Talk:Tetragrammaton/Archive 6

A seemingly simple grammatical question
I don't know where the niqqud for this particular suggested possible vocalization variant form,, comes from; whether from the Masoretic text itself somewhere, from some of the Hebrew grammarians that preceded Gesenius, or from Gesenius himself (or his subsequent editors and/or translators). But whatever the case, it seems to me that this particular variant form – namely – could be vocalized as either "Yahwoh" on the one hand, or  as validly as "Yahow" on the other hand. Can any of you think of any arcane grammatical rule that would make the first option more correct than the second one? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, it is not arcane at all, it is one of the basic rules of niqqud. The shwa under the ה rules out the second suggestion, otherwise the ה would be vocalised with shwa and cholem magnum at the same time, which is impossible. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, as what Qumranhohle says, and Chatul above already gave the correct pointing for Yahow: . Cf. the prefixed to names. The sheva usually puts a stop to including it as part of the following syllable. See the difference between sheva na (moving sheva), and sheva nach (silent sheva). Plus yes, the vocalised variant  comes from those who proceeded Gesenius. Stephen Walch (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would depend if we considered the shvah as nach or na. Not much to do with the cholam at all; and anything such as a cholam magnum apparently was not assimilated from the Christian Latin Hebraists of the Renaissance to the 19th century into modern Hebrew grammar. But I apparently failed to see in all the discussions above "the correct pointing for Yahow: ." Thank you for pointing that out to me. One last remark: if these variants all come from Christian Latin Hebraists through the Gesenius Lexicon, they would still need to be compared to all the variants found in the Masoretic text before any contemporary new "conclusions" could be reached, I believe. Thank you, warshy (¥¥)  19:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Shwa closes the syllable here, whether na' or nach is irrelevant in that case. That is the same as in בְּשַׁלְוֺתַיִךְ, מִצְוֺתָיו or עֵדְוֺתָיו. In all these case the ו is consonantal, it starts a new syllable. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Seeing as though I know of no scholar of repute who questions whether Yahweh isn't the correct vocalisation for the tetra, I don't think there's any of the 19th century conclusions to be addressed. Only those on the fringe question Yahweh, and none on the fringe are, as far as I'm aware, scholars of any repute to require an actual scholar of repute to bother engaging their arguments. As the Wiki article shows, the contemporary understanding is still for Yahweh, and none of the others (see Alter, Reno, and Arnold quotes). :) Stephen Walch (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no intention of challenging the current scholarly consensus for yahweh. I was just pointing out that for the contemporary study of the language there are two different traditions that not always match. Actually, there is not any study I know of that tries to compare the two different traditions. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 21:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it is absolutely unclear to me what you mean by "for the contemporary study of the language there are two different traditions that not always match". However, I would be happy if it became clear that the reading "Yahow" is absolutely excluded in case the ה is vocalised with shwa. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was catching up a bit on Gesenius' grammar here, and it is indeed much more complex and large than I was imagining. This would represent the Protestant tradition of knowledge of the Biblical Hebrew language. But the Jewish Masoretic tradition of knowledge of the Biblical text is separate and different. It seems to me that since Gesenius' time there has not been any comprehensive attempt to compare and analyze the two traditions side by side. warshy (¥¥) 23:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure I am following how this is connected to the topic of the tetragrammaton.
 * P.S.: Yahow is in any case impossible, at best it could be Yahoh (as some have argued in light of the Elephantine documents which sometimes have יהה), but again, don't ignore the shwa beneath the ה. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Niqqud?
A recent edit added Hebrew text with puzzling Niqqud (vowel marks); יַהֲוֹה, with a ḥaṭaf pataḥ under the, would be pronounced Yahavo, not Yaho; should that not be יַהוֹה? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello was just apparently following Gesenius' Lexicon on this one (see here, p. 389, second column 6th line down). However in his thesaurus, p. 577, second column 12th line down, he does indeed have it as we would actually expect: . Possibly a misprint in the translated Lexicons? Nevertheless, I will presume the Thesaurus has the correct pointing and amend the page accordingly. Stephen Walch (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Got there just before you! The precise reference I took to be to the quotation from  Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka. If I'm wrong, please fix.  Bealtainemí (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have a Hebrew keyboard, so editing requires insert character, cut-and-paste and an error-prone ordeal with the cursor keys. Putting a Shva שְׁוָא under the makes the  a consonant;  would be pronounced yahvo. Also, the typo occurs in more than one place.


 * Following your link, p. 406, bottom left column, I see a definition of יָהּ that refers to a purported more ancient pronunciation, and I don't see a definition for at all. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you're preoccupied with the transliteration here, which indeed should be Yahwo with that pointing. Will edit that along with the other pointing errors. I couldn't find anything on p. 406 here, with the entry for ּ being on p. 387. As for , see p. 389 as mentioned above. Everything is under the entry for.


 * More precisely, I'm concerned with the transliteration matching the Hebrew.
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dxCBQLh9-9kC is a summary page; what is the URL for the specific edition you're looking at?
 * I noticed that you changed lang-he-n to Hebrew in some places. The documentation for Hebrew says This template marks a string as Hebrew script. It is transcluded by script and by lang-he-n. Do not include it directly, but instead use: . This template only marks a string as Hebrew script, not as Hebrew language. Therefore, it is not appropriate for actual words in Hebrew. Hebrew words are marked instead like this: . For entire paragraphs in Hebrew, use.


 * (יַהֲוֹה), (יַהֲוֹה) and  should all render the same Hebrew text, but generate different metadata. They seem to use different fonts and font sizes. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm 99% certain it is easy enough to deduce you click on "Preview this book" and go to page 389, but never mind: try this. As for the new tags; yes, I was making everything sync up with as  looks like a dreadful serif font. Would appear though that  is the right one to use, and generates the desired font. Shall amend them all now. Stephen Walch (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually after trying the other tags, none of them produce the desired effect, with always adding Hebrew: before each one. Seems a bit pointless to have this before each and every Hebrew word on a page where, you know, most of it is based on precisely a Hebrew word. I think it's fine as it is now. Stephen Walch (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see your p. 406 corresponds to the 1836 edition of Gesenius' Lexicon; page 408 in the same book has the section on . This too contains the oddly pointed . Interestingly, a 1828 edition of Gesenius' German original doesn't contain this pointing, but has the expected . Seems is an error of the English translators! Stephen Walch (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly in Gibb's first original English translation of Gesenius, it follows the precise pointing as seen in the German edition above. Stephen Walch (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Short note: I could check the German 1st (not 2nd), 3rd, 4th etc. editions, always יַהְוֹה. However, the 9th has an explicit reference as to why יַהֲוֹה is less likely. The error might have been induced by Gesenius' reference to יַעֲקֹב. Just a guess. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Think I've found the source - Gesenius' Latin Lexicon Manuale circa 1833 page 408, bottom of second column. Seems English translations afterwards followed this incorrect pointing, without noticing Gesenius had it corrected by his Thesaurus and subsequent additions to his German Lexicon. Stephen Walch (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice catch, thanks! Still, I don't think it is a simple error, there is some thinking behind it (since Gesenius has also the chateph patach variant for the version with segol in the end. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite possible. Nevertheless is does look like Gesenius changed his mind after the Manuale as to talking of (see Thesaurus), which subsequent English editors didn't catch until much later on. The discussion in the 9th German edition on  probably comes from the pen of Mühlau or Volck. Think after this we get to the BDB Lexicon which utterly removes any reference to  or . Thanks for the assist in searching, Qumranhöhle :) Stephen Walch (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. (The 9th edition attributes the reading Jahawa to Delitzsch, btw, but I couldn't clarify the specifics.) The 14th edition by Buhl also removed much of the older and obsolete discussions. Last point: This is a nice volume on Gesenius' work. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Almost 7000 times
I'm somewhat shocked that this article is missing how many times the Tetragrammaton is mentioned in the Torah, it should be one of the first things in the intro, no other name is mention so many times... ...despite people defending this place as encyclopedically proper there's always a visible bias here. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * How many times YHWH occurs in the Hebrew Bible has absolutely nothing to do with how YHWH should be translated into English. Unfortunately, "Jehovah"[sic] is a rather problematic form which does not actually occur in Hebrew.  In the real KJV of 1611, "Jehovah" occurs exactly seven times (three of those in placenames)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning looks demented to me. This article, as you imagine, isn't only about how the Tetragrammaton should be translated. The reference says the tetragrammaton is there 6972 times, that's the actual point. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In what way is it important that it's there 6972 times? Anyway, it might fit in somewhere, but not in the lead paragraph. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 23:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton#Masoretic_Text 24.78.228.96 (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC on importance of times mentioned
Should the article's intro include as notable the number of times the Tetragrammaton is in the original texts? 24.78.228.96 (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Self evident, as the sky is blue, as no other Bible name is included so many times, not even close, you may as well ask why bother having this article. It is after all the name of the God of these books. How it is translated from the original is minor in comparison, as names that include references to it where consistanty translated, as evidenced by examples such as Jehoadah, Jehoaddan, Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jehohanan, Jehoiachin, Jehoiada, Jehoiakim, Jehoiarib, Jehonadab, Jehonathan, Jehoram, Jehoshaphat, Jehosheba, Jehoshua, Jehovah-jireh, Jehovah-nissi, Jehovah-shalom, Jehovah-shammah, Jehovah-tsidkenu, Jehozabad, Jehozadak, to name only a few. To be clear, it is important enough to have it's OWN section in the article already, and therefore WP:DUE = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton#Masoretic_Text And as for it being merely another Hebrew word, it is the only name in the Bible refered to AS A NAME for God, see Isaiah 42:8 & Psalm 83:18. {edited} 24.78.228.96 (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrong standard is applied here. The standard for inclusion of facts in articles is WP:DUE. If the number of occurrences is represented by a number of WP:RS then we can include it. I am not sure why it has to be in the intro. I would say an appropriate place in the body is better. Also, context must be established. How many Hebrew words are in the OT and what percentage does the Tetragrammaton represent? What are comparative word counts? Elizium23 (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Elizium23 You want stats, as I said, they don't even come close: https://5factsdotorg.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/5-names-mentioned-most-in-the-bible/ 24.78.228.96 (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 24.78.228.96 -- That's a non-scholarly source, referring to the KJV English text of both Old and New Testament, and so hardly acceptable for this Wikipedia article. AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Elizium23 -- there are about 300,000 words in the Hebrew Bible, though for various reasons this translates into a much larger number of English words. The booklet "A Student's Vocabulary of Biblical Hebrew Listed According to Frequency and Cognate" by George M. Landes contains a lot of approximate word-counts (though probably not arranged in the most convenient way for the purposes of this discussion...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not important enough for the lead; we already mention its frequency below, and that suffices for this detail. Leads are for broad, summarizing information; details are for the body of the article. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 17:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not important enough for the lead in concurrence with jpgordon, the body details this enough. Andromadist (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not important per the two previous posters above. warshy (¥¥) 22:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not important per the two previous posters above. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not important Agreed the number should be included in the main body somewhere, but the intro isn't the place for it. Stephen Walch (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not important per above. ~ HAL  333  01:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not important agree per above. Nyx86 (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"Several centuries later" ?
Than when? 1.136.106.231 (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

And is the one instance of YHVH deliberate? 1.136.106.231 (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Niqqud for Tetragrammaton
The article states Writing the vowel diacritics of these two words on the consonants YHVH produces and respectively, non-words that would spell "Yehovah" and "Yehovih" respectively. However, אֲדֹנָי‎ has a ḥaṭaf pataḥ (Hebrew: חֲטַף פַּתַח‎ IPA: [ħaˈtaf paˈtaħ], "reduced pataḥ") on the, not a Shva. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Chatul -- see the previous discussion at Talk:Tetragrammaton/Archive_4... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

"While there is no consensus about the structure and etymology of the name, the form Yahweh is now accepted almost universally."
That's quite a claim. Maybe that's the case for Christian theological scholars, in which case that should be specified.

There is absolutely no agreement in Judaism how the tetragrammaton is pronounced, and there is no attempt to determine it, either. The use of Hebrew niqqud seems like an attempt to externally graft Jewish credentials to this name's pronunciation, which is disingenuous.

Alternatively, maybe this article can explicitly state that it's written from a Christian perspective and might have little to do with the way it's conceived in Judaism.

Oaklandj (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It is written from a mainstream academic perspective. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oaklandj -- The decision in traditional/mainstream Judaism not to pronounce the Tetragrammaton in any way that corresponds to the consonantal spelling YHWH, but to substitute other words (starting with Adonai) is a religious practice. A scholarly quasi-consensus on "Yahwheh" as the original pronunciation of what was written consonantally as YHWH is an agreement of opinion about a historical linguistic reconstruction.  These things do not contradict each other in any way, and the scholars involved could be of diverse religious affiliations (or none), and their main academic field is more likely to be some form of philology or linguistics, rather than theology... AnonMoos (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Transliteration for English Speakers - "V" is much better than "W"
I recently made two contributions that were reverted, in my view without warrant, by User:Stephen Walch; my original contributions seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tetragrammaton&oldid=1042766925 in which I added (not replaced) to the current offerings of "YHWH" and "waw" as transliterations for English speakers. I added "YHVH" and "vav" as more accurate alternative transliterations (in truth they should be replaced not added, but I left the lesser spellings because of tradition, wrong-headed tradition). In his notes for the reversions Mr. Walch said my contributions were "unnecessary" and "wrong".

Let's think about this for a second. Transliterations of foreign language words are for the purpose of getting the English Wikipedia reader to speak the foreign word correctly, not to spell it correctly. Neither "YHWH" or "YHVH" are the correct word for the name of God, יהוה. God's name spelled is a Hebrew word, not English. Again, transliterations are meant to get English speakers (not German speakers, etc.) to speak the name correctly. In seminary I learned that the Hebrew letter "ו" in "יהוה" is pronounced VAV with a V sound, not a W sound. This is not a parochial pronunciation, it is just an accurate one. Listen to any Hebrew speaker say a word with a "vav" in it; it sounds like the English V sound. German, and some other languages, uses a W in their transliteration of "ו" to produce what in English is a V sound. English and German speakers pronounce V and W oppositely in most instances if not all. I'm mentioning German here because I believe the use of "YHWH" (and resultantly "Yahweh" with most people unfortunately pronouncing it as an English W) have been commonly used in English mostly because much of the early transliteration work from the Hebrew alphabet into the Latin alphabet was initiated by German speaking scholars, who happen to pronounce W as an English speaker would pronounce a V.

If this article were just about historical usage of words, Mr. Walch's case (to the extent that "unnecessary" and "wrong" are a case) would be more compelling than mine. But it's not. Again, transliteration is a purposeful endeavor, not to spell something correctly, but to get the target audience to SAY the word correctly. The English Wikipedia is for English speakers, moreover for English speakers that may not know that YHWH is a transliteration meant for people that say W as an English speaker normally pronounces a V. Therefore "YHVH" and "vav" are, in English, more accurate transliterations than "YHWH" and "waw" because as transliterations they get the target audience, English speakers, to speak the most important Hebrew word יהוה as accurately as possible, i.e. with a V sound not a W sound.

At minimum, the V versions of these transliterations should be added to the W versions, if not replace them altogether, because this is the English Wikipedia, not the German Wikipedia. This is especially important because we're talking about the name of God, not just any old word. Saying this word correctly is so important to many Hebrew speakers (particularly devout ones) that they refuse to attempt to say the word at all, preferring substitute words, in case they were to say it wrongly. With the transliteration YHWH we're just begging to say it wrongly. With the transliteration YHVH at least there is hope that an English speaker might say it correctly, which of course is the purpose of transliteration.

If a compelling case for the reversions isn't made in a reasonable amount of time, I will restore my contributions.

● Thane &mdash; 18:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @User:Thane - See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waw_(letter)#Hebrew_Waw_/_Vav - /v/ is the Modern Hebrew pronunciation of ו; /w/ was the Ancient Hebrew pronunciation (hence why the tetra is transliterated YaHWeh in pretty much every English written book that mentions the name). I'm surprised they didn't teach you this at the Seminary you went to. W is the correct transliteration of ו in English. The ancient pronunciation of ו as /w/ (thus -weh not -veh for Yahweh) is so well known I didn't realise there were still people who were unaware of such. See https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/alphabet/hebrew-alphabet-chart.htm and https://hebrewtoday.com/alphabet/the-letter-vav-%D7%95/, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hebrew_orthography#Vocalization. W should be the only transliteration used in YHWH in this article, as it represents the original pronunciation of Hebrew, and therefore of the very name Yahweh. See also https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/ask-a-scholar/ancient-hebrew Stephen Walch (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Thane -- Unfortunately, "W" was the pronunciation of the Hebrew letter during the actual Biblical period.  The "V" pronunciation didn't really come in until about 200 or 300 A.D. -- and it NEVER came in to certain Jewish pronunciation traditions, such as the Yemeni, which stayed with "W" until the end. AnonMoos (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Should the article be revised to more accurately represent the use of Niqqud with the Tetragrammaton?
Article says:
 * "One of the frequent cases was the Tetragrammaton, which according to later Rabbinite Jewish practices should not be pronounced but read as "Adonai" (אֲדֹנָי‎/"my Lord"), or, if the previous or next word already was Adonai, as "Elohim" (אֱלֹהִים‎/"God"). Writing the vowel diacritics of these two words on the consonants YHVH produces יְהֹוָה‎ and יֱהֹוִה‎ respectively, . . . "

Yet it is obvious that the actual Niqqud of Adonai is not precisely placed on the tetragrammaton. The Niqqud under the Aleph of Adonai is not found under the yod of the Tetragrammaton. (FairNPOV (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC))

Should the article be revised to be consistent with waw vs vav?
The same Hebrew letter is sometimes called waw & sometimes called vav or transliterated with v instead of w. (FairNPOV (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC))

Should a section on etymology be added; proposed explanations of the form YHWH?
Should proposed explanations of YHWH be included in an etymology section? E.g., does YHWH represent the imperfect 3rd person singular of a Hebrew verb? (FairNPOV (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)) Blocked sock. Butler Blog  (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The verb to be can be either היה or הוה; In modern Hebrew the second form is only used in the present participle. יהוה and יהוה are both 3rd person singular (future in Modern Hebrew) will be. The Judaic tradition is that the name stems from "אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה", which uses the first person singular imperfect of the same verb will be. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The proposed vocalization "Yahweh" seems to be more suitable to a 3rd.masc.sg. imperfect Hiph`il than a 3rd.masc.sg. imperfect Qal. Not sure what the consensus of scholarship is on this... AnonMoos (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Llelora.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

YHVH
None of the posts relating to Gods name, are accurate. Here,s why. Things of the Spirit must be discerned with Spirits help !! Yeshua promised that His Spirit would lead and guide into all truth. The Tetragrammaton is pronounced as Yahovah, that is because the vowels needed to pronounce the word are found in Revelation 1:8 , and in Revellation 21:6 , 22:13. Spirit has repeated this fact THREE times -- He has even written the NT in Greek so that we can be informed about the truth !!

It is also fitting to say that Hebrew language is a pictographic language, meaning that every letter has a meaning. Yod means Hand, Ha or Hey means window or look  , while Vauv or Vav means tent peg or spike. W does not have a meaning, and the letter J does not exist in Hebrew. Judaists become irate that Gods personal name depicts a crucifiction, but that meaning is precisely what Spirit intended. As someone else commented, and as Yeshua explicitly said  NO ONE COMES TO GOD THE FATHER EXCEPT BY ME. 2001:8003:3A3B:2A00:E91E:C5E0:4AD3:31B7 (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You appear to be poorly informed on some things, such as that the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet was pronounced [w] not [v] during the actual Biblical period, and that placing the vowel points schwa-holem-qames into the consonants YHWH was a "Q're perpetuum" to indicate that YHWH should be said out loud as Adonai. It most definitely did NOT indicate Yehowah or anything of the kind; in fact this was a stupid misconception by Christians (never by Jews) trying to understand medieval Jewish scribal conventions.  So that Jehovah and/or Yehowah originated as a "bastard word...obtained by fusing the vowels of the one word with the consonants of the other" (to quote from the entry "Tetragrammaton" in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd. edition) edited by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone. (1978), p. 1354 ISBN 0-19-211545-6). -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be "Qamatz" or "Qameṣ"?
 * Why does the Qere perpetuum have a shva when אֲדֹנָי starts with a ḥaṭaf pataḥ? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Proselytizing casts no light on the subject. Why would I want to read a Greek document to interpret a term in Hebrew? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Proselytizing casts no light on the subject. Why would I want to read a Greek document to interpret a term in Hebrew? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Proselytizing casts no light on the subject. Why would I want to read a Greek document to interpret a term in Hebrew? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Chatul -- It's a long and boring story, but ever since the stupid December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, the tools I use to access Wikipedia when editing from home (by a circuitous indirect method) basically only have the ability to handle the ISO-8859-1 character set. As for your other question, see Talk:Tetragrammaton/Archive 4... AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * By the way, I already directed you to the archive 4 discussion a year ago at Talk:Tetragrammaton/Archive 6... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I gues that we need templates for IPA characters :-(
 * I took a look at the archive; is there any reason not to include a brief summary in the article? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the archive; is there any reason not to include a brief summary in the article? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Short form
The text with a possible instance of the short form in verse 8:6) is confusing because it is not clear whether "short form" refers to or to  without referring to the actual verse. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing as though the only "short form" mentioned in the article is, and the reference cited itself (y'know, where you're supposed to go and check to confirm statements in a Wiki article) also speaks of the short form / (and no mention of the other), I really don't see the confusion. Not to mention doesn't appear anywhere in the Tanakh as a short form of the Tetra, hence very unlikely anyone is going to misunderstand what the sentence means. Stephen Walch (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between having to go to the cited source to verify the text and having to go to the cited source to understand what the text is trying to say.
 * Yes, to a biblical expert it might be obvious which form is meant. It is certainly not obvious to a lay reader, especially since the other short form is used in the liturgy. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What liturgy are you referring to? I find your statement here confusing as opposed to the short form of YHWH (which, btw, is mentioned in most Bible introductions. See for instance the New Living Translation introduction, p. A13), and I'm far from a "Biblical Expert". I expect most lay readers won't be confused by the mentioning of the short form. Stephen Walch (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As an example, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Siddur_Ashkenazi/Shacharit/Tachanun has יי. יי. אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן.
 * I can't speak for most readers, but I at least was confused and tried finding in the line before noticing שַׁלְהֶבֶתְיָה at the end, which I assume was the referent. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, so the Orthodox Judaism liturgy. How many lay readers do you think will know anything about the OJ Liturgy, or will know enough about it to understand it uses as a substitution for YHWH? This article has but one small section which mentions the liturgy, and doesn't go into it in any detail to note there's "another" short form. As even the reference used doesn't indicate which "short form" is intended, evidently it's common enough knowledge to know the only "short form" which appears in the Tanakh is, and not any instance of . As it happens, I knew about the short form , and didn't know the OJ liturgy used , hence I believe most people will be in the same boat as myself. Stephen Walch (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm actually Conservative, but the only nearby congregation that has morning services 7 days a week is Chabad. Am I the only one who is not Orthodox but still attends Orthodx services? Also, the article is about the Tetragrammaton, not just about the use of the Tetragramaton in the Tana"kh. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a quick internal link to the discussion of the short form which takes place in this article, in case there are any persons who find this statement confusing (of which I'm highly sceptical). Will this be enough? Stephen Walch (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I was obviously confused, so I don't understand the skepticism. Perhaps I'm the only one, but I doubt it. Would there be anything wrong with making it with a possible instance of the short form in verse 8:6) or with a possible instance of שַׁלְהֶבֶתְיָה containing the short form in verse 8:6) (assuming that to be the referent)?
 * My link to the eternal discussion of the short form in this article I would think is sufficient, in case anyone has the same confusion as yourself. Stephen Walch (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That link is to #Texts with similar theonyms and doesn't really clarify the referent. Would you object to me adding to the parenthetical note? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * After further deliberation in my own mind, no, I have no objection and have added it in. Stephen Walch (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, would it be TMI to explain why we pronounce but not  ? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have a source which discusses such things, I don't see why not. Stephen Walch (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Alas, I was hoping that you knew. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can find anything, and update the article accordingly :) Stephen Walch (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Chatul. Is this what we're talking about? I see two instances of  but no instance of . The first instance is less likely to refer to the name, in my view. The second/last one could be a reference. warshy (¥¥)  21:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the verse cited in the article. I would assume that the cited source was referring to שַׁלְהֶבֶתְיָה rather than to רְשָׁפֶיהָ, since the latter doesn't have the appropriate niqqud. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Recurring case change from IP addresses
There have been a large number of edits changing the word god, in contexts where it is an improper noun, to upper case. Should the article be semi-protected? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it should be fully protected. Every so often someone comes on and starts messing with god/God, adding something weird (like "Yahowah" "Yahhowerdcvh" etc.), and it gets very irksome having to revert a bunch of pointless edits. Stephen Walch (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

IEVE or IEUE?
In some older language forms, what looks like a V is actually a U. We see this in Latin, such as in the name "IESVS" which is really Iesus; and we see that also in older English where the U looked like V and the V looked like U, in both uppercase and lowercase. I added Citation Needed in the photo says it is "IEVE". But is it really "IEUE"/"ieue"? Misty MH (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "V" and "U" were not separate letters before the 17th century, nor were "I " and "J". They were basically ornamental variant forms.  So the question is fairly meaningless before that time.  However Trajan's column uses a form which visually looks like "V" (though of course not a separate letter from "U"), if that counts for anything... AnonMoos (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As AnonMoos has noted, u/v aren't necessarily separate letters, hence the need for a "citation" is meaningless for a transliteration. IEUE or IEVE are the same. Stephen Walch (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The common reader does not know that a V in Latin is a U; nor do they know that about English during the time of Shakespeare. The article is of course for current readers, not Marlowe or Trajan. So for it to say it says "IEVE" in an article that focuses partly on correct pronunciation is not in the least meaningless but extremely meaningful. And since both editors agree that the letters are the "same", then it should be properly rendered for contemporary readers. Misty MH (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well we weren't presuming the common reader knew that - the article does however note this (under vocalisation) : "Like all letters in the Hebrew script, the letters in YHWH originally indicated consonants. In unpointed Biblical Hebrew, most vowels are not written, but some are indicated ambiguously, as certain letters came to have a secondary function indicating vowels (similar to the Latin use of I and V to indicate either the consonants /j, w/ or the vowels /i, u/)." So the common reader, who has read the article, should know that V/U are interchangeable. Nothing wrong with your edit if deemed necessary. Stephen Walch (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Etymology/name section comparisons between this page and Yahweh article
While on different topics, they are clearly related topics, which I would think have shared etymology in theory, although viewpoints on which etymology story is true could vary.

This article says "The name "YHWH" is probably derived from the Hebrew triconsonantal root היה."

Meanwhile, the Yahweh article says "This name is not attested other than among the Israelites and seems not to have any plausible etymology.[17] Ehye ašer ehye ("I Am that I Am"), the explanation presented in Exodus 3:14,[18] appears to be a late theological gloss invented at a time when the original meaning had been forgotten."

Has anyone looked into the sources of both, or does anyone here have deep knowledge on both theories? Even if there are contradictory viewpoints out there, should this article make mention of both e.g. the possibility that the relation to "to be" is an after-the-fact "gloss" invented? Given what is on the Yahweh page, I was iffy about the word "probably" in this article.

Curious on your thoughts.

For disclosure, I am a believer in the Abrahamic God and generally believe in the biblical "to be" meaning for the name, but trying to read up on religious history on Wikipedia in an unbiased way.

Interested in everyone's thoughts.

-KaJunl (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * KaJunl -- "Yahweh" doesn't have a clear and unambiguous meaning, as far as we are able to understand, but I don't see any real reason to doubt that it was derived from triconsonantal root h-w-y, a slight variant of root h-y-y (which is used to derive the verb meaning "to be" in Biblical Hebrew)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @KaJunl @AnonMoos: There is plenty of reason to doubt the triconsonontal root theory, not least that it is not even clear that Yahweh is even originally a Hebrew name. The OT itself, at different times, links Yahweh with both Edom and the Midians, meaning that the name itself could quite readily be a loanword from a variety of related but distinct languages. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's reasonable - my point was just that the two Wikipedia articles were inconsistent and I thought it would make more sense if they were consistent, if we treat this like a true encyclopedia, more than any argument about what it should actually say. I haven't kept up with any edits made the last few months though.  -KaJunl (talk) KaJunl (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I may post a similar topic on the talk page of the other article, where maybe someone has the source on hand. -KaJunl (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi again. Please see discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yahweh#Name/etymology:_consistency_between_this_article_and_Tetragrammaton

I would propose at least removing the word "probably." It appears the root word could also have some meanings related to blowing, wind, and storms, to fall, and some others  those may be worth mentioning too if the sources seem reasonably credible - will leave to someone else to judge - but at a minimum I think removing "probably" makes sense. I feel there should be consistency between these sections of the two articles. The section about the word and its linguistic origin shouldn't vary depending on if we are talking about the word in the Bible vs. another god that other people believed in using clearly the same name. -KaJunl (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like some edits were made and it is more consistent (for now at least) - thanks! -KaJunl (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't comment on the historical aspect, but the roots היה‎ (h-y-h) and הוה‎ (h-w-h or h-v-h) both mean to be; in Modern Hebrew the first is seen in past and future tenses both with and without a direct object while the latter is only seen in present tense without a direct object.
 * I'm wary of deriving dating from textual analyses not backed up by archaeological data. Some have been refuted by later archaeological finds. What I wouldn't give for intact scrolls from hundreds of years BCE!
 * Talmudic sources claiming an origin from אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (’ehye ’ăšer ’ehye; ) in Exodus 3:14 are too recent to be relevant for secular analyses, although they are very relevant for Judaic theology. I'm curious about the Islamic view. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure why a Muslim view would be relevant -- traditionally Islamic religious scholars have had no real interest in Hebrew, and have not participated in the philological and linguistic efforts which resulted in the 19th century reconstructed pronunciation "Yahweh"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would transcribe היה‎ and הוה‎ into the Latin alphabet as h-y-y and h-w-y, since the roots really end in a semivowel, as appears when you add on most endings. A Latin alphabet "h" in third position would often be interpreted as a "lamed-he mappiq" root, which is something completely different... AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I would find transliterating היה‎ (h-y-h) as h-y-y extremely confusing. No Hebrew reader would expect a final Heh in a shoresh (root) to have a mappiq, but one would expect the first Yod in היי‎ (h-y-y) to have a Hiriq. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Obviously the word היה‎ meaning "he was" would be transliterated haya(h), but the root היה is quite a different matter -- there's no linguistically significant "h" consonant in final position. Instead, there's a semivowel, which historically vocalized in word-final position, and the resulting vowel is usually written in Hebrew with the letter ה for complicated reasons.  However, when a suffix is added, the semivowel makes its presence felt.  A h-y-y root theoretically might be conjugated like a hollow (middle consonant semi-vowel) root, or a geminated root, or a lamed he (final semi-vowel) root.  The third possibility happens.  Again, a Latin alphabet letter "h" writing a root consonant would strongly suggest a real [h] sound, and not a lamed-he semivowel. AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Surely the difference in inflection is linguistically significant, e.g., אֶהְיֶה and אֶהְיִי have different vocalization.
 * As for transliterations into Latin alphabets, I see a final with no mappiq and a prior qamatz transliterated as "ah" all the time. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If "Hallelujah" is used to transcribe Psalm 135:3, this means that the distinction in Hebrew between a real consonantal [h] and a mere "mater lectionis" is lost in the Latin-alphabet transcription. This may be acceptable when transcribing words, but unacceptable when specifying abstract consonantal roots... AnonMoos (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more complicated, because the in יה is consonantal in, e.g, אֵלִיָּהוּ (Eliyahu). --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more complicated, because the in יה is consonantal in, e.g, אֵלִיָּהוּ (Eliyahu). --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm really not too sure what your point is -- Of course Yah in Psalm 135:3 has a fully consonantal [h] (not a mater lectionis). I mentioned it for that specific reason.  As I've already said multiple times during this conversation, it might be acceptable to conflate real consonantal [h] and a mere mater lectionis "h" when transcribing ordinary words into Latin script, but not acceptable when transcribing abstract triliteral (or quadriliteral) consonantal roots into Latin script.  Why can't you address my main point, instead of perpetually going off into peripheral tangents? AnonMoos (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I have addressed your main point, and the difference in conjugation between the two is central, not a tangent. The grammar is different between the two terminal letters, regardless of the historical origins of the written form. Also, I wasn't the one that brought up the mappiq. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand why you bring in your semi-irrelevant tangents, but so far NONE of them have detracted from my main point that what applies when transcribing words may not fully apply to transcribing consonantal roots. A word has an actual pronunciation and meaning and occurs in a sentence.  An abstract root is a sequential list of  consonants.  It does not have a pronunciation, it does not occur in sentences, and its meaning is often rather vague.  It does not take vowel points or other diacritics in traditional texts.  You seem to have great difficulty grasping the difference and/or applying it usefully in this discussion. AnonMoos (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Please drop the ad hominem arguments and address the point at issue. Also, there is no need to refute claims that I never made. The shoresh of a Hebrew verb reflects not just how the first person singular perfect is pronounced, but rather how all forms are pronounced. For the purpose of classifying the behavior of verbs, there is nothing special about real consonants. היה‎ and הוה‎ are different abstract roots and the rules of inflection for them are different; that is what is at issue. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As I've said multiple times above, the letter "h" at the end of a inflected (but unsuffixed) words derived from a so-called lamed-he troot is NOT a real consonant!!!! It's a mere "mater lectionis", and it's very often transformed into a long [i] vowel etc. when such derived words have suffixes added at the end.  For this and other reasons, I would not transcribe the triliteral roots involved into the Latin alphabet with a letter "h", but with a "y": h-w-y and h-yy. AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I know what you've said multiple times, and it is irrelevant to the point at issue. THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT REAL CONSONANTS. Lamed-Heh and Lamed-Vav roots conjugate differently; why on Earth would you obscure that difference by transliterating them the same? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Dude, Hebrew doesn't really have a coherent Lamed-Waw verb paradigm, only a few scattered inflectional forms ("only isolated forms occur" -- Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley, page 207), and that's all quite irrelevant to these particular roots anyway. If you can't understand why h-w-y and h-y-y are perfectly reasonable Latin-alphabet transcriptions of the triliteral roots in question (not absolutely mandatory, but very sensible), then why don't you just say that you can't understand it??  Because all your semi-irrelevant tangents, with a little word-salad sprinkled on top, have done nothing to add to this conversation in any way, but cumulatively they're having the effect of annoying me. AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323 -- It's not convenient right now for me to reply to where your comment is above, but any languages that were "related" to Hebrew "but distinct" would have also used triliteral consonantal roots. Such languages were not always fully distinct, since together they formed a "Canaanite dialect continuum" in which each language was usually quite similar to its directly neighboring languages... AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As an addendum, the earliest postulated mention of Yahweh is in y-h-w form, which it could just as easily be, with the softened -eh Semitic suffix at the back. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Both Midianite and Edomite would have been Semitic languages, probably not too much different from Hebrew of the same time period, and their morphology would have been mostly based on consonantal roots just as Hebrew morphology also was. A root y-h-w is not attested in Biblical Hebrew, but names which take the form of third person masculine singular inflected (finite) verbs are amply attested in certain branches of Semitic -- starting with the name Isaac, which is a verb meaning "he laughs" in the original Hebrew, repurposed as a name.  I'm not sure what you're trying to say about a suffix, but if you're referring to the feminine singular noun suffix, YHWH most definitely does not have that... AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that the postulated god of Abrahamic monotheism is neither human nor sexed, I think the masculinity or femininity of the grammatical construction would be fairly irrelevant, but, more generally, that 'feminine suffix', as you call it, can be used to denote the singular with little or not sense of gender orientation, so I would refute that particular notion. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * More broadly, just because Semitic languages have some common roots does not mean all of their roots are common, or that all of their roots have similar meanings. You are working backwards from the assumption that the root is Hebrew and therefore has a meaning related to Hebrew roots, but this was never a linguistic given in the first place. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Iskandar23 -- Your arguments against triliteral roots are less persuasive than you think they are, to those who have a relevant grounding in areal linguistics. The idea that God is neither masculine nor feminine is a refinement of abstract monotheism, so it may not have been too relevant to people around 1000 B.C.  Certainly male singular pronouns are used to refer to God in the text of the Hebrew Bible (exactly the same as in the Arabic of the Qur'an).  The feminine singular suffix can have a de-collectivizing or individuating effect in Arabic -- حور plural, حورية singular -- but that isn't found in Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, you are presuming that Yahweh is A) Hebrew in origin, and B) conjugated somehow typically - neither of which are positively affirmed. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This continuing discussion seems rather pointless, remember this isn't a forum to discuss your personal theories and ideas about the subject. XeCyranium (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Jewish Pendant.jpg

"הוהי" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect הוהי and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 19:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I updated הוהי to correct and expand the rshell template to include the target language in R from alternative language and correct spelling in R from misspelling. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Provenance of Yehua claim?
There have been several edits claiming a vocalization of Yehua. Are there any sources that justify either a shuruk (וּ) or a Heh with a mappiq (הּ)? I've never seen or heard that outside of the wiki article. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Yehuah" only makes sense if the last letter is a real pronounced [h] sound ("he mappiq"). It could only be an inflected verb form if there was a root which was simultaneously `Ayin-Waw and Lamed-Guttural, which I'm not too sure exists (excluding a few roots where the [w] acts as an ordinary "strong" consonant which does not vocalize).  I've never come across any evidence or scholarly support for this idea.  "Yehua" doesn't make any sense at all, as far as I can tell (it breaks the Biblical Hebrew requrement that every syllable must begin with a consonant, except for a prefix "u-" meaning "and, but" or the "patah furtivum" element between a long-vowel and a word-final guttural consonant, which is a mere diphthong element)... AnonMoos (talk)
 * Are the people claiming that it was pronounced "Yehua" also claiming that it is derived from the alternate form הָוָּה (hava) of the verb הָיָה (hayah)? I agree that it makes no grammatical sense as a verb form, but there are certainly nouns in Biblical Hebrew beginning with a (Yod), e.g., יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yehoshu'a - Joshua). --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Are the people claiming that it was pronounced "Yehua" also claiming that it is derived from the alternate form הָוָּה (hava) of the verb הָיָה (hayah)? I agree that it makes no grammatical sense as a verb form, but there are certainly nouns in Biblical Hebrew beginning with a (Yod), e.g., יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yehoshu'a - Joshua). --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Are the people claiming that it was pronounced "Yehua" also claiming that it is derived from the alternate form הָוָּה (hava) of the verb הָיָה (hayah)? I agree that it makes no grammatical sense as a verb form, but there are certainly nouns in Biblical Hebrew beginning with a (Yod), e.g., יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yehoshu'a - Joshua). --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Dr. M. Reisel, in The Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H., said that the “vocalisation of the Tetragrammaton must originally have been YeHūàH or YaHūàH.” This has been added to Vocalization section. Seldom Forever (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)