[b-hebrew] YHWH pronunciation

Read, James C K0434995 at kingston.ac.uk
Mon Aug 1 17:15:34 EDT 2005


Ok!Now I'm finally starting to understand you. You think IAO represents the suffixes I.You.He
which we find at the end of verbs. Your reason for this is that you feel that the IAO 
transliteration is more valid than the others, although, I'm still not sure why.
Do you think you could run me through one more time why you feel this is so?

Also, do you think you could humour me and say you/yours instead of thee/thine? As an English 
speaker these forms only serve to increase my confusion while trying to understand you.

Now then. On to the theophoric componenents and the shortened name Yah. I still haven't entirely 
understood how you would relate these to your suffix theory. Do you think you could explain that 
to me in the same baby style?
Also, how does your theory entwine with Yah's revelation of his name to Moshe?
And what vowels would you have us put in YHWH to make your theoretical form pronounceable?
Do you agree that the theophoric components were pronounced Yaho/Yahu/Y:ho/Y:hu?
Can you cite any other examples of a 'he' maters lectionis midword?
To the best of my knowledge they only exist at the end of a word.

Please. Keep it simple. Keep the sentences short and the sequence logical.So that I can 
follow your reasoning, which I am trying desperately to understand.


-----Original Message-----
From: Vadim Cherny [mailto:VadimCherny at mail.ru]
Sent: Mon 8/1/2005 9:03 PM
To: Read, James C
Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] YHWH pronunciation
 
RE: [b-hebrew] YHWH pronunciationStart with possessive suffixes: i, a, u. For this or that reason, not essential here, supportive consonants were introduced: i, ca (ta), hu. Suffix consonants lack semantical importance. Also note that 3ms hu-au-o, giving rise to yhu-yho-yao variants.

There is a noun "an," essence. Ani (or, with non-essential suffix consonant, anoci) is "my essence," abstracized as I. Ata is anta, "thine essence" that became "thou." Anacnu is similarly "our essence." Different etymologies were proposed for hu, but for our case only u is important, 3s possessive suffix, making hu some word emasculated into he and 3s possessive suffix u.

Iao would be literally "my, thine, his" (i-a-u, or later i-a-o), but I speculate that Iao stands more generally for "I, thou, he" epitomized by the possessive suffixes.

Vadim Cherny

> To the best of my knowledge I,You,He would be:

)aNoCHiY)THuW)
and I really struggle to see how you turn that into a IAO transliteration.

RE: [b-hebrew] YHWH pronunciation> I am interested to know how you come about such a radical
theory. You must have more reason than a philosophical idea of a society.

Well, only "I, thou, he" could be pronounced Iao. The verb cannot.
Plural suffixes are construed similarly. Duality ai (later - plural e-ei-im) means "thou, I". Abstract plural -o (-ot) is -au, "thou, he." This makes sense: using 1s, the most personal relation, for duality, and 3ms, the remotest, for abstract plurality.
Suffixes are vowels only. Consonants are semantical devices, vowels - morphological. Suffix consonants change between nouns and verbs, but vowels persist. Suffix consonants (caf 2s nouns, tav 2s verbs) served perhaps to write down suffixes without matres lectionis, or perhaps to avoid post-tonic gemination in penultimates-stressed nouns. This is a separate topic.
YHWH cannot be a meaningful word, like the verb, since no one could possibly declare a well-attested verb a great secret with unknown pronunciation.

> How would you account for the forms YaH, YaHu/YaHo with your model?

he could be mater lectionis for 2ms suffix -a. Incidentally, he is also "supportive consonant" of 3ms -hu-au-o. Thus, yau=yhh=yh with mappiq.
yhu=yau with mater lectionis
yho=yao=yau with 3ms hu-o

> How would you account for the transliterations IABE, IAOUAI etc.?

Iabe is literal, not phonetic transliteration; waw-beta.
Iaouai is plural form of Iao, modeled upon plural Elokim.

> Are there any patterns ANE cultures that led you to this hypothesis?

Of course, Judaism is unique.

> Is there any internal evidence in the TaNaKH which supports your theory?

Depending on how you read it. Milgrom's interpretation, I believe, is supportive.

Vadim Cherny

  This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
  Security System.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.



  This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
  Security System.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list