Nouns that are derived from verbs will generally show a uniformity of form regardless of the family the language is in. The words "harvesters", "takers" and "bringers" are all alike in English based on their ending, -er. This is analogous to Latin-based langauges, which derive from the Latin -or (Italian -ore, Spanish -or, French -eur). However, patterns are visible in almost all other languages. Even non-Indo-European languages would have uniformity (for example, in Chinese you would add -zhe to the end of the word or phrase to make it topical, Indonesian puts a pe- prefix to replace the ber- verb prefix, in Swahili one sees a m- prefix and -e suffix, Nahuatl has a -ni suffix).

The uniformity of the way in which verbs are turned into nouns across all languages highlights Jordan's pathetic failure in linguistics. He didn't even need to be good at languages to be able to construct an internally consistent language.

He says that "sheen" means "bringers of", but then says "nen" is "like adding -er to an English verb", but then "hlem" means "those who take" and "hlin" means "those who harvest"...uh, you mean like maybe takers and harvesters? And how does "isham" become betrayer without the -nen ending?

It's obvious that Jordan took some common names for horrible spirits and undead from the real world and threw in a few superfluous vowels and consonants here and there. That would have been fine on its own, but then he tried to force the whole thing through the lens of his atrocious attempt at a language. He never was even able to express a consistent pronunciation system or verb conjugation concept. Nothing in his language makes sense on any level, words overlap hideously (look at how many different ways he says "of" or "one" and you start to see the problem).

And of course this is one of the places where there is "new" information. The companion is a giant steaming pile of horseshit.