The following three cases have been marked by me as unworthy of a detailed analysis:
Case 3. G. Ramstedt's hypothetic Altaic stem *pYrY, the same stem for Finno-Ugrian and the following sense,—in Altaic «fond,» «base,» «sol» and in Finno-Ugrian,—«kopf,» «haupt,» «hinterteil,» «zuruck,» «schwanz,» «arriere,» «derriere,» etc., while in Tungus all of them are correlated with the idea of «bottom.» If one clears up the problem of Tungus parallels a little, then it may be seen that rV is a suffix which may be replaced by other suffixes in other words of the same stem. The latter is «down,» found as a certain vowel in different Tungus dialects (it may be found as a, o, e, u, i) and may be designated as V. In some dialects it is aspirated, while in some other dialects it is bilabialized [99]. Of course it may be supposed that the stem with the suffix was received from a Tungus language inclined to bilabialization (Southern Tungus), but this supposition would make of it a «loan-word» in all other languages, while it is supposed to be one of important facts of uralaltaicology, if I am allowed so to style the theory of the Ural-Altaic common language. In order to save this important word for other languages, it will be advisable to exclude the Tungus word from the series. Indeed, this case is rather complex.
Case 6. The idea of «wheel,» «circle,» «round,» from the idea of «turn,» etc., according to A. Sauvageot is expressed by the stem *pYrY (i. e., just the same as the previous one); in Altaic, it is even pErY and has about the same meaning [100], but the Tungus words quoted are pyrrxa (Goldi) and urgoptun (Man. Ivan.), which means exactly «the ring put on the thumb.» The origin of the word is very simple, pyrrxa (I think it is perxe)=ferxe (Manchu Writ.)—«the thumb,» which has already been indicated by W. Grube; and urgoptun is a derivative of urugun [101] — «the thumb,» increased with the suffixes + Vp + tun widely used in most of the Northern Tungus dialects for the formation of «nouns.» The «thumb» can thus be easily dismissed. However, the Tungus dialects possess some words which may help, e. g., urga (Khin.)—«the lasso»; urka (Bir.)—«to make a running knot,» «lasso.» Unfortunately, they are not bilabialized and are recently borrowed from the Mongols (together with the horse-breeding complex). There are, of course, some other words which may be included, as, e. g., the network for the door (the cover for the entrance) made of a system of loops (the «idea of circle,» etc.) and which is urkaptun (several dialects), but it has derived from urka («the entrance,» «door,» and not «round») and the suffix -ptun, already discussed (vide Case 6). In so far as I know, there is no such stem with such a meaning in Tungus.
Case 7. The stem is *p3r3 and means «the bark.» The Tungus parallels are feri (Manchu Writ.), which is translated as «skin,» but which actually means the «excoriation,» particularly «saddle gall» (in horses), and which is connected, for example, with irchi (Bir.)—«to excoriate,» «to produce collosities,» etc. The stem is probably ir, and -chi is a suffix. These words may be connected perhaps, with the stem ir— «to rub,» «to make even,» also, perhaps, found in Mongol. The parallel has evidently nothing to do with «bark.» Another word compared by A. Sauvageot is the Goldi xyrrekta (xirekta, S. Sh.) and erikta translated by W. Grube as «haut» and compared with Manchu feri. I have some hesitation as to the correctness of translation given by W. Grube. I think it is merely «bark of the larch-tree,» for in other Tungus dialects we have irakta, hirakta (Bir., Kum., Khin., Mank., Barg.), and even irikta (Ner.,) is exactly the «bark of the larch-tree,» and «larch-tree.» The Goldi language for the name of tree uses terms unknown in other Tungus dialects; namely, sese, xese, issi, sisi, connected with the Manchu Writ, isi, whence it may be supposed that erikta, xirakta, have been preserved in the sense of the «bark of the larch-tree» and thus connected with «tree» and not with the «bark» All known Tungus dialects possess a special stem for «skin»; namely, nanda, with modifications, while the stem irakta is not met with in any word connected with «skin.»
In these three cases the reasons for rejection are different. So in Case 3 the chief reason is the impossibility of reducing the Tungus words to the hypothetic stem without speaking of too broad semantic limits. In Case 6 the reason is the wrong etymology of Tungus words. In Case 7 the reason is an artificial interpretation of Tungus words, a wrong analysis of stems, and a wrong translation. In other rejected cases, the same reasons are met with as well as other serious reasons, but it will be of no interest here to give an enumeration of the types of reasons.
99. Some details are given in my paper «Tungus Terms,» op. cit., p. 178 et seq. (p. 12 et seq. of the reprints).
100. Although I disagree with the use of such terms as «meaning,» «word,» etc., as tbey are here used, and in spite of the fact that I have pointed out the great undesirability of confounding «starter,» «symbol,» «meaning,» etc., I continue to use them in this part in the conventional «meanings» as practised in most of the special linguistical publications. The reason is that I fear that a new misunderstanding in the technical matter of the analysis of parallels will occur, for the reading of Part One will be omitted by many a reader.
101. Details regarding urugun may be found in my paper on «Bilabialization and Asp ration,» op. cit., p. 256.