0

I have heard lots of people say "one naught one" but I have never heard "one one naught". Is it valid or not? I have no idea; please shed some light on this.

6
  • I think it is valid, since you are replacing zero with naught.
    – BlackSwan
    Jul 8, 2017 at 6:11
  • 3
    If you're in Britain, it's commonly said one-oh-one. one-one-oh is fine too. Jul 8, 2017 at 6:53
  • 2
    "...the airplane will depart from Sata Misaki between the hours of naught eight naught naught and one one naught naught Tokyo ..." ; "all that piece of land containing by measurement naught decimal one one one naught (0.1110) of an acre " ; "110 (read one, one, naught); ..." ; Google it!
    – Kris
    Jul 8, 2017 at 8:29
  • 1
    People tend to gravitate toward the easiest pronunciation. “one-ten” is so much easier than “one one naught” and that’s why no one says it even though it’s not wrong.
    – Jim
    Aug 8, 2017 at 1:31
  • 2
    I can't say that I've ever heard anyone say "one naught one".
    – Hot Licks
    Aug 8, 2017 at 1:37

1 Answer 1

4

It's okay to use naught for "nothing" or the digit zero. There is nothing technically wrong with doing it. However, I would caution in how much you use it. It's not common in the U.S. whatsoever. Especially for a numeric digit, they would just say, "zero", instead.

Edit: It's also very common to use the pronunciation of, "oh", for zero (ie, "one-oh-one"). Either zero or "oh" would be common in the US. Using "naught" is very uncommon.

4
  • We can (are supposed to) use "comments" to post our opinions.
    – Kris
    Jul 17, 2017 at 7:35
  • @KrisK Ya I know. But some things are a bit opinion based by their very nature. This question has at least 1 upvote it told me someone plus the poster thought it valuable enough to need an answer. However, the fact is that here isn't a decisive answer. That's why I made the distinction about the US as well. It cant be answered matter of factly which means it should really be closed then if we can't ever ever answer a question in this manner. I find many that are done this way though (answered, that is).
    – Kace36
    Jul 17, 2017 at 8:29
  • @Kris However I've learned a lot about the customs in the short time I've been contributing here. That being said I don't see the point in only providing absolute and objective answers for everything. Grammar in and of itself is not even of an objectice nature, which is one reason I tend to think that way, but yes I have learned a lot more about the community customs since the date of that post. Some of it has been hard and annoying quite frankly (see the elitist/favoritism Meta exercise I posted). I still appreciate your position though. Ty.
    – Kace36
    Jul 17, 2017 at 8:35
  • @Kris: You're correct to the letter of the rule, but it doesn't quite apply here, Kace's answer is acceptable. The distinction Kace makes is based on common usage and understandability (specifically in the US), not grammatical correctness. It's very hard to objectively prove common usage; but the answer itself is still pretty relevant because English is not exactly the same all around the world, which is the case words like "naught".
    – Flater
    Aug 7, 2017 at 15:12

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.