I can[no|']t characterize these similarities better than by the
expression
word
find
a more appropriate
a better
word
name
for these similarities
than “family
likenesses
similarities
”; for th[at|is] is
how the
the way the different
similarities overlap and cross one another which hold between the members of a family: build,
features
facial characteristics
, ˇthe colour of the eyes,
gait
walk
, temperament, etc. etc..– And I shall say the [|]games[|] constitute a family.
      And in the same way the kinds of numbers
(e.g.)
, for instance,
constitute a family. Why do we call something a “number”? Well, perha[s|p]s because it has a (direct) kinship
to some
with many
things which, ˇup to the present, we have ˇbeen called numbers in the past; and thereby, we may say, it receives an ˇgets related indirectly connection with to other [w|t]hings which we call by the same name. And we extend our concept of number, as we twist fibre on fibre in spining spinning a thread. And the strength of the thread does not lie in the fact that one fibre runs through the
49
through the whole length of it, but in the fact that many fibres overlap.
      But if someone wished were to sa[y,|id]: “Then there is something ˇin common to all these
objects –
creations;
viz.
namelych
the disjunction of all these common
properties
features
”, then I should answer: Here you're are
just
merely
playing with a w[r|o]rd.
You may
One might
just as well say: something runs through the
whole
entire
thread

, namely
the uninterrupted overlapping of these fibres.