SILEX Revision Notes

The revised gloss corrects the original Strong's etymology, rejecting the derivation from 'A' (alpha privative) and 'eídō,' calling it speculative and encouraging the word to be treated as a native Greek term. The meaning is also slightly nuanced, clarifying that 'shamefacedness' is not the best translation, but the core disagreement is in the etymology.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original Strong's etymological claim that διανύω is simply from διά and (to effect); it clarifies that while διά is clear, the verbal root is related to νύω with uncertain precise origin, highlighting the uncertainty about the exact derivation.

The revised gloss corrects the original's overly confident etymological claim about derivation from a specific verb form of πόνος, noting instead that the precise verbal root is uncertain. It also updates the definition to emphasize the intensity and internal nature of the distress, moving away from the more generic idea of 'toil through' or passive worry.

The revised gloss corrects the original assertion that 'Agabus' is of Hebrew origin (compare חָגָב), clarifying that the etymology is uncertain and only possibly related to the Hebrew word for 'locust'; the connection is not definite.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology, indicating that διαφθείρω is derived from δια- and φθείρω, not from διαβάλλω and φθείρω as claimed by Strong's. The association with διαβάλλω is called a misunderstanding; the primary root is φθείρω with δια- as an intensifier.

The original gloss claims διδάσκω is a 'prolonged (causative) form of a primary verb (to learn),' implying it derives causatively from a verb meaning 'to learn.' The revised gloss corrects this, stating that διδάσκω comes from an uncertain root and that no such primary verb is attested in Greek, making Strong's proposed etymology inaccurate.

The original gloss claims that Δίδυμος is a prolongation from δίς, while the revised gloss corrects this by deriving it from the Greek adjective δίδυμος, not directly from δίς, and gives an Indo-European root referring to 'doubling' or 'two-foldness.'

The revised gloss corrects the strong assertion in the original that 'δίκη' is 'probably from δεικνύω,' noting instead that the etymology is uncertain and only possibly related to 'δεικνύω.' This reevaluates the original etymological claim based on current scholarship.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim of a direct derivation from αἶνος, instead noting that the formation is uncertain and that it is related to the sense of a figurative saying. This adjustment reflects more cautious modern etymological understanding.

The revised gloss corrects the etymological assertion in the original gloss. While Strong's derives the word from a primary verb meaning 'to cast,' the revised gloss states that the origin is uncertain and that no definitive Greek root is attested, reflecting current scholarship.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology by noting that the name derives from Διός (of Zeus) + κοῦροι (boys/youths), rather than from a base of κοράσιον. The original incorrectly connects the word to κοράσιον instead of κοῦρος.

The original gloss claims αἶνος is 'apparently a prime word' and equates it with the sense of ἔπαινος, while the revised gloss notes the etymology is uncertain and distinguishes its use from ἔπαινος. This corrects the original's assumptions about both the root and the semantic overlap with ἔπαινος.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology by explicitly identifying the second element as ὑλίζω, which the original omits. Also, the revised gloss addresses a textual/translation error relating to the phrase 'strain at,' clarifying that the correct sense is 'strain out.'

The SIBI gloss corrects the Strong's etymology, stating that the root is uncertain and not directly related to 'to flee,' and that it is distinct from δειλός and διάκονος, which Strong's links through etymology.

The Strong's gloss claims 'probably akin to αἴρω,' but the revised gloss notes that the connection to αἴρω is uncertain and debated; modern scholarship sees the etymology as likely related instead to αἱρέω with a different nuance. Thus, the revised gloss corrects the original etymological claim.

The revised gloss explicitly states that the precise derivation of δοκέω is uncertain and that it is not to be confused with δεικνύω ('to show'), whereas the original Strong's gloss directly connects it with the base of δεικνύω, implying a relationship modern scholarship rejects. Thus, the revised gloss corrects the original's etymological claim.

The revised gloss notes that the traditional derivation from δέχομαι is uncertain, correcting the original's confident claim about the word's etymology.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original's confident claim of an obsolete primary verb root by noting that the root is uncertain and only possibly related to trapping/luring verbs. It stresses that etymological connection to δελεάζω is speculative, not certain.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim of a 'presumed compound,' noting that the compound is unattested outside late and Christian Greek, possibly a Pauline coinage, suggesting uncertainty or caution about the root derivation.

The SIBI gloss correctly notes the etymology of δράκων is uncertain, while the original asserts a probable derivation from a verb meaning 'to look.' The original is too confident and specific about the root, which modern scholarship does not support.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that δρέπανον derives from a root meaning 'to pluck,' noting the etymology is uncertain and that there is no clear evidence for this derivation.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that the verb derives from an 'obsolete primary (to sink)' by noting that the root is uncertain and the precise derivation is unclear.

The original gloss claims αἴρω is a 'primary root' and links it by Hebraism to the Hebrew נָשָׂא. The revised gloss corrects this by stating the root is of uncertain pre-Greek origin and that the connection to נָשָׂא is based on usage parallels, not direct etymology.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology, stating the correct second component is ἔντερον ('intestine'), not a comparative of ἐντός as Strong's suggests. The revised entry clarifies the root and corrects the derivation.

The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion that the second element definitely refers to food, noting instead that the second component's etymology is uncertain and that the original food-specific reading is only one possible interpretation. This challenges the original's confident derivation.

The original gloss asserts a derivation from the imperative of ἐάω, while the revised gloss corrects this by stating the etymology is uncertain and the word is not actually a true verbal imperative.

The revised gloss notes that the exact original formation in earlier Greek is uncertain, correcting Strong's more definite derivation from a reflexive pronoun and the endings of autos. The revised gloss is more cautious about etymology.

The revised gloss notes that while the name comes from Hebrew עֵבֵר and may mean 'region beyond' or 'the other side,' its meaning as a name is debated and not conclusively established. The original gloss simply claims 'of Hebrew origin' without acknowledging uncertainty or the debated nature of the etymology. This correction of etymological certainty constitutes a material disagreement.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology, clarifying that Ἑβραϊκός is formed from Ἑβραῖος and that its ultimate derivation from 'Eber' is uncertain, not directly 'from Eber' as implied by the original.

The original gloss traces the term to Ἐβέρ as the etymological root, while the revised gloss points out that it is actually derived from Ἑβραῖος and notes further derivation as uncertain. This corrects an incorrect or overly confident etymology in the original.

The revised gloss notes that the etymology connecting the word to 'limb' or 'member' is uncertain and debated, correcting Strong's more definite claim about its composition from ἐν and a limb. This corrects an overconfident etymological assertion in the original gloss.

The revised gloss corrects the Strong's etymology, stating that any connection to 'to squeeze' or ἀγκάλη is unlikely and not supported by modern scholarship, whereas the original asserts such a connection.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's assertion that ἐγείρω is "probably akin to the base of ἀγορά," stating that the traditional root link is uncertain and not confirmed by modern scholarship.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's etymology, noting that ἔγκυος derives from ἐν and the root of κύω ('to be pregnant' or 'to conceive'), not from the noun κῦμα ('wave') as Strong's incorrectly suggests.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim about the root derivation. While the original implies a clear derivation from a specific verb 'to sit,' the revised acknowledges only a relationship to ἕδρα ('seat') and notes that the exact verbal derivative is uncertain.

The original gloss identifies ἔθω as a 'primary verb' implying certain etymology or morphological independence, while the revised gloss states its etymology is uncertain and only possibly related to Indo-European roots. This corrects the impression of clear derivation in the original.

The revised gloss specifies that the etymology of εἰ is uncertain and not derived from any other word, correcting the original's implication of its status as a 'primary' particle and possible derivational origin, which could mislead about its historical linguistic roots.

The original Strong's gloss claims εἰδωλεῖον is 'neuter of a presumed derivative of εἴδωλον', implying a specific derivational process. The revised gloss clarifies that the morphological formation is uncertain but based on the common Greek suffix for places (-εῖον), and parallels it with other Greek terms. Thus, it corrects the original's assertion of a clear derivation.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymological claim by noting that the connection to εἴκω is uncertain, contradicting Strong's more confident derivation from εἴκω.

The revised gloss corrects the original's suggested etymological connection, stating that the etymology is uncertain and that a direct connection is unclear. The original implies a possible link to 'faintness as a copy' and to another verb, which the revised gloss does not support.

The revised gloss notes that the exact root of εἰλικρίνεια is debated, correcting the original gloss's straightforward derivation from εἰλικρινής. This reflects greater caution about the etymology.

The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion of a clear derivation from 'the sun's ray' and κρίνω by noting this etymology is likely traditional, rare, and somewhat uncertain. The original presents the etymology as certain, while the revised gloss highlights scholarly doubts and alternative suggestions.

The original gloss claims εἱλίσσω is a 'prolonged form of a primary but defective verb,' implying a clear derivational relationship, while the revised gloss points out that the etymological connection is uncertain, possibly pre-Greek or onomatopoeic, and avoids the specific terminology used by Strong. Thus, the revised gloss corrects the implied certainty of the original etymology.

The Strong's gloss gives an impression of a specific (prolonged) form and suggests a clear verbal root, while the SIBI gloss corrects this by stating the etymology is uncertain and not tied to a known Indo-European root. The revised gloss thus clarifies scholarly uncertainty regarding the verb's historical derivation.

The original gloss explicitly derives the noun αἰσχύνη from αἰσχύνω, while the revised gloss notes that although it is related to αἰσχύνω, the ultimate root is uncertain. This corrects the original by providing a more nuanced understanding of the etymology.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's etymological claim that ἕκαστος is a superlative of (afar); the SIBI gloss states this is linguistically inaccurate and provides a different derivation involving a distributive prefix and pronoun, not a superlative formation nor any connection with the meaning 'afar.'

The original gloss claims the word is of 'uncertain affinity,' while the revised gloss provides a clear Proto-Indo-European etymology and lists cognates, correcting the original's uncertainty.

The revised gloss clarifies that the connection to πλάσσω is based on morphological analogy rather than a direct derivation, correcting the original's implication of a direct etymological link.

The revised gloss corrects the derivation: while Strong's connects ἐκγαμίζω to a form of γαμίσκω and suggests a straightforward composition, the SIBI gloss notes uncertainty about the exact derivational process and clarifies the root as a causative of γαμέω. This refines and partially corrects Strong's etymology.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original's etymology: Strong's claims the verb is from ἐκ and a compound of διά and ἡγέομαι, but the revised gloss clarifies it is from ἐκ and διηγέομαι, which itself derives from διά and ἡγέομαι. The original's immediate etymology is inaccurate.