altamix wrote:
>For the people which assume that "chiar" is the latin clarus
Pls accept that what's there: "chiar" still exists as an
adjective, having all the meanings of "clar". Indeed,
as an adjective, "chiar" is vanishing. But 100-200 years
ago it was the word (not yet replaced by "clar"). For this,
plenty of proof in texts. So, the correspondence Rum.
"chiar" -- Ital. "chiaro" is there at the adjectival level
as well.
>to know hwy the semantic shift and specialy _how_ .
Not an actual shift: only the gradual disappearance
of some of the meanings, as an adjective. What has
been preserved and is strong is the adverb.
>there should be the verb "chiarifica" too. Is there a
>such verb?
Why should there be such a verb? On top of that
with such a suffixation "-if-ic-" -- little chances to
have such an inherited verb.
>One from somewhere (substratum? loan? bought?) and
>one from Latin. I repeat myself.
Forget about this obsessive substratum: "chiar" is the
same as Ital. "chiara, -o", and there's proof aplenty for
that. Written and oral.
>The only one big problem for the meaning "even" is the
>semantism of Latin "clarus".
This is no impediment, this is only a specialization of
one meaning (one definition) among *others more*,
the initial meaning of it being "clear, transparent".
(Even Germans tend to express "of course!", "sure!",
"Roger!" by "Ja, klar!" ;-)
>Alex
George