reading this article on matres lectionis (mothers of reading)
i spotted a little crumb on the table
and decided to turn it into a loaf of bread
to satisfy my nourishment, very much feeding the 5,000 -
it came as follows, with keen interested in why
the hebrew stresses the existence of aleph with the symbol
as prominent as any m, n or p, even though it’s silent (א)...
to show it differently: aeiouNuoiea + an enclosing consonant,
like in the case of lamed or omega (silent ה) - om egg ah...
but this one example got my forehead wrinkled,
in the section concerning origins and development -
how in the pre-exilic hebrew the (otherwise silent ה of latin)
was developed and overused... apart from the grammatical theory
behind this... the way it was later dropped but remained
in certain archaic examples of “proper” names... and this is
what bothered me, example no. 1: שלמה (solomon),
example no. 2:  שלה (shiloh)...
looking at the alphabet i noticed that there are two n consonants...
so i thought... why would you even write solomon like that
in the first place and not as follows (*)שלמ, whereby the * position
is filled with ן (final nūn)? it’s almost like purposively ensuring
names have a graffiti artist, known as the tetragrammaton
working without purpose behind them... that whole: ‘you shall
not use the lord’s name in vain!’
to me it’s just a perplexing matter... as is the reason why
something that’s supposed to be silent... but is nonetheless visible
should start screaming - i guess that’s the origin of the islamic god
allah... from the א of the hebrew alphabet... aleph lamed lamed he...
and now just a bit of plastic surgery using latin and the e attaches
itself to the other side of the buttocks and hey presto... we have a “god.”