What is meant by saying of the elements that we can ascribe neither being nor not-being to them? –

We
One

might say something like this: If everything that we call being or not-being consists in the fact that connections holding or do or not holding between the elements, then there is no sense in speaking of the being (not-being) o[r|f] an element; just as, if everything that we call “destroying” consists in the separating tearing apart of elemtns elements ap, it has no sense to speak of destroying an element.
But we our we should should like wish to say:

we
you

can't ascribe atribute predicate being to of an element, because if it

didn't exist
were not

, then you it couldn't even name it be named, and so you could say therefore [t|n]othing ˇcould be said of about it. – dLet' us consider an analogous case, though, which will make th[e|is]

thing
matter

clearer[:| .] There is one thing of which you can't say either that it is 1 m long or that it isch not 1 m long, and that is the standard meter in Paris. – But ˇ, of course, we have n[o|']t thereby ascribed by saying this we haven't attributed any peculiar ˇany curious property to the standard meter, of course, but have only indicated its peculiar role in the game process // procedures // of measuring with the meter-rule. – dLet' us

imagine
suppose

samples of colours pre[v|s]er[s|v]ed in Paris in a similar the way to the standard meterˇ is[.|:] Then And ˇand we explain ˇe.g. that “sepia” means the colour of the standard sˇepeia that is preserved there

under
in

a vacuum. Then it will have no se sense to say of this sample either that it has this colour or that it hasn't it.

it.

This may be expressed thus
We may express this in this way

the
This

sample is

an instrument
a part

of the language with ˇby means of which we make statements about colours. ˇIn this game [I|i]t is, in this game, not something ˇwhich is described in this game,, but a means of descri[bing|ption]. – And the same thing holds of an element in ˇthe language game ˇin № ([4|5]7) when, in naming it ˇassigning a name to it, we

say
utter

the word “R”: [W|w]e have thereby given to this

object
thing

a role in our language game, it is now a means of descri[t|p]tion. And the statement, : “If it

didn't exist
were not

, then it could have no name”, ˇnow says as much and as little as, : “If this thing didn't exist, then we couldn't use it in our game.” – What,

as might seem
apparently

must exist, belongs to the ˇis an instrument of language. It palyas plays in our game the role of a paradigmˇ in our game: ;

the role of a standard with which something's compared.
of that with which a comparison is made.

And to state this may be toch makeing an importantch statement. But it is nevertheless a statement concerning our language– , our

method
mode

of describing.

(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.