The standard lexica treat קלל as a single root whose physical core is "be light, slight, of little account" (BDB 886-887; HALOT; DCH 7), branching by stem: the qal and niphal keep the physical and evaluative senses (swift, abated, trifling, lightly esteemed), the hiphil is causative ("make light, lighten a yoke"), and the piel is factitive or declarative ("make contemptible, declare cursed"), with a passive pual "be cursed." Scharbert's TDOT article systematizes the semantics as the exact antonym of כבד: as כבד moves from "be heavy" to "be honored," so קלל moves from "be light" to "be of no account," and its piel to "revile, curse." Brichto's monograph is the pivot of the modern discussion, arguing that English "curse" over-translates a whole cluster of Hebrew verbs and that קלל denotes treating as insignificant rather than pronouncing a magical imprecation. That lexical thrust has been widely accepted (Scharbert; Schottroff, who likewise separates קלל from the heavier ארר; Anderson, who reframes the field through speech-act theory), while Kitz resists reducing ancient cursing to social insult and holds that curses were genuine, effective petitions for divine judgment. Comparative Semitic evidence supports the "be small, light" core (Akkadian qalālu with factitive qullulu "to disparage, treat with contempt"; Arabic qalla; Ethiopic qalla; Aramaic and Syriac q-l-l), but Akkadian carries malediction with an unrelated root (arāru), so the imprecatory sense of קלל looks like an inner-Hebrew or Northwest Semitic extension of the factitive rather than a Proto-Semitic inheritance. The Septuagint's spread of renderings (καταράομαι, κακολογέω, ἀτιμάζω, κουφίζω) tracks the same breadth, and the New Testament preserves both poles: Matthew 15:4 follows the Greek κακολογέω of Exodus 21:17, while Galatians 3:13 moves the noun קללה of Deuteronomy 21:23 into the ἐπικατάρατος curse formula. Two textual questions recur. The euphemistic substitution of ברך for cursing God (Job 1 and 2; 1 Kings 21; and, on the majority reading, 1 Samuel 3:13) is real, though McCarthy judges most such cases original authorial euphemism rather than scribal correction, against the traditional list of scribal corrections that McCarter and most commentators follow at 1 Samuel 3:13. And the doubled קלקל "shake, whet" together with the adjective קלל "burnished" is treated as homonymous by DCH and many commentators, while BDB keeps it under one root and reports Schwally's stronger claim (ZAW 11 [1891]) that "shake" is the original sense of the whole root.