It not only does not clear the matter up but, rather, makes a case for not
mentioning Hashem in any way at all. What is a name? It is a didtinct
identifier of someone or something. My Webster dictionary reads, <That by
which a person or thing is called or designated, in distinction from other
persons or things; appelation...>
By this definition, saying that <<Hashem is permitted because this is
>not a name of G-D it just refers to G-d.>> is just Yosey's opinion. Used
wisely Hashem becomes another of the Names of Gd. Ad-noy was originally
developed, in the same way, as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton; but it
also became one of the sanctified Names that we do not say or write except
during prayer.
By this reasoning, it would not only be forbidden to write the Names being
discussed, but also the substitutes that everyone recognizes as distinctively
referring to Hashem. These include, Hashem itself, G-d, Gd, Ad-noy, Ha-hem,
H', or anything else that is distinctly identifiable by the reader. Even if
intended as a descriptor, not a Name, it becomes a Name by frequent usage.
<< This does not only apply to Hebrew names of G-D but the names of G-d in
ANY LANGUAGE.>> Yosey's statement, taken to its ultimate conclusion, means
that his own statement itself should be forbidden because it mentions the
Name in commonly used written parlance, classified as a language in its own
right.
I cannot believe his interpretation to be valid as it prevents any discourse,
and Torah forums, whatsoever. Therefore a reasonable compromise is to
continue doing what we have been doing; namely changing the spelling of the
more traditional Names in some way so as to indicate our sensitivity, and
yirat Hashem (awe of Gd).
I will however endorse and repeat Yosey's wish for all:
Kesiva Vechasima Tova
[Good writing & sealing - related to Rosh HaShana / Yom Kippur]
Leonard Mansky