Yes, I believe it is still an open question. Interesting interpretation mP. As Phizzy says, it could describe a characteristic and nothing more. The meaning differed as time went by, but none of the arguments was convincing. Here's some of my research for those that are interested in the subject.
As an early verb form, originating from Northwest Semitic, Hebrew hyh and Aramaic hwh can both mean “to be”, “come to be”, or “to become”:
1) Approximately 200 BCE hyh/hwh was viewed as the Qal of the verb, meaning “he is”, “he is busy” (the Hebr./Aram. vowel prefix yi- changes to ya-). Thus Ex. 3:14 can take on a static meaning, similar to ho oun of the LXX translators (cf. Ex. 3:14 LXX).
2) Approximately 130 CE and afterwards Aquila and Theodotion understood hyh/hwh to mean, “come to be” or “to become” (cf. ésomai hós ésomai, “I will be what I will be” of Aq, Th in ZDMG XXXIX, p. 568). From this the Jewish tendency to view God as “the Everlasting/Eternal One”. Mendelssohn translated the Tetragrammaton as “the Eternal One” in his German translation of the Bible (cf. Matthew Arnold’s French translation and The Moffatt Translation of the Bible).
N.B. Unfortunately the idea of eternity in such passages as Is. 40:28; 41:4; 43:13 cannot be incorporated in the Name. Later the German Reformer Luther also understood the Tetragrammaton in this way. He translated it as meaning “I shall be what I shall be” (cf. Ex. 3:14 Luth).
3) Jerome (ca. 380 CE) interpreted it as meaning, “to be” of “to exist”. He translated Ex. 3:14 as “I am what I am” (cf. Ex. 3:14 Vg). Later Dillmann (Genesis 1887, p. 74) viewed this as an expression of God’s ‘self-existence': ‘He that exists absolutely and lives in himself'. Schultz, in Alttest. Theol. (5), 387, preferred ‘the unchangeable, self-centered existence, the absolute personality’. G.H. Skipwith in “The Tetragrammaton” of JQR 10, 662 ff viewed yhwh ‘he shall be’ as an elliptical form of the exclamation of the Old Israelite Warrior God, being completed by 'eil and `ibânû, meaning ‘God is with us’.
4) Ibn Ezra and J.D. Michaelis viewed Ex. 3:14 as “I that will appear, that will reveal myself”. God provides to all needs. From this the Jewish exclamation “as sure Jehwah lives!” J. Wellhausen explained it as meaning “I am because I am”.
5) W. Gesenius, J. LeClerc, and W.F. Albright viewed hyh/hwh as a causative Hiphfil of the verb, the etymology referring to “the Creating One”. The latter corresponds to the Syriac Aphel ahwi “create” as in the poetical Bar-Hebrew XIII. Nevertheless, the revelation of the Divine Name Jehwah had taken place with the Israelite nation in view, as well as the actions of the nation regarding their national god; the cosmic working of God is rather connected to the other names (titles) of God. TDOT, vol. V, p. 513, is more specific:
The consensus of modern scholarship supports the biblical text in associating the name Yahweh with the root hâyah “become”. The parallel Amorite form furnishes the final link in the chain of evidence. As we pointed out above, the Amorite evidence poses the problem of what stem is involved, since in Amorite the verb could be either the simple stem or the causative. In Hebrew, however, yahweh must be causative, since the dissimilation of yaqthal to yiqthal did not apply in Amorite, while it was obligatory in Hebrew. The name yahweh must therefore be a hiphil. Although the causative of hwy is otherwise unknown in Northwest Semitic (with the exception of Syriac, which is of little relevance here), it seems to be attested in the name of God of Israel.
All reconstructions that recognize a verbal form in YHWH associate it with a sentence name or with a sentence from a cultic litany. This conclusion is based on typological arguments deriving from other sentence names: since causative forms of other verbs meaning “be” occur in sentence names, we may assume that an analogous causative form underlies the Hebrew divine name.
In Supplement to Encyclopaedia Judaica, dealing with the Hebrew language, p. 1566, the Causative prefix ha- is discussed briefly: “The Hebrew causative prefix ha- appears in Amarna as hi- (attenuation). An example is EA 256:7, hi-ih-bi-e; it is clearly a Hebrew form which is impossible in Accadian. The scribe used the Hebrew h-h-bh-y-' for the common Accadian verb of the same meaning, puzzuru.”
In Introduction to the Old Testament with a comprehensive review of the Old Testament studies and a special supplement on the Apocrypha, on pp. 400, 579, R.K. Harrison comments:
The provenance and meaning of the tetragrammaton have been the subject of repeated philological discussion for many decades. Numerous scholars adhered to the view that a causative interpretation of the verb-stem hwh was the only one to supply the real sense of the term. Against those who objected that a causative connotation was too abstract a concept for that period of historical development, Albright pointed out quite properly that such an idea could be illustrated amply from pre-Mosaic texts of Mesopotamia and Egypt. [FSAC, p. 260.] However more philological research has made it clear that the name is in fact a regular substantive word in which the root hwh is preceded by the preformative y. As a proper noun the tetragrammaton is thus the designation of a Person and stands in contrast to such titles as El Shaddai and El Elyon.
There can be no question that the name is connected etymologically with the Hebrew word hyh, “to be”, or more preferably with an earlier variant form of the root hwh. However, it can no longer be regarded as an imperfect causative form of the root hwh, but must be considered instead as a regular substantive in which the root hwh is preceded by the preformative y. As a proper noun it constitutes the name of a Person, in contrast with titles such as Elyon, El Elyon, and Elohim. The name emphasizes the being or existence of God in personal terms, and thus brings Him into relationship with other, human, personalities.
In recent years R. Kittel ascribes a dynamic interpretation to Ex. 3:14, likewise W.F. Albright, P. Haupt, J. Obermann, and J.P. Hyatt. These viewed 'êhyêh as being a causative verb (“the one who shall cause to be”).
The phrase 'êh(e)yêh 'äshêr 'êh(e)yêh, “I am what I am” of Ex. 3:14 is viewed as the traditional etymology of the Tetragrammaton. Theodore’s interpretation of the term Jao ‘the existing God' and the LXX’s explanation of Ex. 3:14ego eimi ho oun caused scholars to conclude that YHWH is a form of the verb hyh “to be”.
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, the subject caused quite a stir. Controversy and speculation were the order of the day (see S.R. Driver, “Recent theories on the origin and nature of the Tetragrammaton”, Studia Biblica, Oxford 1885, pp. 12 sqq.). Most scholars agreed that Yahweh was an imperfect form of verb hyh. From this basic tenet, they would construct elaborate theories. Some interpret hyh in a causative sense to mean ‘giver of life’. Others view it as a neutrum, ‘he that is’. Mostly no grammatical evidence is forthcoming to substantiate such views.
In some passages the verb hwh (Gen. 27:29; Is. 16:4; Neh. 6:6; Eccl. 2:22), also means “to be”, but the Imperf. of the verb is yehû' (Eccl. 11:3). If the text of Job 37:6 is correct, then the third meaning of verb hwh is “to fall”. This is the only place where it occurs in the Qal form. After comparing it with the Arabic verb, J. Wellhausen suggested that it could also mean ‘the feller'. This interpretation conforms to the notion of the ‘thunder god’. In light of the substantive hawwah pl. houwth, destroyer, and the pre-Islamic gods Jaquth, Ja'uq, Jathi, Eerdmans prefers this suggestion (Godsdienst van Israel I, p. 52). However, he acknowledges that the verb was never used as such and that it remains an educated guess.
In TDOT, vol. V, p. 513, Freedman-O'Connor remind us that the form 'êh (e)yêh of Ex. 3:14 is important: “Finally the form 'êhyêh in Ex. 3:14 deserves attention. As we have seen, it occurs also in patristic and classical sources (cf. Hos. 1:9, where instead of the expected “I am not your God” we find “I am not your 'êhyêh”). This word is commonly understood as a 1 st person singular imperfect. There is some evidence, however, that this may be a popular interpretation and that the form may in fact be identical with yahwêh with the shift y > '. This shift is known in Amorite.... Thus the form 'êhyêh might be equivalent to yahwêh. If, however, yahwêh is a hiphil form, then 'hyh might represent a parallel aphel formation. The form could also be a 1 st person imperfect hiphil or even a noun formation with a prosthetic aleph.”
In connection with 'êhyêh 'äshêr 'êhyêh of Exodus 3:14 Wilhelm Gesenius, in his Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, as translated by S.P. Tregelles, 1979 edition (p. 337B), said: “To this origin, allusion is made to Exod. 3:14 'êhyêh 'äshêr 'êhyêh “I (ever) shall be (the same) that I am (to-day)”; compare Apoc. 1:4, 8 ho oun kai ho ein kai ho erchomenos: the name yhwh being derived from the verb hâwâh to be, was considered to signify God as eternal and immutable, who will never be other than the same. Allusion is made to the same etymology, Hos. 12:6, yehowâh zikherü “Jehovah (i.e., the eternal, the immutable) is his name.”
