Comments:KW 444, Владимирцов 183, Poppe 16 (Turk.-Mong.). A Western isogloss. The root was originally verbal (cf. PT); Mong. and TM reflect a velar derivative *čḕlV-gV. Despite Doerfer's (TMN 2, 554) criticism the comparison still seems valid (although the narrowing *e > i in PT is not quite clear). Miller (1985b, 207) cites a MJ tir- 'cut in narrow strips' which would be a nice match, but we were unable to identify the source of the word.
Comments:Kalm. kāčǝ- (WMong. kijači-, KW 222) 'to split (wood)' is probably borrowed from the Turk. derivative *Kɨjgač- (although the latter now means basically 'slant', the original meaning was 'cut aslant'). If the latter was the original meaning in PA, one could also compare Mong. *geji-, *geje- 'slanting, oblique' (otherwise see notes to *k`i̯úŋ(k)u).
Comments:АПиПЯЯ 288, Miller-Street 1975, 108ff (with a somewhat different distribution of roots). MKor. kằr-hằi- < *kǝ̀r-hằi- through assimilation (?). The root tends to contaminate with a number of similar roots: see *k`ĭ̀rka, *k`ĭ̀régV, *kìro.
Comments:KW 199. A Western isogloss. Doerfer (TMN 3, 441) (and Clark 1980, 43) regard Mong. as borrowed from Turk. (saying that the original meaning in Turkic is 'steel' - which is not the case, see EDT 647). On a possible Jpn. reflex see under *k`[ŭ]ri. {ND 1154 gives WMo kürü- 'sharpen an arrow'.}
Comments:SKE 103 (Turk.-Kor.; despite TMN 3, 596, Kor. kǝsk- is not a "teleologischer Sternchenform"). Cf. also Nan. (Bik.) kesi- 'to cut out' - with quite inexplicable k- (a borrowing?). Reasons for prenasalization in Jpn. are unclear (perhaps a suffixed form like *k`ắsi-gu-n is reflected).
Comments:Цинциус 1984, 92, Ozawa 80-81. The stem may be connected to PT *kert- (ЭСТЯ 5, 54, Stachowski 145), Mong. *kerči- 'to cut' ( > Evk. kerči- etc., ТМС 1, 453, see Doerfer MT 110; the two words were compared in KW 228, Poppe 19, 51, 83, Menges 1982, and despite Щербак 1997, 127, Mong. kerči- is hardly borrowed < Turk.): we may be dealing with two derivatives (*k`ire-gV vs. *k`ire-t`V). However, direct derivation PT *kerki < *kert-ki is hardly plausible, despite Menges 1944; it rather goes back to *kirge-ki.
Comments:EAS 97, KW 248, Poppe 79, Цинциус 1984, 121-122. The etymology seems quite probable, although the TM vocalism is not clear (a result of some contamination?). For Jpn., however, cf. alternatively PA *kū̀rV 'to cut out' or PA *k`uli 'dig' q. v.
Comments:Poppe 1966, 196, Doerfer MT 61, Rozycki 155 regard the TM form as borrowed from Mong., which is not excluded (although dubious). The Karakh. word may belong here if its original meaning was 'digging instrument' ( > 'cutting instrument' > 'sickle'), but on the whole it is rather dubious, because of the unique cluster -št- (violating Helimski's rule). The Jpn. form reflects a frequent confusion between *mV- and *V- in front of the following nasal. {AD: from Turkic rather *mal- 'immerse'}
Comments:An Eastern isogloss. Cf. perhaps also Turk. *bɨčkak 'knife' (if re-analysed semantically on analogy with *bɨč- 'cut'). The vowel reflex in Jpn. points to a variant *mi̯ukč`o (or mi̯ukč`u).
Comments:EAS 144, KW 47, ОСНЯ 1, 178. In Turk. also OT biče 'small', Tuva biče id. Cf. also MKor. pčằ- 'to wring out, squeeze' (SKE 18); MKor. pči- 'to cut' (SKE 32); mod. pit-ta (piǯ-) 'cut, slice'. Doerfer's (TMN 2, 427) doubts are hardly justified - the semantic development in Mong. is perfectly well explainable. One should note, however, that low tone in Jpn. does not correspond to Mong. *b- here (one would rather expect *h-); either this is an incorrect tone notation (the Jpn. word is attested in RJ, but not accented in Hirayama's dictionary), or an irregularity in an expressive etymon.
Comments:One of the common Altaic "Verba des Schlagens", with a rather uncertain semantics. The basic meaning seems to be "rub off, peel off", whence "break, tear into small pieces" etc. MMong. xa'ut- may reflect the same derivative as PT *ajɨt-, PA *p`ajo-t`V.
Comments:In TM cf. also derived forms: Orok pīpu, Ul. pīpu, Ud. siɣi 'drill' (ТМС 2, 39) - possibly reflecting a contamination with *pi̯ŭ̀bi q. v. In Turkic one would rather expect *job-, so perhaps we should rather reconstruct *p`ṑjpo.
