I cannot || can't characterize these similarities better than by the word || expression ¤ || find a better || a more appropriate word || name for these similarities than “family similarities || likenesses”; for that || this is the way the different || how the various similarities overlap and cross one another which hold between the members of a family || between the members of a family overlap and cross: build, facial characteristics || features, the colour of the eyes, walk || gait, temperament, etc. etc..– And I shall say the “games” || ‘games’ constitute a family.
     And in the same way the kinds of numbers, for instance, || (e.g.) constitute a family. Why do we call something a “number”? Well, perhaps because it has a – direct – || (direct) kinship with many || to some things whichwe have called numbers in the past || , up to the present, have been called numbers; and thereby, we may say, it receives an indirect connection with || gets related indirectly to other things which we call by the same name. And we extend our concept of number, as we twist fibre on fibre in spinning a thread || in spinning a thread we twist fibre on fibre. And the strength of the thread does not lie in the fact that one fibre runs through the ¤ whole length of it, but in the fact that many fibres overlap.
     But if someone wished || were to say, || said: “Then there is something ¤ common to all these creations; || objects – namely || viz. the disjunction of all these common features || properties”, then I should answer: Here you're || you are merely || just playing with a word. One might || You may just as well say: something runs through the entire || whole thread, namely || – the uninterrupted overlapping of these fibres.