I'm almost sure it's 36 thousands, since we're talking about 36 not 1. But I'm in doubt because 36 already indicates that it's more than 1, so maybe, just maybe, it could be 36 thousand?
closed as off-topic by user140086, Nathaniel, Roaring Fish, Kristina Lopez, tchrist♦ Dec 22 '15 at 21:46
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Please include the research you've done, or consider if your question suits our English Language Learners site better. Questions that can be answered using commonly-available references are off-topic." – Community, Nathaniel, Roaring Fish, Kristina Lopez, tchrist
You can have thousands of soldiers, but when you are being exact, you have n thousand of them. same for hundreds, dozens or millions.
To explain a bit: the word 'thousand' is part of the number, which is modifying the noun (whatever it is that you're counting). Because the number is greater than 1, the noun takes the plural form, but the number itself does not change form. Would you say "sixteens men" because sixteen is greater than one? I certainly hope not. "Sixteen thousand" is still a number, just like "sixteen" is; just because it's expressed in two words doesn't make you treat the individual words differently.
If it were some other noun, i.e. not just a number, then perhaps thousands would be appropriate — e.g. 36 pots of 'hundreds and thousands'.
But otherwise, thousand is the norm.
It's 36 thousand, because that is the naming convention in our number system. We do not say "two hundreds;" rather we say "two hundred."
When number + thousand precedes a noun (e.g. Dollar, Rupee or Taka), it already acts as a compound adjective which cannot take plural 's'... but when it doesn't work attributively, it's of hazy currency in south Asia: d govt. Sanctioned a bill of 50 crores/ laks/ thousands (besides crore/lak/thousand)