al-muzzammil 20, page 775

In Kein Standard I show 26 images of prints by the Amiriyya and reprints, clones of surat al-muzzammil verse 20.
I started with the two copies held by the National (Prussian) Library: the first print from 1924 and a print with reduced margin from 1929.
American university libraries hold other copies. So here are page 775 from 1925:

and 1930:

van Putten's QCT again

"QCT" is a bad name for a bad concept.

bad name ...
because many of its letters are not consonants.
Aḥmad al-Jallad was kind enough to inform me that
these letters ARE con­sonants USED as some­thing else:
con­sonants "re­purposed", cons­onants func­tioning as vowels.

In my philosophy (and that of Wittgenstein II) this makes no sense:
words ARE what they are USED for = they have no essence apart from the way we use them.

But this is not very important.
Important is whether the text
we are dealing with
is purely con­sonantal.
And unlike all Safaitic, Hismaic, and Thamudic texts
the Early Quranic Text is clearly not purely con­sonantal.
van Putten's term QCT for the Common Early QT is wrong
because many of its letters stand for long vowels,
because many of its letters stand for diphtongs,
because one letter stand for end of word (alif after waw),
because many of its letters stand for short vowels,
‒ not only those that are marked in Giza24 by a circle (in IndoPak with no sign),
    but those seen now as seat/carrier of hamza.

bad concept
Marijn van Putten:

The QCT is defined as the text reflected in the consonantal skeleton of the Quran, the form in which it was first written down, without the countless … vocalisation marks.
The … QCT is roughly equivalent to … the rasm, the … undotted consonantal skeleton of the Quranic text,
but there is an important distinction. The concept of QCT ultimately assumes that not only the letter shapes, but also the consonantal values are identical to the Quranic text as we find it today.
As such, when ambiguities arise, for example in medial ـثـ ،ـتـ ،ـبـ ،ـنـ ،ـيـ , the original value is taken to be identical to the form as it is found in the Quranic reading traditions today.

When I look at van Putten's slide, I get what he means by "the Quranic text as we find it today":
Ḥafṣ without the "countless" marks.
The QCT can not be "identical ... to the reading traditions" ‒ because ‒ as I have shown before ‒ many skeletal words do have different dots;
skeletal words stand for different words ‒ they are identical to themselves, NOT to their brothers in another reading.
Here just some words from the first suras differently dotted for Ḥafṣ and Warš:
ءَاتَيۡتُكُم ءَاتَيۡتنَٰكُم (3:81) تَعۡمَلُونَ يَعۡمَلُونَ (2:85) تَعۡمَلُونَ يَعۡمَلُونَ (2:140) (3:188) تَحۡسَبَنَّ تَحۡسِبَنَّ (4:73) تَكُن يَكُن (2:259) نُنشِزُهَا نُنشِرُهَا (2:58) يُغۡفَرۡ نَّغۡفِرۡ (2:165) يَرَى تَرَى ترونهم يرونهم (3:13) (3:83) يَبۡغُونَ تَبۡغُونَ يُرۡجَعُونَ تُرۡجَعُونَ(3:83) (3:115)يَفۡعَلُوا تَفۡعَلُوا يُكۡفَرُوهُ تُكۡفَرُوهُ (3:115) يَجۡمَعُونَ تَجۡمَعُونَ (3:157) (2:271) يُكَفِّرُ نُكَفِّر (3:57) فَنُوَفِّيهمُ فَنُوَفِّيهمُۥۤ (4:13) يُدۡخِلۡهُ نُدۡخِلۡهُ (4:152) يُؤۡتِيهِمۡ نُوتِيهِمُۥٓ‍
Some other examples:
4:94
fa-tabayyanū
fa-taṯabbatū

2:74, 85, 144
yaʾmalūn
taʾmalūn

2:219
kabīr
kaṯīr

2:259
nanšuruhā
nunšizuhā

3:48 wa-nuʿallimuhu
wa-yuʿallimuhu

Yes, the rasm was not meant to be a naked drawing,
people did read it.
But to assume they read Ḥafṣ is just stupid.
Better a naked skeleton than a text fleshed out in ONE way.
It would be nice to have a COMMON Skeletal Text with all the dots,
on which ALL canonical readers agree
‒ which requires ihmal signs for rāʾ, dāl, ḫāʾ, final he, ṭāʾ, ṣād and sīn.
Just for those not familiar with ihmal signs:
for all letters V = two bird wings = لا can be used
for ḫāʾ, final he, ṭāʾ, ṣād and sīn a small letter (not unlike the little kāf in end kāf),
and for rāʾ and dāl a dot below tell us: not ǧīm, not ḫāʾ, not ẓāʾ, nod ḍād, not šīn, not zāʾ, not ḏāʾ!

al-rasm al-ʿUṯmānī vs. "al-rasm al-ʿUṯmānī"

Orientals have a well-established narration about the collection of the qurʾān
and its subsequent dissemination to the central cities of the empire.
Orientalists ‒ keener in scru­ti­ni­zing real old manu­scripts ‒ had the best time ever:
first came the quranic manu­scripts from the Great Mosque of San'a'
then came the realisa­tion that a couple of fragments belong together: that they had been one codex in the ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ mosque in Fustat before being dis­persed.
And after studying the famous palimpsest and the frag­ments in London, Paris, Peters­burg Orientalists came away "assuming/knowing" what Muslims had "believed/known" for a long time:
during the caliphate of ʿUṯmān the text has been stan­dar­dised.
So far, so good.
But the Orientalists made another discovery:
The early manuscripts were not written in the spelling known as "al-rasm al-ʿUṯmānī",
but in what Michael Marx calls "Hijāzī spelling" ‒ im­pli­citly calling the common "rasm al-ʿUṯmānī" "Kūfī spelling"
‒ although one finds some "Hijāzī spelling" ( علا for على
; حتا for حتى ) in Kūfī mss.
In order not to burry the ʿUṭmānic rasm Behnam Sadeghi comes up with a new concept: the mor­phe­mo-skele­tal text: never­mind the concrete rasm, as long as it is the same mor­pheme (David, thing, about, until) it is the same text.
I have no problem with that,
but I protest, when someone calls "al-rasm al-ʿUṯmānī" (fixed/dis­co­vered/in­vented about four centuries after ʿUṯmān) al-rasm al-ʿUṯmānī without quotation marks.
You can cling to ad-Dānī's rasm, but please do not call it ʿUṯmānic rasm, because it is not!
"belonging to the ʿUṯmānic text type" is fine:
Persian and Ottoman mss. have the ʿUṯmānic text, but not the "ʿUṯmānic rasm", and the ʿUṯmānic rasm is not known.