SILEX Revision Notes

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that ζημία is probably akin to the base of δαμάζω by noting that this etymological connection is not linguistically certain and the etymology is uncertain.

The revised gloss notes uncertainty in the second element of the name's etymology, whereas the original gloss asserts it derives from δῶρον ('gift'). The SIBI gloss corrects the impression of certainty, highlighting that the interpretation of the second component is not definite.

The original gloss simply asserts a straightforward Hebrew origin for the name, while the revised gloss explicitly notes uncertainty in the etymology and possible interpretations, reflecting more nuanced modern scholarship.

The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion that ζόφος is 'akin to the base of νέφος'; it notes the etymology is uncertain and the connection to νέφος is not definitive.

The original gloss traces the word to a root meaning 'to join' without specifying the actual linguistic lineage, while the revised gloss corrects this by tying the etymology to the Proto-Indo-European root *yugóm. The revised gloss clarifies the actual root derivation and does not rely on Strong's sometimes circular or artificial root assignments.

The original claims that the word is probably from ζέω, implying a firm etymological connection, whereas the revised gloss states the etymology is uncertain and only possibly related, correcting the certainty in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that ζώνη is probably akin to the base of ζυγός, clarifying that the etymology is uncertain and it is not directly linked to ζυγός but possibly related to ζωννύω. This is an etymological correction.

The revised gloss corrects the original by noting uncertainty about the root derivation; Strong's asserts it derives from ζῶον and γίνομαι, while the revised gloss allows it could also derive from γεννάω and states the derivational nuance is uncertain.

The revised gloss corrects the original's suggestion that ἦ is 'perhaps intensive of ἤ' by clarifying that the etymology is uncertain and the connection to ἤ is debated, preventing an unsupported assumption about its derivation.

The original gloss incorrectly connects the name to ἀλέκτωρ ('rooster'), while the revised gloss corrects this, stating the name derives from ἀλέξω ('to defend') and ἀνήρ ('man'), not ἀλέκτωρ.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that the verb is the middle voice of a presumed strengthened form of ἄγω, stating instead that while it is likely related to ἄγω, the exact historical derivation is uncertain.

The revised gloss notes that the etymological derivation is likely from ἦ and δή but acknowledges the formation is uncertain, correcting the Strong's original which asserted a more definite derivation from ἤ (or possibly ἦ) and δή.

The original gloss asserts 'a primary verb,' implying an established etymology, while the revised gloss explicitly notes that the verb's etymology is uncertain and not clearly related to other Greek roots.

The revised gloss corrects the original's derivation from a noun meaning 'comrade' or 'same age.' The revised gloss states the etymology is uncertain and that the lemma does not inherently refer to age, but rather to size or degree.

The original gloss suggests a possible derivation from a ray or a connection with another Greek root, while the revised gloss states the etymology is uncertain and not conclusively related to such roots. This corrects the speculative etymology in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the original's confident etymological claim, instead labeling the etymology as uncertain and noting that suggestions about a connection to 'to sit' or 'to be tame' are speculative.

The original gloss incorrectly derives 'ἡμέτερος' from 'θνητός', while the revised gloss correctly identifies it as from the pronoun 'ἡμεῖς', noting the original etymology as incorrect.

The revised gloss corrects the original's specific etymology, stating the precise derivation is uncertain and disagreeing with Strong's claim of a derivative from an inseparable prefix akin to ἅμα.

The original Strong's gloss asserts an etymological derivation from ἔπος, while the revised gloss notes that this connection is not widely accepted and the true etymology is uncertain. This updates and corrects the Strong's etymology.

The revised gloss corrects the original's suggestion that the word is derived by transposition from ἔρημος. The revised explicitly states the etymology is uncertain and warns that the semantic connection to ἔρημος is unclear.

The original claims a certain etymology ('compound of a "hero" and εἶδος; heroic'), while the revised gloss states the etymology is uncertain and the traditional derivation is speculative and debated. The revised gloss corrects the strong assertion of etymology in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the original etymology; while Strong's asserts a derivation from Ἡρώδης (Herod), the revised gloss notes the etymology is ultimately unclear and debated, tied to Greek naming conventions rather than definitively to a specific root.

The revised gloss corrects the original's simple 'from Herodēs' etymology by noting that the ultimate origin of the name Herodēs is uncertain and likely of Semitic origin, not a direct Greek formation as the original might imply.

The original gloss renders the Hebrew origin as 'Jeshajah', whereas the revised corrects this to 'Yesha‘yahu', noting the meaning 'YHWH is salvation'. The original used an imprecise or outdated transliteration and did not clarify the meaning.

The revised gloss corrects the original's confident assertion of the Hebrew origin and adds that the meaning of the Hebrew root is actually uncertain, challenging the traditional link to 'hairy' or 'rough.'

The revised gloss notes that the etymology given by Strong's (derivation from 'A-' and 'lanthanō') is plausible but not definitively proven, cautioning against asserting it as a certain origin. This corrects Strong's original, which presents the etymology as a fact.

The original gloss proposes a root derivation from ἑδραῖος and possibly ἔχω, which the revised gloss corrects by stating the etymology is uncertain and not directly connected to those roots.

The revised gloss corrects the original's attribution of the root to κακός ('bad, evil') and instead notes that the etymology is uncertain and the word is not synonymous with κακός, emphasizing it denotes 'lesser' in a comparative sense rather than active 'badness.'

The original gloss confidently claims a derivation from ἅλς, while the revised gloss notes that this etymology is uncertain and suggests the word may have pre-Greek or non-Indo-European origins. The revised gloss corrects the etymological attribution of the original.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology. The original claims the term is 'probably akin to' an unspecified root meaning 'to warm', while the revised gloss clarifies that the precise derivation is uncertain and only likely relates to warmth, not fixing a specific etymological root. The definition is consistent, but the correction in etymology is material.

The original gloss claims a kinship with an obsolete term meaning 'to dumbfound,' implying a clear etymological connection. The revised gloss corrects this by stating the exact etymology is uncertain and only possibly related to archaic terms, removing the assertion of a direct derivation.

The SIBI gloss clarifies that while the Greek name is adapted from Hebrew, the precise meaning of the name Terach is uncertain, correcting any implication in Strong's that the meaning is known or settled.

The revised gloss corrects the original's implication of clear etymological derivation by specifying that the linguistic lineage is uncertain. This addresses and updates the original's statement about θαῤῥέω being 'another form' for θαρσέω by acknowledging scholarly uncertainty about the precise root.

The original gloss claims θάρσος is akin to 'daring' via transposition, suggesting a connection that the revised gloss corrects. The revised gloss notes the word derives from θαρσέω and that the root is uncertain, possibly pre-Greek or onomatopoeic, thus disagreeing with the specific etymological link the original suggests.

The revised gloss corrects the certainty in the original's etymology by clarifying that the derivation from θεάομαι is plausible but not assured, noting the precise etymological development is uncertain.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that θεάομαι is a 'prolonged form of a primary verb' and provides a more nuanced etymology, stating it derives from an uncertain root and is possibly related to θεά, not from a primary verb nor from ὁράω ('see'). The revised also narrows the definition to 'observe attentively,' distinguishing it from ordinary seeing, in contrast to the broader or more casual implications in the original.

The original gloss confidently connects θεῖον to θεῖος ('divine') and interprets it as 'flashing,' whereas the revised gloss corrects this by stating that the origin is uncertain and the link to 'divine' is not definitively established, highlighting that the etymological connection is interpretative rather than factual.

The original gloss claims that 'θέλω' is apparently strengthened from the alternate form of αἱρέομαι, but the revised gloss states the derivation is uncertain and, while potentially related to αἱρέω, it is considered distinct in later usage. This corrects the original's etymological assertion.

The revised gloss clarifies that while θεμελιόω is derived from θεμέλιος, the deeper etymological root of θεμέλιος is pre-Greek or uncertain, contradicting the original's implication of a clear derivational chain.

The original gloss asserts derivation from the base of θέρος and presents 'menial attendant' as if certain. The revised gloss states that the origin is uncertain and notes the traditional but unclear connection to therapeuō, correcting the etymological claim and menial connotation.

The original gloss asserts a primary root meaning 'to heat,' while the revised gloss states the root is uncertain and only likely relates to the concept of heat or warmth, correcting the certainty of the original's claimed etymology.

The revised gloss notes the debated and uncertain morphological relationship of θεωρέω to θεάομαι and ὁράω, correcting the original's implicit confidence in the derivation.

The original gloss asserts a derivation from an obsolete primary verb meaning 'to finger,' while the revised gloss notes the precise derivation is uncertain and corrects the etymological claim.

The original gloss asserts θνήσκω is a 'strengthened form of a simpler primary,' implying a derivation that the revised gloss says is uncertain and not established; thus, the revised gloss corrects the etymology.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original by noting that the derivation from θροέω ('to utter aloud') is not confirmed by current linguistic evidence, whereas the original states this probable derivation. The revised gloss also clarifies that the exact root is uncertain.

The revised gloss corrects the original by stating that the etymology is uncertain and the suggested derivation from τρέφω is not definitive, whereas the original gloss presents the τρέφω derivation as likely.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's by noting that while the word is from the root for 'to sit,' the precise derivation is uncertain, rather than simply affirming a direct derivation as Strong's does.

The revised gloss corrects the original's implication that the word has an evident derivation ('apparently a primary word') and removes the suggestion to 'compare daughter' for etymology, stating instead that the root origin is uncertain and unrelated to other Greek forms.

The revised gloss corrects the Strong's assertion of a direct derivation from θύω, stating that the connection is possible but uncertain, refining the etymological claim.

The revised gloss corrects the original's confident derivation from θύω by noting that the etymological connection is debated and not definitively established. It also clarifies that the type of wood referred to is debated, whereas the original simply equates it to citron-wood.