“But if the concept ‘game’ is
, in this way, unbounded
unlimited in this way
, then you don't really know what you mean by ‘game’.” – If I give the descriptio description, : “The ground was covered with
plants
flowers
”, will you say that that I don't know what I am talking about
as
so
long as I can't give a definition of a plant?
      Socrates (in     ): “You know it and can speak
Greek
Hellenic
, so ˇsurely you must surely be able to say it.” – No. To [|]know it[|] does not mean here to be able to say it. Th[at|is]ch is_ n[o|']tˇ, here, our criterion of knowing here.
      An explanation of what I
meant
mean
would be, say, a painted picture and the words, :[T|t]h[at|is] is roughly what the ground looked like”. But I may say also, : perhaps I say: “Th[at|is] is exactly what it looked like”. – Then were exactly these ˇblades of grasses and leaves in these positions there? No, th[at|is] isn't what it means. And I [w|sh]ould should not recognise any picture as
51
a[s|n] exact ˇone in this sense.