paarthurnax

Faraanus has a pretty narrow meaning - it only relates to monetary fortune and wealth. "Saavir" is more broad. For example, a rich land, a rich-tasting cake, or a rich color.

Then can we add notes or more definitions to clear this up?

Ho

Do we really need this? No-one uses it, and it seems kinda... useless. Could we just leave "you" to the canon "hi"?

hiith

paarthurnax

Faraanus has a pretty narrow meaning - it only relates to monetary fortune and wealth. "Saavir" is more broad. For example, a rich land, a rich-tasting cake, or a rich color.

Then can we add notes or more definitions to clear this up?

I added some notes to saavir that should clear things up.

When it comes to expanding word definitions, words that are made using suffixes are going to be less flexible. For example, faraanus comes directly from faraan, which we know from canon means "wealth/fortune." This makes its closest English equivalent "wealthy."

Removed ho. The canon mentions that hi is the formal version of "you," so I think ho was created under the thought of "well, then what is the informal pronoun?"

paarthurnax

Removed ho.

You sure? It doesn't say that it's deleted.

hiith

paarthurnax

Removed ho.

You sure? It doesn't say that it's deleted.

Strange, thought I did. Removed now.

Porah

would be better as "koravnu", from canon "koraav".

hiith

Porah

would be better as "koravnu", from canon "koraav".

Changed to "Koraavnu." I think there should be a separate word for the verb "to blind" then. It could be "Gekoraavnu," "to make sightless," or some shorter alternative.

paarthurnax

I think there should be a separate word for the verb "to blind" then. It could be "Gekoraavnu," "to make sightless," or some shorter alternative.

Vokoraav? Unsee?

qobofus

paarthurnax

I think there should be a separate word for the verb "to blind" then. It could be "Gekoraavnu," "to make sightless," or some shorter alternative.

Vokoraav? Unsee?

Sure - I think a better way to think of "Vokoraav" might be "desight;" "the light blinded him / the light desighted him."

paarthurnax

Sure - I think a better way to think of "Vokoraav" might be "desight;" "the light blinded him / the light desighted him."

Bang on the money. Have you added it manually or should I submit it?

qobofus

paarthurnax

Sure - I think a better way to think of "Vokoraav" might be "desight;" "the light blinded him / the light desighted him."

Bang on the money. Have you added it manually or should I submit it?

You should submit it.

paarthurnax

You should submit it.

Wilco.

Wok

Perhaps we should just leave "wo" to be the objective form of "Who", leaving it more canonical and simpler.

hiith

Wok

Perhaps we should just leave "wo" to be the objective form of "Who", leaving it more canonical and simpler.

Good idea, less is more.

hiith

Wok

Perhaps we should just leave "wo" to be the objective form of "Who", leaving it more canonical and simpler.

"More simpler"

EDIT: Krosis, my inner Grammar Nazi escaped...