[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 Ōtsuka 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 theArs Grammaticaewhich might have been borrowed from theConfesionis on p. 23 where we finddoco de qiqi marasuru mo, sono sata va mósanu'although this is heard everywhere, I have heard nothing of it.' which parallels theConfesion, 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:1628SyrianAbraham Ecchell1630EthiopianV. M. Rearino1631ArabicThomas Obicini1632JapaneseDiego Collado1636CopticA. Kircher1637ArabicGermano de Silesia1642ArabicP. Guadagnoli1643GeorgianF. M. Maggio1645ArmenianClemente Galano1647SyrianJ. Acurense1650ArabicAntonio de Aguila1661PersianIgnazio 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 asi,e,h, and palatal consonants; e.g.,fiacu,agueô,cha, andxô.[8]See the translation, p. [82], n. 8.[9]Collado's and Rodriguez' analyses agree in classifying theni-danverbs andsuruinto one conjunction, theyo-danverbs into a second, and theha-gyōof theyo-daninto a third.[10]It should be recalled that theArs Grammaticaeis numbered by the page and theArteby the leaf.[11]See p. 14, underDos nomes adiectivos, where the initial distinction is drawn between nominal and verbal adjectives.[12]Rodriguez does not treat the substantive verb inArte Breve, but refers the reader to his earlier work for its description.[13]Verbo pessoalas contrasted withverbo substantivoandverbo 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 theVocabulario.[15]This term, not found in theArte, 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 uponKanazukai no chikamichior some similar work. SeeKokugogaku taikei, Vol. 9 (Tokyo, 1964), pp. 69-77.[16]Latinliquesco, "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 usedVmaregularly in theArte, but notes the variantMumaon 178v.[19]Presumably a reference to such variants asSamurôforSaburô.[20]Liurinho, presumably a treatise such as theKanazukai no chikamichi, by Ichijō 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]ReadTaxxi.[23]Readtatesai. The punctuationTateyo.Tatei,tatesai, is in all likelihood a typesetter's error forTateyo,tatei,tatesai.[24]The conjugational display (27v) listsmotomuruniandmotomurutocoroni.[25]Rodriguez is here confusing the usage of the classical particleran, ramuwith the constructionte + ara + mu.[26]In the conjugational charts we find:motomeômotometarǒmotomeôzururight bracetoki[27]The following notes are necessary to correct the printer's errors that occur in this listing:a. In the perfect conditional ofVabireadbitarabaforbitaraaba.b. The formFitobishould in all likelihood readFotobi'to be wet.'c. The formsFotobi,Fokorobi, andFusabiare all given present indicatives inbu. There seems to be no reason for the ending appropriate to the classicalshūshikeito be used for these particular verbs and thebuis taken as a misprint ofburu. TheArte(28) lists these forms as regular.d. In the perfect conditional ofMochiyreadytarabaforyttaraba.e. The formCorushould readCori.f. It will be noticed in the final segment of this listing, beginning with Y, Rodriguez makes no effort to distinguish amongKami-ichidan,kami-nidan, and the irregular verbKi'to come.'[28]By this single rule Rodriguez brings the twona-henverbs into the second conjugation.[29]Readnajûdaandnijûda.[30]Although the spellingauoghǒwould contain a redundancy it would agree with such forms asaghuru,coghanuandcoghǒfound elsewhere.[31]This use of the imperative reflects a purely formal solution to the morphological problem.[32]ReadYôdareba.[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 acis irregular for verbs. Cf.cakanujust 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 theCanadzucairules 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]Theijin the original is the digraphij, as elsewhere.[38]ReadRedomo.[39]Majijwith the digraph would be more regular.[40]A photostatic copy of the entire text has been made available by Shima Shōzō,Rodorigesu Nihon daibunten(Tokyo, Bunka Shobō, 1969).[41]Ōtsuka'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 toArteof 1604-8. TheArte Breve, printed in 1620 in Macao, was not available to Collado.[43]TheDictionarium 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 ofgacuxǒ, and theaiaǔbelow, 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 regularlysynaloephy—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 ascc(cch),mm,nn, andss. Two appear initiallymm, as inmma'horse,' andzz, as inzzuru'to leave.' The formqqwhich would be phonetically equivalent tocqis not recorded.[48]This sequence is not used in the body of the grammar, rather the less phonetically accurateia,ie, etc. It should be noted that theDictionarium, which was written contemporaniously, does useyfor the semivowel.[49]Forsreadg. TheArte(177v) discusses this phenomenon as being characteristic of vowels befored,dz, andg.[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]TheDictionariumhas the spellingfibicàxiin 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 usesreduplicatiuus, with the grammatical meaning of plural singular; e.g., the singular I with the meaning of myself and those around me.[54]Both theDictionariumand theVocabulariohave eitherNifonorNippon, 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, theConfesion, and since the text itself hasniffionand it is changed toniffonin theerrata.Nifonappears on page 43.[55]TheArteand theVocabulariouse the formsgoranandgorǒin free variation. Collado here and in theDictionariumuses what appears to be the less phonetically accurate transcription. The Spanish manuscript hasgoranjerarei.[56]May I submit this as a candidate for the most exotic bit of anti-semitism in Christendom.[57]The text readsfunè-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 hascaper silvester'the wild he-goat' presumably thecapreolus capreoluswhich is similar in appearance to the Japanese deer,cervus sika.[59]While this rule is operative forcaij, it creates difficulties afterx. Rodriguez' rule isijbecomesǔwith the example ofataraxǔ. Collado's rule would createataraxiú. (Cf. p. 33.)[60]Neither Collado nor Rodriguez make a clear distinction between the quantitative function ofnoand the qualitative function ofna.[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 translationfaciendo bonam consultationemis less than ellucidating. Here theioquis in fact adverbial.[62]Fromkobu'to flatter.' An abbreviation ofkobita kotoba, and used to indicate refined speech; i.e., that speech containing Chinese borrowings. See Doi Tadao,Kirishitan gogaku no kenkyū(Tokyo, 1942, pp. 67-70). The term is also found in the introduction to theVocabularioin the expressionpalauras Cobitas.[63]The text readsDe pronomine secundae personae....[64]This list, unquestionably derived from theArte(67v), has been in several ways confounded. Themiis out of order and the secondvareis clearly in error. If we put aside the genitive forms from Rodriguez' list, the first four forms should bevare,varera,vatacuxi, andsoregaxi. Rodriguez' second set consists ofmi,midomo, andmidomora. We would suggest that Collado meant to includeura, which is listed by Rodriguez as the genitive formvraga. I offervatacuxi,soregaxi,vare,varera,mi,midomo,midomora, anduraas the intended list, with the order ofmiandvarerareversed to accommodate the sentence which follows.[65]The forms for the second person are derived from theArte(68). Throughout this section the accent marks are quite erratic. In several places, for example, Collado hassónataand evensónatá.[66]In the material which follows Collado has brought together items from several sections of theArte; 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 formscareandarewhich would otherwise be missing.[68]An abbreviated form ofmonomósu; 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 theArte(6v-54v). In the material that follows specific references will be made when a comparison of the two works is suggested.[71]The text hassecundae coniugationis. This error, which is repeated throughout the text, is not present in the Spanish manuscript.[72]The text again hassecundae coniugationis.[73]This list covering theKami-ichidanandKami-nidanverbs is derived from a similarly defined sub-group of the first conjugation in theArte(28). Since the verbscabi,sabi, anddeqiare 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 glossfucore afficior. The proper word ismucore'mould,' with the literal translation being 'I am affected by mould.'[75]TheDictionariumhas this verb listed askami-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 readssecundae coniugationis.[79]Rodriguez more correctly has this rule as the root plusioryo; e.g.,agueioragueyo. The formagueiis 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 hasbaquemono'evil spirit' and the Spanish manuscriptbaqemono, rather thanbanguemono'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 arǒcato 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 theEsopo(p. 477). The original has, ...riǒbǒni tachiuacarete yru tocoroni qitçunega yosocara coreuo mite, futatçuno nacani vocareta fittçu jiuo totte curǒta, '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 changingriǒbǒtonhóbóCollado created a less than satisfactory example.[84]Modeled onIyeuo idzuru tocorouo cubiuo quiri votoita'when he went outside his head was cut off.'[85]Modeled onMissauo asobasaruru tocoroye vôjei faxe atçumatta'when mass was being celebrated, many came running and gathered around.'[86]Apparently modelled afterArte(20v)nantomo voxiare caxi'whatever you say,' with the imperative formation again confounded.[87]Rodriguez (25v) specifies the location of this usage as Chūgoku, Bungo, Hakata, and otherXimodistricts.[88]This example, together withso zonze nabelow, reflects the loss of a distinction betweenzandjwhich was taking place during this period.[89]The text hassecundae coniugationis.[90]TheArte(27) records hereaguenedomo,aguenuto mǒxedomo,aguezutomo,aguenebatote, andagueidemo. Neitheraguenaidemonor the participleaguenaide, below, are found in theArte, though they are attested to elsewhere. Cf. Yuzawa Kōkichirō,Edo kotoba no kenkyū(Tokyo, 1954), p. 626.[91]This rule, derived from Rodriguez (Arte, 29), is misformulated by Collado. Rodriguez' rule is correct; change thenuof the negative present toi. 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 theArteRodriguez never refers to the future forms of any verb other than his modelnarai. If Collado had had access to theArte Brevehe would have found (41) the following principal parts forvomoi;vomoi,vomô,vomôta,vomovǒ,vomoye. The only other use in theArs Grammaticaeof this form is on page62where Collado has the incorrect formvomovô. 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 finaliof the root is a vowel, while theiof the imperative is a semivowel. Rodriguez' transcription better reflects the phonological facts;naraye,vomoye, andcuye.[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, andvori:voru.[95]Collado's presentation of the substantive verbs is obscure. The text reads:Verba verò substantiua sunt, gozaru, gozaranu, voru, uori nai, deavelgia: 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 contrastvoruandvorinai.Voru(glossed by the supplement of theVocabularioasestar, and used in theDictionariumas the gloss forexisto,etc.) is not used by Rodriguez in theArte.Vorinai(unglossed in the dictionaries) is clearly defined by Rodriguez as the negative of the polite verbvoriaru, which is derived by him fromvon iri+aru(Arte, 165v). Possibly Collado had intended to contrastvoruwithvoranuandvoriaruwithvorinaibut 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 readgozaru:gozaranu,vori aru:vori nai,gia:devanai,aru:aranu, andvoru:voranu. Collado's treatment is patterned only loosely after theArte(2v-6v).[96]Collado seems to be unaware of the irregularity ofvonaji.[97]Collado is following the general rule established on p.10for such forms ascaij. He might better have followed Rodriguez who would transcribecanaxǔte, as do we.[98]The missing 'closed o' aside, Collado's transcription of this form with annis indicative of the clarity with which he perceived the nasalization in this context.[99]Cf.Arte(18v-19v).[100]The text readscú vaau ni voite va, with the errata changing the verb tocuvazu.[101]This historically inaccurate rule is derived from theArte(18v).[102]In the one example of this construction, on page 62, Collado has the formtovazunba.[103]The original is in thesorostyle;Iǒjǒni voiteua uquetori mǒsubequ soro.[104]Cf.Arte(19v).[105]Here and throughout the section Collado transcribes asrothe potential particle which should correctly be writtenró(cf.Arte, 11v). It will be noticed that all but one instance of the 'open o' on p.35of the text has been left unmarked.[106]Collado has derived this list from theArte(45-47). His terminology is, however, rather misleading. What he classifies asverba irregulariaare those which Rodriguez considers deponent, that isverbodefectiuo, with the termverbo irregularbeing used by Rodriguez for the adjective. Given this misunderstanding Collado begins his list with an explanation of the irregularities ofqi,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 withtari, from which Collado has selected the first 14 and then a few from the remainder.[107]In the restricted context of an adjectival; cf. modernarayuru koto.[108]Cf.Arte(45v) where Rodriguez transcribesvreyeyo.[109]Loc. cit. Rodriguez presentsvreôruas an alternative form forvreôin the present tense and then selects thatvariantfor 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 theArte(68-70 and 96-108v). The list of particles, beginning withmaraxi, follows 160-168.[112]The text, here and in the next sentence, readssecundae coningationis.[113]The formdojucuis incorrect. It is taken by Ōtsuka to bedōshuku'a person living in the same house.' TheVocabulariorecords the itemdôjucu'a young boy who serves a priest.'Dôjucubest fits Collado's translation.[114]The text again readssecundae 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 ofvoandgo, usinggosacu attaas his example of the construction in context of a Chinese vocabulary item. Collado does not refer to this distinction.[118]The text readssecundae coniugationis.[119]The text readssecundae coniugationis.[120]Ōtsuka (1957) suggestsmaraxiis correct and alters the example. Since the list begins withmaraxi, I assume the error to be in the citation.[121]The material for this section is derived from theArte(164v-168).[122]While the material for this section is drawn from various sections of theArte, 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, andvoxi. On the basis of Collado's examplesvoxishould have been included in his list.[124]Collado's transcriptionqinpenis phonemically correct while being phonetically less accurate than Rodriguez'quimpen.[125]Collado has altered Rodriguez' version fromNippon, even though theDictionariumglossesconsuetudo japonicaasNippon catagui.[126]Collado, in theDictionariumand here, prefersmmutouma.[127]This particle is not described in theArte.[128]Rodriguez (Arte, 116) recordsCore coso yocarǒzureand states that in this contextcosohas the same meaning asQueccuandCayette.[129]Cf. theArte(117) where the list is given asReba,Ni,Tomo, the potential, andTe.[130]Rodriguez' version runsIesu Christo fitono vontocoroua. (For Collado's use ofreduplicatiuussee note53.)[131]As the first example indicates, thezzuvariantis not restricted to the negative preterit, but is the form which appears fordain all contexts, as here with the preterit ofiomu.[132]In the absence of other examples it is not possible to determine if Collado assumed the present tense form to beiuruoruru. The correction here follows the spelling used consistently in theArte.[133]Both Collado and Rodriguez agree that verbs ending intaigovern the accusative case; cf.Nanigaxiuo yobitai(Arte, 14v).[134]The text readssecunda persona.[135]Rodriguez hasVatacuxiua nantomo buchôfôde tofǒ ga gozanai[...buchôfǒde...].[136]Rodriguez uses the transcriptiongorǒjerareiin the example from which this sentence is derived. (The ten other occurrences in theArtehavegoran.) TheDictionariumuses onlygoron, while theVocabulariolists bothgoranandgoron. The Spanish manuscript hasgoran.[137]Rodriguez hasmairade canauanu.[138]TheArtehas the plain formmairǒcotode attaredomo.[139]TheArtehasmairumajiqueredomo.[140]Perhaps an attempt to follow the rule, established in the syntax below, that states thevof the accusative particle is lost aftern. If this is the intent, the comma is in error.[141]Rodriguez treats adverbs in two sections of theArte; 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 theArte(110v) and are presented in substantially the same order. The adverbial particles which begin withuieare taken from (140-148v) and classified by Rodriguez asposposiçao.[143]The errata has; page 50, line 10,docoreadcoco. This would require thedoco zoabove to readcoco 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 cǔ cotoua cǔta vchideua nai.[145]Rodriguez usesvonnaforvonago.[146]The material for this section is derived from theArte(74v and 76v).[147]Rodriguez hasAyamari nai vyeua, ...[148]For the temporal interrogatives cf.Arte(89v-90v) and for the remaining forms 107-107v.[149]Cf. theDictionariumundercras.[150]TheVocabulariohassãnuruandsannuruas theombinform of the attributive perfectivesarinuru.[151]Cf.Arte(74v).[152]The Spanish manuscript hasiya iya.[153]Cf.Arte(74v).[154]Cf.Arte(75, 94v, and 123v-124v).[155]Cf.Arte(94v)Quixoua ano fito fodono gacuxǒdeua nai.[156]Cf.Arte(95 and 141).[157]Cf.Arte(75).[158]TheDictionariumhas a selection of a dozen intensifying adverbs listed undervalde.[159]Cf.Arte(74v, 75, and 76).[160]Cf.Arte(74, 75, and 75v).[161]TheDictionariumalso has the spellingmoxiwhich suggests that Collado perceived a different vowel quantity than Rodriguez who hasmǒxi, as does theVocabulario.[162]The Latin particle isnonne, which expects an affirmative answer.[163]Rodriguez, and consequently Doi (Nihon daibunten, p. 449), havexidaiforxisai. The original source is theEsopo no Fabulaswhere on p. 493 the form isxisai.[164]While the material for this section has been drawn from various portions of theArte, 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: Tamevelnisignificat erga: v.g.... Ōtsuka translates this passage as if it were the later, as do I.[166]Collado has recast into the colloquial a quote from theShikimoku. Rodriguez records:Mata daiquanni itatteua ichininnomi sadamubequi nari.[167]The text reads: itattev.g.totte.... where thev.g.is clearly a misprint ofvel.[168]Cf.Arte(130-137).[169]This item is the only one in this paragraph which Rodriguez does not list as acasane cotobaon 134v of theArte. Collado is apparently interpreting this construction as a repetition of two adverbs, as for examplecoco caxico. If so, the form should be spelledvomoxirô,vocaxiú(if we follow his rule for the formation of adverbs fromijending adjectives). However, the form which he seems to be recording is more likely the compound adverb which is listed in theVocabularioasvomoxirovocaxǔand glossed ascontemporizando de boa maneira'temporizingin 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 withhatbelow, are the only uses of initialhfound in the description. Rodriguez transcribes the latter item asatorvat(Arte, 127) which suggests a close relationship between the labial and glottal aspirates.[172]Rodriguez hasBenquei satemo yasaxij yatçubaraya.[173]Rodriguez has: ...nituaye bǒno 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 Book II of theArte.[175]Matthew, 6:24.[176]Rodriguez has the spellingtouazumba. In transcribing the form Collado failed to follow the rule he established in his treatment of conditional constructions.[177]The model for this sentence appears to beArte(62):Ichidan medzuraxij yenoco, que nagǒ, uquino gotoqu xirǒ[sic],me curô, cauo icanimo airaxijuo cureta.If this is the source of Collado's example, he is clearly demonstrating his sensitivity to the nasalization of such items such asnagǒ. TheDictionariumunderlongushasnagai.[178]Collado's transcription is unable accurately to express the proper phonological, or morphological, form ofshin'i'indignation.' He would have been well advised to follow Rodriguez' model and transcribe this item asxinywith the specification that consonant plusyindicates a morphological juncture.[179]Rodriguez has the spellingQuiso, which agrees with theAmakusaban Heike(p. 239), the ultimate source of the sentence. Collado's spelling in the translation isquiuzo. The Spanish manuscript hasKiso.[180]One might expect the more literal 'I do not believe that it will be finished,' but Collado hascredo quod non finietur.[181]This rule, which might more appropriately have been included with the phonology, is not followed in Collado's description, with the possible exception of p.48where the same construction is apparently used.[182]Collado here demonstrates the absorbitive capacity of Latin as he creates an accusative singular adjective from the past attributive of the verbkobu.[183]The use ofabiru, where one would expectaburu, may be a simple typographical error or evidence that Collado accepted the shift fromni-dantoichi-dan katsuyōas unworthy of notice. Rodriguez (Arte, 101v) hasmidzuuo aburu.[184]This list is derived from theArte(101v-102v). Fromabi,uruon, the list is in the same order as that made by Rodriguez.Fanaruru,zzuru,nosquru,noru,vovaru, andmairuare Collado's contributions.[185]Cf.Arte(101v).[186]Cf.Arte(100).[187]Cf.Arte(98).[188]Cf.Arte(104).[189]Cf.Arte(64 and 79).[190]The material presented in this section is gleaned from the exhaustive treatment of the numerical system which makes up the last 20 leaves of Rodriguez' grammar.[191]This compound does not follow the rule, sincecuis not aiominumeral. See alsocu ninaibelow.[192]Rodriguez hasfitoiorfifitoi(Arte, 228v).[193]While this form fits the general rule for combining counters and days, Rodriguez (Arte, 228v) hastǒca, which is a misprint fortôca, cf. Doi,Daibunten, p. 818.[194]Spelled with atilde,sãguat, as are all the other forms beforeguat.[195]For thesǒandsaallomorph ofsancf.Arte(173v).[196]Rodriguez gives the following equivalents in the monetary system on 217-217v of theArte: ... tenRinin oneFun, tenFunin oneMomme, one thousandMommein oneQuamme.[197]The text is confused at this point. It runs: Ixxacu,unus palmus seu tertia quam Hispania vocantsanjacu.tres, ...[198]The text hasculus'posterior,' but the errata changes the word toanus. The original seems closer to the Japanese.[199]The examples here lag one behind the glosses.[200]Here and elsewhere Collado combines homophonous enumerators which Rodriguez keeps distinct. Cf.Arte(220-223v) for an extensive list of enumerators.[201]Cf.Arte(159-159v).[202]This rule, apparently an invention of Collado's, has no precedent in Rodriguez or in linguistic derivation. Thenin this construction is the contracted form of the classicalmu, the source for what Collado calls the future.[203]These forms might better have been presented asnari,iandqeri,ito indicate that the sentence-ending forms arenariandqeri.
[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 Ōtsuka 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 theArs Grammaticaewhich might have been borrowed from theConfesionis on p. 23 where we finddoco de qiqi marasuru mo, sono sata va mósanu'although this is heard everywhere, I have heard nothing of it.' which parallels theConfesion, 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:
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 asi,e,h, and palatal consonants; e.g.,fiacu,agueô,cha, andxô.
[8]See the translation, p. [82], n. 8.
[9]Collado's and Rodriguez' analyses agree in classifying theni-danverbs andsuruinto one conjunction, theyo-danverbs into a second, and theha-gyōof theyo-daninto a third.
[10]It should be recalled that theArs Grammaticaeis numbered by the page and theArteby the leaf.
[11]See p. 14, underDos nomes adiectivos, where the initial distinction is drawn between nominal and verbal adjectives.
[12]Rodriguez does not treat the substantive verb inArte Breve, but refers the reader to his earlier work for its description.
[13]Verbo pessoalas contrasted withverbo substantivoandverbo 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 theVocabulario.
[15]This term, not found in theArte, 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 uponKanazukai no chikamichior some similar work. SeeKokugogaku taikei, Vol. 9 (Tokyo, 1964), pp. 69-77.
[16]Latinliquesco, "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 usedVmaregularly in theArte, but notes the variantMumaon 178v.
[19]Presumably a reference to such variants asSamurôforSaburô.
[20]Liurinho, presumably a treatise such as theKanazukai no chikamichi, by Ichijō 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]ReadTaxxi.
[23]Readtatesai. The punctuationTateyo.Tatei,tatesai, is in all likelihood a typesetter's error forTateyo,tatei,tatesai.
[24]The conjugational display (27v) listsmotomuruniandmotomurutocoroni.
[25]Rodriguez is here confusing the usage of the classical particleran, ramuwith the constructionte + ara + mu.
[26]In the conjugational charts we find:
motomeômotometarǒmotomeôzuru
right brace
toki
[27]The following notes are necessary to correct the printer's errors that occur in this listing:
a. In the perfect conditional ofVabireadbitarabaforbitaraaba.
b. The formFitobishould in all likelihood readFotobi'to be wet.'
c. The formsFotobi,Fokorobi, andFusabiare all given present indicatives inbu. There seems to be no reason for the ending appropriate to the classicalshūshikeito be used for these particular verbs and thebuis taken as a misprint ofburu. TheArte(28) lists these forms as regular.
d. In the perfect conditional ofMochiyreadytarabaforyttaraba.
e. The formCorushould readCori.
f. It will be noticed in the final segment of this listing, beginning with Y, Rodriguez makes no effort to distinguish amongKami-ichidan,kami-nidan, and the irregular verbKi'to come.'
[28]By this single rule Rodriguez brings the twona-henverbs into the second conjugation.
[29]Readnajûdaandnijûda.
[30]Although the spellingauoghǒwould contain a redundancy it would agree with such forms asaghuru,coghanuandcoghǒfound elsewhere.
[31]This use of the imperative reflects a purely formal solution to the morphological problem.
[32]ReadYôdareba.
[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 acis irregular for verbs. Cf.cakanujust 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 theCanadzucairules 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]Theijin the original is the digraphij, as elsewhere.
[38]ReadRedomo.
[39]Majijwith the digraph would be more regular.
[40]A photostatic copy of the entire text has been made available by Shima Shōzō,Rodorigesu Nihon daibunten(Tokyo, Bunka Shobō, 1969).
[41]Ōtsuka'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 toArteof 1604-8. TheArte Breve, printed in 1620 in Macao, was not available to Collado.
[43]TheDictionarium 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 ofgacuxǒ, and theaiaǔbelow, 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 regularlysynaloephy—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 ascc(cch),mm,nn, andss. Two appear initiallymm, as inmma'horse,' andzz, as inzzuru'to leave.' The formqqwhich would be phonetically equivalent tocqis not recorded.
[48]This sequence is not used in the body of the grammar, rather the less phonetically accurateia,ie, etc. It should be noted that theDictionarium, which was written contemporaniously, does useyfor the semivowel.
[49]Forsreadg. TheArte(177v) discusses this phenomenon as being characteristic of vowels befored,dz, andg.
[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]TheDictionariumhas the spellingfibicàxiin 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 usesreduplicatiuus, with the grammatical meaning of plural singular; e.g., the singular I with the meaning of myself and those around me.
[54]Both theDictionariumand theVocabulariohave eitherNifonorNippon, 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, theConfesion, and since the text itself hasniffionand it is changed toniffonin theerrata.Nifonappears on page 43.
[55]TheArteand theVocabulariouse the formsgoranandgorǒin free variation. Collado here and in theDictionariumuses what appears to be the less phonetically accurate transcription. The Spanish manuscript hasgoranjerarei.
[56]May I submit this as a candidate for the most exotic bit of anti-semitism in Christendom.
[57]The text readsfunè-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 hascaper silvester'the wild he-goat' presumably thecapreolus capreoluswhich is similar in appearance to the Japanese deer,cervus sika.
[59]While this rule is operative forcaij, it creates difficulties afterx. Rodriguez' rule isijbecomesǔwith the example ofataraxǔ. Collado's rule would createataraxiú. (Cf. p. 33.)
[60]Neither Collado nor Rodriguez make a clear distinction between the quantitative function ofnoand the qualitative function ofna.
[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 translationfaciendo bonam consultationemis less than ellucidating. Here theioquis in fact adverbial.
[62]Fromkobu'to flatter.' An abbreviation ofkobita kotoba, and used to indicate refined speech; i.e., that speech containing Chinese borrowings. See Doi Tadao,Kirishitan gogaku no kenkyū(Tokyo, 1942, pp. 67-70). The term is also found in the introduction to theVocabularioin the expressionpalauras Cobitas.
[63]The text readsDe pronomine secundae personae....
[64]This list, unquestionably derived from theArte(67v), has been in several ways confounded. Themiis out of order and the secondvareis clearly in error. If we put aside the genitive forms from Rodriguez' list, the first four forms should bevare,varera,vatacuxi, andsoregaxi. Rodriguez' second set consists ofmi,midomo, andmidomora. We would suggest that Collado meant to includeura, which is listed by Rodriguez as the genitive formvraga. I offervatacuxi,soregaxi,vare,varera,mi,midomo,midomora, anduraas the intended list, with the order ofmiandvarerareversed to accommodate the sentence which follows.
[65]The forms for the second person are derived from theArte(68). Throughout this section the accent marks are quite erratic. In several places, for example, Collado hassónataand evensónatá.
[66]In the material which follows Collado has brought together items from several sections of theArte; 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 formscareandarewhich would otherwise be missing.
[68]An abbreviated form ofmonomósu; 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 theArte(6v-54v). In the material that follows specific references will be made when a comparison of the two works is suggested.
[71]The text hassecundae coniugationis. This error, which is repeated throughout the text, is not present in the Spanish manuscript.
[72]The text again hassecundae coniugationis.
[73]This list covering theKami-ichidanandKami-nidanverbs is derived from a similarly defined sub-group of the first conjugation in theArte(28). Since the verbscabi,sabi, anddeqiare 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 glossfucore afficior. The proper word ismucore'mould,' with the literal translation being 'I am affected by mould.'
[75]TheDictionariumhas this verb listed askami-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 readssecundae coniugationis.
[79]Rodriguez more correctly has this rule as the root plusioryo; e.g.,agueioragueyo. The formagueiis 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 hasbaquemono'evil spirit' and the Spanish manuscriptbaqemono, rather thanbanguemono'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 arǒcato 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 theEsopo(p. 477). The original has, ...riǒbǒni tachiuacarete yru tocoroni qitçunega yosocara coreuo mite, futatçuno nacani vocareta fittçu jiuo totte curǒta, '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 changingriǒbǒtonhóbóCollado created a less than satisfactory example.
[84]Modeled onIyeuo idzuru tocorouo cubiuo quiri votoita'when he went outside his head was cut off.'
[85]Modeled onMissauo asobasaruru tocoroye vôjei faxe atçumatta'when mass was being celebrated, many came running and gathered around.'
[86]Apparently modelled afterArte(20v)nantomo voxiare caxi'whatever you say,' with the imperative formation again confounded.
[87]Rodriguez (25v) specifies the location of this usage as Chūgoku, Bungo, Hakata, and otherXimodistricts.
[88]This example, together withso zonze nabelow, reflects the loss of a distinction betweenzandjwhich was taking place during this period.
[89]The text hassecundae coniugationis.
[90]TheArte(27) records hereaguenedomo,aguenuto mǒxedomo,aguezutomo,aguenebatote, andagueidemo. Neitheraguenaidemonor the participleaguenaide, below, are found in theArte, though they are attested to elsewhere. Cf. Yuzawa Kōkichirō,Edo kotoba no kenkyū(Tokyo, 1954), p. 626.
[91]This rule, derived from Rodriguez (Arte, 29), is misformulated by Collado. Rodriguez' rule is correct; change thenuof the negative present toi. 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 theArteRodriguez never refers to the future forms of any verb other than his modelnarai. If Collado had had access to theArte Brevehe would have found (41) the following principal parts forvomoi;vomoi,vomô,vomôta,vomovǒ,vomoye. The only other use in theArs Grammaticaeof this form is on page62where Collado has the incorrect formvomovô. 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 finaliof the root is a vowel, while theiof the imperative is a semivowel. Rodriguez' transcription better reflects the phonological facts;naraye,vomoye, andcuye.
[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, andvori:voru.
[95]Collado's presentation of the substantive verbs is obscure. The text reads:Verba verò substantiua sunt, gozaru, gozaranu, voru, uori nai, deavelgia: 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 contrastvoruandvorinai.Voru(glossed by the supplement of theVocabularioasestar, and used in theDictionariumas the gloss forexisto,etc.) is not used by Rodriguez in theArte.Vorinai(unglossed in the dictionaries) is clearly defined by Rodriguez as the negative of the polite verbvoriaru, which is derived by him fromvon iri+aru(Arte, 165v). Possibly Collado had intended to contrastvoruwithvoranuandvoriaruwithvorinaibut 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 readgozaru:gozaranu,vori aru:vori nai,gia:devanai,aru:aranu, andvoru:voranu. Collado's treatment is patterned only loosely after theArte(2v-6v).
[96]Collado seems to be unaware of the irregularity ofvonaji.
[97]Collado is following the general rule established on p.10for such forms ascaij. He might better have followed Rodriguez who would transcribecanaxǔte, as do we.
[98]The missing 'closed o' aside, Collado's transcription of this form with annis indicative of the clarity with which he perceived the nasalization in this context.
[99]Cf.Arte(18v-19v).
[100]The text readscú vaau ni voite va, with the errata changing the verb tocuvazu.
[101]This historically inaccurate rule is derived from theArte(18v).
[102]In the one example of this construction, on page 62, Collado has the formtovazunba.
[103]The original is in thesorostyle;Iǒjǒni voiteua uquetori mǒsubequ soro.
[104]Cf.Arte(19v).
[105]Here and throughout the section Collado transcribes asrothe potential particle which should correctly be writtenró(cf.Arte, 11v). It will be noticed that all but one instance of the 'open o' on p.35of the text has been left unmarked.
[106]Collado has derived this list from theArte(45-47). His terminology is, however, rather misleading. What he classifies asverba irregulariaare those which Rodriguez considers deponent, that isverbodefectiuo, with the termverbo irregularbeing used by Rodriguez for the adjective. Given this misunderstanding Collado begins his list with an explanation of the irregularities ofqi,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 withtari, from which Collado has selected the first 14 and then a few from the remainder.
[107]In the restricted context of an adjectival; cf. modernarayuru koto.
[108]Cf.Arte(45v) where Rodriguez transcribesvreyeyo.
[109]Loc. cit. Rodriguez presentsvreôruas an alternative form forvreôin the present tense and then selects thatvariantfor 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 theArte(68-70 and 96-108v). The list of particles, beginning withmaraxi, follows 160-168.
[112]The text, here and in the next sentence, readssecundae coningationis.
[113]The formdojucuis incorrect. It is taken by Ōtsuka to bedōshuku'a person living in the same house.' TheVocabulariorecords the itemdôjucu'a young boy who serves a priest.'Dôjucubest fits Collado's translation.
[114]The text again readssecundae 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 ofvoandgo, usinggosacu attaas his example of the construction in context of a Chinese vocabulary item. Collado does not refer to this distinction.
[118]The text readssecundae coniugationis.
[119]The text readssecundae coniugationis.
[120]Ōtsuka (1957) suggestsmaraxiis correct and alters the example. Since the list begins withmaraxi, I assume the error to be in the citation.
[121]The material for this section is derived from theArte(164v-168).
[122]While the material for this section is drawn from various sections of theArte, 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, andvoxi. On the basis of Collado's examplesvoxishould have been included in his list.
[124]Collado's transcriptionqinpenis phonemically correct while being phonetically less accurate than Rodriguez'quimpen.
[125]Collado has altered Rodriguez' version fromNippon, even though theDictionariumglossesconsuetudo japonicaasNippon catagui.
[126]Collado, in theDictionariumand here, prefersmmutouma.
[127]This particle is not described in theArte.
[128]Rodriguez (Arte, 116) recordsCore coso yocarǒzureand states that in this contextcosohas the same meaning asQueccuandCayette.
[129]Cf. theArte(117) where the list is given asReba,Ni,Tomo, the potential, andTe.
[130]Rodriguez' version runsIesu Christo fitono vontocoroua. (For Collado's use ofreduplicatiuussee note53.)
[131]As the first example indicates, thezzuvariantis not restricted to the negative preterit, but is the form which appears fordain all contexts, as here with the preterit ofiomu.
[132]In the absence of other examples it is not possible to determine if Collado assumed the present tense form to beiuruoruru. The correction here follows the spelling used consistently in theArte.
[133]Both Collado and Rodriguez agree that verbs ending intaigovern the accusative case; cf.Nanigaxiuo yobitai(Arte, 14v).
[134]The text readssecunda persona.
[135]Rodriguez hasVatacuxiua nantomo buchôfôde tofǒ ga gozanai[...buchôfǒde...].
[136]Rodriguez uses the transcriptiongorǒjerareiin the example from which this sentence is derived. (The ten other occurrences in theArtehavegoran.) TheDictionariumuses onlygoron, while theVocabulariolists bothgoranandgoron. The Spanish manuscript hasgoran.
[137]Rodriguez hasmairade canauanu.
[138]TheArtehas the plain formmairǒcotode attaredomo.
[139]TheArtehasmairumajiqueredomo.
[140]Perhaps an attempt to follow the rule, established in the syntax below, that states thevof the accusative particle is lost aftern. If this is the intent, the comma is in error.
[141]Rodriguez treats adverbs in two sections of theArte; 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 theArte(110v) and are presented in substantially the same order. The adverbial particles which begin withuieare taken from (140-148v) and classified by Rodriguez asposposiçao.
[143]The errata has; page 50, line 10,docoreadcoco. This would require thedoco zoabove to readcoco 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 cǔ cotoua cǔta vchideua nai.
[145]Rodriguez usesvonnaforvonago.
[146]The material for this section is derived from theArte(74v and 76v).
[147]Rodriguez hasAyamari nai vyeua, ...
[148]For the temporal interrogatives cf.Arte(89v-90v) and for the remaining forms 107-107v.
[149]Cf. theDictionariumundercras.
[150]TheVocabulariohassãnuruandsannuruas theombinform of the attributive perfectivesarinuru.
[151]Cf.Arte(74v).
[152]The Spanish manuscript hasiya iya.
[153]Cf.Arte(74v).
[154]Cf.Arte(75, 94v, and 123v-124v).
[155]Cf.Arte(94v)Quixoua ano fito fodono gacuxǒdeua nai.
[156]Cf.Arte(95 and 141).
[157]Cf.Arte(75).
[158]TheDictionariumhas a selection of a dozen intensifying adverbs listed undervalde.
[159]Cf.Arte(74v, 75, and 76).
[160]Cf.Arte(74, 75, and 75v).
[161]TheDictionariumalso has the spellingmoxiwhich suggests that Collado perceived a different vowel quantity than Rodriguez who hasmǒxi, as does theVocabulario.
[162]The Latin particle isnonne, which expects an affirmative answer.
[163]Rodriguez, and consequently Doi (Nihon daibunten, p. 449), havexidaiforxisai. The original source is theEsopo no Fabulaswhere on p. 493 the form isxisai.
[164]While the material for this section has been drawn from various portions of theArte, 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: Tamevelnisignificat erga: v.g.... Ōtsuka translates this passage as if it were the later, as do I.
[166]Collado has recast into the colloquial a quote from theShikimoku. Rodriguez records:Mata daiquanni itatteua ichininnomi sadamubequi nari.
[167]The text reads: itattev.g.totte.... where thev.g.is clearly a misprint ofvel.
[168]Cf.Arte(130-137).
[169]This item is the only one in this paragraph which Rodriguez does not list as acasane cotobaon 134v of theArte. Collado is apparently interpreting this construction as a repetition of two adverbs, as for examplecoco caxico. If so, the form should be spelledvomoxirô,vocaxiú(if we follow his rule for the formation of adverbs fromijending adjectives). However, the form which he seems to be recording is more likely the compound adverb which is listed in theVocabularioasvomoxirovocaxǔand glossed ascontemporizando de boa maneira'temporizingin 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 withhatbelow, are the only uses of initialhfound in the description. Rodriguez transcribes the latter item asatorvat(Arte, 127) which suggests a close relationship between the labial and glottal aspirates.
[172]Rodriguez hasBenquei satemo yasaxij yatçubaraya.
[173]Rodriguez has: ...nituaye bǒno 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 Book II of theArte.
[175]Matthew, 6:24.
[176]Rodriguez has the spellingtouazumba. In transcribing the form Collado failed to follow the rule he established in his treatment of conditional constructions.
[177]The model for this sentence appears to beArte(62):Ichidan medzuraxij yenoco, que nagǒ, uquino gotoqu xirǒ[sic],me curô, cauo icanimo airaxijuo cureta.If this is the source of Collado's example, he is clearly demonstrating his sensitivity to the nasalization of such items such asnagǒ. TheDictionariumunderlongushasnagai.
[178]Collado's transcription is unable accurately to express the proper phonological, or morphological, form ofshin'i'indignation.' He would have been well advised to follow Rodriguez' model and transcribe this item asxinywith the specification that consonant plusyindicates a morphological juncture.
[179]Rodriguez has the spellingQuiso, which agrees with theAmakusaban Heike(p. 239), the ultimate source of the sentence. Collado's spelling in the translation isquiuzo. The Spanish manuscript hasKiso.
[180]One might expect the more literal 'I do not believe that it will be finished,' but Collado hascredo quod non finietur.
[181]This rule, which might more appropriately have been included with the phonology, is not followed in Collado's description, with the possible exception of p.48where the same construction is apparently used.
[182]Collado here demonstrates the absorbitive capacity of Latin as he creates an accusative singular adjective from the past attributive of the verbkobu.
[183]The use ofabiru, where one would expectaburu, may be a simple typographical error or evidence that Collado accepted the shift fromni-dantoichi-dan katsuyōas unworthy of notice. Rodriguez (Arte, 101v) hasmidzuuo aburu.
[184]This list is derived from theArte(101v-102v). Fromabi,uruon, the list is in the same order as that made by Rodriguez.Fanaruru,zzuru,nosquru,noru,vovaru, andmairuare Collado's contributions.
[185]Cf.Arte(101v).
[186]Cf.Arte(100).
[187]Cf.Arte(98).
[188]Cf.Arte(104).
[189]Cf.Arte(64 and 79).
[190]The material presented in this section is gleaned from the exhaustive treatment of the numerical system which makes up the last 20 leaves of Rodriguez' grammar.
[191]This compound does not follow the rule, sincecuis not aiominumeral. See alsocu ninaibelow.
[192]Rodriguez hasfitoiorfifitoi(Arte, 228v).
[193]While this form fits the general rule for combining counters and days, Rodriguez (Arte, 228v) hastǒca, which is a misprint fortôca, cf. Doi,Daibunten, p. 818.
[194]Spelled with atilde,sãguat, as are all the other forms beforeguat.
[195]For thesǒandsaallomorph ofsancf.Arte(173v).
[196]Rodriguez gives the following equivalents in the monetary system on 217-217v of theArte: ... tenRinin oneFun, tenFunin oneMomme, one thousandMommein oneQuamme.
[197]The text is confused at this point. It runs: Ixxacu,unus palmus seu tertia quam Hispania vocantsanjacu.tres, ...
[198]The text hasculus'posterior,' but the errata changes the word toanus. The original seems closer to the Japanese.
[199]The examples here lag one behind the glosses.
[200]Here and elsewhere Collado combines homophonous enumerators which Rodriguez keeps distinct. Cf.Arte(220-223v) for an extensive list of enumerators.
[201]Cf.Arte(159-159v).
[202]This rule, apparently an invention of Collado's, has no precedent in Rodriguez or in linguistic derivation. Thenin this construction is the contracted form of the classicalmu, the source for what Collado calls the future.
[203]These forms might better have been presented asnari,iandqeri,ito indicate that the sentence-ending forms arenariandqeri.