SILEX Revision Notes

The revised gloss clarifies that the etymology is uncertain and not derived from 'keimai,' as stated in the original. Therefore, it corrects the incorrect root attribution in the original Strong's gloss.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim of a clear derivation from κέντρον and ὀπτάνομαι, stating instead that the etymology is uncertain and the suggested roots are not linguistically certain.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original's implied certainty about the Hebrew derivation (from 'qesem'), stating instead that the connection is unclear and possibly only due to similarity of sound. The original gloss is too definite regarding the etymology.

The original gloss asserts that the word is derived from 'koptō,' while the revised gloss corrects this, stating the etymology is uncertain and not directly from 'koptō.'

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that λαγχάνω is a prolonged form of a primary verb, indicating instead that the etymology is uncertain and not clearly derived from any primary verb.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's assertion that λακτίζω comes from an adverb meaning 'heelwise'; instead, it clarifies the verb's root is related to the noun for 'heel,' not an adverb. The revised gloss corrects the etymological derivation.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymological claim by stating the precise origin is uncertain, whereas the original suggests a more definite root derivation. The revised gloss also clarifies the distinction from λέγω, correcting the implication that they are simply comparable or interchangeable.

The original claims λαμβάνω is a prolonged form of a primary verb, while the revised gloss states the etymology is uncertain—a correction of the original etymological assertion.

The revised gloss corrects the impression given by the original that the meaning of the name 'Lamech' is known or settled, explicitly noting that the meaning is uncertain with no definitive etymology, whereas the original presents only its Hebrew form and origin without clarifying the uncertainty.

The original gloss claims 'a prolonged form of a primary verb, which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses,' implying a clear root and usage pattern. The revised gloss notes the precise root is uncertain and that λανθάνω is not a derived form from another known root, correcting the etymological assertion in Strong's.

The original gloss derives the term from a compound involving ξηρός (scraping), but the revised gloss corrects this, noting that modern scholarship does not support that etymological connection and finds the precise root uncertain.

The revised gloss corrects the original's implied etymology ('apparently a primary word') by stating that the origin of λαός is uncertain and specifically noting there are no clear Indo-European cognates, challenging assumptions about its derivation.

The original gloss asserts that 'λάσχω' is a strengthened form of a primary verb, implying a known root, while the revised gloss highlights that the root is uncertain and the verb is attested only in certain rare forms. This corrects the etymological claim made in the original.

The revised gloss clarifies the etymology given by Strong's, providing the direct roots (λᾶς and τέμνω) and correcting the somewhat imprecise reference in Strong's to 'the same as the first part of λαξευτός and the base of τομώτερος.' The revised gloss grounds the derivation in established Greek roots rather than making the connection via other compound words.

The revised gloss clarifies that the etymological connection to ἀγκάλη is uncertain, whereas the original gloss asserts this derivation more directly. The SIBI gloss corrects the certainty implied in the original about the root.

The revised gloss corrects the original Strong's claim that the word is derived from a verb meaning 'to dig,' stating instead that the etymology is uncertain and only possibly related to that root. The original presented the etymology as settled, which the revised gloss refutes.

The original gloss claims the primary sense is 'to lay forth,' suggesting a root meaning, while the revised gloss states the origin is uncertain, correcting the etymology.

The Strong's gloss claims 'apparently a primary word,' implying an origin, while the revised gloss specifies that the etymology is uncertain but attested as a standalone word. This corrects the original's implication of etymological clarity.

The original Strong's gloss lists λείπω as a 'primary verb' without etymological comment, while the revised gloss explicitly states that its origin is uncertain and it is not derivable from earlier Greek, correcting any implication of a clear or known derivation in the original.

The revised gloss notes that the precise etymology of the name Amos is uncertain and only likely from a given Hebrew root, whereas the original Strong's gloss presents the Hebrew origin as definitive without acknowledging any uncertainty.

The revised gloss corrects the strong implication in the original gloss that the etymology and meaning of 'Levi' are clear or settled; the revised gloss clarifies that the origin and meaning are uncertain, noting only a possible relation to a Hebrew verb without asserting it as definite.

The original gloss asserts ἄν is contracted for ἐάν, implying a derived relationship, whereas the revised gloss acknowledges the etymology is uncertain and does not assert a direct derivation. The revised gloss clarifies that its origin is debated, which contradicts the certainty expressed in the original.

The original gloss suggests ληνός is 'apparently a primary word' without clarifying etymological uncertainty. The revised gloss explicitly states the origin is uncertain and not derived from a known root, clarifying the etymology more accurately.

The original gloss claims a probable derivation from λίψ, whereas the revised gloss says the etymology is uncertain and the connection to λίψ is unclear. This corrects an unwarranted etymological assumption in Strong's.

The revised gloss corrects the implication in the original that λίθος is certainly a primary word by noting its origin is uncertain, though it is considered a primary word in Greek. This addresses an etymological assumption in the original gloss.

The original gloss confidently claims a root derivation and equates the noun with a specific implement, whereas the revised gloss states the root is uncertain and does not confirm the direct link. This corrects an overstatement in the original regarding etymology.

The original gloss states 'apparently a primary word,' implying native Greek origin, whereas the revised gloss corrects this by stating the etymology is uncertain and may be a pre-Greek loanword, thus correcting the implication of a clear Greek root.

The original Strong's gloss incorrectly derives λίμνη from λιμήν ('harbor'), while the revised gloss states the root is unrelated and uncertain, correcting this etymological error.

The original gloss claims a probable etymology 'from λείπω', while the revised gloss notes the precise derivation is uncertain, thereby correcting the confidence of the original etymological claim.

The revised gloss states the origin of the word is uncertain, correcting the original's claim that it is 'probably a primary word.' The definition is essentially equivalent, but the etymological assertion is updated.

The revised gloss clarifies that the etymology is uncertain and cautions against inferring semantic meaning beyond that of a personal name. The original suggests a derivation from 'λίνον' (linon) but is less precise about its uncertainty. The revised version is more cautious regarding etymology, correcting the original's tentative but less nuanced claim.

The revised gloss corrects the original by noting the etymology is uncertain and not clearly related to the verb for pouring libation, whereas the original gloss confidently suggests a derivation from that verb.

The revised gloss notes that the precise derivation from λόγος is uncertain and suggests a broader semantic development, whereas the original gloss asserts a direct commercial sense. The updated gloss corrects the Strong's claim of a simplistic direct derivation, indicating modern linguistic caution about the exact origin.

The revised gloss corrects the original claim that the verb is 'from λόγος'; it clarifies that the connection is by derivation of sense rather than direct formation, indicating the etymology is not as straightforward as the original implies.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's assumption that λόγχη is 'perhaps a primary word' by stating the etymology is uncertain and it may be a loanword or of onomatopoeic origin, thus removing Strong's speculative etymological claim.

The original gloss claims λοίδορος is from a root meaning 'mischief,' while the revised gloss explains it is from the verb λοιδορέω (meaning to reproach, insult, or abuse verbally) and notes the root is of uncertain further origin, correcting the mistaken etymology in the original.

The revised gloss cautions that the derivation from Latin 'Lucanus' is uncertain, whereas the original states this derivation as a fact. The revised also notes that 'Lucas' is not of Greek origin and may correspond to a Latin/Roman name, clarifying the etymological uncertainty.

The original Strong's gloss implies λούω has a clear Greek origin by calling it a 'primary verb', while the revised gloss corrects this by specifying that the etymology is uncertain and it lacks clear cognates in other Indo-European languages.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's assertion that the name is the feminine form of 'Ludios' and clarifies that the ultimate etymology of the region's name is uncertain, moving away from Strong's implied derivation.

The original gloss suggests that 'Lycaonia' is perhaps remotely derived from the Greek 'λύκος' (wolf), while the revised gloss corrects this by stating the etymology is uncertain and the connection to 'wolf' is not linguistically confirmed, also mentioning possible Anatolian roots.

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's by clarifying that the etymology connecting Lycia to λύκος ('wolf') is speculative and uncertain, whereas Strong's presents it as more definite.

The revised gloss notes that the etymology is uncertain and that there is no direct evidence for the connection to λευκός, correcting Strong's suggestion of a kinship based on 'whitish hair.'

The original Strong's gloss asserts a more direct derivation from λύω with the literal sense of 'filth,' while the revised gloss clarifies that this etymology is uncertain and likely relies on an indirect relationship through λῦμα. The revised also shows that the figurative sense of causing harm or mistreatment is primary, not literal soiling.

The original gloss claimed λύπη is 'apparently a primary word,' implying some etymological certainty. The revised gloss clarifies that the root is 'uncertain' and of 'unclear derivation,' correcting the original's implication of etymological knowledge.

The SIBI revised gloss corrects the original's confident etymological claim that the name means 'grief-dispelling,' stating instead that the derivation is uncertain and any such meaning is speculative and not linguistically established.

The revised gloss corrects the original's lack of clarity about etymology, specifying that λύω is of uncertain origin and not derived from a known compound or root. It also clarifies the nature of λύω in comparison to ῥήγνυμι, distinguishing the idea of loosening from forceful rupture, which was implied by the original gloss's suggested comparison.

The revised gloss clarifies that while the name is probably of Hebrew origin, the precise Hebrew equivalent and meaning are uncertain. The original gloss implies a definite derivation from a known Hebrew form, which the revised gloss corrects by highlighting the uncertainty.

The original gloss asserts a direct Hebrew origin without comment, whereas the revised gloss clarifies that while the name is borrowed from Hebrew, the exact etymology is uncertain and commonly debated. The revised gloss corrects the implication in Strong's that the etymology is straightforward and uncontested.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that the origin is 'probably of Hebrew origin' by clarifying that the etymology is uncertain and only likely a transliteration, but the exact Hebrew origin is unclear.

The revised gloss corrects the original's claim that the verb derives from a meaning of 'to long for' or 'insensate craving.' The modern understanding is that the root and derivation are uncertain, and there is no basis for connecting it with craving or longing.