SILEX Revision Notes

The original gloss claims 'uncertain affinity,' while the revised gloss specifies that the word derives from the verb πλανάω, correcting the etymology.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original's etymology by stating that πλατύς is not derived from πλάσσω, but from a Proto-Indo-European root meaning 'broad' or 'wide.' This corrects the misattribution in the original Strong's gloss.

The original gloss claims 'a primary word,' suggesting a root or basic form, whereas the revised gloss correctly notes that the etymology of πλέκω is uncertain, correcting the original's implication of etymological certainty.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that πλέω is probably a form of πλύνω and instead states the connection to πλύνω is unlikely and not supported by scholarship, attributing the root to an uncertain origin possibly PIE *pleu-. This is a material correction of the etymology.

The revised gloss clarifies that the derivation from ἐκλείπω is plausible but the form is rare and may not be directly attested, revising Strong's assumption of a 'presumed derivative' as a more certain root. The revised gloss also refines the gloss by avoiding traditional translation phrasing, but the principal disagreement is etymological.

The revised gloss notes that the etymological relationship between πλήθω and other related verbs is debated, correcting the original's more definitive claim of derivation and alternate forms. The original presents the etymology as certain, whereas the revised gloss introduces nuance and the scholarly uncertainty regarding its roots.

The original Strong's gloss derives πληροφορέω from πλήρης and φορέω, while the revised gloss updates the second component to φέρω. This reflects improved lexical understanding, as φορέω and φέρω, though related, have distinct uses in Greek. The revised gloss corrects the compound's etymology by identifying φέρω as the base.

The original gloss incorrectly claims that πλησσω is another form of πλασσω through the idea of flattening out, while the revised gloss states the etymology is uncertain and explicitly distinguishes πλησσω from πλασσω, clarifying that they should not be confused.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's by stating that the etymology is uncertain, whereas Strong's presents a derivation from an obsolete root meaning 'to flow' as definitive.

The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion that the etymology is directly from πνέω, stating instead that while it's from a strengthened form of πνέω, the precise derivation is uncertain. This updates Strong's more simplistic etymological claim.

The revised gloss clarifies the derivation of the suffix -ηρης as a common morphological pattern, whereas the original gloss claims 'another element of uncertain affinity'. The revised gloss thus corrects the uncertainty by specifying the etymological pattern.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that πόθεν is from the base of πόσις, stating that the root and derivation are uncertain and any connection to πόσις is not securely established.

The SIBI gloss corrects the etymology, noting that ποιέω is linguistically unrelated to πράσσω, whereas the Strong's gloss invites comparison with πράσσω, suggesting a possible relationship. This is a material correction of the earlier etymological implication.

The original gloss asserts a derivation from a root meaning 'to bustle,' while the revised gloss states the origin is uncertain and that no secure etymological connection is established. This corrects the original's confident etymology.

The original gloss claims a probable derivation from πλέκω ('to weave'); the revised gloss specifically rejects this and clarifies the suffix -πλασίων is a multiplicative form not related to πλέκω. This corrects an etymological error in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology in Strong's, specifying that the word derives from the negative prefix ἀ- and ἐνδέχομαι ('to accept, admit, allow'), rather than a derivative 'of the same as ἐνδέχεται'; it provides a clearer and more accurate morphological account.

The revised gloss corrects the original's certainty on etymology, clarifying that while πονηρός is related to πόνος ('toil, pain'), its precise morphological derivation is debated and less direct than the original suggests.

The revised gloss corrects the strong claim in the original gloss that πόνος is 'from the base of πένης' by stating that the connection is possible but uncertain, reflecting more caution about the etymology.

The original gloss suggests 'apparently bridged' as a meaning or derivation of the name, while the revised gloss points out that the precise linguistic derivation is uncertain and that the name functions as a Roman family name, not as a word meaning 'bridged.' Thus, the revised gloss corrects an unfounded etymological claim in the original gloss.

The original gloss incorrectly states Latin origin, while the revised gloss correctly identifies the Greek origin. The revised gloss also clarifies that, in the New Testament, Pontus refers specifically to a region rather than generically to the sea.

The revised gloss corrects the original by noting that the connection to 'popular' is speculative and not linguistically certain, whereas the original confidently derives it as 'apparently "popular"'. The revised gloss expresses more caution in the etymology.

The revised gloss points out the precise etymology is uncertain, correcting the original's confident derivation from a root related to crossing or going. There is also a definition correction: the original suggests 'to die' is an inherent meaning, while the revised gloss clarifies this is only a context-specific figurative usage, not a primary sense of the verb.

The original gloss claims a prolongation from an unspecified verb (to sack), implying direct derivation. The revised gloss corrects this by stating the root is uncertain and that the verb is rare, not derived from a common Greek verb. This corrects a possible incorrect etymological assumption in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology by stating that πόῤῥω is derived from the comparative form of πρό, but the precise etymology is uncertain. The original presents the etymology as straightforwardly 'from πρό' without that caveat.

The original gloss claims Latin origin for the word, while the revised gloss corrects this, stating it is possibly of foreign (non-Indo-European) origin, indicating the etymology is more uncertain and not strictly Latin.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim of a specific etymological derivation ('from an absolute (who, what) and ὅς') by stating the exact derivation is uncertain, only possibly related to the pronominal stem. This clarifies that Strong's etymological assertion was overstated.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that the word is from a derivative of the alternate of πίνω ('to drink'); the revised states there is no direct etymological link and that its origin is uncertain.

The revised gloss challenges the original's etymological claim by stating that the formation and root origin of ποταπός are debated and uncertain, while the original presents a specific derivation as apparent fact.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology by removing the presumed connection to a compound involving ἐπί, clarifying that the word is simply formed from the privative α- and αἰσχύνω.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's by clarifying the derivation: Strong's says 'a derivative of ἐπιλαμβάνομαι,' but the revised traces the noun through ἐπίληπτος, itself derived from ἐπιλαμβάνομαι, making the chain of derivation more precise.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology implied in the original. Strong's presents πρᾷος as a 'form of πραΰς,' suggesting a clear derivation or relationship, while the revised gloss notes that πρᾷος is a variant with uncertain root origin and not derived from a clear IE or Semitic base. This correction addresses over-simplification in the original's etymological claim.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original Strong's by stating that the derivation from 'prason' (leek) is uncertain and debated rather than a probable root, as implied by Strong's. The revised gloss also clarifies that the primary NT use is metaphorical, not literal 'garden plots,' which adjusts the original implication.

The original gloss claims πρίζω is a 'strengthened form of a primary prio,' implying certainty about its root. The revised gloss notes the exact origin is uncertain and only broadly relates it to the Greek word for 'saw' (πρίων), correcting the explicit root derivation presented in Strong's.

The original gloss gives a vague and potentially inaccurate etymology ('from ἀνά and (to test)'), while the revised gloss clarifies the derivation as ἀνά- plus ἐτάζω, correcting the root to ἐτάζω ('to examine, question') and specifying the more precise origin.

The REVISED gloss corrects the original's etymology, stating that προβιβάζω derives from βιβάζω (related to 'go/bring') and NOT from βιάζω ('to force'). This changes the perception of the word from an idea of 'force' to 'movement/bringing,' impacting the understanding of its meaning.

The original gloss implies ἄνευ has a clear primary etymology, referencing another term ('Compare Α.'), while the revised gloss clarifies that its etymology is uncertain and of unknown root, correcting an assumption of simple derivation.

The original Strong's gloss derives πρόδρομος from the alternate of προτρέχω, while the revised gloss correctly indicates its formation from πρὸ ('before') and δρόμος ('course, running'). The revised gloss corrects the etymology by identifying the direct components, not from προτρέχω.

The revised gloss corrects the original's assumption that προερέω is a direct alternate or derivative (in a strict etymological sense) of προέπω, clarifying that their relation is in usage rather than direct linguistic descent. Also, the revised gloss makes the nature of its formation and use more precise.

The original gloss claims a specific etymology ('from a bend'), while the revised gloss states the origin is uncertain and only possibly related to a root meaning 'to bend' or 'curve.' The revised gloss corrects the confidently asserted etymology of the original.

The original gloss asserts that πρός is a 'strengthened form of πρό,' while the revised gloss notes the connection but explains the root formation is unclear and does not definitively claim πρός as a strengthened form. The revised gloss corrects the certainty of the etymological claim made in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology given in the original. The original incorrectly derives ἀνήμερος from a particle meaning 'not' and a word meaning 'lame', while the revised gloss correctly derives it from 'not' plus 'tame' or 'gentle'. The original's root attribution is mistaken; the revised gloss explicitly points this out.

The revised gloss explicitly rejects Strong's speculative etymology ("like a dog licking his master's hand") as unsupported and culturally anachronistic. It clarifies that the verbal root is uncertain and that the dog image is not attested in primary sources, correcting Strong's colorful but baseless derivation.

The revised gloss corrects the original's implied meaning of the root (suggesting 'to tie (anchor) or lull') and instead clarifies it as deriving from ὁρμή meaning 'impulse, assault, or rush,' not specifically 'to tie.' This addresses a material disagreement in the etymology.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's claim that the middle voice means 'to do forward for oneself.' The revised gloss clarifies that the term means to pretend or feign, particularly in terms of adopting a false identity, and notes that it does not carry the sense of 'do forward for oneself.'

The revised gloss corrects the original by noting that the etymology connecting πρόσφατος directly to 'slain' (from σφάζω, to slaughter) is debated, and that the primary meaning is 'recent' or 'new' rather than explicitly 'recently slain.' The original gloss implies a more physical or literal etymological connection to killing which is not generally warranted in the word's actual usage.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology by specifying that the agentive suffix -λήπτης is involved, not the verb λαμβάνω. This avoids inaccurately implying a direct derivation from λαμβάνω and clarifies the morphological construction.

The original gloss claims 'neuter of a presumed derivative of πτέρυξ,' suggesting uncertainty about the derivation, while the revised gloss states more definitively that πτερύγιον is the diminutive form of πτέρυξ ('wing'), and that this derivation is well established. This corrects the impression of etymological uncertainty in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the original Strong's statement that the word is probably akin to the alternate of πίπτω or πέτομαι by clarifying that the etymology is uncertain and that any connection is only possible, not established. This moves from assertion to caution.

The revised gloss notes that the etymology is debated and may be uncertain, whereas the original asserts a specific derivation from πτύω and kinship with πτοέω. The revised gloss corrects the original by indicating the etymology is not certain.

The original presents a speculative and detailed etymology connecting the verb with several other Greek roots, while the revised gloss explicitly states the etymology is uncertain and that these connections are conjectural. The revised gloss corrects the overconfidence of Strong's etymological claims.