SILEX Revision Notes

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's by noting that the etymological component 'to cause to sink out of' is not inherent in the lexical meaning of ἐκδύω; Strong's ties the verb's sense to 'causing to sink,' which the modern gloss rejects as inaccurate for this term's actual usage.

The revised gloss clarifies that λέγω in this context means 'to pick' or 'to gather,' not 'to speak,' correcting the original's vague reference to λέγω in its 'primary sense.' This is a material correction of the root meaning.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim about the etymology, stating that the connection to αἰτέω is debated and the precise relationship is uncertain, whereas the original states it as a fact. The revised gloss also broadens the definition from simply a 'causer' or 'author' to one responsible, accountable, or culpable, more accurately reflecting usage.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's claim of derivation from a negative particle plus φαίνω, stating that the true etymology is uncertain and rejecting the earlier explanation.

The original Strong's gloss incorrectly emphasizes 'to fly out' by connecting it to the verb 'to fly' (πέτομαι), whereas the revised gloss clarifies that the action is about spreading or stretching, not about flying. The SIBI gloss also corrects the derivation, noting the root is 'πετάννυμι' (to spread, unfold) and heads off the misleading analogy to 'flight' with πέτομαι.

The original gloss claims the word is derived from 'an obsolete primary' and presumes a derivative, whereas the revised gloss states the root is uncertain and aligns with classical Greek usage, correcting the presumption of a known etymology.

The revised gloss corrects the original's suggestion that the verb is 'a prolonged form of a primary verb (obsolete except in certain tenses)' by clarifying that there is no attested simple root in classical Greek and that the etymology is uncertain. This updates the claim about the word's derivation and historical usage.

The revised gloss corrects the original's implied certainty about the etymological relationship to ἐλαύνω and ἐλάσσων, emphasizing that the derivation is uncertain rather than probable or definite.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's assertion that the word is a superlative of 'short' and instead clarifies that it is the superlative of ἐλάσσων (less), which itself is of uncertain origin. This addresses an etymological inaccuracy in the original gloss.

The revised gloss explicitly notes that the derivation and meaning of the name are somewhat uncertain, whereas the original confidently asserts a specific origin ('God of majesty'). The revised corrects the certainty of Strong's etymological claim, making clear that while this is a common interpretation, exact composition and meaning are not certain.

The original gloss claims 'a form of εἱλίσσω' as the etymology, suggesting a direct derivation, whereas the revised gloss states the connection is less certain, likely linked through Proto-Indo-European roots but not necessarily a direct form. This corrects an oversimplification in the original etymology.

The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion that ἕλκος is 'probably from ἑλκύω', clarifying that this etymological connection is uncertain and not linguistically established. The definition is also more precise, but the material disagreement pertains to etymology.

The revised gloss corrects the original's confident claims about the word's etymology, stating that the roots and the comparison to ἑλίσσω are uncertain or unsubstantiated. The original implies a probable connection, while the revised gloss is more cautious.

The SIBI gloss corrects the Strong's gloss by clarifying that the identification of 'Elmodam' with the Hebrew name 'Almodad' is conjectural and the derivation is uncertain, whereas the original more confidently asserts a link with 'Almodad.'

The original Strong's gloss asserts a derivation 'from ἐλπίς,' but the revised gloss clarifies that while ἐλπίζω is derived from ἐλπίς, the ultimate Indo-European root is uncertain, correcting any implication of a certain etymological source.

The revised gloss corrects the original by stating that the precise pre-Greek origin of the word is uncertain, while the original implies a direct root meaning to 'anticipate' as a primary verb. This corrects an over-simplified or possibly incorrect root derivation in the original.

The original Strong's gloss asserts 'of foreign origin' without further clarification, whereas the revised gloss notes the etymology is uncertain and that the possible Semitic connection is not established. The revised gloss also moves 'wizard' from the definition of the name to its potential linguistic meaning, clarifying that the title's function as 'magician' is debated and not etymologically secure.

The revised gloss corrects the original's identification of 'Chaldean origin', clarifying that the term is Aramaic. It specifies 'my God' as the meaning and provides a more accurate linguistic source.

The revised gloss points out that the exact derivation beyond the preposition ἐν is uncertain, whereas the original confidently claims it derives from ἐν and the causative of ἐμβαίνω. The revised gloss also corrects the specific identification of the verbal element, noting a possible but not definite connection to βαίνω. Thus, the revised gloss corrects an overly certain and possibly incorrect etymological assignment in Strong's original gloss.

The revised gloss corrects the original's explicit etymological claim ('to snort with anger'), noting instead that while the verb conveys a vivid internal emotional response (including the idea of 'snorting'), the precise etymology is uncertain. The original overstates the etymological meaning by specifying 'to snort' as the source, which the revised gloss nuances and partially retracts.

The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion that the name Emmaus is 'probably of Hebrew origin' and specifically linked to the Hebrew word יֵם, by noting that the etymology is uncertain and that possible connections to Hebrew/Aramaic roots related to 'warm spring' are not definitively established.

The original gloss incorrectly claims ἐμοῦ is a prolonged form of μόχθος, while the revised gloss corrects this by deriving it straightforwardly from ἐγώ and explicitly states that it is not from μόχθος.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's claim that ἐμφυσάω is from ἐν and φύω ('to produce, bring forth'). The modern gloss clarifies that its etymology is related instead to φυσάω ('to blow'), rejecting the link to φύω as unsupported.

The revised gloss notes that the etymological formation from ἐν and ἀντί is debated, correcting the original's assertion of a straightforward compound, and broadens the semantic range with more nuanced usage notes.

The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion that ἄκανθα is probably from the same root as ἀκμή; the SIBI gloss states the term's root is uncertain and probably pre-Greek, not directly related to ἀκμή.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology by stating that the suggested root (ἔννομος) is incorrect. The revised etymology clarifies the word is related to δύνω and ἐνδύω, not ἔννομος. The primary definition is refined but not fundamentally changed; the main correction concerns the root derivation.

The revised gloss corrects the Strong's etymology, stating that the derivation from 'ennomos' is inaccurate and clarifying the true roots as 'en' and 'eilēō'.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology, clarifying that 'ἔνειμι' is formed from 'ἐν' and 'εἰμί', not from 'ἔννομος' and 'εἰμί'. The original gives an incorrect root derivation, which the revised gloss rectifies.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that ἐνθάδε comes from a 'prolonged form of ἐν,' stating instead that the exact formation is uncertain but it is related to ἐν and a demonstrative element. The revision narrows the etymological assertion, removing Strong's oversimplification.

The SIBI gloss corrects the etymology given in the original. Strong's says ἔνι is a contraction for the third person singular present indicative of ἔνειμι, while SIBI states it is a contraction formed from the preposition ἐν and the verb εἰμί, possibly via ἔνειμι, but emphasizes it is not a regular verb form. This correction signals a more nuanced understanding of the word's formation and usage.

The revised gloss disputes the original's claim that ἐνιαυτός is a prolongation from a primary root and asserts that its origin is uncertain. Strong's connects it to a primary verb or root with confidence, which modern linguistics does not support for this term.

The revised gloss corrects the original etymology. The original suggests the word is formed from a derivative of a compound of κατα and καλυπτω, while the revised explains it is from the privative prefix ἀ- and the adjective κατακαλύπτω, itself formed from κατα + καλύπτω. The revised gloss clarifies the formation and derivation more accurately, correcting the Strong's gloss.

The revised gloss notes that the precise morphological link to τέλος is debated, indicating that the original etymology may be overconfident or imprecise. The revised gloss corrects the certainty of the derivation presented in the original.

The revised gloss updates the etymology, noting that the connection to εἱλίσσω ('to roll, to wind') is possible but not certain, correcting Strong's more definite claim of etymological relationship.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology by noting that the exact nominal form derived from ὀπός is debated, rather than definitively stating it is from a derivative of ὀπτάνομαι. The revised gloss provides a more precise and cautious etymological explanation.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's explicit etymology. Strong's presents a definite derivation ('from ἐκ and a derivative of the same as αἰφνίδιος'), while the revised gloss notes the precise derivation is uncertain, only indicating a general relationship with 'αἰφνίδιος.'

The revised gloss corrects the etymology given in Strong's. Strong's suggests a 'presumed' root (to spue), while the revised gloss provides a precise derivation from the attested verb ἐξεμέω. This corrects the uncertainty in the original etymology.

The revised gloss clarifies the etymology by identifying the second element as κατασχέω rather than simply a derivative of κατέχω, refining the original derivation's imprecision.

The original Strong's gloss definitively derives the word from ἔχω, while the revised gloss notes the etymology is uncertain and mentions possible derivation from ἕξ (six) or ἔχω, indicating less certainty than Strong's original claim.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that the origin is 'Chaldee' (i.e., Chaldean/Babylonian); instead, it accurately identifies the etymology as Aramaic. The revised also provides the correct Aramaic forms, updating Strong's outdated terminology and language identification.

The revised gloss highlights that while ἀκέραιος is likely formed from ἀ- and a derivative of κεράννυμι, this etymological connection is probable but not absolutely certain, correcting the original's more dogmatic assertion of its derivation.

The original gloss omits the second root verb ἀθροίζω in the etymology, instead listing it as 'ἐπί and (to assemble);' whereas the revised gloss correctly identifies the verb ἀθροίζω as the root for 'to assemble.'

The revised gloss expresses uncertainty about the compound's exact formation origin, correcting the original's confident claim of a compounded derivation. This addresses the etymology whereas the definition is consistent.

The revised gloss corrects the Strong's assertion of an accusative formation and a certain etymological link to 'acme.' Modern scholarship suggests the derivation is uncertain and the connection to 'acme' is possible but unclear.

The original gives the etymology as 'middle voice from ἐπί and ἐνδύω', but the revised clarifies that the base is ἐνδύομαι (middle/passive), not just ἐνδύω, making the original's etymology oversimplified or imprecise.

The original gloss asserts that the word derives from a comparative of ἐπί and (probably) threats, whereas the revised gloss indicates the exact derivation is uncertain and that the original root guess is speculative. This corrects the Strong's etymological claim.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology by noting the derivation is uncertain; the original claims a derivation from εἴκω, whereas the revised gloss highlights the connection to 'eikos' and indicates the exact root is unclear.

The original gloss suggests a derivation from or comparison to ἐπικουρία, which is incorrect. The revised gloss clarifies that the term comes from Epicurus' name and is unrelated to ἐπικουρία, correcting Strong's mistaken etymology.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim about the word's etymology. Strong's derives the word from ἐπί and a form related to κοράσιον ('girl'), but the revised gloss clarifies that ἐπικουρία comes from ἐπί and κουρία and is related to ἐπίκουρος ('helper'), not κοράσιον.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that the form is a participle of a comparative, clarifying that the precise comparison implied by the form is debated and the compound does not exist outside this expression. This brings uncertainty to Strong's assertion about its grammatical formation.