Comments:PKE 68 (Kor.-Turk., without Japanese parallels), АПиПЯЯ 279, Лексика 200. Tone correspondence between Kor. and Jpn. is irregular. The variation between *-m- and *-p- in most subgroups reflects the PA cluster *-mp`-, possibly with later interdialectal loans.
Comments:EAS 109, SKE 146, АПиПЯЯ 31-32, 282, Мудрак Дисс. 90, Лексика 194. Doerfer's (TMN 2, 253) criticism is short ("unklar"). On possible traces in Jpn. see under *k`ŏjli. An unsuccessful attempt of refuting the etymology was undertaken by Vovin 2000, who argues that the attested Old Korean form is 麻帝 MC mạ-tìej [ma-te]. However, it is most probable that MC -t- was used here just to transcribe Korean -r- (since Middle Chinese, as well known, lacked r-). Anyway, it is hardly possible to make any decisions on the basis of very inadequate and scanty Kirim transcriptions.
Comments:EAS 79, KW 262, Лексика 207-208. A Western isogloss. The Jpn. cognates present problems. Ozawa 292-293 compares OJ mod(w)ok(j)i 'resembling, similar', which is quite irregular vocalically. It is interesting to note MJ mitai id. (used exactly in the same suffixed position and being phonetically quite a good match for Mong. metü etc., but attested late and usually analysed (folk-etymologically?) as a desiderative form of mi- 'to see'.
Comments:Лексика 204. The Kor. word may be analysed as "bald"+"brain" (see *t`eŕo and *kèĺǯo), so it may be necessary to remove it from the etymology (although a folk-etymological reanalysis was certainly possible); if not, the PA reconstruction should rather be corrected to *t`ōjlu.