ˇNow Suppose If I say now: “

the
mych

broom is standing in the corner”, is this really a statement about the broom

stick
handle

and the brush? At any rate, one

may
might

surely substitute for th[e|is] statement it one which describe[d|s] the position of the broom

stick
handle

and the position of the brush. And ˇsurely this statement is surely a now further more fully analysed. form of the first one. – But why do I call it “further analysed”? –

analysed”? – Well, if the broom is ˇover there, then surely that means that the

broomstick
handle

and the brush must be there and ˇthat they must be in a definite ˇparticular relative positions with reference to one another; and this was ˇbefore , as it were, concealed in the [e|m]eaning of the sentence, before and in the analysed

sentence
form

it is

said
expressed

. Then does So the person who says the broom is standing in the corner means really that the

broomstick
handle

and the brush are ˇare standing there and ˇthat the

broomstick
handle

is sticking in the brush? If we were to asked someone whether he meant th[at|is], he would probably say that he just hadn't thought about the

broomstick
handle

in particular or about the brush in particular. And th[at|is] would be the right answer,

for
because

he ˇdidn't wanted to speak neither about the broomstick handle nor about the brush in particular. Supposeyou were to say to someone, instead of “Bring me the broom”, ˇyou said to someone “Bring me the broom handlestick and the brush

which
that

is attached to it”. Isn't the answer to this, : “Do you want the broom? And why do you express put it in th[at|is] in such an absurd queer way?” // And whay take such an absurd way of saying so? // ” – ˇSo [W|w]ill he understand the more fully analysed sentence better, then ˇin it's analysed form? – This sentence –

we
one

might say – accomplishes the same as the ordinary

one
sentence

, but by a more

tortuous
troublesome

route. – [i|I]magine a language game in which someone

is
was

given orders to bring ˇfetch ˇor to move about certain things objects made up of several ˇwhich are composed of various parts[,|.] or to move them about, or something of the sort etc.. And two methods of playing it: in the one a) the complex things (brooms, chairs, tables etc.) have names, as in (1[3|9]); in the other b) only the parts have names and the whole is described by

means
aid

of them. –

In what way
To what extent

is an order [of| in] the second game an analysed form of an order in the firstˇ analysed? Is the formerch second embedded contained in the latterch first and is it extracted

brought out
extracted

by analysis? – Certainly, you take ˇthe structure of the b[o|r]oom to pieces is reveald if ˇwhen you separate the

broomstick
handle

and
from

the brush; but does ˇit follow that the command to bring the brush consists therefore of corresponding parts?

(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.