What || Now what do the words of this language denote? – How can this show itself – what they denote – except || What they denote – how is this to appear, unless in the way they are used? And this is what we have described. The expression, “this word denotes that || so & so” would have then to be || now become a part of this description. Or: the description should || is to be put in the form: “The word … denotes …”.
     Now one can certainly shorten || it certainly is possible to condense the description of the use of the word “slab” in this way, and say || into saying that this word denotes this object. That || This is what one would do, for instance, if the question was || were simply || if the question were, for instance, to prevent the misunderstanding of thinking that the word “slab” referred to the kind of building stone that || block which we actually call a “cube”, while || and the particular sort of “reference”this is || , however, i.e. everything else about the use of || all the rest of the game with these words, is || were familiar.
     Similarly one might say that the signs “a”, “b”, “c”, etc. denote numberswhen this removes || , if this is to remove the misunderstanding of thinking that “a”, “b”, “c”, play the role in the || our language which actually is ¤ played by “cube”, “column”, “slab”. And one can say also that “c” denotes this number and not that, – when this is to explain, say, that the letters are to be used in the order “a”, “b”, “c”, “d” etc., and not “a”, “b”, “d”, “c”.
     But because you assimilate || by assimilating in this way the description || descriptions of the use of these words to one another, their use doesn't || uses of words to one another, their uses don't grow || become more similar: || . For, as we have seen, their use is || uses are of widely different sorts.