# OH instead of ZERO (American English) (saying 0)



## Watch123

Hi,
I'm familiar with the fact that in British English they say "ou" instead of "zero" when saying phone numbers, etc. But what about in the US? Is it the same thing? (Do you usually say "ou" when saying your phone number, etc.) If you could provide more situations where you use "ou" it would be fantastic.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## aztlaniano

Yes. In a series of numbers "oh" is said instead of zero. This is even so in the case of relative short numbers, eg., "He is in room 102 -one oh two, not "one hundred and two".


----------



## Archilochus

If by 'ou' you mean 'oh', then yes, we do say 'oh' when giving a phone number - sometimes. Just thinking about it, it occurred to me that I use both 'oh' and 'zero' equally. And I've not the slightest idea why I do.


----------



## aztlaniano

Anyway, it is not just British.


----------



## Watch123

I apologize for the wrong spelling, as you say I meant "oh".

Thanks both.


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

Hello, forum!

How do you pronounce the phone number of "555-1010"?
When I pronounce it as "five-five-five, one-ou-one-ou," a Filipino English teacher corrected it as "one-zero-one-zero."
He said if there were plural "0," I should read it as "zero" instead of "ou."

I'd like to hear comments from native BE and AE speakers.

Thank you.


----------



## roxcyn

Hi SoLaTiDoberman!  *What a unique nickname* 

I would say five - five - five - ten - ten.


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

Thank you, *roxcyn, *for your unexpected answer. 
I didn't think of that.

Well, however, my original question seems not to be solved yet.
Probably I should create another combination of numbers.

How about 123-40502-678?
Is it "one - two - three, four - ou - five- ou - two, six - seven - eight" 
or
"one - two - three, four - zero - five- zero - two, six - seven - eight" 
or 
something else?

Thank you.


----------



## roxcyn

I would say the first option.  However, both options will be understood.  I don't think there are any hard set rules if you say "oh" versus "zero" when giving out phone numbers.


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

Okay, thanks!

It's crystal clear now.


----------



## Paolo A. P.

*plabrocca Senior Member  New York State, USA  English, US :*

*"You should use zero for digits and O for letters. Unfortunately, O is used very often for the number too. This can cause confusion in things that contain both letters and numbers, like serial numbers."*


Source:quando si pronuncia "zero" e quando "0"? [Italian Forum]
Added by Cagey, moderator


----------



## dermott

Yes, that's correct, but O for both digit and letter is incredibly common. It causes no end of problems for non-Italian speakers here in Italy.


----------



## aztlaniano

For an e-mail address or a password I would be very careful to specify zero or the letter O, but for a telephone number (or a room or apartment number, as in my example from 2013), there is no problem using "oh" instead of "zero"'.


----------



## Paolo A. P.

I understand 'you're point' (I'm allowed to write "you're" instead of 'your' since you can understand what I mean, it's just a matter of taste, no rules on it, ... or not?  ).
So, again: I understand your point _"There is no problem using "Oh" instead of ..."_, well, If you mean that *it's possible to understand* the real meaning of that "Oh", than yes, it is possible, *but* *it's an error*, a deep error, as we learn at school since childwood; those *two* symbols '*0*' and '*O*' have almost the same shape, but they are not the same, you don't use the same noun for two different symbols; You don't use the same noun for "*B*" and for "*8*", you don't use the same noun for "*Z*" and "*2*". It's not a matter of taste, as it's not a matter of taste writing "your" instead of "you're" or viceversa, as I purposely did earlier. They are incredibly common mistakes; milions of illiterates in english language (like me) native speakers make dozens of language mistakes every day, but it doesn't mean that I'm allowed to do the same mistakes once I understand the difference. If milions of sheeps are runnig in the wrong direction, over the cliff, I'd like not to be one of them. It's an error, and stop. You can use it, nowadays millions of people use it, nobody will make you pay a ticket for it, and nobody will make you pay a ticket for saying "Your kind" instead of "You're kind" as well. 

Best regards to everybody.

Paolo.


----------



## Barque

I thought "Oh" for zero was an Americanism and the British prefer "zero". Perhaps a BE speaker or someone who knows what the usual BE practice in this regard is will comment.


----------



## Egmont

Paolo A. P. said:


> ...I understand your point _"There is no problem using "Oh" instead of ..."_, well, If you mean that *it's possible to understand* the real meaning of that "Oh", than yes, it is possible, *but it doesn't mean you're allowed to use it*. It's an error, a deep error...



This comes across as lecturing us and is in any case too harsh. In American English, "oh" is a valid way to speak the digit 0 in the context of a series of digits. It is not an error. That may not be true in British English, I'm not an expert on that dialect, but let's not generalize this statement to all types of English.


----------



## JamesM

I live in the 805 area code for phone numbers.  Practically no one says "eight-zero-five" and definitely never "eight hundred (and) five".  If they did it would stick out as very unusual.  The same is true for driving on the 405 (Four-oh-five) freeway; it's never "four-zero-five" or "four hundred (and) five".  James Bond is not "agent double-zero seven", he's "double-oh seven".

In a math, engineering, information technology or scientific environment I would expect "zero", but in any social or everyday conversation I would expect "oh".   To say you are taking the "four-zero-five" freeway will be an instant signal that you are a non-native speaker.  The same would be true if you called James Bond "double-zero seven".

Sometimes it's the very "mistakes" that native speakers make that identify whether the person is fluent in the language or not.


----------



## JulianStuart

Barque said:


> I thought "Oh" for zero was an Americanism and the British prefer "zero". Perhaps a BE speaker or someone who knows what the usual BE practice in this regard is will comment.


Oh is used in saying telephone numbers in BE.  Outside that context,BE and AE may differ - very few people say nought or nil etc in AE, for example. This one specifically mentions oh for phone numbers in BE zero/nought/oh 

OP had asked about "telephone numbers, etc." so threads on nought - WordReference.com Dictionary of English may be helpful...


----------



## Barque

I see. Thank you.


----------



## Loob

Paolo A. P. said:


> ... It's an error, and stop....


Oh no it isn't; and thank you, but no, I won't.
My phone number has three of those particular digits - I always say them as "oh".


----------



## JulianStuart

Loob said:


> Oh no it isn't; and thank you, but no, I won't.
> My phone number has three of those particular digits - I always say them as "oh".


Oh .........dear
I'm with Loob - it is not an error when _reading a telephone number._ Sometimes even as double oh for 00 
When reading something that has 0s and Os it is critical to distinguish them.


----------



## Truffula

It's not an error to read 0 as "oh," it is an _ambiguity._    Even in the case where it could be confusing, that's just a case for not using an ambiguity - not an indication that the ambiguity has changed into an error.   (It is not like "you're" for "your," which _is_ an error; it is like naming a street "Meadow Wind Court" or "Lead Avenue," there is confusion as to pronunciation and meaning of the name, but they aren't actually wrong.)

If context makes it clear which is intended, the ambiguity is resolved and no one is confused or wrong.  No letters ever occur in American phone numbers, so reading a phone number digit as "oh" is not ambiguous.


----------



## dojibear

Paolo A. P. said:


> I'm allowed to write "you're" instead of 'your' since you can understand what I mean, it's just a matter of taste, no rules on it, ... or not?



In *written *English this is not a matter of taste. "You're" is a contraction meaning "you are". It never means "your". That's the rules. It isn't even a common mis-spelling, since "your" is easier to write. It is also a mistake *in writing* to use 'o' or 'O' for '0', or to mix up lowercase L and '1' (which in some fonts look almost identical).

But the rules are more flexible in spoken English. People pronounce (your/you're) with a range of vowels (yure, yore, yer, yuer...if I used IPA symbols, it might be a long list). And most people pronounce them the same, so context is the only thing that tells them apart.

In spoken AE, saying 'O' to mean '0' is acceptable and normal, when a series of numeric digits (not alphanumerics) is being spoken. Once something is acceptable and normal for many years, "grammar rules" change to match it. Grammar rules do not dictate common usage: they reflect common usage.


----------



## Paolo A. P.

Egmont said:


> This comes across as lecturing us and is in any case too harsh.



Yes, I know that my way looks "too harsh" for most of you, not italian people, and I apologies. Please forgive me, it's not my intention doing so. It's part of my italian heritage. To me, it look like a normal conversation. Plus, I apologies for my english, I'm improving it, day by day.  But please, note that I wrote: "milions of illiterates in english language (*like me*)...", so I could say that I was "too harsh" with myself as well. 



Loob said:


> Oh no it isn't; and thank you, but no, I won't.


 




JamesM said:


> Sometimes it's the very "mistakes" that native speakers make that identify whether the person is fluent in the language or not.



Absolutely agree. It's exactly what I wrote, 2 hours ago, on my personal note about the ERROR of calling the NUMBER '0' like the LETTER 'O': If I want to look moreexpert and fluent in the common language, then I've to speak as locals do, doing the same ERRORS (and much less my own errors   ).



But the point I'm interested in, is not whether "Oh" is a common way of speaking, because it is (sadly). Reading the number 0 as Oh is currently normal, it's common, so, please, don't answer me "I do it" or "Nobody here say "two-zero-two", we all already know it, thanks. 
The point is that it's an error:

   1. The fact that, currently, milions or bilions of english speakers use it, it doesn't mean that it's correct.
In other words: the fact that it sounds "clean" to your ears, it doesn't mean it's correct.
   2. The fact that there is no ambiguity in using Oh instead of Zero on reading a phone number or a street number, it doesn't mean that it's the correct way.

*A.* Do you even call the LETTER 'B': "Eight", as it looks like the NUMBER 8? No, of course.
    You don't read Z and 2 in the same way: "Two", only because they look similar. They are different characters, so they needs and they have different names.
*
B*. 0 and O look the same, but they aren't! So, you cannot call them with the same name only because you can recognize them; You don't call your twins: Mary and Mary only because you can recognize them and there is no ambiguity. They aren't the same person, as 0 and O aren't the same character.
It's not a matter of English, it works in this way about every language in the world. It would sound stupid otherwise.

So, why do you read the number 0 as the letter O? For a very simple reason, a reason you don't need a phD to understand: the language evolves throughout the centuries, mainly because of no litterate people mistakes (also because of influences by other languages, because of new product, new technologies etc.). An error become more common, day by day, and after some years a big part of population repeat that error, so it's no longer seen as a heavy error; other years yet, and the biggest part of population (which historically is illiterate), repeat that "light" error, so, it's no longer seen as an error at all, but as a correct word. Than, the rule has changed. I'm not proud using errors invented by illiterate people.

_"As Henry Higgins observed in Pygmallion, the best grammarians are often those who learned English in school as immigrants. Over time, language evolves or erodes and the rules change, which really means there are no authorities. I believe many changes are driven by relatively poorly educated personalities misusing words, which then become common usage. Someone once said, "C students rule the world."
_
Our mistakes evolve the language, it's the reason why in Italy we don't speak latin anymore, it's the reason why the current language rules are different from the past, in Italy, in UK, and in every other country in the world.

About "Oh", I see that we're at the point that the bigger part of the population use it, thinking that it's correct, because "there's no rule" (...). But, as I showed, it is an error, a symple error, still, an error.

It's possible that 100 years by now, there will be the same discussion on "Your" and "You're": the biggest part of the population will say: "There is no rule, I use it, everybody here use it, you can choose what you like, it's a matter of taste". And my soul will be angry once again.


_
Best regards to everybody. Buonanotte.

Paolo_


----------



## JamesM

Paolo A. P. said:


> So, why do you read the number 0 as the letter O? For a very simple reason, a reason you don't need a phD to understand: the language evolves throughout the centuries, mainly because of no litterate people mistakes (also because of influences by other languages, because of new product, new technologies etc.). An error become more common, day by day, and after some years a big part of population repeat that error, so it's no longer seen as a heavy error; other years yet, and the biggest part of population (which historically is illiterate), repeat that "light" error, so, it's no longer seen as an error at all, but as a correct word. Than, the rule has changed. I'm not proud using errors invented by illiterate people.



This is a HUGE assumption on your part.  I suspect the real reason is for economy of time.  "oh" is much faster to say than "zero".  If you have a phone number like 201-307-0009 it's quite a mouthful to say "two-zero-one, three-zero-seven-zero-zero-zero-nine".

You are assuming it's a visual mistake rather than a conversational shortcut.  Do you have any evidence for this?


----------



## Egmont

Paolo A. P. said:


> ... The point is that it's an error ...


The point is that, as a simple matter of fact, this is wrong. Please accept the collective wisdom and knowledge of everyone here and learn from this thread. (Many of us are professional editors, grammarians, language teachers or translators. We really do know what we're talking about.) In American English, at least, saying "oh" for the digit 0 is NOT an error by any definition. It is not a mark of illiteracy, nor was it invented by illiterates. It is not a mark of ignorance. It is, simply, correct usage.

I hope you have the strength and humility to admit that you were, in this case, wrong.


----------



## Cagey

A previous thread worth reading:  oh/O vs. zero vs naught [saying numbers]
It discusses British English alternatives as well.


----------



## dojibear

Paolo, what is your source, your reference that tells you that this is incorrect? Is it just "what you learned"? Or is it some grammar book?


----------



## stopgap

Archilochus said:


> If by 'ou' you mean 'oh', then yes, we do say 'oh' when giving a phone number - sometimes. Just thinking about it, it occurred to me that I use both 'oh' and 'zero' equally. And I've not the slightest idea why I do.


Well, ;et's see now.  If someone wanted to use the number as said, they would dial the OH instead of the ZERO and get a wrong number.  Let's use words and letters correctly.  Or we could using L instead of 7, E instead of 3, etc.  Yes, I'm getting picky.  Ask any English teacher.


----------



## kentix

See this entry for additional pertinent information: Tilting-at-windmills


----------



## dojibear

stopgap said:


> If someone wanted to use the number as said, they would dial the OH instead of the ZERO and get a wrong number. Let's use words and letters correctly.



That mistake can not happen with phone numbers. See below. 

That problem can happen if we use a combination of letters and numbers. And in fact this *is* a problem when reading out long sequences of combined letters and numbers, such as automobile VIN numbers, license plates, and software product activation codes. In those situations it is important to say "zero" for the number and "oh" for the letter.

It is even worse in writing, because O (the letter) and 0 (the number) look the same in fixed-width fonts, and 1 (number) and l (lowercase L) and I (uppercase i) are very similar in some fonts. Some manufacturers use awful fonts, where these cannot be told apart.

But there are large numbers of situations (such as phone numbers in the US) where you know it is *all* numbers, not a combination of letters and numbers. So it is safe to use "oh" when saying a phone number: it cannot mean "O" since letters are not used. It must mean "0" (zero). Saying "oh" to mean zero when reciting a number *is* correct in English.


----------



## natkretep

For those interested in the derivation of _oh_ for the digit 0: the OED lists our _oh_ as being derived from _O _(meaning zero), which is derived from the shape of the letter O. A quotation from 1596, for example: 'Cyphers or round oos'. _Zero_ is a later borrowing. The first entry in the OED is from 1604, and in 1706, it is still perceived as French (_Phillips's New World of Words_ (ed. 6)    _Zero_, a Word sometimes us'd especially among the French, for a Cipher or Nought (0).)

In case anyone holds the assumption that the original word is _zero_, this makes it clear that it isn't. _Zero_ is sometimes perceived as academic, technical or formal. (The original technical word was _cipher_.) It is perfectly acceptable to say _oh_ as part of a sequence of numbers. As doji says, where there is a mix of letters and digits, we will need to make this clear. In writing, I try to make this clear by writing a slashed zero:


----------



## dojibear

The slashed zero is uncommon in the US, but I recognize it as being common in Europe. I use it in handwriting (even in notes to myself).

I think there are some other added lines: isn't there a line through the 7?


----------



## JulianStuart

(The 7 has a crossing stroke in many European situations: it helps to distinguish it from the way the 1 is written, a bit like a 7 that has been tilted.)


----------



## Myridon

dojibear said:


> such as automobile VIN numbers


Actually, the definition of VINs excludes the use of the letters 0, Q, and I for this reason.


----------



## Packard

The last four digits of our office phone number are "0400" and I say it as "oh-four hundred".  A co-worker, a British expat always says I am wrong.


----------



## kentix

Myridon said:


> the letters 0, Q, and I



0 is a number. 
O is a letter.


----------



## Packard

kentix said:


> 0 is a number.
> O is a letter.



That is exactly what the British ex-pat cites when I answer "Oh-four hundred".  She says I should say, "zero-four hundred".  

On these shores I think "Oh" is more common.


----------



## kentix

I have a client whose main line phone number ends in -603-0400*. I definitely say it as:

_six-oh-three oh-four-hundred

* the first and third numbers at the beginning have been modified to protect the privacy of the client_


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> _* the numbers at the beginning have been slightly modified to protect the privacy of the client_


You can use 555 as a prefix - it doesn't exist in the phone system, it's for movies

My >80-y-o aunt's old number end in 9901 and she, a non-expat Brit, answered is as "double nine oh one"


----------



## kentix

Yes but I wanted to work the extra "0", which is real, in there.


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> 0 is a number.
> O is a letter.


Usually true but not in all fonts The distinction often disappears in compressed fonts


----------



## Loob

Packard said:


> ... A co-worker, a British expat always says I am wrong.


I suspect she's teasing you, MrP.

As Julian said earlier





JulianStuart said:


> Oh is used in saying telephone numbers in BE.


----------



## heypresto

And then there's Glenn Miller's Pennsylvania 6-5000, containing the classic 'lyrics' "Pennsylvania six five thousand" _and_ "Pennsylvania six five oh oh oh".


----------



## JulianStuart

Loob said:


> I suspect she's teasing you, MrP.


Or even tracked you down and registered just to keep hammering it home???


----------



## Packard

JulianStuart said:


> You can use 555 as a prefix - it doesn't exist in the phone system, it's for movies
> 
> My >80-y-o aunt's old number end in 9901 and she, a non-expat Brit, answered is as "double nine oh one"



What about that guy, I forget his name, that played James Bond--wasn't he "double Oh-seven"?  Or was that "zero-zero-seven"?


----------



## Loob

JulianStuart said:


> Or even tracked you down and registered just to keep hammering it home???


JulianStuart, Private Investigator
__


----------



## Barque

Packard said:


> What about that guy, I forget his name, that played James Bond--wasn't he "double Oh-seven"?


No, he was _M-double Oh-R-E. _


----------



## heypresto

Barque said:


> No, he was _M-double Oh-R-E._


 Very G double oh D!


----------



## Packard

heypresto said:


> Very G double oh D!



You guys all think my license to kill has expired?  Not yet.


----------

