Well, yet another leftie Rabbi has gone ahead and made a parade of his staggering ignorance.
First, the guy interprets a word that appears in the TORAH on the basis of the fact that it SOUNDS like a word from another language. HOW ABSURD!! Next is he going to say God created dogs on the fifth day, because the English word "dog" sounds like "dag," the hebrew for fish?
Then, the same guy expresses bewilderment that Chazal never offered an explanation for the appearance of a particular word in Tanach. Well guess what? The jokes on him! Because as a matter of fact this very issue is discussed in both the midrash and the talmud.
Oh, you want to know the name of the Rabbi I am talking about? Why Rashi, of course. [/sarcasm]
Back-story: On Numbers 31:42 ("And he called it Novach/Vayikra l'uh novach") Rashi points out that because the last letter of the word "l'uh/it" does not contain a mapik the word is pronounced "loh" rather than "l'uh."
"Loh" (ie: lamed hai-sans mapik) is a homonym for the Aramaic word for "no." (ie: lamed aleph) This, Rashi says (citing R' Moshe Hadarshan) is a sign that the name "Novach" did not survive as the name of the city.
In the second part of his comment Rashi writes: "I can't understand why the same explanation isn't given in two similar instances (when the word "l'uh" is spelled without a mapik) ie: "Boaz said to her," (Rus, 2:14) [and] "to build her a house." (Zechariah, 5:11)
As the Ramban points out with, well, a bit too much glee, both verses are discussed in Midrash Rus, and in both instances the mapik-less word "l'oh" is interpreted as "no." As Avigder Bonchak says in his book What's Bothering Rashi it seems, simply, that Rashi was not aware of the Midrash's explanation.