Комментарии:ЭСТЯ 4, 31-32. Also reflected is a form *josuk, *josak. Clauson (EDT 975) and Doerfer (TMN 1, 555-557) follow Ramstedt KW 219 and regard the Turkic forms as borrowed < Mong., which is somewhat dubious because of the peculiar phonology of Mong. josun (words with *jo- are extremely rare in Mong.). PT *josuk (*josak) also strengthens the thesis about the Turkic origin of Mong. josun; Doerfer's hypothesis that Tat. josuq, Oyr. jozaq etc. reflect a contamination of *jasak and *josun is not very plausible (*jasak has usually a quite different meaning 'impost, tax' etc.), and there is also a completely unexplained (as a Mongolism) form Oyr., Tel. jozor. All this makes us rather think of Turk. *josun > Mong. *josun > Manchu joso, Evk. joso etc. (ТМС 1, 347).