On the history of the indefinite pronoun altcineva ‘ someone else ’ . Grammatical observations

Within the present study, we aim to look at the way in which the indefinite pronoun altcineva ‘someone else’ has come to being in Romanian. Its linguistic bearings are mainly discussed from a diachronic perspective, that can help us understand the evolutionary stages of this compound pronoun, starting from a process of syntagmatization on the basis of the Latin model, and ending in a lexicalization on Romanian grounds. In order to perform an analysis on the basis of objectivity and actuality, we have prioritized the investigative leads in recent grammars of the Romanian language, be they diachronic (Frâncu, 2009, Stan, 2013; SOR) or synchronic (GALR; GBLR; RGR; GR). For the accomplishment of this goal, we have made use of a representative sample of old writings (mainly from the 16th and 17th centuries), that illustrate the dynamics of the old language, as well as the mutations that occurred over time. Our research has led to interesting and novel a la fois results pertaining to the structural peculiarities, the semantic compatibility and the syntagmatic association or the syntactic implications of the pronoun in question.


Preliminaries
Some changes in morphosyntactic interpretations have occurred during the last decade, in the field of Romanian linguistics, in the sense that the center of interest is no longer exclusively represented by descriptions of parts of speech and of their synchronic relationships.Instead, tackling language facts from a diachronic perspective facilitates a proper understanding of the formation and function of certain lexical units or of some particular grammatical structures within the system.These structures either existed from the start in Romanian, or have developed at a later time due to a winding evolution.
1.1.Within morphological classes, apart from the verb, the most complex, as well as the most interesting, is the pronoun, which possesses a rich and heterogeneous inventory of items that have come to be used in various and, at times, limited ways.Niculescu (1965) mentions that "the particularities of the pronominal inflexion in Romanian does not consist in the existence or nonexistence of a certain element, but it especially consists of a different use of the inventory of Latin borrowed forms, as well as the functional value that is attributed to each element in the makings of the system" (p.39).

1.2.
As for pronominal categories, the one that stands out is that of indefinites, whose members have appeared in large numbers in the realm of the Romanian language, alongside the obvious necessities of both supplementing the losses that have occurred from Latin to Romanian, as well as the need to give nuances to significations (Stoica, 2011, p. 445).From this point of view, the linguists that have focused on the existence of some Latin pronouns or the appearance of others in Romanian have noticed that "the indefinite pronouns and indefinite adjectives exhibit more peculiarities and irregularities due to the fact that they constitute a more heterogeneous class than other pronouns" (Gheție, 1997, p. 129), and due to the fact that they are characterized by certain instabilities (Frâncu, 2009, p. 286).In the pages of sor, G. Pană Dindelegan and her collaborators observe that, with respect to quantifiers, "the specific features of OR1 quantified nominal phrases involve the inventory, form, word order, and values of quantifiers and the formal marking of the agreement between quantifiers and nouns" (sor, p. 356).
1.3.Within the boundaries of this formal complexity and syntactic behavior also lies the indefinite quantifier altcineva 'someone else' which underwent an interesting evolution that remained unrevealed until recently and upon which we shall focus in the following pages, in an attempt to illustrate its structural and functional peculiarities.

From the Latin pronouns alter and qui towards Romanian and other Romance languages
The constituents of the compound altcine(va) 'someone else' are of Latin origin and are commonly found, in a large amount, in the whole of Romania.In terms of this last constituent, namely cine 'who' , it may be observed that Romanian is similar, in many respects, to the Ibero-Romance linguistic field.Bartoli's theory of lateral areas (1925) seems to fit this case, and it is a theory that was adopted by Pușcariu (1976, p. 212) as well, due to the fact that the descendants of the interrogative-relative pronoun qui have an Accusative form as opposed to central Romance languages that exhibit pronominal forms descending from the Nominative.

2.3.
Within the realm of Romanian, the indefinite particle -va was added to the second element of the compound, namely cine 'who' (Densusianu, 1962, II, p. 125); -va's origin must be sought for in the paradigm of the verbal forms of the verb a vrea 'to want' (-va < vare < voare < lat. volet;Lombard, 1938, p. 203-205;Stoica, 2011, p. 446), which has multiple uses at a morphological level.This complementary value of verbs meaning 'a vrea' [to want] is not exclusive to Romanian, but is found in other languages as well (Haspelmath, 1997, p. 159) 2 .
The role of the affix is to signal a nuance of uncertainty3 regarding the recognition of the identity of a person (cineva, careva 'someone'), of an object (ceva 'something'), of a circumstance (undeva 'somewhere' , cumva 'somehow' , cîndva 'sometime') or of a quantity (cîtva 'somewhat').Hence, the scalar focus particle -va must be rendered as a marker of a special type of indefinite pronouns or adverbs suggesting indeterminacy (Haspelmath, 1997, p. 158).
In time, the particle și 'and'-deriving from Lat. ipse (Dimitrescu, 1974, p. 154), which had come to be commonly used in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, often to suggest insistence-has attached itself to the newly compounded form, in addition to other members of the pronominal class.
2.4.Similar formal and/or functional syntagms appear not only in Latin (qui alter), but in Romance languages of the Gallic-Italic linguistic field as well (It. qui altro, altro qualcun, qualcun altro; Fr. qui (d') autre, quelqu'un d'autre; Cors.chi altru etc.)4 .However, over centuries, the qui magis 'more than one of them' syntagm has spread within the Ibero-Romance territories; it is different in structure, but not in function (Sp. quién más, Pt. quem mais, Cat. qui més, Glc. quen máis, etc.).These examples prove that we are dealing with an inherited syntactic characteristic, which has subsequently experienced a certain detachment from the original model.

2.5.
In sustaining the aforementioned arguments, Le Goffic's (2015) observations on the relationships between interrogative and indefinite pronouns can also be brought to the fore.He states that in these situations, we are dealing with both similarities and differences.With respect to similarities, it seems that a variable, which opens up various approaches, traceable in any language (interrogation, indefiniteness, subordination etc.) emerges.In relation to dissimilarities, they are related to function and evolution.Furthermore, from a diachronic perspective, the class of interrogatives is a stable one, but that of indefinite pronouns is "extrêmement instables, ils constituent des séries paradigmatiques aux contours souvent flottants ou incertains, souvent en relation de chevauchement partiel et/ou de concurrence" (Le Goffic (2015), p. 132).

Current theoretical debates on quantifiers
In order to perform an appropriate interpretation of the syntagmatic association of the two quantifiers (altul 'other' + cineva 'someone'), we believe that we should investigate whether certain semantic-functional factors that may have led to the lexicalization of the autonomous syntagm may be identified5 .As can be noticed, the set is made up of two existential quantifiers, which has facilitated, to a certain degree, their fusion within the linguistic structure under investigation, despite certain semantic differences.

3.2.
It should also be noted that both terms are used in the formation of the syntagm in question, due to their inclusion of the "semantic idea (presupposition) of the existence of some elements (the quantifying elements)" (gblr, p. 144).This association is far from haphazard, as both cineva 'one' , as well as altul 'other' do not offer any additional information regarding the person they refer to.Actually, altul 'other' , does nothing other than operate a successive selection: not cineva 'someone' , but altcineva 'someone else': a different person than the one initially referred to.

3.3.
In the pages of the gr, the alternative altul 'other' , is described from a similar perspective, being regarded as an indefinite of a double categorization, a lexical and a functional one, and that in the case of a nominal ellipsis, "assumes a special form (incorporating the bound-morpheme definite article)" (p.300).

3.4.
It is noticeable that the terms used in the formation of the initial syntagm have different values, their sole commonality being [-Approximation].Moreover, in the [+ Relative] / [-Relative] opposition, the entities in the scope of quantification are visible in themselves (unul 'one' , cineva 'someone') or by relating them to other entities in the scope of quantification, from which they differ in some respects (altul 'other' , altcineva 'someone else')" (galr, I, p. 255).
3.5.Due to the semantic analysis of these existential quantifiers, certain featural incompatibilities have been erased or diminished, hence facilitating the formation of the compound altcineva 'someone else' .

Altcineva: from syntagmatization towards lexicalization in the old language
In the main works of historical Romanian grammar, the evolution of indefinite compounds is investigated sequentially, the authors mainly limiting themselves to a description of the inventory and the specific showcasing of some general characteristics of the class (Avram, 2005, p. 162-167;Popescu-Marin, 2007, p. 254-256) and paying less interest in their syntactic behavior, be it related to a group center or to an adjunct.

4.1.
For instance, Stan (2013) finds that "some types of combinations between quantifiers and pronominal determiners became obsolete in old times" and also mentions that "certain topical variants of quantifiers in relation to pronominal determiners did not impose themselves in the language (alte multe fi-vor 'many others shall be' , gs, 27 v , p. 318)" (p.54), whereas G. Pană Dindelegan et al. claim that "at the beginning of the old period, the constraints of the distribution of definite/non-definite forms of determiner alt(ul) 'other' were not fixed.Thus, in structures with overt nominal heads, there appear not only article-less forms, which generalized as adjectives (altă țară 'other country' , dî, 33, 241 v , p. 130), but also definite forms (altul oarecarele giurămîntu 'other.defany-other vow' , cv, 67 v , p. 362), which specialized as pronouns; in the structures in which the determiner is used pronominally, the adjectival form is also available (va face curvie una cu altă 'will sin one with the other' , Prav.1581, 205 v -206 r , p. 162)" (sor, p. 303).

4.2.
A careful study of our old writings illustrate that concerning the appearance of the quantifier under scrutiny in this research (altcineva 'someone else'), we are dealing with a complex and lengthy process, during which essential transformations occurred.
It is most likely that before the formation of the syntagm in question, the process of the association between cine 'who' and the particle -va 'some' was about to come to an end, by the looks of 16 th century documents7 .Through the formation of cineva 'someone' and other similar quantifiers, a part of the complex Latin pronominal system which suffered significant losses, is somewhat rebuilt.For instance, in Romanian, there is no trace of the Lat. aliquis, aliqua, aliquid, aliquod; quispiam, quaepiam, quidpiam; qui, quae, quod; quidam, quaedam, quoddam; quis (quae), quid (quod); quisquam, quaequam, quodquam (quidquam).

4.3.
Therefore, the compound form (altcineva 'someone else') is the result of the fusion of its constituents and finds its explanation in the fact that cineva 'someone' had the meaning of 'any person; a person that we do not know' , whereas for designating a different other unknown person a determiner is needed to clarify its meaning.Thus, through the medium of the indefinite altul 'other' , the possibility of designating a different other person emerges; another unknown person or whose identity we do not want to reveal/ mention the identity of (Altcineva a fost acolo, nu el 'Someone else was there, not him').

4.4.
The compound altcineva 'someone else' is mentioned as early as the 16 th century, in both religious and secular writings8 , but not frequently, only sporadically, which suggests the fact that at the time, its use had not been established: (1) E să Ilie și Pavel sau altu-cineva cătră ceriu s-au fost luați (cc 2 , 515, p. 461) 'It is that Ilie and Pavel or some-other to the skies taken-were' (2) n-au avut, nice de la Aron vodă, nice de la altucineva (dî, 58, 2 r , p. 180) 'they did not have it, not from Aron the king, nor from someone else' 4.5.Similarly, one may observe that these few occurrences prove that altcineva 'someone else' was not formally established at the time, hesitations emerging even within the same text, and especially in situations of Datives and Genitives: (3) nu altui cuiva, dentr-acela adeveritu, spre una de elușu (cc 2 , 459, p. 409) 'not to someone else, but that which were true, to one of his' 4.6.However, in the following two centuries, the pronominal form begins to establish itself and becomes widespread, although we did identify hesitations in usage, in texts representative of the 17 th century, especially in Oblique cases that pose the issue of intra-syntagmatic concord, as shall be seen.It may be observed that in Oblique cases (6-10), the autonomy of the constituents is easier to identify than in direct ones (4-5): (4) de la stăpăniri sau de la alt cineva a tocmi moara (sd, p. 301) 'from rules or from any other to bargain the mill' (5) Nu sămt eu Dumnedzău nice altul cineva de noi (CazV., 77 v , p. 378) 'Not am I God nor some other of us' (6) Un om de va vrea să lase altuicuiva vreun lucru (Prav.1646, p. 75) 'If a man shall want to leave to someone else some thing' (7) din partea altcuiva dintre acei, care au o apreciabilă experiență (ai,o, p. 401) 'from someone of them, that have a sizable experience' (8) acela face prepus cum să dea altuicuiva să se otrăvească (Prav.1652, p. 244) 'he does beforehand how to give to someone else to poison' (9) iară nu cu altă eparhie a altuicuiva (Prav.1652, p. 400) 'and not with one other diocese of some other' (10) iară nu altuicuiva, că cătră tine grăiaște (eî, 262, p. 300) 'and not to someone else, but to thee speaketh' In these examples, it is noticeable that, often, there are syntagms composed of terms that are characterized by morphological independence and syntactic dependency.In time however, the form of the pronominal quantifier altul 'other' undergoes an evolutionary process that results in a formal semblance to the adjective (alt 'other'), and not a functional one (alt 'other' has the value of altul 'the other').Even if in some cases (1-2), -l 'the' is missing (altu 'other'), the grammatical information is encoded, precisely as in the case of common nouns in the spoken language, by the flexionary form u (gblr, p. 89), which, similarly to the full constituent -ul, differentiates pronouns from adjectives (gblr, p. 147) and encapsulates the former into the type 1 category, where "the grammatical oppositions are denoted through flexionary forms which clearly express the gender, number and case" (galr, I, p. 262).In Oblique cases, an almost generalized omission of the pronominal particle -a, can be noticed in the structure of the existential quantifier altul 'other' (instead of altuia 'to someone else' , there is altui).

4.7.
Cases in which the main constituent of the syntagm (cineva 'someone') is accompanied by the particle -și (cinevași/cinevaș 'someone') have a relatively small number of occurrences, but are relevant for investigating those aspects pertaining to the formation of the compound form we are interested in.In such lrm), however, in the Corpus, we have only included those that carried linguistically relevant information for our investigation.
In essence, the texts belong to some stylistically different registers (religious, administrative or literary texts), both translations, as well as original writings.
situations, the role of -și is not only that of demarcating a pronominal class, but also of stabilizing the part of speech, of which it is a structural part.It is noticeable that, once again, in Oblique cases, the autonomy of cinevași 'someone' is much more evident, probably also due to the fact that the indefinite form is felt as sluggish, particularly because its structure contains four constituents9 : (11) ce ca cînd ară munci pre alt cinevaș, așa să ne pare noao (cc 2 , 66, p. 68) 'that as if he would labour onto someone, so should appear to us' (12) nici că zice altcinevași fără numai acest Pătrașcu țiganu (aj, 845, p. 921) 'not that someone else mentions, apart from this Pătraşcu the gipsy' (13) dîndu-i altcinevași banii, să fie volnic a da casile (aj, 531, p. 590) 'someone else giving him the money, to be free to give the houses' nici le-au dat altui cuivași danie, ci au rămas dă a să stăpîni (aj, 408, p. 452) 'and they did not give to some other gifts, but remained to rule' (15) vreo bănuială asupra Dinului Căprescul sau a altui cuivași (aj, 682, p. 641) 'some suspicion about Dinului Căprescul or some other one' (16) că nu scrie în diiată că-l lasă Lipoveanului sau altui cuivași (aj, 518, p. 576) 'that it is not written in the testament that it shall be left to the Lipovean or to some other one' 4.8.What also appears interesting to us is the following example in which an association between a form of the plural of the alternative (altor 'to others') and the indefinite cinevași 'someone' , that has a singular form is made, but to which a plural meaning is attached.It is likely that what we are dealing with is an analogical structure that came into being from using the primary form of cine 'who' with a plural meaning.Dimitrescu (1974, p. 184) identifies more writings in which this value occurs, mentioning that cine 'who' was used for the singular, as well as for the plural (cine mă văzură '(they) who saw me' , cp 1 , 51 r , p. 135 / cire iubiți Zeul 'they who love the God' , ps, 159 r , p. 201), a use that is not observable in modern Romanian: (17) ei vrea să margă asupra altor cuivaș (cc,ițr, 71 r , p. 193)  'they wish to go unto some others' 4.9.It is not frequent that the set occurs together with determiners, its adjuncts having an adjectival or pronominal value.In cases such as these, the group center is made up of both constituents (altul + cineva 'other + one') or, implicitly, by the compound form altcineva 'someone else'): (18) în pilda a altui cuiva păcătos ca-ntr-o oglindă a o privi poate (cd, p. 139) 'in the parable of some other sinner like into a mirror may look in' ( 19) sau pre altcineva oarecarele vei tu (Mărg., 153 r , p. 426) 'or unto any other one you will' (20) veri altcineva a lui, să nu hulească pre Dumnezeu (Mărg., 147 r , p. 410) 'any other one of him, to not slander God' 4.10.In only one clause we identified the compound someone else 'one other' used as an adjective.The usage is atypical, because compound pronouns based on cine 'who' do not fall under this category.We assume that we are dealing with a process of conversion due to the confusion with an existential quantifier of a similar calibre, namely altul 'the other' , used much more frequently and of more general aspects [± Human] and often compatible with those of altcineva 'someone else' [+ Human], which is one of its nonseparative correspondents (galr, I, p. 258): (21) de-l va lua altul cineva om de a besearicii10 (dvs, 214 r , p. 189) 'if he may be taken by some other man of church' 4.11.A similar functional compatibility can be observed in situations where nimeni 'no one' is associated in certain syntagms with altul 'other' or altcineva 'someone else' (Chircu, 2014, p. 53-67), the negative substituting "nouns of «personal gender» as well as names of other animate or inanimate personified objects, that belong from a semantic point of view to the paradigm in which the relative-interrogative pronouns cine(?) 'who(?)' and the indefinite pronouns cineva, oricine 'someone, anyone' , belong as well" (Dominte, 2003, p. 72): (22) nimini altcinevași să nu să amestece făr' dă numai vătafu (aj, 177, p. 193) 'no other one should get involved apart from the bailiff ' (23) den vreme că nime altul n-au știut acia taină, fără numai hatmanul (cam, 311, p. 146) 'since no other knew about that concealment, apart from the marshal' (24) nu easte altul nimenea fără mine (CPop. 3, 43 r , p. 215) 'there is no other without me' (25) nimănui altuia ca mie, nu iaste vestit șî mărturisit a o ispiti (vi, 204 v , p. 233)  'to no one other as to me, it is not meant and told to tempt her' 4.12.In the following example, it is still noticeable that in between the two alternatives (altul 'other' and altcineva 'someone else'), there used to be a difference in meaning, as they seem to be used in the same utterance ('you, or him or another completely unnamed person'): (26) cînd vei vedea pre tine, sau pre altul, sau den slugile tale, sau din coconii tăi, sau pre altcineva din casa ta că să jură adease (Marg, 1691, 73 v , p. 218) 'when you shall see yourself, or other of your servants, or of your gentlemen, or another of your house to oftentimes swear' 4.13.It seems that in some areas, at the beginning of the 19 th century, the constituents of altcineva 'someone else' would have kept their autonomy, which suggests that the pronouns were still considered two different elements, with grammatical self-sufficiency: (27) poate el încredința vînzarea lor altuia cuiva (ab, 6, p. 192) 'he may entrust their trade to some other' 4.14.The archaic structure of cine alt(ul) / alt(ul) cine 'who other / other one' , has remained in Romanian as a trace of the Latin structure qui alter, that is generally present in interrogatives11 , and have a correspondent in Italian (chi altro); it has been increasingly competing more and more with the compound pronominal form (altcineva 'someone else'): (28) Cine altul va răsîpi sêmnele grăitorilor din pîntece…?(mvts, 25, p. 559) 'Who other will squander the signs of the speakers of the wombs…?' (29) Cine alt va zice ție aceastea care-ț zic eu? (Mărg., 16 r , 63) 'Who other will tell you these [words] that I say?'

The morphosyntactic interpretation of altcineva
The morphosyntax of the compound under investigation has not been researched sufficiently from a diachronic perspective, despite the fact that a series of structural peculiarities can be observed, such as the double-marked inflexion-on the one hand, in the first constituent, and on the other, in the second-or the absence of pronominal formatives.

5.1.
From the start, we observe that the old language structures contradict the morphosyntactic behavior of the indefinite altcineva 'someone else' , as described by Giurgea (2010) with reference to the current state of the language.He states that in contemporary Romanian, the existential quantifier cineva 'someone' , together with altul 'other' give rise to certain pronominal compounds that are perceived as simple syntactic entities and that "l'analyse de ces formes comme des composés (au lieu de alt ceva 'autre quelque chose' , alt + NP ?) est soutenue par la flexion casuelle; tandis que alt prénominal reçoit des désinences casuelles (pour le genre et le nombre, on peut toujours dire que ceva et cineva ne sont que des masculins singuliers), les formes altcineva et altceva ne présentent que la flexion casuelle qui caractérise la deuxième partie: oblique altcuiva comme cuiva 'à/de quelqu'un' , absence d'une forme oblique pour altceva comme pour ceva (Giurgea, 2010, p. 164)".

5.2.
In a chapter from a subsequent collective study (rgr), the same author resumes the same discussion on the internal non-flexionary aspect of the compound altcineva 'someone else' in modern Romanian, claiming that altcineva 'someone else' and altceva "can be analyzed as compounds because this alt-is uninflected and does not appear in its regular position: direct case (NA) altcineva 'alt somebody' , oblique case (GD) alt(*ui)cuiva" (rgr, p. 152), but our examples (3, 6-10, 14-18, 27) prove that, in the old language, the use of the pronoun in the Genitive and Dative cases comes across as natural: (30) din spunerea și din cugetul mieu sau altuicuiva (vrc, III v , p. 187) 'from my sayings and from my thinking or of someone else's' 5.3.Despite the arguments invoked in rgr, our exemplifications suggest that, in the beginning, inflection did exist, being doubly marked in the syntagm under investigation, both in the encountered free forms, as well as in compound ones.The visible inflection of the two terms does none other than show us that the two terms are, in fact, pronouns, altul 'other' fulfilling a naming role.In this sense, the following instances are relevant, and we can also notice that the two constituents must be considered pronouns, as there exist a series of unambiguous grammatical markers, such as the masculine inflection, and the causal and pronominal flexionary forms, evident in both NA, but especially in GD: (30) altul cineva din crieri le-au plăzmuit, unul ca acela nici al nostru (cii, 249 v , p. 316) 'someone else from writings had planned, one like that nor ours' (31) de va fi și altul cinevaș făcut ca acealea din romani (cc,ițr, 13 r , p. 153) 'if there shall be some others made like those from the Romans' (32) sînt roabă Domnul mieu Isus Hristos, iară nu altuiia cuiva (dvs, 300 r , p. 259) 'I am the servant of my Lord Jesus Christ, and of not some other's' 5.4.Therefore, we may observe that the association of the two quantifiers (altul 'other' , cineva 'someone'), as a result of a process of progressive lexicalization, results in the compound (altcineva 'someone else') which is part of the existential quantifier class, and is a marker of "differentiation in relation to another entity of the domain of quantification (thus being likened to differentiating pronominal demonstratives), being non-separative correspondents of the separative altul 'other' (Altcineva vrea să-ţi spună altceva 'Someone else wishes to tell you another thing')" (galr, I, p. 258).

5.5.
Unlike other syntagmatic associations of indefinite quantifiers, we notice that the first position is taken up by altul 'other' , whereas the second one by cineva 'one' , which allows us to speculate that in the case of altul 'other' we are dealing with a fixed word order and with a process of specialization that clarifies the meaning of cineva 'one' .The pronoun altul 'other' is an adjunct with a pronominal value, and not with an adjectival one, as may seem when doing a surface-level interpretation.

5.7.
In the case of the syntactic function performed by the two constituents, we assume to rather be in the presence of a phenomenon of syntactic doubling of the function of cineva 'one' (subject (2), object (10), etc.), altul 'other' fulfilling not only a naming role, but an anticipatory one as well, just like in the case of direct and indirect objects, where the entire grammatical information is reiterated.
A similar doubling of the grammatical function of indefinite pronouns can be noticed in the case of complementary syntagms in the current language: cine altcineva 'who else' şi cui altcuiva 'to whom other' , where an identical syntactic behaviour exists.However, in this case too, it cannot be said of the situation to be that of an agreement, but rather a reiteration of the grammatical information in both constituents, just like Giurgea (2010) states when discussing the Oblique case of the structure cine altcineva 'who else' .He believes that "le N grammatical est épelé deux fois" and that "le mouvement du N grammatical ressemble au mouvement des clitiques, étant déterminé par un besoin de l'élément qui se déplace plutôt que de la cible" (2010, p. 166).

Conclusions
As can be understood from the linguistic facts investigated, altcineva 'someone else' has lexicalized in a complex and gradual process, especially due to some structural peculiarities.Even though the model of production is of Latin origin, its evolution owes a great deal to the specificity of Romanian, which has detached itself from related Romance languages, being much more innovative at a morphological level, as well as at a syntactic one, due to the rich inflexion that characterizes it.
An important role in comprising the compound cineva 'someone' was taken upon by the relativeinterrogative pronoun cine 'who' , which drifted towards the sphere of the indefinites, alongside the indefinite particle -a's attachment that is characteristic of a significant number of members.
In time, the presence of the grammatical information within the structure of the two pronouns has been sensed as redundant, a tendency of moving it to the back of the compound being noticeable.The evolution of the initially constituted syntagm has been, in its initial stages, an oscillating one, the flexionary suffixes for gender and case of the alternative being eliminated, this leading to a subsequent fusion of the compound altcineva 'someone else' .What have proven to be more resilient to compounding are however the forms of the pronouns in Oblique cases, which in time, have focused their grammatical information towards the end of the new compound (altcuiva 'to someone else's).
We thus consider that such specific analyses are necessary for understanding the formation of parts of speech of a complex structure, due to the fact that they illustrate the way in which they have formed and evolved, in addition to attesting the appropriate interpretation from a syntactic perspective.
For instance, Wilhem Meyer-Lübke marks down in the pages of his dictionary (rew 382) the following descendants of Lat.