Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 03/08/2005 14:15, Vadim Cherny wrote:

> > > 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.
>
>  
No, by the standard rules of Hebrew conjugations, the hiphil "imperfect" 
of HWH would be yahwe, and the qal "imperfect" would be yahwe, yehwe or 
perhaps yihwe.
...

> > > 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.
>
>  
I offered as proof that in Greek OU, omicron-upsilon, is always a unit. 
Also, although I didn't mention it, the form Iao in Greek always ends 
with omega. Now I accept that IAOU might be a variant of IAW and IAOUE 
might be IAOU plus a final -e syllable represented in Hebrew by he. But 
that is not quite what Vadim has written.

> > 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. ...

Of course not. IAOUE does not include omega, but it includes the 
omicron-upsilon digraph probably representing a "w" sound. Beta at this 
time represents a "v" sound. So this variation records the change in 
pronunciation of Hebrew vav from "w" to "v", a well known change.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/