Technically, I think the passage reads “לאֹ שָׁנִיתִי” – perfect singular, but I see your point. Also, it’s not possible for G-d to actually return, for G-d is never away, i.e. G-d is omnipresent. In the
Christian view, where G-d finds anthropomorphic expression in
Jesus, however, it could still be a valid interpretation.
There is often a certain amount of reading between the lines when it comes to adapted names. It’s not an exact science.
Shanah can mean year, or cycle, or turn, or return, or change... with its best fit relying on the context in which it is found.
Though
Shiloh is more descriptive of a place or a state of being than a person, I suppose that if one grants the concept of a personified form of G-d, then one could easily accommodate the personification of a place or state, especially in the same context.
In the Bible, the names of people are sometimes changed during the course of their experiences, as was the case with
Joshua (
Yehoshua), whose original name was Hosheah. That’s a relatively small change. More drastically,
Jacob (Yaacov) was famously accorded the name
Israel (
Yisrael), which is a completely new name. Most of us don’t get to choose our own names, but we are often expected to live up to them nonetheless. Sometimes, we earn a name for ourselves and sometimes we bring honour or shame to a name we already possess.
In the end, how one conducts oneself is more important than what one is called, and very much more important than what one calls oneself.