Thedescendants of Lat . ipse in Romanian

The Latin demonstrative ipse had different evolutions across the Romance languages, with Romanian being the one that preserved most of the source-language uses and enriched them with new ones. This article describes the evolution of the forms and functions of ins1, ins2/ins, ins(ă)3, insul, nusul, dinsul, adins, insuși, and of the bound focal particle –și in Romanian. The analysis is based on a rich corpus of old Romanian and non-standard regional varieties of modern spoken Romanian. The most significant phenomena in old Romanian compared to Latin are the proliferation of forms, the preservation of the old uses and the emergence of new ones, semantic enrichments, and a large number of lexical-functional synonymies. During the old Romanian period, the form–function correlations gradually changed, syntactically conditioned variants and differential prepositional object marking emerged, new meanings developed as contextual effects of the focal prototype, the syncretisms with the reflexive and reciprocal pronouns were limited, and the textual deictic was grammaticalized as an adversative conjunction. In modern Romanian, the number of ambiguities has decreased and register differences have appeared. The evolution of the Latin ipse in Romanian illustrates a case of poligrammaticalization and polimorfism, which is not singular in the history of the neo-Latin idioms.


Preliminary remarks
In classical Latin, ipse (*ipsus) was a demonstrative pronoun and functioned as a (contrastive) noun phrase/ sentence focalizer, and sometimes as a reflexive pronoun or, in combination with reflexive pronouns, as a reciprocal.In late Latin it became a synonym of hic, and was used as a textual deictic, i.e. a deictic having a sentence as antecedent/subsequent term (Ernout & Thomas, 1959, p. 187-191;Väänänen, 1981, p. 120;Woodcock, 2005, p. 25-26;Baños Baños, 2009, p. 181-182).The subsequent evolution of ipse in Romance was divergent: in most Western languages (French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese) it disappeared; in others (Sardinian, partly the Gascon area, and Catalan), it developed into a definite article, while Romanian is the only language which preserved and enriched its forms and pronominal uses (Densusianu, 1938, p. 176;Sala, 2001, s.v.).In present-day Romanian, it displays several contextual functions.

From Latin to old Romanian
Compared to Latin, the descendants of ipse in old Romanian show the following features described below: the proliferation of forms ( §2.1), the preservation of uses ( §2.2), the emergence of new usages ( §2.3), polifunctionalism ( §2.4), and a rich network of lexical-functional synonymies ( §2.5).
The etymology of the compound însuși (Engl.'itself/himself ' used as an intensifier) has been a matter of controversy among the Romanian linguists, who proposed three hypotheses: (i) îns + the dative reflexive și (< Lat.sibi); (ii) îns + the deictic adverbial -și (< Lat.sic); (iii) îns + -și, the clitic form of Lat.ipse (for details see Manoliu-Manea, 1987;Zafiu, 2012).The bound focal particle -și attached to îns and many other semantic subtypes of pronouns (eluși, mineși, săiși, sineși, același, cevași, careși), adverbs (atunceși, aciiași) and numerals (întîiași).Most of these forms disappeared during the 18 th c., others (întîiași, cevași) persisted in some regional varieties of spoken non-standard Romanian, while același and însuși have been completely taken over by the system of modern Romanian.Același lexicalized as a demonstrative pronoun/adjective of identity (Engl.'the same'), inflected for gender, number, and case (nom"acc: m.sg.același; f.sg.aceeași; m.pl.aceiași; f.pl.aceleași; gen"dat: m.sg.aceluiași; f.sg.aceleiași; m.pl.acelorași; f.pl.acelorași) following the pattern of acela 'that' .It is the functional equivalent of the descendants of Lat.*metipse transmitted to the other Romance languages, but not to Romanian.Însuși lexicalized and later grammaticalized as an intensifier/focal particle with a full-fledged inflectional paradigm, marking person, number, gender and case oppositions.At the same time, îns gradually lost its function as a focal particle for that of a pronominal substitute (see §2.3 below), while the bound focal particle -și was gradually eliminated and fossilized in the structure of același and însuși (see also Vasilescu, 2015).The most frequently used term of the paradigm was însuși (person 3, singular, masculine, nom"acc), which might be the immediate consequence of its complex inflection (the lack of agreement occurring both in old and present-day Romanian), but it might also indicate the stages of its grammaticalization, as hypothesized below: I.
-și (bound focal particle developed in old Romanian) III.însuși (newly created focal particle in old Romanian) IV. lexicalization of the focalizer însuși V.
the development of an inflectional paradigm of the focalizer însuși by analogy with the dative forms of the personal/reflexive pronoun (îns + mi/ți/ne/vă) VI. grammaticalization of the focalizer însuși with a full-fledged pronominal paradigm An early categorial specialization of the forms descending from Lat. ipse is to be noticed: îns 1 and the other forms having it as a lexical base (însul, nusul, dînsul, adins, însuși) displayed pronominal features allowing independent, modifier or adverbial uses; ins/îns 2 was a generic noun with several synonyms (ins 'guy ' , om 'man' , persoană 'person' , individ 'individual, fellow'); îns(ă) was a textual demonstrative deictic with conjunction-like functions in old Romanian, only later fully grammaticalized as adversative conjunction (see §2.2-2.3 below).

Focalizer
The high frequency of the focalizer îns(uși) seems to correlate with the content of the text and the persuasive function it has.On the one hand, focalizers were frequently used in religious texts to highlight unexpected/unpredictable actors and events and to impose them into the public consciousness.On the other hand, in legal texts they were used to emphatically assert the propositional content.In both cases, the speaker/writer takes stance with respect to the textual content and projects a rhetorical-persuasive attitude.In all the other textual genres the occurrence of îns(uși) is sporadic.
As an independent focalizer in old Romanian, însuși might be equally interpreted as the focalizer of an empty category (însuși pro/pro însuși; însuși e/e însuși) (Stan, 2013, p. 143) and a pro-form (for îns as a pronominal substitute, see §2.3 below) intensified by the bound focal particle -și.Evolutions in modern Romanian seem to support the latter interpretation: on the one hand, îns lost its use as a pronominal substitute, on the other hand -și lost its function as a bound focal particle, while the newly created compound însuși lexicalized as focalizer in the position of an external modifier of the D(eterminer) P(hrase).
In old Romanian, the use of însuși as an adjectival focalizer was more frequent than its use as an independent focalizer (Vasilescu, 2015, p. 341).It combined with [+/-human] nouns and pronouns (see example ( 14) above).Its ante-position to the (pro)noun was considered an imitation of the Slavonic syntax of the original texts translated into Romanian (Stan, 2013, p. 60-61).Nevertheless, an internal explanation is not to be excluded taking into account the free word order in old Romanian, both in the sentence and inside the DP (see also the position of the adjective, the demonstrative and possessive determiners to the noun).
As an adverbial focalizer, însuși frequently meant singur 'alone' .In Romanian, this meaning has been considered the reflex of the two meanings of samŭ in Slavonic: însuși as intensifier (Engl.'itself ') and singur (Engl.'alone') (see, among others, da, s.v.;Stan, 2013, p. 61).Actually, what the texts in the corpus show is that îns(uși) was a floating focalizer sharing the free word order with many other sentence constituents in old Romanian, and that it had various contextual meanings (see §2.4 below), not only that of "singur" (Engl.'alone').Consequently, I suggest an alternative interpretation, adopting the concept of convergence, proposed by Hickey (2010, p. 19): the floating intensifier însuși generated several contextual meanings, the strongest and most frequent one being 'alone' due to its convergence with the Slavonic samŭ.Însuși meant 'itself, himself, not someone else' and contextually developed the meaning 'itself, himself, not someone else, hence alone' .

Reflexive pronoun
The reflexive use of îns(uși) is consistent with the cross-linguistic data.From a typological perspective, languages display differences in expressing the reflexive and the intensification meanings (Gast & Siemund, 2006): in what might be called the "syncretic language type", the reflexive and the intensifier have the same form (in English, for example); in what might be called "the non-syncretic language type", the reflexive and the intensifier have different forms (in German, the Romance languages, the Slavic languages, among others).Latin pertained to the non-syncretic type, although in late Latin ipse was sometimes used instead of a reflexive pronoun.This use was transmitted to old Romanian, where the stressed reflexive pronoun, the (focalized) personal pronoun and the intensifier însuși (sine " elu " eluși " însuși, Engl.'self ' " 'him' " 'himși' " 'himself ') were functionally equivalent in some contexts, as exemplified in (19e-f ) below.

Reciprocal pronoun
In structures with semantically symmetrical predications, old Romanian presented several strategies to express the reciprocal meaning, directly linked to the Latin ones (details in Vasilescu, 2016a, p. 216-222).One such strategy involved a plural subject and a reciprocity prepositional phrase (între ei 'among them'), as in (20a).The pattern underlied the structure ad + ins (adins), where the reciprocal meaning paralleled the emphatic one (20b).By the middle of the 17 th c. the reciprocal meaning faded out (da, s.v.) and adins functioned exclusively as a focalizer (20c) that moved outside the DP and entered various adverbial phrases (Engl.'purposely' , 'deliberately' , 'with intent') (20d).For a detailed analysis of adins in old Romanian, see Zamfir & Uță Bărbulescu (2016).( 20

Between textual deictic and adversative conjunction
As a demonstrative pronoun, the Latin ipse allowed a propositional focalizer usage.Hence, it is reasonable to assume that some structures in old Romanian continued this use, as in ( 18) above, where îns(ă) resumes a previous predication to generate, via conventional implicatures, a contrast with the newly introduced predication (sentence 1 ^însă textual deictic ^sentence 2 ).Însă could show anywhere in the sentence (at the beginning, in the middle, at the end).The occurrence of the feminine form [see 2.1 above] of the textual deictic in contexts where the adjacent sentences stood in an adversative logical relationship triggered its grammaticalization as an adversative conjunction that joined the series dar, iar, ci (cf.da, s.v.).Unlike the other conjunctions' obligatory front position, the position of the conjunction însă is still free in presentday Romanian and reminds of its former function as textual deictic.

New usages
Compared to Latin, the uses of îns(ul)/însuși as a pro-form and îns/ins as a noun were an innovation of old Romanian.

Personal pronoun
A DP/sentence focalizer in Latin, ipse developed in old Romanian along two complementary paths: a newly created form însuși (< îns + -și) was undergoing a lexicalization and grammaticalization process as intensifier (see §2.2.1 above), while the direct descendant of ipse, Rom.îns, was gradually losing its focal function developing into a pronominal substitute, a synonym of the 3 rd person singular personal pronoun (el/ea -însul).With this function, it only accidentally occurred as the argument of a verb ( 21), but it was highly frequent in P(repositional) P(hrases) as the complement of the head preposition, realized in three phonologically and lexically constrained variants: following prepositions ending in the consonant cluster ntr (într-îns(ul) 'in it' / dintr-îns(ul) 'out of it' / printr-îns(ul) 'through it ' , etc.)This evolution was strongly influenced by the emergence in Romanian of the bound focal particle -și adjoined to words from various morphological classes (see §2.1 above).In a pronominal system with parallel strong and clitic forms, it is highly probable that îns and -și were both reflexes of the Lat.ipse, the former, the strong form, and the latter its clitic counterpart.Initially, the two forms probably functioned as independent strong focalizer and clitic focalizer, respectively; later, after -și fossilized in the newly created lexemes însuși 'itself/himself ' and același 'the same' , the clitic might have disappeared and been compensated by însuși, which thus enhanced its position in the system of Romanian.This process allowed îns(ul) to change its focal particle function into a mere substitute, an alternative term to el 'he' or ea 'she' , differentially selected: însul in PPs, el/ea in verb argument positions.Nevertheless, the rule of differential prepositional object marking did not apply strictly.

Generic noun
The nominal use of îns/ins (om, persoană, individ, Engl. 'guy' , 'man' , 'person' , 'individual' , 'fellow') was an innovation of old Romanian compared to Latin.This use was attested since the earliest texts in the 16 th c. throughout the whole period.See examples in (2a-b) above.The masculine form was the most frequent one, and it occurred in the context of definite or indefinite quantifiers.The form has been connected to the Albanian vetє (da, s.v.).

Polisemy
The focal particle însuși developed various secondary meanings through contextually generated conventional implicatures.Basically, it functioned as a purely focal particle "exactly X" (23a), but it also acquired the meaning of a contrastive focal particle "X, not Y" (23b), a cumulative focal particle "even X" (23c), a focal particle of uniqueness ("only X, nobody else") (23d), a focal particle of non-causation contrasted to similar events controlled by an external agent ("by itself, nobody else caused the action") (23e), metalinguistic focal particle, synonym to "in itself " (23f ), a synonym of the prefix-like segment (Rom."prefixoid") auto 'self ' (23g).( 23 All the usages share the focal function; the prototype generates particular meaning effects, as discourse projections of various implicit communicative intentions.

The focal particle însuși
In the first half of the 20 th c. the independent use of însuși (sometimes ambiguous between a pronominal and an adverbial reading) was still attested (27a-e), but it became ever rarer by the end of the century.At the same time, at the beginning of the 20 th c. însuși in its adjectival use frequently combined with [-animate] nouns (28a-i), but tended to be an external modifier of [+human] nouns/pronouns exclusively, even though the [-animate] context was not totally excluded (29).It has preserved some of the semantic values it had in old Romanian (see §2.4 above)-contrastive focalizer, cumulative focalizer, focalizer of uniqueness (a detailed analysis in Zafiu, 2013)-, but lost the non-causative and metalinguistic focalizer value, replaced by singur ('alone' , 'itself ') and propriu-zis ('properly' , 'in itself '), respectively; for the prefix-like value (Rom."prefixoid") it was replaced by auto in present-day Romanian.Ever more frequently, it combines with the strong reflexive pronoun (sine) forming an intonational unit (30); in the clitic chain [se ... pe sine], pe sine disambiguates the anaphoric function of the reflexive clitic, and însuși functions as a focal particle of the strong reflexive.The syntagms [personal pronoun + însuși] tend to grammaticalize for the emphatic reflexive value (31).For the structural features and the use in presentday Romanian, see Vasilescu (2008, p. 218-222;2013, p. 404-407); Zafiu (2013, p. 287-294) There are several possible convergent explanations for these register differences.First, însuși incorporates the conventional implicature "invalidation of expectations", which indicates an argumentative-persuasive stance of the speaker/writer in relation to the listener/reader, which might explain the occurrence of însuși in argumentative-persuasive genres, but its absence in spoken non-standard Romanian texts, produced in various communication situations where both the interviewer and the respondents normally take a neutral stance.It seems that, both in old Romanian and in contemporary Romanian, însuși is more than a focal particle: it is a stancetaking marker.This discursive function makes the difference to the synonyms of însuși and explains register selections [see §2.5 above, and examples ( 35)-( 38) below].Second, spoken varieties prefer either intonational focalization, as the propositional turn indicates (33), or the syntactic strategy of explicit opposition between terms (34).( 33
Moreover, there is a register difference between dar and însă.Dar (and its regional synonyms da, numa, fără) is generally preferred in the non-standard uses, while însă is generally preferred in standard uses (Zafiu, 2005, p. 3, note 9).Nevertheless, însă occurs in non-standard uses too, more frequently in Oltenia, Muntenia, and Moldova (Teiuș, 1980, p. 119-120).It is noteworthy that the samples in the corpus (39) occur in the speech of partly educated informants who have/had frequent/long term contacts with out-groups.The tautological use ( 40) could indicate that speakers do not interpret însă as a marker of the adversative relationship between constituents, but rather as a textual deictic, emphatically resuming its antecedent. (

The noun ins
In present-day Romanian, the noun ins (Engl.'guy' , 'man' , 'person' , 'individual' , 'fellow') occurs especially with its masculine plural form (inși) combined with a quantifier, both in standard (41) and non-standard (42) uses.One peculiar occurrence, dînsul (otherwise a personal/politeness pronoun, see §3.4 below) for ins, was spotted in a transcript (43), probably a formal confusion due to the infrequent use of the singular form ins.
(41) a.The examples above indicate a register-induced difference in the meaning of ins: while in non-standard uses ins preserved the neutral connotation it had in old Romanian, in standard uses it mostly occurs in negatively connotated contexts, triggering a depreciative implication or projecting negative emotions.

Dînsul -personal deictic, social deictic
The lexical unit dînsul has been preserved in present-day spoken Romanian, both standard and nonstandard, but has undergone a process of functional differentiation.
In old Romanian it functioned as a pronominal substitute, initially after the preposition de, later it generalized in the P(repositional) P(hrase), and by the end of the period it functioned outside the PP (dlr, s.v.).Until the end of the 19 th c. and during the first decades of the 20 th c. it occurred as a personal deictic in standard Romanian (44), as well as in several regional varieties of Romanian (45af ), more frequently in Moldavia and the North-East of Dobrogea (Rusu, 1984, p. 220-221).Dînsul and el had parallel uses (45g).Notice example (45a), where dînsul occurs with an archaic form, without the incorporated definite article (-ul).( 44 After the second half of the 20 th c., dînsul began to function as a social deictic (politeness pronoun for the 3 rd person) in standard Romanian, shaping the grammatical system as a two person and four/three degrees of politeness: tu -dumneata -dumneavoastră -domnia voastră; el -dînsul -dumnealui -domnia lui; voi -dumneavoastră -domniile voastre; ei/ele -dînșii/dînsele -dumnealor -domniile lor (Vasilescu, 2008, p. 212-218;2013, p. 401-402).Rarely, dînsul is used as a social deictic in non-standard varieties, especially in the Southern areas (46), by young persons constantly exposed to standard spoken and written Romanian in school and in the media.( 46 The evolution of dînsul from a positional variant of the personal pronoun (after prepositions) to a social deictic (pronoun of politeness) might have gone through the following phases: I.The phase of the semantic-cognitive opposition.After the form generalized in all the syntactic positions alternating with el, the initial syntactic opposition (+/-preposition) developed into a semanticcognitive opposition, i.e. cognitive distance to the referent (dînsul) vs. cognitive proximity to the referent (el), supported by similar systemic oppositions in old Romanian (demonstrative of proximity/ of remoteness -acesta/acela; proximal demonstrative of identity/remote demonstrative of identityacestași/același). II.The phase of strategic politeness.The semantic-cognitive distance was converted into social distance/ hierarchy, and dînsul began to function as a social deictic, which marks deference in relation to a noninterlocutor human referent.

Conclusions
Romanian is the only Romance language that has preserved the formal descendant of the Lat.ipse and its uses (focal particle in the NP/PP, reflexive pronoun, reciprocal pronoun, and contrastive discourse deictic).Nevertheless, both the forms and the uses have slightly changed during the old and modern period.
The most significant phenomena in old Romanian (see §2 above) compared to Latin are the proliferation of forms and the emergence of new functional correlations.In modern Romanian (see §3 above) the most important changes concern the apparition of new lexical-grammatical syncretisms backed by new functional correlations and register preferences.
The following table synthetically presents the evolution of ipse from Latin to old Romanian and then to modern Romanian.însul replaced by el (Engl.'he, it') or acesta (Engl.'this one') a syntactically and phonologically conditioned substitute (adjacent to prepositions ending in ntr) The evolution of ipse from Latin to present-day Romanian illustrates a case of poligrammaticalization (Diessel, apud Zamfir & Uță Bărbulescu, 2016, p. 420) and polymorphism (Sornicola, apud Zamfir & Uță Bărbulescu, 2016, p. 420), which is not the only one in the evolution of Romanian (see also Dinică, 2017, in the present volume).
(Maramureș, 149)and every dînsu has each a cudgel in hand 'then each dugs a hole in the ground and each one (each guy) has a cudgel in his hand' And we fix and lean the stick to hit with it as high as we can, to avoid hitting with it at the lower part.If we hit with it at the lower part, then it pulls us after it'