For study reasons, I would like to find a concordance for the Deuterocanonical books + the Book of Enoch. Ideally, the concordance should contain the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic text with an a dictionary. It should look something like this: KJV w/ Strong's Bible or BibleHub's Greek Text Analysis.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find an adequate concordance for the Apocrypha as of now, let alone Enoch.
You will have to find the original text then copy and paste into a translator. It’s gonna be tough because it doesn’t work Word for word in translation.
Or send the original text to translators, pay to have it done. I am very curious about some parts of that book. Man those were dark times and those giant hybrids were pure evil.
It’s says “they began to sin against the birds, fish and animals” I feel they crossbred with animals.. thus the countless Sasquatch (ape) sightings, dogman sightings(wolf) mermaid sightings and even moth man.
There is a book on Amazon called Book of Enoch: Ultimate Study Edition by Aaron Miller (though I have not looked into it myself).
For the first time, a book of the apocrypha has been keyed to Strong's Concordance for the purpose of in-depth study of the original text.
(from Amazon's book description)
Dillman made a Ge'ez lexicon in the 19th Century
https://archive.org/details/lexiconlinguaeae00dill_0/page/n79/mode/2up
One suspects it may have been better for Herr Dillman if he had taped newspapers over his windows in a deluded belief that the Nephilim's spaceships would be landing soon. Mental health episodes like that are usually brief and benign, compared with making a lexicon!
Using a concordance across multiple languages risks exacerbating the great problem of concordances that they cram language into a false 'key' or numbering system.
አእርኩባት፡፣ : does not mean cameli feminae does not mean female camels does not mean גָּמָל is not Strong's Number 1581
All that can be done is to list some occasions where ancient writers in Ge'ez used the word in something like that way.
With Ancient Ethiopic and Aramaic the text corpus is too small for a lexicon to give much statistical confidence in words' meanings - we could have no confidence at all if it wasn't for brave lexicographers like Dillman. It becomes that the best way of reading those fragments is to compare them with the Greek ones - which is the work becoming a Rosetta Stone for itself. The situation with Ancient Hebrew is better. And the situation with Greek is much better - we've only lost 90% of their literature.
If the reason the OP wants a dictionary is that they are illiterate in all three ancient languages (and they will also need Latin for the scholiasts' notes and the lexicon!), the strong advice is to choose a translation and read that. What is wrong with R.H.Charles (1917)? What is being studied? What can we possibly study in a work that's incomprehensible to us?
The lesser problem of concordances is the way they become a commercial product for people who want to talk about a book they can't read.
That isn't just hazardous for would-be students: it also quiesces in a breakdown or blurring of the separation-of-functions. The reading should be someone else than the translation should be someone else than the interpretation should be someone else than the theology should be someone else than the historian-of-religion. Otherwise there is a conflict of interest, and more hazard of someone producing cult texts when they thought people might like a catchier verse translation of the Psalms.
But it has only been two years, so hopefully this link and these thoughts can still be of some help to the OP's magnum opus.
This Greek/Russian translation of the book of Enoch has its every word clickable and afaics with a concordance number. https://manuscript-bible.ru/OT/Eno1.htm
