Comments:Cf. also Mong. *köɣemej which can go back to *köme-ɣej, cf. potential Turkic loanwords like Chag. kömekej, Yak. kömögöj etc., see VEWT 289. Such a metathesis, however, is rather uncommon (as well as the rendering of Mong. -ɣ- by Turkic -k-), and there are obvious loanwords from the same Mongolian source: Yak., Dolg. küömej 'throat' (see Kaɫ. MEJ 88, Stachowski 165). It may well be that the above Turkic words are genuine after all, going back to *gömü-kej (derived from the same root as *gömül-dürük), while Mong. köɣemej has a quite different origin (e.g. PA *kúŋe 'middle, heart' q. v.).
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:Whitman 1985, Robbeets 2000, 102. The Jpn. form is historically a compound with *s(u)- 'to make, do'. In Kor. a palatalization *kŏŋe > *kŏńe occurred.
Comments:Poppe 84 (Tung.-Mong.; Doerfer TMN 1, 483 criticizes Poppe's TM reconstruction *köndes - which is justified, but does not abolish the parallel).
Comments:Дыбо 11, Whitman 1985, 193, 231, Menges 1984, 274-275. Basically an Eastern isogloss: the Turkic forms of the type koz are most probably borrowed from Iranian. There are also forms reflecting *koŕak (VEWT 285), but they may also reflect a contamination of the root *Koŕ (or the borrowed koz) with the genuine root *kusɨk (e.g. Tuva ku"suk), see *kušu.
Comments:SKE 113-114, EAS 102. The Kor.-Jpn. forms are not quite regular: in Kor. one would rather expect *kɨ́sìrk (so probably we are dealing with a metathesis); the diphthong -ui- in Japanese (as in the few other similar cases) has a not quite clear origin. It may well be that the Jpn. form is related to *kui 'fortress' < *'border', see *ki̯udu - although the suffixation is peculiar.
Comments:The root (as a verb) meant basically 'to use a prop or lever', whence an instrumental noun *kóšì-p`V (TM *kuši-pu-n, PJ *kúsà-pì, possibly also Mong. kösi-ɣü-r).
