51
We said that the sentence
, “Nothung has a
sharp edge”
, has
even
Nothung has
already been broken to pieces.
Now
th
[at|is]
is so because in this language game a name is
also used
in the absence of its bearer.
But
w we can imagine a language game with names
(
[i|w]ith signs
we
should
certainly also call
“names
”) in which names are
use
d only in the presence of their bearers.
Suppose
, say, [f|t]hat we were watching a surface
on which coloured spots
were
are
mov
[i|e]ng ˇabout (as on the screen
a cinema).
There are three such spots, which slowly chan
ge their shapes
and positions.
Sup
pose I
ha
[d|ve]
n
amed them “P”,
“Q” and “R” by giving
os
[e|t]ensive definitions.
Our
30
Our language
describes the changes of these three, and
sentences
like
, : “Do
you see how P is contracting now and is approaching
R?”. –
Now in this language
names are
supposed to be used as sy
nonyms
for the demonstrative pronoun “this”
together with (the
plus pointing to a coloured
spot
).
ˇThus
[i|I]f one of the three spots disappears,
then I
may can't say “P has
disappeared” – any more than I should say “this
has disappeared” – but we
ˇmight say
rather,
“
[T|t]he
letter ‘
[p|P]’
drops
is out
of use”
.
In this language
say, a
name loses its meaning
its bearer
ceases to exist, and
the ˇthere is something
words signs words ˇwhich corresponds to
the words “P”, “Q” and
“R”
always have something corresponding to
them as long as they have any meaning
– use in the
/language game – at all.
(For in the sentence
,
“‘P’
drops is
out
⌊”⌋ of use, the sign
““‘P’
””
occurs, but not “P”; and I assume that we
do
'_n
[o|']t speak about past
,
another
some mode of expression
.)
In this language game, then, a name
can
no't
cease to have a bearer; only this isn't an
y
advantage asset of the language game
[,| ;] for
even when it hasn't a bearer a name
may
can have a purpose, use, i.e.
meaning
ˇ without having a bearer.
(
ˇAnd
[T|t]hus
,
ˇe.g., the name
“Odysseus” has
meaning
.) for
instance.)