Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> >Besides your imagined hophal Yahwe, ...
>
> This is not a hophal, but either a qal or a hiphil.
>
In a word where all four letters are special cases, any pronunciation could
be conjectured, but neither paal or hiphil could straightforwardly become
Yahwe; this requires considerable juggling.

> >... Jews generally accept the niphal Yehawe;
> >iehawe is very much like ihie ...
>
> Where do you get this imagined "ihie" from?
iod-he-waw-he which, if the Hebrew verb hih, is ihie in 3ms FT; in the
Aramaic form, it is ihwe

> >I already answered this. Iaoue is quite evidently Iao+h. ...
>
> No. I will not repeat my proof that it is not.
>

You offered no proof, but simply attacked my non-existent assertion that he
became ue. I wrote, he became e, and u bridges Iao(u)e.

> IAOUE and IABE independently confirm one another

Only if you omit u, about which you argue in the previous example.
It is also doubtful that omega and beta record the same sound. Much simpler
explanation is that beta is a literal rendering of waw letter, not sound.

> It seems highly probable that by the late Roman or Byzantine period of all
of
> these transliterations, there were at least two forms of the name in
> circulation, one like Yahwe and the other like Yaho.

It is not probable at all, but you need to assume this in order to support
the verb hypothesis.

Vadim Cherny