This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
"It may be related to the Egyptian hieroglyphic of an arm (see Hieroglyphs)." - Um, wouldn't it make more sense to it be related to the Hieroglpyph yod, ie Gardiner's M17 / i? Whats D36 / a got to do with yod? --184.108.40.206 03:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised by this, too... And the arm hieroglyph isn't even pronounced as yodh, it is actually an ayin. – Alenshatalk 01:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Double standard: So a citation is needed to mention that yod may be related to ancient Egypt but no citation is needed to mention that it may be connected to ancient semetic? That's blatantly biased against Egypt. To be consistent, at least both should require a citation. Very often bigoted editors use Wikipedia to spread their version of history and to white-wash the truth. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The early Semitic forms are a drawing of a hand and variations on yad remain the word for "hand" in most modern Semitic languages, just as ʿayn is a drawing of an eye and means "eye" and the same goes with the rest of the entire script. The cite needed is because the Egyptian form might have been adapted but Ancient Egyptian is quite distant from the Semitic subfamily. There's no "whitewashing". Also, why is it "whitewashing", a term for the erasure of black identity and innovation? The Egyptians were Egyptian, not white or black, and the Semitic subfamily has an extremely wide range of peoples speaking it. Ogress 17:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)