150

Leftet to Hussei, 21.5.1891

With a concept word it takes one more step to reach the obiecr than with a proper trame, and the last step may be missing - i. , th concept may be empty - wifiout the concept word's ceasing to be scientifically usefirl. I have dra\lal the last step from concept to obrect horizontally in order to indicate that it takes place on the
same level, that obiects and concepts have the same obiectivity (see

On Sinn and
Bedeutungr
I l lris paper was tust published in 1892 in the Zens.hnft Jih Phrlosophb ntd philosophische Kndk,100, pp. 25 50. It is Frege's most influential rr{l best known work, containing his tuIest account of his distinction

98

my Foundations, S4?).5 In liteHry use it is sumcient if ever''thing has a sense; in scientific use there must also be Bedeutungen lnt\c Foltndaions 1 did I'ot yet draw fte distinctio$ between sense and Bedeutuns. l^ S97 I should now prefer to speak of 'having a Bedeutung' l'bede tu tgsL)o 'l instad of'havirg a sense' ['sinnvol]'1, Elsewhere, too, e.g. in SSl00, l0r, r02, I would now often replacc 'sense'lry'Bedeutung'.6 WIat I used to cal judgeabl content is now divided into thought and tuth-value.? Judgement in the nar_ rower sense could be characterized as a transition ftom a thought to a rruth-value. I Now it seems to me that for you the schema would look like this:
concept wold

ltt\\eer] Sirl and Bedeutune.l

liturtiryA gives rise to challenging questions which are not altogether
ersy to answer. Is it a relation? A relation betweetr objects, or betweeir rDes or signs of objects? ln my Begrifrsschdltl assumed the latter.2 The which seem to favour this are the following: a = a ar,d a = b

J
sense of the concept word
(sense)

J
obiect falling under the concept

it would take the same numbe! of steps to get ftom proper names to obiects as ftom concept words The only difrerenc between proper names and concpt words would then b that the former could refer tos only one object and the lattr to more t}lan one. A concept word whose concept was empry would then have to be excluded ftom science ,ust like a proper name without a conesponding object.
so that for you

li

Yours sincerely,

Dr G.

Frese

'rrsons i.c obviously statements of difiering cognitive value lErkenntnisuenl; ,r d holds d pnbn and, according to Kant, is to be labelled anabtic, $hilc statements of the folm a = , often contain very valuable extenlxDs of our knowledge and cannot always be established d rn;r,- The ,liscovery thar the rising sun is not new every moming, but always the rrmc, was one of the most fertile asbonomical discoveries. Even today rl'. rcidentification of a small planet or a comet is not always a matr.r of coufse. Now if we were to rgard equality as a rlation between rh:r which the names 'a' and 'r' designate [6ed"rarr], it would seem that r l] could not ditrr ftom a = a, i.e. provided a =, is rrue. A relation \!,,uld rherby be exprcssed ofa rling to irself, and inded one in which ,,r(h thing stands to itself but to no other thing. What we apparently \ri'rt to state by a = 6 is that rhe signs and 'r' design3te nrc same dring, so rhat rhose signs rhemselves would be lralanted ,rrrlcr discussioq a relation between t}lem would be assened. But this

'i It is ronh norirs rhar in these secrions Frese

See

pp. 99 100 tbove-

above), vhere

n misbt

seem especialy

is critictins formalisn (.t pp r24 t jmponant to d.aw somc kind or disrinction bd'

f':i', r.c aron ihe ..isinJ ioumrl. 'lhe tdnd3ted rxt herd is liom the rhi.d edition I / /'ll?, with minor rcvnions made in ,cco.dmcc wil\ thc policy adoptcd in tne presem , ,1,!ie in padicular, 'Bedeutuns' (and cqlatcs such as 'bedcutmsslos') bcins lcli
'
,

' I '^r dris srrd in thc scnsc of idcmity Ud,"dtd ,nd undcrsand 'd = 6' ro have thc ,, r dl ,r is ih. crm. ,s ,' .r 'd and 6 ..in.id.' rr,trtrlrrcd by Md Black (rPtY, pp. 56 lAtQP, pp. 157 77). l'!gr nunb6 il lhe

rweeD Sinn' and 'Bedeurung'. I See nS, S2 (pp. 52 I .bovet for thc cdy notion of judscrblc contenCj lnd I. 1136 below, on fte larer biaurcxtion or !h$ notion

ct

COI

' r,.trrllr.d, and 'bedeuten' bei ns rendered as'st.nd for' (or occas ionauy as'desisndc') ' ,'L rhc sccond edition (but with the Oerman .lways in square bnckes following it), ,tr'ls\ othcnvisc indicntcd. For discussior of tbis policy, and thc problems involved in
" \, r e\p. ?rJ,
trrJrtrns Bcdeubng

"'lhc

Gcrmln con{ruction ncr is srh bcTicncn

trl'

dd

its co*mrrs, sue lhe lrtrodudion, {4 rbove.

$8 (np. a'4 5 rhovc).

t52

On Sinn a'?d Bedeurung

Or?

Sirn d'd Bedeutung

153

relarion would hold between the names or signs only in so far as dley named or designated something. It would be mediated by $e connection of each of rle two signs with $e same designared thing. But this is arbitrary. Nobody can be forbiddn ro use any arbitradly producible event or object as a sign for something. In that case tle sentence d =, would no longer be concerned wifi the subiect matter, bur only with its mode of designation; we would exprcss no proper howledge by irg means. But in many cases this is jusr what we want to do. If rhe sign 'd' is distinguished ftom fie sign 'r' only as an object (here, by meang ofits shape), not as a sign (i.e. not by the manner in which ir designats something)j the cognitive value of d = d becomes essenrially equal ro that of d = ,, provided a = , is true. A difference can arise only if rhc difference between the signs corresponds ro a difference in the mode of presentation [Art dcs Gegebenseins] of the rhing designated. I-et d, ,, . be the lines onnectins the vertices of a triangle wid de midpoinrs of the opposite sides. The point ofintersecrion of d and, is then the samc as the point ofintersection of, and c. So we have different designations for the same point, and ihes names ('poinr of intersection ofd and,', 'point of intrsecrion of , and c') likewise indicate the mode of presertationj and hence the staremnr conrains actual knowledge.r

Ir is clea! ftom the context that by sign and name I have here undersrood any desigoation figuring as a proper name, which thus has .s irs Itede tung a d.ef]lrite obiect (rhis word taken in the widest range), but not r concept or a relatroB which shall be discussed furrher in another aftrcle.lThe desienation ofa single ob,ect can also consist ofseveralwords or olher signs. For brevity, let every such designation be called a proper
The sense ofa proper name is elasped by everybody who is sufficiendy

l.miliar with the language or lotality of designations to which it belongs;B hut tlis senes to illuminate only a singJe aspect of the Bedeutung, s\tpt,osing it to have one. Comprehensive knowledge of the Bdarflr?g would
rLquire us to be able to say immediately whedrer any given sense attaches

h is natural, now, to think of dere being connected wirh a sign (name, combination ofwords, written mark), besids thar which rhe sign designates, which may be called thc Bdde&r,/rA of the sign, also what I should like to call rhe rerse of lhe sign, wherein the mode of prcsentarion is contained. ln our elample, accodingly, Brde rfi?g ofde expressions'th point ofinlersection of d and ,'and'the point ofintersection of and .' would be the same, but nor rheir sense. The Bedeurrns oi

27

the

To such knowledge we never atain. its BedeutwS ls The rcsular connection betwen a sign, its sense ^nd ,,1 such a kind that to the sign there corresponds a definite sense and to rh.rr in turn a definire Bedertrlr& while to a given Bedeutung (aL obiect) rhcre does not belong only a single stgn. The same sense has different .xpressions in different languages or even in the same language To be rrrej exceptions to this regular behaviour occur. To every xpression l)cbnging to a complete totality of signs, there shodd ceftainly corre,tx)nd a definire sensej but natural languages I often do nor satis& this , ()ndition, and one must be ontent if the same word has the same ',cDsc in the same context. It may perhaps be ganted that every $amrrrrtically well-formed expression {iguring as a proper name always has l scnse. But rhis is not to say tlat to the sense theic also conesponds rr /irdearaag. The words 'the celestial body most distant from the Earth' llivc a sense, but it is very doubttul if they also ha'| a Bedeutung.'fhe rxfrcssion'the least rapidly convcrgent series'has a senser but demonrrbly rherc i. no tstJeutuns, sincc for every given convergent teries. ,r!)ther convergent, but less rapidly convergnt, series can be found ln lrrsping a sense, one is not thereby assured of a Bddrt,/aa. ll words ale used in the ordinsry way, what one intends to speak of r. ll\cir Bealeutung. h can also happen, however, that one wishcs to talk .Ll!,ur rhe words themselves or their sense. This happens, for instance, \!hcn rhe words of another are quoted. One's own words then first
ro it.
.!Ll

'Evening Star'would

be the sam as r-har

of 'Moming Srar', but not thc

'nisht, ,i ,\l!\rtrd.r thc C;.crt. Anybody $ho do.s rhn wil xtr.h

l" rlrc casc ofan actual pioper nmc such as 'A.ntode' otinions as to the sense nay .'. h lor instlnc.' bc takcr to bc rhe fouoeins: th. pupil ol Plito and tcdcht.

1 A diasran is added he.e to illurlate Fiesc's csampl.. Comprd this (rarh.. snnpl.r crxmplc) wnh r. g.onct;lrl exlmple liese gave in A.S in moriv.rinsh( dr.lior disrnrction b.twecn contcnf hd frodc ordct..minatior ofco.tcnC (scc pp. 64 5 !b.v!) o| .hc rclntnnNhif irct$ccn r.r.g.s.fli.r rnd l]rtr vievs, \c! dt I'nr uctior, pt 2l J

anotier scns. to the senren.e rhan wiu $nc.ne Nho takcs.s the sense olthe mne: drc ih.rofAlcxxn.l.r rc Grcat who \'!s b{rn in SbAna So long as rhe a.r'r",,!rcn.ins Ltr \rmr, \urn v.riitions of sense may bs toldatcd, althoush they a.r t, b. avoidcd in Li rh$fuli.! {ructurc of a dcnonnrlrilt scicncc xrd ousht D.t to occur in a perlect

\'rr.rle *!s boft in Stagira

\( (tr

(l(,nLqit xnd ()bjc.f,

np l8l

93 bllow

154

O'? Sinn

drd Bedeutune

O" Sinn ard Bedeutuns

155

designate lredrdrr] words ofrhe other speaker, and only the latter their usu l Bedeutuns.We then have signs ofsigns. In wriring, rhe are in this case enclosed in quotation marks. Accordingly, a word ing between quotation marks musr nor be taken as having irs
Bedeutu g. speak of the sense of an expression one may si '$e sense of the expression '7"'. In indirect speech talks about the senseJ e.g.r of anothe! pefson's remarks. It is quite clc fiat irr this way of speaking q,ords do not have rheir customary but designare [rede,ref] what is usually rheir sense. In order to havc sholt expression, we will say: in indlecr speech, words are used eci! ot have direct Bedcutung. We distinguish accordingly tha cusromary fto'Jn t\e indiect Bedeutung of \nord,; and irs .r/srrma4,, sn|| ^ from its ,r/rrrr sense. The rlrd]-le.r Bedeutung of a word is accordingly its customary sense. Such exceptions must always be bome in mind lt the mode of connection between sign, sense and Bedeutung in patli.\tltt
use the pb.rase

In order to

I'

$ei i

I td,r

29

is to be correctly undersrood. Tl\e Bedeutung and sense of a sign are to be distinguished ftom rht associated idea [VorstuAuis].7f the Bedzutu s of a sien is an objc.t perceivable by r}le senses, my idea of it is an intemal image, arisinf from memories of sense impressions which I have had and acts, both intemal and xtemal, which I have performd.c Such an idea is ofrcn imbued with feeling the clarity of its separate parrs varies and oscll. lates. The same sense is not always connected, even in the same mnnl with the same idea. The idea is subiective: one man's idea is nor thtt of another. There result, as a matter of course, a variety of differenca in the ideas associated with the same sense. A painter, a horsemanl and a zoologist will probably connect diffrent ideas wirl dre namt 'Bucephalus'. This constitutes an essential distindion between rhe id6t and the sigl's sense, which may be fie common property of many people, and so is not a pan or a mode of the individual mind. For ona can hardly deny that mankind has a common storc of rhoughts which is transmifted ftom one generation ro another.D In the light of this, one need have no scruples in speaking simply oft e sense, whereas in the case ofan idea one must, srricdy speakinS, add whom it belongs to and at what time. It might pefiaps be said: iuut as one man connecrs this idea, and another that idea, with the sama
cases
idcas intunions hre, sense idp.essions aDd rdl thcmselver rake tne phce of rhe ta.es wbich rhey have left in rhc mind. I he dndrcLnrl is uninl)ondnt for our purposc, cspecillly since m.mo.ics ofscnsc inr.$sions od rdr always co alons with such nnprcsions and acts themselves to coDplcrc ihr nerccntuNl

c \ye ndy include with

F&rdn,s,r:

inzE V :.hauu,s:bild). Olc my on rhr orhcr hand unde$tr intrilnln !$ incl ilr .ny objccr in sJ h. rs it is scnsibly pd.cpiiblc or splrid. ! Itencc it is inrdvn$L t) u\c dre {ord 'nicr' nr dcsiA re sor,d hnrs {, hnsicrlly niticdn

\v,'rd, so also one man can associate rhis sense and another that sense. I lll r rher still rcmains a difference in the mode of connection. They are r|r pfvented from graspi[g the same sense; but thy cannot have the tnc idea. Si dlto idcn laciunt, non est idem.lf r\xo persons picture the {IDc thing, each srill has his own idea. It is indeed sometimes possible r,, cstablish diferences in the ideas, or even in the seNarionsj ofd fer{rr nenj bur an exact comparison is not possible, because we cannot |,.'vr bo$ ideas rogether in the same consciousness. II]e Bedeutuns of proper name is &e object itself which we desig^ by using it; the idea which we have in that case is wholly subject'rrc in between lies the sense, which is indeed no longer subiective lile rvri rllr idea, but is yet not the object itself. Th following analogy will t(rhrps clariiy these rclationships. Somebody observes rhe Moon t][ough r.lcscope. I compare the Moon itself to the Brdedrrg; it is the obiect 'r ,'l rhc obseflarion, mediated by the ftal image proiected by the object ultr\s in fie inredor of the telescope, and by the rtinal image of the ,,lrcrver. The formff I compare to the sense, the lattr is like the idea "t rttninon lAnscha ung). The optical image in the telescope is indeed sided and dependent upon the standpoint of observation; but it is 'tr(, irrll otrjective, inasmuch as it can be used by several obsewers. At any r rc it could be arranged for seveml to use it simultaneously. But each 'ir would have his oirn retinal image. On account of the diverse shapes ,,1 rl)r observers' eyes, even a geometrical congruence could hardly be , lricvcd, and an actual coincidence would be out of th question. This rrlogy might b developed still further, by assuming A's retinal image llrfilc visible to B; or A might also see his oivn rerinal image in a minor. lr rhis way we miSht pefiaps show how an idea can irself be taken as .' object, but as such is not for the obserlr'er what it directly is for the Itr'n,n having the idea. But to pursue this would take us too far afield. wc can now recognize three levels of differnce betwen words, exI'rr\sions, or whole sentences. The drfferenc may concem at most the r,l' rs, or the sense but not the Bedzutung, or, fn lly, t17e Bedeuturlg ^s (' ll. with respecr to I the first level, it is to be noted that, on account ,'l rl,( uncenain connection of ideas with words' a diference may hold l,'r ('rc personr which anoder does not find. The drfference between i r.x'rslation and fte odginal text should propetly not overstep the lir:st l, \ .1. fo the possible diferences here belong also the colouring and shadI rrl lvhich poetic eloquenc seel.s to give to the sense. Such colouring and '|,rlurg are not objective, and must be evoked by each hearer or reader r, ( ( ding to the hints of the poet or the speaker. Without some afrnity r, l,uDran ideas an would cenainly be impossible; but it can never be , \,( rly determind how far the intentions of rhe poet are realized. I', whar follows there will be no fifther discussion of ideas and inrrrrrrns; they have bccn mentioned here only to ensure that the idea

il

156

O,? Sinn

ard Bedeuimg

O'l Sinn

ar?d Bedeutung

r57

aroused in th hearer by a woid shall not be contused with its sense or

its BedzutunE. To make shon and exact expressions possible, let the following phraseology be established:
A proper nme (word, si8n, combinaiion of signs, expression) er?Erres irs sense, stak^ lor lbedeubrl ot daisaax' [bezenhnetl i$ B..|eatu,s. By enptoying a siSn we er?ress its sense and designate its Bede!l!,r'. Idealists or sceprics will perhaps long since have objected: 'You talls without further ado, of the Moon as an obiectj but ho\rr do you know that the name "the Moon" has any Bedeutuns? How do you know that anlthing wharsoev has a Bedeunng?' I reply that when we say 'rhe Moon', we do not inend to speak of our idea of rhe Moon, nor are we saiisfied with the sense alone, but we presuppose BedN tung. To ^ assume that in the sentenc 'The Moon is small$ than the Eanh' the idea of r}le Moon is in question, would be flarly ro misundersrand the sense. If this is what the speakr wanted, he would use the phrase 'my idea of the Moon'. Now we can of course be mistaken in the prsupposition, and such mistakes have indeed occuned. But &e question whether the presupposition is pefiaps always mistaken need I not be answerd here; in order to iusrify speaktng of the Bedeuung of a sign, it is enough, at firsr, to point our our inteniion in speaking or thinking. (We must rhen add rhe rcservarion: provided such Bedeutuns exists.)

i2

^ So far we have considered the sense and Bedcutung only of such expressions, words, or signs as we have called proper names. W now inquire conceming the sense Be.leutu s oI an entire assedoric sen^nd tence. Such a sentence contains a thought.r Is .his thoughr, now, to be regarded as its sense or its Beder&nA? Let us assume for the rime being that the sentence has a Bedeutung.lf we no' replace one word of rhe sentence by another haviaq the same Bedeutung, but a differem sensej this can have no effect upo'r the Bed.urung of the smence. Yet we can see that in such a case th thought changes; since, e.g., the thought in the sentence 'The Moming Srar is a body illuminated by the Sun' differs ftom that in the sentence 'The Evening Star is a body iluminated by the Sun'. Anybody who did not know that rhe Evening Star is the Moming Star mighr hold rhe one thought to be true, the other false. The thought, accordingly, cannot be the Brdrxt"ug of the sentence, but must rather be considered as its sense. \I.rhat is the position Dow with rcgard to the Bedeatung? Have we a right even to inquire about it? Is it possible rhat a sentence .s a whole has or y a s ense, b$ no Bedeutungl
r rhousht I undc.{.nd not thc subjcctivc pcrlomm.c ol ihinking but irs objccrivc ' .ontent, rvh,ch is crl3blc ofbcing drc commor propc(y of scvcrrl rhink{rs.
Ry

only a sense, but also a Bederrrrg? lghy is the thought not enough for trs? Because, and to rhe extenr tharr we are concemed with irs truth_ value. This is not always the case.In hearing an epic poem, for instance. .rpr trom rhe cuphony ot rhe lansuage $e are inreresled only in Lhe scnse of rhe sentences and the images and feelings thereby arc,rsed. The question of rruth would cause us to abandon aesrhetic delighr for an rLlitude of scientific investigarion. Hence it is a matter of no concem ro us wherher the name 'Odysseus,, for insrance, has a Bedeutung, so Iong as we accept rhe poem as a work ofart.Ii h is rhe strivins for trurh ,l,lll drives us alwats ro advance from lne sense rc the Bediutung. We have seen rhat rhe Eedertu f, of a sentence may always be soughr, whenever rhe Eederrrrg of its components is involved; and &at this is thc case whn and only when we are inquidng after the nuth-value. I \ve are therefore ddven into accepting the rrurr-?dl e of a senrence rs consriruting irs Bededrr?g. By the uuth-value of a senrence I under_ srrnd the circumsEnce rhar ir is rrue or false. Thre are rlo funher

ously has a sense. Bur since ir is doubtful whether rhe name ,Odysseus,, occurring therein, has a Be.Jelrrr,& ir is also doubrful wherher rhe whole sentence does. Yer it is certainr neverrhelessJ rhar anyone who seriousiv rook rhe senlence ro be (rue or faLe woutd ascribe ro rhe name .Odvseuq. J Brd"rrrrA. nor merelv a for ir is ol rhe Aedeutuhg o15.," , nu "ensei that the predicate is affimed or denied. ',t0hoevcr does not admit r}l name has a Bedeutung can neither apply nor wirbhold the predicare. But in that case it would be superfluous to advance to tIrc Bedeutune ol r\e namej one could be sarisqed wirl rhe sense, if one wanted ro go no turther than the rhought. If it were a question only of the sense of the sentence, rhe thoughrr it would be needless to bolher wirtr rhe Bede,orl,g of a pan of the senrence; only the sense, not r}l e Bedeutung, of it:le patt is relevanr ro th sense of the whole senrence. The thought remains the srme wherhe! 'Odysseus' has a Bed|rlza or not. The facr rhat we con_ cem ourselves ar all abo the Bed.uane of a pan of the sertence indic_ xtcs that we generally recogniz and expecr a Bdrlrrlr!, for the senrence rtself. The thoughr loss value for us as soon as we rccognize that the Bcde t"ry of one of its parts is missing. W are threfore jus.ified in not bcing satisfied with the sense of a sentence, and in inquiring also as to its Bdderrrlrg. But now why do we wanr every proper name to have nor

At any rate, one might expect thar such sentences occurJ just as there are pans of sentences having sense bt no Bedeutung. And senrences which contain proper names wirhout Bed?rrMs wilt be of *lis kind. The sentence 'Odysseus was set ashore at fthaca while sound asleep' obvi_

' It Nould he dcsirabl! ro hrvc . spccill term r'o. sisns im.dded to havc only sensc. It r. nrnrc drcdr sJy, rc|rcscntriioD\ [lJ,ard, rhc words otihc rcrn ou thc *Au would lic r.rr$lntxri(rri n\lc.(l rhc rlrr hnnsrll would be ! reprcscnotron.

158

Oa Sinn aad Bedeutune

O,

Sinn

dd

Bedeutung

159

35

I call the one the True, th other rhe False. Every assenoric sentence concerned with the B?derrrrA of its words is therefore to be regarded as a proper name, and its Bedeutune, 1f ir has one, is either the True or the False. These two objects are recognized, if only implicitly, by everybody who judges somethirg to be tme - and so even by a sceptic. The designation of the rurh-values as obtects may appear to be an arbitmry fancy or perhaps a mere play upon words, ftom which no profound consequences could be drawn. W}tat I am calling an object can be more exacdy discussed only in cormection with concept and relation. I will resefte dis for anothr article.5 But so much should already b clear, that in every iudgement,G no matter how irivial, the srp fiom the level of thoughts to the level of Bdd"rrrg (the obiecrive) has aheady been taken. One might be tmpted to regard the relation of the thought to t}le True not as that of sense ro Bederflr?g, bur rather as tlat of subject to predicate. One can, indeed, say: 'The thouglt that 5 is a prime number is true'. But closer examination shows that norling morc has been said tlan in the simple sentence !5 is a prime number'. The truth claim arises in each case from dre form ofthe assertoric sentence, and when the latter lacks its usual force, e.g., in the mouth of an acror upon rhe stage, even the sentence'The drought that 5 is a prime number is tlu' contains only a thought, and indeed the same thoughr as rhe simple'5 is a pime number'. It follows that the relarion of the rhoughr ro rhe True may not be compared with that of subject to predicate. Subjct and predicate (understood in dre logical sense) are jusr elemenrs of rhoughrj they stand on t}le same level for knowledge. By combining subject and predicate, one reaches only a thought, never passes ftom a sense to irs Bedeutung, ne'rer frcm a thoughr to its truth-value. One moves at lhe same level but never advancs from one level to the next. A tmd-value cannot be a part of a thought, any morc rhan, say, the Sun canJ for it is not a sense but an object. If our supposition that rhe Bede tung of sentence is its truth-value ^ is correc{, the latter must rmain unchaneed when a pan of the sentence is replaced by an er,Tression with the same Bedeuruns. And. t\is is in fact the case. Leibniz gives tle defini.ion: 'Eadem sunt, quae sibi nutuo substitui possunt, sab,a oeitate'.6 ll we arc dealing with sentences for which rhe 8?deltszg of their component parts is at all relevant, then what feature except &e tmth-value can be found thar belongs to such
uuth-values. For brevity

(;A
I

iudgenent for me is not rhc m$c sraspins of a ihonshr, but thc rdmisson 1.,1,{&d,,,rsl ol n5 tmth.

Sc. 'On Co.ccpt r Objccf, pp. l8t 93 bclNr. ' '-lhosc rhinss .rc th. s.'nc which .id bc sub\titurrd tu. ont lnothcr wnhout lo\s ol rurh lhn i\ j!{ tlc srnrc Lcibnizirn pnncipl. firL tncAe krJk r\ his dclinitn,n olnlln lLv ,n \1r5 ot thc

senren(e. $ord ir.ett s a pan otthi,entence. rhis wal 'trhe of can cerrdintr be arracked, becruse $e uhole Acdeut arg and 'peaking one pan of ir do not sufdce to determine the remainder. and belause rhe wod 'pan' is already used of bodies in another sense. A speciai term ivould need ro be invented. The supposition rhar rhe trurh-value of a sentence is its Bedeutu p .hall now be pur ro turLher re\r. NVe ha\e tound r}at rne rmr} value oi -.cntence remains unchrnged when an expre"sron in i( i. replaced by .rnorher wirh rhe same Bed.,r,'rs: bur $e have nor yer ton.iiered rtre crse in which rhe expression to be replaced is irself a sentence. Now if ,'ur view is correct, the 0uth-value ofa senrence conraining anorher as pa must remain uncha.nged when rhe pan is replaced by another sen_ tence_having the same trurh-value. Exceptions are ro be expected when rhe whole sentence or irs parr is direct or indirect quoratio;; for in such ceses, as we have seen, the words do not have rheir clstomary Bedeutung. lr drrc(r quotalon. a senlence designare\ laezfer.,rerl ano*rer renrcnci, ,rnd in indirecr specch a rhoughr. \ve are rhus led to consider subodinare sentences or clauses. These ,'ccur as pafts of a sentence complex, which is, from the logical srand_ tr)int, Iikewise a sentence - a main sentence. But here we meit the ques_ ()n lvheder it is also tme of rhe subordinate sentence rhat its Be&arazf, r! r tmth-value. Of indirccr speech we already know the opposite. Grami r"rrians vicw subordinate clauses as reprsentatives ofpans ofsentences ,,rct dividc rhem accordinsly into noun clauses, adjective clauses, adver, Inxl cl:ruscs. 'Ihis might generrte r}lc supposition rhat ttl. Bedeurung ol
r

thoughr to a rruth-vatue. Naturally this cannot be a definirion. Judgc ment is somethins quite peclrliar and incomparable. One might alo iay rhar judgcmenrs are di.Linfiions otparF $iLlin rrurl,_\alue.. Such di. l,ncuon ocLurs by a rerum ro dre Lhoughr. To cvery sen.e arrachrng ro a truth-value would corespond its own manner of analvsis. HoweverI hive here u,ed rhe word.pdn inaspccial sen.e. IhavemIacrrrany ferred the rctarion between rhe parrs and rhe whole of rhe sentence ro )ts Bedeutxns, by catlijng $e Bedeutu of a wo:nl patt of s t\e Bedcutuns

sentnces quite seneralty and.emairc unchanged by substirutions ofthe kind just men ioned? If now the trurh-value of a sentence is its Ber]errr?gr then on rhc one hand all rue senrences have rhe same Brdrr&rrrg ana so, on the other hand, do all false senrences. From rhis we see th jn the Bedeutuno nf ^t dre senrence aU drar i( specific r\ oblirerrred. \ve can never be concerned only,\\tith the Bedeurung of a sentence; bur again rhe merc thoughr alone vields no knowledCe. buL ont' rhe rlouglr logerher wirh iL, ATae ung, r.e. irs rrurh.value. Judsemenrs can be regarded a" advances from;

.frhe

/i,,rJ!ti,,\

(rhc difcrcnce nr

li) nnhrnrr n drirl)i

scc

r.

I12 rbovr

'trdrr \n (hri'r.'n.l A'A(l,L(t rtu,tt, rrn.n !t.khhudcurrndrn r,*r,(r,

V160

O, Sinn /d

Bedcurung

O,l Sirn ard Bedeutung

161

a subordinatc clause \ras not a rmtl-value

as lhe

bul rarher ofthe same kind Bsd.,.,,e ofa noun or adjectivc or adverb in shof, ofa pan of
Jll

Venus, since one may not always say'Venus'in place of 'Morning Sta/. one hns the right to conclude only rhrt the Bdderd,a of a sentence is

a sntence, whose sense was nor a thoughr bur only a paft of a thoughr.

i7

Only a more thorough invesrigation can clad{y tnc issue. In so doing, we shall not follow the grammatical cargories sricdy, bur rather group together wha! is logicslly ofthe sa,ne kind. Ler us first search for cases in which the sense oftlc subordinare clause, as we have jusr supposcd, is not an independent rhousht. The case of an abstracr noun clause,! introduced by 'rhal, includes Ihe case of indirect speechj in which ire have seen rhe words to have thei. indirect Bcdd,rr rsJ coincidenr with what is cusromarily tlcir sense.

In Ihis case, then, the subordinale ctause has for irs Bed.,r,'rf,a thoughr, nor a truth-value, and for its sense not a rhoughlJ bur the snse of the words 'thc thoughr fiar . . .', which is only a paft of the thoughr in rhe entire complex senlence. Tlis happens afrer 'say', 'hcar', 'be ofrhe opinion', 'be convinced', 'conclude', and simiiar words.IrThcre is a differenr, and indecd somwhat complicarcd, siruarion rfrer wolds like,recognte,, 'kttow', 'fancy'," which rrc to be considered iater. That in .he cases of the first kind the Bedxrrra of rhe subordinatc claurc is in fact de thoughr can also be rccosnizcd by seeing thar it is indiffcrent Io rhe truth of the rvhole whethcr thc subordinare ciausc is true or false. ht us compare, forinsrrnce, the two senrences'Copcrnicus beljeved that thc planetary orbits arc circlcs' and 'Copernicus beiieved thar lhe apprrent morion of rhe Sun is produced by the rcal motjon of rhe Errih'. Onc subordinare clause can be subsiirured for rhc orher without harm to tirc trurh. 'I he main clause and rhe subordinare clause together have as thcir sense only a single rhoughr, and thc truth of rhe whole includcs neither rhe trudr nor the unrruth of the subordinare clause. In such cases ir is not permissible ro replac onc expression in the subordinate clause by anorher having the same cusromary Bc./crrrrg, but only by onc having rhe srme indirct Brd.|aors, i.c. the same customary sensc. Somebody might conclud: rie Bed,,r,ra of a senrence is not its truth value, for in rhat case ir could always be replaced by anothe. sentcncc of rhe srme trudr-valu. Bur this provcs roo muchj one mjght just as well cl^im &at the Bedeutu s of 'Moming Stsr' is nor In A,ied thrt n. h.d se.n R, !!c suboftlinar. chu\. dc{gn{$ [,r&,/rl r rh]ur:ht, ol whicl) tr is bei.g s.id. n.{1!) rhrt A .ssen.d it rs rru.) &d sccoDdly, tllt A lvrs eodeirnl .l ir\ til\ity.
rL

not al&dts its tludr-vaiue, and that'Morning Star'does not ahvays stard for [redcrret] thc planq Venus, viz. whcn the word has its indirect Brderrlrg. An exception ofsuch a kind occurs in the subordinate clause just considercd, which has a thousht as its Adde,rr,s. If one says 'It seems that . . .' one means [ncirr] 'It seems to mc that . . .' or 'I rhink rhat. . .'. \Ve therefore have rhe same case again. The situation is simiiar in the case ofexpressions such as'ro be pleased', 'to re$eC, 'ro approve', 10 blame', 10 hope', 'to fear'. If, torvad rhe end oflhe baule of \(/arerloo, "' \J(/ellingron was giad that the Irrussians rvere comins, Ihe basis lor his joy was a convicdon. Had he been deceived, he lvould have been no less pleased so long as his illusion lastedj and
before he bccamc so convinced hc could not havc been pleased that the Prussians wcrc coming . even $ough in fact dlcy might have been rheady approaching. Just as a conviction or a bciief is the sround of a fcclins, it can, as in infcrcncc, also bc thc sround of a conviction. ln the sentcnce 'Col umbus inferred from the roundness of the Eafth thal he could reach lndia by travelling rowards the ivest', we have as the Bedcutungc of the pans rlvo thoughis, thai lhe Earrh is round, and thar Columbus by travelling to the west could reach India. All that is relevan. here is that Columbus was convinced of born, and rhrt the one conviction was a gound for the orher. Y&ether the Earfi is reaily round and Columbus could really reach India by traveiling wesr, as he lhought, is immaterial 10 the truth oloul sentencej bui it is not immaterial whether we replace 'the Eanh'by'the planer rvhich is accompanied by a moon whose diamcter is greater than the founi part ofits own'. Here rlso we have the indircct Bddcu rrzl' of the words. Adverbial {inai ciauses beginnins 'in order thaf also belong herej for obviously dre pu4osc is a tholrght; therefore: indirect Bedeutung for rll,c words, subjunctive mood.

'

. s. Smrh
(.tj.)

|rcge frub.bly mcds .lru\es grum.rically rcplj..rbL b), trn nb$r.ct n.ur-phrarej
d.nrcs r/r!r

drn..nroxr rftcr'd.nics'. -1ic (;!rnrn w.id\

/,4o':r.\nf = LhiL Br.\n

Smnh dcni.s d^rrtr. '/z is \ri\. is rctlr.ubt. b!

./ d/dr.,J i .r rslin, n rh.lvNlom.tll.o\n.

A subordinare clausc with'tnat' aftcr'command','ask','forbid', rvould appear in direct speech as an impcrativc. Such a sentence has no Brdcut.r,a but only a sensc. A command, a rcquest, arc indccd nor rhoughts, but thcy stand on thc same level as thoughts. Hcnce in sub o.dinate clauses dcpendins upon 'command', 'ask', etc., ivords have rheir indirect Bldert r& The Eedrrt,?g of such a clause;s therefore nol r truth value but a command, a requesr, and so forth. 'Ihe case is similar for the depndeni question in phrases such as '(ioubt rvhedrer', 'not to know whar'. h is easy to see that here also dle \', ords are to be taken io hav their indirect Brdcrrorg. Dependnr clauses
l.'.q. usr\
11,.

inrxLi,ic. hut \snh d,o nnfh.xtnin oI n.nrq n)

hcr rtu .rk( nrn. ti\\.n u1 ,wiihnrn lhe I.u nrcrn\ \o n',,Jr

llr$irr nr

r( li,r ihr

br(|. llrlt Allirn...

(?i.)

G162

O, Sinn drd

Bedeutuns

O', Sinn ard Bedeutuns That the name 'Kepler' designates somerhing is jusr position for the assenion
'Kepler died in misery'
as

163
much a presup-

er"ressing questions beginning wirh 'who', 'ivhar', '!vhere'! '!vhen', 'how', 'by what means', etc., seem at times to approximate verycloseiy to adverbial clalses in which words have rheir cusromary Bcdrrr,?s. These cases are distinglished linguistically [in Gennanl by the mood of rhe verb. With the subjunctivc, wc have a dcpendent question and t}le words have their indirect Bedeutung, so that a proper name cannot in general be rcplaced by anothcr name of the same obiect. In .he cass so far considered drc ivords of thc subordinatc clauses had their indirect Bedertrr& and rhis madc it clear that thc Brdertd,a of rhe subordinate clause ilself was indirect, i.e. not a truth-valuc but a rhoughr, a command, a reques., a question. The subordinate clause could be resarded as a noun, indeed one could say: as a propcr llame of that thought, rlat cornmand, etc., rvhich i. represented in the conte)(t of the sentence structure. ',x/e now cofle to other subordinate clauses, in which the words do have their customa{, Bedertrrg without however a thought occuning as sense and a truth-valuc as Bede,r,,s'. How this is possible is best mad clear bv examples.
''Whoever discovered &e eiiiplic

for the conrary assetion. Now langlages have the fault ofcontaining expressions which fail to designate an object (although their grammatical form seems to qualify them for thal purpose) because .he truth ofsome sentence is a prerequisire. 1'hus it depends on the truth of the
as

'-fhere wds someo,le who discoveied rhe elliptic

fom of

rhe plancra.y

rvherher the suhordinate clause

.llhoever discolered the ellipdc form of rtle planeiary orbirJ

fom oft\e pianerlry orbns dled iD miscry.'

realty designates an object, or only seems

If thc

sensc of the subordinate clause were here a t1lought,

have to be possible to cxprcss it also in a separate sentence. not work, bccausc the srammatical subject 'whoever' has no independcnt scnsc and only mcdiates d1e lelarioD with the consequent clause 'dicd in miscry'. For dis rcason the sense of the subordinatc cl.ruse is not a completc thought, and its Bcddrlrrng is Keplcr, not a tluth-v ue.

it would But it does

bcdeerrrgtos. And thus i. may appear t.rined rs a pan of its sense the thought that there was somebody who dhcovered &e elliptic form of the planrary o$its. If rhis were risht, thc negation would run:
'Either whoever discovered rhc eilipic form offte plancrary orbits did not dle in misery oi dere was nobody wLo discovcrcd thc eltiptic form ofthe
planetary

.o do so while in fact is as ifou. subordinatc clausc con-

40

One might object that the sense of the wholc docs contain a thought as part, viz. that there was somebody who first discovered the elliptic folm of the planetary orbits; for whoevc. takcs drc whole to be true I cannor deny this pan. This is undoub.edly so; but only bccausc othcrwise the depndent clause 'whoever discovered rhe ciliptic form of thc planetary orbirs' rvould hsve no Eedrrrrr?a. If anlthing is asserred therc is ahvays an obvious presupposition fiar Lhe simple or compound pro per names used hav a Ardrrtrlrla. Iftherefore one assens 'Kepler died in misery', there is a presupposition lhat the name 'Kepler' designates somethingj but it does not follow that the sense ofrhe sntence'Kepler died in misery' contains rle Gougii that the n3me 'Kepir' dsignates something. If this were the case the negation would have to run not
'Kcplcr did nor dic in miscry',

orbiti-

ll

but
'Kerlcr did no! die in
nriseryJ or thc

fhis arises from an impedection of ianguage, fiom which even the symbolic ianguage of madematical analysis is not alrogether free; even rhere combinations of symbols can occur that seem to stand for []ed"rtcrl something but (at leasi so far) are bedcuulngshs, c.g. diversent infinite \cdes. This can be avoided, e.s., by mcans of the spccial stipulation Lhat divergent inlinite series shall stand for lbedeutcnl the number 0." A logically pefect lansuage (Besnlkrcln ) should satisfu the conditions, ll t ever'' expression gnmmalically rvell constructed as s proper name (ut of sigrs already introduced shall in facr desigrale an objecr, and that no new sign shrll be introduced as a propr name without being secured . llcdeutu'ts. The logic looks contain wamings againsr logical mistakes rrisins from thc ambislity of expressions. I regard as no less peninenr :r varning against apprrcnt proper names that have no BedrrturI'. 'I'he
(ll. (;(;. L rjllr ... Af r.ndir I boliN

nue

Keplcr" is ,r/Lrtu,,fr1dl.

r61

O/, Sinn aad Bedeutung

O'l Sinn and Bedeutung

165

hislory of mafiematics supplies erroE which have arisen in rhis way. This lends itself to demagosic abuse as casily as ambieuity pcrhaps morc easily. 'The will of the people' an examplej for it is easy Io establish tllar there is ar any rate no generally accepted Bedeuhnp for rhi. cxpre\\,on. lr i\ rhereforc bv no mrans unimponanr ro etm;arc the source of rhese misrakes, at least in science, once and for all. Then such obiections as the one discussed above would become impossibtc, because ii could never depcnd upon dre rrurh of a thoughr whether a Proper name had Bedeutxne. ^ With thc considcratnrn of rhese noun clauses may be couptcd rhat ot' t!"es of adjective and adverbtul clauses which are logicalty in close

ll

rn essential componentj viz. the determination ofplace or time, is miss nrg and is just indicated by a relative pronoun or a conjunction.J In conditional clauses, also, .here most often I recognizably occurs rD indefinite indicalor, wirh a correlarive indicator in the dependent .lause. (We have already seen this occur in nolm, adjective, and adverbial .huses.) In so far as each indicaror rlates to the o$er, boih ctauss roscther folm a connected whole, lvhich as a rule erlTresses oniy a single rhousht. In the sentence 'If
a nlmber is less thdn

and greater than 0, ns square is less rhan

and

q.errer

lh.n 0'

12

Adiective clauses also serve to consrrucr compound proper narnesj though, unlike noun clauses, ftey are not sufficienr by tncmselves for this purpose. These adjecrive clauscs are ro be resarded as equivalent to adjecdvs. Instead of'rhe squarc roor of4 ivhich is smaller rhan 0,, onc can also say'the negarive square roor of4'. We have here rhe case ofa compound propcr name consrrucred from the exprcssion for a concepr ivith Ihe hetp ofthe singular definire :rrticle. l'his is at any ljtc permissible ifthe concepr applies ro one i and only one single object.rExprssions for concepts can be so consrructed thar marks'r of a concepr arc siven by adjecrive clauses as, in our example, by rhe clause ,ivhich is smaller than 0'. lr is cvident $at such an adjccrive clausc cannor havc a thought as sense or a rruth-valuc as Be.1rmrrA, any more rhan fte noun clause could. Irs sensc, which can also in many cases be cxpressed by a single adjecrive, is only a part ofa thoughr. Hcre, as in thc case ofthc noun clause, rhere is no independenr subject and thereforc no possibility of reproducine rhe sense of thc subordinare clause in an independ,
Placcs, insrants, streiches of rime, logically considered, are objects; hence the linguistic designarion ofa definire place, a.tefinire instant, or a stretch of timc is ro be rcgarded as a proper namc. Now adverbial clauses ofplace and rime can be used to consrruct such a pmper name in much the saoc way as rve have sen noun and adjcctive clauses can. In the same way, expressions for concepas thar apply ro places, etc., can be consrructed. It is ro be noted herc also thar the sense of thesc subo.dinate clauses cannot be reproduced in an independent sentence, since I In 3cco.darcc $nb rvhd iv.L srid ibole, an rxnres\ion olrhc tind nr qurjn,n mu{ r.rurlly alwa's bc is\ur.d ola lr'&dx,r{, b,\' ncr\ ola spccirt niputaiion, . !. by th! convonton drat 0 slull count rs its lr.&!!,a when tht conccpr apnt'es to no .tri.ci or to morc rhm onc ls.o tn lt .bov..l I lir dru norio. .rr ''nuk ( Merkrn,rt), :.r G1_, \51 (pr. 102 I rrr.vc)i a;r). l|) Fp

rhe component in question is'a number' in the antecedenr clause and 'rts' in the consequent clause. lt is by means of rhis very indefiniteness rhrt the sense acquires rhe generality expecred of a law. h is rhis which ,\ responsible ior the fact that the antcednt clause alone has no comt)lete thought as iis sense and in combinaiion rvirh the consequent clause

.\presses one and only one thoughr, whose pafts afe no longer thoughts. Ir is, in acneral, incorect to say thai in the hlpothetical iudgement two tudgcments are put in reciprocal relationship. If dris or something simllrr is said, the word 'judgement' is used in the same sense as I havc ronnected wirh the word'thou8hi, so that I would use d1e formulation: 1\ hyporhe.ical rhousht establishes a reciprocal rclationship bctwcen two rhoughts'. 'Ihis could be true only if an indefinite indicator is absent;( but in such a case there would aiso be no generality. If rn insiant of rime is ro be indefinitely indicatcd in both the ant.cdent and the consequen. clause, this is often achieved merely byusing
In lh..rsc orthcrc scntcn.ei. v.rious ntrcipr.r.tions arc c.siiy po$iblc. Thc scnsc ol i ,r sonldce Ah.r Schlc$visl lokrcin {as s.par.tcd fron Dc.mnrk,I'ru$i. rDd Ausix ,tfr.r.l[d .rn also bc rcnd.r.d in thc form 'Aft.r the seprrdion of Schle\wis Hohiein ,!r! DcrmarL, Pru$ir and Aunri. quarclled. Jn rhis veBionj n is \urely suricicndy ,lr.r dr.t drc scnse n not to be t.ken as h.ying as a plr the though! thlt SchlesFig ll,ilncnr wrs once separated hom l)eqDark, bur that ftir is thd nt.rs!.ry preruppositio!

rlier thc s.rrrliJn of S.hlcswis-l lohr.in fron D.nmxik'to 6c s!re, our scntcn.c c.n aho bc intcercrcd as siltng rhat s,hl.ivis-Il(n{ein wrs oncc s.p&ated lion Dcnmark. !{c tben h.ve a cxsc Nhich n ro 1,. .onsidt.ed lrter. ln ordff to undcrsand thc rlifcrcncc more.leirly, ler us pioicct ,iLtrs.lr$ ntu drc nind of a Chin.se $ho, having little knosledge ol Fuopcan hnbry, l)rh.\.s ir to bc ftlsc tlut Schlcs$ig H.l$cin {.s.ver scnrrated r..nr Denmark IIc will

,tr.'der tor
li

n. ! .l}/.rr,,( ri all. li

rhc expressn)n

lic our s.Dtence, in the iir* ve$ion, b be nenher true nu trlJ but will d.ny it to hlve .ri! llrnrr,re on rhe sround that ns subordinrtc.laus. lac(s a rrJc,r,rr. lhi\ cliuse \dnld .!!y ltprrcnrly determi.e a nmc. Il lrc idt.rr'ret.d ou sentcncc jn tlt sdon,l r.'y, Lo\cvcr, he $ould li.d r thousht.aprus.d i. it which hc ivould takc b t'c llhe. / n{ L.' r. . .1. ,I.r.{1.hr.-l'll'.d,Lr" AL tme" rltr. a r.lirsuiiicaltv cxrli.it indicrtor.nd oD. nru* ir. r.rd ot! lrcm rhc

r66

Or Sinn aud Bedeutung

O, S;nn ard

Bedeutung

167

the present tense of the verb, which in such a case horvever does not indicate the rmporal present. This grrmmatical form is rhen the inde6nite indicator in rhe main and subordinate clauses. An xample ofthis isr '\{4len t}te Sun is in the trcpic of Cancer, the longesr &y in the northern hemispherc occurs'. Herej also, it is impossible to express the scnsc of the subordinare clause in a full scllence' because this sense is not a complcte thoug'hi. Ifwe say'The Sun is in the tropic of Cancer', this would refer ro our present timerr and thereby change the sense. Neither is the sense of the main clause a thought; only the whole, composed of main and subordinatc clauses, has such a sense. Ir may be added that several common components may be indefrnirely indicated in the antecedent and consequent clauscs. It is ctear that noun clauses with 'who' or 'whaC ,nd adverbial clauses

demand that it be expressd in this form is waivcd, and rhc connection shorvn by 'and', rhis restriction disappears. Subsidiary clauses beginning widr 'althoush' also cxpress complcte thoughts. This contunction actually has no sense and does not change the scnse ofthc clausc but only illuminates it in a pculiar fashion.t We could indeed rcplace the concessive clause ivithout harm to rhe rruth of llie whole by another ofthe same truth-valuej bur the lighr in $'hich the clause is placed by rhe conjuncrion might then easillr appear unsuirable, rs if a song with a sad subject were Io be sung in a lively fashion. In the iast cass fie truth ofthe whole included dle truth of the component clauss. The case is differcnt if an antecedcnt clausc expresses r complete though. by containing, in piace of an indefinite indicator, r proper name or something which is to bc regarded as equivalent. In

with 'wherei 'when', 'whrever', 'whenever' are often to be interpreted as havirg drc scnse ofrntecedent clauses, e-s. 'who touches pitch, defiles himself'. Adjcctivc clauses can also rake the place ofconditional clauses.'fhus the sense ofthe scntence previously used can be siven in the lorm "lh square of a number which is less than I and grearer than 0 is lcss tlan I and greater than 0'. The situarion is quite differenr if rlle common component of the two clauss is dsignated by a proper name. Ill the sentence:
'Napoleon, who rccognized the danser to his right flank, himself led his sud.ds ag,insr Lhe enemy posirion'

'If

rhc Sun has rlrcady riscn, rhe sky is very cloudy'

the time is the presenr, ftat is to sayJ defrnite. And the place is also to be thought ofas dcfrnitc. I{crc it can be said that a relation benveen rhe

two thoughts are exprcssed:

(1) (2)

Napoleon re.ognized &e danse! Io hn isht flankj Napoleon hlmself led his slrards lsainsr the enemy posido!-

\vllen and wherc this happened is to be fi,xed only by thc context, but is nevenheless to bc taken as definitely determined thereby. Ifthe entire
sentence is ultered as an asscftion, we thereby simuhaneously asseftboth component senrences. Ifone of the parts is false, rhe whole is false. Here we have rhe case that thc subordinate clause by i.self has a complete thougl. as sens (if we complcte it by indicalion of place and time). The Bedeurung of the subordinaic clause is accordingly a truth-valu.

lrurh vslucs ofartecedem and consequent clauses has ben assfted) viz. tirat the case does not occul in which the anrecdent srands for [6edrdr] drc True and thc consequent for Ihe Fa1se. Accordingly, our semence is rruc if the Sun has not yet risn, whether the sky is very cloudy or r1oi, and also ifthe Sun has risen ard lhe sky is very cloudy. Since only truth-valucs are here in queslion, each componfl clause can be rcplrced by another ofthe same truih-value lvithour changiry fie trudr-value of the whole. To be sure, Ile light in which the subject then appears worJd lr' usully be unsuirable; fie rhouglt might easily seen distollcdj but rhis has norhing to do \rilh its truth-vaiue. Onc must always observc rhar there are overrones of subsidiary ihougits, which are howcvcr not explicirly expressed and tlerefore shouid not bc nckoned iD thc scnsc. llence, also, no account need be tlken of thcir rmth-values.M

'lhe simplesr

cases have :row been discussed.

I-.t

us rcview what we

can therelore expect thal it may be replaced, rvithout harm to the truth-value ofthe rvhole, by a scntence having the I same tiuth-value. This is indeed the case; bur ir is to be noted that for purely grammalical reasons, its subiect musr be 'Napoleon', for only then can it be brousht into fic form of ltn rdjeclive clause attaching to 'Napoleon'. But ifthe

wc

scnse not a rhoughtJ but onty a part of one, and consequently no truth-valuc as Be.leutuns. The rerson for dis is either that thc words in rhe subordinare clause have thcir indirect Bederrbrgr so that the tcdrrr ,& not Ihe sense, of L\e sub ordinrte clause is a thoughtj or else that, on account ofrhe presence of xn indefinite indicator, thc subordinatc clause is incomplere and expresses

'la subodinate clause usually has for its

'I lho

Snnilrr)v m
rlxluchL

iht c!\r .l buf.

vea

r'

rul un\rr. (;.qrrqrn bc/ichur'

ofour \cntc.cc m,ql[ Jl\o b. cxtr.scd thus: l]ith.r dr. Sun hrs noi ,nrn y.l or tlr. sltr i\ !.'y .l(rdr" shilh \lxNs h.w rli\ kn ol \0nrrncc c.nncctnn,

F
168

O, Sinn drd

Bedeutung

O, Siin dd

Bedeulung

169

a thought only when combined with r}le main clausc. Ir may happen, however, that the sense ofthe subsidiary ciause is a compieie rhoughrr in which case it can be replaced by anorher of rhe same trurh-value wirhout harm to the truth of the whole provided dere are no grammatical

dre reason for dle decision to lead the guards against the enemy. This shows why clauses of equal firth-value cannot always be substituted for one another in such cases. The clausc exp4sscs morc through its con nection with another than it does in isolation. us now consider cases where rhis rcgllarly happens. In the se ence

kt

47

An examination ofall thc subodinare clauses which one may encounter ivill soon providc some which do nor frt lvell into rhese caregories. The reason, so far as I can seeJ is thar rhese subordinate clauses have no such simple snse. Almosr always, it seems, we conncct ivith the main thoughts exprcssed by us subsidiary rhoughrs which, alrhoush nor expressed, arc associared lviii our words, in accordance with psychoiogic.l laws, by the hearer. And since the subsidiary rhought appears ro be connected wirh our words on irs own accounr, almost like the main thought itslf, we want it also ro be e$resscd. The sense of rle sentence is lhereby enrichcd, and it may rvell happ rhar we have morc simplc though$ rhan clauses. In many cases rhe scntence must be understood in lhis way, in othe$ ir may be doubttul whether the subsidiary thought belongs to the sense oflhe senrencc or only accompanies it.N One mjght perhaps find rhar the scntcnc
'^_apoleon, who recognizcd rhc dalser to his righr flank, himself ied his suards asajnst ihe enemy posidon' xpresses not only rhe rwo *roughts sho$ryr above,

'Bebel fancies

[@r/dt[ rhat

the rctum of Alsace-Lonaine lvould lppeasc

trance's desire for revetse'

two thoughts are expressed, which are not however shown by means of antecedert and consequent clauses, viz.

(l)
lrr

Bebel believes

thlt dE retld of Alsace Lomine

bnalne wouid not

would .ppease

(2)

France\ desire for revengei

the retun ofAisace
appease France's desire for

In the expression of the first thought, the words of lhe subordinate

claus have their indirect Bedeuung, .J'hile fi same words have fieir customary Brdrrr#a in the expression of rhe second rhought. 'l-lxis shows fiat r}le subordinare clause in our original complex sentence is to be Laken twice over, wirh different Be.le tunsen, of which one is a thought, lhe other a rmth-value. Since the truth-value is not the whole Bedsrr{r,a oftie subordinate clause, we cannot simply replace the latter by another of equal rruth-value. Similar consideraiions apply to expressions such

but also the rhought

that the knowledse ofrhe d.nger was the reason why he led lhc suards against thc encmy posirion. One may in fact doubr whethcr rhis rhought is tust slishtly suggesred or really exprcssed. Ler rhe question be considered whether our sentence is false ifNapolon's decision had already been nade before he recoelizcd the danger. If our sentence could be tme in spite of rhisJ rhe subsidiary rhoughr should not be undersrood as pan of the sense. One lvould probably decide in favour of this. The
altemative would make for a quite complicared situation: we should have

rs 'know', 'recognize', 'it is wetl known'.r5 By means of a subordinrte causal clause and the associated main clause rve express seveml thoughts, which however do not corrcspond separately to the original clauses. In the sentencc 'Because ice is lcss
dcnse than water,

it floats on

rvater' we have

mole simple thoughts than ciauses. If the senrcnce

'Napoieon recognizcd

$e dangei to h; risht

(l) (2) (l)

Ice is less dense than water; If anythlng js le$ dense than warer,

it floats on wrter;

lce fioars on warcr.

flaDk'

werc norv ro be replaced by another

hving the

same rrurh-value, e.g.

'Napoleon was dlr.ady nroie rhar 45 yea6 old',

l hc third thousht, ho*'ever, necd not be cxplicitly introduced, since it in lhe remaining two. On rhe o.her hand, neiiher the lirst ,rnd rhird nor the second and Ihid combined would furnish the sense ol our sentence. It can now be seen that our subordinate clause
rs contained

not only would our first thought be changed, bul also our rhird one. Hencc the trulh-value of thc latter mighr change - viz. ifhis age was nor

'ireclusc icc is

lc$

densc than watc.'

\'ll$

n,rv be i,nt.drnt ntr d,o qut{i{n

whdhf rn rs.nn)n n I li.. or rr..rh r

\\A\(t,

rrl(rfn(D, .(\ N h!1tr)nr'.

110

O, Sinn ard

Bedeurung

O', Sinn drd Bedeurune

sense of the whole senrence.

t7t

pan of our second. This is how it comes to pass that our subsidiary clause cannot be simply replaced by anoths of equal trufi-value; for this would altr our second dlought and ftereby might wel altet its sudl-value. The situation is similar in dle sentence
exprcsses our tust thought, as well as a

the thought directly expressed by the subordinat clause, maks up rhe

It follows with sufficient probability ftom rhe foregoing that the cases where a subordinate clause is nor replaceable by anorher of the same value cannot be brought in disproof of our view I that a ruth-value is the Bed&rrra of a sentence thar has a rhought as irs sense.

'If hon

were less dense than *ter,

it would float on water'.

Ifwe found'd = a' and'd = r'to

Irt

us retum to our starting-poinr.

have different cogritive values, rhe

49

Here we have the two thoughts that iron is rot less dense than water, and that something floats on water if it is less dense than water. The subsidiary clause again e:lTresses one thought and a part of the other. If we interpret rhe sentence already considered,
'After Schleswig-Holstin was sep.mted from Demark, Prussia and Ausrria quarelled',

in such a way that it expresses the thought that Schleswig-Holstein was once separared ftom Denrna*, we have fust ftis thought, and secondly the rhought tlat, at a time more closely determined bv fie subordinate clause, Prussia and Austria quanelled. Here also the subordinate clause erTresses not only one thought but also a part of another' Therefore it may not in general be rcplaced by another of the same truih-value. It is hard to exhaust all the possibilities siven by languagej bur I hope to have brought to light at least the essertial reasons why a subordinate clause may not alwa)s be replaced by another of equal truth-value without halm to the truth of the whole sentence siructure. These rea-

explanation is that for the purpose ofacquiring knowledge, the snse of the sentence, viz., the thought e\<pressed by itr is no less relevant rhan its BedeuanE, i.e. its tudr-valu. ffrow d = 4 then ]\deed 6e Bedeutuns of 'r' is the same as that of 'ai and hence the truth-value of 'a = ,' is the same as that of 'a = a'. In spite of this, the sense of'r' may ditrer from the sense of'a', and thereby the thought expressed by rd = ,' will differ ftom that expressed by 'd = a'. In that case the two sentences do not have the same cognitive value. Ifwe rmderstand by 'iudgement' the advance ftom fie thought to its trurh-valueJ as in the present paper, we can also say thar the judgements are different.

(D when the subordinate cl.use does not stand for lradd,t?,1 a lruth(2)
value, inasmuch as it expresses only a pan of a thoughti when rhe subordinate clause does stand for trde,trl a rruth-value' but ls not resficled to so doing, inasmuch as its sense includes one thought and pan of eother.

The first case arisesl

(a)

for words having indi,t

Proper name.

.t

Be,leutxnE,
a

ab) if a parl of the sentence is only an indeinite indicator instead of

In the second case, the subsidiary clause may have to be taken twice ovr, viz. once in its customary Brdrxr'ngr and the other time in irs indirect a.dd,tr,6 or thc sense of a part ofthe subordinate clausc n1av likewisc bc r component ofrnolher thouglt, which, taken togethcr with