You refer to a famous paradox. Unfortunately, it is an error in thinking: there is a fallacy of equivocation on the term "FALSE". For example, If the sentence read "this sentence is akward" what would be the problem? The term Truth can be used in at least three contexts:
1) Truth functionality - the kind of thing a tableux would diagram or a truth tree diagram would express.
2) Truth in content - the kind of truth that we know by experience or truth we practically know; the words correspond to something human beings know about in reality.
3) Truth as means of a method - the kind of thing deduction does; a method of derriving things from other known things.
The problem is if I say one of the context above, you will then switch and say "no I meant something else" or something like that. You play the game of a slippery fish that can't be pinned down due to its slickness. I go one way then you purposely go another way to make sure we don't pick the same context. So why not change the word in question? Let's change the one term "FALSE" and see if the problem remains? This sentence is in english. This expresses no problems. This sentence is simple. This sentence is a little vauge but not a paradox. Come on, dude the problem is the switch in context.
That if the sentence is true in functionality (that is a truth table shows it false)then the literal words in the sentence express truth in content. In other words, the sentence should read "it is true that what this sentence expresses is false." No paradox there. People want the reply: "if the sentence is false, then the sentence is true." That causes confusion because how can something be true at the same time being false? Those people do not notice the switch of context! Rewording the sentence crushes the emotional effect people are seeking!