The Blue Letter Bible does this (tacks vowels onto the root, but whatever), but I almost hate to suggest it because it seems like not a good idea without a larger perspective on the language(s) .... is this on topic, by the way?

@Susan In my answer to "What did John the Baptist eat?" I wrote ἀκρίδας and said this means grasshopper. You edited this to ἀκρίς for which I am grateful. I thought I had correctly copied the interlinear, but could easily have been mistaken.

However, when I followed the link for ἀκρίς this gave the meaning 'hil top' or 'mountain peak'. Can this be right?

PS @Susan: ἀκρίς does translate as 'locust' (as opposed to 'grasshopper') so maybe the problem is in the link rather than the word.

@Susan It seems like a tools question to me, which we sort of decided are on-topic.

@DickHarfield It's the same word. ἀκρίς is the base form and ἀκρίδας is accusative plural declension.

Thanks @ThaddeusB for your answer. I'm fine with this now.

I answered this question because it was such a simple question on language usage, and (as I previously discussed with Susan) I thought I'd like to become familiar with at least the basics of Greek so as to help me with my answers.

Answering simple questions seems like a useful way of becoming a little bit familiar with Greek, as long as I stay within my limitations. I was amazed to get so many upvotes, as I did not think of my answer as justifying upvotes at all - but there you are.

@DickHarfield A simple question deserves a simple answer. :)

@DickHarfield Right, what @ThaddeusB said. The longer story <begin useless blabber> is that dentals (δ, τ, θ) drop out when immediately followed by sigmas in Greek, so although the root is actually *ἀκρίδ, in the nominative singular (the dictionary form - also the dative plural), the sigma of the ending causes the delta to fall out, hence ἀκρίς </end useless blabber>.

If you’re learning a little Greek and might be interested.... the most common word that inflects like this that you may know is ἐλπίς = hope. In most lexicons, including LSJ linked, the entry goes like ἐλπίς, ίδος, ἡ (or ἀκρίς, ίδος, ἡ). That’s the lexical form, then the genitive singular ending (which ?always shows the root), then the article to tell you the gender.

On insects: locusts are the swarming phase of a species of grasshopper. The plague in Exodus 10 involved ἀκρίδα.

On the mountain peak: that’s ἄκρις with the accent on the first syllable, from root *ακρι = top, like acropolis....or the acromion process...or ἀκροβυστία...

Not sure why the LSJ link had that one at the top, but I couldn’t seem to make it do otherwise.

@Davïd Why oh why? .... but if you’re going to go to the trouble, answer?

I’d even upvote rather than complain about the comment.

@Davïd Yes, what Susan said - make it a full answer so we can upvote. :)

The raw text, to facilitate anticipated answer (it’s really already done): ...*[Akkadian Lexicon Companion for Biblical Hebrew](http://goo.gl/QVoHuH)* (KTAV, 2009; + [author site](http://hayimtawil.com/lexical.html) + [review](http://goo.gl/zpAJSv)). See also the *[Chicago Assyrian Dictionary](http://goo.gl/YPUYko)* ... and much else.

Meanwhile, the [OpenScriptures project's HebrewLexicon XML "union" file](https://goo.gl/uS3eDz) gives all the lexemes in BDB+. The roots to which lexemes are related are given as

<etym root="אבג" type="main"> entries for all roots. I [grepped](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grep) them, pulled the results into a spreadsheet, and removed duplicates. You can get the file with two "worksheets" (no dup's; raw) in either [ODS](https://goo.gl/L0dGly) (original) or [XLS](https://goo.gl/Wq5YIT)

Alright, ’tis done -- tools tag we have. (Should have been for rather than of, but alas, a 25 character limit, and retaining the full “biblical studies” seemed more important.)

@Susan It took me a full fie minutes to understand your "useless blabber", but I got there. Thank you. I'll store thataway in memory until it becomes useful and see if this old man can retrieve it intact.

Because I know you had never been tainted by hearing about these heretical ideas before. ;-) The assumption that actually is there is that the reader has a certain very basic level of knowledge of Isaiah scholarship. That's not really an ideological assumption though. I also assume people know how to read. Etc.

@DickHarfield Glad it was helpful. Lots of places where that same pattern holds, actually.

I'm glad that has a tag now. Then when someone votes to close because it has no source, I can be like - we have a tag for it!