Comments:EAS 107, Владимирцов 324, ОСНЯ 1, 338, АПиПЯЯ 54-55, 73, 103-104, 274. Despite TMN 3, 427, Щербак 1997, 134, there is no need to regard the Mong. word as borrowed from Turkic (although it is not excluded).
Comments:Poppe 72, KW 185, VEWT 281, Whitman 1985, 183, 199, 222, АПиПЯЯ 290, Дыбо 12, Robbeets 2000, 109. The Mongolian form qoŋɣur might as well be a Turkism, cf. TMN 3, 525-526, Щербак 1997, 139-140 (note that qon-dun, qoŋ-du < Chinese). The TM forms, despite Doerfer MT 37, cannot be regarded as mongolisms. In Kor. cf. also kǝ̀'úró 'mirror' (probably a derivative from the same root; semantically cf. Jpn. kaga-mi id. - 'mirror' < 'shadow'). Note that *kắnắrh reflects a suffixed form *koŋ(a)-rV with assimilation > *konrV, while *kànkâ-i reflects another suffixed form *koŋ(V)-kV ( = Mong. *koŋgu-r).
Comments:АПиПЯЯ 295. A Turk.-Kor. isogloss (cf. also Old Koguryo *kămul 'black', see Miller 1979, 8; perhaps also Manchu χumara- 'to sully', ТМС 1, 477). The comparison seems quite possible, although the scarcity of reflexes prevents a secure reconstruction of vocalism.
