SILEX Revision Notes

The revised gloss corrects the original on both etymology and definition. It notes that the derivation from נָגַף is uncertain, correcting the original's assertion. It also refines the definition, specifying that the term refers to the extremities or flanks of an army (not avian wings nor generic 'bands' or 'cover'), and warns against traditional but inaccurate translations. Thus, it addresses both etymology and translation tradition.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology by noting that the root is uncertain and not securely connected to other Semitic cognates, refuting Strong's claim of it being a 'primitive root.' It also narrows the definition, rejecting Strong's inclusion of 'comfort' and 'invade' as linguistically unsupported meanings, and limits the sense to regaining or retaining strength/vitality. This addresses both etymology and definition.

The revised gloss corrects both the definition and etymology. The original erroneously connects the root to 'to terrify' (בָּהַל) and assigns meanings like 'to palpitate' and 'to trouble,' whereas the revised gloss asserts the root is uncertain but not related to 'to terrify.' The real meaning is 'to wear out' or 'to become old and decayed.' Thus, both the root origin and definition in the original are materially corrected.

The revised gloss corrects both the etymology (the original asserts a derivation that is uncertain) and the definition (the original gives 'prayer' and 'grave,' while the revised clarifies the meaning is 'calamity' or 'ruin'). The revised gloss also notes that 'prayer' is incorrect and that 'grave' is a contextual translation rather than the word's core lexical sense.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original's etymology by rejecting the connection with 'cold' and the KJV-influenced 'winter' meaning, and also denies any linguistic association with the Egyptian Typhon, labeling this as unsupportable. It refocuses the definition on 'north/Zaphon' and mythological context, clarifying that the name refers to 'Baal of Zaphon,' a mountain or region, rather than a seasonal/meteorological deity or destroyer.

The revised gloss corrects the original in both etymology and definition. It notes that the etymological link between the root and the noun for grape harvest is not definite, whereas the original asserts it. Definitionally, the revised gloss advises against using senses like 'restrain' or 'withhold' unless clearly supported by context, correcting the original's broader and possibly overextended range of meanings.

The revised gloss corrects two aspects of the original: (1) etymology—the original claims a root meaning of 'plough' or 'break forth,' which the revised gloss shows is unsupported by current research; (2) definition—the original includes meanings like 'admire' and 'care for,' which the revised gloss rejects as not attested in Biblical Hebrew, focusing instead on examination, inquiry, and investigation.

The revised gloss corrects the Strong's etymology, noting the root is uncertain and the link to 'to flee' (בָּרַח) is debated. It also corrects the primary definition: Strong's gives 'fugitive, serpent, constellation' as if these are primary meanings, but modern scholarship affirms the main sense is 'bar, bolt,' with the serpent/constellation usage being rare and metaphorical. This is a correction in both etymology and definition.

The revised gloss corrects two main issues in the original: (1) It states the etymology is uncertain, rejecting Strong's confident reference to an unused root meaning 'to freeze'; (2) it removes 'pearl' as a possible meaning, noting this is not supported by context or linguistic evidence. These are corrections of both etymology and definition.

The revised gloss corrects two material aspects: (1) etymology—it rejects the original's claim of a primitive root and offers uncertainty, challenging Strong's asserted derivation; (2) definition—the revised gloss clarifies that the term broadly covers verbal contempt or abuse, not just the traditional 'blaspheme' or 'reproach,' and is not limited to ritual blasphemy, whereas Strong's is narrower and shaped by translation tradition.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original's etymological claim by stating that the derivation is uncertain, whereas Strong's asserts a link to a root meaning 'mass.' It also corrects the definition, clarifying that 'gentile' is a later interpretive translation with no inherent negative sense in the Hebrew, and specifies that the term can refer to Israelites as well, removing implicit theological bias and addressing translation tradition. Additionally, it clarifies that animal usage is rare and secondary.

The revised gloss corrects the original gloss in several ways: (1) clarifies that the core meaning is 'to reside temporarily as a non-native or resident alien', not merely 'to turn aside for lodging'; (2) states that the root etymology is uncertain, correcting the assertion of a definite primitive root meaning in Strong's; (3) removes semantic fields such as 'fear', 'awe', or 'hostility', which the revised gloss says are not inherent to the root but only contextually associated. This addresses issues of etymology, definition, and removes translation tradition/theological bias.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology, stating that the previously assumed connection to גִּיחַ is uncertain and debated. The definition is also corrected: the original's reference to pregnancy or the belly as the 'source of the faetus' is removed, clarifying that the term refers generally to the underside of animals, particularly those moving along the ground. Thus, the disagreements are in both etymology and definition.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's root derivation, noting that the etymology is uncertain and that a link to גּוּד is not widely accepted (etymology). It also clarifies that the term refers strictly to anatomical sinews or tendons, not to leather thongs or general cords, contradicting the broader definition in Strong's (definition).

The revised gloss corrects the etymological claim of the original that the root properly means 'to spin round,' stating that this derivation is uncertain and speculative. The original also broadens the definition to include 'fear' as a possible meaning, which the revised gloss rejects, clarifying that the term primarily denotes joyful exultation and should not be confused with roots of fear or trembling.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology (original asserts a root derivation and meaning 'warrior'; revised states etymology is uncertain and does not mean 'warrior' per se), and also the definition (original claims 'warrior,' but revised says the word properly designates a person from Gammad, not necessarily a warrior; the 'warrior' idea is context-driven).

The SIBI gloss corrects Strong's on two points: (1) etymology: Strong's presents a derivation from אָהַב, while the revised gloss notes the root is uncertain; (2) definition: Strong's inclusion of 'bad sense' is corrected—in biblical usage, the term does not inherently carry a negative connotation.

The revised gloss corrects the original by removing the meaning 'corrupt,' which is inaccurate and not attested for this lemma (definition). It also corrects the etymology, stating the origin is uncertain and has no clear Semitic cognates, whereas Strong's treats it as a primitive root without qualification (etymology).

The revised gloss corrects the original's confident etymology, stating the root is uncertain and the supposed arch/curve root is not well-attested (etymology). It also narrows the definition, noting 'self' or 'body' as translations are interpretive rather than core lexical meanings (definition and translation_tradition).

The SIBI gloss corrects the etymological claim of Strong's that the root is 'primitive,' indicating instead that its derivation is uncertain. It also narrows the definition, warning against defaulting to 'anger' and clarifying that the term refers generally to provoking or inciting, not inherently anger or physical violence. This addresses both etymological and definitional issues.

The revised gloss corrects the original in several ways: (1) it describes the etymology as uncertain and possibly onomatopoeic, rather than a clear 'primitive root'; (2) it narrows the definition, noting 'sawing' is a later analogy, not an original meaning, and warns against overextending figurative meanings; (3) it refines or removes KJV-influenced secondary meanings (like 'destroy') that derive from the core meaning only by extension. Thus, the revised gloss corrects Strong's on etymology, core definition, and some translation tradition issues.

The revised gloss corrects both the etymology, rejecting the firm derivation from 'desiring' given by Strong's, and the definition, clarifying that אֲבוֹי is not a noun for 'want' or 'sorrow' but an interjection expressing distress or lament. The original gloss mischaracterizes both the word's origin and function.

The SIBI gloss corrects the original on etymology (noting the root is of uncertain origin and lacks clear cognates, instead of being a 'primitive root') and on definition (narrowing the meaning to 'wash' or 'rinse' with focus on purification, correcting the inclusion of 'cast out' and broad use of 'purge'). The revised gloss also instructs that translation should emphasize cleansing over expulsion, addressing translation tradition issues.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's on etymology (root derivation is uncertain, not definite), and on definition (does not intrinsically mean 'perish' or 'be cut off'; Strong's gloss broadens the meaning beyond the lexical core).

The revised gloss corrects both the etymology (noting the root is uncertain) and the definition (removing 'stumbling-block,' focusing instead on slanderous speech or reproach). The original's inclusion of 'stumbling-block' and a specific root is not supported.

The revised gloss corrects the original's assertion of a probable etymology, noting that the root is uncertain. It also corrects the original's inclusion of 'lamentation' as a noun, establishing instead that the term functions primarily as an interjection rather than as a noun in Biblical Hebrew.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology (strongly questioning the notion of a 'primitive root' and association with swelling), narrows the definition to avoid implications of pride, literal swelling, or 'crooked places,' and focuses on majesty and honor rather than physical or ethical elevation. It removes potential theological or translational bias tied to the idea of pride or swelling, emphasizing aesthetic, not ethical, grandeur.

The REVISED gloss corrects the ORIGINAL on both etymology and definition. It replaces Strong's claim of a derivation 'in the sense of eagerly coveting' with an admission of etymological uncertainty and notes only a possible connection to the root. Also, the REVISED gloss narrows the definition, emphasizing that the main sense is 'calamity, disaster, or misfortune,' with 'desire' being rare and context-dependent. It further corrects the inclusion of 'wickedness' or 'iniquity' as lexical meanings, identifying those as interpretative, which counters translation tradition and theological bias in the ORIGINAL.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's by rejecting the claim that הוּם is a 'primitive root' directly related to הָמַם, clarifying the etymology as uncertain and only possibly analogous or onomatopoeic. Additionally, it narrows the definition, indicating 'destroy' is not an inherent meaning but arises contextually, while Strong's lists 'destroy' as a gloss. These are corrections of both etymology and definition.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology, noting the root is of uncertain origin and not 'primitive' as the original states, and also corrects the definition by rejecting 'to be ready' and emphasizing the core meaning as 'insignificant' or 'worthless', not just 'light' or 'be ready.'

The revised gloss corrects the original in two main ways: (1) It challenges the etymology—original claims a link to חָזָה, but revised says this is uncertain; (2) The definition is corrected—the original includes 'to dream,' but the revised restricts the meaning to sleep/slumber, noting it should not be conflated with verbs for 'to dream' or visionary experience.

The SIBI gloss corrects the Strong's etymology claim by stating the root is of uncertain origin rather than definitely related to הָוָא. It also corrects the definition: the original's assertion that the verb is 'always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary' is contradicted, as SIBI notes that it is often a stative verb, sometimes functions as a simple copula or auxiliary, and is not always emphatic. The SIBI gloss also clarifies that 'beacon' and some listed meanings do not reflect the basic sense of the verb.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology, noting the root is uncertain and earlier assumptions might be incorrect, and removes the sense of 'injure' from the definition, narrowing the meaning to 'act as a stranger' or 'alienate oneself.' The original gloss's 'to injure' is therefore materially incorrect, and the etymology is also questioned.

The revised gloss disagrees with the original on both etymology and definition. It corrects the original’s assertion of oulam as apparently a variation of אוּלַי by stating the origin is uncertain. The definition materially narrows the gloss, indicating that 'oulam' primarily introduces contrast or reservation, correcting the Strong's inclusion of emphatic or causal meanings like 'surely,' 'truly,' and 'wherefore.'

The revised gloss corrects the etymology, noting the root is of uncertain derivation (contradicting Strong's confident 'primitive root' claim), and clarifies the definition, indicating that 'destroy' and similar words in the original are interpretive rather than primary meanings; the primary sense is confusion or panic. Thus, the original gloss is both etymologically and definitionally imprecise.

The revised gloss corrects the original by (1) noting the etymology is uncertain, rather than from a clear root 'to be sharp or strong'; (2) rejecting the specific translation 'chariot' as unsupported by Hebrew usage (translation tradition); and (3) narrowing the definition to 'weapon' or 'implement' associated with war, rather than the broader or less precise original gloss.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology by noting that the suggested derivation from 'Yishmeri' is speculative and not linguistically supported. It also disputes the certainty of 'Vashni' as a proper personal name, highlighting scholarly debate about its status as possibly a textual error influenced by translation tradition. This introduces both an etymological correction and addresses a potential translation tradition issue.

The revised gloss corrects the original by clarifying the etymology, indicating the root connection to Hebrew זוּד is uncertain rather than certain, and by correcting the definition—shifting the meaning from an internal state ('to be proud') to outward behavior ('to act with arrogance or presumption'). The revised gloss warns translators not to equate it merely with 'being proud,' emphasizing actions over attitude.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's explicit assertion of a "primitive root" by stating the root meaning is uncertain. It also narrows the definition, cautioning against overemphasis on moral looseness or specific renderings like 'glutton' without context, thus moving away from traditional translation choices and broadening the meaning to include insignificance or being lightly esteemed.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology given in Strong's, stating there is no clear connection to the proposed root and that the identification of the animal as a 'gazelle' or 'chamois' stems from later tradition, not linguistic evidence. It also narrows and updates the definition, moving away from Strong's identification as 'gazelle/chamois' towards a more probable, contextually supported identity as a wild mountain-dwelling ungulate, likely an ibex.

The revised gloss corrects the etymological claim that the root means 'highly-fed and therefore wanton,' stating this connection is unsupported. The definition is also broadened and clarified: the original gloss overemphasizes female agency, 'Jewish' anachronistically, and uses KJV-influenced terms like 'whore' and 'go a-whoring,' all of which the revised gloss corrects. Thus, disagreements are in etymology, definition, cultural anachronism, and translation tradition.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology by stating the root is uncertain and only sometimes linked to zarar, whereas the original gives a specific derivation. It also narrows the definition, clarifying that זֵר is not used for a 'crown' (royal headdress) but for ornamental bands, correcting a translation tradition/theological bias present in the original.

The revised gloss corrects the etymology, stating the root is uncertain and lacks clear Semitic cognates, versus Strong's claim of a primitive root. It also corrects the definition: 'wax warm' is not supported by the context, and the meaning should be limited to 'to flow or drip,' not to warming or melting per se.

The revised gloss corrects the original by questioning the asserted etymological root and narrowing the primary definition. The original assumes a connection with 'to move in a circle' as a primitive root, but the revised notes the root is uncertain. The original also broadens the meaning to include 'dance' and 'be giddy' as direct senses, whereas the revised says these are not primary but arise from associated activities. Thus, there are both etymological and definitional corrections.

The revised gloss corrects Strong's by rejecting the proposed etymology ('from an unused root meaning to take refuge') as uncertain and states the root is unclear. It also narrows the definition, clarifying the word denotes a physical rock cleft rather than a place of refuge, and removes interpretive association with symbolic meaning. Thus, the disagreement is both etymological and definitional.

The revised gloss notes etymological uncertainty about the precise link between the place name and the root חָדַד, correcting the original's implied certainty. It also corrects the use of 'Palestine' as an anachronism, preferring 'ancient Israelite territory.'

The revised gloss corrects Strong's explicit etymological claim by stating the root is uncertain and possible connections to 'chamber' or 'enclosure' are only tentative, rather than certain. Additionally, the revised gloss narrows the definition, clarifying that 'beset (as in a siege)' is not an inherent meaning unless contextually clear, removing a translation tradition bias present in Strong's. Thus, both etymology and translation tradition are corrected.

The revised gloss corrects the original on two points: (1) It states that the root is uncertain, correcting the claim that it is a 'primitive root' with clear cognates; (2) it removes the inherent notion of 'excitement or enjoyment,' limiting the meaning to urgency or quick movement. Thus, both the etymology and definition are materially corrected.

The revised gloss corrects two issues in the original. First, it disputes the etymology by stating that the association with אָזַל is speculative and not linguistically confirmed. Second, it corrects the definition by clarifying that 'memorial stone' and the implied meaning of 'departure' are not supported by the text, and that אֶזֶל is simply a proper noun for a location with no further lexical meaning. Thus, there is disagreement in both etymology and definition.

The revised gloss corrects the original's etymology, noting the connection with חוּל is questionable and the root is uncertain, whereas the original asserts this derivation. It also corrects the definition: the original includes 'virtue' and 'virtuous' as glosses, which the revised notes are not inherent to the term, removing a moral or spiritual connotation. Thus, there are disagreements in both etymology and definition.