[London,] 8 May 1875 
Dear Oswald, 

I can’t imagine what I was thinking about during our discussion 
yesterday when I maintained that teutsch was quite a modern 
spelling. What is modern is not the spelling but merely the 
significance attached to it as being the correct one. In Middle High 
German fiutsch, tiusch actually predominates throughout (e.g. 
Walther von der Vogelweide). Also diutisch (e.g. Annolied i 
During the 16th century teutsch again predominated (e.g. 
Luther, U. von Hutten). In Old High German, on the other hand, 
it is always diutisk, diotisk. Indeed I believe that the older form 
thiodisk, theotisk has even been identified somewhere. 

The facts are as follows: the Gothic, Old Norse, Anglo-Saxon, 
Old Saxon, Old Low Franconian th (p) subsequently changes into 
d in Saxon and Franconian as a result of reduction or slurring, 
and likewise into d in High German as a result of the sound shift 
(which is why all words beginning with th in English uniformly 
start with d both in High German and in Low German, including 
Dutch). This correspondence, ostensibly flouting all the rules, 
induced in 13th-century High German scribes, when dealing with 
a word as important as the name of the nation itself, a tendency to 
redress the ostensibly correct distinction resulting from the sound 
shift by using T and thus adulterating the Janguage.— All this had 
been as completely forgotten in Luther’s day as had the origin of 
the word itself. From the Renaissance onwards, on the other hand, 
the names handed down by the Romans— Teutones, Tuisto, 
etc. were used as an etymological basis and continued as such up 
till the time of Jacob Grimm. 

My philological conscience will give me no peace until I have 
sent you a rectification of the statement I made yesterday. Régle 
Générale*: one ought not to prattle away about comparative 
philology after 2 o’clock in the morning. 

Yours, 
F. Engels