SILEX Revision Notes

The Strong's gloss asserts a clear derivation from θύω (to rush, seethe), while the SIBI gloss states the precise origin is uncertain and cautions that the connection is potential rather than definite. It also clarifies possible semantic roots that Strong's presents simplistically.

The original gloss suggests a possible root ('apparently a primary word') and invites comparison to 'door,' implying assumed clarity of derivation. The revised gloss explicitly states the etymology is uncertain and that no clear root or cognates are found in related languages, correcting the original's assumption.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology, specifying the correct second root as ἀγορεύω ('to speak') rather than an unspecified root or simple association with ἀγορά. The original's reference to 'to harangue' and 'compare ἀγορά' is imprecise, while the revised gloss gives the actual verbal root and its meaning.

The original gloss claims 'Chaldee origin' and compares the word to Hebrew תָּאוֹם, while the revised gloss corrects this by specifying the source as Aramaic תָּאוֹמָא. This corrects a common misidentification between Aramaic and 'Chaldee' (an outdated term for Biblical Aramaic), and clarifies the true etymology.

The original gloss states 'the same as Ἰακώβ Græcized,' which is vague and does not explain the actual origin, implying equivalence without note of derivation. The revised gloss identifies Ἰάκωβος as the Greek form of the Hebrew name Ya'akov (יַעֲקֹב), possibly from the root עָקֵב, providing a more accurate etymology. Additionally, the original gloss's use of 'Jacobus' and immediate jump to the English 'James' without clarification may confuse the linguistic lineage, which the revised gloss corrects.

The original states the name is of Egyptian origin, while the revised gloss notes the etymology is uncertain and only possibly Egyptian. The revised corrects the original's overconfidence regarding the derivation.

The original asserts Hebrew origin and relates the name to יָנָה (Yanah), while the revised gloss highlights that the etymology is uncertain and the connection is not established. This corrects the original's stronger claim about the name's origin.

The revised gloss corrects the original by noting that while Jannes is of likely Egyptian origin, the precise derivation is uncertain. The original Strong's gloss states simply 'of Egyptian origin' as a fact without qualification.

The Strong's gloss asserts that ἰάομαι is the middle voice of an 'apparently primary verb,' implying certainty about its etymological status. The SIBI gloss clarifies that the origin is uncertain and only possibly related to the noun ἴαμα, correcting the etymological claim in Strong's.

The revised gloss corrects the original's implication that 'Jason' is a participle meaning 'about to cure.' The REVISED says this is not lexically relevant—the name is simply a proper noun, not a verbal form, though it shares a root with ἰάομαι.

The original gloss asserts that ἰδού is a second person singular imperative middle voice of εἴδω, but the revised gloss clarifies that while it is related to εἴδω, its precise morphological derivation is uncertain and it functions as a fixed interjection rather than a true imperative. This corrects the original's grammatical claim.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that ἱδρώς is a 'strengthened form' of a primary 'idos.' The SIBI gloss states the exact linguistic root is uncertain and there is no evidence for 'idos' as a primary form, correcting a mistaken etymological assertion in Strong's.

The revised gloss corrects the original by clarifying that the etymology of Jezebel is uncertain and debated, while the original presents it as definitively of Hebrew origin without qualification. The revised gloss removes certainty regarding its Hebrew derivation and discusses possible meanings.

The SIBI gloss clarifies that the exact meaning of the Hebrew name is debated and only possibly means 'YHWH exalts' or 'YHWH will raise up,' whereas the original gloss presents the etymology as settled. The revised gloss adds uncertainty to the meaning of the root, correcting the implication of certainty in the original.

The original gloss presents the Hebrew origin of the place name as straightforward, whereas the revised gloss notes that the etymology is unclear and that connections to meanings like 'fragrant' or 'moon' are only possible, not certain. The revised gloss corrects the implied certainty in the original regarding the name's meaning.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymological implication by noting that the specific etymology of 'Jerusalem' is uncertain, while the original presents the word as simply of Hebrew origin without addressing ambiguities or scholarly debate. The revised gloss also clarifies common interpretations, distinguishing from the simplistic etymological approach in Strong's.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's assertion that this verb is the middle voice of 'apparently a primary verb' by stating that its etymology is uncertain and likely of pre-Greek origin, indicating Strong's etymological guesswork is not supported by modern scholarship.

The revised gloss notes that the etymological meaning of the Hebrew name יִשַׁי (Yishai) is uncertain, whereas the original gloss presents the Greek as simply of Hebrew origin without specifying uncertainty. The revised corrects the impression that the meaning is established, clarifying the uncertainty in the name's etymological meaning.

The revised gloss clarifies the etymology, specifying a relation to the verb ἱκνέομαι and possible connection to ἥκω, while the original only vaguely references a root related to ἥκω. It also corrects the implied derivation from ambiguous forms in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the original's suggested derivation from the Greek εἰκών ('image'), stating that the etymology is uncertain and not linguistically connected to εἰκών. The original's claim of a Greek origin is thus not supported by current scholarship.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymological claim of a direct derivation from ἵλεως, noting instead a broader Proto-Indo-European root and an uncertain connection to ἵλεως.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's suggestion of a specific etymological relationship ('perhaps from the same as ἅμα'), stating instead that the exact etymology is uncertain.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology: Strong's derives ἱμάτιον from ennumi ('to put on'), while the revised gloss states it is derived from ἱμάς (imas, 'strap' or 'thong') with uncertain further origin. This is a correction of the etymological claim in the original.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's etymology, stating that the previously suggested derivation from the demonstrative stem (cf. ὁ) is now considered unlikely. The precise etymology is acknowledged as uncertain.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's etymology by stating that the root is uncertain and not definitely related to 'to go' or 'to send,' contrary to Strong's proposal.

The revised gloss clarifies that the connection to the Hebrew יֻטָּה (Yuttah) suggested in the original is uncertain and unlikely, correcting Strong's etymological claim. The revised gloss also provides a more precise definition but does not materially disagree regarding meaning.

The revised gloss clarifies that the name Ἰουλία is from the Latin 'Julius,' not directly related to a Greek origin or simply a feminine form within Greek. Strong's describes it as 'feminine of the same as Ἰούλιος,' treating the root as Greek, whereas the revised gloss specifies its Latin derivation and cultural context.

The original gloss asserts a Latin origin and chooses the masculine form 'Junias' without noting uncertainty, whereas the revised gloss notes the origin is uncertain, that the Greek form could be masculine or feminine, and that both 'Junia' (feminine) and 'Junias' (masculine) are possible. The revised gloss also corrects the overconfidence of the original in identifying the gender and name form.

The original gloss merely states 'of Latin origin ("just")', but the revised explicitly clarifies that the name is not Greek in origin and is a direct Latin loan, providing clearer specificity. The revised also explains it is a transliteration from Latin, not a derivation from Greek. This corrects the potentially ambiguous presentation of etymology in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymological claim, stating the word is a loanword of uncertain origin and not derived from ἐρέω as originally suggested.

The revised gloss corrects the original's implication of a clear Hebrew origin (Strong's links to the Hebrew name and transliterates it, assuming etymological certainty). The revised gloss notes that the true etymology is uncertain and debated, offering possible meanings but clarifying there is no scholarly consensus.

The revised gloss corrects the original's implication that ἴσημι is an attested base form for certain irregular forms of εἴδω. The revised gloss points out that ἴσημι does not actually occur in extant Greek sources and is only a reconstructed, hypothetical root. This corrects the original's presentation of its etymological status.

The revised gloss explicitly notes that the derivation of 'Iscariot' is debated and that 'man of Kerioth' is the most likely meaning, correcting the original's more assertive and less nuanced claim about the Hebrew origin and the place 'Kerioth.' The revised gloss also clarifies that the term itself does not denote 'traitor,' addressing a possible theological or translation bias in equating the epithet directly with Judas's later actions.

The revised gloss corrects the original's implication of a definite etymology by stating that the derivation of 'Israel' is uncertain and traditionally interpreted in several ways, whereas the original presents it as straightforwardly from the Hebrew without noting the uncertainty or debate.

The original gloss presents a specific derivation from 'ἔχω' as certain, while the revised gloss corrects this by noting the etymology is associated but ultimately uncertain. The revised avoids giving a concrete derivation, correcting the overstatement in the original.

The original gloss presents a straightforward derivation from ἴσος, implying a clear etymological relationship. The revised gloss notes that while the word is derived from ἴσος, the connection to its meaning as an adverb of uncertainty is unclear. This corrects an oversimplification in the original regarding its etymology.

The revised gloss clarifies the etymology: instead of 'probably of foreign origin' (vague), it specifies borrowing from Latin 'Italia' and notes the ultimate origin as uncertain but possibly pre-Latin or Italic. This corrects the vague and nonspecific claim in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claimed derivation ('from ἥκω') by stating the root is actually uncertain, suggesting only a possible relationship and noting a pre-classical origin; thus, the original's etymology is too definite and potentially misleading.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original's implied certainty about the Hebrew name's meaning or origin, stating instead that the precise etymology is uncertain. This clarifies that proposals about the name's meaning (e.g., 'persecuted' or 'hated') are conjectural, which corrects the original's lack of nuance.

The SIBI gloss corrects the Strong's etymology: Strong's claims the name is probably derived from Ἰωάννης (John) or Ἰωνᾶς (Jonah), while the revised gloss states the etymology is uncertain and explicitly denies any clear correspondence with those names.

The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion that Jorim is 'perhaps for Ἰωράμ' by clarifying that the etymological connection to Yehoram is uncertain and not definitively established. The original suggests a likely derivation, while the revised gloss withholds certainty.

The revised gloss corrects the original's suggested etymological connection to the Hebrew עגב (‘agav), stating that the precise origin is uncertain and there is no accepted connection. This corrects a speculative and unsupported etymology in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the original's uncertain suggestion ('perhaps for Joseph') by clarifying that Ἰωσῆς is a Greek-adapted, shortened form of Ἰωσὴφ (Joseph) from Hebrew Yosef, but notes that the precise formation is uncertain. This corrects the etymological oversimplification in the original.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's etymology, clarifying that καθέζομαι derives from κατά and the base of ἕζομαι, not ἑδραῖος. This corrects an imprecise or incorrect etymological root in the original gloss.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology: while Strong's directly derives καθεύδω from κατά and a verb meaning 'to sleep', the revised gloss points out the root is uncertain and clarifies it is distinct from κοιμάομαι, indicating Strong's etymology is imprecise.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim of a direct derivation from a specific base verb, clarifying that the formation of κάθημαι is idiomatic and not directly from a single root. This addresses an etymological inaccuracy in the original gloss.

The revised gloss clarifies that the precise etymology is debated, whereas the original strongly asserts a derivation from 'κατά', 'ὅς', and 'τις'. The revised also suggests a connection to 'ὅτι', which the original does not acknowledge, correcting the overconfidence and details of Strong's original etymology claim.

The SIBI gloss corrects the Strong's assertion of Chaldee origin and a certain meaning ('the dell'), stating that the etymology is uncertain and the suggested meaning is not linguistically established.

The revised gloss specifies that the etymology of the name is uncertain and lists possible meanings, while the original simply treats it as of Hebrew origin without addressing the ambiguity or potential meanings. The revised clarifies that the origin is not certain and moves away from the implication of a straightforward derivation in the original.

The original gloss claims 'from Καῖσαρ' without elaboration, while the revised gloss specifies the name is formed from the Latin 'Caesar' plus a Greek place-name suffix, clarifying both etymological roots and indicating Roman imperial honorific origins. This correction refines and specifies the etymology of the term.