Watch how you throw the word “we” around, as if you speak for the whole US.
First, If I were writing a check for $115.75, I would write exactly “One hundred and fifteen and 75/100 (dollars)”
Second, I have never heard the rule that you can’t have 2 “and’s” in a number, or that “and” represents a decimal place.
Third, in the several parts of the US that I have lived in, both “two thousand two” and “two thousand and two” were equally acceptable.
So, back to the main topic, how about the Naughty Naughties or Naughty Aughties? Now, we just need to do some naughtiness. BTW, I’ve seen Aught used more with numbers, like Thirty Aught Six for the caliber, or back in Aught Two, when old folks refer to years in the first decade of the last century.
Apparently, aught was created when people mistakenly changed “a naught” to “an aught”, but it seems to have caught on (and then died off).
Zagadka, I agree, “absent-minded” is a fair description of your post. 
Your first paragraph assessment of the “and” in various other languages, and what and stands for in a number being a regional convention, is good.
However, this:
is incorrect. In the BC/AD system, there was no year 0. Repeat, no year zero. The year AD 1 was the first year of the first century AD. That makes year 100 the one hundredth year, or the last year of the first century AD, and the year 1000 the one thousandth year, or the last year of the first millennium AD. So 1999 was, in fact, the 99th year of the 20th century. The first year of the 20th century was 1901. 1900 was the last year of the nineteenth century. And it is currently 2003, the third year of the two thousands, but the second year of the 21st century (regardless of when everyone celebrated “the millennium”). Don’t confuse “the two thousands” with “the twenty-first century”. The two appear to be the same, but have a one year shift because of the lack of year zero at the beginning of the numbering system.
Um, no. Class of '99 means “class of 1999”. See that apostrophe in my version? That’s the correct way to write it. The apostrophe means we omitted the “19” for brevity.
Sorry, but the entertainment industry has already solved this one for us. In The Music Man, Marian (madam librarian) refers to the fact that Harold Hill claims to have been a graduate of (drum roll please ) THE CLASS OF AUGHT FIVE (meaning 1905) when the school he says he’s from didn’t even open until (sax fanfare) AUGHT SIX.
I’d love to be naughty, but it’s better to do what I aught.
Firstly, that’s from a hundred years ago. Second, you guys do realize that instead of relying on stuff from a hundred years ago, you can just figure out what the years are actually being called? Personally, i’m part of the “Class of 2005”. That’s right, shocking as it may seem, it is most reasonable to simply leave the "two thousand’ in place. That way we don’t have to say retarded things like, “naught five”. The only other way that i’ve heard the year being pronounced is “O-five” (or “oh-five”, to spell it a different way), but it seems most people prefer to say the whole thing.
As for what to call this decade, in the years 2010-2019, it will probably be called “last decade”. Later on, it will probably be called “the first decade of the century.” Or, possibly, “the two-thousands,” given to the way the years of this decade are being commonly pronounced. After all, the REAL reason the 80s are 1980-1989 are because every year of that decade is pronounced starting with “eighty”.
This is taking too long. The future is watching… Already three years gone and nobody’s started to use a proper name for this decade yet. I think it’s best to call it the double O’s. Since the first decade of the 21st century differs from the first decades of the past centuries by having an extra 0. So it’s the second time in history for an alignment of two O’s in the calender. Plus Mr. Bond wouldn’t mind!
Just for comparison.
In French we say “les années soixante” (the years sixty). Note: this is less confusing than in English where grammar would require “the Sixty years”, which has an altogether different meaning.
So, when talking about the early twentieth century, we use “les années dix” (the years ten) for the decade 1910-1919, and “les années 1900” for the previous decade. Evidently, people are (already now) referring to “les années deux mille” (the years 2000) for our present time.
Another help from French language is that we have two words for “year”: “an” and “année”. So we easily distinguish “l’an deux mille” (the year 2000) and “les années 2000”.
OK, no help for the English problem. Sorry.
And you would be wrong, at least according to American standard English usage for writing numbers. Look at a cashier’s check, or your tax refund check, or any official document with a monetary amount written out. Don’t worry, though–the bank will still pay the checks you write! 
Perhaps I paid better attention in grade school. But I doubt that, since you show your thirst for knowledge by participating in the Straight Dope message boards. Maybe I just had better math books or teachers!
At last! Yes, in informal speech (or writing), both are fine, and everyone understands what they mean. I was pointing out what is technically correct, not what is merely acceptable to the teeming millions, who, as Cecil himself knows, can be somewhat ignorant.
When you knock at a door, and the person inside says, “Who is it?” don’t we all say, “It’s me,” even though “It is I” is technically correct? The former is acceptable in informal usage, but it will get you a wrong answer on the SAT. (So would “two thousand and two” for the number 2002–at least in America.)
Wait till 2007, and the English language will read itself.
:dubious:
I call this decade “the Zeros”. It just kinda came up in conversation one day, and it didn’t feel awkward, so I went with it. This fits with the " ‘00s " short-form reference as well. And considering the tech bust and the state of many peoples’ wallets, it seems to fit the feel of the decade (so far) as well. Of course, there could be some All-Encompassing Historical Event next month that will change the decade’s feel completely.
The next numerical decade will be the Teens.
It would be consistent to call this *year[/] “twenty oh three”, to go along with “twenty seventeen”, “twenty-one thirty”, etc, but no-one seems to be doing that (where I am anyways).
The years 2000-2009 should be called the same thing that the years 1900-1909 were called.
From 2000-2009: This decade.
From 2010-2019: Last decade
From 2020-2099: Turn of the century.
After 2100: Turn of the 21st century.
There’s no obvious term like ‘sixties’ or ‘seventies’ in English to refer to this decade and attempts to invent one sound contrived.
I think everyone will read it in the easiest way for their vocal system, it is a matter of phonetics. For example, how would you read a phone number that spells 555-5005? Or what if there were more zeros in it? For instance 500-0055. Maybe some phone company should give a vote in this, since they are the experts who set the rules. But I know ever since the millenium bug this decade has taken us from one mathematical issue into another. Don’t you think it’s time we reset our calendars!
It is true that to say the two-kays is not a technically correct reference to the years 2000-2009, but consider that the sixties is also not technically correct because it would literally mean 60 AD to 69 AD.
And so, you’re left with conventional appellation, which can often be non-literal.
I’m going with the 2k’s, otherwise we’d be left with the way we refer to 1900-1909 – the first decade of the 20th century – and I don’t want to be using the circumlocution of the first decade of the 21st century.
“Who wants more syllables?” “We do! We decidedly entreaty!”
Quoth Irishman:
Was that meant to say “…the fourth year of the two thousands, but the third year of the 21st century”?
And I happen to like referring to the years 20?? as twenty-something (so, for example, 2057 would be “twenty fifty-seven”), but it does not directly extend to the current decade. We can’t just say “twenty three”, because that’s 23, not 2003. You need a placeholder if you’re going to do it that way, which is where the “ought” or “naught” comes in. This would be a perfectly logical system to use, except for the minor little hitch that nobody seems to be using it.
And I agree with Paddle that it makes sense to name the decades based on how we name the years in the decade, but it doesn’t seem to me that we have a simple way to do that yet, either. Yes, there’s “two thousand three” (or “two thousand and three”, if you prefer: I won’t quibble on the grammathematical correctness), but that’s cumbersome. I, for one, would prefer something snappier.
I suspect this decade won’t have a conventionally agreed name, and we’ll get along just fine without it. Ditto the next decade, and then we’ll be ready for the 20s. And it will have to have an adjective associated to it, since the “Roaring 20s” means the 1920s.
I can see your logic. But it has brought the discussion back to square one. We’ve got to name it for the record, not for conventionallity. And the future is waiting on it!
I nominate the topical (Go Kyoto!) phrase:
The Oh-zones.
moriah, the sixties (i.e. the '60s) is in the decade position. It just truncates the leading 19. 2k is not in the decade position, so it cannot be a reference to the decade.
Chronos, um, yep, I can’t count.
As for using the naught/aught, why not use “oh”. I know technically oh is the letter and not the numeral zero, but it works in the sense you describe. Twenty oh three works just like twenty aught three with the advantage that it doesn’t sound antiquated and stilted, and is easier to say than twenty naught three and twenty zero three. It conforms to a common convention when referring to numbers to call zero “oh”.
C K, why can’t we have “the embattled Bush years”, or “the not-so-great depression” or “the reality (show) years”? Anyway, next decade would be teens, and you can make catchy phrases for teens just like for the twenties.
How about the Zerox?