Let Imagine a language game like ˇthat in (5) ([3|4]) be played with the help of a table. The signs which A gives ˇto B are no[t|w] written characters[:| .] B has a table: in the first column are the w[t|r]itten characters

which
that

are used in the game, in the second ˇcolumn pictures of ˇthe different types of buildings

blocks
stones

. A shows B such a written sign (writes itˇ, e.g., on a board tablet, slate say); B

finds it
looks it up

in the table, glances ˇlooks across at the p[c|i]cture that lies lying opposite, [,|e]tc.. The table ˇtherefore is thus a rule which he

follows
conforms to

in carrying out the commands. – The [l|L]ooking up of the a pictures in th[e|is] table is somethingch one's learns by train[in|ed]gˇ in, and a part of this training ˇmay consists perhaps in the pupi[,|l]'s learning to

draw
travle with

his finger ˇacross the table from left to right in the table,, i.e., in his learning, so as to speak it were you might ˇput it, to draw a row of horizontal lines.
Suppose now that various ways of reading a table were int[or|ro]duced; namely once at on[t|e] time sometimes first, as above, according to th[e|is] diagram:

then again,
another time

according to this diagram:

or this:

A diagram of this sort is

appended
added

to the table as ˇand is a rule showing how it ˇthe table is to be used.
But [C|c]an't we now imagine further rules to explain this

rule
one

? On the other hand, was the first tab[e|l]e incomplete without the diagram

And so, are the other (abnormal) tables incomplete without their diagrams?
And are the others without theirs?

(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.