Most decades have obvious pronunciations. The 90’s is “the nineties”, not the “nine-oh’s”, and the same goes for every other decade ina century, even the 10’s would be called the “teens” most usually I would guess. But for decades like the one we’re currently in, there seems to be no OFFICIAL pronunciation. At least, for the last 3 years I haven’t heard one. In fact I haven’t ever heard anyone say it outloud at all!
So what’s your personal preference? “The oh’s”? “The double oh’s”? The “oh ohs”? The “two thousands”? I guess I think of it as the “ohs”. It sounds less awkward or cheesy to me as some of the others.
I haven’t heard it either, but when compared with the 1900’s (first decade anyway), I seem to recall my grandparents and parents refer to them as the “aughts” (synonymous with “naughts” for some reason) or the “oh’s.”
It’s even interesting to hear how car model years are referred to in ads. “Oh-3” or Two-thousand-three" seem to dominate in this area.
It’s like, “back in aught-6 we were hiking to school…”
I often use “aught-” and “aughts”, but then I’m prone to somewhat fanciful and archaic speech. I use “oh-” around people likely to be confused by interesting terminology.
Ah, but you see, amore, annoying pedants like the honorable Mr. Palmquist is one of the great joys in life.
Regardless of its original meaning, the word “aught” has acquired a meaning of “zero” in common usage, while “naught” has largely faded from the scene (excepting such phrases as “came to naught”, which I and about three other people still use occasionally). Language evolves, and if a given mutation doesn’t personally annoy me (such as the pernicious misuse of “hacker”), I generally go along with it.
Besides, you would have us calling this decade the “naughty-naughties”, and what good could possibly come of that?
The mathematicians don’t seem to have gotten the message. (but since when have they been early adopters of language/style change?)
Calculus instructors will continue to define the derivative thus:
and set theorists will continue to laugh at the joke that the longest mathematical song is “Aleph-nought bottles of beer on the wall” – long after the general population ceases to use the word naught.
Main Entry: 1 aught
Function: pronoun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English Awiht, from A ever + wiht creature, thing – more at AYE, WIGHT
Date: before 12th century
1 : ANYTHING
2 : ALL, EVERYTHING <for aught I care> <for aught we know>
I had to click the link to the third definition in order to find what you quoted.
I usually use “the twenty first century”, “the new millenium”, or “the turn of the century” but the only time I ever use them is when I’m saying something like “This is the _____, what do you mean _____ can’t _____?” to some decidely conservative friend
To me the main point is that both aught and naught (also spelled nought) are “correct” if the dictionary is to be appealed to.
I think Balance’s point that usages are what drive dictionaries, and not vice versa, is what I subscribe to – in principle. Some things are labeled as “sub-standard” or “archaic” or “obsolete” or even “regional” but the better dictionaries do acknowledge the lack of universality of some words and their spellings and pronunciations.
Please note that I didn’t say you were wrong. But neither is Balance and since Balance is from the same (roughly) geographical background that I am, I just favor the usage in Balance’s post.
Variety is the spice of life and there are at least 57 varieties.
Thank you for the support, Zeldar. You are quite correct; I think that usage does (and should) drive dictionaries rather than the other way around. Flexibility is essential if a language is to remain useful; a language that no longer changes is called a “dead language”.
amore, mathematical jargon–like all jargons–has its own vocabulary. It has little to do with standard usage. Indeed, words that have changed meaning drastically or faded from use can be helpful in determining the origins of jargons and other dialects. You are, of course, free to use “aught” in any manner you like. However, you should be prepared to be misunderstood from time to time if you use it to mean “all”, even though your usage is technically correct. Now, shall we dispense with the hijack?
So far my contributions to this thread have consisted of other people’s opinions, such as those of Cecil Adams, Eric Palmquist, mathematicians, and the editorial staff at Merriam-Webster. I do not personally advocate any of their views whole-heartedly. I agree that some parties seem to be stuck in the past and unwilling to let the language take its natural evolutionary course. That said, I prefer to avoid ambiguous usages that leave room for misinterpretation. Janus words like “aught”, when not clear from context, should be abandoned in favor of words with less self-contradiction.
As for what I personally would call the decade, hmm . . .
the 201[sup]st[/sup] decade. In contrast to “the 21st century”, this phrasing does not include other decades which might have reasons for notoriety quite different from what we will have experienced between 2000 and 2010.
