But the expression, “a sentence in (b) is an analysed form || analysis of one in (a)” || the expression that || saying that a sentence in (b) is a sentence in (a) in an analysed form, easily misleads || can easily mislead us into thinking that the first || this form is the more fundamental one; that it reveals 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 || the unanalysed sentence only, is in want || short of the || an analysis. – But may I not || can't I say that the latter person loses || misses an aspect of the matter, just a much as the former does?
     Let us || Let's suppose the game (47) altered so || in such a way || alter the game in (57) so that the names in it do not || don'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, would be || is called “u”; one, half green, half white, “v”; and one, half white, half black, “w”. Might we not || Couldn't we imagine people who had names for such colour-combinations but not for the individual colours? Think of the cases in which we say, || : “This arrangement || combination of colours (e.g. the tricolour || the tricolour for instance) has a very special || peculiar character”. || of its own”.
     To what extent are the signs of this language game in need of analysis || Should we say || With what right can it be said the signs of this language game still need to be analysed || analysis? In fact, to what extent can game (57) be substituted for this one || this game be replaced by the game || one in (57)? – It is in fact a different language game; even though || although it is related to the game (57).