Date:  Wed, 2 Jul 1997 19:24:59 -0600
From:  "Donald M. Lance" <engdl[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]SHOWME.MISSOURI.EDU>
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.