So here we are, two years left to go in the decade (or three, depending on how strict you are about these things), and we still don't have a name for it.

Think of how easily "the seventies" trips off the tongue when talking about disco and leisure suits, or "the eighties" when the topic turns to spiky haircuts and A Flock of Seagulls.

But how will our future selves refer to the current decade?

There was a lot of talk about what to call the first decade of the new millennium back in 2000 — perhaps the "oh-ohs," "the aughts," "the noughts" or the "zero-zeros." At the time, John Morris, president of Merriam-Webster, said that the start of the 20th century was called "the nineteen-hundreds," and predicted that this decade would be called "the two-thousands."

With a collective shrug, we moved on, assured that we would eventually settle on a term and things would work themselves out.

They haven't. All the suggested candidates have been no-shows, and nothing else has emerged as the prevailing term. For now, it doesn't seem so urgent. When discussing this decade, "now" still suffices. But in a few years, we won't have that option.

"It's an interesting phenomenon," said Joe Pickett, an editor of the American Heritage Dictionary. "It's a case where you'd think there'd be a really pressing need for a word."

But considering how language works, he says, it shouldn't be so surprising. With a few exceptions — "9/11" and "Y2K," for instance — it takes a long time for a new usage to enter the language.

"Maybe our expectations are so high for a quick coinage — it's a bit unrealistic when you look at language innovation," he said.

The fact that we've gone this long without a single word to describe the decade is also telling.

"Maybe the need to name the decade isn't as great as we thought it was," Pickett said.

Steve Gillon agreed. The resident historian at the History Channel said that history is rarely divided by decades. Wars, presidential administrations and other events usually serve as historical markers.

"We don't talk about the 1930s; we talk about the Great Depression," said Gillon. There are a few exceptions, such as "The Roaring '20s." But even then, such terms aren't exact.

When we talk about the 1960s, we're really talking about the period between the John F. Kennedy assassination and the Watergate scandal, or 1963 to 1974.

And when looking at the big historical picture, such terms are of even less use. No one refers to Columbus' 1492 voyage to the New World as happening in "the '90s."

In newspapers from Britain, it's common to see headlines with the phrase "the noughties" in reference to this decade. But that's the British. Such cheekiness wouldn't likely play in the U.S.

"The important thing for a new term is that it be unobtrusive and follow a set pattern," said Allan Metcalf, author of "Predicting New Words: The Secrets of Their Success."

In the 1990s, Metcalf also assumed that a term would eventually rise to common usage. But the more he studies the development of language, the more convinced he is that we'll simply call it "the first decade of the 21st century."

VH1 producers might already be working on their next show — "I Love the First Decade of the 21st Century."