According to Oxford Dictionaries, the -er suffix could be used to denote a person belonging to a specified group (e.g. New Yorker for New York).

Suppose now that I work for a company called "Square". That is, I "belong" to a group of other people, the Square company. Is it correct to say that I am a Squarer?

  • 1
    You would have to ask the "Square" company that.
    – user3169
    Mar 30, 2016 at 19:24
  • I'd go with the squareman 😉
    – Yuri
    Mar 30, 2016 at 19:35
  • Hmm, Googler for Google is fine. Googleman is a bit weird, isn't it? @user3169 Unfortunately I can't ask them. :-/
    – zoftvare
    Mar 30, 2016 at 19:44
  • 1
    What about people that work for a company called "Toss"?
    – JavaLatte
    Mar 30, 2016 at 19:57

2 Answers 2


You are making up a word, so there is no universally correct way to do this. "Squarer" follows the -er rule, but it sounds odd, and the fact that "square" is a common word makes it confusing for outsiders.

Since you're making up words, you could follow any of the rules for a demonym. Wikipedia lists several suffixes that you could use: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonym

When making up words like this, just use what sounds best.

  • Actually, the name of the company is Black Square. I think, too, that "Black Squarer" sounds odd - I'm not a native speaker though. What would you suggest is the best way to denote that I belong to this company? Maybe another demonym? Googler for Google is fine, but Black Squarer for Black Square? Hmm...
    – zoftvare
    Mar 30, 2016 at 19:37
  • @zoftvare: I would say Black Square employee. I don't think you need to make it two words.
    – zondo
    Mar 30, 2016 at 22:11

You might try the suffix -ite:

1) a native, inhabitant, or citizen of" ⇒ Brooklynite"
2) a descendant from or offspring of" ⇒ Israelite"

though again the possibility of actual usage will depend on what you are tacking it onto.

  • "I'm a Black Squareite." Somehow that just doesn't sound right.
    – zondo
    Mar 30, 2016 at 22:11
  • @zondo I wasn't implying it would work with the specific example, but for future reference on name suffixes this might be useful.
    – user3169
    Mar 30, 2016 at 22:13
  • I don't think it works for an employee of a company. An employee is neither an inhabitant nor a descendant.
    – zondo
    Mar 30, 2016 at 22:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .