But the expression, ˇthat saying that a sentence in (b) is an analys[ed|is] form of one ˇa sentence in (a)” ˇin an analysed form, ˇcan easily misleads us into thinking that th[e|is] first form is the/more fundamentalˇ one; ˇthat it reve[la|al]s for the first time what is meant by the other[,| ;] etc.. We thinkrather: that anyone the man who possesses has knows only the unanalysed form ˇsentence, is in want ˇshort of
an
the
analysis. But may can't I not say that the latter person
misses
loses
an aspect of the matter, just a much asch the former does?
      Let's us suppose alter the game ˇin ([4|5]7) altered so in such a way so that the [g|n]ames in it [r|d]on[o|']t stand for squares of a single colour but for rectangles consisting of two such squares. One of these rectangles of the form, half red, half green,
is
would be
called “u”; one, half green, half white, “v”; and one, half white, half black, “w”. Might Couldn't we not imagine people who had names for such colour-combinations but not for the individual colours? Think of the cases in which we say, : “This
combination
arrangement
of colours (e.g. the tricolourˇ for instance) has a
peculiar
very special
character”. of it's own”.
      To what extent are Should we say that With what right can it be said that the signs of this language game in still need of to be analys[is|ed] analysis? In fact, to what extent can ˇthis game ([4|5]7) be substituted replaced for this one by the game one in (57)? – It is in fact a different language game;
although
even though
it is related to ˇthe game ([4|5]7).