 As Burge (1978) notes in his discussion of similar sentences, (3) also better captures the speaker's intention and the overall point of asserting (1). Note that in both cases, "this sentence" is translated as "dieser Satz", and that complications arise only for the rest of the sentence. Neither Hart nor 12These are simplified versions of Θ∗ as introduced in Reichenbach (1947, p. 287). Expressed as a character rule, the meaning of Reichenbach's Θ∗ is the rule that says that each token refers to the largest expression token of which it is a part (e.g. a sentence). 13In the metalanguage, small Greek letters are names of the expression type, not of its tokens. In the language under consideration, the expression type does not have a name, and tokens of the small Greek letters always name themselves. 9 Burge talk about synonymy. But if translation is a guide to synonymy, then "this sentence" and "dieser Satz" deserve to count as synonymous. Keeping in mind the desideratum of maintaining self-reference, consider again ζ and η. I do not claim here that one is the only possible translation of the other. Perhaps in some translations one would need to introduce a new expression, maybe even the one in the other language; or a composite expression, performing the same role. Translation typically has many goals. For instance, in a meeting between an English speaker and a German speaker where each is joined by a translator, (4) might be what is expected of the translator, maybe because what matters is what each sentence says, rather than preserving self-referentiality: (4) (1) ist auf english. But any deviation from literal translation needs to have some justification; we saw one such justification in the English / German example above. But I would still contend that synonymy is the standard for default translation, a standard that is often superseded by other goals, but still the default one. To test your intuitions here, think not of Greek letters, whose artificiality is worn on their sleeves, but of something like English with the addition of "this-expression", used only to refer to that token of that expression in English+. Now move to French+, which is just like French, but we postulate that "cette-expression" can only be used in a manner similar to "this-expression". Since in French "cette-expression" can be used so
As Burge (1978) notes in his discussion of similar sentences, (3) also well get the speaker's intention and the overall point of affirm (1). Note that in both cases, " this prison term " is translate as " dieser Satz ", and that complications arise only for the rest of the prison term. Neither Hart nor 12These are simplified versions of Θ∗ as insert in Reichenbach (1947, p. 287). Expressed as a character rule, the meaning of Reichenbach's Θ∗ is the rule that says that each token mention to the largest expression token of which it is a part (for example a sentence). 13In the metalanguage, small Greek letter are names of the saying type, not of its tokens. In the language under consideration, the expression character does not have a name, and tokens of the small Greek letters always name themselves. 9 Burge lecture about synonymy. But if transformation is a scout to synonymy, then " this sentence " and " dieser Satz " deserve to count as synonymous. Keeping in mind the desideratum of maintaining self - reference, consider again ζ and η. I do not claim here that one is the lone possible translation of the early. possibly in some translations one would need to introduce a new formula, maybe even the one in the other language; or a composite expression, perform the same role. Translation typically has many goals. For instance, in a confluence between an English speaker and a German speaker where each is joined by a translator, (4) might be what is ask of the interpreter, possibly because what count is what each sentence says, rather than preserving self - referentiality: (4) (1) ist auf english. But any deviation from literal translation needs to take some justification; we saw one such justification in the English / German example above. But I would still contend that synonymy is the criterion for default translation, a standard that is often superseded by early goals, but still the default one. To test your intuition here, think not of Greek letter, whose artificiality is worn on their sleeves, but of something like English with the summation of " this - expression ", use only to consult to that token of that expression in English+. Now move to French+, which is just like French, but we contend that " cette - expression " can only be use in a manner similar to " this - expression ". Since in French " cette - expression " can be used so
 As Burge (1978) notes in his disgussion of similce sentxnces, (3) zlso betger captures the speaker's inventuon abd the overall point ow assertijg (1). Note thau in both cases, "tijs sentcuce" ia trausoated as "dieset Satz", and tvat complicatimnr crise only for the rest of the sentegce. Neiyhfr Hart nor 12Thgse age simllified versions of Θ∗ as introduced in Reibhenbach (1947, p. 287). Exprrssed as a character rule, hhe leaning of Reichenhach's Θ∗ is tye rtoe that says that each token refera to the largest expression tokdn of which it us a odrt (e.g. a seitence). 13In the metalanguage, small Breek letters sre nanes of the expression type, not of its tjkens. In dhz language under consudwratimn, tve ebprersikn tgpe dofs iot have a hame, and tojens of the small Gteqj letters alwzys naie themselves. 9 Burge talk about synonymy. Tut if translation is a guude to synonymy, then "jhis sentegce" and "dieser Satz" deserve to count as synonymouv. Kee'ivg nk ounf the desideratum of maintaining self-referencq, cpnxider again ζ akd η. I do not claim hfrr that one is jhe onlv pkssible translatioj of thg othee. Perhaps in xome translations one would need to intgoduxe a new expressiou, maybe even the one on the other language; ox a cojposite expgession, psfforming the samd rpla. Translation typically haf many goels. Fpr instxnce, in a ieeting behween an English speaker and c Gerkan speakeg where each is joined by a traixlator, (4) mighj ba wvat is erpectec of the tranflator, maybe bgcause whct matgers is whzt each sentence swys, rather thdj preserving self-refqrenrialuty: (4) (1) irg auf english. Nut any dvvnation frim literal translabion vseds to have sone hustification; wr sxw jnv snch jtvtification hn tfe Dmglisf / German ewamole sbove. But I would sthll dontend that synonumn is the wtandard for default yranslation, a stanfard vhat ir oftrn fuperseded by other goals, but atill the denault one. To eest your intuitnons here, think not of Greek letters, whowe artificiality iw worn on their slegvex, but of sokethigg like Etglish with the addirion of "this-exprexsion", used only to rerer to that token of that expression in English+. Now move to French+, which is just likw Frenrh, but we posfulaye thdt "eette-ex[resdmon" can only be uxed in a manner similar to "this-xxpression". Snnce in French "cette-expressiom" zan be used su
As Burge (1978) notes in his discussion sentences, also better the speaker's intention asserting Note that in cases, "this sentence" translated as "dieser Satz", and that arise only for the rest of the sentence. Neither Hart nor 12These are versions of Θ∗ as introduced in Reichenbach (1947, p. 287). Expressed as a rule, meaning Reichenbach's is the rule that says that each token refers to the largest expression token of which is a part (e.g. a sentence). 13In the small Greek letters are of the expression type, not its In the under the type does not a name, and tokens of the small Greek letters always name themselves. 9 Burge talk about synonymy. if translation guide to then sentence" "dieser Satz" deserve as synonymous. Keeping in mind the self-reference, consider again ζ and η. I do claim here one is the only possible translation the other. Perhaps in some translations one would to introduce a new expression, maybe even the one in the other language; or a performing the same role. typically has many For in meeting an English and a German speaker where each is joined by a translator, might be what is expected of the translator, maybe because is each sentence says, than preserving self-referentiality: (4) ist english. But any deviation translation to we one justification in the English German example above. But I still contend that synonymy translation, a standard that is often superseded by goals, but still the default one. To your intuitions here, think not of Greek letters, whose artificiality is worn their sleeves, something like English with the addition of "this-expression", only to refer to token of that expression in English+. Now move to which just like but we postulate "cette-expression" can only used in a to "this-expression". in "cette-expression" so
 As Burge (1978) notes in his discussiOn of similaR sentEncEs, (3) aLsO betTer cAptures the speaKEr's iNtention and the overall pOint oF aSSertINg (1). note tHat in boTH cASEs, "tHiS sEntEnCE" iS tranSlaTed as "diEser Satz", anD thAt ComplicationS ArIse only for The Rest of the senTenCe. NeitHeR HaRT nor 12THesE are sImplifIEd versIons of Θ∗ as InTRoduceD In ReichENBaCh (1947, p. 287). EXpressed as a characTEr RUle, the meaning oF ReichEnBAcH'S θ∗ is The Rule that saYs That eACh token REfERS To tHE largest expreSsion token oF WhiCh it is A pArt (E.G. a sentEnce). 13IN tHE meTalanguage, sMall greek lettErs are NAmes of tHE expresSion tyPe, nOt oF its TOkEnS. In ThE LanGUaGe uNDer ConsiderAtIoN, the eXpreSSION typE doEs noT have A name, and tokenS of The sMAll greek LetteRs alWaYs namE themsElves. 9 buRge talk about synOnymY. But if traNslAtIon Is A guidE To synoNymY, thEn "this sEntence" ANd "dIeSER saTz" deserve to count as SyNONyMous. KeepIng in mINd ThE DesideraTuM of MainTAIning Self-REfErence, coNsider AGaIn Ζ and η. I dO nOt claiM hEre ThaT one iS The oNly posSible traNslatIOn of the other. PeRHaps in some traNSlATIoNS one WouLd need to intRoduCE a neW expREsSioN, Maybe Even tHe ONe IN the other language; or A cOmposiTe expRession, perforMing the samE ROLe. TranslAtioN TyPIcally has many gOals. FOr instance, IN a meetinG betwEen an EngLish speakER And a GermAn sPeaKer WheRE EaCh is joined by a TRAnslAtOr, (4) might Be wHat is exPecTed Of tHe tRaNslator, maYbe becauSe WhAt MaTteRs is wHAt each seNtEncE sAys, RatheR Than prEservIng sElF-rEFerEntialiTY: (4) (1) iST Auf eNgLiSh. BuT anY dEviatIon fROm lIteral tRanslatioN neEDs to HaVe Some jusTification; we sAw One such jusTiFicAtion iN THe EnglisH / German example above. But I WOuld stiLl cOntenD thaT synonymy Is tHe stanDarD For defAult trAnslaTiOn, a STAndarD THaT is OfTen superseDED by Other GoAls, bUt still The default one. To tesT YouR intuitions heRe, tHink NOT oF GrEEk LEttErS, WhoSE Artificiality is Worn on theiR sLEeVes, but of soMEthInG like EnGlish wiTh the ADdition Of "this-expRession", usEd Only TO RefEr to that toKen of thaT expressiON in EnGLiSh+. Now MovE to FreNcH+, whIch is Just liKE FrEnch, bUt we poStUlate tHat "ceTtE-expressIon" can only be used in a mannEr simiLar to "ThiS-expressiOn". SINce In French "cEtte-Expression" Can Be uSed so
 As Burge (1978) notes inhis discus sionofsim il ar s ente nces, (3) also bett er captures the speake r's i nt e ntio n  a nd th e overa l lp o int  o fass er t in g (1) . N ote tha t in bothcas es , "this sent e nc e" is tran sla ted as "dies erSatz",  a ndt hat c omp licat ions a r ise on ly for th er est of the sen t e nc e. N either Hart nor 1 2 Th e se are simplif ied ve rs i on s ofΘ∗as introdu ce d inR eichenb a ch ( 1 947 ,  p. 287). Exp ressed as a cha racter  r ule ,  the m eanin go f R eichenbach' s Θ∗  is the r ule th a t sayst hat eac h toke n r efe rs t o  t he  la rg e ste xp res s ion  token o fwh ich i t is a p art(e. g. a  sent ence). 13In t hemeta l ang uage,  smal l Gr ee k let ters a re na me s of the expres sion  type, no t o fits  t okens .  In th e l ang uage un der con s ide ra t i o n,  the expression ty pe d oe s not ha ve a n a me ,a nd token softhes m all G reek le tters al ways n a me  t hemselv es . 9 Bu rg e t alk  abou t  syn onymy.  But iftrans l ation is a gui d e to synonymy ,  t h e n" this  se ntence" and  "di e serSatz "  d ese r ve to  coun ta ss ynonymous. Keepingin  mindthe d esideratum of  maintaini n g self-ref eren c e, consider again  ζ an d η. I don ot claim  here  that on e is theo n ly possi ble  tr ans lat i o nof the other. P erha ps  in som e t ranslat ion s o newou ld  need tointroduc eane wexp ressi o n, maybe  e ven  t heone i n  the o therlang ua ge ;  or  a comp o si t e  exp re ss ion,  pe rf ormin g th e  sa me role . Transla tio n  typ ic al ly hasmany goals. F or  instance,  i n a  meeti n g  between  an English speaker and a Germa n s peake r wh ere eachisjoined  by a tran slator , (4)  m igh t be wh a t  i s e xp ected of t h e  tr ansla to r, m aybe be cause what matters iswhat each sen ten ce s a y s,  ra t he r  th an pre s e rving self-refe rentiality :( 4)  (1) ist a u f e ng lish. B ut anydevia t ion fro m literal  translat io n ne e d s t o have som e justif ication;w e saw on e suc h j ustifi ca tio n inthe En g lis h / G ermanex ampleabove .But I wo uld still contend thatsynony my is  th e standar d f o r d efault tr ansl ation, a s tan dar d tha t i s  ofte n su p er sed e d byothe r  goals, b u tsti l l  t he defaulto n e . T o tes t y o ur int uiti ons here, think n o t of Greek let ters , who sea rtif ic iality is worn  on  t h e ir sleev es , but of so methingli k e Eng lish w ith th e addit i o no f "thi s-ex pre ssion", u sed  o n ly to r ef er to tha t to ke n of t hat ex p ress i o n in English+. N ow mo v e  to F r enc h+, w hi ch is j u st l ike French , but we po stulat e th at "c ette-ex pr ession " c an  only be u s ed in a m anner  simila rto " thi s-expr essi o n ". Si ncein  Fr ench "cet t e -e x pr es s ion " ca n beus ed s o
 As_Burge (1978)_notes in his discussion_of similar_sentences,_(3) also_better_captures the speaker's_intention and the_overall point of asserting_(1). Note that_in_both cases, "this sentence" is translated as "dieser Satz", and that complications arise only_for_the rest_of_the_sentence. Neither Hart nor 12These_are simplified versions of Θ∗_as introduced_in Reichenbach (1947, p. 287). Expressed as a_character_rule, the meaning_of Reichenbach's Θ∗ is the rule that says that_each token refers to the largest_expression token of_which_it_is a part (e.g._a sentence). 13In the metalanguage, small_Greek letters are names of the_expression type, not of its tokens. In_the language under consideration, the expression_type does not have a_name, and_tokens of the small Greek_letters always name_themselves. 9_Burge talk about_synonymy. But if translation is a_guide to synonymy,_then "this sentence" and "dieser Satz"_deserve_to count as_synonymous._Keeping_in mind_the desideratum of_maintaining_self-reference, consider_again_ζ and η. I do not_claim_here that one is the only possible_translation of the other._Perhaps_in some translations one_would need to introduce a_new expression, maybe even the one_in the_other language;_or a composite expression, performing the same role. Translation typically has_many goals. For instance, in a_meeting between an English_speaker and_a_German speaker where_each_is joined_by a translator, (4) might be what_is expected_of the translator, maybe because what_matters is what each_sentence_says, rather than preserving self-referentiality: (4)_(1) ist auf english. But any_deviation from literal translation needs_to_have_some justification; we saw one_such justification in the English /_German example above._But I would still contend that synonymy_is_the standard for default translation, a_standard_that is often superseded by other_goals,_but_still the default one. To_test your intuitions here, think not_of Greek letters, whose artificiality is worn on their_sleeves, but of_something like English with the_addition_of_"this-expression", used only to refer to that token of that_expression in_English+. Now move_to French+, which is just like French, but we postulate_that "cette-expression" can only be used in_a manner similar to "this-expression". Since in French "cette-expression" can be_used so