In a recent doctor's dissertation of the University of Lausanne, P. Marchot examines the question of the pronunciation of the French nasal vowels ain, ein, and in during the xvi and xvii centuries, and cornes to some rather startling conclusions, principally with regard to the developmcnt of ain (and ein). He denies the possibility of the direct development of ãin > en. ‘Passe-t-on directement de ãin à en ? Absolument pas: phonétiquement l'évolution est impossible. C'est au xvie siècle que ãin, dénatalité en ayn, passe à eyn et ensuite à,’ (p. 49). It is this thesis which he attempts to prove on pp. 47–62 of his monograph. The whole argumentation is based on the material presented by Thurot, De la prononciation française, of whom he says (p. 47), ‘malheureusement, Thurot n'était pas un romaniste, et il est incontestable que plus d'une fois, il n'a pas su tirer des matériaux qu'il avait réunis tout le parti qu'il était possible d'en tirer.’ I think it is safe to say, that Marchot has not succeeded much better. To be sure, the history of these nasals is not an easy problem, the grammarians of the xvi and xvii centuries are in the highest degree obscure in their statements, and it is not an easy matter to arrive at a clear understanding of their meaning. The weak point in Marchot's method is, that he interprets the statements of these grammarians literally and that he seems to lose sight of the continuity of phonetic tendency, whereas the only safe method can be, to collate and compare all the statements to the point, to eliminate every thing that appears individual with each grammarian, and to interpret what remains, along lines that are demanded by our knowledge of the history of French nasalization in general, making due allowance, at the same time, for the ignorance of phonetic problems at that period, and the crude terminology then in vogue.