58
But what d
[e|o]es it mean, that we can't explain
(i.e. describe) these elements but only name
them?
Th
[at|is]
m
[g|i]ght mean,
say, that the description of a
complex, if this complex
consist
[e|s]d[,| (]in a limiting case
[,|)] of only
one element square, is simply the name of
the coloured square.
// This might
mean, say, that when a complex consists, in a limiting case, of only one
square, then its description is simply the name of
coloured square.
might say
here – although this easily leads to all sorts of
philosophical supers
[i|t]itions – that a sign
[|“]r”
, or
“
[s|b] b”
etc., may sometimes be a word and sometimes a
sentence.
But whether it
[“| ‘]is a word or a
sentence
[”| ’] depends on the
situation in which it is uttered or written.
If
ˇe.g. A has to describe for
B complexes
[f|o]f coloure
[s|d] squares and
if he uses
here the word “
r”
,
then we may say that the word is here a description – a
sentence.
But if
ˇe.g. he
ˇis
memoris
[es|ing], say, the words and
their what
they mean
ings, or if he is teaching
the use of
the words and utters them
in connection with ostensive
teaching while giving with the
appropriate gesture,
then we shall not say that
they are sentences
here.
In this situation the word “
r”
, for instance, is not
a description; you
are
nam[e|ing] an element
◇ with
it
, : – but
it ˇthat's why it would be
st
[a|r]ange to say
on that account
here th
[t|a]t the element can
only be
named.
Naming and describing
, in fact, are not on the same
level: naming is a preparation for describing.
When you have With In
[[n|N]|n]am
[ed|ing]
something
youch we
haven'
n[o|']t haven't
yet made a move in the language game, – an
[d|y] more than
you
' have made a move in
36
in a chess
game by
setting a putting a pieceˇ on the
board.
We may say: with the naming by
giving
of a thing ˇa name
nothingch
ha' yet been done.
It
hasn't even yet a name
,
– except in the game.
Th
[at|is]
is
also what Frege meant
by saying that a word has meaning only in
the context of
its connection
with |
a sentence.