[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_, _vomovǒ_, _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. Ōtsuka'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 _canaxǔte_, 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).