In recent literature, the noun ܫܡܝܐ has been described as a singular in the book of Isaiah, ostensibly on the basis of the lack of syame. I will argue to the contrary, demonstrating that it should be described as a plural in this corpus. The key to proper interpretation of the form is agreement with other clausal and phrasal constituents, not the presence or absence of syame. In recent literature, the noun ܫܡܝܐ has been described as a singular in the book of Isaiah, ostensibly on the basis of the lack of syame. I will argue to the contrary, demonstrating that it should be described as a plural in this corpus. The key to proper interpretation of the form is agreement with other clausal and phrasal constituents, not the presence or absence of syame.