Nincsnevem: First of all, God's "name" is not a personal name in the sense of human names (Karl, Jennifer, etc.). In Hebrew, the concept of "name" (shem) referred not only to addressing or labeling (as in Exodus 3:16) but also replaced the abstract concept of the person, which did not exist in Hebrew. Therefore, Jews still refer to God as ha-Shem, "The Name", or "He."
EF: It's clear that Jews consider/have considered YHWH as a nomen proprium. I notice the qualification you make above because I guess you know that YHWH is a proper name (nomen proprium) as multiple sources acknowledge. Rabbi Maimonides used such language to describe the Tetragrammaton and even Aquinas spoke in similar terms.
See https://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/abs/10.1484/J.MS.2.306114?journalCode=ms
But you claim that shem/onoma replaced the abstract concept of person which did not exist in Hebrew. While I acknowledge that shem/onoma could be employed as you posit, I still spot fallacies and inaccuracies in your claim. First, as James Barr noted in his famed study of biblical semantics, one cannot infer that just because ancient Hebrew did not have a word for "person" that it had no abstract concept of person; to reason that way would be to confuse Wort with Begriffe. Second, the Jews did have a way of indicating persons by using adam or ishah. Third, there are places in the Hebrew Bible where to understand "name" as person does not seem tenable: see Exodus 23:20-21; Isaiah 42:8; Psalm 83:18; Jeremiah 23:27. Lastly, the Tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew Bible almost 7,000 times, and we're to believe that God just wanted us to know his person without knowing his nomen proprium? In other words, according to you, what's important is the person behind the name and not the name per se. The facts of the Tanakh belie the claim that God's "name" (proper name) should take an utter backseat to the concept of person. On the other hand, God's name encompasses his person and one scholar said that the divine name and person are so closely linked that they're virtually indistinguishable. Maybe "virtually" but neither in toto nor ex toto.
Try as you may to subsume "name" almost completely under the rubric of "person," you can't legitimately do it, in the case of the peerless and inestimable YHWH.
Maimonides writes: "Observe how clearly the author states that all these appellatives employed as names of God came into existence after the Creation. This is true; for they all refer to actions manifested in the Universe. If, however, you consider His essence as separate and as abstracted from all actions, you will not describe it by an appellative, but by a proper noun, which exclusively indicates that essence. Every other name of God is a derivative, only the Tetragrammaton is a real nomen proprium, and must not be considered from any other point of view."
For more on Aquinas and the name of God, see also https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1013.htm#article11
