One might say then: The ostensive definition explains the use – the meaning – of the word if it is already clear in general what ˇkind of role the word is to play in the language. Thus if I know that someone wants to explain a colour word to me, then the explanation “Th[at'|is i]s called ‘sepia’” will help make me to get an understanding of the word. – And you can say this

as long as you remember
if you don't forget

that there are all sorts of questions connected with now attach to the words “ˇto know”

and
or

“be clear”.
You have to know something already

before you can ◇
in order to be able to

ask what it ˇsomething is called. But what do you have to know?
If you show someone the king in a ˇset of chess game ˇmen and say, “Th[at|is] is the king of chess”, you do not thereby explain to him the use of this piece, – unless he already knows the rules of the game except for this last point: the

shape
form

of the king-piece.. We can imagine that he has learned the rules of the game without ever having been shown a real chessman. The

shape
form

a
the

chessman corresponds here to the sound or the shape of a word.
But we can also imagine someone's having lea[v|r]ned the game without ever having learned or formulated [v|r]ules. He has perhaps first learned very simple games on boards by watching them and has proceeded to more and more complicated ones. To him also you might give the explanation, “Th[at|is] is the king”, if, for instance, you are showing him chess

men
pieces

of an unusual

shape
form

. And this explanation teaches him the use of the

piece
figure

only because, as we

Ts-226,21

we might say,

we had in the game already prepared the place in which it was
the place in which it was put was already prepared.

Or again: We shall say the explanation teaches him the use, only when the pla[v|c]e is has already ˇbeen prepared. And it is so here ˇprepared in this case not because the per[os|so]n to whom we are giving the explanation already knows rules, but because he [a|h]as ˇin a different sense, already mastered the a game. in a different sense.
Consider still another case: I explain the game of chess to someone and begin by showing him a pieceand , saying, “Th[at|is] is the king”. – [He| It] can move in this and this way, etc. etc.”. – In this case we shall say: the words “Th[at|is] is the king” (or, “Th[at|is] is called ‘king’”)

explain the use
are an explanation

of the words ˇ“the king”, only if the person

we teach
learning

already “knows what a piece in a game is”: when he has already played other games, say, or “has watched the play ‘with unders[a|t]anding[”|’] ˇgames played by other people, and

the like
so forth

. And only then will he be

in a position
able

to ask relevantly, in learning the game, “What's th[at|is] called?” –

that is
namely

, this piece.
We may say: it is sensible for there is only sense in someone's to asking what ˇfor the name is only if he knows already what to dow with it. the name.
For [W|w]e can imagine also that the person who is we I have asked, answers, “decide on the give it the a name yourself”, – and then the person whoˇever asked the question I whshould have to make himself responsible for everything catch on to provide everything himmyself.

(2015–) Wittgenstein Source Bergen Nachlass Edition (WS-BNE). Edited by the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen under the direction of Alois Pichler. In: Wittgenstein Source, curated by Alois Pichler (2009–) and Joseph Wang-Kathrein (2020–). (N) Bergen: WAB.