Post edited 5:07PM – Mar-14-09 by Grant Barrett

When Do We Start Calling Years ‘Twenty-Somethings’? Dan Gillmor, guest-blogging at Boing Boing, reopens the endless conversation about what to call the decade we’re currently in and how to refer to the years themselves. This is a conversation that has been had since well into the 1990s. What’s funny is, as I’ve mentioned on the air, what I hear people saying is “twenty-nine,” meaning 2009, but they never write it that way nor seem to notice that’s what they’re saying.

"Twenty-nine" to mean "2009" seems not to cause any confusion. For one thing, there are few reasons to think that anyone means "2029" or "1929," especially since "twenty-nine" used in this way is always wrapped in the context of a larger conversation in which the time frame is readily apparent. Listen for it. You'll see that it only seems like it might be confusing when you try to talk about the usage. If you don't talk about it, it does its job unconfusingly.

Or, in military or European usage, 8:09 PM (20:09)

Post edited 1:04PM – Feb-03-10 by Glenn

Just continue the "ought" thought; call it ought ten. That should work through ought ninty-nine.

A new millenium only comes once in a thousand years. Let's not miss this opportunity.

Perhaps we ought, as several have suggested. But I believe the spelling you ought to use is aught.

I know that in the 1900s, my college's reunion classes used "Class of aughty-two," etc. To me, dates with aught evoke the turn of a different century.

Post edited 10:07AM – Aug-04-10 by EmmettRedd

Here is a science fiction story set in the near future. It calls a decade the "naughts". However, the reason this story is online is that an earlier draft of it was printed. The printed phrase was, "nau-[line break]oughts-teens".

When I saw it in print, I took it as an independent usage of my "ought" prefixing of all years/decades of this century. After seeing the corrected reprint, I am not so sure.

Emmett