The description is, of course, prescriptive. But given its age and its purpose this ought not to be construed in the contemporary, pejorative {4} sense. Collado, as Rodriguez and indeed all the grammarians of the period, felt obligated to train their students in those patterns of speech which were appropriate to the most polite elements of society. Particularly as they addressed themselves to missionaries, they wished to warn them away from such illiteracies as might undermine their capacities to propagate the faith. The description further reflects the traditional process conceptualization of language. This is particularly obvious in the treatment of the verb. Thus: _Praesens subiunctiui fit ex praesenti indicatiui mutato_ u _in quo finitur in_ eba.... (The present subjunctive is formed from the present indicative by changing the _u_ in which it ends to _eba_....) [p. 23]. In general each of the verbal forms is conceived to be the result of a specified alteration of a basic form. Likewise the nouns are treated within the framework of the declension of cases. The treatment of Japanese forms is based upon a semantic framework within which the formal characteristics of the language are organized. For example, given the construction _aguru coto aró_ (p. 31) and its gloss '_Erit hoc quod ist offere: idest offeret_ (It will be that he is to offer, or he will offer),' it is clear that the _aguru coto_ is classified as an infinitive because of its semantic equivalence to _offere_. The same is true of the latter supine. If the form in Latin is closely associated with such constructions as 'easy to,' or 'difficult to,' the semantically similar form which appears as the element _iomi_ in _iominicui_ 'difficult to read,' must be classed as the latter supine. Rodriguez in his _Arte Breve_ of 1620--unknown to Collado--makes an attempt to classify the structural units of Japanese along more formal lines; but in Collado's treatment the semantic, and for him logical and true, classes established by the formal structure of Latin constitute the theoretical framework through which the Japanese language is to be described. Collado makes reference to two specific sources of influence upon his grammar. The first is included in the title to the first section of the grammar, Antonius Nebrissensis. It is to this great Spanish humanist, {5} better known as Antonio Lebrija (1444-1522), that Collado turns for the model of his description. An examination of Lebrija's grammar, the _Introductiones Latinae_ (Salamanca, 1481), shows that from the basic outline of his presentation, to the organization of subsections and the selection of terminology, there is little departure by Collado from his predecessor. Even in such stylistic devices as introducing the interrogatives by giving the form, following it with "to which one responds," and then listing a number of characteristic answers; Collado is faithful to the _Introductiones_.