Filrul is hard to pronounce!

We could go for something really out there like -oq or -okt. Maybe even two syllables like -oktah but that would be very long.

Some more 'out there' suggestions beggining with vowels... 

-ad   -ahp   -ekt   -ul   -uv   -upt  -opt   -est   -ehr   -uft  

-uf   -ahz   -avaz   -uzr   -aq   -asp

Then we'd have to decide on a consenant to use at the start should a word end in a vowel. This is some real tough cheese here.

Nice list, I think one syllable would be ideal. Out of those I like -uv the best. There are currently no multi-syllable, non-compound or non-affixed words that end with "-uv" so it works out there too. My vote for consonant would be "n" because it's easy to pronounce in consecutive syllables ("Nunon"). Then, Ziinuv, Zooruv, Lovaasuv, Filuv, 

Yep I agree n works well but it does conflict with nuv, the word for nor. Will that prove a problem when using it as a suffix? I mean, you wouldn't find nuv in a compound word so the space gives the clarity there. Other than that I don't see a flaw in -nuv.

Also, uv just by itself is or. Almost forgot that :&

I can't see anyone making a compound with "Uv" or "Nuv" so I think it's fine. There are actually a number of canon suffixes that are also words:

• "-aan" past participles and perfect present tense; Aan, a/an.
• "-laan" variant of "-aan" used with words that end in "ah"; Laan, want/request.
• "-us" like English "-y" in "snowy" and "slippery"; Us, before.
• "-nu" like English "-less" in "fearless"; Nu, now.
• "-om" like English "-ness" in "darkness"; Om, hair.

Considering this and the unlikelihood that "Uv" or "Nuv" would be used in compounds, I think -uv/-nuv is safe.

Well I'm all for -(n)uv then. 

Great! I have some editing work ahead of me.

Bringing up the "wah" contraction, I found a second line where it's used. Paarthurnax at the end of the game, "Rok funta koraav." "He failed to see." This pretty much confirms that -a is a contraction with wah.

Except - I should have noticed this before - these examples are not the same.

Boaan tiid vokriiha suleyksejun kruziik?

Has the time come to restore the ancient dominion?

Rok funta koraav.

He failed to see.

Vokriiha means "to restore." Funta is more of a true contraction of "funt wah," "failed to." If the latter sentence used -a in the same way as the former, it would be "Rok funt koraava." Which is correct? Are they both correct or is one a mistake on Bethseda's part?

paarthurnax

 

Vokriiha means "to restore." Funta is more of a true contraction of "funt wah," "failed to." If the latter sentence used -a in the same way as the former, it would be "Rok funt koraava." Which is correct? Are they both correct or is one a mistake on Bethseda's part?

This sounds familiar. I was unsure about where to place the -ni suffix when I learned it, and I concluded within myself that it would be acceptable to say, for example, both "zu'u losni wor" and "zu'u los worni" to mean "I am not a walrus." (though I very well could be wrong, please correct me if I am). Perhaps this same concept could be applied to "-a" (whether I was correct or not). Whether it's a mistake or not, I say we just go with it. After all, it is canonical.

Sure, we can try and adapt it for both uses.

I suppose -ni could be used that way. Since that's an invented suffix, a more canon version might look like "Zu'u los ni wor", "Zu'u ni wor", or even "Ni wor."

Looking at it now, perhaps "Boaan tiid vokriiha suleyksejun kruziik?" could have a meaning more like "Has the time come to restore (this) to the ancient dominion?", in which case the suffix would still be used in the same way throughout.

Here's the translation offered in the game's dialogue file:

Alduin, thuri! Boaan tiid vokriiha suleyksejun kruziik?

Alduin, my king (overlord)! Has the time arrived (flown) to restore (unkill) your ancient dominion (power-of-king)?

It might be easier to say as you suggested before, that -a could be used to mean "to restore" and "restore to."

Difference is significant.

"I will give to her the axe" is not the same as "I will give her to the axe". The latter implies that you will give said woman to said axe which is nonsense. In other examples this could lead to miscommunication of a massive scale.

qobofus

Difference is significant.

"I will give to her the axe" is not the same as "I will give her to the axe". The latter implies that you will give said woman to said axe which is nonsense. In other examples this could lead to miscommunication of a massive scale.

Just say "I will give her the axe", "I will give the axe to her", or you could even just put the suffix on "give", making the latter interperetation impossible. You just need to phrase it correctly.