Comments:Note a rare case of Jpn. -t- < *-ŕ- before -ǝ-; this should be probably explained by an early vowel assimilation: *kǝ̀tǝ̀pǝ̀k- < *kǝ̀tùpǝ̀k- (cf. also another attested variant, *kǝ̀tǝ̀pùk-).
Comments:Martin (JLTT 441) unites Jpn. kase 'spool' and kase 'fetters, shackles'; the two words, however, are clearly opposed in OJ and seem to have quite different Altaic origin (on *kàsi 'fetters' see under PA *k`ìĺa). PJ *kasai 'spool' surely cannot be separated from PT *K(i)as- 'hoop, hoop brace'; the attribution of PTM *xesi- is less secure: it can belong here if we suppose a semantic development 'spool' > 'spool string' > 'string in net'.
Comments:A rather complicated Western isogloss. The TM form is compared (in SKE 61-62, АПиПЯЯ 297) with Kor. hǝ̀i- 'swim'; this seems now dubious because of the apparent lack of development PA *k`- > Kor. *h-. The Korean word should rather be considered as having lost the initial vowel (*hǝ̀i- < *uhǝ̀i-) and be derived < PA *úku q. v. On the other hand, Evk. kajama, Orok qajama 'bare (not fur-lined) skis' are most probably borrowed < Mong. qaiba 'a k. of oar' (or perhaps from some unattested Yakut form, cf. the meaning 'skis' in Yak.?).
Comments:Цинциус 1984, 125-126, Дыбо 12. A Western isogloss. In PT *k- would be expected; initial voicing is probably due to the influence of another Altaic root, *kĕ̀ŋi 'empty' (PT *geŋiŕ 'nasal cavity'), cf. its reflexes in Mong. (keŋkeji- 'be wide and empty'; Щербак 1997, 127 actually regards the latter as borrowed from Turkic - which is quite dubious; see TMN 3, 612-613).
Comments:A Western isogloss. In Turkic the root has merged with *Kājnat 'wing' (see under *kēńa); this homonymy may have influenced Mong., where the stem qana(n) occasionally means 'wing, маховые перья'; but Mong. hardly < Turk., despite TMN 1, 416. In Mong. one has to suppose a reanalysis of *-t as a plural suffix.
Comments:Владимирцов 201. Despite Щербак 1997, 134, the Mong. form is hardly borrowed from Turkic. Jpn. has an irregular high tone. On a possible Korean parallel see under *k`i̯ăli.
Comments:KW 233, VEWT 269, АПиПЯЯ 284. A Turkic-Mongolian isogloss; loan is not excluded (see Clark 1980, 43, Щербак 1997, 164), thus the PA antiquity is dubious (cf. also TMN 3, 628-631). The Turkic form may actually be the same root as the somewhat later attested *güčük 'puppy' (see ЭСТЯ 3, 92-93) - which may also be the source of MMong. güčüg; in this case one should rather consider a possibility of comparing Mong. gičige, Khalkha gičij 'bitch' and Evk. guske 'wolf', gusketkēn 'wolf's cub' (ТМС 1, 175).
Comments:Cf. *kōli, *gū́ldi, *k`i̯ŭli; on the Jpn. form see also under *k`ĕsa. The Turkic vocalism is completely irregular: perhaps due to a cluster simplification or assimilation? In Mong. cf. also kelke- 'to bead, string, join' ( > Yak., Dolg. kelgij-, see Kaɫ. MEJ 51, Stachowski 143).
Comments:A Western isogloss. In Turkic we are dealing perhaps with a merger of this root with a different one, reflected in Mong. gölbürge 'lizard' (KW 138), Khalkha gürbel (whence Yak. külgeri, kürgeli). Cf. also *kalu, *k`ùla.
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.
