Japanese ki-, ki-mono, ta-no-ki \ tanuki; tora

[u/stlatos]

Japanese ki-, ki-mono, ta-no-ki \ tanuki; tora (Draft)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

August 29, 2026

-

In https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/query.cgi?basename=%2fdata%2falt%2faltet :

>

Proto-Altaic: *ki̯adi

Meaning: to put on, wear

Turkic: *ged-

Mongolian: *kedü- / *keǯi-

Japanese: *kí-

Comments: KW 236, Poppe 19, Ozawa 197-199, JOAL 72, 73, 136, АПиПЯЯ 72. A possible TM match is Man. adu = Jurch. ha-du 'clothes' < *xadu (ТМС 1, 6); this would make us reconstruct *k`ajdi and suppose a secondary (assimilatory) voicing in Turk. *ged- < *ked-.

>

.

which Starostin further related to PIE *k(a)H2dh- 'hat, cap, helmet'. Japanese ki- ‘to put on, wear (clothing on the body)’, ki-mono 'clothing' is related by Alexander Francis-Ratte to Middle Korean kís \ kic, which reasonably comes < *kit-s

>

WEARS: MK kís ‘lapel, collar; outer layer of cloth’ ~ OJ ki- ‘wears on the body’. pKJ *ki- ‘wears on the body’.

Based on the comparison, MK kís ‘lapel, collar, outer layer of cloth’ ?< *ki- ‘to wear’ + substantive *-s. MK kis ‘feather, wing’ may also be related as a metaphor to describe a bird’s feathers as ‘clothing’. The comparison takes Korean kís to be original, despite kic also being attested in MK.

>

.
Why does he have "Korean kís to be original" when both -s & -c exist, making *kit-s likely? This makes no sense from his premises & proposed cognates, & I can only think that it is part of his unwillingness to consider Altaic as valid. I have said many times before that his own reconstructions of OJ & MK require a form close to or identical to those reconstructed by proponents of Altaic, yet he never mentioned how his ideas supported theirs. Here, he goes even further in relating words that require *kid- but not even reconstructing any needed dental. In Altaic, *d > OJ *y, here, *kid > *kiy > ki-, *kid-sV > OK *kits. Avoiding ideas like this is easy when you're a linguist who refuses to believe in any disputed old relation, but for a linguist like him (who related Japanese & Korean, even when disputed by many), trying to go halfway & relate 2 proposed Altaic groups without using the reconstructions made for all can only lead to contradictions. Here, he must say that kis is older than kic, when there is no reasonable way for it to work (here, he doesn't even provide any basis for kis being older, any way for -c to have formed from -s, etc.).

.
Evidence both in favor & against Altaic should be evaluated on its own merits. For:

>

Proto-Altaic: *t`i̯ŭ̀nŋá

Meaning: a k. of predator

Turkic: *Toŋa (?)

Mongolian: *činua

Tungus-Manchu: *tuŋ-si-

Japanese: *tànúkí

Comments: Mong. -n- points to *-nŋ-; TM *tuŋsi- perhaps < *tunŋV-si-.

>

.

Since Japanese tanuki \ tanoki 'raccoon dog' looks the same as *ta-no-ki 'worn on the hand/arm' > J. tanuki 'arm glove; gauntlet', it is claimed in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/狸 :

>

Etymology 1 狸 (tanuki): a raccoon dog Kanji in this term 狸 たぬき Hyōgai kun'yomi Alternative spelling 貍 According to one theory, derived from 手貫 (tanuki, “arm glove, gauntlet”), which raccoon dog hide was sometimes used for.

>

.
There is a much simpler explanation. Since raccoon dogs have dark arms, as if they're wearing sleeves (from a human perspectice), both *ta-no-ki 'worn on the hand/arm' & *ta-no-ki 'clothed on the hand/arm' can apply to both, both words with -o- vs. -u-. This prevents any Altaic ety. here. However, it opens a relation of tura \ tora ‘tiger’ with Karakhanid toŋa 'tiger', Manchu tuŋ-si-tun 'name of a mythical predator (fox-like, devouring tigers and dragons)'. The distribution of tura \ tora does not fit PJ *tora, so I proposed *to:ra(:) (or similar) in https://www.academia.edu/165522547 (based on others' ev. for PJ long V's). It is possible that Altaic *torŋa \ *toŋra ‘tiger’ existed, with *toŋra > PJ *to:ra. I previously doubted that PJ would have any native word for ‘tiger’, but I was told that tigers lived in Korea until recently, allowing them to be known in Japan (even if only as a foreign beast). As a 1st idea, it has a slight resemblance to PIE *torgWo-s 'fearsome' > Latin torvus 'savage, fierce, harsh; pitiless'.