The canon language has a few gaps as far as pronouns are concerned. It accounts for all subject pronouns but is missing a few object pronouns, possessive pronouns, and most of the reflexive (easy enough, since they follow a pattern).

This thread is largely concerned with the object pronouns (me, you, him, her, etc). Up to this point we have been using invented words where there are no known canon words for what we in English would perceive as different words (zey, mok, mek, etc.) Not so much a proposal as it is a thought exercise - what if we dropped these invented object pronouns and used canon pronouns for them instead?

Consider in English the pronouns "you" and "it" are both the same in nominative (subject) and accusative (object) case:

• "I am speaking to you." / "You are speaking to me."
• "It is battling him." / "He is battling it."

In Dovahzul, note the invented object pronouns zey and mok:

• "Zu'u tinvaak hi." / "Hi tinvaak zey."
• "Nii grah mok." / "Rok grah nii."

Now, with the above idea, zu'u can mean either "I" or "me" depending on the context and rok can mean either "he" or "him" depending on the context.

• "Zu'u tinvaak hi." "Hi tinvaak zu'u."
• "Nii grah rok." / "Rok grah nii."

And so on, so that every canon subject pronoun can also double as an object pronoun much like "you" and "it" do in English. The exception would have to be nust, "they", which has a canon object pronoun in niin, "them".

Should we continue using invented pronouns to fill the blanks, or should we fill in the blanks with canon words so that pronouns are the same in nominative and accusative case, therefore "canonizing" the pronoun table and getting rid of the need for these invented pronouns?

I suppose I'll continue the conersation from here, and address things you said in both places.

First of all:

"Now, with the above idea, zu'u can mean either "I" or "me" depending on the context androk can mean either "he" or "him" depending on the context."

It is not depending on context. It's depending on word order as ruled by English.

"The -st in niist is from canon. The nominative form is the canon word nust "they." Thus nust / niin  / niist."

What I meant was that -st is not from any canon possessive words. As you pointed out before, possessives in English tend to follow a pattern of -r. -st just seemed wrong due to the canon possessives not having one since most languages do have a pattern of sorts according to what case they are.

Which is why the -st and -l bother me since there are no such endings for possessive pronouns. So nust/niin/nuun, and nii/nii/niik?

In any case, in the case of pronouns as an object, keeping them the same as they are as a subject seems all right.

The only one that would be different would be nust/niin, which is third person which could make the third-person object pronouns end in -n, making rok/ron, and rek/ren, but maybe keeping them as canon as possible would preferable. I could also just be rambling.

Yes, this motion would involve deleting zey, mok, mek, and mii, and using the canon words in their place. Effectively there'd be no accusative case for pronouns except for niin.

I personally have no particular problems with niist. Compared to the disparity between zu'u / dii and mu / un it doesn't seem that far out there. Viable alternatives I can think of based on the existing possessive pronouns would be ust or nun.

I like ust, but I can understand keeping niist due to using it so often - also, nun is seen. :p