Комментарии:EAS 51, 91, 92, KW 72, Poppe 22, Doerfer MT 241, АПиПЯЯ 15, 26-27, 71, 278, Дыбо 12. Closed vowel in Turkic is unexpected (*jag- would be a normal reflex).
Комментарии:EAS 50, 88, KW 83, Владимирцов 267, Дыбо 7, 15. Borrowing in Mong. from Turk. (TMN 4, 101-102, Щербак 1997, 121) is impossible. A suffixed form *dagi-gu (*dagi-u) accounts for labialization in the second syllable (in TM, Jpn. and, originally, in Kor.).
Комментарии:Владимирцов 318, Колесникова 1972а, 89-91. A Western isogloss. Despite Щербак 1997, 121 Mong. is not < Turk. Turk. *jagɨr represents in fact a merger of two different original roots (see *ńĕka). See also TMN 4, 177-178 (with unconvincing criticism).
Комментарии:Cf. also Bur. dagadxa 'unworked leather, leather mat'. Turk. -o- must be a result of secondary narrowing in a polysyllabic word < *jagu-rgan.
Комментарии:EAS 1, 124, SKE 252. Korean has a usual verbal low tone; Mong. *dölü < *delü (from an earlier *deli-w). On a possible Turkic reflex see under *ǯi̯ale.
Комментарии:KW 87. An expressive Turk.-Mong. isogloss, tending to merge (both in Turk. and Mong.) with the reflexes of *dĕ̀lp`à 'flat, broad' ("to shake, flatter (of flat objects)"). One cannot exclude that a merger indeed took place, and the original shape of the root had been *dalV ( ~ -e-) without the *-p`-: cf. WMong. dalaji- 'to brandish, swing' (see TMN 1, 328-329), dele- 'to wave, flap (wings)'; Karakh. jalŋu 'flip-flap, the swing' (EDT 930), see SKE 258.
Комментарии:Despite SKE 75 there is no reason at all to suppose a Chinese origin of the Turkic form (MC ja-mạn 'savage, barbarian' is too distant semantically; the usage of PT *jaman for a bad disease, sickness is very close to Japanese and may suggest that the original meaning of the root was 'ill(ness), sick(ness)').
Комментарии:The root is not widely represented, but seems to be well reconstructable for PA. {Dolg. ND 561 adds OTurk. jarp 'firm, solid' which would support *dari.}
Комментарии:Lee 1958, 107 (TM-Kor.). The combination of meanings in Mong. here is suspiciously similar to PA *či̯ā́tu ( > Mong. dadu-); so one may wonder if Mong. *das- is not actually a derivative of *dad- (*dad-s-). In that case the form should be removed from the present etymology.
