yet another mistake in KFE1924

The maker of the 1924 Cairo edition evidently did not understand the function of the mutating small alif: it is not a vowel sign but turns yāʾ or wāw into alif — in other words, a letter that looks like a yāʾ is an alif (alif bi‑šakl al‑yāʾ). In early Warš prints the mutat­ing alif is correct­ly placed above the yāʾ; the Cairo edition, by con­trast, places the sign some­times correct­ly some­times not.
top: Warš prints; second: KFE; third UT0; fourth: Muṣḥaf al-Muʿal­lim, Tunis; 5^th Taj
It should sit above yāʾ, not after it. In Moroc­co this is always the case, in KFE it is some­times like it should be, some­times not.
Mikāl is dif­ferent from the others, be­cause Warš and Qālun (Tunis) have /mi­kāʾil/. While here there is a hover­ing sign and a tooth/نبرة/let­ter, in the other cases there is just one letter. What KFE and UT are doing is just wrong: they often have use­less tooth/نبرة !
This is the same scribal incon­sis­ten­cy, likely due to care­less­ness, that Otto Pretzl had already noticed.
I have added a last row in IPak. Here the dagger is neither a small alif, nor a mutat­ing sign, but a ā-vowel sign; it belongs to the con­sonant; the tooth/nabra is mute.
So, it is not only Abū ʿUmar ʿUbaidah Muḥam­mad Saliḥ al-Banki who does not care, KFE and UT are not perfect either.

Here the last words from KHO, MNQ and Arya­mehr. Yes, Otto­mans write the yāʾ with its dots even when it stands for /ā/, yes, Persians put the marks somewhere (in the right order, but whereever).
not convined yet?
Below is more to see: Algerian Warš: the mutat­ing small alif ON the tooth, KFC/UT Warš comme si, comme ça, UT-Ḥafṣ just bad:

/ṣalāt/ is not the problem, nor is /abnē/ UT-Warš – with them I just show that with wau and with end-yāʾ even UT places the mutating alif proper­ly: /mikaʾil/ has the /ī/ after the tooth – why?;
the rest shows that KFC/UT (and KFE before) write with­out thinking first; they have no idea were the mu­tat­ing small alif should be placed.

Here you see that the KFA was not con­sis­tent: the first row (all from al-baqara) shows properly placed mu­ta­ting alifs. In the second row the dagger have been placed on the left. On the yellowish back­ground you see that ʿUṯmān Ṭaha ori­ginal­ly copied the KFE faith­fully, on the white back­ground, you see that the King Fahd Com­plex in­structed him to place all mu­ta­ting alifs wrongly, see: /fa‑sawwāhunna/.
top rows (on brown: Mu­ḫal­la­lā­tī 1890) and last rows (La­hore 1935) show the Asian system: the dagger is a vowel sign!
Two more pictures from the end of the same sura. First you see the same pattern. UT0 is a true copy of the KFE, but later UT moved the dagger to the left: In the other hand, in 2:282 already the young UT moved the dagger to the left: BTW, the rasm expert Nº, a professor in Madina, someone who looks not so much at the very old Hiǧāzī mss. (as van Putten and I do), but at the same Kūfī mss. ad-Dānī (and the scholars after him) refer(s) to, wrote me that the mutating dagger should be placed on the nabra.

















–­

mistake corrected

An inconsistency made in Cairo in 1924 got remedied in Madina.
The typesetter in Būlāq made a mistake in 2:264.
ʿUṯmān Ṭaha copied it faith­fully.
It was first corrected in the UT pc set version of the State of Kuwait, printed in Khartum,
later in UT3 of the King Fahd Complex.
The hamza should not sit on the tooth.

Oh — actually the other way round. here as most of the time, the maġrīb makes it as it should be.

I want to look at the "problem" in a general way.

In 4:112 we have with /ī/, while in /riʾāʾ/ there is just a short /i/: after /ī/ the hamza sign hovers over the connection; when there is no /ī/, it sits on the tooth.

Above I mentioned that Otto Pretzl pointed out the inconsistency in writing /riʾāʾ/, but his point was that ad-Dānī has the hamza one the tooth.
And he was concerned by another group of mistakes. ad-Dānī writes the dual without alif, the KFE mostly with alif.

the first line is BnF arabe 328a

riʾāʾa ‒ sometimes like this; sometimes like that

Already Otto Pretzl had noticed that in Gizeh1924 riʾāʾa was not written the same at the three places it occurs ‒ without the authorities pre­scrib­ing that.
Iranians and UT2-KFC have the first hamza always after the tooth.
Muṣḥaf al-Azhar aš-Šarīf (Cairo 1978‒1986?) has it always on the tooth:

The others have it sometimes on, sometimes after the tooth.
In 2:264 it is normally on the tooth, except UT2-KFC and Iran.
In 4:38 it is normally after the tooth, except Taj-KFC ‒ probably changed in the next edition (1440h. it is still on the tooth).
In 8:47 all have it after the tooth except Muṣḥaf al-Azhar aš-Šarīf.