So why is it "the Aughts"?

[MattPage]

So there are various top ten of the decade posts at the moment and they (nearly) all seem to use the phrase "the aughts". So what's that about? Hitherto I've almost universally heard this decade referred to as "the noughties". That makes sense to me. Twenties, thirties, fourties, fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties... noughties kind of fits. Aughts is a whole other thing. What even is an aught?

Matt

[Peter T Chattaway]

Merriam-Webster says "aught" was first used to mean "zero" in 1872, as an "alteration (resulting from false division of a naught) of naught".

So I guess someone said "a naught" and someone else heard "an aught" and away we went.

[du Garbandier]

According to the Oxford University Press blog, "Noughties" is a British/Aussie expression, whereas "Aughts" is the American term of choice--insofar as any single term has much favor. In 1999 the BBC said that

The "noughties" could be the one to head the - admittedly sorry - list of contenders.

And yet the "noughties" still sounds like a word East End villains might use to describe imprisonable activities - or even worse a polite, middle-class code for the reproductive organs.

I like "Noughties"--it has a certain cheekiness that seems somehow suitably British. However, I think for Americans the term lacks the self-explanatory quality coinages usually need to gain wide currency; "nought" just isn't used much here as a term for zero, and thus I don't think many Americans would intuitively know what is meant by "the Noughties." We would just hear it as "Naughties" and, after momentary confusion, take it as some sort of reference to lingerie or something, and move on.

I don't know if "Aught" will really catch on here due to being somewhat archaic. But it could spread like wildfire, in a retro craze, for aught I know.

Edited December 10, 2009 by du Garbandier

[MattPage]

So does everyone just use "zero" or "o" over there then?

Matt

[Peter T Chattaway]

Matt Page wrote:

: So does everyone just use "zero" or "o" over there then?

Ordinarily, yes. "1901" would be pronounced "nineteen-oh-one", etc. Although there IS a scene in Kill Bill Vol 2 where Bill tells a story about something that happened in 1003 -- or, as he puts it, "one double-aught three".

[Andy Whitman]

So does everyone just use "zero" or "o" over there then?

Matt

We usually don't say either one. American usage is odd in that way. For the first ten years of this decade we've said "two thousand," "two thousand three," "two thousand seven," etc. At some point we'll make the crossover to "twenty thirty-eight," or whatever. I'm not sure it will happen in 2010 (twenty-ten), because I think it's very possible that Americans will go on saying "two thousand ten." It will be interesting (mildly, during a particularly boring year) to see when that crossover occurs.

We never say zero, aught, naught, or anything of the kind, though. As Americans, we hate zero.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Andy Whitman

[MattPage]

Thanks Petre and Andy, I was meaning more in everyday usuage - reading out a phone number for example. FWIW we also go with "two thousand," "two thousand three," , and have definitely made the transition to twenty-ten, not least because of the twenty -twelve olympics.

Matt

[du Garbandier]

Yes, we (meaning I) do often say "oh"--as in nine-oh-two-one-oh for 90210.

Edited December 10, 2009 by du Garbandier

[SDG]

: So does everyone just use "zero" or "o" over there then?

Ordinarily, yes. "1901" would be pronounced "nineteen-oh-one", etc.

True -- but OTOH "2001" is "two thousand and one," with no need to pronounce any zeroes.

("2012" might be pronounced "twenty-twelve" (though Sony publicity was clear that the approved pronunciation of the film title was "two thousand twelve") but it would be rather odd to say "twenty oh one" for 2001.)

Thus, while there is some case for calling the first decade of the 1900s "the 0's" (whether pronounced "the ohs," "the naughts" or "the aughts"), it isn't quite as natural in the case of the first decade of the 2000s, where there is no pronounced 0/naught/aught.

Of course neither "aughties" nor "naughties" is really parallel to "thirties" or "eighties," etc., since no one says e.g., "aughty-five" or "naughty-six" the way we say "thirty-four" or "eighty-six."

Edited December 10, 2009 by SDG

[Darryl A. Armstrong]

Although there IS a scene in Kill Bill Vol 2 where Bill tells a story about something that happened in 1003 -- or, as he puts it, "one double-aught three".

NPR reminded me yesterday of The Music Man, where Harold Hill graduated "Gary Conservatory, Gold Medal Class of Aught Five." That movie is so ingrained in my childhood memories, it's probably why I felt calling this decade the aughts has always just felt "right."

[Darrel Manson]

("2012" might be pronounced "twenty-twelve" (though Sony publicity was clear that the approved pronunciation of the film title was "two thousand twelve") but it would be rather odd to say "twenty oh one" for 2001.)

My contrariness has led me to be saying twenty-oh-x for the last several year. I'm now used to it.

I also note that Charles Osgood on CBS Sunday Morning says twenty-oh, so I feel validation.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Darrel Manson

[Buckeye Jones]

00 buckshot is referred to as "Double Aught" Buckshot when speaking. Why isn't James Bond referred to as Double Nought Seven, I wonder?

[SDG]

("2012" might be pronounced "twenty-twelve" (though Sony publicity was clear that the approved pronunciation of the film title was "two thousand twelve") but it would be rather odd to say "twenty oh one" for 2001.)

My contrariness has led me to be saying twenty-oh-x for the last several year. I'm now used to it.

I also note that Charles Osgood on CBS Sunday Morning says twenty-oh, so I feel validation.

I am comfortable integrating your usage, and Charles Osgood's, within my framework of considering this usage rather odd.