This is nonsense. UE NEVER represents he. And UE is not a unit in Greek.In the verb hypothesis, some transliteration of he would be expected, andI wonder if you would accept Iaoue as sufficiently close to your "Ieue".
the word could resemble Ieue, albeit remotely.
In my hypothesis of 1-2-3ms suffixes, I could imagine Iaoe, but not Ieue,
unless in rapid pronunciation.
After all, upsilon on its own is improbable as Greek routinely used the
omicron-upsilon diphthong for the sound "w". And don't forget that
Clement's form was (probably) Iaoue.
I think, Iaoue is very clearly matres lectionis YHW + ue for h.
Do you have any evidence for this being not phonetic except that itTheodoret's Iabe is a variant of
Iaoue from a time or dialect when the "w" sound had changed to "v",
which by then was the pronunciation of Greek beta.
I think of Iabe as literal, not phonetic transliteration. Letters, not
sounds transliterated. Letter-for-letter, YHWH for I(H-A)(W-B)(final H-E).
These are indeed far-fetched, but they are not my suppositions. MySo, Clement's and Theodoret's evidence supports "the verb hypothesis".
ihie (verb of YHWH) to ieue, and ieue to Iaoue are two very far-fetched
suppositions, making the ihie-Iaoue tranformations highly improbable, in my
opinion.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.