lish alone which has lost the true dentals: the same remark applies to many of the so-called Low-German, or more correctly Saxon, dialects of the north of Germany, its nearest relations. It might therefore be conjectured, that the change of the dentals had already begun before the Saxon emigration to England took place. However this may have been, it is certain that the English language at present possesses linguals, and has developed them either by itself or conjointly with its continental kindred.
The purely High-German dialect as spoken in the middle and south of Germany likewise possess a limited number of lingual sounds. These appear instead of the corresponding dentals after 'sch,' as in 'schtehen,' the true High-German form for the 'stehen' of the written language and the so-called classical pronunciation of the North. The sound of this 't' is however not quite so hollow as that of the Indian 'ṭ,' no doubt because the German 'sch' is not pronounced so far back in the mouth as the Indian lingual 'sh.' I should rather say that it stands in the middle between the two. I am little acquainted with the pronunciation of the other Teutonic dialects and therefore unable to say if they show signs of the same lingualising tendency. According to a statement of Mr. Norris, repeated by Dr. Caldwell in in his Comp. Grammar p. 113, the Icelanders possess a lingual 'd' in words as fullr, falla which are pronounced like 'fudlr' 'fadla.' Dr. Kulm in the Zeitschrift für vergleichende sprachforschung, vol. XIII, p. 80 shows that these and similar words are pronounced in a like manner also in Norwegian dialects. But I am not sure whether the statement that this 'd' is lingual can be accepted without further investigation. Mr. Norris, if I understand his words rightly, thinks that the group 'dl,' must be lingual, which is not a priori necessary. If he be right, the fact should be explained not as he thinks, by the influence of the Lappish language, but be quoted as another instance of spontaneous development
