Comments:KW 426, SKE 27. A cultural term, but borrowing (either in Mong. < Turk. or in Manchu < Mong.) is hardly possible. The Kor. form is somewhat dubious (tone does not correspond to Turkic; perhaps we should regard it as an old loan < Manchu; if it is not, a reconstruction *č`ējk`V is possible). Mong. -g- speaks in favour of PA *-k-, but may be a result of assimilation (before -deg, like *ogo-da-su < *oko-da-su), thus (on Korean evidence) more probable is the reconstruction of *k`.