Hi Jason,
Jason Hare wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:39 pm
ducky wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:16 pm
But maybe it could be that pronouncing a not-voweled H after an "a vowel" would cause it to be pronounced as "a" (like we see it comes with Hataph-Patah'). And with that, the consonants-combination was broken naturally, creating the diphthong of "haw-->hô".
This could especially be true if the initial pronunciation contained an echo vowel:
יַהֲ rather than the commonly espoused
יַהְ with silent Sheva. However, since this echo vowel isn't really part of the construction, I don't think it would really have an effect.
I probably didn't explain myself well, because I see that you focused on the matter that is not so much relevant. (and maybe I just confused you and others by writing that).
It doesn't matter if the H in the full name is with a Silent Sheva or with a Hataph. Actually, the Hataph doesn't matter for this case at all (and for any process). The Hataph is just an alternative for the Sheva. Just ignore it.
The case is this.
"yahw" has the form "of qatl".
"qatl" form has two consonant together that should be broken.
just like:
כלב = kalb->kaleb
דלת = dal + feminine T suffix = dalt->dalet
And with a guttural letter is mostly broken with "a":
נחל = nah'l->nah'al
and with guttural H:
להט = laht->lahat
טהר = tuhr->tohar
Also with verbs, as short-form like ויפן (wayyifn->wayyifen) and so on... And so also the "yahw" is the short verb form.
So when there is the form of "yahw", it should be broken as well.
Now When I look at the last letter W - I would expect it to push to the "u" sound - creating "yahw->yahu:"
But it doesn't fit the case that we see in the existing name, which is not "hu:" but it is "ho:".
And so, how come the "ho:" sound could be created?
According to what I have in mind, only by a "haw->ho:".
(yahaw->yaho:)
And so, I tend to think that this "yahw" got a linking vowel "a" (a breaking vowel for the "qatl" form).
But how come the vowel "a" comes and not "u"?
That is the thing that bothering me.
But still, we can say that in the "yahw" form, we have two things that can maybe push it to be "a".
1. The previous "a" vowel.
2. The letter H.
And maybe these two things caused the natural linking vowel "a" to occur (and not the "u")
And if so, now we got "yahwnatan->yahawnatan->yaho:natan.
This is the only thing that I can think of.
because we must explain the o: vowel.
But I am not sure about it.
Jason Hare wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:39 pm
ducky wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:16 pm
How come the W was turned into an ô?
I would expect it to turn into û?
(creating yə|hû|na|ṯan - because the W would push for the "u" sound, and then I don't see any reason for the û to turn to ô).
I think the real difference is the placement of the unvocalized vav. That is if it is at the end of the word, it becomes de-emphasized, and that shift of the vocal accent forces it to become û. However, with the prefixed form of the name, the stress is being pulled toward the end of the word. I think this has an influence on the vowel coloring (since
u and
o are the same vowel class). It shouldn't be that much of a problem for us, given that we see things like
מוּת (infinitive construct) and
מוֹת (infinitive absolute). I mean, we know that
qudš(u)
became
qóḏeš. I don't think that the o/u distinction should give us that much trouble.
What do you think?
I don't see it fits.
The "o" in "qodesh" is based on a short "u" (qudsh).
The short "u" in some conditions, turns to Holam.
But in this case, we are talking about big "u".
And I don't see any reason for the u: to turn into o: (except for maybe case of dissimilations and such which is not the case here).
And the Holam in the absolute מות is based on a: (Canaanite shift).
So this "o" of the absolute has nothing to do with the "u" of the infinite (because this o: is actually a:).
When we look at "yahw" and want to expand the "hw" to a "u" sound, it would be "u:" (as long), and so, it is not likely to just turn to a Holam for no reason.
So I don't really sure about the process I suggested.
But I tried to use common processes in Hebrew to try to get from one point to the other.
(and as I say, I'm not sure).
But I also don't see your claim of the u: turns to a o: for no reason as a right way.
But maybe there are some cases like that, and if so, I would really like to see it.