Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:30:14 -0800 From: Peter McGraw Subject: Re: Looking for some useful arguments It seems to me fairly obvious that "the Ozarks" originated as shorthand for "the Ozark Mountains" in a very common English pattern. Other examples are abundant: Mr. and Mrs. Smith or the Smith Family --> the Smiths; Jockey briefs --> Jockeys (cf. Dave Barry's column of Sunday, 3/26/95); nylon stockings --> nylons; etc. What would the copyeditors who are irritated by "Ozark Mountains" suggest? "Ozarks Mountains"? How about "Appalachians Mountains" and "Catskills Mountains"?! And if we can say "The Rockies" even though we wouldn't be able to pluralize the adjective "rocky," why wouldn't it happen there? Peter McGraw Linfield College McMinnville, OR On Sat, 25 Feb 1995, Donald M. Lance wrote: > A copyediting "thing" in these parts is the insistence of some (non-native, > say natives) editors who isnist that the modifier must be OZARKS, not > OZARK. E.g., "Ozarks culture," not "Ozark culture." These editors > are irritated by phrases like "Ozark Mountains," local usage notwithstanding. > They argue that the region is "the Ozarks," so the -s should be retained. > Phone-book entries indicate that the names of older businesses will have > forms like "Ozark Plumbing Company," whereas more-recently-founded > companies will use "Ozarks" in the name. I think there's a real trend > here, not just fussiness of editors, though the editors are generally > more attuned to their own attitudes than to what the general public is doing. > On occasional hand-lettered signs one finds "Ozark's Plumbing," and I > remember seeing the apostrophed form in a phone book in SW Mo. > Is something similar going on in other areas --e.g., Adirondaks, Poconos? > Wouldn't happen with "Rocky," so this isn't a simple little item. > DMLance >