0

I read a sentence in "The Hindu" which was:

The number of civilian security personnel deaths from Islamist terrorism in India, excluding Jammu and Kashmir, was 926 in during 2000 to 2018.

I don't see any difference if I used just "during" in place of "in during" in the sentence. Am I right in thinking so?

2 Answers 2

0

Correct - in is redundant here, but there is also something else wrong/missing in the first half. I assume that something like killed was in the original, but this smells like a badly edited (reduced) piece of prose, so this sort of error is quite common in newsprint.

Massive guess, but I suspect this originally said: ... in the period from 2000 to 2018

0

I see in The Hindu:

In the period 2000-2019, 22,577 civilians and 7,080 security personnel were killed in terrorism-related violence in Pakistan (the number of civilian/security personnel deaths from Islamist terrorism in India, excluding Jammu and Kashmir, was 926 in during 2000-2018).

To me this looks like a simple sub-editing error: correct versions would be in 2000-2018, during 2000-2018 or (best in my opinion) in the period 2000-2018.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .