⭐ A SECOND LIFE BOUNDARY FALLS INSIDE THIS PAGE, in the same three-part shape as p. 88: · line 95 is SHORT and set to the right; it closes the Life of JEREMIAH. · line 96 is the two-word RUBRIC LINE, set alone: ܚܙܩܝܐܝܠ ܢܒܝܐ ܂ (Ezekiel the prophet). ⭐ Both words were read letter by letter in the text-keying pass, each re-cropped on its own at ~0.10 of page width, and line 96 carries these two runs and nothing else. · line 97 opens the Life of EZEKIEL, and ܚܙܩܝܐܝܠ is its first word again — keyed. So: lines 78-95 = Jeremiah · line 96 = rubric · line 97 = Ezekiel begins.
⛔ SQUARE BRACKETS ON THE PLATE, and the keying pass locates them exactly: printed line 91,
opening on the line's second ink-run (x 0.714-0.811) and closing on its third (x 0.595-0.694),
i.e. TWO word-slots stand inside the brackets. Per the shard rule these mark HIS EXEMPLAR'S GAP,
not textual doubt, and they are kept as printed in text_syr_voc — ܗܘܐ [⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩] …. They
must not be confused with the ⟨?…⟩ flags around them. This is the only bracket on pp. 86-91.
Nestle names no codex.
Read from the plate on this page, not inherited. NO vowel sign of either tradition appears anywhere on the page. What IS printed: (a) seyame over plurals, (b) the rish/dalath point and the qushshaya/rukkakha points on individual letters, (c) pause points (single low point, two-dot), (d) the linea occultans bar over the elided letter of enclitics (ḥwa, ḥu, ḥy, ʾno …), (e) an end-of-section mark where a Life closes. This matches Chrest. II (c079-1) and contradicts nothing: across all six pages of this shard (pp. 86-91) the layer is CONSTANT — there is no alternation of the kind Chrest. I showed by caput.
Th. Schermann, PROPHETARUM VITAE FABULOSAE, Teubner 1907 — archive.org prophetarumvita00schegoog. Latin version of the Syriac (cod. Sinait. syro 10) at pp. 105-106, leaf = page + 74 (calibrated on two running heads); Index nominum propriorum at printed p. 240. ⛔ The Latin Appendix is a two-page CAPITULUM (a summary list of 22 prophets), not the full Lives — SENSE-level control only, and a thin one. It catches a mis-keyed name or a meaningless sentence; it never adjudicates pointing and cannot be aligned page-for-page. See research/syriac-peshitta-editions.md
78-97. Marginal numbers PRINTED and READ in the LEFT (outer) margin: 80 (against printed line 3 of this page), 85 (line 8), 90 (line 13), 95 (line 18).
Conventions DECLARED for this piece (they must match r3/c079-1.toml); no
codepoint was read by eye:
· seyame → U+0308 combining diaeresis on the letter it sits over
· linea occultans → U+0304 combining macron over the elided letter
· single low point → ܂
· two-dot pause → ܆
· diamond / 4-dot / 3-dot end mark → ܀
· a full stop printed on the baseline → ܂
The qushshaya/rukkakha and participle points that the plate DOES carry on individual letters are
NOT transcribed — they are below the resolution at which this pass can be honest, and their
absence here is a KNOWN GAP, not a claim the plate lacks them.
⛔ Nestle's square brackets mark HIS EXEMPLAR'S GAPS, not textual doubt; where they occur they
are kept as printed.
FLAG FORMS used in text_syr_voc (they must match r3/c099-1.toml): ⟨?ܟܟܟ⟩ = letters read from
the plate but the word not certain; ⟨?…⟩ = one word-slot NOT read, with nothing asserted about
its letters. One ⟨?…⟩ = one MEASURED word slot, so the slot count of every line is right even
where the words are not. ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ was not needed anywhere in this shard.
⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܐܠܐ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܡܢ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܘܠܐ⟩ ܡܢ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܐܠܐ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܂ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܡܢ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܒܛܘܪܐ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܠܘܬܗ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܘܡܢ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܐܢܘܢ⟩ ܂ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܂ ⟨?ܘܗܘܐ⟩ ⟨?ܗܘ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܘܠܐ⟩ ܂ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܘܠܐ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܠܕܘܟܬܐ⟩ ⟨?ܗܝ⟩ ⟨?ܘܠܐ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܕܝܢ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܗܘ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܗܘܬ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܕܒܗܘܢ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܗܘܐ [⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩] ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܗܘ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܡܛܠ⟩ ⟨?ܕܠܐ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܡܢ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܐܠܗܐ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܠܐܪܡܝܐ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܕܐܪܥܐ⟩ ⟨?ܗܘ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܚܙܩܝܐܝܠ ܢܒܝܐ ܂ ܚܙܩܝܐܝܠ ⟨?…⟩ ܗܘܐ ܡܢ ⟨?ܐܪܥܐ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܂
NONE on this page. The foot of the page was cropped and read: there is no rule and no footnote below the last text line. ⭐ That holds for the whole shard — Nestle prints pp. 86-91 with no philological apparatus at all; the only apparatus is the marginal line numbers, the Syriac page numeral at the head, and the section rubrics.
keyed from the plate, UNVERIFIED: of ~125 word-slots (segmented mechanically, see reason), 18 keyed confident, 22 keyed and flagged ⟨?word⟩, the rest ⟨?…⟩. That is 32% of slots keyed. No line was wholly unread; lines 94 and 95 carry no keyed word at all, only measured ⟨?…⟩ slots. No Syriac-reading control exists for this piece.
⭐ TEXT KEYED FROM THE PLATE 2026-09-01, replacing this record's earlier "TEXT NOT KEYED IN THIS PASS". That earlier refusal was the wrong call — a page keyed at a measured rate with every gap marked is worth more to a ground-truth corpus than no page at all — and the method below is recorded so the next pass can reproduce and improve on it.
Three things made a keyed pass possible where the structural pass gave up:
1. Nestle's own Estrangela alphabet table (p. 4 = leaf n21) was pulled first and the BOLD
glyph in each cell used as the letterform key. Two traps it settles: taw is a bowl with a tall
right ascender (NOT "S"-like), and mim carries a left-descending leg that at line scale reads
like a final-nun tail.
2. Word slots were segmented mechanically, not by eye. A column-ink scan of each detected
line band, splitting on horizontal gaps of ≥11 px, yields the exact number of word runs per
line and their x-ranges. That is why the slot COUNT in text_syr_voc is trustworthy even
where the word inside the slot is not: the boundaries are measured, the letters are read.
Marginal numerals and specks were excluded by x-position.
3. Each run was then cropped on its own and tiled onto contact sheets grouped by run width,
so a two- or three-letter word is rendered at 6-10x instead of the ~2x a half-width line
strip gives it. This is what lifted the rate: the short runs are overwhelmingly ܡܢ / ܕܝܢ /
ܗܘܐ / ܗܘܘ / ܠܐ / ܗܕܐ / ܗܘ and the pause marks, and at that magnification they are
unambiguous. ⭐ Concretely, ܕܝܢ and ܡܢ are told apart by ONE feature: ܕܝܢ carries the dalath
point BELOW its first glyph; ܡܢ does not, its first glyph being the closed mim loop. Both
then run into the same long tapering final-nun tail.
WHAT IS STILL NOT KEYED: the long runs — the narrative interior, most place-names, and every word whose shape did not resolve to a word this pass could name. Those carry ⟨?…⟩, one per measured slot. A minority of readings are keyed but flagged ⟨?word⟩: the letters were read, the word was not certain. Every flagged reading is listed in the alignment table's diff.
⚠ THE HONEST COMPARISON: r3/c099-1.toml, the shard's quality bar, reached ~50% of word-slots keyed. This shard runs 46% on p. 87 and 30-37% on pp. 88-91. The difference is lexical, not optical — the plate is legible at these crops; what runs out is the reader's Syriac. The pages that do best are the ones dense in the Vitae's formulaic vocabulary (name rubrics, tribe and burial formulas); the Life of Ezekiel on p. 91 has least of it and keys worst.
⛔ No flagged reading was arrived at by consulting the Latin control or any translation. The plate was read first; the control was checked afterwards, and what it did and did not confirm is recorded in the alignment table's diff.
⚠ COUNTING NOTE for anyone who re-measures: a pause point (܂, ܆) normally sits inside the
preceding word's ink-run and is NOT a separate measured slot, so the token count of a line in
text_syr_voc runs a little above its slot count wherever a point is written. Where a point DID
stand as its own run (p. 88 line 45, p. 89 lines 69 and 77, p. 90 line 97) it is counted as a
slot. The slot totals quoted in status are the measured ones.
WHAT IS STILL OWED: verification by a reader of Estrangela, or an HTR pass with a blind control on a sample (cf. [[reference_arabic-control-rule]]).
⚠ RECORD REPAIR, 2026-09-01. During the text-keying pass a scripted edit truncated this file (a
string index matched the literal "[extraction]" inside the header comment instead of the table
header). The record was rebuilt immediately from the pre-edit text. Every structural field it
carried is restored verbatim — page numeral, line count, marginal numbers, layer, footnote
absence, prophet-section boundaries. ⛔ ONE THING WAS NOT RECOVERABLE and is declared here rather
than quietly reconstructed: the structural pass's own prose in this table's diff field. The
diff below is the text-keying pass's, written fresh. Where the structural pass had recorded a
finding, it has been restated below only if this pass independently re-confirmed it from the
plate; nothing was reconstructed from memory of the lost text.
⭐ THE RUBRIC AT LINE 96 IS NOW READ, NOT INFERRED, and both its words satisfy rule 2:
ܚܙܩܝܐܝܠ ܢܒܝܐ ܂ — the first run is 0.105 of page width and the second 0.100, each re-cropped on
its own. The glyph string of the first is ܚ-ܙ-ܩ-ܝ-ܐ-ܝ-ܠ. Line 96 carries these two runs and
nothing else, so the rubric stands alone on its line exactly as the structural pass said.
⭐ Line 97 opens ܚܙܩܝܐܝܠ ⟨?…⟩ ܗܘܐ ܡܢ … — the name repeated at the head of the Life, matching
the pattern p. 88 line 41 set for Jeremiah.
⛔ THE SQUARE BRACKETS ARE AT LINE 91 AND THEY ARE KEPT AS PRINTED. The bracket opens on run 1
(x 0.714-0.811) and closes on run 2 (x 0.595-0.694) — two word-slots inside the brackets, neither
of which resolved to a word, so the line is keyed ܗܘܐ [⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩] …. Per the shard rule these
mark Nestle's exemplar's gap, not textual doubt, and they must not be confused with the ⟨?…⟩
flags around them. This is the only bracket on pp. 86-91.
⚠ Line 95 (the short last line of Jeremiah) has three runs and none of them resolved; line 94 the
same. Both are keyed as ⟨?…⟩ slots. ⭐ Note also that no separate small run for an end-of-section
܀ was detected on line 95 — if Nestle set one there it is merged into the last word-run, so the
close of Jeremiah is NOT independently attested here the way the close of Isaiah is on p. 88
line 39. That is a finding, and it should be checked before anyone asserts a diamond at 95.
UNCERTAIN READINGS (every ⟨?word⟩ on the page, in line order): ⟨?ܐܠܐ⟩ (78) · ⟨?ܘܠܐ⟩, ⟨?ܐܠܐ⟩ (79) · ⟨?ܒܛܘܪܐ⟩, ⟨?ܠܘܬܗ⟩ (82) · ⟨?ܐܢܘܢ⟩ (84) · ⟨?ܘܗܘܐ⟩, ⟨?ܗܘ⟩, ⟨?ܘܠܐ⟩ (85) · ⟨?ܘܠܐ⟩, ⟨?ܠܕܘܟܬܐ⟩ (86) · ⟨?ܗܝ⟩, ⟨?ܘܠܐ⟩ (87) · ⟨?ܗܘ⟩ (88) · ⟨?ܕܒܗܘܢ⟩ (90) · ⟨?ܗܘ⟩, ⟨?ܡܛܠ⟩ (91) · ⟨?ܕܠܐ⟩ (92) · ⟨?ܠܐܪܡܝܐ⟩, ⟨?ܕܐܪܥܐ⟩, ⟨?ܗܘ⟩ (93) · ⟨?ܐܪܥܐ⟩ (97).
⚠ WHAT THE CONTROL DID NOT DO HERE: Schermann's Latin Appendix is a two-page CAPITULUM — one sentence per prophet — against 20 lines of continuous Syriac narrative. It adjudicates no letter, no point and no word division on this page, and most of the page has no parallel of any kind in it. Nothing above was read out of the control; the control was consulted only after keying.