Talk:Hallelujah

Lordi

I strongly feel Hard Rock Hallelujah needs to be mentioned in this article. --213.130.254.217 (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the better place to mention this is on the page Hallelujah (disambiguation) along with other uses of 'Hallelujah' in music titles. Please feel free to put it there. That way, this article will focus just on the word and its primary usage. If you still "strongly feel" that the wikilink belongs here, please give your justification below. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Alhamdulillah

Please do not remove text without good reason. Qwerta369 (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason for removing Alhamdulillah from the lead section was stated in the edit history: Move Alhamdulillah out of lead section, merge with other mention of it under "See also". Does any part of See MOS:LEAD suggest to you that it needs to be there? - Fayenatic (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the word Hallelujah, not about translations of it in other languages. Alhamdulillah is appropriately covered by a link under "See also" with a few words of explanation - Fayenatic (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me none of the Arabic stuff should be mentioned at all considering it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. But if overzealous article-stuffers want it there I suppose "see also" is the best place for this irrelevant material. But it SHOULD be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.89.186 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I added the Hallilulah, Hallilu Allah, hope you are satisfied. :-)

Hallelulah/ Hallelu-allah

Please include the Hallelu Allah (Praise God), or "praise be to the lord in Arabic" to the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.88.136 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC) I wrote that suggestion and I already added it to the page, Rewayah, 2017

Purpose of Sentence

Just clarifying the purpose of the sentence: "This is made easier by the fact that "Hallelujah" has become a word of unspoken meaning, not a transliterated phrase." The definition of the phrase's meaning is often publicly avoided or not taught, consciously or not. Purpose of sentence is to clarify why many non-Theists seem to use it. This might need to be reworded for grammatical, encyclopedic, and factual correctness. However, I think that the sentence provides a needed explanation. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I trimmed this today; I don't think it's important that people may not know the meaning -- some non-theists still say explicit things like "thank God" as well as this word. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Jah

I think its practical that "Jah" be used as the first spelling used in the header. The title of the article is in English, not Hebrew. That the spelling not be mentioned at all, when it is part of the most common spelling of the word - just doesn't make much sense. However, it seems the article title "Jah" needs some retouching. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Alleluia

Both articles concern different transliterations of the same word, so it would be tidier to have a single article. --Leigh Hamilton 20:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support. I don't know why it took this long to propose. Andrew³²⁷ 06:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Same subject matter really. Esoglou (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merger, as the page Alleluia is specifically about the chant. Instead, I propose that it should be moved to Alleluia (chant) (like Communion (chant)) for disambiguation, and Alleluia should then be redirected here to Hallelujah. – Fayenatic London 14:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe to the new proposal. But do we really need two articles? Esoglou (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The article on the chant is much longer and rather specialised. I think it stands better on its own. – Fayenatic London 20:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merger. Alleluia is about liturgical chants and should be redirected to Hallelujah the source word, which explains better its etymology. 50.46.227.221 (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I have gone ahead and moved "Alleluia" to Alleluia (chant), and updated the links within three navigation box templates. There are about 100 links to Alleluia remaining, almost all of which are intended to link to the chant. I propose to disambiguate them before changing "Alleluia" to redirect here to Hallelujah. – Fayenatic London 23:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I have disambiguated some, particularly to Hallelujah or to Leonard Cohen's song. The remaining links to Alleluia are all about liturgy or music, so are mostly intended for the Alleluia (chant). I am no longer sure whether it is worth editing them all to link to the chant page; it may be that the chant is the primary meaning for the spelling "Alleluia". – Fayenatic London 13:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

STRONG OPPOSITION: Alleluia is of the bible, Revelations chapter 19, where as in the original translations of the Hebrew bible, Hallelujah is not included what so ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.155.25 (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose—Propose that Alleluia be a disambiguation page—It would be better if Alleluia were a disambiguation page, since it could really refer to two things. I hadn't heard about that chant, so I would expect "Alleluia" and "Hallelujah" to be the same thing. I was surprised when I found they had different pages in Wikipedia. But since they refer to two different things, we should keep them separate; and since the name of one of the articles can refer to two things, it should be a disambiguation page that would lead either to the chant or the the word "Hallelujah". I think that's the right thing to do. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 18:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support The Alleluia article is about the word itself, as made obvious by also giving the spelling found here. It does centre on the instances in rites and chants that use that spelling, but is still about the word. The problem with that article is that it has been fattened by needless addition of the full chant. I think that Alleluia should be merged and redirected here, and that a new page should be started for Alleluia (chant) if someone feels the need. I guess what I'm sort of suggesting is a split of Alleluia, and half of that split be here with a note at the top of the page saying something like "This article is about the phrase. For the chant see Alleluia (chant). For other uses, see Hallelujah (disambiguation)" Basically this: It's the same word, but we have made two articles because one spelling is predominantly used in chants and rites, and the other is predominantly used in the bible. However, both articles talk about both parts... so...

I'm also noticing that the most of the opposition to the merger are suggesting moving the other article to Alleluia (chant) and redirecting Alleluia here. But, as that would require adding information from that article to this one, and cleaning up the old article a little, that seems to be essentially would would happen should the articles be merged, so there doesn't seem to be much opposition to the merger, just specifics on how to go about it.73.51.83.101 (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ea, Yah.

"Its pronounciation is not known" "yah is a shortened form of yahwe".

These kinds of attitudes are often common with people who defend a certain branch of religion. However Yah, is the Ea, of Mandeanism. Ea literally means "life", maybe similar to how "spirit" is used now. And maybe related to what some call "animism" now. An animating force. The Mandeans worship "great life". Mandea meaning teaching of life. Similar to how we would say "word of God" today. While Mandeanism is very distorted today, it could once have been monotheism, and the origin of the name Ea, Yah. Later ofcourse Yahwe. (which is a development, and Yah is not a shortened form). It seems related to what today is known as esoteric or gnostic interpretation. In Ebla, there is a namechange from "El" to "Yah", meaning that El was earlier (God). Probably reflecting the elohim vs yahwist change also. Yah, is also Ptah, in distorted ancient egyptian religion. Reflecting similar "esoteric" interpretation. Amun also meaning hidden. Egyptian religion really seems quite monotheistic originally, with various branches more or less distorted, and with hallucinogenic images added. In The Quran, one still uses Allah ofcourse, Al Ilah, or El. "The God" (as we would use "The Lord"). The quranic (57:3) "hidden and present" is usually interpreted to be about immanence aswell. Really the same God, of all times.

Peace Be With You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.129.189 (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2013‎ (UTC)

The phrase Yaweh, Yahweh, Yahwe, etc, are annunciations of YHWH, aka the Tetragrammaton which literally means "four letters," which is the Latin transliteration of יהוה. The four letters YHWH have individual meanings that collectively are understood as "I am I am," "I am what I choose," "He is what he chooses," "He who is," "He who exists," etc. Which doesn't translate directly because in Hebrew, "He who exists" refers to someone who is and always has been, and is understood more along the lines of "He who creates." Essentially, in a seemingly convoluted (but well explained and established) way, it means "Creator." (Side note, as many cultures swap J and Y and their sounds, along with W and V, YHWH is sometimes JHVH which is the basis for Jehovah, a nearly-identical-in-meaning name of God as compared to Yahweh.)

Yah, as understood by Hebrews and Christians (as they are the ones to use Hallelujah), is indeed literally short for Yahweh. Finding similarities in other religions is irrelevant. And bringing it up here, of all places, even more so.73.51.83.101 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallelujah_Song

i searched for the song Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen. when was it composed, who composed it, who else sang it (besides Neil Diamond) the article Hallelujah_Song is missing Gerald Trost — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.227.56 (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) is not missing, and is mentioned under "See also" in this article. Esoglou (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Transliteration

user:Zhomron has changed the cited transliterations from "hallelu" to "hallu" without adding further citations, stating This is basic Hebrew phonology, the schwa is not pronounced. The added syllable between "hall" and "lu(jah)" is a Greek inception which was passed to Latin. This is just a matter of speaking the language.

Is that modern Hebrew? I only studied Biblical Hebrew, and was always taught to pronounce a schwa. Anyway, the above rationale goes against WP:No original research. The transliterations in Wikipedia should be based on citations from WP:reliable sources. – Fayenatic London 13:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Whoever taught you to always pronounce the schwa was profoundly incorrect. In both Biblical and Modern Hebrew, a schwa is pronounced only under specific circumstances. One of the most common is when the schwa is placed after a letter with a long vowel. Usually, the vowel is a kamatz, but this is by no means universal. It's also why names like אַבְרָם‎‎‎ (which has a patach, like hallu) is pronounced as Abram and not Abəram. The page for Shva has relevant citations for both modern and biblical (or, Tiberian) Hebrew for this, see particularly the section shva na. Long story short, the schwa in hal(e)lu is placed after a short vowel and at the end of the syllable - both of which signify it is meant to denote the end of the sound value (ha...), and not to mark a point where /ə/ should be spoken. The Hebrew was never pronounced as haləlu, it's just not proper phonology. Zhomron (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, that was a significant memory lapse on my part. However, the substantial point remains that WP:RS are required to back up changes to cited transliterations. In my experience it is best to apply this rule also to longstanding transliterations. – Fayenatic London 09:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

None of the cited sources concern the transliteration of the Hebrew word, and furthermore, the changes of mine that you reverted are cited using links to the Hebrew text, none say the Hebrew is hallelu. Not to mention, no. If the page for "apple" was changed to indicate the word is pronounced as "mcxmxmxm" you would not need a source explicitly citing the pronunciation of "apple" to change it back. If you can't read or understand Hebrew you should not be voicing your concerns here. Zhomron (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Standard Hebrew pronunciation does not permit one syllable of a word to to end, and the next to begin, on the same consonant. Thus the standard form is QaTLu but that here is HaLəLu. The same principle applies most commonly to prefixes, so: u-lə-Levi amar at the end of Deuteronomy, u-bə-beis 'avadeka in the plague narrative, and hundreds of other examples. That universal practice, from ἀλληλούια in LXX to hallelu-yah in the Rabbinic reading tradition, is why it is normally and correctly transcribed with a voiced schwa.GordonGlottal (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Two things: One, in each case the schwa occurs after a long vowel (shuruq) so it does not apply here. Likewise the first syllable of 'hallelu' do NOT end on the same consonant the second syllable starts on. There are two lamed. Hal. Lu. Two, as you yourself point out, the examples you cite are prefixes, which have their own conjugation rules. Hallu has no such prefix. It is simply Hal, Lu.

You may also be confusing qatal verbs, there is no 'qatlu' system in Hebrew. Halal isn't a qatal verb anyway, it's piel. Zhomron (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The preceding vowel is utterly irrelevant and if you look you'll find examples for every single vowel in Hebrew. This is an absolute phonological rule, it just happens that prefixes are the most common cases where two of the same letter are separated by a schwa. You also seem to be generally confused about Semitic grammatical terminology; hallelu is a qittel (or piel) in the imperfect masculine plural, which takes the form QaTLu. It's just notation.

I'm going to try to explain the principle again. It would have been clearer had I said, Standard Hebrew pronunciation does not permit one syllable of a word to to end on one consonant and the next to begin on another of the same consonant. Each example I gave is of two consonants separated by a normally unvoiced schwa, which is made voiced by the fact that they are two of the same consonant. This principle applies to halelu, because the two lameds are separated by a schwa. This is essentially as meaningless a distinction as is possible in spelling (MT and transcription) but it does affect pronunciation and the amount of information conveyed by a modern speaker, none of whom pronounce dagesh hazaq. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"National God"

I was looking at that edit that the second part of hallelujah (Yah) should be translated as the "national God of Israel". That translation is taken from a dictionary of the bible, written in the 20th century by free church followers, while yah simply means God. Why would we use a reference here that was written barely a 100 years ago? Nations as we know them didn't even exist in antiquity. I believe we shouldn't imply that "God" is a nationalistic theme in any way. I therefore delete this reference.213.55.224.126 (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)