Talk:On Sense and Reference
Add topic| Information about this edition | |
|---|---|
| Edition: | On sense and reference, translated by Max Black, 1948[1] |
| Source: |
|
| Contributor(s): | 63.184.105.232 |
| Level of progress: | Text complete 
|
| Notes: | Other editions:
|
Possible Copyvio
[edit]Is the translation in public domain or so? I know the original text is from 1892, but this translation (by Max Black in Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege, Basil Blackwell, Oxford) is from 1952. I have the book in hand, so I'm sure about these. Can anyone clarify this? Or delete it... 201.53.175.74 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
From 'Public Domain': "The claim that "pre-1923 works are in the public domain" is correct only for published works" Frege's work at hand was published in 1892 and it would definitely be considered public domain. I'm speaking for the raw text of the original work, which is what this is anyways. —unsigned comment by Ghasbach (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2007.
In the public domain
[edit]The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
PD-US-No-Renewal
This essay was included in the book Semantics: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (2003) edited by Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach. On the copyright page it clearly states "in the public domain". See for yourself HERE. —unsigned comment by Ingram (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2008.
I think this PD notice is incorrect. Max Black was British and that "Translations..." book was published in England later than 1925, which means copyright will have been restored by amendments made to the USC in 1996. --78.144.189.7 17:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Correction, I see that it was first published 4 years earlier in the US, which means it might possibly be PD. --78.144.189.7 17:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
At least Wiley-Blackwell seem to be under the impression that they have the copyright to the Black translation, for they wanted to charge a hefty fee when we tried to reprint it. We translated the part we wished to reprint ourselves (up to page 36 plus the last paragraph), in order to avoid this charge. This translation may be used free of charge for non-commercial purposes and is available here: http://www4.ub.edu/grc_logos/max-kolbel/. It also appears in Byrne&Kölbel (eds) Arguing about Language, Routledge 2009. —unsigned comment by 161.116.100.92 (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2010.
- Yes 78.144.189.7, it was published in a 1948 issue of the Philosophical Review. Now I will go check the University of Pennsylvania website to see if this journal's copyright was renewed. ResScholar (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- The story checks out. I'm going to give it a PD-US-No-Renewal tag. ResScholar (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Additional info
[edit]Since I happened to be looking at it…
The translation by Max Black is…
- Frege, Gottlob (1948). translated by Max Black. "Sense and Reference". The Philosophical Review (Duke University Press) 57 (3): 209–230. ISSN 0031-8108. JSTOR 2181485. doi:10.2307/2181485 – via JSTOR. (subscription required (help)).
…and judging by the scans on JSTOR it is PD-US-no-notice in addition to the missing renewal. --Xover (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The Translation
[edit]I really do appreciate having access to the translation of this paper but that does not mean I would agree with it. A glaring incogruity is the use of 'idea' for 'Vorstellung': thus Frege appears to hold that different persons can have the same thought but never the same idea - which goes against almost any usage. Some kind of note or explanation should be considered.91.92.179.156 10:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Term rendering
[edit]Let us collect a table of the rendering of German terms to English term as used in this particular translation. Please feel free to add to the table by editing this posting of mine.
| German | English |
|---|---|
| Sinn | sense |
| Bedeutung | reference |
| Vorstellung | idea |
--Dan Polansky (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Two mangled sentences
[edit][moved from work to talk page. --Xover (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)]
• Nota Bene: The last paragraph of the above essay is marred by an accidental deletion from the original text. The two marred sentences should read: "If now a = b, then indeed the reference of 'b' is the same 'a', and hence the truth-value of 'a=b' is the same as that of 'a=a'. In spite of this, the sense of 'b' may differ from that expressed by 'a=a', and thereby the sense expressed in 'a = b' differs from that of 'a = a'." ((I hope whoever has charge of the above text will make correction of it in the appropriate way.)) —unsigned comment by 67.34.234.248 (talk) 04:18, Aug 24, 2019 (UTC).