Himal and Himalayas and Sahara Desert

It always intrigues (irritates? frustrates?) me to hear the word Himalayas or the phrase Himalayan Mountain range. Not many realize or care that both are redundant, if not outright wrong. People have been snickered at, castigated and looked upon as unsophisticated for talking about the Sahara Desert. Since Sahara means desert, the use of both words is quite uncalled for. So what about the Himalayas/Himalayan Mountains? The Nepali (not Nepalese, please!!) word for mountain is himal. i.e., himal is one mountain. When himal is used to describe more than one, the Nepali word is himalaya - more than one. So why do the people in the west say Himalayas without fail? Why has the plural Nepali himalaya been Anglicized as the redundant Himalayas? Who says "mountainses"? If Himalayas is acceptable in English, what's next?

So what about Himalayan ranges? This is exactly like saying the Sahara desert. The Himalayan mountains just means the mountain mountains. If people only referred to it as the Himalayan ranges, that would be okay. So let's get rid of this redundancy. Let's go on travel sites, news channels and Jeopardy and proclaim loudly that there are no "Himalayas" but just Himalaya and no Himalayan Mountains but only the Himalayan range.

Of course, in the US, that's easier said than done. I remember that it has been eons since one bright journalist mentioned the Miami Dolphins as the "Fish" and the term is used by every sports writer, broadcaster and fan. The dolphin is a mammal and not a fish. But go tell that to the Marines! I despair very much for my Himalayan ranges - William Safire, where are you when we need you?

Of course, you may wonder whether this makes a difference. What's wrong with Sahara desert or Himalayan mountains? After all, a scribe asked the question a few hundred years ago. "What's in a name?" Well, is there a problem with the Anglicized nomenclature? I feel strongly that it is a big mistake. How do you feel?