“What is the relation between names and what they name || the named?” – Well, what is it? Look at the || our language game (4), or at some other language game; you can see there || that's where you'll see what this relation consists in. This relation may, among various other things, || Among various things, this relation may consist also in the fact that hearing the name calls up an image of the thing named in our minds || in our minds an image of the thing¤, and it sometimes consists among other things also in the fact that the name is written on the thing named, or that it || the name is uttered when the thing named is pointed to.
     But what does the word “this” name || is the word “this” a name of in the language game (11), or ¤ the word “that” in the ostensive explanation “that || in the ostensive explanation “this is called …”? Well, if you don't want to introduce || give rise to || produce confusion it is best not to say that these words name anything. – And, curiously enough, it was once said of the word “this” that it is the real name. Everything else that we call “name” is so || being a name only in an inexact, approximate sense.
     This curious view has its origin in a tendency to sublimate – as we might call it – the logic of our language. The proper answer to it is: We || we call widely different things “names”; the word “name” characterises many different sorts || kinds of use of a word || uses of words, related to one another || each other in many different ways; – but among these kinds of use || uses is not that of the word “this”.
      It is true that we often, for instance || e.g. in giving an ostensive definition, point to the || a thing named and in doing so pronounce the || its name. And similarly we pronounce, || – for instance || e.g. in an ostensive definition, || – the word “this” as we point || in pointing to the || a thing. And the word “this” and a name can often have the same syntax || stand in the same context: we say “Fetch this”, and also “Fetch Paul”. – But it is precisely one of the characteristic features of a name that its meaning || it is explained by the demonstrative “That || This is N” (or “That || This is called ‘N’”). But do we also explain, “That is called ‘this’”, or perhaps even “This is called ‘this’”? || “This is called ‘this’”?