SILEX Revision Notes

The revised gloss provides a more precise etymology, specifying derivation from μακρός ('long') and θυμός ('temper'), correcting the original's vague claim that it is 'from the same as μακροθυμώς.'

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology, indicating that the origin is uncertain and likely nursery- or colloquial-based, rather than a defined 'natural origin' or direct derivation. The original's reference to 'mammy' as the basis is misleading.

The original gloss claims a clear 'Chaldee origin' (i.e., specifically Chaldean/Aramaic) for the word and incorporates strong identification with 'avarice (deified),' implying a consistently negative, personified sense. The revised gloss corrects this by indicating the etymology is more broadly Aramaic, of uncertain origin, and focuses on the lexical meaning 'wealth' without inherently negative or always deity-like connotations. Thus, the revised gloss corrects both the overstated specificity of the origin and the overly narrow negative definition.

The revised gloss identifies the root as of uncertain origin and notes debated cognates, whereas the original claims 'prolongation from a primary verb.' The revised gloss corrects the overconfident etymological assertion in the original.

The original gloss claims a Chaldee (Chaldean) origin for μαρὰν ἀθά, while the revised gloss corrects this by specifying it is from Western Aramaic and not Chaldean. The definition is also nuanced: the revised gloss prefers the imperative 'Our Lord, come!' over the original's indicative 'our Lord has come.' These correct both the etymological source and the sense of the word.

The original gloss claims the word is from 'a pearl-oyster,' implying a Greek native derivation, while the revised gloss corrects this, stating the term is of likely Persian origin via Semitic languages, with ultimate origin uncertain and not Indo-European.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original by specifying the etymology as Aramaic rather than 'probably of Chaldee origin', clarifying linguistic accuracy.

The original gloss asserts a specific root meaning 'to glisten' for μάρμαρος, while the revised gloss clarifies that the etymology is uncertain, only possibly related to a root for 'shining.' The revised gloss corrects the etymological certainty of the original.

The revised gloss clarifies that while the literal etymology is 'to know again,' by New Testament times the word is firmly established as meaning 'to read,' not retaining the original sense of knowing again. The original gloss emphasizes the etymological root and suggests an extension in meaning, while the revised gloss corrects this by stressing the lexical meaning in context, downplaying the significance of the root for New Testament usage.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that μαρτύριον is 'neuter of a presumed derivative of μάρτυς,' clarifying that while it is related to μάρτυς ('witness'), its precise morphological derivation may be a Hellenistic or later development and is not simply a neuter form. This corrects an etymological oversimplification in the original gloss.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's by stating that the etymology is uncertain, whereas Strong's provides a definitive (but undocumented) root derivation. The actual root is not established.

The original gloss incorrectly derives μαστίζω from μαστός (breast), while the revised gloss corrects this, stating the etymology is uncertain but derives from μάστιξ (whip), not μαστός.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim of derivation from the base of μασσάομαι, stating the etymology is uncertain and the precise root is unclear.

The original Strong's gloss claims the word μαστός comes from the base of μασσάομαι, whereas the revised gloss says the root is uncertain and only possibly related to words meaning 'to suckle' or 'to knead.' This corrects the Strong's assertion of a definite derivation.

The revised gloss corrects the original's confident claim of derivation from μασσάομαι, stating instead that the root is of uncertain origin and the derivation is only possible, not certain. This clarifies the etymology and removes unwarranted certainty.

The Strong's gloss asserts μάχαιρα is a feminine form of a presumed derivative of μάχη, whereas the revised gloss corrects that the morphological derivation from μάχη is uncertain, only indicating an association with the concept of battle without affirming a definite etymological connection.

The original gloss asserts the verb is 'an apparently primary verb,' implying an original or self-contained root, whereas the revised gloss specifies that its origin is uncertain but possibly related to μάχη, which itself is of unknown or Pre-Greek origin. This corrects the Strong's etymological assumption with modern scholarly caution about its root.

The revised gloss corrects the original's confident etymology, noting that the precise derivation is uncertain. The original asserts a direct derivation from ἀνά and ἀγκάλη, whereas the revised gloss only proposes this as possible, cautioning uncertainty.

The revised gloss corrects the original by noting that while 'melas' is a primary word, its ultimate origin is uncertain—not clearly from a known Greek root as implied in Strong's. The definition remains consistent, but the etymology is clarified as uncertain.

The original gloss presents μελετάω as stemming from a presumed derivative of μέλω, implying a confident etymological link. The revised gloss specifies that this connection is uncertain and not securely established, indicating the etymology in the original gloss is overstated.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's by noting the debated and uncertain etymology. Strong's confidently derives the word from ἄγω and links to ἀγέλη, while the revised gloss states this connection is debated in modern scholarship and roots the word primarily in ἀγγέλλω, acknowledging uncertainty in the precise root.

The revised gloss corrects the original's implication that the verb is 'apparently primary' by clarifying that its precise root is uncertain, and, while treated as a primary verb in Greek lexicons, there is no clear derivation from other extant roots.

The original gloss claims the etymology involves a compound of the base of ζῶον ('living thing'), whereas the revised gloss identifies the base as ζῶ ('live'), not ζῶον, and explicitly notes that the metaphor does not require a reference to a 'living fire.' The revised corrects the original's mistaken root identification.

The revised gloss corrects the original by noting that the etymology is uncertain, countering the original's assertion that it is a 'primary verb' without qualification. The revised gloss also omits Strong's list of English translation equivalents chosen for KJV-style translation, but the material disagreement centers on the etymology.

The original Strong's gloss claims an etymological derivation from an obsolete but more primary form meaning 'to get as a section or allotment.' The revised SIBI gloss explicitly states the root is uncertain and there is no fully attested earlier form, correcting Strong's confident derivation.

The revised gloss clarifies that while μέσος is related to μετά, the connection is etymologically indirect and that μέσος more likely derives from an Indo-European root meaning 'middle.' The original gloss suggests a direct derivation from μετά, which the revised correction addresses.

The original gloss suggests an intermediate position (etymological or semantic) between other prepositions (ἀπό/ἐκ and εἰς/πρός), implying a relationship that modern scholarship regards as speculative and without clear linguistic evidence. The revised gloss correctly states the etymology is uncertain and avoids these assertions.

The revised gloss corrects the original Strong's etymology, noting that the verb is formed from μετά and ἄγω, not μετά and ἁρμόζω as Strong's claimed.

The revised gloss corrects the original's confident etymological claim about the derivation from μετά and a form of σύν, stating instead that the exact composition is debated and the precise derivation is uncertain. It also questions the translation 'meanwhile' except in clear contexts, which partially touches on definition but the main correction is etymological.

The revised gloss corrects the original's speculation about the compound origins of μετεωρίζω and is more cautious about the etymology, stating the derivation is somewhat uncertain and rooting the meaning in the imagery of suspension or being aloft, rather than specifying a definite compound form. The original implies a more concrete etymological composition, which modern scholarship considers less certain.

The original gloss asserts that μέτρον is 'an apparently primary word,' while the revised gloss specifies that its further derivation is uncertain but agrees it is a primary term for 'measure.' The revised gloss corrects the impression that the etymology is clear, indicating instead scholarly uncertainty about its origins.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's etymology: Strong's implies the second component is 'somebody', while SIBI notes the second element is obscure, stemming possibly from the root of δάμας, 'someone', but not definitively. The etymological certainty in Strong's is corrected by SIBI's more cautious formulation.

The revised gloss corrects the original's suggestion that μῆκος is akin to μέγας, stating instead that this etymology is uncertain and speculative. The definition itself is essentially equivalent, but the etymological claim in Strong's is marked as unsupported.

The revised gloss corrects the original by noting that the etymology of μήν is uncertain, while the original calls it a 'primary word,' implying a basic, un-derived origin. This addresses the question of whether the root is definite or not.

The revised gloss corrects the original by pointing out that the proposed root derivation is uncertain and not widely accepted, disputing both the specific root and the connection to mental effort or striving.

The revised gloss specifies that the etymology is of uncertain origin and not derived from another term, while the original gloss only 'apparently' treats it as a primary word. The revised gloss corrects any implied certainty about the root derivation.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's claim about the base 'thresher'—noting that the connection to 'threshing' (ἅλων) is speculative and the precise formation is uncertain, where Strong's presented it as definite.

The original gloss asserts the verb is 'perhaps a primary verb,' implying a direct Greek origin, while the revised gloss states the root is uncertain and not clearly derived from any known Greek root, correcting the implied etymological certainty in Strong's.

The original claims μισέω is from a 'primary' meaning of hatred, implying a specific etymological root, while the revised gloss points out the origin is uncertain and may be from a non-Indo-European source. This corrects the etymology presented in the original.

The original derives the word from μισθαποδότης ('rewarder') whereas the revised gloss correctly identifies the etymology as from μισθός and ἀποδίδωμι, reflecting the compound nature of the term. This corrects the root derivation provided by Strong's.

The original gloss asserts μισθός is 'apparently a primary word' while the revised gloss clarifies that its root is uncertain and it has no clear derivation. This corrects the original's implied etymological certainty.

The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion that the name means 'abounding in shellfish,' clarifying that this etymology is speculative and unsubstantiated.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology, stating that μνεία is derived from μιμνῄσκω, not μνάομαι or μιμνήσκω as in Strong's. It clarifies the specific root and omits the uncertain or dual derivation in the original.

The original gloss claims that μοιχός is 'perhaps a primary word,' whereas the revised gloss points out that the etymology is uncertain and no clear root is identified. This corrects the assumption about its derivation in the original gloss.

The revised gloss notes that the derivation from μόγις is possible but uncertain, correcting Strong's more confident assertion of variation for μόγις. This reflects more caution and accuracy about the etymology.

The revised gloss corrects the original's confident etymology, stating that the connection to μέλας ('black') is uncertain and not universally accepted. The original implies a probable derivation, which the revised gloss revises to reflect scholarly caution.

The original gloss claims that μόνος is probably from μένω, but the revised gloss corrects this by stating the etymology is uncertain and μόνος is commonly treated as an independent form in Greek. Thus, the revised gloss corrects the etymological connection made in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the Strong's claim that μορφή derives from the base of μέρος. SIBI states the etymology is uncertain and not directly from μέρος, indicating the original's etymological connection is unfounded.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's implied derivation from 'a shoot' by stating that the etymology is uncertain and that the linguistic derivation is not established. Strong's presents a probable but unsubstantiated etymology which the SIBI gloss clarifies as uncertain.

The original gloss suggests μυελός is 'perhaps a primary word,' implying a possible direct or self-evident Greek etymology, whereas the revised gloss explicitly states its origin is uncertain and not connected to a known Greek root. This corrects the original's speculation about the word's derivation.