Autotune article in The New Yorker

Ben Bradley wrote:
> Link found in the "auto tune" post/thread yesterday in comp.dsp:
>
> "Auto-Tune corrects a singer’s pitch. It also distorts - a grand
> tradition in pop."
> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/musical/2008/06/09/080609crmu_music_frerejones/
>

OK, I need to ask. This article uses the archaic word "aught" but it
gets the meaning backwards. There are two such words that are similar:
"aught" and "naught". The first means "anything", the second means
"nothing".

Examples - "Is there aught I can do to help?", or "there is naught to be
done - it is finished" both from oldish English books.

I've seen the word "aught" used quite often in American publications
where it should be "naught". How is the language being taught (there it
is again) these days? It is not the only example I can find of American
English getting its meanings reversed.

d

Don Pearce wrote:
> Ben Bradley wrote:
> > Link found in the "auto tune" post/thread yesterday in comp.dsp:
> >
> > "Auto-Tune corrects a singer�s pitch. It also distorts - a grand
> > tradition in pop."
> > http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/musical/2008/06/09/080609crmu_music_frerejones/
> >
>
> OK, I need to ask. This article uses the archaic word "aught" but it
> gets the meaning backwards. There are two such words that are similar:
> "aught" and "naught". The first means "anything", the second means
> "nothing".
>
> Examples - "Is there aught I can do to help?", or "there is naught to be
> done - it is finished" both from oldish English books.
>
> I've seen the word "aught" used quite often in American publications
> where it should be "naught". How is the language being taught (there it
> is again) these days? It is not the only example I can find of American
> English getting its meanings reversed.
>
> d

I believe that his "aught" was a misspelling

It may be different , but the term was referring to a date such as
used used as in 30-06, (thirty caliber, 1906) which is spoken as
thirty ought six.
Now maybe it should be thirty naught six, but the term has been
around for more than 100 years. It could just be an American
bastardization of the language. (as if that would ever happen) but I
prefer twenty ought eight to twenty oh eight, as there is no number O
(OH).
Two thousand eight would do as well.

Reversed meaning? Maybe it's just because we drive on the other side
of the road.

"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5LSdnZ-JAeelT9PVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> Ben Bradley wrote:
>> Link found in the "auto tune" post/thread yesterday in comp.dsp:
>>
>> "Auto-Tune corrects a singer’s pitch. It also distorts - a grand
>> tradition in pop."
>> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/musical/2008/06/09/080609crmu_music_frerejones/
>>
>
> OK, I need to ask. This article uses the archaic word "aught" but it gets
> the meaning backwards. There are two such words that are similar: "aught"
> and "naught". The first means "anything", the second means "nothing".
>
> Examples - "Is there aught I can do to help?", or "there is naught to be
> done - it is finished" both from oldish English books.
>
> I've seen the word "aught" used quite often in American publications where
> it should be "naught". How is the language being taught (there it is
> again) these days? It is not the only example I can find of American
> English getting its meanings reversed.
>
> d

You mean this line?
"T-Pain and Auto-Tune will forever remind people of the late aughts. "

Not something I've heard before. I would have no idea that he's refering to
a place in time without the benefit of the article.

yrret <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:5LSdnZ-JAeelT9PVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> > Ben Bradley wrote:
> >> Link found in the "auto tune" post/thread yesterday in comp.dsp:
> >>
> >> "Auto-Tune corrects a singer?s pitch. It also distorts - a grand
> >> tradition in pop."
> >> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/musical/2008/06/09/080609crmu_music_frerejones/
> >>
> >
> > OK, I need to ask. This article uses the archaic word "aught" but it gets
> > the meaning backwards. There are two such words that are similar: "aught"
> > and "naught". The first means "anything", the second means "nothing".
> >
> > Examples - "Is there aught I can do to help?", or "there is naught to be
> > done - it is finished" both from oldish English books.
> >
> > I've seen the word "aught" used quite often in American publications where
> > it should be "naught". How is the language being taught (there it is
> > again) these days? It is not the only example I can find of American
> > English getting its meanings reversed.
> >
> > d

> You mean this line?
> "T-Pain and Auto-Tune will forever remind people of the late aughts. "

> Not something I've heard before. I would have no idea that he's refering to
> a place in time without the benefit of the article.

Decades that begin with zero are 'aughts'in American parlance. So the year 1904 was called 'nineteen aught
four" The article is referring to the latter years of the decade 2000-2009.

Some even cutely refer to this decade as 'the Aughties'.




--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> yrret <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:5LSdnZ-JAeelT9PVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>> Ben Bradley wrote:
>>>> Link found in the "auto tune" post/thread yesterday in comp.dsp:
>>>>
>>>> "Auto-Tune corrects a singer?s pitch. It also distorts - a grand
>>>> tradition in pop."
>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/musical/2008/06/09/080609crmu_music_frerejones/
>>>>
>>> OK, I need to ask. This article uses the archaic word "aught" but it gets
>>> the meaning backwards. There are two such words that are similar: "aught"
>>> and "naught". The first means "anything", the second means "nothing".
>>>
>>> Examples - "Is there aught I can do to help?", or "there is naught to be
>>> done - it is finished" both from oldish English books.
>>>
>>> I've seen the word "aught" used quite often in American publications where
>>> it should be "naught". How is the language being taught (there it is
>>> again) these days? It is not the only example I can find of American
>>> English getting its meanings reversed.
>>>
>>> d
>
>> You mean this line?
>> "T-Pain and Auto-Tune will forever remind people of the late aughts. "
>
>> Not something I've heard before. I would have no idea that he's refering to
>> a place in time without the benefit of the article.
>
> Decades that begin with zero are 'aughts'in American parlance. So the year 1904 was called 'nineteen aught

> four" The article is referring to the latter years of the decade 2000-2009.
>
> Some even cutely refer to this decade as 'the Aughties'.
>

In England we have 'the Naughties', which is a clear winner in the
cuteness stakes.

d

On Jun 11, 8:32 am, Steven Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote:

> Decades that begin with zero are 'aughts'in American parlance.  So the year 1904 was called 'nineteen aught
> four" The article is referring to the latter years of the decade 2000-2009.

I had heard of this use of the term "aught" to indentify the early
years of the 20th century (most famously by Professor Harold Hill in
"The Music Man") so I expected to start hearing it after the turn of
the current century. In fact, after 2000, I tried it myself a few
times in casual conversation, and people looked at me like I had just
started speaking in Attic Greek! This is the first time I've seen
such a reference to years after 2000 in print.

"RDOGuy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:e6a9d97e-c724-4d45-884c-92ab183b794b@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 11, 8:32 am, Steven Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote:

> Decades that begin with zero are 'aughts'in American parlance. So the year
> 1904 was called 'nineteen aught
> four" The article is referring to the latter years of the decade
> 2000-2009.

> had heard of this use of the term "aught" to indentify the early
>ars of the 20th century (most famously by Professor Harold Hill in
>The Music Man") so I expected to start hearing it after the turn of
>he current century. In fact, after 2000, I tried it myself a few
>times in casual conversation, and people looked at me like I had just
>started speaking in Attic Greek! This is the first time I've seen
>such a reference to years after 2000 in print.

Now that I've had some time to consider it I do recall an instructor at a
firearms saftey course briefly explain that 30 aught six was in reference to
the year it was first made. So I have encountered the term.