Written by | Posted June 3, 2016 – 11:21 am First, Finest, Last (Anryl)

She was barely fifty years old* when she took her first – a contract handed out in Everlook, though how she’d ended up in that godsforsaken ice-sheet she couldn’t be sure. It was a simple thing to kill the woman listed on the paper she had signed. Anryl had no idea what Telwae Lightsorrow had […]

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:
\?shä-m?n, ?sh?- also sh?-?män\
Inflected Form(s):
plural shamans
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: