Discussion:
too / also
(too old to reply)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-09 16:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm editing a translation I did a while ago, and in this clause

Like all of the scripts derived from Old Aramaic, the Manichaean also had only 22 letters at first;

I have changed "also" to "too." Their syntax is different; "too" is less flexible.
bill van
2018-06-09 19:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I'm editing a translation I did a while ago, and in this clause
Like all of the scripts derived from Old Aramaic, the Manichaean also
had only 22 letters at first;
I have changed "also" to "too." Their syntax is different; "too" is less flexible.
I think you don't need either "also" or "too". They're redundant.
"Like" has it covered.

bill
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-09 20:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I'm editing a translation I did a while ago, and in this clause
Like all of the scripts derived from Old Aramaic, the Manichaean also
had only 22 letters at first;
I have changed "also" to "too." Their syntax is different; "too" is less flexible.
I think you don't need either "also" or "too". They're redundant.
"Like" has it covered.
bill
Agreed.

It could be rearranged as:
All of the scripts derived from Old Aramaic, including the Manichaean,
had only 22 letters at first
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-10 03:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I'm editing a translation I did a while ago, and in this clause
Like all of the scripts derived from Old Aramaic, the Manichaean also
had only 22 letters at first;
I have changed "also" to "too." Their syntax is different; "too" is less flexible.
I think you don't need either "also" or "too". They're redundant.
"Like" has it covered.
Agreed.
All of the scripts derived from Old Aramaic, including the Manichaean,
had only 22 letters at first
Wrong focus -- the sentence isn't about derivatives of Aramaic, but about
Iranian alphabets.
Ross
2018-06-10 04:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I'm editing a translation I did a while ago, and in this clause
Like all of the scripts derived from Old Aramaic, the Manichaean also
had only 22 letters at first;
I have changed "also" to "too." Their syntax is different; "too" is
less flexible.
I think you don't need either "also" or "too". They're redundant.
"Like" has it covered.
Agreed.
All of the scripts derived from Old Aramaic, including the Manichaean,
had only 22 letters at first
Wrong focus -- the sentence isn't about derivatives of Aramaic, but about
Iranian alphabets.
I agree with bill on this one: it's fine without either word. Faithfulness
doesn't need to go that far.
You might consider, also, putting the 'like' phrase in commas after
the subject ('The Manichean...'), which would require only minor
adjustment of the wording. But this would depend on the larger
context, which we don't have.
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-09 22:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I'm editing a translation I did a while ago, and in this clause
Like all of the scripts derived from Old Aramaic, the Manichaean also
had only 22 letters at first;
I have changed "also" to "too." Their syntax is different; "too" is less flexible.
I think you don't need either "also" or "too". They're redundant. "Like"
has it covered.
I agree, but that gets into the question of fidelity to the original.
If the original had a redundant word, maybe the translation should. Too.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-10 03:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I'm editing a translation I did a while ago, and in this clause
Like all of the scripts derived from Old Aramaic, the Manichaean also
had only 22 letters at first;
I have changed "also" to "too." Their syntax is different; "too" is less flexible.
I think you don't need either "also" or "too". They're redundant.
"Like" has it covered.
One does need to be faithful to one's original. Your way would have to be
"Like all the other scripts ..."
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-06-10 07:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I'm editing a translation I did a while ago, and in this clause
Like all of the scripts derived from Old Aramaic, the Manichaean also
had only 22 letters at first;
I have changed "also" to "too." Their syntax is different; "too" is less flexible.
I think you don't need either "also" or "too". They're redundant.
"Like" has it covered.
Agreed
--
athel
Richard Tobin
2018-06-09 20:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I'm editing a translation I did a while ago, and in this clause
Like all of the scripts derived from Old Aramaic, the Manichaean also
had only 22 letters at first;
I have changed "also" to "too." Their syntax is different; "too" is less flexible.
That sounds very American. I would leave it as "also" or put "too" at
the end.

-- Richard
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-06-10 07:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I'm editing a translation I did a while ago, and in this clause
Like all of the scripts derived from Old Aramaic, the Manichaean also
had only 22 letters at first;
I have changed "also" to "too." Their syntax is different; "too" is less flexible.
That sounds very American. I would leave it as "also" or put "too" at
the end.
Agreed, though I also agree with Bill van's opinion that you don't need
either word anywhere.
--
athel
Loading...