1

I wrote a sentence:

Historical records show that Vietnam was a large cultural community that formed around the first half of the first millennium BC and flourished in the middle of that same millennium.

Repetition of millennium --> I change it to:

Historical records show that Vietnam was a large cultural community that formed around the first half and flourished in the middle of the first millennium BC.

Is this the right way to change it? and what is this reduction called?

3
  • 1
    It might be better to reconsider your sentence: saying "it flourished in the middle of that same millennium" isn't providing much additional information: it could have flourished for 10 years around 520 BCE, or for 500 years from 750 to 250 BCE. You could say "flourished for hundreds of years", or add some other detail about how it flourished, over what area, how long for, etc.
    – Stuart F
    Oct 18, 2022 at 13:34
  • 1
    I prefer "had a large cultural community".
    – Lambie
    Oct 18, 2022 at 14:32
  • 1
    I do not think trying to avoid the repetition here is useful.
    – mdewey
    Oct 19, 2022 at 14:27

2 Answers 2

0

It is a right way of changing it; one of several.

However, it is not really repetitive information. There are two pieces of information present:

  1. It was formed around the first half of the first millennium.
  2. It flourished during the middle of the first millennium.

and the sentence writer wanted to convey both of those.

The problem is simply using the same non-trivial word twice in close proximity, which makes the writing appear 'clunky' - but is not actually incorrect.

0

You could make use of "middle" and "half" having similar meanings:

Historical records show that Vietnam was a large cultural community that formed during the first half of the first millennium BC and rapidly flourished in the second half.

You must log in to answer this question.

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