We
might
may
say the concept “game” is a concept with
blurred
hazy
edges. – “But is a
blurred
hazy
concept a concept at all?” – Is an indistinct blurred photograph a picture of a
man
person
at all? – In fact, can one always is it always ˇdesirable to replace an indistinct photograph picture by a distinct sharp one to advantage? Isn't what is an the indistinct ˇone often just
what
the thing
we want?
      Frege compares the concept
to
with
a district, and says: a district without clear boundaries you could cannot call a district at all. Th[at|is] means,
I suppose
no doubt
, we couldn't do anything with it. But is it meaningless to say,
Stand
Stay
roughly
approximately
there”? Imagine I were was standing stood yourself standing ˇ in a street with another person in a place someone ◇◇◇ and sa[id|ying] this. In doing so saying it I shall you will not draw any even draw any boundary, but rather just make say a pointing movement with my hand, gesture just exactly as though I you were pointing
at
to
a particu[,|l]ar
spot
point
. And
this is how
in just this way
we may explain ˇto someone, say, what a game is. We give ˇhim examples and want them in a certain sense to be understoodˇ in a certain way. – But with b[h|y] this expression when I say this I do not mean: that he is
now
supposed
to see what is ˇin comm[l|o]n in ˇto all these examples, ˇ, the common factor being one which, for some reason or other, I could not ˇ
am
was
unable to
point out
express
ˇ – but ˇI mean that he is now to use these examples in a particular way. Giving examples is ˇhere not ◇◇◇ an indirect
way
means
of explaining, in ˇused for want of a better one. For any general explanation can be misunderstood too ˇ as well. , ˇjust as examples can. That's just is how we play the gameˇ is played. (I mean the language game with the word “game”.).