Comments:Poppe 11, 77, 78-79, Цинциус 1984, 32-33, Ramstedt 1916, 3, Lee 1958, 108, Лексика 555, Rozycki 74. The root is frequently quoted, but indeed rather problematic (cf. TMN 2, 40-41). If the Mong. form is *aral (accounting for the HY and South Mong. evidence), and the Turkic form is borrowed from a different source, all we are left with are the Tungus and Korean forms - which, however, are difficult to explain as loans.