# It works, it doesn't work...



## ThomasK

Of course we don't work on May 1, but can you literally say *'it works/ it doesn't work' *(a machine, an attempt perhaps) in your language? Or what verb do you use? 

Please mention the equivalent of 'to work' in your answer...

Dutch: 
- *het werkt, het functioneert *(a machine mainly)
- *het lukt *(refers to the word _luck _in English, but I cannot find a real equivalent now: we are lucky that it works ??? )


----------



## mataripis

The present day Filipino uses "Gumana" (it works) but the older word used in rural areas is "Kumilos" (it moves/works). So it doesnt work is "Di gumana" or "Di kumilos".


----------



## ThomasK

And is _gumana _the word that you still use to refer to working (with hands and mind ;-)?


----------



## mataripis

ThomasK said:


> And is _gumana _the word that you still use to refer to working (with hands and mind ;-)?


 For machines and electronic devices only. Working with hands in Tagalog uses  the word "Igawa" from word Gawa(work). Using mind the term gumana can be used as in "Gumana ang isip" (mind operates).


----------



## ThomasK

I see. But would you in some way associate the two with one another? Could you combine both with 'hard' for example? Do you consider them synonyms somehow?

I came across words based on the Latin and Greek equivalent: 
- Greek *ergon*: in _energy, liturgy_, also related with Dutch _werken
- _Latin _*operare*: _in_ opera, operation, oeuvre, ... _


----------



## arielipi

Hebrew:
עובד\ת oved/et (m/f) for its working
לא עובד\ת lo oved/et (m/f) for not working.

פועל\ת po'el/et can replace oved/et


----------



## ThomasK

But then: is _oved _in Hebrew the common word for working with hands and/or mind?

BTW: can you derive other words from your equivalent of _work _by adding prefixes, etc., or in some other way?


----------



## arielipi

1) what does it mean to work with mind?
2) oved is the common word for work.
3) avoda is 'work'/'job'. and there are other derivatives.


----------



## mataripis

ThomasK said:


> I see. But would you in some way associate the two with one another? Could you combine both with 'hard' for example? Do you consider them synonyms somehow?
> 
> I came across words based on the Latin and Greek equivalent:
> - Greek *ergon*: in _energy, liturgy_, also related with Dutch _werken
> - _Latin _*operare*: _in_ opera, operation, oeuvre, ... _


They can be of the same meaning but with different usage. The term "Gumana"/Paganahin" came from Spanish "Ganar" and i think most Filipinos can understand this word.The other Tagalog words are clear to native Tagalog speakers. Combining both with 'hard' is possible but in each case use only one term. a.) hard work= mahirap na gawain (hands/machines)  b.) Difficult problem to solve= Suliraning mahirap lutasin  sorry i cannot use the word "gumana" and "kumilos" with these case.


----------



## ThomasK

arielipi said:


> 1) what does it mean to work with mind?
> 2) oved is the common word for work.
> 3) avoda is 'work'/'job'. and there are other derivatives.


Ok, these are the answers, and some more questions ;-): 
(1) to think - and to make money using that! 
(3) What kind of derivations were you thinking of?


----------



## arielipi

1) oved is for the statement 'working', but is referred to physical working; say active. 
theres no special word for working with mind as in working with hands. instead we say khoshev for thinking and one is making money with his brain הוא עושה כסף עם המוח שלו hu ose kesef im hamo'akh shelo.

3) עיבוד ibud compilation/processing. עבד eved slave. עבדות avdut slavery.


----------



## ThomasK

_Avdut _reminds me of _robot_, which is based on the Slavic word _rabota _(or ...), so I read... Working has never been a pleasure, has it?


----------



## apmoy70

In Greek:

To work/function (for a machine): *«Λειτουργώ»* [litur'ɣo] < Classical verb *«λειτουργέω/λειτουργῶ» leitourgéō (uncontracted) / leitourgô (contracted)* (alt. spelling *«λῃτουργῶ» lētourgô*) < compound, neut. noun *«λῄιτον» lḗitŏn* --> _town-hall_ (ultimately from masc. noun *«λᾱός» lāós* & *«λῃός» lēós* --> _people_, with obscure etymology) + neut. noun *«ἔργον» érgŏn* --> _work_ < archaic *«ϝέργον» wérgŏn*, Aetolian Elean *«ϝάργον» wárgŏn*, whence Athena's epithet *«ϝαργάνα» wărgánă* (PIE *werǵ-, _work_).
Colloquially the v. associated with the functionality of a machine, is *«δουλεύω»* [ðu'levo] < Classical v. *«δουλεύω» douleúō* --> _to be a slave, serve_ < masc. noun *«δοῦλος» doûlŏs* --> _slave, servant_ < Mycenaean **do-e-ro* (with obscure etymology, possibly an Anatolian -Lydian, Carian, loan). So:
The question "does the machine work/function?" in Greek is *«λειτουργεί;»* [litur'ʝi?] (3rd p. sing. present ind.), and colloquially, *«δουλεύει;»* [ðu'levi?] (3rd p. sing. present ind.).
Edit: It doesn't work/function: *«Δεν λειτουργεί»* [ðen litur'ʝi] or *«δεν δουλεύει»*  [ðen  ðu'levi]. The structure is: proclitic negation particle *«δεν»*  [ðen] (used in clauses with indicative mood) + verb


----------



## ThomasK

[#12 extra] Is this a coincidence : Hebrew _*avdut*_, Greek _*δουλεύω, *_Slavic _*/rabota/ *_(but I am not so sure about the latter...): working seems bad for one's health. ;-)


----------



## arielipi

My guess is that since those who worked in old times were slaves, work was related to them (the higher class people didnt work, only hired).


----------



## Outsider

In Portuguese the basic word is *"funcionar", to function*.

In certain contexts one also says *"servir", to serve*. For example, to say "that will do", or "that's good enough".

Of machines one can sometimes also say *"trabalhar", to work*.


----------



## arielipi

Outsider said:


> In Portuguese the basic word is *"funcionar", to function*.
> 
> In certain contexts one also says *"servir", to serve*. For example, to say *[1]*"that will do", or "that's good enough".
> 
> Of machines one can sometimes also say *"trabalhar", to work*.



Thanks for reminding me. 
servant in hebrew is משרת mesharet. שירות sherut is service. משרה misra is job, position.
משרת mesharet can also be serving (as in army service).
[1] also applies in hebrew, that will do.
לשרת lesharet is to serve.
שירותים sherutim is bathroom (but not the bath part of it, the other use).


----------



## apmoy70

apmoy70 said:


> In Greek:
> 
> To work/function (for a machine): *«Λειτουργώ»* [litur'ɣo] < Classical verb *«λειτουργέω/λειτουργῶ» leitourgéō (uncontracted) / leitourgô (contracted)* (alt. spelling *«λῃτουργῶ» lētourgô*) < compound, neut. noun *«λῄιτον» lḗitŏn* --> _town-hall_ (ultimately from masc. noun *«λᾱός» lāós* & *«λῃός» lēós* --> _people_, with obscure etymology) + neut. noun *«ἔργον» érgŏn* --> _work_ < archaic *«ϝέργον» wérgŏn*, Aetolian Elean *«ϝάργον» wárgŏn*, whence Athena's epithet *«ϝαργάνα» wărgánă* (PIE *werǵ-, _work_).
> Colloquially the v. associated with the functionality of a machine, is *«δουλεύω»* [ðu'levo] < Classical v. *«δουλεύω» douleúō* --> _to be a slave, serve_ < masc. noun *«δοῦλος» doûlŏs* --> _slave, servant_ < Mycenaean **do-e-ro* (with obscure etymology, possibly an Anatolian -Lydian, Carian, loan). So:
> The question "does the machine work/function?" in Greek is *«λειτουργεί;»* [litur'ʝi?] (3rd p. sing. present ind.), and colloquially, *«δουλεύει;»* [ðu'levi?] (3rd p. sing. present ind.).
> Edit: It doesn't work/function: *«Δεν λειτουργεί»* [ðen litur'ʝi] or *«δεν δουλεύει»*  [ðen  ðu'levi]. The structure is: proclitic negation particle *«δεν»*  [ðen] (used in clauses with indicative mood) + verb


I apologize for quoting myself but I forgot to add that the formal v. for _work_ is *«εργάζομαι»* [er'ɣazome] < Classical deponent v. *«ἐργάζομαι» ĕrgắzŏmæ* --> _to work manual labour, work at a trade/business_ < *«ἔργον» érgŏn* --> _work _(see above) + suffix for medio-passive verbs.
*«Εργάζομαι»* [er'ɣazome] can't be applied to a machine it'd sound awkward.


----------



## ThomasK

It is interesting to see how different languages distinguish between different kinds of meanings of work (or whatever is related with that), whereas others seem to keep it simple. We always tend to think that all those meanings (it works, we work with our hands, we work with our mind and are paid for that, ...) all belong together, belong to one hypernym, but that does not seem so self-evident.


----------



## DearPrudence

In *French*,
for a machine, or even an attempt, we say:
"*fonctionner*" (more formal)
but more commonly: "*marcher*" (literally: _to walk_)
Ex : _"Mon ordinateur ne marche plus.
"Ton exemple ne marche pas vraiment ici."_

So when I heard my mother say:
"Papy ne marche plus" ("Granddad is no longer walking") it sounded strange as it sounded like "Granddad is no longer working (we'll have to change him)


----------



## ThomasK

arielipi said:


> Hebrew:
> עובד\ת oved/et (m/f) for its working
> לא עובד\ת lo oved/et (m/f) for not working.
> 
> פועל\ת po'el/et can replace oved/et


I just read something very interesting, as far as I am concerned: *avud *used to be (is still ?) ambiguous in the Bible in the sense that it can be used with regard to working/ cultivating the land and to the sacred cult (liturgy), if I understood well. Can you confirm that, Arielipi?


----------



## arielipi

ThomasK said:


> I just read something very interesting, as far as I am concerned: *avud *used to be (is still ?) ambiguous in the Bible in the sense that it can be used with regard to working/ cultivating the land and to the sacred cult (liturgy), if I understood well. Can you confirm that, Arielipi?



It still is, but today לשרת lesharet is used more for religious things; ע-ב-ד is more of physical work nowadays.


----------



## ThomasK

Last question then: what kind of objects does _lesharet _get, and which does _avud _get? [Thanks]


----------



## ancalimon

There are many ways to say these in Turkish.

The more common ones are:

(for a machine) çalışıyor (it is running, it is working)
(an attempt) işe yarıyor (it is good for the thing that is being tried)
(an attempt) oluyor (it is happening, )

The opposites are çalışmıyor, işe yaramıyor, olmuyor.


----------



## ThomasK

ancalimon said:


> ((an attempt) işe yarıyor (it is good for the thing that is being tried)
> (an attempt) oluyor (it is happening)


Could you explain that a little by referring to an example? 

What is your standard verb for working?


----------



## arielipi

ThomasK said:


> Last question then: what kind of objects does _lesharet _get, and which does _avud _get? [Thanks]



lesharet get strictly for religious things, and can also get for black-ties work[=hard work with hands/legs], or for slavery.
la'avod get for (mostly) work or for slavery (less common now).


----------



## ThomasK

Last question: do you consider (religious) cult and agriculture linked? I see the link with manual work, but does that include farm work, or at least the work on the land?


----------



## ancalimon

ThomasK said:


> Could you explain that a little by referring to an example?
> 
> What is your standard verb for working?



çalışmak: to work, to run
iş: work, job
ol: to happen, to be

*
Bilgisayar çalışıyor. (The computer works - The computer is working)

*
İlaç işe yarıyor; iyileşiyorum. (The medicine is working; I am getting better)

*
Person A: Telefon sinyal almıyor (The phone is not getting signal)
Person B: Şu tepeye çıkıp denesene (Go to that hill and try it)
Person A (after going to hill and receving a signal): Şimdi oldu! (It happened now) ; it is working now.


----------



## arielipi

ThomasK said:


> Last question: do you consider (religious) cult and agriculture linked? I see the link with manual work, but does that include farm work, or at least the work on the land?



Answer is no, they are not linked by default.


----------



## SuperXW

In Chinese:
1. work (job/do the job): 工作
2. work (to try, to solve problem, as in "work on/work out"): Just use other verbs like "solve" 解决, "try" 试试 etc.
_(Sorry I just checked the dictionary. This understanding was not comprehensive. "work on/out" have multiple meanings, not necessarily to mean "try and solve". )_
3. A machine works/doesn't work: Use 是好的/坏的 (is "good"/"bad".)
4. A method works/doesn't work: Use 行/可以/不行/不可以. ("able"/"can"/"unable"/"cannot")


----------



## Sempervirens

ThomasK said:


> Of course we don't work on May 1, but can you literally say *'it works/ it doesn't work' *(a machine, an attempt perhaps) in your language? Or what verb do you use?
> 
> Please mention the equivalent of 'to work' in your answer...
> 
> Dutch:
> - *het werkt, het functioneert *(a machine mainly)
> - *het lukt *(refers to the word _luck _in English, but I cannot find a real equivalent now: we are lucky that it works ??? )



In riferimento a macchine e simili nei tempi recenti si usa il verbo _funzionare _o l'espressione _essere in funzione_. 
Il motore è in funzione/ Il motore funziona.


----------



## ThomasK

@Sempervirens: so no _lavora _in these cases? 

@SuperXW: not sure whether 2 is what I meant. I did not mean: _how do you solve the problem_, but something like: _does the solution work _? Is it easy to distinguish between the different verbs in 3 and 4?. I would have thought that both are interchangeable, could be translated using the same verb... For example: a training has worked well = 4? A game ... = 4 ?


----------



## Outsider

You've just reminded me of two more words in Portuguese:



> [...] something like: _does the solution work _? [...] For example: a training has worked well = 4?


_Resultar_, to *result*.



> A game ... = 4 ?


_Correr_, to *run*. _O jogo correu bem_, literally "the game ran well".


----------



## ahmedcowon

*In Arabic:*

The root *3-m-l* *عمل* is used to form words related to "work"

يعمل ya3mal [f. تعمل ta3mal] = it works
لا يعمل la ya3mal [f. لا تعمل la ta3mal] = it doesn't work


----------



## Sempervirens

ThomasK said:


> @Sempervirens: so no _lavora _in these cases?
> 
> @SuperXW: not sure whether 2 is what I meant. I did not mean: _how do you solve the problem_, but something like: _does the solution work _? Is it easy to distinguish between the different verbs in 3 and 4?. I would have thought that both are interchangeable, could be translated using the same verb... For example: a training has worked well = 4? A game ... = 4 ?



Mah, oggigiorno la frequenza d'uso del verbo funzionare, neologismo a suo tempo, surclassa quella di altri verbi come operare, lavorare e simili. Con tutto ciò, non è detto che per ragioni diverse non possano essere usati altri verbi che ruotano attorno allo stesso concetto.
 L'uso di quest'ultimi potrebbe essere preferito per ragioni personali, per abitudine,  per variare il lessico o per attenersi ad uno specifico vocabolario.
Il discorso sopra detto rimane valido se parliamo di macchine, motori, ma anche - ora che mi ci fai pensare- di lampadine, manufatti che come è noto generalmente non hanno parti in movimento.
Infatti in  italiano non è astruso dire _La lampadina funziona,_ dove il verbo funzionare è usato in senso assoluto. Al contrario, _La lampadina non funziona= La lampadina è bruciata.
_
Secondo me il verbo lavorare si adatta bene a descrivere tutto quanto è in relazione al _lavoro_ che compie un essere vivente.
Posso dire che alcuni operai lavorano tanto e bene, dunque posso dire che sono dei lavoratori.

Non direi mai che un motore endotermico o elettrico è un lavoratore


----------



## SuperXW

ThomasK said:


> @SuperXW: not sure whether 2 is what I meant. I did not mean: _how do you solve the problem_, but something like: _does the solution work _? Is it easy to distinguish between the different verbs in 3 and 4?. I would have thought that both are interchangeable, could be translated using the same verb... For example: a training has worked well = 4? A game ... = 4 ?


Sorry. For "work on" "work out", I just checked the dictionary. My understanding was not comprehensive. 
Apparently these phrases have several possible meanings. Bottom line, we separate those meanings in Chinese. We won't use the word for "work (job)" in these cases.
Bear in mind that "I'll work on it." "Let's work it out." have different subjects comparing to "It works." I'd say the usage of "work" is very diverse in English.

For 3 and 4, I think it's very easy to distinguish if the subject is "an object" or "an action". A machine is an object. An object can be functional or broken. An action cannot be broken.


----------



## ThomasK

Sempervirens said:


> Mah, oggigiorno la frequenza d'uso del verbo funzionare, neologismo a suo tempo, surclassa quella di altri verbi come operare, lavorare e simili. Con tutto ciò, non è detto che per ragioni diverse non possano essere usati altri verbi che ruotano attorno allo stesso concetto.
> L'uso di quest'ultimi potrebbe essere preferito per ragioni personali, per abitudine,  per variare il lessico o per attenersi ad uno specifico vocabolario.
> Il discorso sopra detto rimane valido se parliamo di macchine, motori, ma anche - ora che mi ci fai pensare- di lampadine, manufatti che come è noto generalmente non hanno parti in movimento.
> Infatti in  italiano non è astruso dire _La lampadina funziona,_ dove il verbo funzionare è usato in senso assoluto. Al contrario, _La lampadina non funziona= La lampadina è bruciata.
> _
> Secondo me il verbo lavorare si adatta bene a descrivere tutto quanto è in relazione al _lavoro_ che compie essere vivente.
> Posso dire che alcuni operai lavorano tanto e bene, dunque posso dire che sono dei lavoratori.
> 
> Non direi mai che un motore endotermico o elettrico è un lavoratore


So _funzionare _has become more popular/ common than l_avorare/operare._ But other verbs can be used, so I gather, depending on tastes, habits, .... And I think  I also understand that only human beings _lavoranno _in Italian. But that a light bulb is considered a machine explains that it _funziona_. 

But this reminds me of o_perate:_ _opus _is also work, and _to operate _is often used in a figurative sense, I believe.


----------



## Sempervirens

Opera e lavoro, come credo che tu sappia, non sono esattamente equivalenti. Che poi siano usati ora in senso figurato ora meno, beh questo mi riuscirebbe difficile di metterlo in dubbio. 
Per capire le sottili differenze dei due distinti verbi in italiano, operare e lavorare, ti consiglio di vederne tutte le derivazioni possibili al fine di tracciarne i tratti semantici. 
Così, tanto per cominciare, bisogna chiedersi se _opera e operaio_ sono esattamente la stessa cosa di _lavoro e lavoratore._ 

Credo che il punto della situazione sia appunto questa coppia di verbi che apparentemente sembrerebbero significare la stessa cosa.


----------



## ThomasK

Of course it is true that _opera/ lavora, operare/ lavorare_, are not the same, but they do have a common root, don't they: (kind-of) work. I am mainly exploring where the difference is, and where other languages use a _work _verb in other contexts than ours.  And I am interested in those subtle differences too, though the ultimate details need not be discussed here. I mainly want to have some idea.

_(I happen to be able to read [decipher] Italian, but it would be better if you tried to write in English. We could afterwards quote and correct where necessary, but in this case lots of people will not be able to understand what you mean... You see? But grazie!)_


----------



## Sempervirens

ThomasK said:


> Of course it is true that _opera/ lavora, operare/ lavorare_, are not the same, but they do have a common root, don't they: (kind-of) work. I am mainly exploring where the difference is, and where other languages use a _work _verb in other contexts than ours.  And I am interested in those subtle differences too, though the ultimate details need not be discussed here. I mainly want to have some idea.
> 
> _(I happen to be able to read [decipher] Italian, but it would be better if you tried to write in English. We could afterwards quote and correct where necessary, but in this case lots of people will not be able to understand what you mean... You see? But grazie!)_



Ho capito.


----------



## arielipi

ahmedcowon said:


> *In Arabic:*
> 
> The root *3-m-l* *عمل* is used to form words related to "work"
> 
> يعمل ya3mal [f. تعمل ta3mal] = it works
> لا يعمل la ya3mal [f. لا تعمل la ta3mal] = it doesn't work



The same root is also work in hebrew.
ע-מ-ל


----------



## bazq

arielipi said:


> The same root is also work in hebrew.
> ע-מ-ל



The root has taken slightly different meanings in both languages.
In Arabic if I'm not mistaken, it simply means "to work", whereas in Hebrew it means "to labor, to work very hard".

The same thing with the root 3-b(or v)-d which means "to do" in Aramaic, while meaning "to work" in Hebrew (which uses the root 3-s-h for "to do").


----------



## ahmedcowon

bazq said:


> The root has taken slightly different meanings in both languages.
> In Arabic if I'm not mistaken, it simply means "to work", whereas in Hebrew it means "to labor, to work very hard".
> 
> The same thing with the root 3-b(or v)-d which means "to do" in Aramaic, while meaning "to work" in Hebrew (which uses the root 3-s-h for "to do").



Yes, The root for "to labor, to work very hard" in Arabic is شغل sh-gh-l _(GH is pronounced like R in French and Hebrew)_

In Egyptian Arabic, the root 3-m-l means "to do", while the root sh-gh-l means "to work, to labor, to work very hard", so this is how we say "it's working" in Egyptian Arabic:

شغال /shagh'ghāl/ = It's working
مش شغال /mesh shagh'ghāl/ = It's not working


----------



## Euganeo

In Italian you can say "funziona / non funziona", but informally are very used "Va / non va" (at least in my region, Veneto), that is it goes/ it doesn't go ( I don't know where!  )


----------



## Sobakus

Latin uses the basic multipurpose verb for doing/making, _facere:_

*facit/nōn facit* (without an object) can be said of medicines, mechanisms, mental devices and strategies, anything where a desired effect is expected. The effect can be expressed as *ad aliquam rem* “for something” and the activity/pursuit as *in aliquā rē* “in something”. Also used with the Dative to mean “it benefits, suits”.​​*aliquid facis/nihil facis* can be said to mean “you're making progress” and “you're wasting your time”, respectively. And, especially in perfect tenses, *efficis/effēcistī* “you're doing it/you did it, it worked”.​​But it doesn't _work_ in examples like “this example doesn't work” because examples aren't seen as having effects – unless we're talking about solutions to a puzzle game.​​There's also *operārī *“to do work, to perform a task; to labour” which starts being used in Late Latin in the same way to mean “to have effect, be effectual” even with things like poisons.

Russian quite flexibly uses *рабо́тать* “to work”, perf. *срабо́тать:*

*компью́тер рабо́тает* “the computer works”, *уло́вка не срабо́тала* “the trick hasn't worked”. Even words and expressions can _рабо́тать_ in Russian as long as you supply a place adjunct to specify where. The proper expression for this is _подходи́ть,_ perf._ подойти́_ “to suit”.​​The borrowed *функциони́ровать* also exists as an extremely technical equivalent, and there's no perfective pair in common use.​​The colloquial option is *паха́ть* “to plough, furrow” (also no perfective). It's a rather he-man word, and is only applied to mechanisms, apart from people.​


----------



## Włoskipolak 72

Polish


it works  = to działa 

działać (verb) = act 
pracować (verb) = work
funkcjonować = function

act (noun) = czyn, działanie, uczynek


----------

