Let a
language game like (3) be || Imagine a language game like
that in (4) played with the help of a
table.
The signs which A gives to B are
now written characters: || .
B has a table: in the first column are the
written characters
that || which are used in the
game, in the second column pictures of the different
types of building
stones || blocks.
A shows B such a written sign (writes iton a board || tablet,
say || , e.g., on a slate);
B looks it up || finds it in
the table, glances || looks across
at the picture that
lies || lying opposite,
etc..
The table is
thus || therefore is a rule which he conforms
to || follows in carrying out the commands.
–
The looking up of || Looking
up the
picture || pictures || a picture in
the || this
table is something one learns by training || one's trained
in, and a part of this training
consists perhaps || may consist
in the pupil's learning to
travel
with || draw his finger from left to right in the
table, || across the table from left to right,
i.e., in his learning,
so to speak || as
it were || you might put it, to draw a row of
horizontal lines. Suppose now that various ways of reading a table were introduced; namely once || at one time || sometimes || first, as above, according to the || this diagram: ) another time || then again, according to this diagram: ) or this:
)
61
A diagram of this sort is
added || appended to the table
as || and is a rule showing how
it || the table is to be
used. Can't || But can't we now imagine further rules to explain this one || rule? On the other hand, was the first table incomplete without the diagram ) ?
And are the others without
theirs? || And so, are the other (abnormal)
tables incomplete without their diagrams?
|