“All [r|R]ight; then for you the concept of number is

explained
defined

as the logical sum of these these single, related ˇinterrelated concepts

–
◇

cardinal number, rational number, real number, etc.

–
◇

and in the same way the concept game as the logical sum of

such & such
the corresponding

partsub-concepts.”

–
–

That needn't not beˇ so. For

we can
I may

give the concept “number” fixed boundaries in this waych, i.e. use the word “number” only to stand as a name for a firmly delimited concept,ˇ with fixed boundaries, but

we can
I may

also use it in such a way that the its extension of the concept is not

fixed
closed

by a boundary. And th[at|is] is

how
the way

we in fact use the word “game”.

In what way
For how

is the concept of a ‘game’

circumscribed
closed

? What is still a game and what is no longer one? ˇWhen does

something
it

begin to be a game, and when does it cease to be one? Can you state the boundaries? ˇsay where the boundary-lines are? No. You can draw some

some
boundary-lines

; for there aren't any drawn ˇas yet. (But th[at|is] has never bothered you, when you have used the word “game”.)
“But then surely there are no rules for the use of the wordˇ is not regulated, the ‘game’ which we play with it

is not regulated
has no rules

.” – It is not

bounded
limited

at every point by rules; but there is aren't any also no rulesˇ, say, for how h[g|i]gh you may throw

a
thech

ball in tennis,

e.g.
for instance

, or how hard, yet tennis is surely a game and it does have ru[e|l]es.

(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.