SILEX Revision Notes

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim of a specific verbal root. It notes that the etymological root of κλύδων is uncertain, rather than securely derived from a verb meaning 'to billow' or 'dash over' as the original states.

The original gloss confidently claims a derivation from a Chaldee origin corresponding to אַחְאָב, but the revised gloss states the etymology is uncertain and such connections are not definitive. The revised gloss corrects the false certainty and clarifies the lack of established etymology.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim of a definite primary root for 'to scrape,' stating instead that the etymology is uncertain but likely related to scraping or rubbing actions. This flags the original's over-certainty regarding the root derivation.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology, which wrongly claims the word is probably from σύν. The revised notes it is not from σύν but from the root κοιν-, emphasizing the native Greek root meaning 'shared' or 'collective.'

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology by clarifying that the connection to κόκκος is due to the source of the dye—the insect—not the 'kernel-shape' of the insect. The original's reference to 'kernel-shape' is inaccurate; the term relates to the origin of the crimson color, not to the shape.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's etymology, stating that the connection to 'dwarf' is speculative and not widely accepted. The revised gloss recognizes the origin as uncertain, which contradicts Strong's assertion of a clear derivation.

The revised gloss corrects the original's suggestion that the word is derived from ἅμα. The SIBI gloss states the origin is uncertain and clarifies it is not directly related to ἅμα, contradicting Strong's etymological speculation.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology in the original, clarifying that the word derives from κόλαφος ('a blow with the fist') and not from κολάζω ('to punish'), as suggested in Strong's. The connection to κολάζω is said to be etymologically uncertain.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original Strong's etymology, which incorrectly asserts the word is derived from a base meaning 'cake' or likens it to 'crackers'; the modern gloss clarifies that the etymology is uncertain but probably relates instead to 'glue' or 'to glue,' referring to texture, and that 'cake' is not involved. It also corrects the definition, removing the reference to specific form or analogy to 'crackers' or 'poultice,' focusing instead on its actual use as an eye ointment. There are both etymological and definitional corrections, but the primary material disagreement is about etymology.

The revised gloss clarifies that the etymological derivation from a specific presumed root is uncertain, correcting the original's more confident assertion about its derivation.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's etymology: Strong's derives the word from the base of κολάζω ('to punish'), but the revised gloss notes it is actually related to κολόβος ('mutilated, docked') and specifically states it is not related to κολάζω despite the apparent similarity.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's claim of a connection to 'kolossos' ('colossal'), stating the origin is uncertain, possibly pre-Greek, and that the 'colossal' link is unlikely and unsupported by evidence.

The original gloss states 'apparently a primary word,' implying κόλπος is not derived from another Greek root, while the revised gloss notes that the etymology is uncertain, correcting this assumption. Additionally, the revised gloss clarifies the semantic range and warns against simplistic translation, but the primary material disagreement is with the etymological assertion.

The revised gloss corrects the original's suggestion ('apparently a primary word') by explicitly stating the term's etymology is uncertain and only related to general Greek vocabulary for a young sheep, offering a more cautious and accurate etymological assessment.

The original gloss claims the term derives from 'a diver', suggesting an etymological link, while the revised gloss states the origin is uncertain and not transparently derived from a known Greek root. This corrects the earlier, unsupported etymological claim.

The revised gloss corrects the original's asserted etymological link to κομίζω, stating that the relationship is uncertain and not definitively supported. The original's claim of derivation is presented as probable, while the revised gloss expresses scholarly caution.

The revised gloss corrects the strong assertion of a primary root meaning 'to tend, i.e. take care of.' It indicates the etymology is uncertain and that such a connection is not established.

The revised gloss notes that the precise root derivation is uncertain and de-emphasizes the original's connection to 'well dressed' or 'nice.' It specifies that, in context, the term does not carry figurative overtones like 'well dressed,' correcting the original's implication of that meaning.

The revised gloss corrects the Strong's etymological claim; Strong's suggests 'ornumi' as a source, while the revised gloss identifies 'ὀρνύω' as more likely and notes the etymology is uncertain. The revised gloss also refines and clarifies the definition but does not materially contradict it.

The revised gloss corrects the original Strong's etymology by stating that the origin is from κόπρος (kopros), not κόπτω (kopto), and notes that the exact linguistic derivation beyond this is uncertain. The original makes an incorrect etymological connection.

The original gloss asserts an etymological connection to τομώτερος, whereas the revised gloss correctly notes the origin is uncertain and only possibly related, thus correcting the original's certainty about the root.

The revised gloss corrects the original's suggestion of derivation from κορέννυμι, indicating this etymology is uncertain and possibly unrelated; the origin may be onomatopoeic instead.

The original gloss states the etymology as 'neuter of a presumed derivative' without specifying the root, leaving the origin uncertain. The revised gloss provides a clear and accurate etymological explanation, identifying κοράσιον as a diminutive of κόρη with the -ιον suffix, correcting the vagueness in the original.

The revised gloss points out that the Hebrew origin (קֹרַח, Qorach) is of uncertain origin, correcting the impression in the original that the root is clear. The revised gloss also clarifies usage and recommends transliteration, but the material disagreement is etymological.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's claim linking ἄμπελος to 'ἀμφότερος' and 'ἅλων,' stating instead that its etymology is of pre-Greek origin and the precise derivation is uncertain. This materially disagrees with the original's speculative etymology.

The revised gloss clarifies that while the name is of Latin origin, the precise meaning of the Latin root is uncertain, whereas the original implies a direct Latin derivation without noting any uncertainty.

The revised gloss corrects the original's confident claim that κόσμος derives from the base of κομίζω by stating the derivational relationship is uncertain and noting the core root meaning is 'order' or 'arrangement.'

The original gloss attributes the origin to Chaldee, while the revised gloss more accurately describes it as borrowed from Aramaic, reflecting updated scholarship about the linguistic classification.

The revised gloss states the origin is uncertain, correcting the Strong's assertion that it is 'probably of foreign origin.' The revised gloss offers a more cautious etymology, indicating the source as merely possible rather than probable, and specifying potential Semitic origins.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's claim that κραιπάλη is 'probably from the same as ἁρπάζω,' noting that current scholarship finds the etymology uncertain and sees no direct connection to ἁρπάζω.

The revised gloss corrects the Strong's etymology, noting it as a diminutive from κράνος ('helmet'), not just a derivative of the base of κέρας, and highlights debate over the precise pathway; Strong's gives a less precise or possibly inaccurate derivation.

The original claims a direct derivation from a specific Semitic root (compare אִגְּרָא), whereas the revised gloss corrects this to state that the precise original foreign word is uncertain, and that the word is borrowed from a Persian term in a general sense.

The revised gloss corrects the original's suggestion ('perhaps a primary word') by explicitly stating that the term's origin is uncertain but is probably a primary Greek term with no clear derivation. This clarifies the etymology and removes the speculative aspect present in the original.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original's suggestion that κρέας is a 'primary word.' The revised gloss states that the root and linguistic origin are uncertain, addressing misleading etymological claims in the original entry.

The original gloss suggests 'contracted for Latin ampliatus,' while the revised clarifies that the Greek name is derived from the Latin 'Ampliatus' with no direct Greek root, correcting the etymology.

The revised gloss indicates uncertainty regarding the verb's precise origin in Greek, while the original gloss refers to it as 'a prolonged form of a primary verb,' suggesting a more confident etymological relationship. The revised note cautions against assuming a clear derivation, correcting the original's implication.

The original gloss suggests κρίνον is a 'primitive word,' while the revised gloss explicitly states the etymology is uncertain and not clearly derived from known Greek roots. This corrects the presumption made in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the original Strong's statement that the verb is the middle of a 'primary verb.' The SIBI gloss highlights that the root is uncertain, not directly attested as an active form, and may be of pre-Greek or uncertain origin. This correction addresses the etymological claim in the original.

The original gloss states 'apparently a primary verb,' implying an inherent, undefined root, while the revised gloss specifically notes that the etymology is uncertain and that it appears in Koine Greek without clear derivation from earlier Greek roots. This corrects the assumption in the original about its lexical lineage.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's assertion of a certain root derivation ('from a derivative of (frost)') by stating that while the term is likely related to κρύος ('frost' or 'ice'), the exact etymological derivation is uncertain.

The revised gloss corrects the original by noting that the connection to κτάομαι ('to acquire') is uncertain and debated among scholars, while the original presents this derivation as probable. This is a material etymological disagreement.

The original gloss traces the word to the base of ἀμφότερος, which means 'both,' while the revised gloss correctly derives it from the prefix ἀμφι- ('around') and ἕννυμι ('to put on, dress'), clarifying the correct etymological formation.

The original gloss suggests κύκλῳ is 'as if dative case of a ring, cycle; akin to κυλιόω;' which incorrectly frames its derivation and implies an uncertain relationship to κυλιόω. The revised gloss clarifies that the word is properly the dative singular of κῦκλος and that its connection to κυλιόω is only conceptual, not direct etymological derivation, correcting the original's imprecise etymology.

The revised gloss states that the etymology of κυλιόω is uncertain and only possibly related to the base of κῦμα, correcting the original's more confident claim of derivation from κῦμα and connection to circularity via related words. The revised gloss highlights the lack of certainty in the root, correcting an overstatement in the original.

The original gloss states a direct derivation from κυλιόω, but the revised gloss clarifies that the etymology is uncertain and that a connection to κυλιόω is only possible, not definite.

The original gloss defines the name as 'a city surrounded by a river,' implying the name means this specifically. The revised gloss corrects the etymology, stating the name derives from roots meaning 'around/on both sides' and 'city,' not exclusively referring to being surrounded by a river, but more broadly to being encircled. The revised gloss also clarifies that while the city was near the Strymon River, the name's meaning is not limited to that feature.

The SIBI gloss corrects the Strong's gloss, which affirms a derivation from the base of κῦμα ('wave'), by stating that this etymological connection is not definitive and that the precise root is uncertain.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymological claim. Strong's asserts a root meaning 'supremacy' and a certain derivation, while the revised gloss states the etymology is uncertain and only possibly related to 'kyro.'

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology by stating that the connection to κολάζω is speculative and likely uncertain, whereas the original presents it as if established. The revised gloss also clarifies the definition, specifying usage nuances and the inappropriateness of rendering it simply as 'carcase,' but the primary correction relates to the etymology.

The SIBI gloss corrects the Strong's gloss by stating that the root of 'κωλύω' is uncertain and that, while it has been historically connected to κολάζω, a direct etymological relationship is not attested in modern scholarship. Strong's gloss asserts a root derivation ('from the base of κολάζω'), which newer research disputes.