Comments:Lee 1958, 107 (TM: Kor.), Дыбо 10. PT *dạrɨ-g is usually regarded as derived < *TArɨ- 'to cultivate (ground)' (see under *t`i̯òra) which is not excluded.
Comments:Final -čh in Kor. orthography is probably secondary, as in a number of other cases; for Kor. SKE notes also a variant tot. Cf. also Oroch toti 'trap' (ТМС 2, 201) < Kor.?
Comments:A Turk.-Tung. isogloss. The semantic match is perfect, but front row vocalism in Turkic is unclear (*doĺ- would be expected). {Cf. WMo dolu 'bast, bark'}.
Comments:EAS 50-51, Poppe 22, 74, Дыбо 13, Мудрак Дисс. 186; TMN 4, 186 ("lautgesetzlich unwahrscheinlich"). A Western isogloss. The Turk. reflex of the root is usually assumed to be *jālga- 'to lick' - which, however, also matches very well PA *ǯā́lV 'saliva, swallow' and should be rather attributed there. In Pre-Turk. we have to postulate a semantic shift 1) 'lick' > 'bite'; 2) 'saliva(te)' > 'lick'.
Comments:Poppe 104, Menges 1982, 105, Дыбо 13. A Western isogloss. There exists also a not quite reliable variant *t`abi id. (Mong. tab 'clinch, rivet'; TM *tabi- 'to forge' (ТМС 2, 149, with yet another variant *tabi-ti- > *tapti- / *tipti- id., see ibid. and ТМС 2, 186).
Comments:EAS 51, Poppe 22, 79. A Western isogloss. The Jpn. reflex could have merged with *či̯úŕu q. v. TM *daran can be borrowed < Mong. (see Doerfer MT 73), but *dā- (with preservation of length in a monosyllabic stem after the loss of -r-) is certainly genuine.
Comments:Poppe 58, 89 (Mong.-Tung.; on Turk. *jẹg- see under *di̯òge), SKE 260, EAS 51, 145, Цинциус 1972, 4 (but ТМ *dǖ 'top, above' cannot belong here for phonetic reasons), Miller 1985, 143, АПиПЯЯ 283. TM cannot be borrowed from Mong., despite Doerfer MT 20, Rozycki 58. Korean parallels for Jpn. taka-, take in Martin 236 are improbable; but cf. also Kor. thjǝ 'up' in compounds, see SKE 48; another old derivative may be Kor. tòt- 'to rise' = Mong. degde-]. A different etymology proposed for PT *dāg is the comparison with WMong. tajiɣa 'forest' (see e.g. VEWT 454). The etymology as such cannot be accepted (because of the wrong correspondence PT *d- : Mong. t-), but Turkic may in fact have merged two originally different roots - which would explain an abnormal correspondence of Turkic long vowel to PJ low tone.
Comments:Poppe 14, АПиПЯЯ 40-41, 285 (with some confusion of this root and *t`òŋké q. v.). An expressive root with some violation of correspondences; but borrowing in Mong. from Turkic is hardly acceptable, despite Щербак 1997, 154. In Mong., a variant *toɣ- may be present in *toɣuri- 'go round' (MMong. (SH) to'ori-, KW 408, Dag. tōri-; > Man. torgi-, ТМС 2, 204), tojira- id.; a variant *dug- in WMong. duɣuj, Khalkha duguj, Kalm. duɣu 'wheel, ring' (L 271, KW 101), whence Tur. dial. toɣaj, Kum., KBalk. toɣaj 'ring, part of wheel hoop'. Cf. also PA *t`ŏk`V 'curved', also a possible source of contaminations.
