too / also

[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.

[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

[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.
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 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.

[Ross]

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]

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.

[Peter T. Daniels]

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]

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

[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.

-- Richard

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

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.