No, I disagree.
The letters of the Tetragrammaton are YHWH. YHYH is called a Quadriliteral.
1.1.3 The Origin of the Hebrew Quadriliteral YHYH Here two explanations seem to be feasible, both working in tandem to give rise to the form yhyh:
1) In some of the earlier MSS the Tetragrammaton is found, written with archaic Hebrew letters. A clear distinction is made between yodh and waw. But in many later MSS it had been written with Hebrew square letters. Often, among these, no discernable distinction is made between yodh and waw. This becomes clear when one studies the Tetragrammaton in the different MSS of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
a) In time, yodh and waw, occurring at the beginning of a word are used alternatively (cf. primae Yôd of Gesenius-Kautzsch)
b) Later, according to Harris, a waw beginning a word or syllable would change to yodh (as in the pe-waw verbs and the verb itself)
c) Bruce M. Metzger discusses the Tetragrammaton in letters from Nahhal Hhever’s “Cave of Horror”. He writes: “As is the case with manuscripts from Qumran, the scribe does not clearly distinguish the shape of yod from that of waw.”
2) First century Hebrew scholars might also have been influenced by yâh yâh of Is. 38:11. This is the only occurrence of the duplication of yh (=Jâh) in the Hebrew Bible. The scribe of DSIa would abbreviate it as yh. Later the Hebrew quadriliteral yhyh would be used in place of the Tetragrammaton in Aquila’s Greek version. Preformative y + MH hyh > yhyh (Origen’s Hexapla; some Aquila MSS).
A similar form, JeJâ, would appear in the Aramaic Targums with Tiberian vocalization, which is clarified by Walker: Aquila’s version, made round about 130 A.D., is remarkable for its Old Hebrew lettering of the Divine Name in the midst of the Greek text. Put into square character, what Aquila wrote was yhyh, Jâh-Jâh, the popular substitute for yhwh “Jahweh”, the ineffable Name, the very naming of which was regarded as blasphemy as far back as the third century B.C., if the LXX at Lev. xxiv 16 represents current public opinion.
For one can imagine that, as a Gentile convert to Judaism, Aquila was careful not to trap his Greek-speaking Jewish readers into uttering the Name “according to its letters”. By the time the Mishna was compiled (c. 190 A.D.) the pronunciation had become practically JeJâ as the form yeyâ shows.
The later Greek form II I II I [PIPI] was used to transcribe Aquila’s Old Hebrew form of yhyh, and, in the opinion of CERIANI [CERIANI, Monumenta sacra et profana, II, p. 106 ff., quoted in SWETE, O.T. in Greek, p. 39, n. 4.], this was first done either by Origen or Eusebius. II I II I does not represent the Tetragrammaton, as is generally held, but yhyh, so that there is no justification for supposing that any identity of form of square character yodh and waw in the first century was involved.
Actually, apart from stone inscriptions at Dura and on a Galilean synagogue (NSI, No. 148B), Manuscript evidence of their identical form is lacking. They are quite well differentiated in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah (DSIa), and whoever was responsible for the present LXX reading of Dan. ix 2, to wit THGH [tei gei], apparently noticed the stroke to the left characteristic of yodh and pictured it by T as against waw.
Had Aquila written the Name exactly as spelt in the text before him, those who transcribed his text would surely have written II Y II I, for as has been pointed out consonantal waw was consistently rendered by upsilon in the transliteration of Hebrew personal names in the LXX [See N. Walker, The Meaning of Moses (1948), pp. 8 – 11].