Комментарии:KW 130, Владимирцов 321, Poppe 60, Колесникова 1972а, 92-93, Дыбо 307, Лексика 240. A Western isogloss. Despite Щербак 1997, 114, Mong. is not < Turk. May be derived from *ĕgi 'to bend' q. v. Doerfer (TMN 2, 192) protests against the Turk.-Mong. comparison, but restricts himself to "einigen grundsätzlichen Bemerkungen" (a loan theory would have to explain Turk. *-n > Mong. -m).
Комментарии:KW 131, Владимирцов 194. Despite TMN 2, 193, Щербак 1997, 114, Mong. is hardly borrowed from Turk. The stem may be derived from *ĕgi 'to bend' q. v.
Комментарии:KW 5. Both Turkic and Mongolian languages have also a derivative meaning 'rampage, rage, raging': Karakh. aχsuŋ, axsum (MK), aqsun (QB), Chag. aqsum, axsum, Az. aqsɨn, Kirgh. aqsɨm etc.; WMong. aɣsum, Khalkha agsaŋ, Bur. agsam, Ord. agsum (DO 7) 'wild, raging', Khalkha agsam 'rampage'. Doerfer (TMN 2, 90) supposes a loanword in Turk. < Mong.; Shcherbak (Щербак 1997, 103) - vice versa; the final decision is still unclear.
Комментарии:EAS 91, KW 118, Poppe 55, VEWT 38, АПиПЯЯ 292, Цинциус 1972a, 29-31, Дыбо 6. The root is (like most other kinship terms) a "nursery word", but very well attested in all branches, so - despite Doerfer TMN 1, 190-191 - all forms cannot be explained as borrowings (although some later interactions were of course possible, e.g. Mong. egeče may - because of its irregular -g- and meaning coinciding with Turkic - be a later Turkic loanword).
Комментарии:KW 119, Lee 1958, 108 (TM-Kor.), Rozycki 68. Despite Doerfer MT 20, TM *ele is hardly < Mong. (a particle in Mong. vs. a widespread verb in TM).
Комментарии:KW 119, Владимирцов 323, Poppe 86. A Western isogloss. The phonology of the word strongly resists all attempts to regard it as an interlingual borrowing (Turk. > Mong. > TM, see, e.g., Rozycki 67), as well as attempts to derive it from Armen. eš etc.
Комментарии:АПиПЯЯ 279. A Tung.-Jpn. isogloss. Cf. perhaps also MKor. mǝ̀mɨ́r- 'to stay, remain' ( < *Vmǝ-mɨr-, with a rather usual Korean loss of initial vowel?).
Комментарии:EAS 116, Цинциус 1972a, 20-27, Menges 1984, 265, АПиПЯЯ 89, 279. In Jpn. cf. also omo 'mother' (see Ozawa 61, Murayama 1962, 110, Miller 1985a, 82); in MKor. also ǝ́mí 'mother' (see Martin 236). Jpn. mia represents a relatively rare case of a loss of initial vowel in Japanese.
Комментарии:EAS 117, Владимирцов 154, SKE 54, Дыбо 307, Лексика 271. A Western isogloss. The vocalic reconstruction is somewhat uncertain: because of variation in PTM it is not quite clear whether Mong. has a secondary delabialization or Turkic has a secondary labialization. PA *ome is also possible.
Комментарии:A Turko-Mongolian isogloss. One is tempted to suppose lost *p`- and to unite this root with TM *pemu-, Jpn. *pàm- (see *pĕ̀ma). This is, however, hardly possible, because both Middle Mongolian and Dagur have 0- here (while Mongor x- can easily be secondary in front of a voiceless stop). A possible solution would be a loss of *h- ( < *p`-) in Proto-Mongolian (or even Proto-Turko-Mongolian) under the influence of a phonetically close "nursery" word, *ĕ̀me 'mother, female' q. v.
Комментарии:Мудрак Дисс. 102, Лексика 539. A Western isogloss. The Turkic form should be explained as a contraction < *emŋe-der (*emŋe- = Mong. emeɣe-).
