If || Suppose I say now || Now suppose I say: “my || the broom is standing in the corner”, is this really a statement about the broom handle || stick and the brush? At any rate, one might || may surely substitute for the || this statement || it one which described || described the position of the broom handle || stick and the position of the brush. And this statement is surely a further || more fully analysed form of the first one. || surely this statement is now further analysed. – But why do I call it “further analysed”? – ¤ Well, if the broom is over there, then surely that means that the handle || broomstick and the brush must be there and that they must be in definite positions with reference || a particular relative position to one another; and this was as it were concealed in the meaning of the sentence before || before, as it were, concealed in the meaning of the sentence, and in the analysed form || sentence it is expressed || said. Then does the person who says the broom is standing in the corner mean really || So the person who says the broom is standing in the corner really means that the handle || broomstick and the brush are || are standing there and that the handle || broomstick is sticking in the brush? If we were to ask || asked someone whether he meant that || this, he would probably say that he just hadn't thought about the handle || broomstick in particular or about the brush in particular. And that || this would be the right answer, because || for he wanted to speak neither about the broom handle nor || didn't want to speak about either the broomstick or about the brush in particular. Supposeyou were to say to someone, instead of “Bring me the broom”, || , instead of “Bring me the broom”, you were to say || said to someone “Bring me the broom handle || broomstick and the brush that || which is attached to it”. Isn't the answer to this, || : “Do you want the broom? And why do you express that in such an absurd || put it in this queer way?” || And why take such an absurd way of saying so?” – Will he understand the more fully analysed sentence better, then || So will he understand the sentence better in its analysed form? – This sentence – one || we might say – accomplishes the same as the ordinary sentence || one, but by a more troublesome || tortuous route. – Imagine a language game in which someone was || is given orders to bring certain things made up of several parts, or to move them about, or something of the sort || etc.. || fetch or to move about certain objects which are composed of various parts. And two methods of playing it: in the one a) the complex things (brooms, chairs, tables etc.) have names, as in (19); in the other b) only the parts have names and the whole is described by aid || means of them. – To what extent || In what way is an order of || in the second game an analysed form of an order in the first || an order in the first analysed? Is the former embedded || contained in the latter || second embedded || contained in the first and is it extracted || brought out by analysis? – Certainly, you take the broom to pieces || the structure of the broom is revealed if || when you separate the handle || broomstick from || and the brush; but does the command to bring the brush consist || it follow that the command to bring the brush consists therefore of corresponding parts?