@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 14 hours agoThe 1900smander.xyzimagemessage-square98fedilinkarrow-up11.11Karrow-down16
arrow-up11.1Karrow-down1imageThe 1900smander.xyz@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 14 hours agomessage-square98fedilink
minus-squareu/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)linkEnglish12•10 hours agoEarly 2000’s doesn’t sound odd at all though.
minus-square@Bubs12@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglish16•9 hours agoBecause that’s referring the 2000’s decade. In terms of centuries, I would say we are still in the early 2000’s and that does feel odd to say.
minus-squareu/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)linkEnglish6•edit-29 hours agoI rather meant how it sounds. It’s in the “hundreds”. Two thousands. Twenty hundreds. “Early twenty hundreds” does kind of make it sound like we live in 2224 instead while “early two thousands” sounds like 2002. I could have written it better.
minus-square@Bubs12@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglish6•9 hours agoWell you also wouldn’t say ten hundreds for the 1000’s. I think it’s just a quirk of the being the first century in a millennia.
Early 2000’s doesn’t sound odd at all though.
Because that’s referring the 2000’s decade. In terms of centuries, I would say we are still in the early 2000’s and that does feel odd to say.
I rather meant how it sounds. It’s in the “hundreds”.
Two thousands.
Twenty hundreds.
“Early twenty hundreds” does kind of make it sound like we live in 2224 instead while “early two thousands” sounds like 2002.
I could have written it better.
Well you also wouldn’t say ten hundreds for the 1000’s. I think it’s just a quirk of the being the first century in a millennia.