because of the interweaving he carried out: he will assign one and the same term a particular grammatical case in the primer and a different case in the commentary, and the like.” For that reason I ignored variants of this sort and limited myself to the vocalization found in the copies of the primer—unless the context of the primer remained unchanged in the commentary.

7 – I have established the text in line with the standard rules of modern orthography, without noting the manuscripts’ divergences in such matters as the placement of hamzas, or writing a tāʾ open or closed, and the like.

8 – When the difference consists merely in one word preceding another, I mention the variant only in the footnote and then add the phrase “by transposition.”

9 – If the manuscripts disagree over the vocalization of a word, I place in the main text the reading that is sounder and more widely accepted, and in the footnote I list the remaining possibilities, usually citing scholars’ remarks that support the preferred reading.

10 – If in one manuscript a word is written in two ways that differ by a single letter—for example, tāʾ and yāʾ, or nūn and yāʾ—I record in the footnote the form that accords with the main text, and then clarify that it also appears with both letters.

11 – The symbols found in the margins of the manuscripts have not been reproduced in their symbolic form; instead, I have written out the words they are meant to convey. For instance, the sign “kh, kh-,” used to signal reference to another copy, I have rendered as: “In another copy, on the margin of such-and-such.”