# To work (to function)



## poisongift

Which Russian word/words can I use in order to say "to work" in the sense of something functioning or a phenomenon taking place?

When I first learned the language I was taught that "работать" meant "to work" but I assumed that this was in the sense of "to labor" or "to do a job", etc.

What if I wanted to say "How does a computer work?", i.e., asking someone to explain the details of how a computer functions?

Does "работать" make sense? Is there a better verb?


----------



## Maroseika

Yes, with computer and many other devises it works pretty well: "Как работает компьютер?".
Another two words are устроен and действует: "Как устроен (действует) двигатель внутреннего сгорания?".


----------



## Drink

But "устроен" is completely different, it is closer to the English "built" or "set up". Although it would be weird to use these English words in a question like "Как *устроен* двигатель?"

Essentially, "работать" is a very close equivalent to "work". In addition to the examples mentioned, it also works in cases like "Телевизор *работает*, или сломался?" ("Does the TV *work* or is it broken?"). Incidentally, it can also be used in the sense of "work" I just used myself in the previous sentence: "Слово «работает» *работает* в таких случаях." You can also say things like "Музей *работает* сегодня, или закрыт?" ("Is the museum open today, or is it closed?"), where in English you would probably not use the word "work".

The word "действовать" (whose basic meaning is to "act") is a much more limited equivalent. You can say, "Как *действует* двигатель?" and "Двигатель *действует* или нет?", but only for certain types of things. And you cannot say "Слово «действует» *действует* в таких предложениях." or "Музей *действует* сегодня."


----------



## Maroseika

Drink said:


> But "устроен" is completely different, it is closer to the English "built" or "set up". Although it would be weird to use these English words in a question like "Как *устроен* двигатель?"


I meant the answer to the the questions Как устроен and Как работает двигатель would be more or less the same - how it functions.
And I understand that the question is exactly about this sense of работать - to function (as in the example with computer).


----------



## rur1920

Drink said:


> But "устроен" is completely different, it is closer to the English "built" or "set up".


No difference to be seen. Once it is set up, it works according to the way it is set up. The two are identical in effects one seeks to consider. So, they have the same meaning. In Russian, at least.


----------



## Drink

Maroseika said:


> I meant the answer to the the questions Как устроен and Как работает двигатель would be more or less the same - how it functions.
> And I understand that the question is exactly about this sense of работать - to function (as in the example with computer).



The question was more general than the specific example given of "How does a computer work?".



rur1920 said:


> No difference to be seen. Once it is set up, it works according to the way it is set up. The two are identical in effects one seeks to consider.



For the simple question of "how?", it is the same, but in other cases it is different:
- "Двигатель устроен так, чтобы выдерживать ниские температуры" (причем здесь как он работает?)
- "Как работает фотосинтез?" (разве он был устроен?)


----------



## rur1920

Drink said:


> The question was more general than the specific example given of "How does a computer work?".


It is impossible to answer general questions, like "how to express that meaning?", just because one does not know beforehand which meanings are not possible to express in a language, and which instead are. Any reasonable question needs a context.


> For the simple question of "how?", it is the same, but in other cases it is different:
> - "Двигатель устроен так, чтобы выдерживать низкие температуры" (причем здесь как он работает?)


A broader meaning. Still, you cannot negate that "устроен" can be used to say questions like "how does a <thing> function" along with "работает". And still, the way the motor works is per the way it is set up, even while it works in low temperatures also per the way it is set up, and the second parallel consequence is the one important here.


> - "Как работает фотосинтез?" (разве он был устроен?)


Yes, it was. By the nature.


----------



## Drink

rur1920 said:


> It is impossible to answer general questions, like "how to express that meaning?", just because one does not know beforehand which meanings are not possible to express in a language, and which instead are. Any reasonable question needs a context.



The way I understood the question is that it was asking how closely the Russian word "работать" corresponds to the English word "work". The computer thing was just an example of a usage that refers to something other than labor.



rur1920 said:


> A broader meaning. Still, you cannot negate that "устроен" can be used to say questions like "how does a <thing> function" along with "работает". And still, the way the motor works is per the way it is set up, even while it works in low temperatures also per the way it is set up, and the second parallel consequence is the one important here.
> 
> Yes, it was. By the nature.



There are different ways of looking at things, but I still feel that it is important to know the meaning behind the meaning.


----------



## rur1920

Drink said:


> There are different ways of looking at things, but I still feel that it is important to know the meaning behind the meaning.


I agree. It is just that I did not see any more difference between работает and устроен than between работает and действует. They are all quite different, yet suitable for the example of an устройство (how to say? an apparatus?) or a машина (machine), even though действует appears slightly less colloquial and slightly less applicable than the other two ones, which is a difficult matter to assess though. At least "как устроен фотосинтез?" is fine to me and findable through Google, though the version with "работает" is twice more represented.


----------



## Drink

rur1920 said:


> устройство (how to say? an apparatus?)



Hard to say. I guess "device" or "apparatus" are close enough, but neither of them is exact (the word "apparatus" is a bit more formal/technical than "device").



rur1920 said:


> At least "как устроен фотосинтез?" is fine to me and findable through Google, though the version with "работает" is twice more represented.



Yet many of the Google results I see for "как устроен фотосинтез" put "устроен" in quotes.


----------



## rur1920

Drink said:


> Hard to say. I guess "device" or "apparatus" are close enough, but neither of them is exact (the word "apparatus" is a bit more formal/technical than "device").


Thank you. Like many non-native speakers, I tend to formal expressions, maybe because they are easier to understand and get in memory, maybe because they spread across languages better (there is аппарат in Russian, but дивайс or девайс only in slang).


> Yet many of the Google results I see for "как устроен фотосинтез" put "устроен" in quotes.


True. For many the nature is a weird or improbable setter-up. At least, one can't play a nature oneself and set up (устроить) photosynthesis, as of now. ;-) Yet even these people used the expression, though the metaphor was not apparently plausible to them.


----------



## Drink

rur1920 said:


> True. For many the nature is a weird or improbable setter-up. At least, one can't play a nature oneself and set up photosynthesis, as of now. ;-) Yet even these people used the expression, though the metaphor was not apparently plausible to them.



To me, it shows that the usage of the word is deviating from its perceived meaning.


----------



## rur1920

Drink said:


> To me, it shows that the usage of the word is deviating from its perceived meaning.


Do you see any more deviation than I mentioned? For me, the question "how photosynthesis is constructed" raises only the question, "by whom", but otherwise it must be fine, because the apparatus to make this process indeed consists of many parts that can be brought together, and what I think of is indeed the "apparatus", however incorrect my thinking is. On the other hand, "как устроено бумаговарение" is a meaningless question to me (no results in Google, by the way).


			
				rur1920 said:
			
		

> For many the nature is a weird or improbable setter-up.


----------



## Maroseika

rur1920 said:


> For me, the question "how photosynthesis is constructed" raises only the question, "by whom",



Probably it sounds weird just because устроен can be rather applied to "devises" than to processes: как устроен человеческий глаз? sounds perfect to me and doesn't presume any creator other than nature.


----------



## igusarov

rur1920 said:


> It is just that I did not see any more difference between работает and устроен than between работает and действует.


The way I see it, the primary meaning of "*устроен*" is about the *static structure* of the thing, while "*работает*" is about *dynamic processes*. Yes, in some situations these verbs can be used interchangeably because the intended meaning is clear from the context. But if taken literally, these verbs are quite different:

"Как устроен двигатель?" Literal answer: there is a metal tube. A piston of the matching size is inserted into the open end of the tube. The other side of the tube is closed. A spark plug and a fuel injector are inserted into the closing cap.

"Как работает двигатель?" Literal- the gas is injected into the combustion chamber, then it is ignited by the spark. The pressure raises, and it pushes the piston, which turns the crank.


----------



## rur1920

igusarov said:


> But if taken literally, these verbs are quite different:
> 
> "Как устроен двигатель?" Literal answer: there is a metal tube. A piston of the matching size is inserted into the open end of the tube. The other side of the tube is closed. A spark plug and a fuel injector are inserted into the closing cap.
> 
> "Как работает двигатель?" Literal- the gas is injected into the combustion chamber, then it is ignited by the spark. The pressure raises, and it pushes the piston, which turns the crank.


"Как действует двигатель?" Literal answer (if overly simple ;-) ): через трансмиссию крутящий момент передаётся с коленчатого вала на колёса.
Please see that my note was comparative rather than absolute: I compared two differences and said that one is no more out-standing than the other.


----------



## rur1920

Maroseika said:


> Probably it sounds weird just because устроен can be rather applied to "devises" than to processes: как устроен человеческий глаз? sounds perfect to me and doesn't presume any creator other than nature.


Yes. So, probably, фотосинтез simply happens to mean an apparatus rather than a process per metonymy in "vulgar" usage. I must confess, for me this metonymy is perfect.


----------

