[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 _gorǒ_ 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 _ǔ_ with the example of _ataraxǔ_. 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.