Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 19:24:59 -0600 From: "Donald M. Lance" Subject: Re: plural ozark >I understand and can accept (theoretically) Don Lance's argument that > >"Eventually, the -s in the written form [of the early French explorers] led >to a (re-)morphologizing process that has given us 'The Ozarks.'" > >On the other hand, just about every mountain range in the USA that I can >think of takes the singular attributive and the plural nominative: The >Rocky Mountains, the Rockies; the Appalachian Mountains, the Appalachians; >the Adirondack Mountains, the Adirondacks; etc. > >Why not the Ozark Mountains, the Ozarks? (I'll admit here that I'd RATHER >believe that we were just adhering to a standard American English pattern >than accept that we were apeing the French.) You've just described the process I had in mind, but I collapsed a couple of steps in my description. I wonder if people in the Adirondaks are displaying similar patterns. The names of older businesses in Springfield MO use 'Ozark' (Ozark Plumbing), whereas recently-established businesses seem to prefer the -s form (Ozarks Plumbing). Do we get parallels in "Adirondak Plumbing" and "Adirondaks Plumbing"? The current residents who "add" the -s to the attributive form are following English rules, not French-like rules.