De Stefani condemns the reference to ἀμβλύς, after Reitzenstein, and as a matter of fact the syntax of the sentence is better if these words are removed. However, at the end of the the lemma ἀμβλύς in the Gudianum is a cross reference καὶ εἰς τὸ Ἀμπλάκημα (see ἀμβλύς / ἀ- + μῶλος), which means that the condemnation may not be justified. The etymology is found in Eustathius (see Parallels) who did not invent it. It may be a secondary insertion in the Gudianum. The word is parsed as a privative compound, meant for the specific use of ἀμβλύς as epithet of a weapon: the blunt weapon is not capable of wounding. The construction of the etymology is interesting: ἀμβλύς is the antonym of ὀξύς, and in the Gudianum it is given as such, ἀμβλύ, τὸ μὴ ὂν ὀξύ, but this is not the etymon. The etymon is provided by an inference "what is not sharp does not hit/ wound", and ἀμβλύς is given as a privative of βάλλω. There is a dissociation between the semantic relationship (blunt = not sharp) and the formal etymology (blunt = not hitting). In Eustathius' formulation the equivalence "sharp" = "hitting" is not explicit and the etymology given is the phrase τὸ ἀνάπαλιν τοῦ βάλλοντος ὀξέως "the opposite of "to hit sharply"", where semantics relate ἀμβλύςto ὀξέως and formal etymology to βάλλοντος. This dissociation between form and meaning in an etymology is not isolated (see χείρων / χείρ, θύρα / θύω, ἀκριβής / ἄχρι + βίος)