How would you explain to somebodyone what a game is? I imagine you would describe games to him, and you might conclude your

your description with, “all th[at|is] these and the like we call games”. And do you know anych more yourself? Is it

just
perhaps only

that you can't

explain to
tell

the other

man
person

exactly what a game is? But th[at|is] is_ n[o|']t This, however, is n[o|']t ignoranceˇ, however. You don't know the boundaries because none are drawnch. As I sa[y,|id,] you may– , for some purpose or other– , draw a boundary.

But is this necessary to in order to make it into a useful concept?
Do you thereby make it possible for the first time to use the concept?

Not in the least

Not at all
By no means

, – unless it be ˇyou mean, useful for th[at|is] particular purpose. Just as little as the unit of length “1 pace” was ˇnot

useless
ˇgiven a proper use for

the first time

when someone
by the person who

gave the definition, : “1 pace = 75 cm”. And if you say, : “but before that surely it wasn't an exact unit of length”, , then I answer: all right, then it was an [u|i]nexact one. – – Although you haven't yet given me

a
the

definition of exactness.

(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.