• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    35
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    It seems awkward to me to refer to the previous century that way until you’re at least halfway through the next century. Even then, that’s pushing it. Basically I think that way of referring to an era implies you’re over, or at least fairly close to, 100 years away from it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      04 hours ago

      I mean if your life started in 2005 and you didnt live through any of the 20th century, calling it the late 1900s seems totally reasonablr. You werent there when people were living through the “90s”, to you its just another bygone era that people speak about in waya you’ll never be able to relate to.

      • DreamButt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        59 hours ago

        Not to mention they could be on the spectrum. I could see a buddy of mine phrasing this question in this exact manner

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1613 hours ago

        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.

        • u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)
          link
          fedilink
          English
          6
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            612 hours ago

            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.