I also found the section (in Dr. Mustafa Zayd's book النسخ في القرآن الكريم) about the linguistic meaning of the word naskh to be lacking,
Dr. Zayd states repeatedly in his book that إزالة ("removal") is the only meaning of the word naskh. If I were on his advisory committee when he said that, I may have run this conversation with him:
L: May I have a look at your nuskha (copy) of the thesis?
Z: Sure. Here you are. (Handing me his copy).
L: I see that you acknowledge that nuskha means copy.
Z: Of course.
L: What are the verb and noun from which nuskha is derived?
Z: Nasakha and naskh.
L: So, naskh means copying, not removal.
Z: It means both.
L: So why do you say in your conclusion section, page 327, item 1272, that removal is "the meaning" of naskh? You even say that you are "correcting the errors made by scholars of deduction and scholars of the Arabic language!"
Z: I've shown the three schools of thought about this and I believe I made the point why removal is the only relevant semantic in the Quran.
L: But you just acknowledged that copying is a valid semantic, or did you mean that your copy of the thesis abrogates and removes mine?
Z: Not at all. You will notice on the following page, 328, that I discussed how more than twenty definitions of naskh have been offered in the literature and how Ash-Shaafi`i argued that removal is the only relevant one. I concur.
L: You have not made a decisive argument. All you did was weigh one argument against another and came up with one which you deem stronger. Other folks can go through the same exercise and come up with a different result. Do you agree?
Z: Yes, but they would be on shaky ground.
L: Should the issue of abrogation, which cancels rulings of God, be done by inconclusive analysis? Can mortals use induction to overrule God?
Z: Of course not.
L: I suggest that you acknowledge that naskh has more than one meaning, but that you are satisfied that removal is the only valid meaning pertaining to your thesis.
No disrespect meant at all. May God bless his soul.