Comments:EAS 114, KW 166, Poppe 70 (but despite Ozawa 192-193 and АПиПЯЯ 72, PJ *kànàp- should be attributed to *k`ā̀no). The root is very similar to *k`ā̀no, both phonetically and semantically, but the opposition of *Kān- and *Kon- in Turkic does not allow to unite them. The hypothesis of Mong. *kanu- being borrowed from Turkic (see Щербак 1997, 133) is possible, but not very probable.