The Washington Post asks a good question:
What should we call this decade? We have the ’80s, the ’90s, and . . . the “twenty hundreds”?. . . The anxiety began in the mid-’90s, then stretched into the early whatchamacallits — Aughts? — and has now reached fever pitch as the decade winds to a close.
Dictionary editors, linguists and even radio DJs say we have entered a semantic black hole in which the English language failed to produce a term for the outgoing decade in the same way it has failed to find a catchy moniker for your former in-laws. (Out-laws never stuck.) The language is stumped. The Zeroes? The Ohs? The Oh-Ohs? Help!
I suspect the reason the usage remains uncertain is that we haven’t used a sound for the decade when pronouncing the years within it. When we pronounced the year “nineteen-NINETY-two” or “nineteen-NINETY-three,” we naturally called the decade “the nineties.” And a hundred years ago, when it was common to pronounce “1905″ as “nineteen-AUGHT-five,” it was natural to call the decade “the aughts.”
But with the turn of the millennium, the common practice has been to leave the decade silent. Instead of pronouncing “2001″ as “twenty-OH-one,” we pronounced it “two-thousand-one.” With the decade signifier having been silent for almost a decade, any new usage seems artificial. That’s my guess as to why there isn’t an intuitive name for the decade, anyway.
Randy says:
This same question came up once before… a decade ago. No one had the solution then, and so far no one has come up with a solution.
I guess English isn’t as adaptive as we think, or else would have come up with something. Can’t we just borrow an obscure latinism?
December 26, 2009, 11:50 pmJaime non-Lawyer says:
I’ve always liked the Naughties.
December 26, 2009, 11:51 pmArmen says:
Back in 1999, I remember a poll and the winner was the same term used during the first decade of the 20th century: “the aughts.” Of course, just saying it, I feel rather like Grampa Simpson.
December 26, 2009, 11:53 pmanon. says:
I read a book recently where a character referred to an early part of the 1800s as “the earlies.” I like the sound of that and intend to start referring to 2000-2009 as “the earlies” just as soon as 2010 rolls around.
The book, for anyone who’s interested, was one of the Flashman novels, though I can’t remember which one. And, oddly enough, he wasn’t referring to 1800-1809 (but I’m using it anyways).
December 27, 2009, 12:02 ampot meet kettle says:
Then it must be named by the name that must not be said.
Hussein.
[OK Chimes In: Pot, I don't follow you. Care to explain?]
December 27, 2009, 12:10 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
The real question is, does the decade end next week, or next year?
December 27, 2009, 12:14 amJohn Stephens says:
“Turn of the Century” has the weight of tradition behind it.
December 27, 2009, 12:20 amMark says:
How about if we just not talk about this decade ever again?
December 27, 2009, 12:27 amAlan says:
Call this decade the twenty-naughts, and the coming decade the twenty-aughts. It’s specific enough and clear enough that there’s no doubt about what we’re referring to, and it’s a concise enough name that it’s not awkward (unlike my sentences, second only in their clumsiness to me on a date). And this way we don’t have to deal with the irritation of people whining about the value judgment inherent in an ideologically-charged name for the decades.
December 27, 2009, 1:11 amBrett says:
I just call it the “two-thousands”. Easy on the mouth.
December 27, 2009, 1:28 amVisitor Again says:
But “the two thousands” are the verbal equivalent of “the nineteen hundreds.” Both terms refer to the entire century, and the two thousands might even refer to the entire millennium.
I like the aughts, the naughts or the zeros. The o’s, pronounced as in “ohs” isn’t distinctive enough.
We could pick an accurate nickname that’s not numerical, though–like the doom decade or the gloom decade. But I think we’ll have more decades that fit that description.
December 27, 2009, 1:43 amnumeral says:
this whole thread is hilarious to me because earlier tonight I called this decade the thousands and my friend was like “wtf is that, are you referring to the millenium?”
December 27, 2009, 1:55 amRelic says:
How about the Oh’s? I know it’s not often used when talking about the year, but it’s more in line with modern speech
December 27, 2009, 2:09 am11-B.2O/B4 says:
The Zeros. Describes the ilk crawling out of our school system at least, if nothing else.
December 27, 2009, 2:26 amjimM47 says:
This doesn’t strike me as quite right. More common that saying “nineteen-NINETY-two” was just plain “NINETY-two”. Similarly, more common than “two-thousand-five” was “OH-five” so we did indeed pronounce the signaler for the decade in common parlance. I think it has more to do with “the ohs” or “the aughts” not fitting the pattern set by most decades of ending in “-ties: thus William Sapphire’s attempt to coin “the Naughties.”
Also, I don’t think we are out of the woods yet. The next decade doesn’t have a great name either. When you think of references to the decades of the twentieth century, it seems like locutions requiring the “teens” to be named are the least frequent. “Teens” doesn’t fit the pattern well, and for the years 2010-2012, the syllable won’t even be in the name of the year (will we have a mini-decade of “the tweens?”)
December 27, 2009, 2:28 amjosh bornstein says:
I’m figuring that “the teens” will be clear enough. As we have discussed (to death, many would argue), the next decade does not start for me till 2011, but I am officially *not* re-opening that can of linguistic worms.
December 27, 2009, 2:34 amDavid Schwartz says:
And the answer is, of course, it ends next year. The first year of the first decade was the year 1. So the first year of any decade must also end with the digit 1.
December 27, 2009, 2:45 amresh says:
As my bookie used to say, let’s call it 2gs, and move on.
December 27, 2009, 3:53 amGuest12345 says:
The real answer is that decades end continuously as a decade is just ten years. So every moment in time a decade is “ending.” On the other hand if you want to affix the decades to the current calendar used in the Western world, then the current whole decade will end 14 October 2012 as the Gregorian calendar began 15 October 1582.
However the question is regarding decades aligned with the numbering of the years, that is the Eighties or the Nineties. My guess is the decade that includes the years 2000 – 2009 will be called the Oughts, as in “twenty ought six.” For those who are very slightly risqué, perhaps the Noughties.
December 27, 2009, 4:06 amDavid Schwartz says:
You certainly could define decades in all of those odd ways, but absent some reason to think somebody meant something unusual, decades following the numbering of years are what is meant. Since there was no year zero, the first such decade began in the year one. The 202nd such decade will begin in the year 2011.
One cannot have a decade from 2000-2009 that aligns with the numbering of years unless the first such aligned decade began in the year zero, but there was no year zero. If you’re still not convinced, then please tell me what you think the first year of the first such aligned decade was.
December 27, 2009, 5:41 amChris Grainger says:
In the UK, it’s being pretty decisively called the Noughties. But, I suppose ‘nought’ isn’t very broadly used in North America.
December 27, 2009, 6:02 ammrshl says:
DS, it’s weird that you make a descriptive argument here, and then ignore your own observation to argue against the most common understanding of decade. Yes, yes, everyone knows the pedantic decade begins with 2011. But very few people think of decades that way.
Also, I agree that I’m going to call this decade the “two-thousands.” Could this usage refer to the entire millennium? I suppose it could. But I think people in the teens and twenties will get my meaning, don’t you?
December 27, 2009, 6:21 amRodger Lodger says:
How about the “pre-teens”?
December 27, 2009, 6:53 amPersonFromPorlock says:
I like “the Naughts,” which end along with 2009, mainly because there’s a neat slide from “the” to “Naught.” Easy to pronounce.
OK, I can’t believe you missed the “Hussein” quip. Subtle (or very funny) it wasn’t.
December 27, 2009, 7:53 amChrisIowa says:
I was liking the “noughties” until Rodger commented.
December 27, 2009, 7:54 ammarkm says:
The Ohs? No, the decade in which we elected GHW Bush’s idiot son and Obama should be called the Dohs.
December 27, 2009, 8:00 amCornellian says:
But, I suppose ‘nought’ isn’t very broadly used in North America.
I’ve lived my entire life here in North America and have never heard anyone use the word “nought.”
December 27, 2009, 8:07 amChris Grainger says:
Surely you’ve heard ‘for naught’. ‘Naught’ is just the US spelling of ‘nought’, which is used to refer to zero, nothing, nil.
December 27, 2009, 8:28 amtamerlane says:
How about “the end times”. After all we’ve only got a bit less than two years before 22 12/22/12 ;-)
December 27, 2009, 8:47 amPragmaticist says:
We should call it “the thousands.” It’s not perfect, but it could work.
December 27, 2009, 8:47 amfishbane says:
Folks around here (NYC) are using ‘naught’, ‘naughties’, etc. I spend time with some Brits and Russians, but the flyover-bred like me have picked it up as well. I thought this was what people were calling it – maybe I’m in a bit of a bubble on this.
December 27, 2009, 8:48 amshg says:
What difference will it make what you call it? It won’t come.
December 27, 2009, 9:01 amArkady says:
I propose, given the disillusioning aspects, that we call them the
December 27, 2009, 9:10 amgeokstr says:
Arkady wins the thread, not only for innovation, but both sides can find something to relate to in it.
December 27, 2009, 9:27 amAlice says:
As ghastly as the decade has been, let us not dwell on what to call it.
December 27, 2009, 9:32 amjcm says:
The decade will finish on 2010 12 31 , so there is a whole year to think about the O´s
December 27, 2009, 9:35 amSara says:
So are you saying that 1920 was not in the twenties?
December 27, 2009, 9:42 amDesiderius says:
Given the current spin, I believe the decade will come to be known as:
the Nothings.
December 27, 2009, 10:26 amStormy Dragon says:
I call it “The Ohsies” myself.
December 27, 2009, 10:43 amMarysaid no says:
When a child is born, is it one? No. Not until it has completed it’s first year is it considered one. Calendars are man’s constructions. There was not A “first year” or “year one.” It seems much more logical to consider a decade to begin with a year ending in 0 (zero) and end in a year ending in 9. In Ireland this decade has been fairly consistently referred to as the naughties. I’d say they were the frothies, though, since they were spend whipping the world economies into a frothy soufflé and then at the end, we opened the oven before it was quite cooked.
December 27, 2009, 10:50 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » What Do We Call the Decade? -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eugene Volokh, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: What Do We Call the Decade?: The Washington Post asks a good question: What should we call this decade? We have.. http://bit.ly/4L8F0U [...]
December 27, 2009, 10:58 amlgm says:
Not related to this thread, but the loonies are loose in this blog — Randy Barnett in two beautifully nutty posts. You can tell the truly out-to-lunchers — they’re the ones who don’t permit comments. Cowards.
December 27, 2009, 10:59 amDonBoy says:
I think I’ve really been saying “two thousand and nine”, so surely the decade would be “the Ands”.
December 27, 2009, 11:26 amDesiderius says:
lgm,
“Not related to this thread”
There’s your first sign that something has gone horribly wrong.
“but the loonies are loose in this blog”
You speak as one with authority on that matter.
Extensive first-hand experience?
December 27, 2009, 12:07 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
And that is an excellent analogy for what happened. Although if the soufflé had finished cooking, we might be sorrier than we are now.
I’ll probably say “the two thousands”. I’ve been saying “two thousand three” and so forth. For a mush-mouthed American Southern woman, it’s not chunky at all, it just rolls on like everything else.
December 27, 2009, 12:19 pmVolokh Accomplice says:
The Aughts? More like the Ought-Nots.
People ought not have bought into Algore’s global warming propaganda. We ought not have elected GWB, who ought not have invaded Iraq. We ought not have elected BHO, who ought not have ballooned our deficit even more, who ought not have been so naive to promise to negotiate legislation on C-SPAN, and who ought not have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for doing naught. And we ought not have had such awful alternative presidential candidates to GWB and BHO.
Years from now, when politicians are mudslinging Myspace and Facebook content posted in this decade, political advisors will only be able to say, “You ought not have posted that. Now everyone knows what you look like [high/drunk/naked/wearing crocs and leggings].”
I also like markm’s and Rodger’s suggestions. (Dohs and Pre-teens)
December 27, 2009, 12:38 pmJ. A. Springer says:
The “Nothings”. Think about it…
December 27, 2009, 1:07 pmGuest12345 says:
Can you cite some basis for AD 1? Why not 1 BC? Particularly since in the Gregorian calendar there was no AD 1 – AD 1581. Additionally the usage of “AD year” didn’t appear until AD 525. Prior to AD 525 the years were affixed to the consuls. The usage 1 BC didn’t happen until Bede in the year AD 731. Curiously Bede did use a year zero in the Computus.
If you are counting the decades since the birth of Christ… good luck with that. The descriptions of Christ’s birth put it in a year other than AD 1.
I will give you this: if you want to define things by running the calendar backwards from now and eventually reach some point in the past which you define as 1 Jan AD 1, then you are absolutely right.
Given the fact that our calendar includes this (1752 being the year of British adoption of the Gregorian calendar):
September 1752
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
It’s a bit silly to think there is anything at all authoritative about AD 1.
December 27, 2009, 1:36 pmMelvin H. says:
Didn’t we go through this before, whether the decade ends when the new year ending in “0” starts???
Having said that….call the 2000-09 period “The Zeroes“, or maybe “The Double-Zeroes“.
December 27, 2009, 1:39 pmThat would be consistent with calling the previous decade, 1990-99, “The Nineties” or the following decade, 2010-19, possibly “The Teens” or “The Ten’s“.
guest says:
first decade will be called the “two thousands” (and pedants like some of the commenters that have appeared in this thread will carp that this usage is technically incorrect)
the next decade (starting in the year 2010; see parenthetical above) will be called the “two thousand tens” or perhaps simply the “tens”
and so on.
December 27, 2009, 1:49 pmSyd Henderson says:
Rodger Lodger says:
How about the “pre-teens”?
I love it. I’ll pass it on.
December 27, 2009, 2:14 pmI tend to call the current year “twenty-oh-nine” but I’ve been calling it the “aughties.”
David Schwartz says:
Guest12345: You are the one who suggested aligning decades with the numbering of the years. If you want to do that, then the first year of the first decade was one. As for why not 1 BC, because our calendar notionally started numbering years on 1/1/1. I agree, our calendar is not perfect, but it also is what it is.
As for the ‘glitch’ it results in an unusual year, but our calendar still counts it as a year.
December 27, 2009, 5:03 pmSammy Finkelman says:
The “Turn of the Century” measns approximately the years 1898 to 1902 or maybe a few years further. And there isn’t any other turn of the century than the one around the year 1900. The one around 1800 isn’t and wasn’t called that and neither is the time around the millenium.
The decade has to be called the colons. The ASCII character for 57d is 9 and 58 is : and 59 is ;.
Just see what many non-Y2K compliant programs will do.
So this decade was the colons and the next one is the semi-colons…
December 27, 2009, 6:57 pmSammy Finkelman says:
No. It is Nineteen – O – Six (not ought) but Two Thousand and Six.. Yiu can alkso say Two Thousand Six.
You continue with two Thousand and.. until at least Twenty Twenty. If that sounds all right and it really does not and neother does anything else.
People may change the way of referring to the year after the year.
Maybe we should have just stuck with Nineteen Blank Blank. But that doesn’t work for the year Two Thousand. It is always “Thhe Year Two Thousand” except that since then mayeb poeple have used “Two Thousand.”
Don’t you still want to keep referring to Nineteen something or other?
December 27, 2009, 7:04 pmSammy Finkelman says:
Zeroes. Didn’t William Safire suggest that one?
Here’s an early discusson:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/07/magazine/on-language-name-that-decade.html?pagewanted=all
Twenty years later (is it twenty years?) we are stll no closer to a solution.
December 27, 2009, 7:14 pmRandy says:
Back about 110 years ago, we refer to that period as ‘fin-de-siecle.’ Perhaps we should call this past decade ‘debut-de-siecle.’ (For our non-elitist readers, that would be ‘beginning of the century’)
It has a nice continental ring to it, the rubes won’t know what you are talking about, and it would enrage Glen Beck. Those are enough reasons for me. But it would also be able to define a certain zeitgeist that has been in the air since about 2000, just as the original term means more than just a period of years.
December 28, 2009, 1:04 ammarysaid no says:
Or, Randy, we could call it “the very bad beginning.”
December 28, 2009, 5:05 amGuest12345 says:
I suggested that when someone says the 80s they mean the years 1980-1989. I didn’t suggest that it all be based on counting from some retroactively applied start date. That was all you.
There never was a 1 January 1 in the same sense that there was a 7 August 1953. You could run the clock backwards to reach that date, but if you had a time machine, none of the people you spoke with would have a clue what you were referring to.
Your arguments are circular because you want to anchor this end of the string and stretch it back to find the beginning. Then start counting from there. But it doesn’t mean anything because the system you are using didn’t exist until 1582. Even if you wanted to use the Julian calendar you still won’t reach AD 1. The convention of counting years since the birth/conception of Christ didn’t begin until centuries after his death.
December 28, 2009, 8:36 amDJR says:
Surprising that nobody has suggested the 00s. A lexis “meganews” (whatever that is) search for the last 90 days shows 2726 occurences of “00s” with all of the first 50 results referring to the decade 2000-2009. A similar search for “augts,” “naughts” or “two thousands” (more particularly “two /1 plural(thousand)”) turns up mostly references to articles discussing what to call the decade, with only the very occasional writer actually using the term non-hypothetically to refer to the decade. So far as news articles are concerned, 00s is the clear winner. It’s also consistent with how one often sees references to recent decades: the 90s the 80s, etc.
How one pronounces the 00s, on the other hand…
December 28, 2009, 9:14 amDavid Schwartz says:
Guest12345: Is your claim now that the numbering of years that our calendar uses does not start with a year 1? You suggested aligning decades with the numbering of years. That numbering starts, notionally, with a year 1.
In any event, you have still not answered my simple question. If we’re going to align decades with the numbering of years, what was the first year of the first such aligned decade?
December 28, 2009, 1:51 pmSnaphappy says:
Give it a rest. Both 2000-2009 and 2001-2010 are decades. The former may well be called (and would accurately be called) the 00s in the same way that 1990-1999 was the 90s. The latter is accurately called (as a matter logic) the first decade of the 21st century. Point to the rule that says there can only be one cannonical “The Decade” to which any given year must belong and I’ll tell you which decade was “The First Decade.”
December 28, 2009, 1:56 pmDavid Schwartz says:
Snaphappy: I cannot fathom how you think you are replying to me. Notice the “if” in the statement you are replying to?
December 28, 2009, 3:24 pmSara says:
How about calling it the “preteens”? After all, the prefix “pre” DOES mean “before”. Then once the year 2013 hits, we’ll be saying the “teens”…then the “twenties”…then the “thirties” and so on. “Preteens” makes logical sense to me!
December 30, 2009, 7:03 pmBob says:
What about just calling it “THE TURN OF THE CENTURY”
December 30, 2009, 10:42 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Or even “THE TURN OF THE MILLENIUM” to differentiate from the turn of the last century.
January 1, 2010, 12:16 pmJacqueline Stewart says:
I dislike ‘the aughts’ or aughties or oughties, (or naughties, which is simply terrible) however you which way you want to spell it. It’s old fashion and doesn’t fit in our modern language. Archaic language is ill suited to a decade of such progress (no smartass comments please; you have to admit we have been making amazing advancements in science, etc)
The problem lies in the fact that we were so excited about a new millennium that we kept saying ‘two thousand and blank’ instead of what would have made more sense: ‘twenty-oh-blank’. That had been lamented upon by some linguists over the last few years. Especially when it creates just this very problem.
If we are going to call it the ‘aughts’ can we at least call it but the more modern ‘ohs’… something more familiar to our thinking. I have a rather broad vocabulary, and use it. However, I don’t think you’ll ever catch me calling these last ten years ‘the aughts’
Also, it puts me in mind of ‘ought’ or the slang ‘oughta’ (as in ‘should have’). I don’t know about the rest of you, but I have no regrets over the last ten years.
To be completely honest, I had never heard of the term ‘aughts’ for the 1900 to 1910 period until recently. Since the reign of Edward over lapped 1901 to 1910, I always called it “The Edwardian Era”. Which, I know, is more cultural than technical; deal with it.
January 6, 2010, 8:52 pm