[b-hebrew] YHWH pronunciation
VadimCherny at mail.ru
Tue Aug 2 16:53:47 EDT 2005
> >This issue is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since I already
> >several times that YHW, IMO, is not a word but a construct, something
> You have asserted this many times, but you have not provided one scrap
> of evidence.
a. No one would declare vowelization of a common verb secret
b. Why use Aramaic root?
c. Since all letters in yhwh are special cases, vowelization of the verb is
uncertain and any standard reading has problems
d. Greeks could not hear yhwh verb as Iao; in a parallel case of Jehu, the
minimal transliteration is Iou, with o for he; Greeks heard he when it is
the only consonant; alpha in Iao could only come from he, which is only
possible if he is mater lectionis, and YHW is a construct, not a word
e. The verb hypothesis doesn't straightforwardly explain YaH/ YaHu/ YaHo
f. Plural suffixes are likewise construed of possessive suffixes
g. Why use future tense or imperfect; "he shall exist" is not immediately
h. Matres lectionis are a sufficiently important development to embed them
in the divine name
i. YHW as "I, thou, he" makes sense philosophically
j. Since the verb ihie is common, a major prohibition of pronouncing the
name in vain becomes meaningless
> >But the example I offered is very much proper. He in the definite article
> >lost in the Modern Hebrew. ...
> NO! It is very much pronounced in modern Hebrew.
> >... There is no evidence of its pronunciation in the
> >ancient language. The fact that Aramaic has only a for the definite
> >suggests that Hebrew also had only a, and thus he was a mater lectionis.
> It may be hard to prove that this he was pronounced. But the burden of
> proof that the word was not pronounced as written must be on you. And
> Aramaic doesn't help because its article is a suffix.
Hard to prove? Impossible. Definite article is a, suffix or prefix, doesn't
matter. Hebrew represents that a with he, which is therefore mater
> >>The point is simply that Hebrew words NEVER begin with vowels.
> >Only if one assumes that 1s and 3ms FT prefixes are consonants, for which
> >evidence or conclusive theoretical proof exists. Personally, I can't see
> >what's wrong in assuming 1s FT prefix a vowel, if 1s possessive suffix is
> Well, again the burden is on you to prove a non-standard pronunciation.
Non-standard approach, I agree. But non-standard pronunciation? Who
pronounces 1s or 3ms FT prefixes as consonants?
More information about the b-hebrew