Comments:Correspondences are basically regular, with the following comments: in Turkic one has to suppose secondary delabialization *bij- < *büj- ( < *büb-); the Kor. form pjàpắi- must be denominative, derived from a noun *pjàpắ- < *pibV-pu- < *pi̯ubi-p`u- ( = PTM *pubu-pu-). Cf. *p`i̯ṑpo: the two roots are sometimes hard to distinguish.
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:АПиПЯЯ 292 (without the Jpn. parallel). See Poppe 11, 55, Цинциус 1984, 42. Despite Poppe 1966, 198, 1972, 99, Doerfer MT 132, Rozycki 78 the TM forms are hardly borrowed from Mong. {A different, but similar Altaic root may be reflected in Mong. bogoni 'short', MTurk. (EDT 322) boɣaj 'short, low'.}
Comments:EAS 58, KW 53, Владимирцов 277, Poppe 21 (although words for 'slave' should be kept apart, see *bŏga); Дыбо 15 compares TM *bōki-, see *bṑki. A Western isogloss. Shortness and high tone are reconstructed because of Mong. *b-; note, however, that Mong. can be borrowed from Turk. (see TMN 2, 346, Щербак 1997, 108). If this is the case, the real Mong. reflex could be *bög-si- 'choke', *böɣe-lǯi- 'vomit', suggesting a reconstruction *pŏ́ge or *pŏ́gi.
Comments:KW 57, Владимирцов 195, Martin 250, АПиПЯЯ 68, Дыбо 6, Лексика 278. Despite TMN 2, 353, Щербак 1997, 108, there is no need at all to suppose Mong. < Turkic. The variant *puki- in TM is assimilative ( < *pugi-). Cf. also MKor. pùrǝ̀i 'fish bladder'.
Comments:Martin 226, Menges 1984, 284, АПиПЯЯ 67, 288 (with a different Turk. parallel, see *eńa). Basically a Kor.-Jpn. isogloss (the Mong. form is poorly attested and has a somewhat obscure suffixation; besides, one would rather expect *huji- or *heji-). Jpn. > MKor. pòńắ, mod. posigi 'basin, bowl' (on the other hand, Kor. pắi may be the source of OJ pé 'bow, front of boat', see JLTT 403).
Comments:A Mong.-Tung. isogloss; high tone can be reconstructed because of Mong. *b-. Cf. perhaps also Jpn. coll. fuke- 'to run away, flee' (dubious because of very late fixation).
Comments:Poppe 21, Ozawa 288-289, ОСНЯ 1, 188-189, АПиПЯЯ 69. Cf. *bŏ́ru, a contamination with which should explain Mong. *b- (one would expect *h- with low tone and shortness).
Comments:Cf. perhaps -pók in MKor. pắi-s-pók 'navel' (*'belly cavity'?); TM *pokV-n (ТМС 1, 469) 'corner of the eye'. In Turkic cf. perhaps OUygh. boɣaj (boɣań?) 'low', borrowed in Mong. as WMong. boɣoni (see EDT 322). This all seems rather uncertain; but for Mong. the reconstruction *hügün (based on the archaic Mongor form fugun) seems probable, and the Mong.-Jpn. parallel at least seems satisfactory.
