Now that we’re about 2/3 of the way through the current decade – have we figured out what we’re calling it? In casual conversation, the equivalent of “that’s so nineties” is, for me, “that’s so new millennium.” This will, of course, cease to work once we get to 2010, and I really don’t think it’s too early to press for a decision on the issue. Headed into the decade, I was rooting for “the aughts,” but now I’m thinking that since I refer to individual years as “oh-six,” “oh-seven,” and “oh-eight,” we should just got ahead and call them “the ohs.”
It just sounds so much better than the “ohs.” When we look back at this decade, do we really want to refer to it as a decade of zeros?
I’ve been lobbying for the aughts since the beginning of the decade, but no one listens to me. Perhaps if we got a consensus here, I could use it to further the cause.
Because you Brits no longer rule the world.
And we Yanks just never, ever,ever use the world “aught”.
We say “zero” for mathematical use, “none” or “nil” when reporting sports scores, and “oh” when saying phone numbers.
But “aught” just doesn’t exist in America. (and besides, it sounds silly)
I vote for calling the new decade based on the same thing we called it a hundred years ago: “the turn of the century”. Except that “turn of the century” sounds very,very old fashioned. So why not modernize it to “turn of the millenium” ?
Here I thought we were currently in the naughts. I like the sound of it I guess. I have used it from time to time in the last few years. No one called me on it.
I call it “the aughties.” I think I might have originally gotten that from Cecil, in reference to the last century’s first decade. Works for me. People look at me funny when I say it, though.
We will not call it anything. It will be the Decade Which Shall Not Be Named, and those that do shall be beaten to death by any that hear it mentioned.
My guess is that we’ll end up calling it “the 2000s” (pronounced “two thousands”), even though technically that would be a time period of at least 100 years (2000-2099) if not 1,000.
Mainly because “The Year 2000” was for so long a standard catchphrase for “The Future” (remember how many devices were named “The XYZ 2000” to give it that Space Age zing?). Even now, I occasionally catch myself referring to something as an “X 2000”, then do a double take and marvel, “Wow, we’re past the year 2000… Way past!”
This would only last for as long as there are significant numbers of people who grew up in the 20th Century, though. After another 50 years I think it’ll get called something else. Probably just “The Turn Of The Millenium”. But in 10 years or so, I’m betting on Retro Radio advertising “Hits from the 80s, 90s and 2000s”.
That’s assuming some enormously apocolytic event doesn’t happen that really puts a stamp on our current era… I’d hate for it to later be called “The Pre-Meteor Years”, “The Ozone Age” or “Before The Alien Occupation”.
Seeing the words aughts used two days ago, I also pondered this question. The many pre 2001 threads on this were many. Now that we ar half way through it, do we know what to say or not. I doesn’t seem so. I think the aughts are the least rediculous choice of the bunch. Typing is easier since I write 00’s and you have to decide how to say it at the office meeting mister boss man.
