"They also have a red apple."
Translation:Ili ankaŭ havas ruĝan pomon.
If it modifies "havas", then this sentence means "not only do they do some other stuff with their apple, but they also have it as well"
I would never say such a thing.
I would have done "ankaŭ ili" to mean "They too have a red apple", or "ankaŭ ruĝan pomon" to mean "They have a red apple in addition to their other stuff"
You can't, from the English sentence, without additional context. But it's important to know (in your head) which version you're saying in Esperanto.
I just put "Ankaŭ ili" and it was marked correct.
Without context, it made more sense to me for the also to go with "they." I have a red apple, and so do they, for example.
This is SO interesting to me! When I first learned about "ankaux," I loved that it provides more indication than written English as to what is being modified. However, it's clear to me now that it still isn't a perfect system. In written English, the placement of "also" isn't really standardized as far as I can tell. In this sentence, "also" can be placed anywhere and it doesn't necessarily change the meaning. We have to rely on context. However, in spoken English, we have both emphasis AND pauses to clarify. As an example, each of the following sentences means something slightly different:
(Also,) THEY have a red apple. (Also,) they HAVE a red apple. (Also,) they [pause] have a red apple. (Also,) they have a RED apple. (Also,) they have [pause] a red apple. (Also,) they have a red APPLE.
I think the placement of "ankau" is an attempt to incorporate emphasis into written Esperanto, but I don't think it properly conveys pauses.
I believe you're right that the "ankaux" in this instance might only be modifying the verb "havas" (conveyed in spoken language through emphasis). However, I think the folks that wrote the answer might argue that the "ankaux" is modifying the entire phrase "havas rugxan pomon" (conveyed in spoken language through a pause). Thus, the implication is not that they do some other stuff with their red apple specifically, but rather that they do some other stuff (and/or have some other stuff) in general. Example: "Ili havas verdan flagon, kaj ili ankaux havas rugxan pomon," or "Ili sxatas blankan panon, kaj ili ankaux havas rugxan pomon" might both work with this construction. However, to truly express the meaning, you'd either have to implement some grammatically incorrect commas or parentheses to show sentence structure, or say it out loud with proper emphasis and pauses.
so if its position is not fixed, how do you decide which Word it modifies? For example: "mi havas bruna ankaŭ hundo" (not sure if it's correct, but i think), so in this case, if it can be before and after the Word, how do you decide if it means "i also have a Brown dog (and a cat, too)", or "i also have a Brown dog (and a black one, too)"?
"Mi havas bruna ankaŭ hundo" is an odd sentence, even if you correct the missing accusative ("mi havas brunan ankaŭ hundon). It might mean something like, "of brown things, I also have a dog."
Keep in mind that language is not math, and that context and knowledge of the speaker/writer factor in.
My advice: always put "ankaŭ" before the word you intend to modify, but don't freak out if you encounter something that doesn't follow that pattern.
Havas doesn't describe the properties of the subject. You can't use "red" or "apple" to describe the subject of the sentence above. People tend not to be red apples.
The linking verbs in English may not translate one-to-one with Esperanto, but maybe they'll give an idea what types of words count as linking verbs:
Am, is, are, was, were, being, been. All "esti" words.
Also appear, become, feel, grow, look, remain, seem, smell, sound, stay, taste, and turn.
The thing that is missing from the discussion here (as I see it) is the acknowledgement that, in real-world situations, you would never have to figure out just from word order what a word like "also" modifies in a sentence like this because by its very meaning it should not be used without more context than this. There would be a sentence preceding it, or something else to indicate what the "also" refers to. It is less clear when it's used at the beginning of a sentence, with the slightly different sense of "in addition to that thing we were just talking about, I also want to discuss this other unrelated thing" since it doesn't actually modify any of the words in the sentence then. Does that translate the same way?
So, I just skimmed through the whole discussion here to try to put your comment in context. As I said elsewhere in the thread, this is my advice:
- Always put "ankaŭ" before the word you intend to modify, but don't freak out if you encounter something that doesn't follow that pattern.
Before I say much more, I'm curious what your real life experience is with Esperanto. From my point of view as someone who has used Esperanto every day for almost 20 years, used Esperanto as a family language, and spent a lot of time answering questions from learners, I think what you're saying is true, but I don't see how it's "missing". My advice above is good advice whether contexts helps clarify bad grammar or bad style. People who are learning need to learn what good Esperanto is so that they can strive to learn it - and in good Esperanto, ankaŭ is put before the word it modifies.
You also asked:
>> It is less clear when it's used at the beginning of a sentence, with the slightly different sense of "in addition to that thing we were just talking about, I also want to discuss this other unrelated thing" since it doesn't actually modify any of the words in the sentence then. Does that translate the same way?<<
No, that's a different word. You'd probably say cetere or krome.
I guess I should have been more clear as to what I meant by something being missing.... it seems like a lot of people are focused on the idea that you can't know where to put it (even given a simple rule such as has already been laid out) because you don't know what it is modifying. My point was basically: okay, but outside of duolingo-type situations, that's never going to happen, so don't stress about it. In real-world situations, the conversation provides context; you would likely know what the "also" refers to even without the word positioning, so if you are translating and have to place the word yourself, you can probably do it correctly based on context. I didn't mean it in the sense that one should ignore any positioning rules because the context will take care of it, that would drive me batty as well as being a counterproductive way to learn a language.
As to your question to me (I would have thought my second-part question might have revealed this anyway, but maybe not) the sum total of my experience with Esperanto is a book a read on it.... ummm... twenty-some years ago? And then did nothing with since I found it interesting but knew no one who was at all fabular with it. And of course, the slight progress I have made on my Esperanto tree here. But I wasn't commenting based on my great knowledge of Esperanto, just on basic knowledge of translating in general.
> My point was basically: okay, but outside of duolingo-type situations, that's never going to happen,
Pardon me if I'm still misunderstanding, but I think I caught this point the first time you made it and I am disagreeing with you. In real world situations, expert Esperanto speakers speak Esperanto well and fluently. They don't just toss words together - me Tarzan you Jane style - and hope context will sort it out. Yes, context helps, but in the real world people really do treat Esperanto like a language with rules, just like they do when learning French or German.
In a discussion about what the rules are, I wouldn't expect people to bring up the more general topic of what people will and won't understand in context.
Um, no, English is the one that tends to throw "also" in and hope that context sorts it out, thereby making it hard to translate FROM English... that was my point.
This sentence was hard to translate into Esperanto because it was unclear in English what the other item (that generated the also) was. Was it a green apple? A red plum? Something else? It wasn't the Esperanto side that was unclear, it was the English side. But in conversation, the English sentence wouldn't have used "also" if it weren't following something that clarified that, which would make it easier to properly translate it into Esperanto.
They too have. They also have.
The difference depends on context. In some context there might not be a difference. In other contexts, the first one means that there may be many people with the thing and "they have it too." while the second suggests that there is one bunch of people and they have several things "including this."
It depends on what you were doing before.
- Mi havas ruĝan pomon.
- La ruĝa pomo falis.
- Tio estas mia ruĝa pomo.
- Mi havas korbon por la ruĝa pomo.
By the way, ruĝa pomon is almost certainly wrong. ("Almost certainly" means I could contrive a context, but I'm sure it's not one that you'd find anywhere in the course.)