the meaning when "... of ... + too" is used

My take: "The schoolbus too was seen at the front of the house", implying that there might have been several buses parked there at the time but only one came from school or that there were several other objects in front besides the schoolbus

No KaJe, "also" is okay also though the sentence also remains awkward. Also doesn't refer to front of house unless you write,

"The schoolbus was seen also at the front of the house,"

...implying it might also have been seen at the rear

Not at all. Of course, it might be I don't understand the situation, but as I have it, as collo allows, and using commas wherever you like,

"The schoolbus was seen at the front of the house too (or also)"

"Seen also at the front of the house was the schoolbus"

"Seen at the front of the house in addition to the schoolbus were several other kinds of buses as well as five children"

"It was spotted at the garage, then our local market. Also, the schoolbus was seen at the front of the house but we're not sure whether before or after"

Some of us won't know what you mean by "it", while myself I have no idea what "genitive" means, sorry KaJe

forgive me KaJe but by "above" do you mean preceding or first; they have very slight differences in meaning

Wow KaJe my first reaction was was the former interpretation but now I see it could indeed be either. So let me see….

"At the back of the house were several children playing with the school's mascot; at the front the school's bus was also seen"

Hope Kaje but doubt I've been of much help. Switching words around often makes subtle changes in meaning. On your simple sentence alone we could write a 10,000-word essay if not a book

..but been a pleasure

Without further context, it sounds like other things were also seen in front of the house.

If I get the intended meaning of the sentence, it should be rewritten.

"The school bus was seen in front of the house."

Actually, if I don't understand the meaning of the sentence, that might be another reason to rewrite it.

Indeed Rog but don't you admire as I do Kale's determination

Oh and Kale, some of us might like to learn something about you, nothing critical to your identity of course, but age, sex, ed., nationality, family, motives, etc; and don't we sometimes frustrate you

Edited to remark I must be thinking about lunch, my Better Half making the most excellent of salads

Yes, indeed. I'm a Hungarian man, and I've tried to do something in the "My profile" but the cursor doesn't change into a hand at all. Could you help me?

Thank you very much!
And okay, I try it again. It is really needed, though you did help me much.
It was a little problem for me that you solved something too perfectly. Of course, my example was wrong, to be precise. The “bus of the school” was indeed easily joinable, furthermore, “schoolbus” is really a used word. I would have liked to write words unable to be joined because this situation occurs often when I write some things (where there is no mention about any schoolbus). I’m talking about genitive case, and this was what I mentioned simply as genitive – it is written as “genitive (case)” in my Hungarian—English dictionary.
But because you immediately joined the two nouns (bus + school), I’ve got the answer to my question, I think. Plus you clearly expressed that according to the meaning of the sentence, either other buses were on the same place, either other kind of things were, they were there beside the schoolbus. The essence of my question was that when we put the word “too” (that was what I mentioned as “it”) immediately after “…+of+…”, is this whole thing the additional something being in front of the house or is “too” in context only with the latter word, which follows “of”. So, accordingly, clearly with the whole, if I don’t be mistaken. However, I don’t know if your sentence about “the children playing with the school's mascot” isn’t some denial of this opinion.
Briefly, “the bus of the school”, or let it be rather another example: “the sight of the river” is intended as an additional subject, I mean “the sight of the river” “does” the same thing as something other does in a previous sentence, for e.g. the sight of the river was strange, just like John’s hat (mentioned previously).
Plus, I also have another question. How do you mean “using commas wherever you like”? After saying this, you show me sentences, and I don’t know if I should insert commas into these sentences. Or are they finished (correct) sentences also without any comma? Or do commas in different places give different meanings in these sentences?
But as for commas, the main thing I would like to know how it is that some people put, while others don’t put commas in the same situations before and after the word “too.”
Just remaining at the type of “subject+too+predicate: “Peter, too, should be here.”/ Peter too should be here. Is one of them preferred, or is both right?
Or with personal pronoun: He, too, / He too must go into the house. The question is the same.

I'm glad but surprised

Hard to believe

Sorry Kaje but that term leaves me in the same lurch as"genitive"

Wow Kaje, that's far beyond my capabilities tho hope somebody else smarter than I, can help

When you address me you must word it as if you were addressing a first-grader

Maybe second-

Literally, it's like writing music, place it wherever a slight pause seems required, or seems logical; or as effect requires and a sense of urgency prevails use none at all unless a single usage at a critical juncture adds clarity

You'd have to specify the sentences and the locations but yes, probably so

Now you're talkin' Kaje, nice quick, easy q.

]“Peter, too, should be here.” Okay

]“Peter, too should be here.” I am speaking to Peter, maintaining there's a third party called "too" for some reason LC, who ought to be present

]“Peter too should be here.” I like this one best. Collo however suggests

]“Peter should be here too”. HOWEVER we can construe this also to mean there aren't others we'd like to visit but that Peter's presence is only one factor among others we're wishing for, eg:

In order to properly evaluate my proposal to send Claudia money for a ticket, I first have to earn the sum. Then I have to be sure her husband won't misunderstand. Peter should be here, too. If he stays home and finds out later what I did he might think I'm hitting on her

Yea Kaje, it gets complicated doesn't it

Thank you!
And I understand what you say, on the whole, though there are parts which aren't really clear for me with my bad English. Please tell me what does "nice quick, easy q" mean? I don’t think I ever will be able to solve it.

Then it was an easy q again from me. Though I admit that previously I also put harder questions. So thanks for the whole!

Dale, you would be wise not to use abbreviations with ESL students, like the letter q meaning question. It gave me a minor pause, as well.

Thank you Rog; but no, yes, I had long pondered the eventuality but decided finally in 99.88 percent of instances that even the esl would know

By actual calculation even my very limited use of abbrs in my hoped-for lifetime will have saved me 4,229,654,870 keystrokes

…...give or take 3 or 4