What is meant by saying of the elements that we can ascribe neither being nor not-being to them || that we can ascribe neither being nor not-being to the elements? – One || We might say something like this: If everything that we call being or not-being consists in the fact that connections hold or do not hold || connections holding or not holding between the elements, then there is no sense in speaking of the being (not-being) of an element; just as, if everything that we call “destroying” consists in the separating of elements || tearing elements apart || apart elements, it has no sense to speak of destroying an element.
     But we should like || we || our wish to say: you || we can't ascribe || attribute being to || predicate being of an element, because if it were not || didn't exist, then you couldn't even name it || it couldn't even be named, and so you could say nothing about || therefore nothing could be said of it. – Let us || Let's consider an analogous case, though, which will make the || this matter || thing clearer: || . There is one thing of which you can't say either that it is 1 m long or that it is not 1 m long, and that is the standard meter in Paris. – But we have not || haven't attributed any peculiar property to the standard meter, of course, || , of course, by saying this we haven't attributed any curious property to the standard meter, but have only indicated its peculiar role in the game || process || procedures of measuring with the meter-rule. – Let us || Let's suppose || imagine samples of colours preserved in Paris in a similar way to the standard meter || the way the standard meter is. Then || And || : and we explain e.g. that “sepia” means the colour of the standard sepia that is preserved there in || under a vacuum. Then it will have no sense to say of this sample either that it has this colour or that it hasn't it.

37

¤
     We may express this in this way || This may be expressed thus: This || the sample is a part || an instrument of the language with || by means of which we make statements about colours. It is not something described in this game, || It is, in this game, || In this game it is not something which is described, but a means of describing || description. – And the same thing holds of an element in the language game in № (57) when, in naming it || assigning a name to it, we utter || say the word “R”: We || we have thereby given to this thing || object a role in our language game, it is now a means of description. And the statement, || : “If it were not || didn't exist, then it could have no name”, now says as much and as little as, || : “If this thing didn't exist, then we couldn't use it in our game.” – What, apparently || as might seem must exist, belongs to the || is an instrument of language. It plays in our game the role of a paradigm || the role of a paradigm in our game || the role of a paradigm: || ; of that with which a comparison is made. || the role of a standard with which something's compared. And to state this may be to make || making an important statement. But it is nevertheless a statement concerning our language– || , our mode || method of describing.