Different edition?

Need a clarification when a book is considered a different edition.
I'm in the process of adding Space & Time by Emile Borel, Dover edition, 1960. In the preface, it's stated that a new chapter has been added. Also, "Foreword to Dover Edition".
Are either of these a reason to add a different edition than what is listed? Or should I just LT add them to the current editions?

Forewords, afterwords, introductions, &c. are not considered to make things into different works on LT. If I asked you, "Have you read Great Expectations too?" and it turned out I'd read the Penguin Classics and you'd read the Oxford World Classics, we'd consider ourselves to have read the same work even though they had different introductions and notes. (This is what LT calls the "cocktail party test." Close enough for casual conversation.)

A single chapter—maybe? I am by instinct a combiner not a splitter, so I would probably combine it in if it's largely unchanged, and the "social meaning" of the work is the same. (But many people on LT imagine that the cocktail party is being attended by hairsplitting pedants.)

Space & Time

One question is how many extra pages dies this edition have? Are we talking 5 or 50. 5pages is probably not enough to make a different work. 50 probably is.

This book has had many different editions in both French and English over the past century+. If you find that the 31 copies need to be divided among multiple works, you also need to do the research so that you know which copies belong where.

I have changed the CK to reflect the fact that the original was in French.

>2 Stevil2001: Thanks
Preface states "The present edition includes a new chapter in which are briefly summed up and discussed the principal theoretical and experimental studies which have appeared since the publication of the previous edition. (my bold) In this case the science, not the "social meaning" has changed.
If there are 2 editions, pre- and post- 1960, should they be separated? And how would one go about doing that? Go to every book and determine the publication date? Seems like a lot of work.

>3 MarthaJeanne:
The extra chapter is 13 pages long.

Yes, I considered that. (see my response to Stevil2001)

Nobody is reading this in 2024 for the latest in scientific data. Both the 1922 and the 1960 editions are hopelessly out of date. The author died in 1956. The social meaning of the text is now history of science.

>6 MarthaJeanne: I agree. Plus as the editions are all largely pre-ISBN, there's not a good way to differentiate. I would keep combined.

>7 Stevil2001: The important thing in such cases is to be accurate. And splitting a work with only 31 copies into earlier, later, and unknown does not help the social connections.

If the 1960 English edition has an extra chapter well under 10% of the book, which French editions have that chapter? As I noted this is after the death of the author. At least the CK is now accurate. There is no indication of translator on the work page.

I'll add it to the current edition.
Translators are listed in the Preface.
Thanks all for you're help.

>9 Darkstar51: I think you mean to the current work. Translators should be added to Other authors, both in your entry and on the work (secondary author, some editions.

>10 MarthaJeanne: Yes, to the current work.
I've added the translators. But the works details page, https://www.librarything.com/work/730862/workdetails/269310038, lists the original language as "English". The original language should be French. From the Preface, "This book has been translated from the French . . . "

The work information comes from the information in the individual entries. You can only check that your entry is correct. I added French as original language to CK earlier this evening when I corrected the original title. Perhaps that will eventually trickle up.

I don't think we can do more.

>12 MarthaJeanne: Thank you. As always, you've been a big help.