Written by | Posted August 4, 2015 – 12:22 pm The Stink Eye, Part II: You remind me of the babe

An old story, reposted here as I’m shaking the mothballs off Ankona and needed an easy way to show people a little bit about the (batshit) things she gets up to. Enjoy, and don’t be too creeped out! It really was a pretty thing, now that she got a good look at it. The polished […]

filed under Shaman
On the subject of Shaman
comment 2 Written by on February 4, 2008 – 1:40 pm
(from Miriam Webster’s Online Dictionary)
Main Entry:
sha·man
Pronunciation:
\?shä-m?n, ?sh?- also sh?-?män\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural shamans
Etymology:
ultimately from Evenki (Tungusic language of Siberia) šam?n

1: a priest or priestess who uses magic for the purpose of curing the sick, divining the hidden, and controlling events

Ok. So I hear a lot of people lately talking about all the shamen. I’m guessing this is because, in their English speaking minds, you have one man, and three men. Therefore one shaman and three shamen. Except, as far as I know, it doesn’t really work that way in Siberia. The plural of shaman is shamans (or just shaman, as I’ve seen it in other encyclopedias, but fail at finding now).
This is not a Clyde Crashcop segment… Sha for sha and man for man…
If you enjoyed the article, why not subscribe?

2 Responses to “On the subject of Shaman”

  1. There’s always been a lot of discussion about this. The “Shaman” article on Wikipedia says that both “shaman” and “shamans” are correct, but fails to cite a source.

    So I’ll just stick to what the dictionary tells me: one shaman, two shamans :)

  2. Ahhh, maybe that’s where I’ve seen it then. And it figures that Wiki wouldn’t have a source, right? I think aesthetically, I like the use of the singular as the plural better, but yeah, if I can’t find a source for it…

    By Anna on Feb 8, 2008 | Reply

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.

Want to subscribe?   

 Subscribe in a reader Or, subscribe via email: