Nestle's own § (29), used directly — this is his section number, not a Nöldeke cross-reference; no Nöldeke § was confidently matched, left blank rather than guessed.
Consonant skeletons (form_unvoc) are read with reasonable confidence — the Serto letterforms are legible at the crop resolution used (2.6x, two-tile split per row-band). Full vocalization (form_voc) is NOT: the small triangle/dot diacritics distinguishing e.g. pthaha from zqapha from rbasa at this type size are exactly the class of mark this project's own house rule (reference_arabic-control-rule) says never to finalize by eye alone. Treat every form_voc below as a best-effort placement of visible dot/triangle shapes onto the (confident) consonant skeleton — proposed, not adjudicated.
| class | gloss_en | sg_abs_cstr | sg_emph | pl_abs | pl_cstr | pl_emph | uncertain | uncertain_note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I.a | king | {'form_unvoc': 'ܡܠܟ', 'form_voc': 'ܡܰܠܟ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܡܠܟܐ', 'form_voc': 'ܡܰܠܟ݁ܳܐ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܡܠܟܝܢ', 'form_voc': 'ܡ̈ܰܠܟ݁ܺܝܢ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܡܠܟܝ', 'form_voc': 'ܡ̈ܰܠܟ݁ܰܝ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܡܠܟܐ', 'form_voc': 'ܡ̈ܰܠܟ݁ܶܐ'} | ||
| I.b | foot | {'form_unvoc': 'ܪܓܠ', 'form_voc': 'ܪ̈ܶܓ݂ܶܠ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܪܓܠܐ', 'form_voc': 'ܪ̈ܶܓ݂ܠܳܐ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܪܓ̈ܠܝܢ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܪ̈ܓ݂ܠܝ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܪ̈ܓ݂ܠܐ'} | True | RE-VERIFIED 2026-09-02 on a second, tighter (3.2x) crop, prompted by the Nöldeke tier-1 mismatch below: the plural columns' diagonal yod-stroke is the SAME shape as row I.a's masculine -in/-ay/-ē pattern, not a distinct -āt- shape — confirmed on independent re-read, not a first-pass misreading. The open question is now LEXICAL, not a transcription doubt: either this word isn't the ordinary feminine reglā 'foot' (a different, masculine, word also glossed 'foot'), or Nestle's own paradigm treats it as masculine for some reason a Syriacist would need to name. Reading stands; still flagged because the WHY is unresolved. |
| I.c | sanctuary | {'form_unvoc': 'ܡܩܕܫ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܡܩܕܫܐ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܡܩ̈ܕܫܝܢ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܡ̈ܩܕܫܝ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܡ̈ܩܕܫܐ'} | True | m-preformative pattern (maqdš-); internal vowel pointing not confidently placed. |
| I.d | child | {'form_unvoc': 'ܛܠܐ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܛܠܝܐ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܛ̈ܠܝܢ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܛ̈ܠܝ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܛ̈ܠܝܐ'} | ||
| I.e | day | {'form_unvoc': 'ܝܘܡ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܝܘܡܐ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܝܘ̈ܡܝܢ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܝܘ̈ܡܝ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܝܘ̈ܡܬܐ'} | True | pl. emph. looks longer than the others (an -āthā-shaped tail), consistent with the known irregular plural yawmāthā 'days' — flagged because this is the one row where the plate shape and the standard grammar agree, so worth a second look in control precisely because agreement can also mean I unconsciously matched the shape to the expectation. |
| I.f | eye | {'form_unvoc': 'ܥܝܢ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܥܝܢܐ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܥ̈ܝܢܝܢ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܥ̈ܝܢܝ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܥ̈ܝܢܐ'} | ||
| I.g | sea | {'form_unvoc': 'ܝܡ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܝܡܐ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܝܡ̈ܡܝܢ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܝ̈ܡܡܝ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܝ̈ܡܡܐ'} | True | geminate-m root (ym / ymm) — whether the plural doubles the second radical is a real grammatical question, not just a reading-confidence one; base skeleton shows what looks like a doubled stroke, not confirmed. |
| I.h | rest | {'form_unvoc': 'ܢܝܚ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܢܝܚܐ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܢ̈ܝܚܝܢ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܢ̈ܝܚܝ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܢ̈ܝܚܐ'} | ||
| II.a | eternity | {'form_unvoc': 'ܥܠܡ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܥܠܡܐ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܥ̈ܠܡܝܢ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܥ̈ܠܡܝ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܥ̈ܠܡܐ'} | ||
| II.b | witness | {'form_unvoc': 'ܣܗܕܘ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܣܗ̈ܕܘܬܐ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܣܗ̈ܕܘܢ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܣܗ̈ܕܘ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܣܗ̈ܕܘܬܐ'} | True | sāhdūtā-shaped word (abstract in -ūtā, not the agent noun sāhdā 'witness [person]') — the gloss 'witness' may cover either the person or the abstract 'testimony'; base skeleton looks closer to the abstract noun. Flagging the lexical-identity question, not just the pointing. |
| III.a | banquet | {'form_unvoc': 'ܡܫܬܘܬܐ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܡܫ̈ܬܘܬܐ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܡܫ̈ܬܘܬܐ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܡܫ̈ܬܘܬ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܡܫ̈ܬܘܬܐ'} | True | Longest word in the table (mštūtā-shaped); the singular/plural absolute and emphatic columns look very close to each other in the image at this zoom — a second, tighter crop is needed before trusting the abs/emph distinction on this row specifically. |
| III.b | vision | {'form_unvoc': 'ܚܙܘ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܚܙܘܢܐ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܚ̈ܙܘܢܝܢ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܚ̈ܙܘܢܝ'} | {'form_unvoc': 'ܚ̈ܙܘܢܐ'} |
Portrait page, table fills the whole leaf; two vertical row-bands (I.a-h, then II-III) each split into left (Sing.) / right (Plur.) halves, read at 2.6x per band-half — four crops total.
Nöldeke's §70 is NOT a 12-class survey like this plate — one worked example (the adjective 'wicked') covering only the GENERAL state-ending pattern (masc. sg. abs/cstr bare, emph +ā; masc. pl. abs -in, cstr -ay, emph -ē; fem. sg. abs +ā, cstr +ath, emph +āthā; fem. pl. abs -ān, cstr -āth, emph -āthā). So this check validates ENDING SHAPES across all twelve rows, not lexeme-by-lexeme forms the way p043's verb check could.
CONFIRMED for the masculine rows (I.a, I.c-d, I.f-h, II.a): every one uses exactly Nöldeke's
masc. pattern (-Ø/-Ø/-ā singular, -in/-ay/-ē plural) — I.a's malkin/malkay/malkē is a textbook
match. I.e's irregular yawmāthā-shaped plural emphatic is independently explained by
Nöldeke's rule too: 'day' is a known exception that borrows the FEMININE plural ending onto a
masculine noun — the uncertain_note on that row correctly named this rather than silently
normalizing it.
⚠ NOT resolved, and arguably sharpened: row I.b ('foot')'s plural columns used the masculine -in/-ay/-ē pattern, but if the lexeme really is reglā (a feminine noun), Nöldeke's general rule predicts -ān/-āth/-āthā instead — a real mismatch, not just a reading-confidence gap. This tier-1 check can't settle WHICH is wrong (the plate reading, the lexeme identification, or an exception this table is illustrating on purpose) — it only confirms the mismatch is real and worth a second plate look before Step 3, not resolved by a memorized paradigm either way. II.b ('witness') stays open for the same reason — its abstract-noun-shaped ending doesn't map cleanly onto either the adjective paradigm here or a simple agent-noun pattern.