Jesus (who I think is a bit more qualified than you or I to convey god's preferences) used "father" and "my god" when referring to the Hebrew deity. That seems good enough to me.
It seems enough to me as well, Bonsai, to call him Father (Abba) as Jesus is reported to have done in the Gospels. But Jesus surely studied Torah and knew the actual pronunciation.
Josephus describes the Name, that it is pronounced as written and that it consists of four vowels.
Martin the monk should not be poo-pooed as an ignoramus who mistook a Jewish custom of name substitution for an accurate rendition of the pronunciation--And this is the point of the OP.
If ex-JW's go around saying that the word "Jehovah" is "incorrect" then they are wrong, it is just as correct as using Yahweh if not more so given the linguistic development from Yod-Heh-Waw-Heh to it's transliteration into other alphabets and translation into other languages with different stock of sounds in common use.
In Greek you cannot say YHWH as the Hebrews did because the sounds of Greek are different, and the Hebrew alphabet reflects consonants that aren't pronounceable using the standard sounds of the Greek language. That's why we have Iesous instead of Yeshua for example.
In Latin, which is closer to Greek than to Hebrew of course, there are sounds that match somewhat well enough to the sounds of YHWH although in the Early Latin alphabet the letters used would be IHVH. Latin, unlike Hebrew, makes use of vowel letters for pronunciation so IHVH becomes IEHOVA and that is exactly what Martin the monk presented in his writings.
Does this fact matter to anyone? Well, it just so happens to matter to me. It matters because to hear an ex-JW say that "Jehovah" is a wrong name, is just a declaration of ignorance and a lack of research.
Is Jehovah a mixture of YHWH and ADONAY? The thousands of times that the tetragrammaton appears vowel pointed in the Masoretic texts with only a schewa and a qamats imply that this is not the case. The central vowel of ADONAY is a holam and thir O does not appear above the Waw, as I said in thousands of instances of the Name as written by the Masoretes.
Researchers with more experience and aptitude than I have written publications that demonstrate what I put forth in this thread. It irritates me to see wrong assertions being passed along as factual evidence of practice. Really, Bible prefaces, forewords and dictionaries that continue to mention they don't include a form of the Divine Name because of a Jewish custom are just perpetuating an old wives' tale in my opinion.
The best pronunciation of the Name in Hebrew matters only to those interested in researching the subject. The fact that a translator should translate the Name into a form that is standard practice in his language is just the proper way to deal with the subject.
If you pick up a Spanish language Bible, then Peter is Pedro, and knowing that these forms come from Latin Petrus as a translation of Aramaic Kepha or its Hellenized form used by the Romans Cephas then it becomes important to you only if you wish to delve deeper into the person's identity and role within the Biblical account.
Now to have folks, members of the forum, come here and start flinging crap, saying it doesn't interest them and it's irrelevant, and posting silly videos of Goofy, alluding to Spiderman and whatever else these benighted gentlemen keep spouting off is just a crying shame and a put off for any JW who, awakening to the lies of the Watchtower, wants to research factual information not suppositions by narcissistic internet trolls bull-whipping their dorks to the winds.