Chapter VIII: Book III (5)

_ga_ (nom.) 111;
(gen.) 112;
(acc.) 112;
(w. inf.) 129;
(in relative const.) 122
_ga_ (intens. w. pron.) 120
_ga_ (conj.) 148
_ga gotoqu_ (p. of similarity) 149
_gana_ (w. opt.) 126, 132
_go_ (hon.) 182
_goto_ (dist.) 120
_goto_ (nominalizer) 117
_gotoqu_ (p. of similarity) 150, 161
_guena_ (presumptive) 170

_ha_ (interj.) 168
_hat_ (interj.) 168

_-i_ (adj.) 116
_-i_ (imp.) 135, 136
{191}
_-i_ (v. root, 2nd) 134
_-i_ (irr. v. root, 1st) 123
_ia_ (excl.) 163
_ia_ (interj.) 168
_iai_ (excl.) 163
_iara_ (interj.) 168;
(w. disj. const.) 167
_iare_ (excl.) 163
_-iasui_ (w. supine) 156
_icani_ (voc.) 113;
(w. plurals) 113
_-i caxi_ (perm.) 129
_-ide_ (neg. ger.) 134
_-ide arózu_ (neg. plup. showing completed action) 137
_-ide aru_ (neg. plup.) 132
_-ide atta_ (neg. plup.) 132
_-ide canavanu_ (ending showing necessity) 155
_-idemo_ (neg. fut. perm.) 133, 154
_-ide naranu_ (ending showing necessity) 155
_-ide nochi_ (neg. ger.) 134
_-ide va_ (ending showing necessity) 155
_ie_ (acc.) 112;
(dat.) 112;
(prep.) 165;
(w. subj.) 127
_ie_ (w. neg. possibility) 153
_ie,uru_ (aux. of neg. possibility) 152
_iei_ (interr.) 168
_igo_ (w. subj.) 127
_-ij_ (adj.) 114, 138
_io_ (intens.) 163
_io_ (imp.) 125
_ió_ (p. of manner) 153
_io caxi_ (w. opt.) 126
_ióni_ (w. inf.) 129;
(w. quot.) 170
_iori_ (nom.) 111;
(abl.) 113;
(w. inf.) 130;
(w. ger.) 174;
(w. comparative const.) 161;
(w. relative const.) 122
_iori mo_ (w. comparative const.) 161
_iori mo nao_ (w. comparative const.) 161
_-i tomo_ (perm. adj.) 138
_-iú_ (adv.) 115, 156

_jibun_ (w. ger.) 130

_ma-_ (v. intensifier) 149
_macari-_ (p. showing modesty) 149
_made_ (prep.) 166
_made gia_ (p. w. no special meaning) 152
_madeio_ (w. perm.) 128, 133;
(p. of confirmation) 152
_mai_ (dist.) 120
_mai_ (neg. fut.) 132
_mai coto_ (neg. fut. inf.) 133
_mai coto mo arózu_ (neg. fut. pot.) 141
_maieni_ (w. neg. v.) 133
_mai mono_ (neg. ger.) 134
_mai mono vo_ (neg. opt.) 132
_mai qereba_ (neg. subj.) 133
_mai qeredomo_ (neg. perm.) 133, 155
_mairaxi,u_ (hon. aux.) 147
_mai tomo_ (neg. fut. perm.) 133
_mai tote_ (neg. ger.) 134
_maji_ (neg. fut., cf. _mai_) 132
_maji qere_ (neg. cond.) 139
_majiqu va_ (neg. cond.) 140
_mamaio_ (w. perm.) 128, 133
_maraxi,u_ (hon. aux.) 145
_mata_ (conj.) 166
_mata va_ (conj.) 166
_me_ (pejorative, w. pron.) 119, 120
_me_ (p. showing terminus of action) 117
_me-_ (feminine) 114
_mega_ (pejorative, w. pron.) 119, 120
_mexi-_ (hon.) 147
_mi-_ (hon.) 118, 182
_mo_ (conj.) 166;
(dist.) 157;
(advers. w. ger.) 154;
(w. subj.) 128
_mono_ (p. showing performer of action) 117
_mono_ (w. part.) 131, 134;
(w. pot.) 141
_mono de arózu_ (w. cond.) 141
_mono vo_ (w. opt.) 126, 132
_motte_ (emph.) 167
_moxi_ (excl.) 163
_moxi va_ (conj.) 166

_-n_ (pres., writ.) 182
_na_ (concl.) 163
_na_ (neg. imp.) 132, 137
{192}
_na_ (adj.) 115, 117, 138
_na caxi_ (neg. opt.) 132
_-nagara_ (ger.) 155
_nal coto mo arózu_ (neg. pot. w. adj.) 141
_-naide_ (neg. ger.) 134
_-naide cara_ (neg. ger.) 134
_-naidemo_ (neg. perf. perm.) 133
_nama_ (p. showing incomplete action) 148
_-nanda_ (neg. pret.) 132
_-nanda coto_ (neg. pret. inf.) 133
_-nanda mono_ (neg. ger.) 134
_-nanda mono de arózu_ (neg. perf. pot.) 141
_-nandaraba_ (neg. perf. cond.) 139
_-nanda reba_ (neg. perf. subj.) 133
_-nanda reba tote_ (neg. perf. perm.) 133
_-nanda redomo_ (neg. perf. subj.) 133
_-nanda ritomo_ (neg. perf. perm.) 133
_-nanda to_ (neg. perf. inf.) 133
_-nande aru_ (neg. plup.) 132
_-nande atta_ (neg. plup.) 132
_-nanzzu ró_ (neg. perf. pot.) 141
_-naraba_ (cond.) 139
_naranu_ (w. const. showing necessity) 155
_nari,u_ (pot. aux. w. adj.) 141
_nasare,uru_ (hon. aux.) 145
_na ... so_ (neg. imp.) 132, 137
_-neba_ (neg. subj.) 132
_-neba tote_ (neg. perm.) 133
_-nedomo_ (neg. perm.) 133
_negavacu va_ (w. opt.) 126, 132
_ni_ (dat.) 112;
(abl.) 113;
(prep.) 164, 165;
(w. ger.) 130, 134;
(w. cond.) 138;
(w. subj.) 127;
(w. supine) 130, 131;
(w. passive v.) 172;
(adv. form of _na_) 121
_ni iotte_ (prep.) 164;
(w. indefinite pron.) 121
_ni itatte_ (prep.) 165
_ni tai xite_ (prep.) 164
_ni tçuite_ (prep.) 164;
(w. inf.) 130
_ni totte_ (prep.) 165
_ni va_ (w. cond.) 139
_ni voite va_ (prep.) 165;
(w. cond.) 139, 140
_ni xitagatte_ (prep.) 165
_ni xitagóte_ (see _ni xitagatte_)
_ni xite_ (w. ger.) 130, 138
_no_ (nom.) 111;
(gen.) 112;
(w. quote.) 171;
(to form adj.) 114;
(in relative const.) 122
_nó_ (p. of confirmation) 163
_nochi_ (w. subj.) 127
_no gotoqu_ (prep., dialect) 166
_no iori_ (prep.) 165
_-nu_ (neg. pres., 1st) 131
_-nu madeio_ (neg. pres. perm., 1st) 133
_-nu maie ni_ (w. aff. meaning) 151
_-nu mamaio_ (neg. pres. perm., 1st) 133

_o_ (form of _vo_ after _n_) 171
_-ó_ (pres., 3rd) 135
_-ó_ (fut., 2nd) 135;
(fut. imp., 2nd) 135
_-ó_ (adv.) 115, 156
_-ô_ (pres., 3rd) 136
_-ô_ (fut., 1st) 125;
(fut. imp., 1st) 125
_-ô_ (adv.) 115, 156
_-ô coto_ (fut. inf., 1st) 129
_-ô coto mo arózu_ (fut. pot., 1st) 141
_-óda_ (pret., 2nd) 134
_-ôda_ (pret., 2nd) 134
_-ô fito_ (fut. part., 1st) 131
_-oi_ (adj.) 114, 138
_-oi_ (v. root, 3rd) 135
_-ô mono_ (fut. part., 1st) 131
_-ô ni_ (ger., 1st) 130
_-ô tame_ (ger., 1st) 130
_-óte_ (adj. ger.) 138
_-ôte_ (adj. ger.) 138
_-ô to_ (fut. inf., 1st) 129
_-ô toqi_ (fut. subj., 1st) 127
_-ô tote_ (ger., 1st) 130
_-ó xite_ (adj. ger.) 138
_-ôzu_ (fut., 2nd) 135
_-ôzu_ (imp., 1st) 125
_-ôzu mono vo_ (perf. opt., 1st) 126
_-ôzure_ (fut., 1st, w. _coso_) 151
_-ôzuru_ (fut., 2nd) 135
{193}
_-ôzuru_ (fut., 1st) 125
_-ôzuru coto no saqi ni_ (plup. subj., 1st) 128
_-ôzuru ni_ (plup. subj., 1st) 128
_-ôzuru tocoro ni_ (plup. subj., 1st) 128
_-ôzu tomo_ (fut. perm., 1st) 128

_qere_ (p. of confirmation) 150
_qereba_ (w. subj.) 133, 138
_qeredomo_ (w. perm.) 133, 139
_-qi_ (adj.) 116
_qiri,u_ (emph. aux.) 149
_-qu_ (adj. root) 138
_-qu tomo_ (adj. perm.) 138
_-qu va_ (adj. cond.) 139
_-qu xite_ (adj. ger.) 138

_ra_ (pluralizer) 113, 114, 118, 119
_-raba_ (cond.) 139
_-rare,uru_ (pot., 1st) 144;
(hon., 1st) 145;
(passive, 1st) 143
_-re,uru_ (pot., w. 2nd & 3rd) 144;
(hon., w. 2nd & 3rd) 145, 147;
(passive, w. 2nd & 3rd) 143
_-re_ (pret. ending after _coso_, see _-tare_) 150
_-reba_ (subj., 1st) 127
_reba_ (w. perf. subj.) 132;
(w. cop.) 138
_-redomo_ (perm., 1st) 128
_redomo_ (w. perf. perm.) 133;
(w. inf.) 130;
(w. cop.) 138
_-ri_ (alt.) 152
_ritomo_ (w. perf. perm.) 128, 133
_ró_ (pot.) 140
_-ru_ (see _-uru_)

_sa_ (nominalizer for adj.) 117
_sai_ (imp.) 126
_saie_ (emph.) 150;
(w. cond.) 140;
(w. neg. const.) 150
_sama_ (prep., dialect) 166
_sama_ (temp.) 154
_sama_ (hon.) 119
_saqini_ (w. neg. v.) 151
_saraba_ (conj.) 167
_sareba sareba_ (conj.) 167
_sari nagara_ (conj.) 167
_satemo_ (interj.) 167
_satemo satemo_ (interj.) 167
_sate sate_ (interj.) 167
_-saxe,uru_ (causative) 143
_saxemaxi,u_ (hon. aux.) 145
_-saxerare,uru_ (hon.) 146
_só aru tocoro de_ (conj.) 167
_sóna_ (p. of presumption) 170

_-ta_ (pret., 1st) 124, 134, 136;
(w. adj. function) 116
_-tacatta_ (pret. of _-tai_) 153
_tachi_ (pluralizer) 113, 119
_-ta coto_ (pret. inf., 1st) 129
_-ta fito_ (pret. part., 1st) 131
_-tagari,u_ (2nd & 3rd person deciderative) 153
_-tai_ (deciderative) 153;
(w. imp. meaning) 126
_-ta madeio_ (per. perm., 1st) 128
_tamai,ó_ (hon. aux.) 145
_-ta mamaio_ (perf. perm., 1st) 128
_tame_ (prep.) 164;
(w. ger.) 130, 134
_tameni_ (w. supine) 130
_-ta mono_ (pret. part., 1st) 131
_-ta mono de arózu_ (perf. pot., 1st) 141
_-taraba_ (perf. cond., 1st) 139
_-taraba iocaró mono va_ (perf. opt., 1st) 126
_-tare_ (pret. ending w. _coso_) 150
_-ta reba_ (perf. subj., 1st) 127
_-ta reba tote_ (perf. perm., 1st) 128
_-ta redomo_ (perf. perm., 1st) 128
_-tari_ (pret. writ.) 183
_-tari_ (alt.) 152
_-ta ritomo_ (perf. perm., 1st) 128
_-taró ni va_ (perf. cond., 1st) 139
_-taró va_ (perf. opt.) 126
_-tarózu_ (plup., 1st) 125
_tate matçuri,u_ (humble aux.) 147
_-ta to_ (pret. inf., 1st) 129
_tatoi_ (w. perm.) 128
_-tçu_ (alt.) 152
_tçui-_ (intens.) 148
_-tçu ró_ (perf. pot., 1st) 140, 151
_-te_ (ger.) 129, 130, 155, 183;
(inf.) 129
_-te_ (part.) 131
_-te aranu_ (neg. pret., completed action) 137
_-te aró_ (fut., completed action) 137
{194}
_-te aró ni va iocaró mono vo_ (perf. opt.) 126
_-te arózu_ (perf.) 124, 137
_-te atta_ (perf.) 124, 137;
(w. perf. subj.) 127
_-te atta reba_ (plup. subj.) 127
_-te cara_ (plup. subj.) 127
_-te coso_ (w. neg. meaning) 154
_tei_ (p. of manner) 154
_-te igo_ (plup. subj.) 127
_-te mo_ (subj.) 128;
(w. advers.) 154
_-te nochi_ (plup. subj.) 127
_to_ (gen.) 112
_to_ (conj.) 166
_to_ (w. inf.) 129, 133
_to_ (quot.) 168;
(w. adv. of sound) 163
_tocacu_ (disj.) 167
_tocoro_ (w. subj.) 127;
(p. of completed action) 151
_tocoro gia_ (p. w. no special meaning) 151
_tocoro no_ (w. relative const.) 122
_-tomo_ (w. perm.) 128, 133, 138, 150
_to mo_ (quot.) 170
_-tó mo nai_ (neg. of _-tai_) 153
_toqi_ (w. subj.) 127;
(w. pret. imperfect) 152
_tori-_ (intens.) 149
_tote_ (w. perm.) 128, 133;
(w. ger.) 134
_to tomo ni_ (prep.) 165
_to xite_ (w. ger.) 130
_-tta_ (pret., 2nd) 134

_-u_ (pres., 2nd) 134
_-ú_ (adv.) 115, 156
_-ú_ (pres., 3rd) 136
_uchi-_ (intens.) 149
_-ui_ (adj.) 115, 138
_-ui_ (v. root, 3rd) 135
_uie_ (prep.) 166
_uie iori_ (prep.) 164
_-unda_ (pret., 2nd) 134
_-ureba_ (pres. cond.) 139
_-uru_ (pres., 1st) 123
_-uru fito_ (pres. part., 1st) 131
_-uru iori_ (pres. inf., 1st) 130
_-uru jibun_ (ger., 1st) 130
_-uru madeio_ (pres. perm., 1st) 128
_-uru mamaio_ (pres. perm., 1st) 128
_-uru mo_ (fut. perm., 1st) 128
_-uru mono_ (pres. part., 1st) 131
_-uru ni_ (ger., 1st) 130
_-uru ni tçuite_ (pres. inf., 1st) 130
_-uru tame_ (ger., 1st) 130
_-uru tameni_ (supine, 1st) 130
_-uru tomo_ (fut. perm., 1st) 128
_-uru tote_ (ger., 1st) 130
_-uru vo motte_ (pres. inf., 1st) 128

_va_ (nom.) 111;
(acc.) 112;
(w. subj.) 127;
(w. inf.) 130;
(w. cond.) 139;
(w. other p.) 114;
(replacing other p.) 114;
(w. const. showing necessity) 155
_va_ (p. of confirmation) 149
_-vaba_ (cond., 3rd) 139
_-vananda_ (neg. pret., 3rd) 136
_-vanande aru_ (neg. pret., 3rd) 136
_-vanande atta_ (neg. pret., 3rd) 136
_-vanu_ (neg. pres., 3rd) 136
_-vazu_ (neg. root, 3rd) 136
_vo_ (acc.) 113;
(w. subj.) 127;
(w. neutral v.) 172;
(becomes _o_ after _n_) 171
_vo-_ (hon.) 146, 182
_vo-_ (masculine) 114
_-vó_ (fut., 3rd) 136
_voba_ (acc.) 112
_voi-_ (intens.) 149
_vo motte_ (prep.) 165;
(w. inf.) 130
_von-_ (hon.) 118, 182
_vôxe-_ (hon.) 147
_-vózu_ (fut., 3rd) 136
_-vózuru_ (fut., 3rd) 136

_-xe,uru_ (causative) 143
_xemaxi,u_ (hon. aux.) 145
_-xerare,uru_ (hon.) 146
_-xi_ (adj.) 116
_xicareba_ (conj.) 167
_xidai_ (prep.) 165
_xite_ (w. neg. ger.) 131, 134
_xu_ (n. pluralizer) 113

_-zaru_ (neg. pres., dialect) 131
{195}
_-zatta_ (neg. pret., dialect) 131
_-zatta reba_ (neg. perf. subj. dialect) 131
_zo_ (interr.) 156, 159, 163;
(temp.) 159;
(dub.) 162;
(intens.) 162
_-zu_ (neg. v. root, 1st) 131
_-z[~u]ba_ (neg. cond.) 139
_-zumba_ (see _z[~u]ba_)
_-zu tomo_ (neg. perf. perm., 1st) 133
_-zu va_ (neg. cond.) 139
_-zu xite_ (neg. ger., 1st) 131, 134
_-zzu_ (alt.) 152
_-zzu ró_ (perf. pot.) 140, 151

* * * * *

Notes

[1] Diego Collado, O.P., _Niffon no Cotoba no Yô Confesion_, etc. (Rome, 1632). For further bibliographic data cf. Johannes Laures, _Kirishitan Bunko_ (Tokyo, 1957). Cf. also [=O]tsuka Mitsunobu, _Koriyaado zangeroku_ (Tokyo, 1967), for a Japanese transliteration and concordance. It should be noted that the material in this work had no direct influence upon the concurrently written grammar. The only example in the _Ars Grammaticae_ which might have been borrowed from the _Confesion_ is on p. 23 where we find _doco de qiqi marasuru mo, sono sata va mósanu_ 'although this is heard everywhere, I have heard nothing of it.' which parallels the _Confesion_, p. 6, l. 18; _docu _[_sic_]_ de qiqi marasuru mo; sono sata ga gozaranu_ 'one hears about this everywhere; but, it doesn't seem to be so.'

[2] The bibliographical data on these and other works directly related to the study of Collado's Grammar will be found in the section on bibliography which follows.

[3] Other works by Collado have come down to us; cf. a memorial by him published in 1633 (Laures, _Kirishitan Bunko_, item 411). Such material is, however, only peripherally related to the study of language.

[4] For a brilliantly written biography see Michael Cooper, S.J., _Rodrigues the Interpreter: An Early Jesuit in Japan and China_ (Tokyo, 1974).

[5] The Press of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith was founded in 1626 when the Congregation was at the height of its activity. Grammars of the major non-European languages published during this period are:

_Date_ _Language_ _Grammarian_

1628 Syrian Abraham Ecchell
1630 Ethiopian V. M. Rearino
1631 Arabic Thomas Obicini
1632 Japanese Diego Collado
1636 Coptic A. Kircher
1637 Arabic Germano de Silesia
1642 Arabic P. Guadagnoli
1643 Georgian F. M. Maggio
1645 Armenian Clemente Galano
1647 Syrian J. Acurense
1650 Arabic Antonio de Aguila
1661 Persian Ignazio de Jesu

[6] Rodriguez' own work is strongly influenced by the format found in Manuel Alvarez (1526-1582), _De Institutione Grammatica, Libri III_ (Lisbon, 1572). So much a part of the training in the Society of Jesus was this work that an edition was printed in 1594 as one of the earliest products of the Mission Press at Amakusa.

[7] The palatal semi-vowel is represented, as in most the Christian materials, by a number of transcriptional devices such as _i_, _e_, _h_, and palatal consonants; e.g., _fiacu_, _agueô_, _cha_, and _xô_.

[8] See the translation, p. [82], n. 8.

[9] Collado's and Rodriguez' analyses agree in classifying the _ni-dan_ verbs and _suru_ into one conjunction, the _yo-dan_ verbs into a second, and the _ha-gy[=o]_ of the _yo-dan_ into a third.

[10] It should be recalled that the _Ars Grammaticae_ is numbered by the page and the _Arte_ by the leaf.

[11] See p. 14, under _Dos nomes adiectivos_, where the initial distinction is drawn between nominal and verbal adjectives.

[12] Rodriguez does not treat the substantive verb in _Arte Breve_, but refers the reader to his earlier work for its description.

[13] _Verbo pessoal_ as contrasted with _verbo substantivo_ and _verbo adjectivo_.

[14] Rodriguez defines this term elsewhere (_Arte_, 56) as the vowels, _A_, _I_, _V_, _Ye_, _Vo_, in that order. See also the introduction to the _Vocabulario_.

[15] This term, not found in the _Arte_, is applied to the entire complex of "spelling" rules which Rodriguez introduces into his description. While no clear-cut influences can be established, it is generally held by Doi and others that these rules are based upon _Kanazukai no chikamichi_ or some similar work. See _Kokugogaku taikei_, Vol. 9 (Tokyo, 1964), pp. 69-77.

[16] Latin _liquesco_, "to become fluid, or melt." Used here as a term to describe the palatal and labial series.

[17] This last phrase is to be understood in the context of the following passages which deal with euphonic change in the absence of a devise, _nigori ten_, to show voicing.

[18] Rodriguez used _Vma_ regularly in the _Arte_, but notes the variant _Muma_ on 178v.

[19] Presumably a reference to such variants as _Samurô_ for _Saburô_.

[20] _Liurinho_, presumably a treatise such as the _Kanazukai no chikamichi_, by Ichij[=o] Kanera.

[21] In this passage Rodriguez is suggesting that certain European grammarians, out of ignorance of native grammatical theory, have misinterpreted the formational rules; and that, perhaps for pedogogical convenience, he has retained some of these "unnatural" rules in his description.

[22] Read _Taxxi_.

[23] Read _tatesai_. The punctuation _Tateyo_. _Tatei_, _tatesai_, is in all likelihood a typesetter's error for _Tateyo_, _tatei_, _tatesai_.

[24] The conjugational display (27v) lists _motomuruni_ and _motomurutocoroni_.

[25] Rodriguez is here confusing the usage of the classical particle _ran, ramu_ with the construction _te + ara + mu_.

[26] In the conjugational charts we find:

_motomeô_ }
_motometar[vo]_ } _toki_
_motomeôzuru_ }

[27] The following notes are necessary to correct the printer's errors that occur in this listing:

a. In the perfect conditional of _Vabi_ read _bitaraba_ for _bitaraaba_.

b. The form _Fitobi_ should in all likelihood read _Fotobi_ 'to be wet.'

c. The forms _Fotobi_, _Fokorobi_, and _Fusabi_ are all given present indicatives in _bu_. There seems to be no reason for the ending appropriate to the classical _sh[=u]shikei_ to be used for these particular verbs and the _bu_ is taken as a misprint of _buru_. The _Arte_ (28) lists these forms as regular.

d. In the perfect conditional of _Mochiy_ read _ytaraba_ for _yttaraba_.

e. The form _Coru_ should read _Cori_.

f. It will be noticed in the final segment of this listing, beginning with Y, Rodriguez makes no effort to distinguish among _Kami-ichidan_, _kami-nidan_, and the irregular verb _Ki_ 'to come.'

[28] By this single rule Rodriguez brings the two _na-hen_ verbs into the second conjugation.

[29] Read _najûda_ and _nijûda_.

[30] Although the spelling _auogh[vo]_ would contain a redundancy it would agree with such forms as _aghuru_, _coghanu_ and _cogh[vo]_ found elsewhere.

[31] This use of the imperative reflects a purely formal solution to the morphological problem.

[32] Read _Yôdareba_.

[33] This rule, which consciously or unconsciously associates the future and the conditional, is also applied to the third conjugation, while the first conjugation uses the root.

[34] The future is the same as the present.

[35] This spelling of the final root consonant with a _c_ is irregular for verbs. Cf. _cakanu_ just below.

[36] The association of the negative with the future, and by extension with the conditional, suggests a keen awareness of the underlying system, particularly since the _Canadzucai_ rules to which he refers require the formation be made from the present. It should be noted that this rule is significantly more elegant than that which derives the negative from the root.

[37] The _ij_ in the original is the digraph _ij_, as elsewhere.

[38] Read _Redomo_.

[39] _Majij_ with the digraph would be more regular.

[40] A photostatic copy of the entire text has been made available by Shima Sh[=o]z[=o], _Rodorigesu Nihon daibunten_ (Tokyo, Bunka Shob[=o], 1969).

[41] [=O]tsuka's comparison of the Spanish manuscript with the printed version of the text suggests that many of the typographical errors found in our text are the result of material being too hastily transcribed from a more correct original while the work was being translated from Latin.

[42] This Reference is to _Arte_ of 1604-8. The _Arte Breve_, printed in 1620 in Macao, was not available to Collado.

[43] The _Dictionarium sive Thesauri Linguae Iaponicae_, which was in fact published at the same time.

[44] See the Introduction for the regularized usage of these symbols in the translation. (The transcription of _gacux[vo]_, and the _aia[vu]_ below, are at variance with the rule for the translation and are here transcribed as printed.)

[45] This convention is not transcribed in the translation (cf. Introduction).

[46] More regularly _synaloephy_--the contraction of two syllables into one.

[47] The geminates that actually appear in the text are; _tt_, _xx_, _zz_, _cq_, _ij_ & _pp_, as well as _cc_ (_cch_), _mm_, _nn_, and _ss_. Two appear initially _mm_, as in _mma_ 'horse,' and _zz_, as in _zzuru_ 'to leave.' The form _qq_ which would be phonetically equivalent to _cq_ is not recorded.

[48] This sequence is not used in the body of the grammar, rather the less phonetically accurate _ia_, _ie_, etc. It should be noted that the _Dictionarium_, which was written contemporaniously, does use _y_ for the semivowel.

[49] For _s_ read _g_. The _Arte_ (177v) discusses this phenomenon as being characteristic of vowels before _d_, _dz_, and _g_.

[50] Since in fact the accent has been carelessly recorded in the text--in places added in an almost random fashion by either the author, his helpers, or the printer--we have not included its marking in the translation. (Cf. Introduction.)

[51] The _Dictionarium_ has the spelling _fibicàxi_ in one entry and in the only other it is transcribed as above.

[52] Acts, 19:20. Referring to the servant in the parable of the pounds who is condemned for keeping his money "laid away in a napkin."

[53] The text uses _reduplicatiuus_, with the grammatical meaning of plural singular; e.g., the singular I with the meaning of myself and those around me.

[54] Both the _Dictionarium_ and the _Vocabulario_ have either _Nifon_ or _Nippon_, but do not record this form. It seems not to be a simple typographical error since the spelling is used in the title of the companion piece to this work, the _Confesion_, and since the text itself has _niffion_ and it is changed to _niffon_ in the _errata_. _Nifon_ appears on page 43.

[55] The _Arte_ and the _Vocabulario_ use the forms _goran_ and _gor[vo]_ in free variation. Collado here and in the _Dictionarium_ uses what appears to be the less phonetically accurate transcription. The Spanish manuscript has _goranjerarei_.

[56] May I submit this as a candidate for the most exotic bit of anti-semitism in Christendom.

[57] The text reads _funè-de_, and apparently Collado is attempting to indicate both accent and nasalization at the same time. He does not continue this practice.

[58] The text has _caper silvester_ 'the wild he-goat' presumably the _capreolus capreolus_ which is similar in appearance to the Japanese deer, _cervus sika_.

[59] While this rule is operative for _caij_, it creates difficulties after _x_. Rodriguez' rule is _ij_ becomes _[vu]_ with the example of _atarax[vu]_. Collado's rule would create _ataraxiú_. (Cf. p. 33.)

[60] Neither Collado nor Rodriguez make a clear distinction between the quantitative function of _no_ and the qualitative function of _na_.

[61] Collado usually make a clear distinction between colloquial and literary forms. He apparently is suggesting that these non-colloquial forms are heard in the spoken language. Here, not only is the style left unexplained, but the translation _faciendo bonam consultationem_ is less than ellucidating. Here the _ioqu_ is in fact adverbial.

[62] From _kobu_ 'to flatter.' An abbreviation of _kobita kotoba_, and used to indicate refined speech; i.e., that speech containing Chinese borrowings. See Doi Tadao, _Kirishitan gogaku no kenky[=u]_ (Tokyo, 1942, pp. 67-70). The term is also found in the introduction to the _Vocabulario_ in the expression _palauras Cobitas_.

[63] The text reads _De pronomine secundae personae_....

[64] This list, unquestionably derived from the _Arte_ (67v), has been in several ways confounded. The _mi_ is out of order and the second _vare_ is clearly in error. If we put aside the genitive forms from Rodriguez' list, the first four forms should be _vare_, _varera_, _vatacuxi_, and _soregaxi_. Rodriguez' second set consists of _mi_, _midomo_, and _midomora_. We would suggest that Collado meant to include _ura_, which is listed by Rodriguez as the genitive form _vraga_. I offer _vatacuxi_, _soregaxi_, _vare_, _varera_, _mi_, _midomo_, _midomora_, and _ura_ as the intended list, with the order of _mi_ and _varera_ reversed to accommodate the sentence which follows.

[65] The forms for the second person are derived from the _Arte_ (68). Throughout this section the accent marks are quite erratic. In several places, for example, Collado has _sónata_ and even _sónatá_.

[66] In the material which follows Collado has brought together items from several sections of the _Arte_; for the interrogatives see (65-65v), the indefinites (66), and the demonstratives (68).

[67] These reduplicated forms are not derived from Rodriguez' description and are apparently misstatements of the forms _care_ and _are_ which would otherwise be missing.

[68] An abbreviated form of _monomósu_; cf. _Arte_ (139v).

[69] Collado is here speaking with reference to the normal order in Latin.

[70] The treatment of the verbal system by Collado follows in a general way the _Arte_ (6v-54v). In the material that follows specific references will be made when a comparison of the two works is suggested.

[71] The text has _secundae coniugationis_. This error, which is repeated throughout the text, is not present in the Spanish manuscript.

[72] The text again has _secundae coniugationis_.

[73] This list covering the _Kami-ichidan_ and _Kami-nidan_ verbs is derived from a similarly defined sub-group of the first conjugation in the _Arte_ (28). Since the verbs _cabi_, _sabi_, and _deqi_ are in no way indicated as extraordinary in Rodriguez' presentation, I have amended the text to include their present tense form.

[74] The text reads for this gloss _fucore afficior_. The proper word is _mucore_ 'mould,' with the literal translation being 'I am affected by mould.'

[75] The _Dictionarium_ has this verb listed as _kami-nidan_, _xij_, _uru_, and therefore not exceptional.

[76] Cf. _Arte_ (7) where a similar list is presented.

[77] For the source of Collado's description of the future tense cf. _Arte_ (7v).

[78] The text reads _secundae coniugationis_.

[79] Rodriguez more correctly has this rule as the root plus _i_ or _yo_; e.g., _aguei_ or _agueyo_. The form _aguei_ is used by Collado in the construction of the optative below.

[80] This form is correct but does not follow his rule for the formation of the imperative (see note 79).

[81] Rodriguez has _baquemono_ 'evil spirit' and the Spanish manuscript _baqemono_, rather than _banguemono_ 'soothsayer.'

[82] Extracted from Rodriguez' version of a sentence in the Amakusa edition of Esop's Fables (p. 417). The original reads, _Arutoqi Xantho chinsui xite yraruru tocoroye, fitoga qite daicaino vxiuouo fitocuchino nomi tçucusaruru michiga ar[vo]cato tôni_,... 'One time when Xantho [Esop's master] was drunk, a man came and asked if there was a way to drink all the waters of the ocean in one swallow....' it is abbreviated by Collado in such a way as to obscure the construction.

[83] Also apparently extracted from the _Esopo_ (p. 477). The original has, ... _ri[vo]b[vo]ni tachiuacarete yru tocoroni qitçunega yosocara coreuo mite, futatçuno nacani vocareta fittçu jiuo totte cur[vo]ta_, 'when they [two lions] had gone their separate ways, the fox, seeing this from afar, took the sheep which had been between the two of them and ate it.' By changing _ri[vo]b[vo]_ to _nhóbó_ Collado created a less than satisfactory example.

[84] Modeled on _Iyeuo idzuru tocorouo cubiuo quiri votoita_ 'when he went outside his head was cut off.'

[85] Modeled on _Missauo asobasaruru tocoroye vôjei faxe atçumatta_ 'when mass was being celebrated, many came running and gathered around.'

[86] Apparently modelled after _Arte_ (20v) _nantomo voxiare caxi_ 'whatever you say,' with the imperative formation again confounded.

[87] Rodriguez (25v) specifies the location of this usage as Ch[=u]goku, Bungo, Hakata, and other _Ximo_ districts.

[88] This example, together with _so zonze na_ below, reflects the loss of a distinction between _z_ and _j_ which was taking place during this period.

[89] The text has _secundae coniugationis_.

[90] The _Arte_ (27) records here _aguenedomo_, _aguenuto m[vo]xedomo_, _aguezutomo_, _aguenebatote_, and _agueidemo_. Neither _aguenaidemo_ nor the participle _aguenaide_, below, are found in the _Arte_, though they are attested to elsewhere. Cf. Yuzawa K[=o]kichir[=o], _Edo kotoba no kenky[=u]_ (Tokyo, 1954), p. 626.

[91] This rule, derived from Rodriguez (_Arte_, 29), is misformulated by Collado. Rodriguez' rule is correct; change the _nu_ of the negative present to _i_. It is formulated correctly for the third conjugation, below.

[92] Collado's rule clearly confuses the formulation of the present with that of the future. Significantly in the _Arte_ Rodriguez never refers to the future forms of any verb other than his model _narai_. If Collado had had access to the _Arte Breve_ he would have found (41) the following principal parts for _vomoi_; _ vomoi_, _vomô_, _vomôta_, _vomov[vo]_, _vomoye_. The only other use in the _Ars Grammaticae_ of this form is on page 62 where Collado has the incorrect form _vomovô_. The manuscript does not record this form.

[93] Although Collado's transcription permits this rule to yield the appropriate forms, it obscures the fact that the final _i_ of the root is a vowel, while the _i_ of the imperative is a semivowel. Rodriguez' transcription better reflects the phonological facts; _naraye_, _vomoye_, and _cuye_.

[94] This completes Collado's treatment of the third negative conjugation. The two paragraphs which follow are part of his treatment of the substantive verb. There is no section heading for the affirmative substantive verb; and clearly a portion of the text has been deleted. The Spanish manuscript (cf. [=O]tsuka's 1957 edition, p. 45) includes a new section which begins by recording the following substantive verb forms; _ari:aru_, _gozari:gozaru_, _i:iru_, and _vori:voru_.

[95] Collado's presentation of the substantive verbs is obscure. The text reads: _Verba verò substantiua sunt_, gozaru, gozaranu, voru, uori nai, dea _vel_ gia: deuanai, aru:aranu, _vel_, gozaranu uoru ùôrinai, _&_ .... The translation attempts to punctuate the list to reflect the contrast between affirmative and negative forms. The main confusion is the apparent effort to contrast _voru_ and _vorinai_. _Voru_ (glossed by the supplement of the _Vocabulario_ as _estar_, and used in the _Dictionarium_ as the gloss for _existo_, _etc._) is not used by Rodriguez in the _Arte_. _Vorinai_ (unglossed in the dictionaries) is clearly defined by Rodriguez as the negative of the polite verb _voriaru_, which is derived by him from _von iri+aru_ (_Arte_, 165v). Possibly Collado had intended to contrast _voru_ with _voranu_ and _voriaru_ with _vorinai_ but confounded the two pairs and then repeated his error at the end of the list; or again he may, in the absence of Rodriguez' guidance, have simply misunderstood the matter. Putting the alternative forms aside, the list should read _gozaru:gozaranu_, _vori aru:vori nai_, _gia:devanai_, _aru:aranu_, and _voru:voranu_. Collado's treatment is patterned only loosely after the _Arte_ (2v-6v).

[96] Collado seems to be unaware of the irregularity of _vonaji_.

[97] Collado is following the general rule established on p. 10 for such forms as _caij_. He might better have followed Rodriguez who would transcribe _canax[vu]te_, as do we.

[98] The missing 'closed o' aside, Collado's transcription of this form with an _n_ is indicative of the clarity with which he perceived the nasalization in this context.

[99] Cf. _Arte_ (18v-19v).

[100] The text reads _cú vaau ni voite va_, with the errata changing the verb to _cuvazu_.

[101] This historically inaccurate rule is derived from the _Arte_ (18v).

[102] In the one example of this construction, on page 62, Collado has the form _tovazunba_.

[103] The original is in the _soro_ style; _I[vo]j[vo]ni voiteua uquetori m[vo]subequ soro._

[104] Cf. _Arte_ (19v).

[105] Here and throughout the section Collado transcribes as _ro_ the potential particle which should correctly be written _ró_ (cf. _Arte_, 11v). It will be noticed that all but one instance of the 'open o' on p. 35 of the text has been left unmarked.

[106] Collado has derived this list from the _Arte_ (45-47). His terminology is, however, rather misleading. What he classifies as _verba irregularia_ are those which Rodriguez considers deponent, that is _verbo defectiuo_, with the term _verbo irregular_ being used by Rodriguez for the adjective. Given this misunderstanding Collado begins his list with an explanation of the irregularities of _qi,uru_. This verb is on Rodriguez' list only because "it lacks certain forms in the affirmative" (45v). Rodriguez has a list of 43 deponent verbs, beginning with _tari_, from which Collado has selected the first 14 and then a few from the remainder.

[107] In the restricted context of an adjectival; cf. modern _arayuru koto_.

[108] Cf. _Arte_ (45v) where Rodriguez transcribes _vreyeyo_.

[109] Loc. cit. Rodriguez presents _vreôru_ as an alternative form for _vreô_ in the present tense and then selects that variant for the infinitive.

[110] Formation (_formatio_) is to be understood here in the sense of derivation, and diversity (_differentia_) in the sense of class membership.

[111] The opening paragraphs of this section follow the _Arte_ (68-70 and 96-108v). The list of particles, beginning with _maraxi_, follows 160-168.

[112] The text, here and in the next sentence, reads _secundae coningationis_.

[113] The form _dojucu_ is incorrect. It is taken by [=O]tsuka to be _d[=o]shuku_ 'a person living in the same house.' The _Vocabulario_ records the item _dôjucu_ 'a young boy who serves a priest.' _Dôjucu_ best fits Collado's translation.

[114] The text again reads _secundae coniugationis_.

[115] Cf. _Arte_ (160-164) from which this list and the following material have been derived.

[116] Throughout his treatment of the respect language Collado glosses his verb forms in the first person, even though that translation might be inappropriate to any context.

[117] Rodriguez (_Arte_, 162v) specifies the distribution of _vo_ and _go_, using _gosacu atta_ as his example of the construction in context of a Chinese vocabulary item. Collado does not refer to this distinction.

[118] The text reads _secundae coniugationis_.

[119] The text reads _secundae coniugationis_.

[120] [=O]tsuka (1957) suggests _maraxi_ is correct and alters the example. Since the list begins with _maraxi_, I assume the error to be in the citation.

[121] The material for this section is derived from the _Arte_ (164v-168).

[122] While the material for this section is drawn from various sections of the _Arte_, the bulk of the particles and their descriptions are derived from Rodriguez' treatment of postpositional (73-77) and adverbial constructions (112v-125).

[123] Rodriguez' list (77v) runs as follows; _vchi_, _voi_, _faxe_, _ai_, _tori_, _mexi_, _tçui_, and _voxi_. On the basis of Collado's examples _voxi_ should have been included in his list.

[124] Collado's transcription _qinpen_ is phonemically correct while being phonetically less accurate than Rodriguez' _quimpen_.

[125] Collado has altered Rodriguez' version from _Nippon_, even though the _Dictionarium_ glosses _consuetudo japonica_ as _Nippon catagui_.

[126] Collado, in the _Dictionarium_ and here, prefers _mmu_ to _uma_.

[127] This particle is not described in the _Arte_.

[128] Rodriguez (_Arte_, 116) records _Core coso yocar[vo]zure_ and states that in this context _coso_ has the same meaning as _Queccu_ and _Cayette_.

[129] Cf. the _Arte_ (117) where the list is given as _Reba_, _Ni_, _Tomo_, the potential, and _Te_.

[130] Rodriguez' version runs _Iesu Christo fitono vontocoroua_. (For Collado's use of _reduplicatiuus_ see note 53.)

[131] As the first example indicates, the _zzu_ variant is not restricted to the negative preterit, but is the form which appears for _da_ in all contexts, as here with the preterit of _iomu_.

[132] In the absence of other examples it is not possible to determine if Collado assumed the present tense form to be _iuru_ or _uru_. The correction here follows the spelling used consistently in the _Arte_.

[133] Both Collado and Rodriguez agree that verbs ending in _tai_ govern the accusative case; cf. _Nanigaxiuo yobitai_ (_Arte_, 14v).

[134] The text reads _secunda persona_.

[135] Rodriguez has _Vatacuxiua nantomo buchôfôde tof[vo] ga gozanai_ [... _buchôf[vo]de_ ...].

[136] Rodriguez uses the transcription _gor[vo]jerarei_ in the example from which this sentence is derived. (The ten other occurrences in the _Arte_ have _goran_.) The _Dictionarium_ uses only _goron_, while the _Vocabulario_ lists both _goran_ and _goron_. The Spanish manuscript has _goran_.

[137] Rodriguez has _mairade canauanu_.

[138] The _Arte_ has the plain form _mair[vo]cotode attaredomo_.

[139] The _Arte_ has _mairumajiqueredomo_.

[140] Perhaps an attempt to follow the rule, established in the syntax below, that states the _v_ of the accusative particle is lost after _n_. If this is the intent, the comma is in error.

[141] Rodriguez treats adverbs in two sections of the _Arte_; under the parts of speech (73v-77), and under the syntax (113-125). As has been observed in the introduction, there is little consistancy of classification between Rodriguez and Collado in this area of grammatical description.

[142] The interrogatives are derived from the _Arte_ (110v) and are presented in substantially the same order. The adverbial particles which begin with _uie_ are taken from (140-148v) and classified by Rodriguez as _posposiçao_.

[143] The errata has; page 50, line 10, _doco_ read _coco_. This would require the _doco zo_ above to read _coco zo_. It seems that the errata should have read; page 50, line 16, which would have corrected this error. The punctuation is not corrected by the errata.

[144] Rodriguez has the complete version; _Fitocuchi futacuchi c[vu] cotoua c[vu]ta vchideua nai_.

[145] Rodriguez uses _vonna_ for _vonago_.

[146] The material for this section is derived from the _Arte_ (74v and 76v).

[147] Rodriguez has _Ayamari nai vyeua_, ...

[148] For the temporal interrogatives cf. _Arte_ (89v-90v) and for the remaining forms 107-107v.

[149] Cf. the _Dictionarium_ under _cras_.

[150] The _Vocabulario_ has _sãnuru_ and _sannuru_ as the _ombin_ form of the attributive perfective _sarinuru_.

[151] Cf. _Arte_ (74v).

[152] The Spanish manuscript has _iya iya_.

[153] Cf. _Arte_ (74v).

[154] Cf. _Arte_ (75, 94v, and 123v-124v).

[155] Cf. _Arte_ (94v) _Quixoua ano fito fodono gacux[vo]deua nai._

[156] Cf. _Arte_ (95 and 141).

[157] Cf. _Arte_ (75).

[158] The _Dictionarium_ has a selection of a dozen intensifying adverbs listed under _valde_.

[159] Cf. _Arte_ (74v, 75, and 76).

[160] Cf. _Arte_ (74, 75, and 75v).

[161] The _Dictionarium_ also has the spelling _moxi_ which suggests that Collado perceived a different vowel quantity than Rodriguez who has _m[vo]xi_, as does the _Vocabulario_.

[162] The Latin particle is _nonne_, which expects an affirmative answer.

[163] Rodriguez, and consequently Doi (_Nihon daibunten_, p. 449), have _xidai_ for _xisai_. The original source is the _Esopo no Fabulas_ where on p. 493 the form is _xisai_.

[164] While the material for this section has been drawn from various portions of the _Arte_, Rodriguez handles the bulk of the matters dealt with here on 106v-108v and 140-148v.

[165] The text is not clear at this point. It reads: Tame, _significat ni vel erga: v.g._ ... where one would expect: Tame _vel_ ni _significat erga: v.g._ ... [=O]tsuka translates this passage as if it were the later, as do I.

[166] Collado has recast into the colloquial a quote from the _Shikimoku_. Rodriguez records: _Mata daiquanni itatteua ichininnomi sadamubequi nari_.

[167] The text reads: itatte _v.g._ totte.... where the _v.g._ is clearly a misprint of _vel_.

[168] Cf. _Arte_ (130-137).

[169] This item is the only one in this paragraph which Rodriguez does not list as a _casane cotoba_ on 134v of the _Arte_. Collado is apparently interpreting this construction as a repetition of two adverbs, as for example _coco caxico_. If so, the form should be spelled _vomoxirô_, _vocaxiú_ (if we follow his rule for the formation of adverbs from _ij_ ending adjectives). However, the form which he seems to be recording is more likely the compound adverb which is listed in the _Vocabulario_ as _vomoxirovocax[vu]_ and glossed as _contemporizando de boa maneira_ 'temporizing in a carefree manner.' The spelling that we suggest is derived from the attested lexical item without the application of Collado's formational rules.

[170] Cf. _Arte_ (125-130v).

[171] This interjection, together with _hat_ below, are the only uses of initial _h_ found in the description. Rodriguez transcribes the latter item as _at_ or _vat_ (_Arte_, 127) which suggests a close relationship between the labial and glottal aspirates.

[172] Rodriguez has _Benquei satemo yasaxij yatçubaraya_.

[173] Rodriguez has: ... _nituaye b[vo]no saxivorosu_. The entire passage would be, 'Benkei, seeing this, thought, "Oh, this isn't very important," and dropped the stick into the garden.' which Rodriguez explains to mean being sorry for not paying sufficient attention to a matter.

[174] The material for this section is derived from various sections in