"De weduwe was ook gestorven."
Translation:The widow had also died.
Is this another ridiculous sentence? De weduwe was niet alleen rijk, maar ook gestorven. Or in English (not a translation): The widow had not only killed, but also died. Zal het niet heten: 'Ook de weduwe was gestorven.' ?
It's not a ridiculous sentence. 'Ook de weduwe was gestorven' is not correct, as it implies something else had died too (which is not the case for the original sentence).
There is no difference between the sentence "de weduwe was ook gestorven" or "ook de weduwe was gestorven". The order of the words change nothing in this case.
The sentence is not that ridiculous. An old man and his wife lived on this mountain. The man died of a heart attack. The next morning, the widow died as well.
There is a difference, depending on whether "ook" modifies the de weduwe or gestorven. If you place ook before gestorven, it implies that she did something else other than dying, if before de weduwe, it implies that someone else had died. Unfortunately, one often finds words like "also" and "only" improperly placed: in these instances they are called false modifiers.
Well, in the case of the widow dying but also doing something else, that can only happen with the sentence "Ook was de weduwe gestorven", not "ook de weduwe was gestorven".
"De weduwe was ook gestorven" is admittedly more ambiguous, but in no sense incorrect. After all, in the sentence "the widow had also died" both scenarios are valid, so why not in Dutch?