Dovahzul has a few ways to form words that mean "doer of a verb," such as kroniid "conqueror" or wunduniik "wanderer." We'll look at all the examples in canon and try to define when each suffix should be used.

Some words below don't derive from explicit canon verbs. For example, krivaan "murderer" could very well derive from a hypothetical word kriiv "to murder." Others are more nebulous. Given only ronaan as "archer," it is possible that ron has some relation to war or arrows specifically, or it may have no derivation at all and simply end in -aan by coincidence. I've listed these anyhow for the sake of completeness.

-aan

• Fahluaan "gardener"
• Krivaan "murderer"
• Ronaan "archer"
• Sonaan "bard"
• Tovitaan "seeker"

-aan is the most abundant in canon and ironically the one we refer to least in our own words. The reason for this is to minimize confusion with the grammatical -aan.

I think, in fact, these can coexist without much confusion given that one is a past participle and the other is a noun, for the same reason you wouldn't think "fights" in "I've seen my share of fights" is a verb. Any confusion will be negligible in the proper context.

In a way they could be almost one and the same suffix. A "murderer" is "someone who has murdered," a "gardener" is "someone who has gardened," etc. The implication of the action having taken place in the past is present in both the noun and the participle.

-iik

• Saviik "savior"
• Wunduniik "wanderer"

Our de facto suffix.  Saviik could derive from a potential verb sav or saav for "to save."

Interestingly -iik also appears in more adjectives than it does verbs. These are:

• Boziik "bold"
• Bruniik "savage"
• Daniik "doomed"
• Kruziik â€‹"ancient"

This could be another situation like -aan, where the sound is so common that it may have no larger meaning, but later on we'll pick this apart and relate it to the noun suffix -iik.

-iid

• Kriid "killer/slayer"
• Kroniid "conqueror"

Krii is the only explicit verb to end in -ii, so receives some special treatment here. The choice of kroniid instead of kroniik is an interesting one which we'll touch on below.

-in

• Qahnaarin "vanquisher"

With only one example, the difficulty here is determining whether -in is an arbitrary suffix, or qahnaarin is actually a compound word meaning "vanquish-master." Given that the term qahnaarin is something of a title or name, I'm inclined to lean towards the second explanation, which is ultimately more helpful for us if we want to develop rules for using these.

-maar

• Deinmaar â€‹"keeper"

-maar as a suffix is typically reflexive, as seen in geinmaar "oneself" and nimaar "itself." -maar here could be indicative of an action that is solitary or internal. Deinmaar then could have a fairly specific meaning of "someone who keeps something by/with/for themselves". We'll return to this and how to apply it to other words.

-aar

• Sahsunaar â€‹"villager"

This word faces a similar problem as qahnaarin, where it could potentially be a compound word that means "village-servant," or -aar could just as easily be an arbitrary word ending.

Verbs that are their own "doer" noun:

• Aak "to guide / guide"
• Al "to destroy / destroyer"
• Volaan "to intrude / intruder"

This section is really part of a broader conversation on the flexibility of words, and we won't delve too far into these for this particular discussion. Just keep in mind for now that there are some words that don't require a suffix at all, and it's unknown which words this can or can't apply to.

Suffix Rules

Now that we have our inventory of suffixes, let's try and iron out when each should be used. Some differences will be phonetic while others will be semantic. The below explanations will try to explain most words that use a particular suffix, but may not explain all.

-aan

-aan follows a set of phonetic rules, based largely on the ending of a verb. It should be used if:

• The verb ends in the vowels u or o
• The verb ends with the consonants k or g
• The final syllable contains the vowels i or ii

Thus we have tovitaan instead of tovitiik, krivaan instead of kriviik, and fahluaan instead of fahluiik. Some hypothetical words following these rules would be ruaan "runner," roaan "balancer," sivaan "finder," and bodisaan "borrower."

-iik

-iik should be considered if:

• The verb does not end with the consonants k or g
• The verb does not begin with the consonant k
• The final syllable does not contain the vowels i or ii

Hypothetical words include fasiik "fearer," nahlotiik "silencer," and rovaniik "wanderer." The rules for this suffix are all "do nots" rather than "dos," so consider it first and find a different suffix if -iik doesn't fit.

-iid

-iid should be considered if:

• The verb ends with the vowel ii
• The verb begins or ends with the consonant k
• The verb does not end with the consonant d
• The final syllable does not contain the vowels i or ii

The second point explains kroniid instead of kroniik. Hypothetical words would be koraviid "seer" and kreniid "breaker/shatterer." It is possible for both -aan or -iid to be equally viable suffixes, as in the hypothetical words for "escapee" filokiid or filokaan.

-in

The above suffixes deal with phonetic differences. This and following suffixes have semantic implications.

Consider using -in if a verb requires particular skill or mastery (inhus). For example, -in in qahnaarin "vanquisher" indicates mastery on the battlefield. Other words that might use -in include hypothetical words kodin "wielder", shaanin "inspirer," or any players of a musical instrument. Tinvakiid might mean "someone who speaks," but tinvaakin would mean more closely mean "orator" or "someone who speaks with mastery."

Another suffix should be considered if the last syllable of the verb contains i or ii. For example, krifin "fighter" might be more preferably krifaan, even though fighting requires skill. In these cases, pronunciation trumps semantics. One could potentially argue that krifin over time would become krifaan.

-maar

This suffix should be considered with verbs that are reflexive, solitary, or internal in nature. For example, a hypothetical word for "knower" might be mindokmaar rather than mindokiid. Other hypothetical examples would include hindmaar "wisher/hoper," pirakmaar "possessor," or zeinmaar "worshipper."

-aar

This suffix should be considered if the verb involves servitude, duty, or otherwise serving or helping someone or something else. A straightforward example would be a hypothetical word qiilanmaar "kneeler." Other examples include weridaar "praiser," bologaar "begger," zunaar "soldier" (lit. "blade-servant"), and possibly zeinaar "worshipper."

There are a lot of subtle differences between these suffixes, but I think these guidelines will help us introduce more variety and more accurate and complex semantics to the language. For example bexaan "opener" would mean "someone who has opened something," while bexaar "opener" would better refer to a tool or servant that opens something.

Kogaanne, Rot-Bolaavin! Clearing up like this is just what Dovahzul needs for a great future. And the list is well reasoned and researched as always. I can only hope it will be read and applied. Pruzaan hindah!

Very well done. A few inputs from myself:

Given only ronaan as "archer," it is possible that ron has some relation to war or arrows specifically, or it may have no derivation at all and simply end in -aan by coincidence

Personally i hate coincidence. If there is no reason for something, its arbitrary to learn not logical and that makes everything more difficult und problematic to memorise. Id go for ron maybe a special type of war arrow like the Bodkin Arrow that was designed to specificly penetrate chainmail. So unlike a HUNTER - ah - that hunts with bow and arrow, a ronaan is an archer for war. Thats how id explain it.

- aan: What you said is what id say as well. It may be confusing for starters but its rather easy to do it right in actual practise.

-in i agree i would treat it as compound for mastery. First it makes "in" more recognisable and it is a great tool to show that dovahzul uses few sounds to express something.. Question though if its a compound wouldnt it be more like qahnaarsein?

Deinmaar was actually confusing for me just like a few others with maar as maar could also be a compound "terror" that one is confusing. maybe there is a better translation for maar overall?

- aar: perfectly explained that should be canon without discussion ^^

To the rules: Id actually like to reduce them. Thats a hell lot to learn an keep in mind. While real life languages also have tons of confusing stuff like irregular verbs or grammatical gender, id like to keep dovahzul as simple as possible and treat suffixes that barely show up as exception just like muz is irregular plural. By doing so the rules for suffixes would shrink to a minimum as the less used suffixes would just be irragular and therefore need no rules or explanation. 

Indeed, coincidences are not very helpful when it comes to picking apart the language. The fact remains that they exist, and we should approach potential relationships with some scepticism.

Written out in their entirety, the rules seem like a lot, but there's a fairly basic premise to them. Here's an abridged version:

1. Use -iik unless the word ends with a vowel, or begins or ends with k or g.
2. If -iik does not work, use -iid the last syllable contains i/ii or the word ends in d.
3. If -iid does not work, use -aan.
4. Consider -in, -maar, or -aar if the semantics fit.

So -aan acts as a catch-all, and -in, -maar, and -aar are used on a case by case basis. The exciting thing about the semantic-oriented suffixes is that we can be a lot more exact with word definitions, which is immensely helpful when we start with one-word definitions like "keeper" or "villager."

Scepticism is good but dovahzul needs evolution and as far as i know the original creators dont work on it anymore (or is there a way to reach them? maybe they would help in their spare time? If they have any ^^)

So ron -aan being just coincidence is an unnecesary pain in the ass, if youn ask me and if ron is a type of war arrow (or warbow just like longbows were only used for war never for hunting) ronaan makes perfect sense for a war archer. Just like a bowman could really be anything from hunter to war archer, to trick archer while longbowmen are definitely a military unit for war.

Also it would make sense to me that dragons differentiate ah and ronaan heavily as a ronaan may become a danger to a dovah, at least they can shoot at them even if they are in the air.

Id say we try to reduce coincidences as much as possible - it just makes everything easier and from the language teaching i did i experienced that people encountering difficulties give up more easily or at least loose some morale. When teaching old norse i encountered a lot of quitters when things started to become irregular like some declensions as stuff that was difficult became confusing and ppl where overwhelmed.

So you cant change that in fully developed real life languages but dovahzul is still evolving and any change will be as it has ever been that way ^^ Id say we make the language as logical as possible and eleminate all coincidences where we can.

Personally i prefer "context explanations" like aar for tool or servants, makes perfect sense. Looking if a word begins or ends with this or that letter makes it more complex again. Sometimes that cant be avoided i know those things well from old norse where you have a lot of grammatical endings depending on letters that appear in the word, but its hard to learn. If you find a logical explanation its much easier to remember. at least for me

I mean a major issue we have with dovahzul is that there is very little material. Old norse features a loooot of books and text so you can "learn by reading" its not so...emphasised to remember which ending comes with which letters at which position in the word, you encounter it so often that you memorise by reading.

In dovahzul thats (yet) not possible and it becomes arbitrary to learn the rule, as you dont have many sources where it is actually applied

Based on this i came up with an idea:

ron - warbow.

Ronaan - Wararcher.

Ronin - Sniper / Sharpshooter

Ronmaar - Trickshooter, Artist

Ronaar - Bowyer

what do you think?

Orkar Isber

Based on this i came up with an idea:

 

ron - warbow.

Ronaan - Wararcher.

Ronin - Sniper / Sharpshooter

Ronmaar - Trickshooter, Artist

Ronaar - Bowyer

what do you think?

Ron may be a more general word relating to combat or war, considering the following words:

• Ronit "to rival"
• Ronax "regiment"
• Ronaan "archer"
• Ronaaz "arrow"

And also perhaps:

• Hokoron "enemy"
• Kron "to conquer"

He, and thats where tings get complicated and i suspect the creators didnt think that one through.

i can see how ron is related to struggle, but ronaan and ronaaz would, in this context, better fit for warriors who fight in regiments and rival others. Archer may be mentioned as archers may be more dangerous to dov than other troop types. From a dovs perspective all these could have some kind of danger - rivaling another dov can be deadly, regiments can kill a dov like in the Nord rebellion, archers and arrows can pose a threat to dov so maybe ron is some sort of "danger" to a dov?

Conquest and enemies are for sure