Комментарии:A Western isogloss. The root tends to contaminate with *k`éma q. v. (and cf. also *kemV, *gi̯aŋu, *gokV). The Mong. form may be < Turk. (cf. Щербак 1997, 198), but may as well be genuine.
Комментарии:The tone correspondence between Kor. and Jpn. is irregular. Note, however, that the reconstruction of low tone in PJ in this case is based only on the Kagoshima form (MJ accentuation is unattested, while Kyoto and Tokyo may point both to *LL and to *HL). Therefore a reconstruction *kǝ́mài for PJ is not completely excluded. Medial -n- in Turkic is not quite clear (-ń- would be expected); still the relation of the Turkic form remains probable. See also Robbeets 2000, 109.
Комментарии:A Tung.-Jpn. isogloss. It is worth noting Yak. kuba 'swan' - usually derived from PT *Kugu, but with a quite inexplicable -b-; it is, in fact, possible that some other Turkic forms - cf. Turkm. Guv, Nogh. quv etc. also go back to PT *Kub(a) - naturally confused in most modern languages with the reflexed of *Kugu (see under *kū̀gù).
Комментарии:EAS 46, KW 233, Владимирцов 171, 318, Poppe 19, Лексика 94. Cf. perhaps MKor. kɨ̀th 'edge'. The Jpn. form must have originally meant 'border fortification, fortress'; there is hardly any reason to regard it as borrowed from Old Paekche, despite Miller 1979).
Комментарии:Poppe 68. A Western isogloss. Mong. cannot be explained as a Turk. loanword, despite TMN 3, 508-509, Щербак 1997, 143 (conversely, late Turkic forms like Oyr., Kaz. qumaq etc. are evidently < Mong.).
Комментарии:KW 249, VEWT 309 (Turk.-Mong.), АПиПЯЯ 294, TMN 3, 656-657 (with criticism). The Mong. form is somewhat difficult: one has to suppose original *künün with velar ( > *küŋün > *küɣün) and labial ( > *kümün) assimilations.
Комментарии:SKE 113. Cf. also Mong. köbüŋ 'cotton' ( > Oyr. köböŋ, Tuva xöveŋ, Khak. köböŋ etc., see ЭСТЯ 5, 108-109 (with some confusion of this root and Turk. *köpe 'cloth' < *k`ŏ̀p`e q. v. and Turk. *köp- 'swell, foam' < *k`óp`i q. v.); > Man. kubun id., see Doerfer MT 102). In fact, it would be tempting to consider Mong. *kib as a Turkic loanword (despite the fact that the Turk. *Kɨp is not widely spread and late attested, it cannot be < Mong.), because Mong. -i- is not quite regular here, while köbüŋ is a perfect phonetic match.
