mdoτ₂(u)

Hapax in a Carian-Greek bilingual decree from Kaunos dated to the end of the 4^th c. BC (cf. Adiego 2007a:155 with refs.).

[Zs.S.]

gen. pl.?

mdoτ2un

C.Ka 5, 7

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:382, checked against the photograph in Frei & Marek 1997a:Tafel I‒II. Its segmentation is assured due to the surrounding words (sarni[š] and sb). Its grammatical definition and the question whether we are dealing with one or more words depend on its meaning, which has been defined completely differently by the scholars involved, see under Meaning.

[Zs.S.]

There is a considerable debate regarding the transcription and the phonetic interpretation of the Carian letter Ω: while Shevoroshkin 1994a:152, 164 and Melchert 1998c:34 with n. 2, Melchert 2010f:184 n. 32 identify it as a glide [w] (cf. also Hajnal 1997b:163), Adiego 2002a, Adiego 2007a:252, Adiego 2010b:150, Adiego 2013a:17, Adiego 2020b:216 sees the Kaunian version of ‹τ› (a palatal affricate) in it. The transcription ‹τ₂› of Adiego is used here only for the sake simplicity, without any intention to take any side in this debate, which obviously requires further research.

[Zs.S.]

Simon 2024a:92–95 with refs. provides a critical overview of the meanings and segmentations proposed for mdoτ₂un (mainly different verbal forms), and argues that they cannot be upheld. The notable exception is Adiego 1998b:22, Adiego 2002a:17f., who, based on the syntax and the Greek version, suggested ‘foreigner’ (but separated mdoτ₂un into mdoτ₂ and un, with un as an infinitive of a verb meaning ‘to do’ and mdoτ₂ as gen. pl. for the word ‘foreigner’). Simon 2024a:95f. argues that while Adiego’s solution is semantically fitting, his proposed segmentation faces syntactical problems, but taking the entire word as gen. pl. not only solves all the problems but also fits from the point of view of historical morphology. The only issue that remains open is whether °u° is part of the stem of represents a suffix.

[Zs.S.]