From: Bryan J. Maloney (jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu)
Date: Mon 14 Feb 1994 - 05:48:29 EET
Repeat after me:
THE PLURAL OF SHAMAN IS SHAMANS
THE PLURAL OF SHAMAN IS SHAMANS
THE PLURAL OF SHAMAN IS SHAMANS.
I have done quite a bit of reading on the subject of shamanism, and NO
authority on the subject ever ever EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER
has used any plural for "shaman" other than "shamans".
Just go to a good library of theology and flip through the books, you'll
NEVER see "shaman" as a plural. You'll ALWAYS see "shamans" as the
plural.
In fact, some books on the subject (particularly the later ones that have
As for citing Frazier--I turn a jaundiced eye to anything to be found in
to deal with feminist revisionism bullshit) take GREAT pains to point out
that the "-man" fragment of "shaman" has NOTHING to do with the English
word "man" in meaning or derivation, and that the correct plural of
"shaman" is, therefore, "shamans" as opposed to "shamen"--the most common
mistake.
Frazier (I also consider Campbell a non-event, amusing for a bedtime
read but in the same category as Parkers's _Montcalm and Wolfe_ would be
were one talking about accurate history of the Seven Years War.)
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:35:14 EEST