 Wittgenstein’s Tractatus (1922) is usually held to propound a correspondence rather than an identity theory of truth; however this is questionable. In the Tractatus, declarative sentences (Sätze) are said to be facts (arrangements of names), and states of affairs (Sachlagen, Sachverhalte, Tatsachen) are also said to be facts (arrangements of objects). If the Tractatus is taken to put forward a correspondence theory of truth, then presumably the idea is that a sentence will be true just if there is an appropriate relation of correspondence (an isomorphism) between sentence and state of affairs. However, the problem with this interpretation is that, in the Tractatus, a relation of isomorphism between a sentence and reality is generally conceived as a condition of the meaningfulness of that sentence, not specifically of its truth. False sentences, as well as true, are isomorphic with states of affairs—only, in their case the states of affairs do not obtain. For Wittgenstein, states of affairs may either obtain or fail to obtain—both possibilities are, in general, available to  them.[3]  Correlatively, it has been suggested that the Tractatus contains two different conceptions of fact, a factive and a non-factive one. According to the former conception, facts necessarily obtain or are the case; according to the latter, facts may fail to obtain or not be the case. This non-factive conception has been discerned at Tractatus 1.2–1.21, and at 2.1 (see Johnston 2013: 382). Given that, in the Tractatus, states of affairs (and perhaps facts) have two poles—obtaining or being the case, and non-obtaining or not being the case—it seems to follow that, while Wittgenstein is committed to a correspondence theory of meaning, his theory of truth must be (some version of) an identity theory, along the lines of 