Reconstruction:Proto-Tungusic/Maŋgu

• *Mamgo^[1] (per Hölzl)
• *Mamgo ~ *Mangbo^[2] (per Janhunen)
• *Mangu^[3] (per Fuente)
• *Mangu ~ *Maŋgu, *Mamgu (per Ikegami)
• *Maŋgu^[4] (per Benzing)

Most of linguists have been divided into different opinions about reconstruction of this word.

1. Benzing accepted the correspondence by Cincius and translated the word ᠮᠠᠨᠵᡠ (manju) as “Amur people”. He mentions a slightly longer list of cognates and argues that the correspondence with the Tungusic word is proven by sound laws but fails to specify their exact nature. He reconstructs a Proto-Tungusic *Maŋgu.
2. Norman accepted the etymology by Cincius and Benzing and made the semantic development more plausible by presenting areal parallels. He claims that ᠮᠠᠨᠵᡠ (manju) (< alleged *Mangu) underwent the same phonological changes as ᠰᡠᠨᠵᠠ (sunja, “five”) (< alleged *tuńga). This comparison is, however, in need of a revision. Additionally, Benzing, Ikegami, and Norman fail to realize that a PTg. *u would have resulted in an “-i-” in northern Tungusic languages.
3. Ikegami compiled a longer list of cognates and investigated more details of the phonological development. He assumes that Proto-Tungusic had two different forms, 1) *Mangu ~ *Maŋgu and 2) *Mamgu and that these were “perhaps one and the same at an earlier time”. He concludes that ᠮᠠᠨᠵᡠ (manju) likely derived from the first of the two and could be cognate with, for example, Sikachi Alyan Nanai "maŋgu".
4. Janhunen, quoting Ikegami, presented the uncommented reconstruction *Mamgo ~ *Mangbo for the river word and speculates whether the second syllable could be related to the Tungusic word for *mȫ (“water”). (< *mang-mo (?)) While the final -o avoids the problem of the reconstructions with a final -u, the second hypothesis is not supported by the data. Janhunen does not seem to accept ᠮᠠᠨᠵᡠ (manju) as a cognate. This study provides additional evidence that *Mamgo must be the correct reconstruction for Proto-Tungusic, according to Hölzl.
5. José Andrés Alonso de la Fuente, citing Janhunen, appears to have accepted the correspondence of the river word with manju, discusses some important phonological details, and presents the reconstruction *Maŋu instead.

Compare also Orok маӈу́сал (maŋúsal, “Ulch (person)”).

*Maŋgu

1. a large river, specifically Amur River Basin
2. (?) people from Amur

• Jurchenic:
  • Manchu: ᠮᠠᠨᠵᡠ (manju, “Manchu”)
• Tungusic:
  • Northern Tungusic:
    • Negidal: Мамӈу (Mamŋu), Мамгу (Mamgu), Мамму (Mammu), Маму (Mamu)
  • Southern Tungusic:
    • Central:
      • Oroch: мамгу (mamgu, “river”), маӈгу (maŋgu, “river”), Мамгу (Mamgu, “Amur”), Маӈгу (Maŋgu, “Amur”)
      • Udihe: маӈму (maŋmu), мангу (mangu), Маӈму (Maŋmu), Мангу (Mangu) (The last two is used for Amur, Ussuri and Sungari rivers)
    • South-Eastern:
      • Nanai: Маӈбо (Maŋbo, “Amur river”), маӈу (maŋu, “large river”)
      • Orok: маӈга (maŋga, “river”), Маӈгу (Maŋgu, “Amur river”)
      • Ulch: маӈгу̇ (maŋgụ, “river”), Маӈгу̇ (Maŋgụ, “Amur river”), маӈгу̇ка̄(н) (maŋgụkā(n), “small river”)

• Cincius, V. I. (1975) Сравнительный словарь тунгусо-маньчжурских языков [Comparative Dictionary of Tungus-Manchu Languages] (in Russian), volume 1, Leningrad: Nauka, pages 525-526
• Norman, Jerry (1977) The evolution of Proto-Tungusic *t to Manchu s. Central Asiatic Journal 21(3/4). pages 229–233
• Norman, Jerry (2003) The Manchus and their language. Journal of American Oriental Society 123(3). pages 483–491
• Ikegami, Jiro 1989. The Lower Amur and Sungari Basins from the viewpoint of toponymy and ethnonymy. In Giovanni Stary (ed.), Proceedings of the XXVIII Permanent International Altaistic Conference, pages 123–129. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.