BHQ silently supplies the marks in the vowel-then-accent order that is the consensus expectation, in clear contradiction of μL here. 32:6 is similar. In my opinion BHQ shows itself to be out of date by continuing to aspire, as BHS did, to reflect all such ordering quirks. I think the modern consensus is that these orderings are as meaningless as the variable length of ascenders on ל. Nonetheless, since BHQ still aspires to get these orderings right, it is fair for me to point out when it fails to do so. — U — M — μL (page 405B, col 1, line -9 (9 counting from bottom of column) (including 1 blank line in the count)):

μA (Aleppo) (page 277v, col 2, line 27, word 8):

μY (Cambridge 1753) (page 81A, col 2, line 8, word 1):

[p] ← prev   next → [n]