One might say then: The ostensive definition explains the use – the meaning – of the word if it is already clear in general what kind 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 “That's || This is called ‘sepia’” will help me to get an understanding of || make me understand the word. – And you can say this if you don't forget || as long as you remember that there are all sorts of questions connected with || all sorts of questions now attach to the word || words “to know” or || and “be clear”.
     You have to know something already in order to be able to || before you can ask what it || something is called. But what do you have to know?
     If you show someone the king in a chess game || set of chess men and say, “That || This 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 form || shape of the king-piece. || king. We can imagine that he has learned the rules of the game without ever having been shown a real chessman. The form || shape of the || a chessman corresponds here to the sound or the shape of a word.
     But we can also imagine someone's having learned the game without ever having learned or formulated rules. 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, “That || This is the king”, if, for instance, you are showing him chess pieces || men of an unusual form || shape. And this explanation teaches him the use of the figure || piece only because, as we ¤ might say, the place in which it was put was already prepared. || we had in the game already prepared the place in which it was to be put. Or again: We shall say the explanation teaches him the use, only when the place is already || has already been prepared. And it is so here || prepared in this case not because the person to whom we are giving the explanation already knows rules, but because he has already mastered the game in a different sense. || in a different sense, already mastered a game.
     Consider still another case: I explain the game of chess to someone and begin by showing him a pieceand || , saying, “That || This is the king. – He || It can move in this and this way, etc. etc.”. – In this case we shall say: the words “That || This is the king” (or, “That || This is called ‘king’”) are an explanation || explain the use of the word || words “the king”, only if the person learning || we teach already “knows what a piece in a game is”: when he has already played other games, say, or “has watched the play with understanding” || watched ‘with understanding’ games played by other people, and so forth || the like. And only then will he be able || in a position to ask relevantly, in learning the game, “What's that || this called?” – namely || that is, this piece.
     We may say: it is sensible for someone to ask what the name is only || there is only sense in someone's asking for the name if he knows already || already knows what to do with it. || the name.
     We || For we can imagine also that the person who is asked answers, “decide on the name yourself”, – and then the person who || whoever asked the question would have to make himself responsible for everything || catch on to everything himself || ¤ I have asked, answers, “give it the || a name yourself”, – and then I should have to provide everything myself.