​ 
    But couldn't one say that if I speak of a man's angry voice meaning that he was angry & again of his angry voice not meaning that he was angry in the first case the meaning of the description of his voice was much further reaching than in the second case? I will admit that our description in the first case doesn't omit anything & is as complete as though we had said that he really was angry, – but somehow the meaning of the expression then
reaches below
goes beyond
 the surface.

 

(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.



To cite this element you can use the following URL:


BOXVIEW: http://wittgensteinsource.org/BTE/Ms-149,40r[3]_d

RDF: http://wittgensteinsource.org/BTE/Ms-149,40r[3]_d/rdf

JSON: http://wittgensteinsource.org/BTE/Ms-149,40r[3]_d/json