BDB (pp. 763-764) remains the fullest analysis, parsing roughly 520 occurrences as Qal 435, Hiphil 83, Hophal 2, with no Niphal, and arranging the Qal in seven bands: taking one's stand, standing still or ceasing, tarrying and enduring, making a stand in battle, standing upright as against sitting or lying, arising or appearing on the scene, and a set of idioms (עמד בברית, עמד בסוד יהוה, the Leviticus 18:23 euphemism). Unusually for a lexicon of its date, BDB flags four of those uses as late substitutions for קוּם. HALOT reorders the same data from concrete to abstract and supplies the comparative apparatus (Akkadian emēdu, Phoenician, Old and Imperial Aramaic, Syriac, Sabaean, Middle Hebrew, Jewish Aramaic); DCH vol. 6 catalogues subjects, objects and prepositional government exhaustively and adds the Qumran evidence (1QS, 1QM, 1QHa, CD), where עמד לפני אל and עמד ברית are frequent. The fullest theological treatment is H. Ringgren's TDOT XI:178-187; TLOT has no independent entry, handling עמד under E. Jenni's article on קוּם, where the classical pair is described as קוּם for the onset of rising and עמד for the durative condition of standing and remaining. Earlier attributions of a TLOT article to S. Amsler are mistaken.
On etymology, the reconstructed root and its nominal "pillar, prop" are uncontroversial; which semantic branch is older is not. Akkadian emēdu means "lean on, impose, attach," with nominal derivatives meaning "support, prop, throne-base"; Arabic has no verb ʿamada meaning "to stand upright" but a rich nominal system (ʿamūd "pillar, tent-pole"); Geʿez and Sabaic likewise preserve mainly the noun; and Ugaritic, which uses qm and nṣb for standing, registers ʿmd chiefly as a noun. Fronzaroli, Kogan and Huehnergard accordingly treat "be firmly placed, prop, support" as primary and "stand upright" as a Canaanite-Aramaic specialization, with the Hophal of 1 Kings 22:35 (Ahab propped up in his chariot) the most archaic-looking occurrence in the Hebrew Bible.
On diachrony, Kropat, Bendavid, Polzin, Rooker and above all Hurvitz document עמד absorbing functions of קוּם in Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes and Daniel: the parallel texts 1 Chronicles 21:1 against 2 Samuel 24:1, the idiom of Esther 3:4 discussed by Fox and Bush, and Daniel's dynastic vocabulary (11:2, 11:3, 8:23, 12:1). Young and Rezetko dispute the dating inference; Hendel and Joosten answer that accumulation rather than isolated attestation is decisive. Japhet and Williamson read the Hiphil of clerical installation as the Chronicler's administrative vocabulary. On individual passages: Collins, Hartman and Di Lella, and Newsom treat Daniel 12:13 as resurrection language, with Qumran's "standing in the lot of the holy ones" as background; Mullen, Cross, Miller and Kee analyse the divine-council idiom of Jeremiah 23:18 and 1 Kings 22:19; Meyers and Meyers read Zechariah 14:4 as permanent stationing over against the departure of Ezekiel 11:23; Hossfeld and Zenger, with Goldingay, read the עמד and קוּם of Psalm 1:1 and 1:5 as a deliberate contrast between chosen alignment and the capacity to survive judgment. On Daniel 10:13, BDB files עמד with לנגד under its band for rising up as a foe, beside the adversarial uses with עַל in 1 Chronicles 21:1, 2 Chronicles 20:23, Daniel 8:25 and Daniel 11:14, so the traditional "withstood" reflects the lexicon rather than paraphrasing it, and the participle carries the opposition across the whole twenty-one days. Collins, Newsom, and Hartman and Di Lella read the scene as conflict between the patron angels of the nations; Duniya argues from the length of the detention that the שרים are better taken as battle commanders than as courtiers pleading a case; Meadowcroft and, before him, Calvin keep open a human-political reading; and Walton objects at a different level, that the passage uses the ancient framework of national patron spirits as its vehicle without affirming it, a position whose lexical bearing is nil. The second half of the verse is textually disputed: MT leaves the messenger himself beside the kings of Persia, while the Old Greek and Theodotion read that he left Michael there, a reading Grätz adopted by emendation and Bevan rejected as a translator's guess.