Inferential structures in old Romanian. The conditional and the concessive

The present study aims to highlight the fact that the conditional and concessive periods are two forms of manifestation of the hypothetical-deductive reasoning at the level of natural language. The evolution of the connectors has been described in diachrony, sometimes with the emphasis of the interference zones, with the semantic values imposed by the modal component of the predicativity and by the contextual determinism. The evolutionary analysis of the connectors has highlighted the fact that the old Romanian language, in order to impose the concessive procedural meaning, owns, like the other Romanic languages, a great area of creativity, but, unlike them, it also exercises its conservative character. The conception of the two syntactic relations as variants of the same system, studies the stylistic projection (the paradox and the oxymoron), the semantic and formal relation of the connectors and the implication of the adversative coordinating connectives in the polarization of the oppositions in the old Romanian language.


Preliminaries
1.1.In the diversity of statements there are, as in any language, also inferential statements that render certain types of reasoning at the level of natural language, due to the connection between language and thought.
Such a reasoning is the hypothetical-deductive or conditional one, which appears in the form of the adverbial modifier of condition, with a representation at the complex sentence level and, a less developed one at the sentence level.
More recent studies, starting perhaps from the similar periodic organization in Latin (subordinate clause / protasis + main clause / apodosis), have suggested a certain connection between conditional and concessive subordinates.Thus, the concessive is defined as "the exclusion of a ratio of conditioning (of inference) between two communication processes" (galr II, p. 559).
It was also implied a relation between the two clauses and the causal subordinate: "concessive clauses (...) make up the negative sentences of the conditional and causal ones" (Ivănescu, 2004, p. 203).
It was even established that the most important group of concessive connectors, starting from the 16 th century, has been constituted according to "the conditional connector + focalizer pattern" (Zafiu, 2014, p. 211;cf. also Avram, 1960, p. 158).By virtue of this, some language history works have approached them under a common title (Conditionals and concessives), pointing out, each time, the interference zones (sor, p. 526-537).
It has also been shown that "the relation of the concessive with its regent term constitutes a paradox, because the difficulty expressed by the concessive conditional allows, and does not contradict-as it would be normal-the development of the action and the existence of the particularity in the regent clause" (Căpățînă, 2007, p. 261); and that "the global semantic value of this field subsumes to the notion of paradoxical connection" (Slușanschi, 1994, p. 60).
Another challenge, offered this time by texts, is that many conditional and concessive clauses are coordinated (correlated) with the main clause (apodosis) by adversative conjunctions.Some authors, thinking about the situation in popular Latin, called them adversative adverbial clauses (Barbu, 1943, p. 138).But, as a matter of fact, the relation itself surpasses the subordination: "... in such complex sentences, the secondary clause is not actually secondary, but a sentence-subject, and the main clause is a sentence-predicate" (Ivănescu, 2004, p. 198).From which it can be deduced that it is about a bilateral dependence: "il n'y a ni principale, ni subordonné, mais interdépendence de deux propositions solidaires qui ne peuvent exister l'une sans l'autre et n'ont de sens que l'une par l'autre" (Ernout & Thomas, 1964, apud Slușanschi, 1994, p. 47).
In the same way, it was stated: "Logically, the relationship between the two sentences is a necessary ratio of implication between the subordinate and the main clause (...) the conditional sentence is not a mere element subordinated to the idea communicated in the main clause, but an element that necessarily determines the existence of the main sentence, whose idea is involved in the main clause" (Munteanu, 1998, p. 53).
› 1.2.The connection between the two syntactic positions as well as the understanding of the interference zones mentioned by grammarians can be revealed by a semantic-logical analysis of the type of implication assumed by these.
It should be emphasized that the conditional period is, in fact, a reasoning, a hypothetical-deductive inference.From this, one can come to the concessive period by a transfer of the protases from the positive variant of the inferential statement to the negative one.Therefore, we start from the following two variants: Dacă mă inviți, vin; Dacă nu mă inviți, nu vin.By changing the protases, one may have the following: Dacă mă inviți, nu vin; Dacă nu mă inviți, vin.Unlike the condition, the concession represents an antonymic implication.So, in the structure of the hypothetical-deductive reasoning, the concession means either the denial of the hypothesis or the assertion of a negative conclusion (cf. galr II,p. 592).
After some connectors acquired a procedural specific meaning in the evolution of language, the concessive could dispense itself of the prophrasic negation (cf. Dominte, 2003, p. 20) of the conditional period.
Grammarians have also pointed out the relation with the adverbial clause of cause (there is even an indirect or conditional causal subordinate).It has also been emphasized that most concessive connectors have other values, too: "conditional, causal, local or modal" (Avram, 1960, p. 158).
The causal value, as it will be seen, is one of the basic values of the hypothetical-deductive reasoning (conditional).
The existence of the polysemy of connectors, contextually determined, is normal in the unstable process of their specialization (cf.also Zafiu, 2014, p. 213).
The concessive ratio involves the concession to several elements of the statement, which is observed in the totalitarian relational connectors: the concession to the subject (Oricine vine, nu deschid), to the direct object (Orice aș mînca, mi se face rău), to other circumstantial values (oriunde, oricînd, oricum, oricît...).
These diversified aspects, preserved in diachrony, offer the image of a long process of formation and fixation of the syntactic structures of the inference in the literary Romanian language.

The complexity of the structure
From the point of view of the way in which they were fixed in the written language, by the assumed techniques of the first two century traductology, more or less directly related to the structures evolved from the popular Latin, the two ratios (conditional and concessive) differ in terms of the degree of difficulty.
› 2.1.The hypothetical-deductive reasoning, because it represented a cognitive scheme, was part, in the configuration of syllogisms, of the basic, creative area of thought, representing its analytical capacity.But it implied a simple scheme, so the translators apparently took it (connector and structure) from spoken language (popular Latin).It is recorded as such also in other Romance languages (cf. the chapter Les Phrases hypothétiques commençant par si dans la langue française, des origines à la fin de XVI e siècle in Wagner, 1966).
The simplicity of the syntactic scheme led to advantages and disadvantages.At the advantages there should be marked the normal frequency of the structure, resulting from the direct possibility of adapting, by translation, to the text-support.At the disadvantages it is mentioned the fact that all prototypical connectors (dacă, de and the etimological, să), did not acquire specificity, a fact which characterizes, as it will be seen, also the old Romanian language.Moreover, the only conditional adverb, altminteri, although it has been recorded ever since Coresi's translations (it is still encountered today), failed to impose by frequency, perhaps because at the sentence level, the syntactic position of the condition is in deficit compared to its manifestation at the complex sentence level.
› 2.2.The concessive period, the result of an antonymic induction involves a more complex cognitive scheme, and the result is a much reduced frequency.This fact was ascertained: "The sixteenth century texts offer, indeed, very rare examples of concessives.And it is not about a smaller proportion compared to other more frequent subordinates-a proportion that can be the same in the contemporary language-but it can be said that this species was less used" (Avram, 1960, p. 153).However, the author finds, in a parallel examination (the same text, different translations in time), big differences in the detriment of the 16 th century texts.There could be invoked several causes: the quality of translators; the existence of a large inventory of polysemantic connectors in Romanian language; the difficulty of understanding the syntactic pattern of the paradox type by receivers, from copyists to the beneficiaries of the message.

The constitution of the semantic specificity (of the procedural meaning)
An exact description of the circumstantial meaning should take into account that its matrix is represented by a correlative structure.As follows: the adverbial modifier of place (acolo..., unde), of time (atunci..., cînd), of manner (așa..., cum); of condition (dacă/în caz că..., altminteri), of concession (chiar dacă..., totuși).The adverb in the structure dominates the circumstantial substitution class, at the sentence level, and the connector dominates the class of the relational elements that initiate the subordinate clause at the complex sentence level.
The normative grammar does not consider such a semantic matrix to be the basic feature of an adverbial modifier and resorts to an optional recording.It sometimes records both elements: the adverbial modifier of place ("defining representation the adverbs unde (interrogative) / acolo" -galr II, p. 514), of time ("defining representation the adverbs atunci, cînd" -galr II, p. 495); of manner (așa, cumgalr II, p. 523).At the adverbial modifiers of cause, purpose, condition, concession, consecution, only the connectors are mentioned, while to the others, although questionably considered adverbial modifiers, the semantic structure is not mentioned.
The marking of both elements of the correlative structure is necessary because together they acquire a procedural meaning and thus provide the possibility to distinguish the objects from adverbial modifiers.› 3.1.The conditional connectives belonging to the protasis of the conditional period depend from a semantic point of view on the structure of the hypothetical-deductive reasoning.It involves a relation of implication (logical consequence): Dacă e ziuă, afară e lumină; an inductive causal relationship: Dacă plouă, străzile sînt ude; an inertial implication ratio of one action by another: Dacă se face frig, aprind focul.
This matter, which is valid for the contemporary language, was also valid for the old Romanian: "At the beginning, dacă had a weak conditional value, its main value being the temporal and the causal one" (Frâncu, 2009, p. 149).
The constitution of the procedural meaning was understood by some specialists as an approach to the prototypical connector: "this conjunction (dacă, s.n.) gradually approaches more and more the conditional prototype that was once the conjunction să" (Frâncu, 2009, p. 49).But, as it can be seen from the examples, the etymological connector, when followed by the absolute tenses of the indicative mood, also expresses the real values of causality.
For an eventual assumption of the hypothetical (possible) or unrealistic meaning, other indicative tenses and other moods (conditional with its two tenses) had to be used.According to the denomination of the reasoning ("hypothetical-deductive or conditional"), it can be deduced that these two values are specific to the conditional period, the real conditional being difficult to delimit from the contextual determinism.Maybe that is why the normative grammar mentions also the future in its structure, it being part of the absolute tenses of the verb: "It is considered a proper conditional clause the subordinate which, in the hypothetical period, specifies a process via the indicative forms (present, past and future)" (galr II, p. 587).
Instead, the use of the potential forms of the verb can confer the status of a conditional connector to other relatives, as well, which, normally, have another syntactic destination: "Quite often, the conditional clause is a sentence introduced by cînd (...) when the mood of the verb (both in the regent clause and in the subordinate clause) is the conditional mood: Așa cum însuși Alfieri nu s-ar fi tradus mai bine, cînd ar fi știut românește" (slr, p. 344).
Hence the idea that "specific to the conditional sentence are dacă and de" (slr, p. 43); "However, most of the time, the conditional sentence is introduced by dacă (or by its synonym de), which is consequently considered to be the typical connector of the conditional sentence" (galr II, p. 82).
Despite the great number of variants (ca, de, deca, deaca, daca, dacă, să, se, de...; cf.slr, p. 257-258) the conditional connector did not succeed until the 19 th century to acquire a procedural meaning, to have an exclusive occurrence in the conditional protasis, as it happened with many concessive connectors.
It seems that this was a necessity in language, since, when the area of communication was expanded, the phrase în caz că (for the concessive, chit că) was taken from French.
In a normal order of things, since an adverbial clause is the expansion at a complex sentence level of an adverbial modifier (the adverbial modifiers had been called in the old grammars adverbial complements (cf.Drăganu, 1945, p. 91) there has to be identified the adverb with the conditional meaning.It is about the adverbs altminteri and altfel (cf.also Iordan & Robu, 1978, p. 675), which substitute a negative protasis: Dacă mă inviți, vin; Dacă nu mă inviți (altminteri) nu vin (cf.also galr II, p. 89).
However, it should be emphasized that the adverb from the semantic matrix of the conditional does not establish with the clause that it resumes a relationship of coreferentiality.Thus, in a statement of the type Unde veri ceti leage, acolea-i umbra legei ce-au trecut (VO, 20 v /17-18) we have a coreferent adverbial clause of place (other studies call it apposition, without involving in its denomination the nature of coreferentiality).Instead, in a statement of the type Dacă plătești, ți-o dau, altminteri nu, between the protasis and the adverb altminteri it is not a direct correlation, but a negative one (altminteri = dacă nu plăteștie), which points to the paradox of the concessive structure.This explains why some grammarians have also mentioned altminteri in the syntactic position of the concessive (Frâncu, 2009, p. 370).
Although there circulated the idea that "In Romance languages it was ascertained the loss of concessive connectors, whose main sources were written according to (1988, p. 76) the indefinite, the volitional and the temporal pattern" (Zafiu, 2014, p. 212) this is questionable at least for Romanian language.It is true, the paradoxical connection of the concessive had in classical Latin several reportings: the concession to hypothesis (ut/ne); to causal or temporal determinism (cum); to comparison (quamquam, quamvis, quamlibet), but also to conditioning (cf.Slușanschi, 1994, p. 60).The latter apparently had a higher productivity in popular Latin: "A fairly well-defined area is that of the conditional concessives, opened by si or its compounds (...) the clear marking of the concessive value of the subordinate clause is given by the compound conjunctions etsi, și dacă, tametsi și etiamsi, chiar dacă" (Slușanschi, 1994, p. 60).It should be mentioned that in classical Latin, in texts (as in the subsequent grammars), the elements of the compound conjunctions appeared also unagglutinated as in the old Romanian language: "Les propositions concessives sont elle qui commencent: a) Soit par si (suivie dans la propositions principales, de tamen), ou par etiam si, et si" ... (Riemann, 1932, p. 378), with certain semantic differences ("etiam si ou et si signifiant quand même; etiamsi, ou etsi signifiant quoique", Riemann, 1932, p. 378).
That is why, some theories of creativity, at least those referring to the Romanian language, must be at least partially reconsidered: "Romanian, like the other Romance languages, lost the Latin concessive markers (the only exception could be măcar 'even') and rebuilt new conectives, sometimes using the same pattern" (sor, p. 534).
However, the correlative structure expressing the adverbial modifier of concession in contemporary Romanian (chiar dacă..., totuși / etiam si..., tamen) is related to the same lexical creativity of the Romanian speakers.
One can certainly discuss about continuity because what was said about the Latin conditional concessives can also be said about the Romanian ones: "The most important as a frequency is the group of conjunctions that have come to introduce concessive clauses starting from their conditional value" (Avram, 1960, p. 158), thus continuing a concessive pattern: conditional connector + focalizer (cf.Zafiu, 2014, p. 211).
The Latin conditional connector si (Rom.să/se), although it still keeps both values in the contemporary Romanian (Să am bani, mi-aș lua mașină; Să-mi dai un milion, nu ți-o arăt) did not succeed, neither in the conditional period nor in the concessive period, to acquire a procedural meaning.
In emphatic way, it was used alone in Latin: Si bona fortuna veniat, ne intromiseris (tl, p. 41; cf.Slușanschi, 1994, p. 60).But the phenomenon is encountered, as it was seen, not only in the contemporary Romanian, but also in the old Romanian language: nu veri scăpa de nevoe, s-ai lăcui în turnul Semireanului, să ai fi îngrădit cu foc (mo, 137 v /5-6).Such a context proves that Romanian concessive conjunctions are not "all of them formed with elements inherited from Latin on the territory of the Romanian language" (Frâncu, 2000, p. 209).
The discontinuity became much more frequent after the replacement of să with de.The phenomenon was due to the homonymous coincidence of se (= dacă) -se (reflexive pronoun) or in the variant achieved by intensification: să -să ("the necessity to avoid the construction să să va", Arvinte, 2004, p. LXII).As the difficulty was general, the area of change was bigger and certainly older, culminating with the exemplary texts: "When they prepared the text (bb, s.n.) for printing, the Bucharest old correctors, the Greceanu brothers, "modernized" it, that is, they adapted it to the southern literary norm, the Wallachian one, systematically replacing, in all occurrences, the conjunction să 'dacă' , with the conjunction de" (Arvinte, 2004, p. LXII).The result: "the conjunction să 'dacă' disappeared from the norm of the modern literary language at the end of the 17 th century" (Arvinte, 2004, p. LXII).
Considered "the oldest and the most stable concessive connector (or component of some concessive connectors) in Romanian" (Zafiu, 2015, p. 678), the junctive based on măcar has the most interesting evolution, starting with the popular Latin, which took it from Greek (μακάρι), continuing with the Balkan and Romanic languages.At the level of the formal configuration, it has a great availability, from the simple adverb to the hyperfunctional one.But this did not save it from regression because "Starting from the second half of the nineteenth century, the concessive connectors containing it have been replaced in the standard language by other connectors fully or partly grammaticalized" (Zafiu, 2015, p. 678).
The relation between the adverbial modifier and the corresponding clause is provided by the configuration of the relative subordinate, since the relative connectors also fulfil the syntactic function.

Other features common to the two syntactic positions
Besides the content aspects (the connection between the conditional and the concessive at the level of the hypothetical-deductive reasoning) and those of form (obtaining the basic concessive connectors by focalizing the conditional ones), there are also other aspects in the interference zone of the two syntactic positions: the type of formation of some important connectors, the incidence of adverbial correlatives, and the possibility of amplifying the periods at the discourse level.› 4.1.As a way of composing, there will be analyzed the agglutination, which primarily engages the conjunction de, of an uncertain etymology.There are often given formal equivalents from the Slavic environment (Ciorănescu, 2001, p. 281).
The polyfunctional character gives it special importance.At the level of the current norm, it can control 5 syntactic relations, even if they have specific connectors (conditional, causal, concessive, final and consecutive) (cf.mda, II, p. 27-28).
The different values of this conjunction do not differ from those of its compounds, as described above.Clearly, conditional sentences remain those in which the predication is achieved through the relative tenses of the indicative and the conditional: Că de ați creade lui Moisi,doară ați creade și Mie (ntb,In,5,46); n-ar hi fostu fără răscoală de nu s-ar fi spăimat Racoți (mc,188,. The conjunction de shows a great disponibility to form compounds by agglutination: (deaca, deca, daca) dacă; deși, deci, decît etc.
The typical conditional connector dacă was obtained from the simple connector de and the adverb ca (Lat.quam, cf.Old Sl. jako) in the virtue of the fact that in certain contexts they had similar values: de = îndată ce, imediat ce, după ce, cînd, cît timp; ca = cînd, îndată ce, după ce (cf.Arvinte, 2004, p. LXI).
As in the case of de, the functive ca was polyfunctional, "what can also be noticed with the help of the equivalences that are established between the different used forms (when this happens) in the compared versions" (Gafton, 2001, p. 157).
As a result of these formal tribulations, dacă, by surpassing the other connectors in point of frequency, manages to become a typical conditional connector, but does not acquire a procedural meaning, as the polyvalence of the previous phases remains active.
However, the law of specificity of the reported ratio is required for the connector deci (cf.Gafton, 2011, p. 15-21), which was later assigned to the conclusive coordination.Surprisingly, the agglutination with the intensive semiadverb și, imposes a specific connector, deși.Surprising is the fact that, in conditional, the connector formed by agglutination was not imposed by the procedural meaning, whereas in the concessive, where there are more than 5 specific connectors, it was.Much more when the composition through agglutination was not achieved in the concessive relation.There are recorded by dvl the subsequently non-validated formations of the literary language (macarcare, macarcine, macarunde).It was also shown that: "Măcar că este adesea înregistrat în gramaticile de la sfîrșitul secolului al XVIII-lea ca o unitate sudată" (Zafiu, 2015, p. 681): macarché, macarque, mecarquo... › 4.2.As it has been shown, a circumstantial relationship is characterized at a complex sentence level by a correlative structure, the resumption being usually made with a full semantic adverb, which dominates the substituting class of the respective adverbial modifier at the sentence level.The correlation between protasis and apodosis is made in the case of the two syntactic relations through several adverbs (cf.Avram, 1960, p. 153-201).But, surprisingly, among the correlative adverbs, very frequent are the adversative conjunctions.Referring to the concessive, it was shown: "A relationship of the same kind can also be expressed by a bipropositional structure with terms of the same rank coordinated by dar or însă (...) Deși nu este cuminte, îl iubește toată lumea -Nu este cuminte, dar/însă îl iubește toată lumea" (galr II, p. 592).The adversative correlatives, in old Romanian, but also in the current popular language (according to the frequently quoted example: Deși ești diavol, dar ți-e mintea goală), are also found after the conditional protasis.
Trying to explain the ratio of the semantic implication, grammarians could not overcome the traditional formalisms, establishing, only for the concessive clause, the existence of coordination between the main clause and the subordinate one (Graur, 1956, p. 130;Avram, 1960, p. 212).
In order to find an accord, several arguments were invoked: the comparison with the typical correlative adverbial structure of the type acolo..., unde; the synonymy between the concessive relationship and the adversative coordination, justifying the interference by a presumed relation of interdependence: the psychological subject (the concessive clause) -the psychological predicate (the main clause) (Dragomirescu, 1984, p. 527).It was even shown that, by expressing contrasting contents, the procedural meaning of the adversative connectors coincides with that of the concessive connectors, progressing from the semantic contrast to the contradiction of the expectations (Zafiu, 2005, p. 247).The latter argument does not regard the simultaneous usage of the concessive and the adversative connectors, but it highlights the semantic specificity.
The circumstantial correlation imposes that the adverb has a syntactic function, which happens in the concessive correlation (chiar dacă..., totuși), but it does not happen in the case of the adversative conjunctions.
The concessive-adversative synonymy, as demonstrated by the current pragmatics studies, is real, but the adversative correlatives are also found in the conditional period, that grammarians do not usually speak about.
In the nineteenth century, the adversative correlation of the concessive and conditional clauses went into regression (cf.Merlan, 2001, p. 183).
The phenomenon was described with other "arguments": "an anomaly in the syntax of the contermporary Romanian language (...), disputable from the point of view of the cultivation of language (...) can not be tolerated"; "an aberrant addition of the coordinating conjunctions (...) creating an unpleasant anacoluthon"' (Dragomirescu, 1984, p. 526), etc.In old Latin and in the popular one, the two types of implication from the subordinate to the main clause (the conditional and the concessive) were considered and constructed as the main clauses, "constituting perhaps an Indo-European heritage" (Iordache, 2002, p. 44).In another phase of evolution,for protasis (a false main clause), the classical Latin resorted to subordinate conjunctions (p.66).The conditional clause passed through the same phases, from the false main clause to a hypotactic relationship, the similar behaviour being justified by the "logical and grammatical relationships between conditional and concessive clauses" (p.116).Consequently, the main (false) conditionals and the concessives started to coexist with the respective subordinates not only in Romanian but also in the other Romance languages (p.98).
Because popular Latin facts are difficult to be identified, the phenomenon can be "modeled" for the concessive relation also through classical Latin, in which the two processes, as it was shown, coexisted.
Of these coordinating connectors, et was not adversative, so it could rarely render the concessive period (cf.Rom.Să-mi dai un milion și nu te las): therefore, the law of preserving the exceptions was also applied this time.Otherwise, it was associated with the semiadverb of a totalitarian meaning tot (și tot, totuși), imposing itself in the literary norm with a procedural concessive meaning (cf.Ragea, 2010, p. 279).
Sed and verum, the adversative coordinating conjunctions, due to their oppositional meaning (cf.also Niculescu, 1965, p. 102: "the concessive conjunctions…many grammatical handbooks placed them amoung the adversative ones"), could express also alone the conditional and concessive implication, which, as seen from the examples, happened in Romanian language for a long period of time, to the perplexity of some grammarians.Only that in a totally particular way, starting from the old Romanian language, the concessive relation has built up a large number of specific connectors (with a procedural meaning), so that it could dispense of the contribution of the adversatives that had a mitigated meaning of the force of the focalizers.
› 4.3.Another similarity between the conditional and the concessive relationship is that of their organization in the form of grammatical periods, as an expression of a reasoning that involves exercising the analytical capacity of thought.The conditional period and, to a greater extent, the concessive period is not carried out by the automatisms that ensure the fluency of language, but there are statements for which thought is summoned.The protasis announces a meaning that the apodosis reverses (the concessive) or confirms (the conditional).Completing each other, they have a finite, closed semantic content, hence the impression of circularity from which their denomination comes (Gr.periodos = drum ocolit).
As the analytical ability of the speakers was practiced at the level of the natural language, from the syntactic periods, they passed to the oratory periods by using some more refined procedures: parallelism, amplification, repetition, circularity... (cf. Munteanu, 1998, p. 77-78).
The syntactic periods (the conditional and the concessive) contributed to the exercise of the analytical capacity of thinking.As they moved into the automatisms of speech by assuming the procedural meanings of the connectors, they made it possible to involve the affective components as a vector of persuasion in the rhetorical periods.

Conclusions
The approach of the two modalities of manifestation of the hypothetical-deductive or conditional reasoning via the conditional and concessive periods focused on the basic connectors of the two syntactic positions at the complex sentence level, highlighting the way in which Romanian language has improved over time the syntactic instruments for expressing the three dimensions (real, hypothetical and unreal) of a complex message.
The conditional values, because they corresponded to the direct reasoning, although they experienced a great number of attempts / variants, failed to reach the procedural meaning by using only a single connector (în caz că), the rest of them remaining in the sphere of polyfunctional connectors.
Not the same thing happened with the concessive connectors.The difficulty of the semantic paradox led the speakers to several attempts, to the development of a focal system, consisting in intensive semiadverbs, in order to establish as clearly as possible the semantic nucleus of concessivity.The result was the acquiring of the procedural meaning for a much greater number of connectors: the largest number of specialized connectors for a syntactical position.This was possible by activating, in norms, the relationship between continuity and creativity.