc. This is a possibility, but it doesn't likely and would probably require grammatical support.

Thank y'all so much for providing these lessons and this site, by the way. I'm getting a real kick out of the work you're doing and I hope to be speaking with the community soon :D

Category: General