@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 8 months agoThe 1900smander.xyzimagemessage-square158fedilinkarrow-up11.49K
arrow-up11.49KimageThe 1900smander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 8 months agomessage-square158fedilink
minus-squareu/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)linkfedilinkEnglish14•8 months agoEarly 2000’s doesn’t sound odd at all though.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish18•8 months 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)linkfedilinkEnglish6•edit-28 months 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@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish6•8 months 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.
Early 2000s*
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.
the 2000s* decade
early 2000s*
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.
Early second millennium CE