“But if the concept ‘game’ is

, in this way, unbounded
unlimited in this way

, then you don't really know what you mean by ‘game’.” – If I give the descriptio description, : “The ground was covered with

plants
flowers

”, will you say that that I don't know what I am talking about

as
so

long as I can't give a definition of a plant?
Socrates (in ): “You know it and can speak

Greek
Hellenic

, so ˇsurely you must surely be able to say it.” – No. To [“|‘]know it[”|’] does not mean here to be able to say it. Th[at|is]ch is_ n[o|']tˇ, here, our criterion of knowing here.
An explanation of what I

meant
mean

would be, say, a painted picture and the words, : “[T|t]h[at|is] is roughly what the ground looked like”. But I may say also, : perhaps I say: “Th[at|is] is exactly what it looked like”. – Then were exactly these ˇblades of grasses and leaves in these positions there? No, th[at|is] isn't what it means. And I [w|sh]ould should not recognise any picture as

Ts-226,51

a[s|n] exact ˇone in this sense.

(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.