# El, Eloh, Elohim, Ilah, Allah, Ulu...



## cynicmystic

For quite a while, I have been puzzled by the similarity between El, Eloh, Elohim, Ilah, Allah, and Ulu (Turkish for lofty, divine...). I know that Elohim is just the plural of Eloh, but nevertheless, what is the true root of theoriginal El? Could that El be related in anyway to the Turkish word 'ulu'. And, furthermore, how does the pre-Islamic Ilah of Arabia relate to Eloh?


----------



## Chazzwozzer

Hello,

Turkish word _*ulu *_(an adjective, not a noun) is not really used to mean _lofty _or _divine_, but maybe in a context such as:

*"Ey ulu Tanrım!"* _(O great [my] God!)
_*"Ulu önder Atatürk"* _(Atatürk, the Great Leader) _[a fixed title]

The use of modern word _*ulu *_is limited: when referring to palpable things, usually natural features, like mountains, lakes or trees_ (ulu ağaç = [a] great three)_ and you might see _*ulu *_refers to a _virtuous _person as used in the books written in the early period of republic, too. 

*Ulug, *the early form of *ulu*, has a more wide usage, where you might come across in Orkhon scripts, the earliest known writings of Turkish:

*"Aguda iki ulug süngüs süngüsdüm."
*I made two *major* [or simply, _*great*_] wars in Agu.

*"Ulug oglum agrip yok bolca..."*
When my _*grand *_son got sick and disappeared...

*...*

According to Alexander Lubotsky and Sergei Starostin, the writers of "Turkic and Chiense loan words in Tocharian", the Toch. B olya "more" comes from Proto-Turkic *ulug `big, great' (OUygh. uluɣ, Turkm. ulu etc.) < Proto-Altaic *ulu/o (Proto-Mongolian *olon `many', PTM *ule- `good', Proto-Korean *r `completely, wholly').

Correct! Well, at least the etymology query on StarLing database server confirms that the word is of Altaic origin.


----------



## cynicmystic

Chazzwozzer said:


> Hello,
> 
> Turkish word _*ulu *_(an adjective, not a noun) is not really used to mean _lofty _or _divine_, but maybe in a context such as:
> 
> *"Ey ulu Tanrım!"* _(O great [my] God!)_
> *"Ulu önder Atatürk"* _(Atatürk, the Great Leader) _[a fixed title]
> 
> The use of modern word _*ulu *_is limited: when referring to palpable things, usually natural features, like mountains, lakes or trees_ (ulu ağaç = [a] great three)_ and you might see _*ulu *_refers to a _virtuous _person as used in the books written in the early period of republic, too.
> 
> *Ulug, *the early form of *ulu*, has a more wide usage, where you might come across in Orkhon scripts, the earliest known writings of Turkish:
> 
> *"Aguda iki ulug süngüs süngüsdüm."*
> I made two *major* [or simply, _*great*_] wars in Agu.
> 
> *"Ulug oglum agrip yok bolca..."*
> When my _*grand *_son got sick and disappeared...
> 
> *...*
> 
> According to Alexander Lubotsky and Sergei Starostin, the writers of "Turkic and Chiense loan words in Tocharian", the Toch. B olya "more" comes from Proto-Turkic *ulug `big, great' (OUygh. uluɣ, Turkm. ulu etc.) < Proto-Altaic *ulu/o (Proto-Mongolian *olon `many', PTM *ule- `good', Proto-Korean *r `completely, wholly').
> 
> Correct! Well, at least the etymology query on StarLing database server confirms that the word is of Altaic origin.


 
I am not focusing on adjectives or nouns. Clearly 'ulu' in Turkish does connote a sense of divine loftiness just as el-Shaddai was also defined as the Lofty one in some translations. Additionally, Turks use 'ulu' in the form of Ulu Tanrim! as well. That clearly ends the argument about the divine nature of 'ulu' in the Turkish mind. I am also reluctant to accept Tocharian as an Indo-European language just as I do not think that the Scythians spoke an Indo-European language. These 19th century ideas were promoted by people who had political motivations, and there are other scholars, who disagree with the currently accepted Euro-centric version.

Hence, what I find interesting is the way all these words sound very similar. Tocharian cannot be the explanation behind this situation as the term el-Elyon, which preceded El comes from a time period that predates the Tocharian era.


----------



## Whodunit

Let me try to clear up this thread based on what I know and what I could read here and on other places all over the Net:

_el_ is the common origin: _2-l_ meaning "god". Today, it is usually only used in Hebrew poetry and prophetic discourse

_eloh_ not sure where you got that from, but I guess you mean _eloah_, which is the singular of ->_elohim_

_elohim_ is the plural of _eloah_ "god", which is now treated as a singular

_ilah_, correctly written as _2ilaah_, is derived from the common extended Semitic root _2ilaah-_ meaning "god", from which _Allah_ and _Elohim_ are derived

_allah_ is the compound of the definite article _al-_ and _2ilaah_. It even got an own signature in computing.

I don't think _ulu_ is related to all of these.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Hi all

As for the Turkish Ulu it seems to have some resemblance to the Arabic عُلُوّ ('Uluww) - a verbal noun - from the verb عَلاَ - يَعْلُوْ - ('alaa - ya'luu) - (to be high, lofty, exalted). It is also from this root that we have "Ali" or "Aliyy" meaning lofty, high & elevated. As for a connection between the word "Allah" & "'Ulu" there is no connection except that the latter's derivatives علا ('alaa), تعالى (ta'aalaa) and عَلِيّ ('aliyy) are sometimes used as qualifiers. So if "Ulu" in Turkish means 'high' / 'lofty' or has connotations thereof then it is possible that it's derived from the Arabic "'Uluww". However, in Arabic أُلُوْهَة (uluuhah) and أُلُوْهِيَّة (uluuhiyyah) do exist and relate to "worship". "Ilaah" (a god) in Arabic is said to be derived from ألِهَ - يَألَه - أَلَهًَا وأُلُوْهَة وإِلاَهَة (aliha - ya'lahu - alah, uluuhah & ilaahah) which means "to worship" and "ilaah" means an "object of worship".


----------



## cherine

Abu Bishr said:


> "Ilaah" (a god) in Arabic is said to be derived from ألِهَ - يَألَه - أَلَهًَا وأُلُوْهَة وإِلاَهَة (aliha - ya'lahu - alah, uluuhah & ilaahah) which means "to worship" and "ilaah" means an "object of worship".


Are you sure about this?
I mean, I've never seen the verb aliha (it's a verb, isn't it?) but I'd understand it as "to become a deity/god). While worship is allaha ألَّه.


Whodunit, you don't have to use (2) at the begining of the word, we usually use it in the middle and at the end of words to mark glottal stops.


----------



## Whodunit

cherine said:


> Whodunit, you don't have to use (2) at the begining of the word, we usually use it in the middle and at the end of words to mark glottal stops.



I know, but I find 2 very relevant for etymological researches, since it has its own letter and used to have its own in pre-Arabic times (Phoenician, for example). The root for الله is 2-l, so the 2 has to be mentioned.


----------



## Abu Bishr

cherine said:


> Are you sure about this?
> I mean, I've never seen the verb aliha (it's a verb, isn't it?) but I'd understand it as "to become a deity/god). While worship is allaha ألَّه.
> 
> 
> Whodunit, you don't have to use (2) at the begining of the word, we usually use it in the middle and at the end of words to mark glottal stops.


 
Google أله يأله إلاهة and see what you find. Anyhow this is what Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr says in the Mukhtar al-Sihah: 

أله يأله بالفتح فيهما (إلاهة) أي:عبد.ومنه قرأ ابن عباس  (ويذرك وإلاهتك) بكسر الهمزة أي:وعبادتك،وكان يقول : إنّ فرعون كان يُعبد.ومنه قولنا (الله) وأصله (إلاه) على فِعال بمعنى مفعول لأنه مألوه أي:معبود كقولنا إمام بمعنى مؤتمٌ به​ 
The only difference is that here it says: "alaha - ya'lahu" and I said: "aliha - ya'lahu". When I first wrote my version down, I remembered vaguely that it is sometimes written "alaha" which I then wrote but then on checking with "Lisan al-'Arab" I found "aliha" so I changed it. Anuhow, the basic meaning is the same. Having said this, I know of other meanings that have been given as well such as 'to be overwhelmed' or 'be filled with awe' or 'to be dazed' and this also depends on whether one is considering roots such as وله and لاه which are what some of the classical Arabic scholars are saying.

I also found Ibn Mandhoor (author of the Lisan al-Arab) quoting Ibn Sidah as saying:

ابن سيده: والإلاهَةُ والأُلُوهة والأُلُوهِيَّةُ العبادة. وقد قرئ: ويَذَرَكَ وآلِهتَكَ، وقرأَ ابن عباس: ويَذَرَك وإِلاهَتَك، بكسر الهمزة، أَي وعبادتك؛ وهذه الأَخيرة عند ثعلب كأَنها هي المختارة،​


----------



## cherine

Whodunit said:
			
		

> The root for الله is 2-l, so the 2 has to be mentioned.


Sorry, Daniel. But the root for Allah is ا-ل-هـ (three letters) 



			
				Abu Bishr said:
			
		

> Google أله يأله إلاهة and see what you find.


Don't we have better sources than Google? 
I'll go for Ibn Mandhuur, like you did, I think he's one of the best. 


> Anyhow this is what Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr says in the Mukhtar al-Sihah:
> 
> 
> أله يأله بالفتح فيهما (إلاهة) أي:عبد.ومنه قرأ ابن عباس (ويذرك وإلاهتك) بكسر الهمزة أي:وعبادتك،وكان يقول : إنّ فرعون كان يُعبد.ومنه قولنا (الله) وأصله (إلاه) على فِعال بمعنى مفعول لأنه مألوه أي:معبود كقولنا إمام بمعنى مؤتمٌ به​


I'm just thinking out loud here:
wouldn't this be read like this: aliha/alaha, ya2lahu, ilaaha(tan) ay 3ubida (and not 3abada). What do you think? Doesn't the rest of the context confirm it?


> Having said this, I know of other meanings that have been given as well such as 'to be overwhelmed' or 'be filled with awe' or 'to be dazed' and this also depends on whether one is considering roots such as وله and لاه which are what some of the classical Arabic scholars are saying.


I looked up the root وله but I didn't see إله nor الله mentioned under it, so I don't think it's a right root. لاه doesn't exist in the first place, at least not in Lisaan al-3arab.


----------



## Abu Bishr

If you google what I asked you to google you will find it will take you to a number of reliable sources. That’s what I meant. Secondly, read the whole of the section on أله in Lisan al-Arab and you will find وله mentioned there as a possible root for إله . Moreover, Ibn Mandhur has also the following to say: 

والله أصله إلاه، على فعال بمعنى مألوه مفعول لأنه مألوه أي معبود كقولنا إمام فعال بمعنى مفعول لأنه مؤتمّ به​ 
My point here is that Ibn Mandhur equates مألوه with معبود which means that "alaha" is used exactly like "'abada", so I can't see why "abada" in explaining "alaha" should be "'ubida"?

Then later on he says: 

ألِه يأله ألها أي تحيّر وأصله وَلِهَ يَوْهَلُ وَلَهاً​ 
So there you go. It is possible that “alaha – ya’lahu” means 'to worship' and “aliha – ya’lahu” 'to be dazed' and was originally: waliha – yawlahu. This explains why “alaha” (to be worship) is with the Fatha and “aliha” (to be dazed) with the kasrah. 

As for لاه you will find it under لوه together with ليه in the Lisan al-'Arab, where Ibn Mandhur says concerning "لاه" (laaha): لاه الله الخلق يلوههم خلقهم . In the Mukhtar al-Sihah under the root (ليه) it is stated: لاه تستّر وبابه باع، وجوز سيبويه أن يكون لاه أصل اسم الله تعالى .

Also, al-Asfahani states in his Mufradat al-Qur'an: 

وقيل: أصله من: لاه يلوه لياها، أي: احتجب. قالوا: وذلك إشارة إلى ما قال تعالى: (لا تدركه الأبصار وهو يدرك الأبصار​


----------



## cynicmystic

Thank you very much for the responses. I also wanted to ask something else regarding something called dual gender. I read somewhere that the proper translation of 'Elohim', if we are to be very precise, should read more like 'Sons of the Goddesses' rather than 'Sons of Gods'. In other words, would you translate 'bene ha-elohim' as 'sons of the goddesses'? What is this thing called dual gender?


----------



## Lugubert

cynicmystic said:


> Thank you very much for the responses. I also wanted to ask something else regarding something called dual gender. I read somewhere that the proper translation of 'Elohim', if we are to be very precise, should read more like 'Sons of the Goddesses' rather than 'Sons of Gods'. In other words, would you translate 'bene ha-elohim' as 'sons of the goddesses'? What is this thing called dual gender?


First of all, "dual gender" is meaningless. Gender in Bible Hebrew is masculine or feminine. Number is singular, dual, or plural. Other languages may have other combinations. I find no dual in the quote above. _Elohim_ is a perfectly normal plural of _el_ 'god', so it's just 'gods'. A dual ('two gods') would, I think, be _elohayim_, but there is no such word anywhere in the Bible. The dual is mainly used for things that come in twos, like eyes or ears.

_Bene ha-elohim_ is, literally, 'sons/children of (the) God'. How to interpret that phrase is for theologians, not linguists. I'd say without digging too deeply into it that it could mean mankind. Compare _bene Ishrael_ 'sons/children of Israel', 'the Israelites'.

Elohim is a masculine plural, and _the_ way of referring to God in the parts of the Pentateuch supposedly written by the 'Elohist'. Trying to see a 'goddess' there looks most irregular to me, to phrase it kindly.


----------



## cynicmystic

Thank you very much for the reply. 



Lugubert said:


> First of all, "dual gender" is meaningless. Gender in Bible Hebrew is masculine or feminine. Number is singular, dual, or plural. Other languages may have other combinations. I find no dual in the quote above. _Elohim_ is a perfectly normal plural of _el_ 'god', so it's just 'gods'. A dual ('two gods') would, I think, be _elohayim_, but there is no such word anywhere in the Bible. The dual is mainly used for things that come in twos, like eyes or ears.
> 
> _Bene ha-elohim_ is, literally, 'sons/children of (the) God'. How to interpret that phrase is for theologians, not linguists. I'd say without digging too deeply into it that it could mean mankind. Compare _bene Ishrael_ 'sons/children of Israel', 'the Israelites'.
> 
> Elohim is a masculine plural, and _the_ way of referring to God in the parts of the Pentateuch supposedly written by the 'Elohist'. Trying to see a 'goddess' there looks most irregular to me, to phrase it kindly.


----------



## Qcumber

cherine said:


> Sorry, Daniel. But the root for Allah is ا-ل-هـ (three letters) .


 
I may be wrong, but I beg to disagree . For me _*allaah*_ "the god > God" results from the combination of the article *al* and the noun *laah *"god". So the apparent root of *laah* is *l-w/y-h *not *a/2-l-h*.

Actually, ancient terms like *ab* "father", *ax* "brother", *dh(uu)* "owner > that of", *laah* "god", etc. are built on roots that are single consonants: *b* "father", *x* "sibling", *dh* "owner", *l *"deity".

Of course they are used with a vowel to make them utterable.
The vowel is placed before the root in *ab* and *ax *"brother" / *ux-* "sister".
The vowel is placed after the root in *dhaa-* and  *laa-*

/h/ is added to *laa*- to make it masculine: *laah *"god".
/t/ is added to *dhaa*-, *laa-* and *ux-* to make them feminine: *dhaat* "that of [fem.]", *laat* "goddess", *uxt* "sister".

The declensions -*uu /- ii* are simply added to *ab* and *ax*: *abuu / abii*, *axuu / axii*, but they supersede -*aa* in *dhuu / dhii *"that of [masc.]"


----------



## cynicmystic

I thought that the pre-Islamic Arabs venerated al-Ilah as a moon deity among many others, and that the Kaaba contained a meteorite that was also revered. Doesn't Allah derive from al-Ilah? Turkish, example uses both Allah and Ilah. Allah can only be in the singular, whereas Ilah can be plural (Ilahlar ilahi). I have to admit, though, I know very little about semitic languages. 





Qcumber said:


> I may be wrong, but I beg to disagree . For me _*allaah*_ "the god > God" results from the combination of the article *al* and the noun *laah *"god". So the apparent root of *laah* is *l-w/y-h *not *a/2-l-h*.
> 
> Actually, ancient terms like *ab* "father", *ax* "brother", *dh(uu)* "owner > that of", *laah* "god", etc. are built on roots that are single consonants: *b* "father", *x* "sibling", *dh* "owner", *l *"deity".
> 
> Of course they are used with a vowel to make them utterable.
> The vowel is placed before the root in *ab* and *ax *"brother" / *ux-* "sister".
> The vowel is placed after the root in *dhaa-* and *laa-*
> 
> /h/ is added to *laa*- to make it masculine: *laah *"god".
> /t/ is added to *dhaa*-, *laa-* and *ux-* to make them feminine: *dhaat* "that of [fem.]", *laat* "goddess", *uxt* "sister".
> 
> The declensions -*uu /- ii* are simply added to *ab* and *ax*: *abuu / abii*, *axuu / axii*, but they supersede -*aa* in *dhuu / dhii *"that of [masc.]"


----------



## cherine

Qcumber said:


> I may be wrong, but I beg to disagree . For me _*allaah*_ "the god > God" results from the combination of the article *al* and the noun *laah *"god". So the apparent root of *laah* is *l-w/y-h *not *a/2-l-h*.


You have the right to disagree, of course 
But Allaah, to my limited knowledge, results from al-ilaah (and not al-laah). I'm not sure there exist a word like this (I mean "laah").
Besides, I checked the root I mentioned in "Lisaan al-3arab" before posting it; I wouldn't know bettern than Ibn Mandhuur 


P.S. I notice you use "x" to transliterate the Arabic letter خ , would you please post a note about this next time, so that others won't pronounce it as in English?


----------



## Qcumber

cynicmystic said:


> I thought that the pre-Islamic Arabs venerated al-Ilah as a moon deity among many others, and that the Kaaba contained a meteorite that was also revered. Doesn't Allah derive from al-Ilah? Turkish, example uses both Allah and Ilah. Allah can only be in the singular, whereas Ilah can be plural (Ilahlar ilahi). I have to admit, though, I know very little about semitic languages.


I am neither a Muslim nor a specialist of pre-Islamic mythologies, but Muslims will certainly refer you to a passage in the Qur'an where three pre-Islamic deities are mentioned. So there were at least three. 
One of them is al-laat, the feminine of al-laah.


----------



## Qcumber

cherine said:


> al-ilaah (and not al-laah). I'm not sure there exist a word like this (I mean "laah"). Besides, I checked the root I mentioned in "Lisaan al-3arab" before posting it; I wouldn't know bettern than Ibn Mandhuur


 
I agree with you there is no root *laah* in Arabic dictionaries. This doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Let's say I recontructed it, although I am sure I am not the first one to posit it.

*2ilaah* is another term that means "deity"; it is also derived from the primitive root *l*.

Phonetically speaking, I don't see how *al + 2ilaah* could become *allaah*. Normally the result should be *al-2ilaah*.
Are there other occurrences of this apheresis?


----------



## Abu Bishr

Qcumber said:


> Phonetically speaking, I don't see how *al + 2ilaah* could become *allaah*. Normally the result should be *al-2ilaah*.
> Are there other occurrences of this apheresis?


 
Well, there are essentially two steps involved both of which occur commonly in language use:

(1) glottal stop deletion, so *al-2illaa*h becomes *alilaah*

(2) assimilation, so the first [l] is assimilated into the second [l], becoming *allaah* (with the vowel _ being deleted in the process).


Glottal stop deletion is very common in English, e.g. "hard attack" (when said quickly), "do it" or "say it" (when said quickly), etc.

Btw there are a couple of threads in the Arabic forum where these points have been discussed before._


----------



## Lugubert

cherine said:


> I'm not sure there exist a word like this (I mean "laah").
> Besides, I checked the root I mentioned in "Lisaan al-3arab" before posting it; I wouldn't know bettern than Ibn Mandhuur


Wehr agrees with 2-l-h, and moreover has no l-w/y-h word.


----------



## Qcumber

Abu Bishr said:


> (1) glottal stop deletion, so *al-2illaa*h becomes *alilaah*


I know it is the "official" version, but, as a linguist, I won't buy it because if you take terms like *2ab* "father", *2ax* "brother", *2ism* "name", and you add the article you obtain *2al-2ab*, *2al-2ax*, *2al-2ism* despite the fact that the initial glottal stop of these terms is weak: *al-ab, al-ax, al-ism*. Besides these are not pronounced **alab, *alax, *alism*.


----------



## cherine

Qcumber said:


> I know it is the "official" version, but, as a linguist, I won't buy it because if you take terms like *2ab* "father", *2ax* "brother", *2ism* "name", and you add the article you obtain *2al-2ab*, *2al-2ax*, *2al-2ism* despite the fact that the initial glottal stop of these terms is weak: *al-ab, al-ax, al-ism*. Besides these are not pronounced **alab, *alax, *alism*.


First: ism has a hamzat waSl همزة وصل so, it's not 2ism. Hence, with "al" it's alism, not al-2ism.

Second, although al+ab make al-2ab, it can be pronounce as al-ab (alab), and same with alakh, alukht.

Glottat stop deletion is not a must, so we don't have to find it in many words. But it's the only plausible explanation for al-ilaah being "transformed" into allaah. Maybe you need to check more Arabic linguistic resources. Who knows, maybe you can find a more convincing theory. But this is the only one I know, and it makes sense to me (though I'm not a linguistic).


----------



## Abu Bishr

Qcumber said:


> Besides these are not pronounced **alab, *alax, *alism*.


 
With all due respect, this shows that you are not suffiently informed on how words in Arabic are pronounced. The glottal stop in the first two words is called "hamzah al-qat'" in Arabic, and has two options of being pronounced, dialectically speaking, that is: tahqiq al-hamzah (where you actually pronounce the hamzah) and naql al-hamzah (where the vowel on the hamzah gets transferred to the previous letter / consonant and then the hamzah gets dropped in the process).

The glottal stop in the third word is called hamzah al-waSl in Arabic and is always deleted when preceded by another word, including the definite article.

As for you not accepting the "official" version, you will notice that in my previous posts that I've given more than one version, all of which you can read in the classical Arabic literature. Among the classical scholars of Arabic there is no official version. There are only different views if you peruse the literature on the topic. In fact, there is even the view that the name "Allah" is not derived from anything. As for you not accepting whatever version is really up to you, and you have your own reasons for doing so. However, in light of your explanation above I suggest that you revise your position, and I also recommend that you not buy too quickly into a particular version only after you have sufficiently and properly studied all the others . 

The point is not whether or not you are a linguist, the point is whether or not you - as a linguist - are also suficiently familiar with the language and classical views that you are assessing. I'm only saying this because your statement above asserts categorically that *alab*, *alax* and *alism* are ungrammatical, which is not the case.

PS. Sorry, Cherine, I didn't see your post which is makes the same point but more succinctly.


----------



## Qcumber

Cherine, Abu Bishr, whichever the grammatical status of the glottal stop at the beginning of these words (I happen to know the two statuses), all I can say is that the pronunciations are:

[?al ?ab] "the father", not [?alab]
[?al ?ax] "the brother", not [?alax]
[?al ?ism] "the name", not [?alism]

[?] = glottal stop.

Thank you for your patience.


----------



## Lugubert

I never got past beginner's level, so I have no opinion on my own on 2ab and 2ax (2a5). I find, however, the arguing from Cherine and Abu Bishr convincing. Even more so, because even a beginner will soon learn that there is no hamzah al-qat3 (or, if you prefer, hamzatu-l-qat3) in the word اسم , and so "[?al ?ism]" is incorrect.

Wehr's dictionary fails here, because it assumes an elementary knowledge. For technical reasons it leaves out the initial hamzahs, which makes 2ab and 2a5 look like they have hamzatu-l-wa9l. The difference is, however, clear in for example al-Mawrid.


----------



## cherine

Abu Bishr said:


> The point is not whether or not you are a linguist, the point is whether or not you - as a linguist - are also suficiently familiar with the language and classical views that you are assessing. I'm only saying this because your statement above asserts categorically that *alab*, *alax* and *alism* are ungrammatical, which is not the case.
> PS. Sorry, Cherine, I didn't see your post which is makes the same point but more succinctly.


No problem, Abu Bishr. It's clear we were writing our posts in the same time  Besides, your last paragraph sums it up very well.


Qcumber said:


> Cherine, Abu Bishr, whichever the grammatical status of the glottal stop at the beginning of these words (I happen to know the two statuses), all I can say is that the pronunciations are:
> 
> [?al ?ab] "the father", not [?alab]
> [?al ?ax] "the brother", not [?alax]
> [?al ?ism] "the name", not [?alism]
> 
> [?] = glottal stop.
> 
> Thank you for your patience.


You're welcome 
Allow me to abuse of _your_ patience  We're not talking about grammar here, but about phonetics and pronounciation. Here, the rules are not as rigid as in grammar (although even grammatical rules can also be not rigid sometimes). 
If you know a bit about علم القراءات (rules for reading or reciting the Qur'an) you'll know that there are different ways of pronouncing the hamza.
Let's take an example:
المؤمنون has a glottal stop in the middle of the word. Some quiraa2aat read is _with_ the glottal stop (almu2minuun), while others read it as almuuminuun.
And on the contrary, we have a word like النبيين being read an-nabiyyiin in some quiraa2at, while others read it as an-nabii2iin النبيئين . Neither way is wrong.

So, I guess you just need to read more about Arabic phonetics 


*P.S. I'm worried we're drifting off-topic. Do you think we should move this side discussion to the Arabic forum? Please PM me if you think so. Thanks *


----------



## Qcumber

I agree this point on the pronunciation of the glottal stop seems to be off topic, but we'll have to broach it again when we deal with the Arabic equivalent of Hebrew el.
As regards phonetics, my point is that if I ask a learned speaker of Arabic to read aloud 
الاسم, they will utter [?al ?ism] not [alism]. The quality of the vowels will vary, but the glottal stops are articulated.



Lugubert said:


> [?al ?ism]" is incorrect.


Why don't you ask a native speaker of Arabic to read you 
الاسم?
Better, record it, and analyse it. 

If experts reject the existence of the Arabic term *laah* لاه [la:h] "god", how do they account for *allaat* الات  [?alla:t], the title by which a pre-Islamic deity of the Arabs was known?


----------



## Lugubert

Easy. Five seconds of Google found me what I thought:


			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> *Allāt* (a contraction of pre-Arabic *_al-ilāhat_ "the Goddess")


Thus 'God' + the feminine marker, which we know from other Semitic languages, and even from Ancient Egyptian.

The case for the initial vowel inseparatedly belonging to the word(s) being discussed is further strengthened by Ugaritic _ilt_ 'goddess', 'the Goddess Ilat'.


----------



## Aoyama

To me, *El, Eloh, Elohim, Ilah, Allah, Ulu *(but for Ulu, I can't say for sure) all come originally from the root meaning *above* , still found in the name of Israel's national airlines (El Al = on and on/above and above).
This is different from the concept of God (or Dieu, Dio etc coming from Deus/Zeus, of pagan origin).
Here, basically, *El* -in Hebrew-just means "(what is) above" (like in Japanese _Kami_ or Chinese _Shang di_, and probably many other languages where "above" renders the meaning of divinity), a meaning that you can also find in the word _élite_ .
Sometimes *El* is translated by _idol(s)_ , to differentiate it from Elohim. Arguable.
Jesus will say (?) *Eli, lama sabactani* (aramaic), here Eli = my _God_ ...


----------



## Qcumber

Lugubert said:


> Thus 'God' + the feminine marker, which we know from other Semitic languages, and even from Ancient Egyptian.
> The case for the initial vowel inseparatedly belonging to the word(s) being discussed is further strengthened by Ugaritic _ilt_ 'goddess', 'the Goddess Ilat'.


Yes, that's the same old argument as with al + ilaah > allaah, which is not easy to defend as I said earlier for phonetic reasons. Besides it's even less convincing in the case of the feminine.

(Ugaritic* ilt* is interesting. Was it supposed to be pronounced [ilt]?)

It seems the original Arabic term was ilah [?ilah] "god" (with a short /a/), pl. aaliha(t) [?a:liha]. 
Its feminine is ilaha(t) [?ilaha] "goddess".
Then the /a/ was lengthened: ilaah [?ila:h], but the corresponding feminine - ilaaha(t) [?ila:ha] - is not in my dictionary.

Now why should al + ilaha(t) > al ilaha(t) [?al ?ilaha] become al laat [?al la:t]? What phonetic rules are applied here?


----------



## Lugubert

Aoyama said:


> To me, *El, Eloh, Elohim, Ilah, Allah, Ulu *(but for Ulu, I can't say for sure) all come originally from the root meaning *above*


I think not. 'above, on' etc. is initial 3ayn in at least Arabic, Hebrew and Ugaritic. That's a letter which at least in Arabic isn't easily just lost.


			
				Qcumber said:
			
		

> (Ugaritic* ilt* is interesting. Was it supposed to be pronounced [ilt]?)


Impossible to know. Ugaritic is written and always quoted as consonants only, except for initial vowels. I think a fair guess is *ilat*, judging from cognates.


			
				Qcumber said:
			
		

> Now why should al + ilaha(t) > al ilaha(t) [?al ?ilaha] become al laat [?al la:t]?


I think a sufficient explanation is that it was found easier to pronounce.


----------



## Qcumber

Lugubert said:


> I think a sufficient explanation is that it was found easier to pronounce.


Have you got other instances of this simplification or comparable simplifications in Arabic?



Lugubert said:


> Impossible to know. Ugaritic is written and always quoted as consonants only, except for initial vowels. I think a fair guess is *ilat*, judging from cognates.


If we need cognates to know its pronunciation, then Ugaritic cannot be used as witness language for the Arabic term al-laat.


----------



## Aoyama

> (Ugaritic* ilt* is interesting. Was it supposed to be pronounced [ilt]?)


Some more food for thought :
in Hebrew *ilit* means above/higher as in naming parts of a city (lower, higher). Cf. Nazareth Ilit ("higher" Nazareth, the part of the city on the hills).


----------



## Flaminius

Hebrew _`ili_, _`ilit_ in Nazereth Ilit (Upper Nazareth) is spelt with Ayin.  I haven't checked yet but isn't  Ugaritic _ilt_ with an initial glottal stop (aleph), there for a more accurate transcription being _'ilt_?


----------



## Qcumber

cherine said:


> If you know a bit about علم القراءات (rules for reading or reciting the Qur'an) you'll know that there are different ways of pronouncing the hamza.
> Let's take an example:
> المؤمنون has a glottal stop in the middle of the word. Some quiraa2aat read is _with_ the glottal stop (almu2minuun), while others read it as almuuminuun.
> And on the contrary, we have a word like النبيين being read an-nabiyyiin in some quiraa2at, while others read it as an-nabii2iin النبيئين . Neither way is wrong.


I agree that inside words a glottal stop following a vowel is often elided and replaced by a compensatory lengthening of the vowel. This is well-known, and a standard feature in spoken Arabics, e.g. bi2r [bi?r] > biir [bi:r] "water well".
V + ? > V:

Does this rule apply to the glottal stop at the beginning of a word? 
For instance is *bi 2azaa2i* 
*بأزاء*
 [bi ?a za: ?i] "in front of" pronounced *bii azaa2i *[bi: a za: ?i]?


----------



## Abu Bishr

The glottal stop (hamzah) in, for example, بأمره (bi2amrihii) changes (optionally) to a yaa (biyamrihi). Likewise, the hamzah in بائع (baa-2i3) is optionally read as بايع (baa-yi3). The are a number of readings for the Qur'anic phrase عادا الأولى - 'aadanil-2uulaa - one of which is 'aadalluulaa. Classical scholars have written extensively on the hamzah (glottal stop) in Arabic in both books dealing with Morphology and Ilm al-Qira-aat. In the latter it is dealt with under - generally speaking - four / five sections:

(1) different readings for two hamzahs grouped in a single word
(2) different readings for two hamzahs grouped in two separate words (the one at the end of the first and the other at the beginning of the second)
(3) different readings of the solitary hamzah
(4) transferring the vowel of the hamzah to letter before it
(5) the readings of Hamzah and Hisham of the hamzah when pausing on a word containing a hamzah

In classical Morphology it is treated under the headings of inter alia:
(a) the elision of the glottal stop
(b) transforming the glottal stop into a long vowel or glide (w/y) and vice versa.

Whole chapters, if not whole books, are often devoted to the glottal stop.

Some classical scholars have grouped the hamzah together with the three notorious weak letters: waaw, yaa' anf alif. These letters have been called "weak" as opposed to "strong" because their presence constitutes a weakness in the normal structure of the word leading to irregular structures due the fact they are often chanded or elided.

*Conclusion:* So your بأزاء (bi2azaa2) - according to the rules of Ilm al-Qira-aat - can optionally be read as (biyazaa) by transforming the first glottal stop into a [y] and eliding the last one.

BTW there exists a prominent view that regards the negative particle governing the imperfect in the accusative لن (lan) as a contraction of لا+أن (laa + an). Contractions like this are also very common in the various Arabic dialects. Examples that come to mind are: ween? feen? for "where?". You often hear "winta" for "wa anta / inta" (and you). See if you can ever spot the hamzah of أحد (aHad) in colloquial speech? My point is that this phenomenon is quite common place. In fact, it is not confined to Arabic. In linguistics, you will find similar issues discussed under the concepts of coalescence, fusion, merging, etc.


----------



## Lugubert

Qcumber said:


> Have you got other instances of this simplification or comparable simplifications in Arabic?


How about, quoting from Wright's grammar (§362 (q)), ٳى وٱلله giving "vulgar" ٲيوه ?


----------



## Qcumber

Abu Bishr said:


> The glottal stop (hamzah) in, for example, بأمره (bi2amrihii) changes (optionally) to a yaa (biyamrihi). Likewise, the hamzah in بائع (baa-2i3) is optionally read as بايع (baa-yi3). [...]
> *Conclusion:* So your بأزاء (bi2azaa2) - according to the rules of Ilm al-Qira-aat - can optionally be read as (biyazaa) by transforming the first glottal stop into a [y] and eliding the last one.


 
Precisely, not **biiazaa2 [bi:jaza:?]* with a lengthened /i/ (my contention in my previous post). 

Yes, this is general linguistics. When the glottal stop is between two vowels, and one of the vowels is /i/ or /u/, the glottal often evolves into the homorganic glide: [i?a] > [ija], [a?i] > [aji]; [u?a] > [uwa], [a?u] >[awu], etc.

In some cases, but this is not so common, the same phenomenon occurs between a consonant and /i/ or /u/: [b2i [b?i] > byi [bji], etc.

I can imagine that some people will pronounce *al-2insaan [2al 2insa:n]* "the human > man" as **alyinsaan [?aljnsaan].* So in the case of *al-2ilaah [?al ?ila:h],* it should contract in **alyilaah [?aljila:h].* And from this, we couldn't get *allaah [?alla:h].* 

So positing al-2ilaah [?al ?i laah] > allaah [?alla:h] is very odd despite the fact that this "etymology" is recorded in all major publications.

Thanks for your explanations.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Qcumber said:


> Precisely, not **biiazaa2 [bi:jaza:?]* with a lengthened /i/ (my contention in my previous post).
> 
> Yes, this is general linguistics. When the glottal stop is between two vowels, and one of the vowels is /i/ or /u/, the glottal often evolves into the homorganic glide: [i?a] > [ija], [a?i] > [aji]; [u?a] > [uwa], [a?u] >[awu], etc.
> 
> In some cases, but this is not so common, the same phenomenon occurs between a consonant and /i/ or /u/: [b2i [b?i] > byi [bji], etc.
> 
> I can imagine that some people will pronounce *al-2insaan [2al 2insa:n]* "the human > man" as **alyinsaan [?aljnsaan].* So in the case of *al-2ilaah [?al ?ila:h],* it should contract in **alyilaah [?aljila:h].* And from this, we couldn't get *allaah [?alla:h].*
> 
> So positing al-2ilaah [?al ?i laah] > allaah [?alla:h] is very odd despite the fact that this "etymology" is recorded in all major publications.
> 
> Thanks for your explanations.


 
Qcumber

You asked me to explain one example, then I explain to you that example (together with some other examples) and then you generalise this one example for all the other cases of the glottal stop. The example that you asked me to explain (bi-2izaa2) does not have consonant before the glottal stop but a vowel (bi-2izaa2) in which case you can't transfer the vowel after the glottal stop to that consonant. In the case of (al-2ilaah), the glottal stop is preceded by a consonant (al-2ilaah) such that the vowel after the glottal stop can be transferred to it so as to become (alilaah). The example that you asked me to explain is nothing like that. In Arabic terms, a hamzah that is preceded by a saakin letter (consonant) will have its vowel transferred to that saakin letter which then becomes vowelled. This even happens in English e.g. (in it) [i.e. in 2it] becomes (init) when you read it fast. In Arabic we can write it as: إنْ إتْ which becomes إِنِتْ . See how the second hamzah got dropped and its vowelled transferred to the unvowelled Nuun before it. As I'm writing this passage I notice two expressions ("write it" & "before it") in my writing to which we can apply the same principle. You can pronounce them the normal way or like this ("writit" and "beforit") by dropping the glottal stop before the "it" which in English is not graphically represented but phoneticaly pronounced nevertheless. It goes without saying that the "e" at the end of "write" and "before" is not pronounced such that it is not considered. In none of these cases did the glottal stop change into a [w] or [y], as this cannot happen if the glottal stop is itself followed by a vowel and preceded by a consanant. In this case, the glottal stop will be dropped and the vowel after it will be occur directly after the consanant before the glottal stop. I hope this makes sense to you.


----------



## Qcumber

Abu Bish,

Yes, I dealt with three different cases.

Having eliminated the glottal stop found in the middle of words- bi2r [bi?r] > biir [bi:r] "water well" - I passed from the case of the initial glottal stop between two vowels, in practice after a preposition like bi is added - e.g. bi 2azaa2i |bi ?aza:?i] "in front of" - to the case when the glottal stop is between a consonant and a vowel, in practice after the article is added - e.g. al 2insaan [?al ?insa:n].

From what you say, I understand that in rapid speech, 

1) bi 2azaazi [bi ?aza:?i] evolves into biyazaazi [bi jaza:?i] : the glottal stop is replaced by <y> [j] because of the /i/. Besides I notice the /i/ is not lengthened.

2) al 2insaaan [?al ?insa:n] could evolve into alinsaan [?alinsa:n] : the glottal is eliminated.

OK. Now, lets go back to 2ilaah [?ila:h] "deity". I suppose al 2ilaah [?al ?ila:h] "the god" is normally pronounced [?al ?ila:h]. Can it be pronounced [?alila:h] in a tajwiid reading?


----------



## Abu Bishr

Qcumber

As for your last question, the answer is that those of the North Africans who follow the Qur'anic reading on the authority of Warsh drop the glottal stop as a rule. Thus, "wal-2arD" (and the earth), for example, becomes "walarD". The Qur'anic reading by Hamzah (another authority on Qur'anic reading) only does so when pausing. It is also common to hear "qur2aan" being recited as "quraan" by eliding the medial glottal stop. Therefore, the correct rules of reading (Tajwid) for the above Qur'anic readings would be to apply the rules of the glottal stop as applied by them. Mind you, books upon books have been written on this topic. For example, I have a book entitled: _Qiraa'at al-Imaam Nafi' min Riwaayatay Qaluun wa Warsh min Tariiq al-Shaatibiyyah_ (the Reading of Imam Nafi' based on the transmissions of Qaluun and Warsh according to the line / chain of the al-Shatibiyyah). In this book the rules of reading the glottal stop is explained at length. Many of these works have also be written in versified form as didactic poems for students to learn.

Anyhow, the reason why I did not use your example (al-2ilaah) to explain how it is read according to Tajwid is that I don't know of its occurrence with the definite article in the Qur'an. I'm almost sure that al-2liaah (with definite article) does not occur in the Qur'an such that we can explain how it is read according to the rules of Tajwid. However, to explain the principle using "2ilaah" we can use the Qur'anic expression "min 2ilaah" which is read according to the above readings as "minilaah". Should "al-2ilaah" have occurred in the Qur'an it would definitely have been read as "alilaah" according to the above readings without a doubt. It could very well be that the absence of "al-2ilaah" (the God) in the Qur'an is due to "Allaah" (also "the God") having taken its place for if the two expressions refer to the one and the same referent (namely God), then there is really no need to use both expressions.

Finally, what you posted in #14 is contradictory and incoherent in that the one moment you posit that "Allaah" comes from "laah", and the next moment you posit that it comes from "laa" with the /h/ suffixed as a masculine marker, and then you give no linguistic evidence for such a phenomenon if it at all exists. You only give evidence for the suffixing of the /t/ as a feminine marker which is a non-contentious issue. BTW the /t/ often transforms into /h/ while still being a feminine marker. How often don't you come across names like: Fatimah, Khadijah, Aishah, etc. with /h/ suffix making it feminine. In fact, the feminine /t/ marker is often referred to as the /h/ feminine marker or هاء التأنيث (haa of femininity). There is no such thing /h/ masculine marker. The only time that the /h/ suffix (then pronounced as huu or hii) has anything to do with some masculine is when it occurs as a masculine pronoun meaning "him" or "his" but then again "haa" occurs as a feminine pronoun meaning "her". 

So, why - after pointing out all these inconsistencies as well as providing an alternative but perfectly valid derivation for the word "Allah" - the insistence on the Arabic "Allaah" being no more than the masculine form of the female goddess "al-Laat" such that they are no more than pagan gods (i.e. the sun and moon gods) that existed in pre-Islamic times?


----------



## Qcumber

Abu Bishr said:


> However, to explain the principle using "2ilaah" we can use the Qur'anic expression "min 2ilaah" which is read according to the above readings as "minilaah".


Yes, this example is fine and quite enough.
Thanks a lot.



Abu Bishr said:


> Finally, what you posted in #14 is contradictory and incoherent in that the one moment you posit that "Allaah" comes from "laah", and the next moment you posit that it comes from "laa" with the /h/ suffixed as a masculine marker, and then you give no linguistic evidence for such a phenomenon if it at all exists. You only give evidence for the suffixing of the /t/ as a feminine marker which is a non-contentious issue. BTW the /t/ often transforms into /h/ while still being a feminine marker. How often don't you come across names like: Fatimah, Khadijah, Aishah, etc. with /h/ suffix making it feminine. In fact, the feminine /t/ marker is often referred to as the /h/ feminine marker or هاء التأنيث (haa of femininity).


Sorry. I probably didn't make myself clear enough.
Let me sum up.

1) My hypothesis (and I am pretty sure I am not the first one to come up with it) is that the primitive semitic root for "god" is **/l/*, and that a vowel was added to make it utterable. 

2) In proto-Arabic, this vowel must be /a:/ - hence **/la:/*. 

3) I then hypothesize that /h/ was added for the masculine - hence */la:h/* "god" - and /t/ for the feminine - hence */la:t/* "goddess". 

4) With the article, these respectively become */?alla:h/* and */?alla:t/*. Both */?alla:h/* "the god" and* /?alla:t/* "the goddess" were common names used when referring to deities before the advent of Islam.

5) In line with this hypothesis, */?ila:h/* "god, deity" also comes from the primitive Semitic root **/l/*.

That's all.


----------



## Lugubert

Abu Bishr said:


> In fact, the feminine /t/ marker is often referred to as the /h/ feminine marker or هاء التأنيث (haa of femininity).


I'm saving this term, and mention that feminine words with the /h/, when borrowed to Persian or Urdu, are written with a  ت  ending.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Hi Qcumber

So tell me, are all the other words for "god" or "God" in the various Semitic languages (such as "El", "Il", "Eloh", "Elohim" and others) also derived from the same Semitic root /l/ for "god"?

Secondly, what exactly does it mean that "allaah" and "allaat" were "common names used when referring to deities before the advent of Islam"? I mean, exactly what deities are we talking about and what does all of this mean? In other words, what is the point to all of this? If it is anything along the lines of what people like Morey and Gale have said (and I hope not), then the discussion is going to take us beyond etymology.


----------



## Qcumber

Abu Bishr said:


> So tell me, are all the other words for "god" or "God" in the various Semitic languages (such as "El", "Il", "Eloh", "Elohim" and others) also derived from the same Semitic root /l/ for "god"?


Well you listed them in the round brackets, didn't you? There may be others. I don't know them for the moment. Maybe other forumites will come up with them.



Abu Bishr said:


> If it is anything along the lines of what people like Morey and Gale have said (and I hope not), then the discussion is going to take us beyond etymology.


Sorry I don't see what you are alluding to.



Abu Bishr said:


> Secondly, what exactly does it mean that "allaah" and "allaat" were "common names used when referring to deities before the advent of Islam"?


In Semitic religions, a god cannot be named. Their names were either unknown or hidden. Hence the necessity to refer to them by their title "god", "goddess", or by a quality "the good one", etc. This holds true, too, in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is well-known. Your question is surprising.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Qcumber said:


> Well you listed them in the round brackets, didn't you? There may be others. I don't know them for the moment. Maybe other forumites will come up with them.


 
I'm not sure if you'd answered the question? You may have not understood my first question in #44 properly.


Hi Qcumber

Coming back to your linguistic analysis. In Arabic, the masculine singular is always unmarked such that it does not require a masculine marker, whereas the feminine form (whether sing., dual or pl.) is always marked thus necessitating a feminine marker to distinguish it from the masc. form. That the final  in "Allaah" is a masculine marker has no equivalent in Arabic. All masculine singular forms are all unmarked, it is the feminine forms that require a marker, and this is the rule. In other words, the masc. sing. is identified not by a masculine gender marker but rather by the absence of a feminine gender marker. Put differently, the feminine form derives from the unmarked masculine form by suffixing a feminine marker in the form of a [t]/ or [a:] or [a:2]. Likewise is the case for the the sing. vis-a-vis the dual and pl. The sing. form is unmarked while the dual and pl. forms (esp. the sound plurals) are marked.

The burden of proof is on you to produce other instances in Arabic of where a masc. form is derived by suffixing the  marker to make it masculine. I've only ever found the masculine sing. noun as already given, and it is only when the feminine form is introduced that a marker is required to distinguish it from the masc. form, and this marker is attached to the feminine form. Logically, there is no need for two markers and empirically (by observing Arabic in use) no other marker apart from the feminine marker has been observed to exist. So to posit the  in "Allaah" as a masculine marker has no basis in Arabic. I can see how it makes the analysis look very neat but an analysis on the basis of mere hypotheses is not enough especially when the hypotheses are not supported when tested.


----------



## Qcumber

Abu Bishr said:


> The burden of proof is on you to produce other instances in Arabic of where a masc. form is derived by suffixing the  marker to make it masculine.



Yes, you are right, and I cannot prove it.

The only masculine suffix I know is rare and old: -aan, as in 
3Tsh > 3aTshaan  "thirsty [masc.] Vs 3aTshaa "thirsty [fem.]".

I may be wrong in assuming it started with the masculine. The contrary may be true. Perhaps the original term was the feminine laat ... after all the sun in Arabic is feminine, and it was one of the Middle-East deities. 

Then the masculine was derived from the feminine: laat > laah. In this case /h/ whould have no masculine value. It would simply be the default consonant when you delete the feminine suffix /t/. 

Now why should /t/ be replaced by /h/, not another consonant, is another matter.


----------



## raptor

ePSD Akkadian lexicon gives: "EL : il [RAISE] wr. il2; il5; il2li2 "to raise, carry" Akk. našû ; sikil [PURE] wr. sikil "(to be) pure" Akk. ebbu; ellu "
"eli : [...] "(to be) very great, supreme, excellent; more than; (to be) powerful, competent [...] "
"elû : andaĝal [EXALTED] wr. an-da-ĝal2 "exalted" "
"ilu : [GOD] wr. ilu "god" "

Premium wanadoo.com gives:
"ilu [religion] god"
"iltu [religion] goddess"

Wikipedia: "*Elohim* (*אֱלוֹהִים , אלהים* ) is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity. It is apparently related to the Hebrew word ēl, though morphologically it consists of the Hebrew word Eloah (אלוה) with a plural suffix."

Though I can't prove it, I think that Eloh was 'lofty one', with Elohim being the plural of this.

raptor


----------



## clevermizo

I would like to point out some things/observations:


1. As concerns Arabic: While many argue about the status of hamza at the beginning of اله and الله, and the conversion of al-ilaah > allaah, please note that this is _not_ unique in Arabic to this word. We also have imra2a but al-mar2a امرأة، المرأة. Also, interestingly, while in Eastern dialects of Arabic the [i-] at the beginning of _ism_ is always pronounced with or without hamza (ism, ismi, il-ism), in Western dialects, we find forms like _smiiti_ (my name) which lack the beginning sound *i- *and are definite_. _Thus, there is no reason to think that Al-Ilaah could not have contracted into Allaah, and I personally find this analysis the most parsimonious. I believe the examples I provide show that there has and is some mutability of this *i*- sound especially under the conditions of definiteness. This *i-* has also been preserved in orthography for the verb paradigms, such as افتعل or انفعل and this may be an early epenthetic vowel, which is often omitted in dialects (fta3al, nfa3al  _or_  ifta3al, infa3al). In a similar way in dialects we find words vocalized differently in this respect: itfaDDal (Eg.), tfaDDal (Lev.). *i-* seems to have both historical and current instability. 

Cross-linguistically this holds up. The word for name in Arabic is *ism* but its cognate in Hebrew is just _*sh*__*em*. _Thus the historical correspondence does not include the initial vowel. Then same is true of the Arabic _ibn_ and its Hebrew cognate _ben._ 

Again, I have presented all of this simply to show instability with this beginning *i-*, to lend support to the traditional supposition that Allaah derives from *Al-Ilaah with loss of initial i-. I am all for novel hypotheses, but in this case, Allaah < *Al-Ilaah, again, makes the most sense to me.

Now, I must say that the analysis of this initial *i-*instability is with respect to _Arabic_, not other Semitic languages. In fact, cross-linguistically it seems the proto root is in fact /2 - l/, because of the presence of the E- or I- vowel in so many other Semitic languages (Akkadian, Ugaritic, Eblaite, Phoenician, etc.) and the use of a glottal stop consonant (like alef or alif) in these languages to represent part of the root. That Arabic did not retain the stable glottal stop at the beginning of Ilaah may be based on other words in Arabic with such an instability (such as ibn or ism). 


2. Now, the point of this thread was to question as per the original post was whether or not this root - be it /l/ or /2-l/ or /2-l-h/ has anything to do with being "up above".

I disagree with this assertion. The normal Semitic roots for being on top of or above or high up possess 3ayin as a root consonant and are usually /3-l/ or something similar. 

A word like Il or El has been a name for God or a god in Mesopotamia, the Levant and Arabia for thousands of years. In fact, records of this name go back so far, that it may be fruitless to question its original, since it has always meant a 'god' or 'God'. 

Now, after some Googling, there is mention of the root /2 - L/ being related to strength and power. I have not found the evidence or confirmation for this. However, if it is true, then it would make sense with the more regular meaning of 'god.' When I find the support for this, I will add it to this post.


----------



## berndf

When I learned Hebrew I was told that 2eL (god) is related to the identically spelled preposition 2eL (stand alone version of the prefix Le-) meaning _to._ 2eL (god) would under that theory mean something like "the one to whom everthing is directed".



Aoyama said:


> To me, *El, Eloh, Elohim, Ilah, Allah, Ulu *(but for Ulu, I can't say for sure) all come originally from the root meaning *above* , still found in the name of Israel's national airlines (El Al = on and on/above and above)...


The connection with 3aL = _height_ which has been surmised several times (e.g. above) is inconclusive because sound shifts between 2 and 3 are not common to say the least. The airline EL AL is spelled 2eL 3aL meaning "to (the) height". The part of the name which is spelled like 2eL (god) is the first (_to_).


----------



## Edguoglitigin

I just want to comment on Turkish *"ulu"*. In old Turkic language, *"Ul"* meant *"base, basic, essential"*. And it was made a new word from *"ul"* with a suffix *"-lUg"*. It had a meaning like *"important" *and was said for influenced people. Gradually it has been formed to "ulu" in Turkey Turkish


----------

