The Life of EZEKIEL throughout; no Life begins or ends on this page and there is no
name rubric. Line 108 is short and set to the right — a paragraph break inside Ezekiel, of the
same class as p. 89 line 70, NOT a section boundary. ⭐ The keying pass confirms the reason:
line 108 carries only two ink-runs, and line 109 opens ܗܢܐ ܢܒܝܐ … ('this prophet …'), both
words keyed confident, with no one-word name line between them.
⭐ The continuous line numbering is confirmed across the whole shard: p. 86 = 1-17, p. 87 = 18-37, p. 88 = 38-57, p. 89 = 58-77, p. 90 = 78-97, p. 91 = 98-117, with no restart at either Life boundary (p. 88 line 40, p. 90 line 96). This settles the question the brief flagged: Chrest. III numbers CONTINUOUSLY like Chrest. II, and does NOT restart per prophet the way Chrest. I restarted per caput.
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
98-117. Marginal numbers PRINTED and READ in the RIGHT (outer) margin: 100 (against printed line 3 of this page), 105 (line 8), 110 (line 13), 115 (line 18). ⭐ CORRECTED 2026-09-01 by the text-keying pass. The structural pass recorded that 'these are the first THREE-DIGIT marginals of the piece and they are set hard against the trim, so the leading 1 is clipped on this scan', and fixed the reading from the 5-line spacing instead. That is wrong on this scan: cropped on their own all four numerals are complete and legible — 100, 105, 110, 115. What the structural pass saw is that the segmenter splits 110 and 115 into two ink-runs, because of the gap after the leading 1. The numbers were right; the reason given for them was not.
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.
ܡܢ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܒܐܪܥܐ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܕܒܝܬ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܟܕ⟩ ⟨?ܗܘ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܗܘܐ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܬܡܢ⟩ ܂ ⟨?ܡܛܠ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܗܘܐ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܡܛܠ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܩܒܪܐ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܕܐܦ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܩܒܪܗ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܟܕ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܡܛܠ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ⟨?…⟩ ܡܢ ⟨?ܐܪܥܗ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܗܘ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܐܪܥܐ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܗܢܐ ܢܒܝܐ ⟨?ܐܬܪܐ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܕܗܘܘ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܐܪܥܐ⟩ ܂ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܬܡܢ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ܗܘܐ ⟨?ܗܘ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܠܘܬܗ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܐܝܬ⟩ ܗܘܐ ⟨?ܠܘܬܗ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܟܠܕ̈ܝܐ⟩ ⟨?ܕܠܐ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܐܢܘܢ⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?…⟩ ⟨?ܐܢܘܢ⟩ ⟨?…⟩
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 ~121 word-slots (segmented mechanically, see reason), 9 keyed confident, 27 keyed and flagged ⟨?word⟩, the rest ⟨?…⟩. That is 30% of slots keyed — the weakest page of the shard. No line was wholly unread; lines 102, 108, 110, 116 and 117 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.
⭐ LINE 109 IS THE PAGE'S BEST-ATTESTED LINE AND IT CONFIRMS THE STRUCTURAL CLAIM: it opens
ܗܢܐ ܢܒܝܐ … — 'this prophet …' — two runs keyed confident, exactly what the earlier structural
pass reported reading there. That settles line 108 as a paragraph break inside Ezekiel and not a
Life boundary: a short line, then a full measure beginning with a demonstrative, and no one-word
name rubric between them.
⭐ CORRECTION TO THIS RECORD'S OWN line_numbers NOTE. The note said the three-digit marginals
are 'set hard against the trim, so the leading 1 is clipped on this scan'. That is WRONG on this
scan: cropped on their own the marginals read 100 (against printed line 3), 105 (line 8), 110
(line 13) and 115 (line 18), all four complete. The 110 and 115 are split into two ink runs by the
segmenter because of the gap after the leading 1, which is probably what the earlier pass saw. The
numbers themselves were right; only the reason given for them was.
⚠ THIS IS THE WEAKEST PAGE OF THE FIVE and the reason is worth recording: the Life of Ezekiel
here runs to long, unformulaic words. Only 9 slots are confident. Five lines (102, 108, 110, 116,
117) came out with no keyed word at all — every slot on them is ⟨?…⟩ with a measured boundary.
⚠ ⟨?ܟܠܕ̈ܝܐ⟩ at line 114 is the most consequential flag on the page: ܟ-ܠ-ܕ-ܝ̈-ܐ, seyame present.
If it is right it is the Chaldeans, and the Ezekiel-in-the-captivity material begins here. It was
read from the plate; the capitulum's item XIII ('Ezechiel fuit in captivitate, quam cepit
Nabuchodonosor') is consistent with it but was NOT used to reach it.
UNCERTAIN READINGS (every ⟨?word⟩ on the page, in line order): ⟨?ܒܐܪܥܐ⟩ (98) · ⟨?ܕܒܝܬ⟩, ⟨?ܟܕ⟩ (99) · ⟨?ܗܘ⟩, ⟨?ܬܡܢ⟩ (100) · ⟨?ܡܛܠ⟩ ×2 (101) · ⟨?ܩܒܪܐ⟩ (103) · ⟨?ܕܐܦ⟩ (104) · ⟨?ܩܒܪܗ⟩ (105) · ⟨?ܟܕ⟩, ⟨?ܡܛܠ⟩ (106) · ⟨?ܐܪܥܗ⟩, ⟨?ܗܘ⟩, ⟨?ܐܪܥܐ⟩ (107) · ⟨?ܐܬܪܐ⟩, ⟨?ܕܗܘܘ⟩ (109) · ⟨?ܐܪܥܐ⟩ (111) · ⟨?ܬܡܢ⟩, ⟨?ܗܘ⟩ (112) · ⟨?ܠܘܬܗ⟩ (113) · ⟨?ܐܝܬ⟩, ⟨?ܠܘܬܗ⟩, ⟨?ܟܠܕ̈ܝܐ⟩, ⟨?ܕܠܐ⟩ (114) · ⟨?ܐܢܘܢ⟩ (115) · ⟨?ܐܢܘܢ⟩ (117).
⚠ 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.