This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The Library of Congress card catalog lists it as "Language, truth, and logic". Gene Nygaard 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The LOC does indeed include the serial comma in the titles of the 1946 and 1952 editions, but not for the original 1936 edition. (Unfortunately, actual links to searches at http://catalog.loc.gov/ don't work.) — Elembis (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Since the article name already has a serial comma, I think Gene means the title should be lowercase. –Pomte 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In that case, the older editions show Language Truth & Logic on the cover so why do catalogs refer to it with and, convention? Articles can contain the ampersand, e.g. Barnes & Noble. The 1990 and 2001 have the title as you propose, and British English does not favour the serial comma, so I am inclined to support. –Pomte 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel that this is a very poor article overall. For one thing, I feel that the concepts discussed in the book should be divided into the individual chapters that they are presented in, allowing for easier reference to LTL. Also, I think there should be a section giving some examples of how some philosophers react to and criticise the book (the criticism that the VP, which almost the entire book rests upon, fails its own test should be a good start). Some sort of allusion should also be made to the impact the book had upon publication, establishing the analytic tradition more strongly than it had ever been before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
the last para of this section appeared to contradict itself ("Analytic observations give us new knowledge... But analytic observations do not give us new knowledge...") -- therefore i've inserted "of matters of fact" into the second statement, this being the salient part of the argument in the article by Alex Scott which this WP article is based on (see Palthrow's comment of 9 February 2006 above): "Analytic propositions may provide us with new and undiscovered knowledge of the logical relations of propositions. However, analytic propositions do not provide us with any new or undiscovered knowledge of matters of fact, because the validity of analytic propositions does not depend on empirical evidence." ( http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/ayer.html ) -- Oniscoid (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)