@Maakrindah, Yet Geinmaar means "oneself" and "Naangein" means anyone. Both of these words contradict the statement of maar being both "hood" or "ship" since both "hood" and "ship" represent a collection of people rather than just "self"

@Ahmuldein That is because '-maar' represents the reflexive, including '-self' and, only when they are reflexive, '-ship' and "-hood". 'Gein' is literally the word for 'one', so the above translations of 'geinmaar' and 'naangein' make perfect sense. You will notice that 'geinmaar' is reflexive and 'naangein' is not. This further supports my theory that the suffix '-maar' represents both the plural and the singular reflexive suffixes, which are separate in English, and that '-ship' and '-hood' when they are not reflexive, are a separate word ('-dein' / '-ein'). I think you are confusing the suffix '-dein' with the word 'gein'.

Ahmuldein

Can there be a way to list that in the contents of the word since it usually only says "noun" or "adjective"?

I've written extensively on this problem. Unfortunately, the solution would take a lot of work to implement with the ~6,000 words in existence. It could be done with just the canon words, but then the rest of the dictionary wouldn't fit anymore, although that may be a necessary sacrifice to make.

@ Paarthurnax If you could help us to figure out this whole "-maar" vs. "-dein" stuff, would "Priesthood" be "Sonaakein" or "Sonaakmaar" and why?

@Maakrindah, there may be some confusion. I understand that Geinmaar and Naangein work well, but that is because "maar" is obviously oneself in this situation. I am agreeing with you and disagreeing at the same time. what i am talking about is the contradiction between the word Geinmaar and the word Fahdonmaar. I think Fadonmaar should be changed to Fahdonein because the canon word Geinmaar is more important than the word that im pretty sure is semi canon, fahdonmaar. If "-ship" is ein/dein then it should stay that way and "self" be "maar"

Loklovaas

I just noticed that the other very recently published word of this doesnt specify Musical Range, is there a purpose? By "that other word" I mean Tenor

@Ahmuldein It may be that alto can also mean high or tall and tenor does not have the double meaning. The same distinction would need to be present for Bass which could also mean the fish, while a word for Treble / Soprano would be self-explanatory. Personally, that note about the musical range would be helpful in all the ranges of music. The original reason I left that off of tenor was because tenor can describe a speaking voice in addition to the musical range, so it directly corresponds to the english word's definition without need for any notes on it. For consistency it would be good to put the musical range notation on all of them, but with tenor it would mean adding the additional notation to tenor to include speech description because it is non-musical, when no notation is necessary in the first place. I'm okay with it either way, because I see the benefit in both manners of handling it (notes when needed or notes to add consistency).

This post has been deleted.

@Ahmuldein There is no contradiction between "Fahdonmaar" and "Geinmaar". As I said above, "-maar" indicates both the plural and the singular. In English the singular reflexive is what one or many do to -self ('myself', 'themselves'), and what individuals of a group are or do to each other ('brotherhood', 'friendship') are separate. However they are not separate in Dovahzul. Hence '-maar' indicates both the reflexive plural and the reflexive singular as opposed to '-hood' and '-ship' in a non-reflexive context such as 'priesthood' and 'apprenticeship'. Dovahzul is simply not a word for word code that completely corresponds with English. Part of the reason English is considered a complex language is because it is so inconsistent. Sometimes in English, the same word or affix is used to describe very different concepts and concepts that are the same are sometimes organized differently based on number gender etc. For instance, English handles gender very differently than Spanish, because Spanish assigns gender to nouns, and English doesn't unless a physical gender is present.

@Maakrindah, I finally found the root of our confusion. I completely understand everything that you just said, because the confusion lies elsweyr. Its not that they dont represent both plural and singular words or the thought that dovahzul is word for word, its more that the word Maar is used alongside Dein/ein. I completely understand what you are saying abiut gein and ein, for the problem is between the fact that there are two words that mean the same thing sometimes and something different other times. One word used for "self" and "hood" is completely fine, rather the "hood/ship" being shared by two suffixes. I can see how the confusion was aroused though.

@Ahmuldein Do you see the difference between reflexive '-ship'/'-hood' and non-reflexive '-ship'/'-hood'?

A word like Krongrahdein and a word like Fahdonmaar both mean "noun-in the state of being" Is there something I am missing?

'Fahdonmaar' is not a state of being noun. 'Apprenticeship', 'Priesthood' and 'Championship' are, but 'Friendship' describes reflexive group relationship. Priests in a priesthood are not Priests of each other, but Friends in a Friendship are Friends of each other.

Likewise in 'Zeymahmaar', Brothers in a Brotherhood are Brothers to each other. 'Championship' does not refer to the coexistence of Champions who are Champions to each other, but rather the state of being related to the one, winning Champion, and the process of determining the Champion.

Dovahik

Does 'Dovahik' (Drake) refer to a small dragon? I do not doubt this word at all, I just want to understand the difference between a 'Dragon' (Dovah) and a 'Drake' (Dovahik).