You're talking about declensions (I have no Hebrew either, but some Latin). Doesn't your theory presuppose, though, that the word, or the language, came before the things it describes?
Not to mention the fact that there are masculine and feminine words for deity, in Latin at least, and as far as I know we have no clue other than supposition as to which came first, or which was derived from the other. My own gut feeling is that the -a ending is slightly simpler and easier to articulate than -us or -um, so was probably the Ur-form, which means everything started out feminine and the masculine andd neuter endings were elaborated later. But I couldn't defend that in a plausibly academic manner, and in any case we'd have to go back probably to Indo-European to find the actual words from which all others are derived.
Also, if memory serves, the form of the word for deity used first in the Old Testament is plural, which in a monotheistic religion opens up a whole other can of whatnots. (Again, I have my own gut-based ideas on this, but this is perhaps not the time or place.)
no subject
Not to mention the fact that there are masculine and feminine words for deity, in Latin at least, and as far as I know we have no clue other than supposition as to which came first, or which was derived from the other. My own gut feeling is that the -a ending is slightly simpler and easier to articulate than -us or -um, so was probably the Ur-form, which means everything started out feminine and the masculine andd neuter endings were elaborated later. But I couldn't defend that in a plausibly academic manner, and in any case we'd have to go back probably to Indo-European to find the actual words from which all others are derived.
Also, if memory serves, the form of the word for deity used first in the Old Testament is plural, which in a monotheistic religion opens up a whole other can of whatnots. (Again, I have my own gut-based ideas on this, but this is perhaps not the time or place.)