Talk:Truth-bearer

Philosophy: Logic / Language Low‑importance

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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of language

Linguistics: Philosophy of language

	Linguistics portal 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

[Untitled]

The text I have placed here is not my own. It comes from the article truth. Banno 08:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I have been completely rewriting this article--Philogo (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16:32, November 17, 2010 Reaarrangement plus additional material added--Philogo (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essay tag

I'm not sure 'essay' is the correct tag here but what I'm trying to indicate is that the article as it is currently is full of long discursive sections that would, perhaps, be appropriate in a textbook or monograph but not (I feel) in an article-- at the least they should be trimmed and made more succinct with references given to where the argument(s) are made at length in other primary sources. Perhaps that is the rewrite currently going on? (11/2010) BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two Quotations added--Philogo (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and another thing -- I'm queasy about the 'glossary' section -- that seems not on w/r/t/ an encyclopedia article, am I wrong? BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The glossary contents could be cast as footnotes to each occurence of the term definedPhilogo (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC) See attempt at this under "Notes" in the article. --Philogo (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary replaced by notes--Philogo (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Would someone knowledgeable in the area be able to move the tangential "This raises the issue..."-type material into a separate set of sections on "Consequences"?211.30.171.128 (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you give an example of the tangential "This raises the issue..."-type material

— Philogos (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Just in case"

On behalf of the general audience, I have replaced the misleading and confusing expression "just in case", with its correct, and easily understood equivalent, "if, and only if" (also, in more technical writing, "if and only if"). The following explains the error:

Why the hyphens?

The title has an unneeded hyphen, as do most of the defined terms, unlike the book that they are said to be from. We should fix this. And the book uses "token sentence", not "sentence token"; their implied meanings seem rather different. Dicklyon (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is moved, it should be moved to bearer of truth. Google Ngrams says so. Paradoctor (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]