Doing work

[Kirby]

What does "effective" as a go term(?) express at all? That a move does what it shall do? I.e., is it the same as "fulfilling aims"?

Based on what I've been reading, I think that an "effective" in the context that we're speaking often refers to what's referenced by (a) and (b) above: A measurement of the proportion that a shape/move/play/person/etc. obtained vs. the cost of doing so.

[daal]

Just regarding the use of the English terms, "efficient" is an adjective, typically used simply to indicate the quality of a move, i.e., how well it performs it's various tasks; whereas "work," which could also be used as a noun or a verb, might be used to point out which tasks exactly the move accomplishes.

[John Fairbairn]

A few points:

1. Not everyone in Japan accepts that hataraki is a technical go word. It is really just part of the normal language. But it is fairly common in go texts, which means some people like to highlight it.

2. Some of the meanings ascribed here are cases of western ideas being foisted on the Japanese term. In particular, bringing 能率 and　効率 (efficiency) into the equation is misleading. As the 率 in these words implies, they measure something (the utility factor). Definitions of hataraku by a Japanese would not use these words. He would describe it using words like 作用 (action/function) or　効果 (effect(iveness)/result).

3. The uses of hataraku (to work) in Japanese, even if they do not imply (measurable) efficiency, are many, of course. E.g. it may be pointed out that a move or sequence has an immediate effect, such as ensuring a connection, rather than some latent effect way down the line. But I think an especially valuable one for some of those who play in the Japanese way, where shape is often over-emphasised, is a curt reminder that pretty shapes are not enough; they actually have to do some work.

It is of course perfectly all right (though maybe redundant) to create a western concept of efficiency, but trying to pin a western tail on a Japanese donkey seems like an exemplary case of inefficiency by those who claim to be seeking efficiency.

Having mentioned the word work/hataraku several times in a short space, I think I need to go and lie down.

[deja]

John's remarks remind me of Quine's work on indeterminacy of translation. He used the hypothetical example of two different translation manuals that correspond perfectly with expressions (facts) found in the language being translated but are themselves completely divergent in the sentences they prescribe.

The point he was making is that meaning doesn't work in such a corresponding fashion, namely, by way of matching linguistic entities as direct equivalents. In other words, it's not necessary to look for such equivalents because they don't exist. There are no intermediary facts of the matter that can decide between which of two divergent translation manuals is correct.

At the same time, that doesn't suggest any significant barrier in accurately, or adequately I suppose, understanding what words or sentences mean in a foreign language - both manuals do the job. So translating Japanese terms into English by foisting western concepts on them is really all we can do. We have no alternative method because nothing else independently exists to do that conceptual work for us.

[SmoothOper]

Intuitively, we want to avoid work whenever and wherever possible.

[hyperpape]

Intuitively, we want to avoid work whenever and wherever possible.

You maybe. And I've felt that way in the past. Today, I rather like work.

[Kirby]

A few points:
...
2. Some of the meanings ascribed here are cases of western ideas being foisted on the Japanese term. In particular, bringing 能率 and　効率 (efficiency) into the equation is misleading. As the 率 in these words implies, they measure something (the utility factor). Definitions of hataraku by a Japanese would not use these words. He would describe it using words like 作用 (action/function) or　効果 (effect(iveness)/result).

I think that 能率 and　効率 can be used in go, as we've seen from examples. I agree that they're not the same as hataraku - maybe I should have read the OP more carefully if we were focusing on a definition of hataraku. I thought the conversation was branching into a discussion of 能率 vs.　効率, which is what I was aiming at in my comments on this. And sure, these are not the same as words like 効果; rather something like 効率 can measure the proportion of 効果 to the amount expended to obtain it.