Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 09:32:44 +0000

From: Maik Gibson llrgbson[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]READING.AC.UK

Subject: Re: the Ozarks and other plurals

It seems to me that people think that Britain (*have) has only plural

forms for collective entities, because one only tends to notice how

people speak when they speak differently: hence hypercorrection, which is

what would happen if many on the list tried to sound British!

Countries don't generally have plurals in the UK: the US is an exception: I

heard that it only became singular in the States after the Civil War.

Maik Gibson

On Fri, 3 Mar 1995, Cathy C. Bodin wrote:

The etymology that Donald Lance provided for "the Ozarks" is fascinating

and raises the example of British plurals, such as "trades unions" vs.

"trade unions" [Amer. usage].

On a related head, could I ask for comment on these British

plurals? How does "their" figuration of collectives differ from ours?

They say that the United States "are" doing such-and-such in the news

and that British Oil "have" announced such-and-such. Does anyone know

if a Trades Union X or a Trade Union X "has" or "have" been considered

as a plural traditionally in Britain? --Cathy Bodin

On Tue, 28 Feb 1995, Donald M. Lance wrote:

The issue of "Ozarks" is more complex than Peter McGraw's response implies.

As well as we can determine, the word came from French explorers in

the late 1600s who wrote "aux arcs" on maps to indicate where the Arcansa

Indians lived and hunted. Liaison in French phonology would yield a

pronunciation of this abbreviation that would sound very much like


which was the early English spelling. So "Ozark" is more like a folk

back-formation used in attributive positions where the "plural" ending

is not common in American English -- i.e., Ozark Mountains. All the


on official maps have "Ozark" in attributive position, as do business names

in the area. However, in recent decades, the -s form has come into use in

attributive position (Ozarks Conservation District, etc.). (*The final -s

in French is a further complication in the story.) Further, McGraw's

question about "Applachains Mountains" etc. points out that the anti-Ozark

copy-editors aren't so smart after all, though they may be following a local

trend. Every now and then I try to steer my mind toward this question but

haven't done systematic study. In British nomenclature we get "trades


but "trade unions" in American English. I think the attributive -s form in

similar compounds is on the rise in American English, and the anti-Ozark

editors may be reflecting that trend. It's this latter trend that I haven't

done anything systematic on. How widespread/sporadic is the trend?