Sprachspiel vs. vollständige sprache

The article formulates a criticism of Wittgenstein's later philosophy which, in its substance, I would like to think, is fairly the same as the (hermeneutic) criticism issued by Apel and Habermas in the sixties. Contrary to these philosophers, however, I try to make the point by focusing on the distinction between language game and language, respectively between intralanguage relations of ‘family resemblance’ (between language games) and interlanguage translation relations. The notion of a ‘complete language’ is introduced — ‘completeness’ of a language being, roughly, its possibility in principle of being translated into any (other) language — and the criticism of Wittgenstein is formulated as the allegation that he does not, or will not, acknowledge such a concept of completeness.So far the contents of the first part of the article. The rest of it assembles some hints, remarks and reminders which bear upon the question of the ‘completeness’ of a language. These considerations include comments on the conditions of translatability, on the performative (agent's) knowledge or ‘intention-in-action’ of the acting person, on Habermas' concept of communicative competence and on the notion of a responsible subject of action. It is alleged that to speak of ‘translation’ and ‘reporting an event’ as language games is misleading