I know it's been a few weeks now, but I found another interesting article about what to name The Decade Formerly Known As 2000-2009: "The Uh-Ohs".

I still haven't made up my mind on what to call it other than not at all liking Britain's "noughties".

Interestingly, this article here has some historical context (mmmm, historical context): in 1933 the Chicago Tribune called 1900-1909 "the Naughty Aughts" - not unlike Britain's current phrase.

In related news, yesterday I caught myself referring to this current year as both "twenty-ten" and "two-thousand-and-ten" - so apparently I'm still wavering on that one, too.

Labels: 2000s, 2010, Name That Decade

So now the National Association of Good Grammar has weighed in on what to call this year - they say it should be pronounced 'twenty ten'.

But technically wouldn't there be a hyphen in there? I'd say it should be 'twenty-ten'.

But then what the hell do I know, I still put the period outside of the apostrophe and quotation marks.

Either way read all about it here: "2010: 'Twenty ten' vs. 'two thousand ten'".

Labels: 2010, grammar, Name That Decade

Another author has weighed in on what to call this lost decade.

Paul Krugman from the New York Times says we should call it "The Big Zero".

Hey, it's still better than "the naughties".

Labels: Name That Decade, NY Times

I'm still interested in what people are calling the decade between 2000 and 2009 (see Not "The Aughts"?).

Apparently BBC World News America has a name for it ... The Noughties.

Nope, I don't think I can't get behind that.

Labels: 2000s, BBC, Name That Decade