ago) of _parvenu_ (which Gifford used in 1802), of _ennui_ (which
Evelyn used in 1667), and of _nuance_ (which Walpole used in 1781).

No one hesitates to accept these words and to employ them frequently.
_Ennui_ and _nuance_ are two words which cannot well be spared, but
which we are unable to reproduce in our native vocalization. Their
French pronunciation is out of the question. What can be done? Can
anything be done? We may at least look the facts in the face and govern
our own individual conduct by the results of this scrutiny. There is no
reason why we should not accept what is a fact; and it is a fact that
_ennui_ has been adopted. So long ago as 1805 Sidney Smith used it as a
verb and said that he had been _ennuied_. Why not therefore frankly and
boldly pronounce it as English--_ennwee_? Why not forswear French again
and pronounce _nuance_ without trying vainly to preserve the Gallic
nasality of the second n--_newance_? And as for a third necessary word,
_timbre_. I can only register here my complete concurrence with the
opinion expressed in Tract No. 3 of the Society for Pure English--that
the 'English form of the French sound of the word would be approximately
_tamber_; and this would be not only a good English-sounding word, like
_amber_ and _chamber_, but would be like our _tambour_, which is
_tympanum_, which again is _timbre_'.

Why should not _séance_ (which was used by Charles Lamb in 1803)
drop its French accent and take an English pronunciation--_see-ance_?
Why should not _garage_ and _barrage_ rhyme easily with _marriage_?
_Marriage_ itself came to us from the French; and it sets a good example
to these two latest importations. Logic would suggest this, of course;
but then logic does not always guide our linguistic practices. And here,
again, I am glad to accept another suggestion which I find in Tract No.
3, that _naivety_ be recognized and pronounced as an English word, and