Talk:Ehud (given name)

Yehudi

Is אהוד a derivative of יהודי as it appears to be? If so, what is the grammatical or phonological concept by which the yodh would be unvocalised? Sources appear to confirm. [1] [2], but this doesn't appear to be mentioned in the above articles. -Ste vertigo 22:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from talk:Stevertigo): -SV

Ehud (name) is not related to Yehudah or Yehudi. The Biblical etymology for Judah is a combination of God (yod heh vav) and praise (daled heh); neither word is related to Ehud (aleph hey daled - no alecph in Yehudah). The yud can be unvocalized, to my knowledge always at the end of a word (like, well, yehudi (the first yod is vocalized, the final one is not) ... or the more common name, Eli (my God). Or Adonai (my lord)). That it is unvocalized at the end of a word does not mean that it would ever be transposed as an aleph at the beginning of a word (as in Ehud). As far as I know there is no accepted etymology for Ehud. I wonder whether it is derived from another language (Akkadian, Uggaritic) as is often the case when a Hebrew word does not really seem to fit. You could look at the Anchor Bible volume of Judges to see where Ehud first appears; if there is any accepted etymology of the word it would be in that commentary.

Unless you can provide a notable and reliable source that states that Ehud is related to Yehudah, I don't see any connection between the two. I hope I answered your questions. User:Slrubenstein | Talk 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'll look into your explanation, but to my eye there appear to be three operations, common in many alphabetical or abjad transcription systems, and perhaps also existent in Hebrew:

In "Yehudi" the final yodh, י (from yodh): "as a suffix indicates first person singular possessive; av (father) becomes avi (my father)". Inversely "Yehud(a)" (a person's name) can be abstracted to yehudi meaning (possessive: of Yehudah, hence of the Jews, or of Judaism). Dropping the final yodh here appears to be a common way to get at the root, יהוד "yehud" and Yehud appears to be the root of Yehuda/Judah. -
The initial yodh י ("y") carries with it an "e" (or "a") sound, giving "ye", (or sometimes "ya"). In this case, removing the initial yodh from יהודי (Yehudi) would give only הודי "hudi" which appears to be destructive.
Solving the above issue, The aleph, א as a mater lectionis can be transfixed to the beginning of a word, indicating a vowel of varying phonology. In this case, adding the aleph allows one to remove the "y" sound of the yodh, without compromising the vowel sound "e" implied by the yodh. Removing a consonant in an abjad has the unfortunate property of also removing the vowel, and in order to keep the vowel sound, and thus preserve a certain relationship with the original word, abjads use the few vowel characters they have to indicate the vowel. Abjads (Hebrew, Arabic) are by definition more limited than alphabets with regard to vowel phonology, in both speech and in written representation. Hence there are two vowel sounds for each of the Semitic mater lectonis. "A" and "e" for the aleph, "ye" and "i" for the yodh. -Ste vertigo 20:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, you are just violating NOR. The fact is, and I mean no offense because NOR applies to ALL of us, you are not competent or qualified to do this analysis. If you think you are, then publish it in a notable peer-reviewed journal on linguistics. (Personal attack removed) I thought I was very clear with you, and in a very courteous way: I wrote, "Unless you can provide a notable and reliable source that states that Ehud is related to Yehudah, I don't see any connection between the two." (Personal attack removed) You need a verifiable reliable notable source expressing a significant view on this matter. If you want to research this, go and read the significant views from notable sources, but please do not just make up your own crap. It is unencyclopedic, violates our policies, and wastes time. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not ways in which you can violate NOR. You are abusing this talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional etymology is that Ehud is derived from Echud, relating to unity, or from hod, glory. Ben-Yehuda's modern etymology says that it's related to the Arabic word for kindness. No mention of Yehudi. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Cutting in) A page of history is worth a volume of logic—or in this case, opprobrious references to policy (below) or brainless personal attacks (above). Indeed if SLR or J had the veridical acuteness to simply state that Ehud is derived from Echud, then I wouldn't have bothered. Thank you, on behalf of each of us, for redeeming this conversation with some actual fact. -Ste vertigo 20:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo, WP:V and WP:NOR are fundamental Wikipedia policy. Please make sure that all your contributions are properly sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo just does not get it. First of all, Ehud is NOT derived from Echud. That is not what Malik Shabazz wrote, nor what his source says, although apparetnly they use words with greater care than Stevertigo reads them.(Personal attack removed)
Isn't Wikipedia policy great! (of course, NOR does require you either to do serious source-based research to contribute to articles, or not contribute at all. I wonder which of the to bothers you more — obviously at least one of these facets of our policy bothers you. Anyway, Steve, Jayjg is quite corect and you should not get miffed. V and NOR are key policies here. Don't "bother" yourself trying to violate them any more, you are just wasting your time. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]