Comments:EAS 58, АПиПЯЯ 27, 70, 86, 274, Дыбо 13. Doerfer (TMN 2, 208) is hardly right in criticizing the Turk.-Tung. match : it is quite satisfactory both phonetically and semantically.
Comments:Лексика 153. The Jpn. form is traditionally analysed as resp. prefix mana- + ka 'deer', which may be a folk etymology in the light of external evidence; otherwise the root is a Turk.-TM isogloss. Cf. Mong. (Khalkha) dial. mundu 'female deer', Tuva mɨndɨ, Tof. mundučaq id. - see Аникин, 142. According to Helimski and Anikin, the Turkic forms are borrowed from Southern Samoyedic, and Mongolian < Turkic; but the S.-Sam. word has no Uralic etymology, while Mong. mundu - if not for its poor attestation - could be a regular reflex of PA *mūńa, and a possible source both for the Turkic (Tuva-Tof.) and the Samoyedic forms.
Comments:EAS 79, KW 263, Poppe 35, Martin 237, АПиПЯЯ 33-34, 69, 292; SKE 150, Doerfer MT 24. The parallel form *mōi in Kor. presupposes a suffixed form *mōr-jV(-gV) (?).
Comments:SKE 147, АПиПЯЯ 297. Cf. perhaps also Evk. mu 'or' (in interrogative sentences) (Титов 1926, 94). Further Nostratic parallels of this grammaticalized interrogative stem see in ОСНЯ 2, 66-8.
Comments:АПиПЯЯ 102, 280. Velarization in Turkic is not quite clear and probably secondary (perhaps a fusion with the attributive *-k`i). The root is widely used only in the Kor.-Jpn. area, and its original function (to judge from the OJ opposition of si and na) was probably limited to the oblique stem of the suppletive 2d p. paradigm.
Comments:The etymology seems probable, although the medial cluster demonstrates a complicated behaviour. It is not quite clear whether -ǯa- in Mong. and Tung. should be treated as a suffix or as a part of the root here.
Comments:Mong. *dal- '7' may suggest PA *ĺad[i]- (with a development > Mong. *ĺal- (through assimilation) > dal-). The medial consonant in general behaves rather irregularly: one may suggest an original cluster like *-dd- to explain the Turkic reflex. Jpn. *nana- regularly < *nada-n ( = TM *nada-n); in Kor. one has to assume vowel elision already after *-d- > -r- (i.e. *nìr-kup < *nìrV-kup). Despite all these difficulties, the numeral 'seven' seems to be safely reconstructable for PA. Cf. also Koguryo *nanǝn 'seven', see Lee 28, 39, Menges 1984, 278.
Comments:Дыбо 1995b (Mong.-Tung.). The semantic interchange between 'teeth' and 'sprouts' is quite common, so in this respect the etymology seems plausible. In Jpn. one has to suppose a suffixed form *ma(i) < *ńằjl(a)-gV; medial *-j- is reconstructed to account for the loss of resonant in Kor. The root seems to be unattested in Turkic, but cf. Tur. dial. jalama 'white spot on horse's head from forehead down to the lower lip' (ЭСТЯ 4, 91) - cf. the semantic development in TM.
Comments:EAS 75, SKE 157, KW 272, АПиПЯЯ 288, Лексика 84. Mong. nasun regularly < *nal-sun and the assumption of its being borrowed from Turk. (Щербак 1997, 123) is absolutely improbable (Doerfer in TMN 4, 97 refutes the comparison without further discussion). The cluster *-jĺ- has to be reconstructed to account for the loss of resonant in Korean (*-h is a trace of a velar suffix: *najĺV-gV). It could be also interesting to mention a verb attested in MJpn.: neba- ( < *nai-(m)pa-) 'to grow old; to become grown up' - perhaps with an irregular loss of -s- (that would be an expected reflex of *-ĺ-) in a cluster. The root should be distinguished from *ńā́ĺba 'young' q. v. (which, however, certainly influenced the Turkic reflex - whence an irregular long vowel).
Comments:EAS 78, 116, KW 214, Poppe 32, АПиПЯЯ 20. Loss of *n- in Kor. is not quite clear: perhaps *jǝ́m- < *njǝ́m- through dissimilation. Mong. jimaɣan 'goat' (MGCD 734) may be borrowed from Turk. (see Щербак 1997, 124; but cf. the WMong. variant nimaɣan and Bur. ńamā (Владимирцов) which may be genuine); Mong. > Tung. (ТМС 1, 312), see Poppe 1966, 190, Doerfer MT 37.
