mw/udon

Amply attested in Memphis, c. between 625/590 and 500/470 (Kammerzell 1993a:169–171).

[Zs.S.]

gen. sg.	mwdonś	E.Me 12, E.Me 13, E.Me 16, E.Me 20, E.Me 28, E.Me 29, E.Me 31, E.Me 35, E.Me 40, E.Me 42, E.Me 46
	mw[d]onś	E.Me 32
	[mw]donś	E.Me 10
	mwdon!ś	E.Me 14
	mwdo[n]ś	E.Me 65
	mwtonś	E.Me 44

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:386, checked against the photographs in O. Masson 1978a. The restorations in E.Me 10, E.Me 32 and E.Me 65 as well as the emendation in E.Me 14 are contextually assured. mudo[n]ś of E.Me 65 is only a spelling variant of mwdonś (cf. Adiego 2007a:235). The reason for the spelling mwtonś in E.Me 44 is unknown (“variant form”, according to Adiego 2007a:386), Simon 2021d:175 n. 3 proposes that it is due to the interference of Egyptian (having no voiced stops at that time), which might have been (one of) the mother tongue(s) of the owner of the inscription, who had an Egyptian name.

According to the widespread opinion, the ethnic adjective mdayn / mdaýn is also part of the paradigm as the nom. sg. since Melchert 1993d:82f. (see also Melchert 2010f:178; Adiego 1998b:22, Adiego 2002a:18, Adiego 2007a:381; Neumann 1998a:27; Carruba 2000a:50–56; McAnally 2016a:195 n. 2), with the exception of Schürr apud Carruba 2000a:56 and Hajnal 1997a:200 n. 13 (“nicht völlig geklärt”, less negative in Hajnal 1995b:19), but they did not provide any argument. However, as Simon 2021d pointed out, they cannot be identical since, first, mdayn / mdaýn is an ethnic adjective from a non-Egyptian toponym, while mwdon / mudon refers to Egyptians and, second, the formal differences between the two words can be (and have been) explained only with ad hoc assumptions.

Finally, Adiego 1998b:22, Adiego 2002a:18 proposed that the word mdoτ₂ (C.Ka 5, 7) is also part of the paradigm as gen. pl. (accepted by Carruba 2000a:54f.). However, neither the reading nor the segmentation of this word is assured (see Melchert 2010f:184 n. 32 and Melchert 1998c, resp. as well as s.v.) and thus, it is kept separately (note that Adiego 2007a did not treat them anymore as parts of the same paradigm).

[Zs.S.]

Since the identification of mwdon / mudon with mdayn / mdaýn there is a general agreement that we are dealing with an ethnic adjective (for earlier, outdated suggestions see the critical overview of Simon 2021d:176), although none of the proposed toponyms fit on formal grounds (see the critical overview in Simon 2021d:177–180). However, as discussed in detail in Simon 2021d and under Forms above, we are dealing with two different words: while mdayn / mdaýn is indeed an ethnic adjective, mwdon / mudon must mean something different. Based on its position in the onomastic formulae, it could be a personal name (which is improbable, since it is never attested in our extant onomastic sources, although widespread in Egypt), an ethnic adjective from an Egyptian toponym (which is not possible phonologically), a profession, a title or a kinship term referring to an unnamed member (which, however, does not fit the general structure of the onomastic formulae). What remains is a profession or title that even finds a structural parallel in armon ‘interpreter’ (see s.v., observed already by Vittmann 2001a:50). Since mwdon / mudon is by far the most frequent characterization of the Memphite Carians and it seems to be a common characteristics of Carians, but only of Egyptian Carians (approx. one-fourth of all known funerary inscriptions from Memphis show this term), Simon 2021d:186 (cf. already Simon 2008b:463) proposes ‘mercenary’, since this is the common and most typical characteristics of the Egyptian Carians.

[Zs.S.]