Talk:Limited Inc

I think it is noteworthy that the essay contains EVERY word from the Searle article, as Searle's criticism was that Derrida failed to read all the texts in question, coupled Searle's his unwillingness to allow the article to be reproduced. Paul haynes 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have heard this as a rumor, but not actually seen it verified in another source. I know it quotes Searle at great length, but using every word would be, erm, difficult under US copyright law, at least. I agree that it should be mentioned if there is a source for it, though. Phil Sandifer 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It does, actually the copyright became, what I take to be a derisive joke on Derrida's part, but it's also some of his weakest logic and relies largely on a misunderstanding (perhaps intentional) of copyright law. He says that the copyright not only stamps that "I" have written such a thing, which is redundant, but that it is factual. Copyright doesn't mean "true," it just means that large contiguous portions cannot be reproduced without permission and (usually) compensation. (Pileggi (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Retranslation

There are some grammatical mistakes in the English translation of Derrida's text toward the end of this article. In addition, some of the original encyclopedic English content contains grammatical errors. The whole of the article, including the translated quotations, would benefit from retranslation and editing by a competent interested party. 24.224.227.89 (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Canute12

Title

Why is it called "Limited Inc a b c" ? It seems to be a french/english wordplay : Limited Inc is a particular form of corporation where the manager isn't personally accountable for a possible bankruptcy. In France, it's called SARL, for Société À Responsabilité (or Risque) Limitée. "Limited inc." seems to be a wordplay on SARL and SeARLe. I think I read that in the "Searle" article, section "Searle/Derrida debate" (edit : can't find it anymore, maybe it was in the french article), which I think offers no source for this, which is why I can't include it in this article. It seems highly possible, though, knowing Derrida's taste for wordplays and irony. 86.77.192.46 (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right; though he explicitly denies that he means to be ironic, throughout he refers to the "authors" of Searle's reply as "Sarl." He begins (half-facetiously) by arguing that since Searle, in a footnote, admits his indebtedness to at least two others for the content, we cannot be sure who the author is. Further, since these 3 "authors" themselves are also indebted to others for the concepts they apply, Derrida formalizes the authorship as follows: "three + N authors of the Reply to Derrida" (Limited Inc, p.31-32). Later, Derrida writes:

"In order to avoid the ponderousness of the scientific expression "three + n authors," I decide here and from this moment on to give the presumed and collective author of the Reply the French name Société à responsabilité limitée"-literally, "Society with Limited Responsibility" (or Limited Liability )-which is normally abbreviated to Sarl. I ask that the translator leave this conventional expression in French and if necessary, that he explain things in a note." (p. 36)

Finally, he explicitly denies the pun, stating that "It is as a reminder of [the desires and fantasms that are at stake in a proper name], and not to draw the body of his name into my language by subtracting one r and two e's, that I thus break Searle's seal[.]"(p.36)

I'm not sure if this is relevant or constitutes original research, but it's right there in the book. 77.251.49.84 (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)