Date:  Fri, 3 Mar 1995 16:00:42 -0800

From:  Peter McGraw <pmcgraw[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]CALVIN.LINFIELD.EDU>

Subject: Re: Looking for some useful arguments



Since this discussion seems to have revived, maybe it's not too late after

all for a question I was wanting to ask Donald Lance (or any Romanists

out there).



The etymology of "Ozarks" is indeed fascinating.



In modern French, of course, there would be no final [s] in the

pronunciation of "aux arcs." I don't know enough about the history of

French to know whether the [-s] was still there in the late 1600s. The

borrowing into English as "Ozarks" would itself be evidence of the final

[s] in the source language if the possibility could be ruled out that the

[-s] was added later as an English plural suffix. If final [s]

was already lost in late 1600s French, then the word would have been

borrowed as "Ozark" rather than "Ozarks". So - could somebody tell me

whether there is other evidence showing whether or not final [s] persisted

in French into the late 1600s?



Thanks.



Peter McGraw

Linfield College

McMinnville, OR





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 "Ozarks,"*

> 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 toponyms

> 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 unions"

> 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?

>                               DMLance

>