[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).
[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; Iǒjǒni voiteua uquetori mǒsubequ soro.
[104] Cf. Arte (19v).