Comments:SKE 178, EAS 106, Poppe 76 (Turk.-Mong.; assumption of Mong. being borrowed from Turk., see Щербак 1997, 120, is improbable). Turk. has a somewhat unexpected narrowing: *īl- instead of *ẹ̄l-; however, the etymology still seems probable (despite Doerfer's categorical refusal: "lautgesetzlich unmöglich"; see TMN 2, 214).
Comments:ЭСТЯ 1, 403 (Turk.-Tung.). The vocalism is not quite secure: the diphthong must be reconstructed because of Jpn. *-w-, but in Turkic one would rather expect *ɨba in this case (perhaps *ɨba > *uba > *oba because of later vowel assimilations).
Comments:Ozawa 52-53, 177-181. Despite Щербак 1997, 120, not a borrowing in Mong. < Turk. The Middle Jpn. itiko 'virgin consecrated to a deity, sorceress' (with a later form itako id.), which is compared by Miller (1985, 148) directly with the Mong. form, should be treated as a secondary distortion of *i-tu-kua (lit.) 'sacred girl'.
Comments:It is interesting to note OJ akwo 'child' (usually in addressing) - usually regarded as a-kwo "my child", which may be a folk etymology. Cf. also WMong. (L 16) aɣul ači 'one's own grandson or descendant' ( < Turk.?).
Comments:Martin 227 (Kor.-Jpn.). Original vocalism is somewhat uncertain; a diphthong must be reconstructed to account for loss of *-g- in Jpn. (where *bǝri < *uǝri < *i̯ugVri).
Comments:KW 456, Владимирцов 323, (Turk.-Mong.), PKE 63 (Kor.-Turk.). Low tone in Jpn. (not matching the low tone in Kor.) is probably due to contraction. The Mong. form cannot be separated, despite TMN 2, 156 ("lautgesetzlich mit der tü. Form nichts zu tun"). One should also note PTM *üge-n 'river duct' (Neg. īɣen, Ud. jogo-so, Ul. ui-n, ТМС 1, 297, 2, 250); PT *ögen (OUygh. ögen, Oyr. ȫn).
Comments:EAS 146-147, Poppe 60, Rozycki 222 (Mong.-Tung.), Martin 247, Menges 1984, 291, АПиПЯЯ 15, 81, SKE 284. This is a well known Altaic root, and the Mong.-Tung.-Kor. match seems undeniable. Doerfer first tried to abolish the obvious Mong.-Tung. parallel by attempting to postulate the original meaning in Mong. as "opposite" (see TMN 1, 168-169), then included it into his list of Mong.>Tung. borrowings (Doerfer MT 25): both positions are certainly untenable. However, the Turkic and Japanese reflexes here are not devoid of problems. The Turkic reflex reveals an exceptional preservation of *i̯u- as jü- (regularly *ɨg- would be expected) - which may be explained by the inner Turkic confusion of the synonymous roots *jüg- and *jok- ( < *ŋi̯ṑk`è q. v.). The Japanese match can be (and has been traditionally) explained as a compound of *u- 'top' with *pa (*ba) 'place' (v. sub *bi̯ŏ̀ga). However, in case of a compound we would rather expect *u-m-pa. It should be also noticed that the form *úpa- itself is very frequent as a first component of compounds, while the root *ú- alone is never attested. This all may mean that the Japanese form actually reflects a different root (with a medial labial consonant), or a merger of PA *i̯ugu with some different root. Such a root may be perhaps discovered in TM (*ebu-ri- 'to lift, raise', see ТМС 2, 471) and Mong. (Kh. övx- 'to rise'), with a provisional reconstruction of PA *ébu {(*épu)}.
Comments:SKE 286, EAS 117. Korean has a usual verbal low tone. The Jpn. form reflects fusion with an original labial suffix (*ǝ̀mpí < *i̯ùme-bV = Mong. *umuji-). Cf. also *i̯umi.
