The other root, with the 'W', was precisely what
I pointed at, and the possibility that it represented
an earlier form which was no longer intelligible to
the author who used the standard verb of his time.
I had no quarrel with your post, and in fact I
quoted from it, for the sake of clarity, in my first
paragraph.
Uri Hurwitz
"The explanation of the meaning YHWH in verse 14 is:
> "I AM ('ehyeh) WHAT I AM ('ehyeh)", ... ('ehyeh) I AM
> has sent me to you." These verbs are all given in the
> standard biblical verb HYH for 'to be' . The biblical
> commentator could have used the verb HWH here, but
> did not.
>
> One possible explanation is that when the need arose
> to understand the deity's name, its root HWH has become
> archaic, and the author used the current verb HYH to
> explain it.
>
> Thus an argument can be made that by the time the
> explanation was given, the original meaning had been
> forgotten. But this is a different subject.
>
HH: How are you saying anything different than what I said, except that
I did not mention another root?