Michael, you seem to have written "shan" rather than "shin" twice independently in the subject line, so presumably this is not a typo. Do you actually hold that the letter is called "shan" rather than "shin"? Do you have any evidence for this? Are you basing this on the table at http://www.the-samaritans.com/script.htm? As this table looks rather old, possibly copied from a 19th century book, it would be good to check that these are the names in current use by the Samaritan community.
It occurs in "A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew", Ze'ev Ben-áayyimm (c) 2000.
~mark
