SILEX Revision Notes

The revised gloss corrects Strong's assertion that the privative alpha is a contraction from ἄνευ and the copulative alpha from ἅμα, noting instead that these derivations are uncertain and debated. Strong's gloss presents these etymologies as established, whereas the revised gloss highlights scholarly uncertainty about the exact origins.

The original gloss confidently asserts a link to a primary verb and βοῦς, while the revised gloss notes the etymology is uncertain and the connection to βοῦς is doubtful. This corrects the etymological information given in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion that 'Bosor' is simply of Hebrew origin from בְּעוֹר (Beor). It notes that the relationship is uncertain and may be due to textual or transliteration variations, rather than a straightforward derivation. This correction addresses possible oversimplification or inaccuracy in the original etymological claim.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's by stating that the root of βούλομαι is uncertain and likely of pre-Greek origin, and that it is not derived directly from a primary verb. Strong's presents it as the middle voice of a primary verb and suggests comparison with θέλω; SIBI highlights that βούλομαι and θέλω are distinct in nuance and origin.

The revised gloss clarifies that the etymology is uncertain and possibly from a pre-Greek substrate, whereas the original asserts it is 'probably of foreign origin.' The revised gloss nuances the derivation and corrects the implied certainty in the original's etymology.

The original gloss claims 'probably from the base of βόσκω (to graze)',' while the revised gloss states that this derivation is not definitively established and emphasizes its broader Indo-European roots. The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion of probable Greek derivation, making clear the uncertainty.

The revised gloss clarifies uncertainty in the etymological connection to 'short' (βραχύς) and notes the derivational pathway as uncertain, whereas the original asserts a comparative sense tied directly to 'to wield' without such caveats. The revised corrects the etymological assertion.

The original claims the term derives from an obsolete primary noun with an apparent meaning ('continued duration'), while the revised gloss states the exact root is uncertain and cautions against a definite etymological link. This corrects Strong's presumption about the word's origin.

The revised gloss corrects the original's unstated implication that the etymology of 'Gad' (as 'fortune' or 'luck') is certain, by noting that the meaning is debated and uncertain.

The revised gloss corrects the original by noting that while the word may be related to ἀήρ (air), its exact derivation is uncertain, whereas the original asserts a direct derivation from ἀήρ. This is an etymological clarification.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology given in Strong's, which traces the word from a different form (γενεαλογέω), whereas the revised gloss breaks it down into its more accurate derivation from γενεά and λόγος. This is a correction of the root derivation.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's claim of direct Hebrew origin and equivalence with the Girgashite people, clarifying that the etymological connection to גִּרְגָּשִׁי (Girgashite) is uncertain and likely incorrect; it instead identifies the term as derived from the place name Gergesa.

The revised gloss disputes the original's etymology, specifically rejecting the connection to κόσμος and the idea of the container originally being for musical instrument mouthpieces. It notes modern scholarship finds these derivations doubtful and connects the word more plausibly to a general container for valuables.

The original asserts a derivation from a specific verb meaning 'to tease cloth,' while the revised gloss states the etymology is uncertain and only likely related to an earlier verb. This challenges the specificity of the original root claim.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's assertion that γνόφος is 'akin to νέφος', clarifying that the etymology is uncertain and the connection is unclear.

The revised gloss notes that the etymology is uncertain and debated, correcting Strong's assertion that it is probably from the base of γίνομαι.

The revised gloss corrects the impression of a certain Hebrew etymology by noting the name is 'of uncertain derivation' and only 'traditionally interpreted as beloved.' The original gloss simply states Hebrew origin, while the revised gloss clarifies the uncertainty in its etymology.

The original gloss claims δάκνω is a prolonged form of a primary root, implying a derivation within Greek roots. The revised gloss specifies the onomatopoeic origin and denies derivation from another Greek or Semitic root, correcting the etymological claim in Strong's.

The revised gloss corrects the original Strong's presumed etymology, indicating that 'δάκτυλος' is not in fact derived from 'δέκα' (ten), and that the word's origin is uncertain, possibly pre-Greek or non-Indo-European. The original's claim of derivation from 'δέκα' is thus incorrect.

The SIBI gloss corrects the Strong's assertion of probable 'Chaldee' (Aramaic) origin, clarifying that the etymology of 'Dalmanutha' is actually uncertain and cannot be definitively linked to Chaldee or any other Semitic source.

The revised gloss corrects the original's vague 'probably of foreign derivation' by clarifying that the origin is uncertain but likely non-Greek, possibly Illyrian, providing more nuanced and accurate etymological information.

The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion of a definite etymological derivation by noting that the etymology is actually uncertain, only possibly related to a lost root.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymological claim. Strong's suggested a probable derivation from 'damazō' and suggested 'gentle' as a meaning. The revised gloss explicitly states that the derivation is uncertain, existing etymologies are speculative, and the name does not have a secure lexical meaning beyond being a proper noun.

The original gloss claims a direct Hebrew origin (דַּמֶּשֶׂק), whereas the revised gloss points out that while the word was borrowed from Hebrew, the further linguistic origin is uncertain. This corrects the impression that the etymology is fully understood.

The original gloss asserts that the name is a plural of Athena (the goddess), presenting that as a factual etymology. The revised gloss corrects this by stating the origin of the name is uncertain and only traditionally connected to Athena, removing the asserted etymology and expressing it with scholarly caution.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's by noting that the etymology of δέ is uncertain, whereas Strong's incorrectly describes it as a 'primary particle' implying a clear root origin.

The revised gloss corrects the Strong's gloss by stating that the precise form of the primitive root is uncertain, whereas Strong's classifies it as a 'prolonged form of an obsolete primary.' The revised gloss acknowledges related forms in Greek but avoids presenting the etymology as definitively as Strong's did.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original etymology, stating that the derivation from δεινῶς is uncertain and not widely supported, whereas the original asserts a probable link and a semantic explanation involving fearfulness and forgetting a name.

The original gloss claims a specific derivation from δαπάνη, but the revised gloss identifies the etymology as uncertain and only loosely related, correcting the original's assertion of a direct etymological link.

The revised gloss corrects the original's implied derivation from the Greek for 'oak,' clarifying that the etymology is uncertain and not directly from 'oak' or any specific tree type.

The revised gloss notes that the connection of δεξιός to δέχομαι ('to receive') is now debated in modern linguistics, whereas the original presents this derivation as certain. This correction reflects updated scholarly caution regarding the etymology of the word.

The original gloss states 'of foreign origin' without detail, while the revised gloss explicitly corrects this to note that the etymology is uncertain and likely non-Greek, which is a more precise academic claim. The revision corrects the vague attribution in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymological claim. The original presumes a derivative from δεσμέω, but the revised gloss identifies the root as δεσμός and relates it to δέω, clarifying its actual formation and avoiding a speculative etymology.

The revised gloss corrects and qualifies Strong's etymology, noting that the root 'byssos' is rare and the exact root is uncertain, rather than claiming a straightforward derivation from βυθός as Strong's does.

The revised gloss corrects the original Strong's statement that δεσμώτης is 'from the same as δεσμωτήριον' by specifying that both words share the root δεσμός, but have distinct formations. This clarifies the etymology and addresses a mistaken direct derivation claim in the original.

The original gloss claims a derivation from δέω and suggests a possible connection to 'husband,' which the revised gloss rejects. The revised gloss clarifies the etymology as deriving from the Greek root δεσ-, relating to authority, and states that there is no specific connection to 'husband' in Koine Greek.

The original gloss presents the root derivation as definitive (from δεῦρο and an imperative of 'to go'), while the revised gloss highlights that the morphological origin is debated and less certain. The revised gloss corrects the original's seeming overconfidence about the word's etymology.

The revised gloss corrects the original's implication that δέχομαι is the middle voice of a primary verb by clarifying the uncertain further derivation, reflecting modern scholarship's caution about its etymology. The revised gloss also nuances the distinction from λαμβάνω more precisely.

The SIBI gloss corrects the certainty presented in Strong's about the etymological derivation, noting that the exact derivation is uncertain, whereas Strong's gives a probable but not assured derivation from τίθημι.

The original gloss implies relatedness to δεῖ and δέομαι ('See also...'), potentially suggesting a derivational relationship, while the revised gloss corrects this by explicitly stating that δέω is a primary verb with no clear derivation and that those cognates have distinct lexical and semantic fields.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's claim that δή is 'probably akin to δέ,' clarifying that the precise etymology is uncertain and the connection to δέ is unclear.

The original Strong's gloss asserts with some confidence that Demas is probably from Demetrius, whereas the revised gloss indicates the origin is uncertain, only possibly a shortened form of 'Demetrius,' and notes there is no definitive linguistic derivation. This corrects Strong's etymological suggestion.

The original gloss derives the term from δῆμος (people) and ἀγορά (marketplace/assembly), whereas the revised gloss corrects this by identifying the formation as δῆμος + ἀγορεύω (to speak publicly), clarifying the correct morphological composition. The original incorrectly lists the compound as with ἀγορά rather than the verb ἀγορεύω.

The original gloss connects the name to 'Ceres,' using the Roman equivalent of Demeter, which is an anachronistic and potentially misleading identification. The revised gloss correctly derives the name from 'Demeter,' the Greek goddess, and explains the etymology based on the Greek context.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology, stating that δῆμος is not derived from δέω ('to bind'), contrary to Strong's assertion. Instead, its root is uncertain and possibly relates to 'division' or 'district.'

The revised gloss rejects Strong's claim that αἰγιαλός comes from aisso ('to rush'), noting that this etymology is linguistically uncertain and not accepted by modern scholars. It limits the derivation to ἅλς ('sea'), correcting Strong's composite origin.

The original gloss incorrectly derives the word from γραπτός ('written'), while the revised gloss correctly identifies the prefix δια- as the root, not γραπτός. The revised gloss explicitly corrects this etymological error.

The revised gloss corrects the original by noting that διάδημα's precise etymology is uncertain and does not confidently assert a compound origin from διά and δέω as the original does. It more carefully connects it to the concept of 'binding' via δέω without over-claiming on the morphological formation.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim of derivation from a verb 'to run on errands' (and connection to διώκω), instead stating the origin is uncertain and that this connection is debated in scholarship. It also clarifies that the meaning is broadly 'servant' or 'helper,' not intrinsically a technical office, correcting potential KJV translation bias toward 'deacon' as an official title.

The revised gloss corrects the original's derivation 'from διά and the base of νόμος' by stating the correct root is νέμω, not νόμος. This is a material correction of the word's etymology.