# This car has got a breakage.



## Ivan_I

_<Discussion has been moved to a new thread by moderator (Florentia52)>_

Is it possible to use the word "breakage" in a context alike to the one we have here?

My variations:

This car has got a breakage.
Here is a car with breakages.
Has your car ever had a breakage?


----------



## pachanga7

Ivan_I said:


> Is it possible to use the word "breakage" in a context alike to the one we have here?
> 
> My variations:
> 
> This car has got a breakage.
> Here is a car with breakages.
> Has your car ever had a breakage?


No, it’s not correct. Breakage refers to a general process, not a specific instance of breaking down.


----------



## Ivan_I

pachanga7 said:


> No, it’s not correct. Breakage refers to a general process, not a specific instance of breaking down.


Could you give an example? Is it like this? *Cars are subjected to a breakage.*

I thought that a breakage meant *a malfunction* or *a defect* gained due to different factors. I think it's not impossible in terms of correctness to say "This car has a defect/malfunction". But you say "breakage" does't work that way. I would be grateful to see some examples using the word "breakage" related to cars.


----------



## velisarius

An individual component of the car might break. It isn't a word I ever use about my car. If a part such as a windscreen or a door-handle or a fan belt breaks, I don't call it "a breakage".

This is the kind of thing you might see in an insurance policy. 
_ Consequential loss, depreciation, mechanical and electrical* breakdown, failure or breakage*;  _


----------



## Ivan_I

velisarius said:


> An individual component of the car might break. It isn't a word I ever use about my car.


What does it denote then? A general state of a car? But anyway, if we admit that a car is broken it would come down to specific failures. I am having trouble finding the right way to use "a breakage".



velisarius said:


> If a part such as a windscreen or a door-handle or a fan belt breaks, I don't call it "a breakage".


What do you call it?


----------



## velisarius

If you are selling teacups and some get broken during transportation, you will talk about having "breakages".

I advise you to use the "in context" function to find examples of actual usage.


----------



## pachanga7

When buying large quantities of dishes for resale, it’s important for the buyer to buy more than the desired amount order to account for breakage during transit. 

breakage = the general fact that quantities of things will break for whatever reason

It’s a fairly formal term.  We wouldn’t use it in everyday speech to talk about our personal vehicles.


----------



## lingobingo

I can’t imagine *breakage* being used in relation to a car at all. The word is normally used to mean an instance of something getting accidentally broken – and cars don’t break.


----------



## london calling

lingobingo said:


> I can’t imagine *breakage* being used in relation to a car at all. The word is normally used to mean an instance of something getting accidentally broken – and cars don’t break.


----------



## kentix

Breakage is very commonly associated with things that are inherently fragile, which cars are not.

And it's definitely not commonly used with "a", so I don't think you'll ever hear a sentence about having a breakage.

My example of a standard use was:
Breakage of glasses is an ongoing expense in the restaurant business.

It's about a category of damage, not a specific instance.


----------



## Ivan_I

kentix said:


> Breakage is very commonly associated with things that are inherently fragile, which cars are not.


If cars are not fragile how come they break down?


----------



## heypresto

Have you looked up the meaning of 'fragile'? fragile - WordReference.com Dictionary of English


----------



## Ivan_I

Of course, but my point was that not only fragile things break down,


----------



## heypresto

So you can see that cars are not fragile.

'Breaking' is not the same as 'breaking _down_'. Fragile things may _break_, cars break _down_. Cars, as has been said above, don't _break_.


----------



## Ivan_I

OK. But I think a person can break a car.


----------



## sound shift

Ivan_I said:


> OK. But I think a person can break a car.


Sorry. "I broke a car" is not idiomatic.


----------



## heypresto

Ivan_I said:


> OK. But I think a person can break a car.


Have you read any of the above?  I'm outta here.


----------



## Ivan_I

sound shift said:


> Sorry. "I broke a car" is not idiomatic.


I broke down a car.???


----------



## Andygc

It depends what you want to say. Cars break down - it means that the car will no longer go. It's an intransitive phrasal verb.
There's a transitive phrasal verb that looks identical. If you are a car breaker - a scrap dealer - you could say "I break down cars". That means that you separate the parts of the car. You can break down anything that is made from parts, and when you have finished, you'll have a pile of parts. You won't have a complete car that has broken down and won't go.


----------



## Ivan_I

I had taken the car of my brother and in driving recklessly I put the gearbox out of order. What did I do to the car? I understand that I didn't break it. What did I do then?


----------



## Barque

_I damaged the gearbox/the gears._


----------



## Ivan_I

Barque said:


> _I damaged the gearbox/the gears._


It's for a professional. I might not even know what a _gearbox is called. _For me it makes no sense. There must be a generic expression which can be used when a person screws something up.

*I screwed your car up?*  but it's not polite.


----------



## Barque

Ivan_I said:


> It's for a professional.


There's nothing professional about "damaged" or "gears". They're regular words. Most people who can drive a car know what the gears are, including the mechanics where I live who can't speak English.



Ivan_I said:


> For me it makes no sense.


You'd used "gearbox" in your own post and I repeated it. Ok, if it makes no sense now, you could say "I damaged the car".



Ivan_I said:


> *I screwed your car up?* but it's not polite.


Sure, that too. No, it's not polite, but maybe because he's your brother he won't mind. He'll probably be more concerned about the car.


----------



## PaulQ

Ivan_I said:


> If cars are not fragile how come they break down?


There is a difference between "to break" and the phrasal verb "to break down"



Ivan_I said:


> *I screwed your car up?* but it's not polite.


Possible, but not probable.

"I ruined the gearbox/gears."


----------



## heypresto

There's something wrong with the car. 
The car's not working.   
The car's packed up. 
The car won't go. 
There's a funny noise coming from the engine. 
The engine's seized. 
I turn the ignition key and nothing happens. 

The car's broken.


----------



## Ivan_I

Barque said:


> There's nothing professional about "damaged" or "gears". Most people who can drive a car know what the gears are, including the mechanics where I live who can't speak English.


It's not the point whether it should be a professional or not. 





Barque said:


> You were the one who used "gearbox" in your own post. Ok, if it makes no sense now, you could say "I damaged the car".


Yes, I was. But it was an example of the malfunction. I mean for the person who doesn't know what a gearbox is, it wouldn't make sense. I pretended to be a person who didn't know the name of the thing.


Barque said:


> Sure, that too. No, it's not polite, but maybe because he's your brother he won't mind. He'll probably be more concerned about the car.


I am not talking about my brother. It can be another person. The point is what *verb *can be used to point out that a car (or another device) is not working properly and I am the reason why it is out of order.

*The car doesn't work... I "verbed" it! *


As for the "to damage".... Does damage imply dents or visible disorders? Or can it imply internal problems with a car which can't be spotted by a glance.


----------



## PaulQ

Ivan_I said:


> I pretended to be a person who didn't know the name of the thing.


We can discount this as it is unrealistic.


----------



## Barque

Ivan_I said:


> The point is what *verb *can be used to point out that a car (or another device) is not working properly and I am the reason why it is out of order.


I told you - _I damaged the car/gears/whatever._

Yes, "damage" can include damage to the parts below the stick next to the driver's seat that you move around while you drive.


----------



## Ivan_I

Barque said:


> I told you - _I damaged the car/gears/whatever._
> 
> Yes, "damage" can include damage to the stick next to the driver's seat that you move around while you drive.


I beg your pardon, but it's not so easy....

Here is what a dictionary says:
*DAMAGE*
to cause harm, injury, or destruction to; have a harmful effect on: *The fire damaged our house.*

In the example *The fire damaged our house. *we can see that the effect is visible. Which makes me ask if it's always the case. Maybe, to damage a car, one needs to crumple its body or get a dent.  If it looks intact but has some internal problems would DAMAGE work? I hope you can see why I am so hesitant to fully accept the verb DAMAGE in this case.


----------



## heypresto

Ivan_I said:


> If it looks intact but has some internal problems would DAMAGE work?


Yes.



Ivan_I said:


> I hope you can see why I am so hesitant to fully accept the verb DAMAGE in this case.


Hundreds of millions of native speakers accept it, so, maybe you should too?


----------



## Ivan_I

heypresto said:


> I'm outta here.


*heypresto*! Glad to have you back!


heypresto said:


> Hundreds of millions of native speakers accept it, so, maybe you should too?


Don't remember saying that I wouldn't accept it. All I said was I was hesitant to accept it because not everything was clear about its usage.


----------



## heypresto

Well, stop hesitating. Let's put this thread to bed, and move on . . .

I'm definitely outta here now.


----------



## Tegs

Ivan_I said:


> OK. But I think a person can break a car.



The only person who would be physically capable of breaking a car would be the Hulk, who is a super-powered mutant and could probably break a car in half like a teacup.  You can break a window, or a cup, or a set of bathroom scales, but you can't break any large machines like a helicopter, a car, or a bus.



Ivan_I said:


> Maybe, to damage a car, one needs to crumple its body or get a dent.  If it looks intact but has some internal problems would DAMAGE work? I hope you can see why I am so hesitant to fully accept the verb DAMAGE in this case.



If you simply say "I damaged your car", this is quite vague, and the other person could assume you are talking about a visible cosmetic problem, such as a dent, a scratch or something. But if you then followed that up with a sentence like "I think I did something to the gearbox" or "The gears aren't working any more", then it is clear that the damage is related to the gearbox. 

If you say more specifically "The gearbox is damaged" is it clear immediately from the context that this is not a visible cosmetic problem.


----------



## Ivan_I

Tegs said:


> The only person who would be physically capable of breaking a car would be the Hulk, who is a super-powered mutant and could probably break a car in half like a teacup.  You can break a window, or a cup, or a set of bathroom scales, but you can't break any large machines like a helicopter, a car, or a bus.


I perfectly see what you mean. However, I can see this definition in a dictionary:
---
*BREAK*
to (cause to) stop working, as through wear or damage: [~ + object] [no object]
*I broke my watch.
My watch broke.  
---*
I understand that the watch wasn't shattered in pieces, it just stopped working. And I feel that I need to explain to myself why a watch can break (stop working) or why one can break a watch (to cause it to stop working) while all that is not possible to do with a car. Why can't one break a car in the sense to cause it to stop working? It's a mystery.


----------



## heypresto

Ivan_I said:


> Why can't one break a car in the sense to cause it to stop working?


Because it's not what we say. _Please_ accept this.


----------



## Ivan_I

heypresto said:


> Because it's not what we say. _Please_ accept this.


In that case I will have to reject the definition from the dictionary. Would you accept it if you were in my shoes?


----------



## heypresto

No. Of course not. The dictionary is correct. It just doesn't work with cars.

Or, as Tegs said, helicopters, busses, tractors, steam engines, biplanes, and many more . . .


----------



## Tegs

Ivan_I said:


> I perfectly see what you mean. However, I can see this definition in a dictionary:
> ---
> *BREAK*
> to (cause to) stop working, as through wear or damage: [~ + object] [no object]
> *I broke my watch.
> My watch broke.
> ---*
> I understand that the watch wasn't shattered in pieces, it just stopped working. And I feel that I need to explain to myself why a watch can break (stop working) or why one can break a watch (to cause it to stop working) while all that is not possible to do with a car. Why can't one break a car in the sense to cause it to stop working? It's a mystery.



If you said to me "I broke my watch" or "I broke my phone" I would assume you cracked the glass (and possibly put it completely out of use), by dropping it on the floor, or accidentally standing on it. If you caused it to stop working by other means, for example, you dropped it into the toilet or bath, and it got submerged in water, you wouldn't say you broke it. You would have to explain this using a different expression.

Think about break as something you yourself can physically do by cracking or shattering something. I broke the chair also assumes you cracked the seat or one of the legs fell off because you sat on it awkwardly or you did something else similar. You would not say "I broke the chair" if you had left the chair outside in the rain for a week and it had been destroyed by the weather.


----------



## Ivan_I

Tegs said:


> If you said to me ...


It's all clear. I see your point. But the problem is that the dictionary says " to (cause to) stop working". It's a horse of a different color. Probably the dictionary is not accurate in its interpretation of the word. It's puzzling.


----------



## PaulQ

Ivan_I said:


> In that case I will have to reject the definition from the dictionary.


That is a little drastic - there are many dictionaries.

The *noun *"breakage" refers to real breaks, i.e. - where a particular item breaks into two or more pieces. It differs from the *verb *"to break" which has the extended meaning of "to fail to work/operate"


----------



## Barque

Ivan_I said:


> Probably the dictionary is not accurate in its interpretation of the word. It's puzzling.


It's perfectly accurate. It defines what "break" means. It doesn't go into great detail on how "break" is used because that's not what it's meant for. It can only give you examples. The examples it's chosen are watches and vases, not cars and buses, which gives you an indication of how it's used.

A dictionary is only one of the things that teaches you how a word's used. It can't educate you on every possible nuance.


----------



## Ivan_I

Barque said:


> It's perfectly accurate. It defines what "break" means. It doesn't go into great detail on how "break" is used because that's not what it's meant for.


I beg your pardon but I can clearly see this in its definition "to (cause to) stop working. I am pretty sure it is "going into great detail". And I think we all know that in order to cause something to stop working we don't need to smash it or physically distort it.


----------



## Barque

Ivan_I said:


> And I think we all know that in order to cause something to stop working we don't need to smash it or physically distort it.


Right. And we also know that "break" isn't used to refer to damage caused by neglect, and that it isn't used in relation to damaging a car. That comes from usage, which you can't argue with, because it won't change for you.

You could however use "break" for specific parts, if that makes it easier to understand. 
_I broke the door of the glove compartment.
I broke the windscreen.
I broke the sun visor._


----------



## Ivan_I

Barque said:


> That comes from usage, which you can't argue with, because it won't change for you.


How come I am in the spotlight when it's not about me? Who says I am arguing? I am not arguing at all. All I am doing is trying to solve the discrepancy between the definition  "to (cause to) stop working." and live advice from the local folks. 



Barque said:


> Right. And we also know that "break" *isn't used to refer to damage caused by neglect*, and that it isn't used in relation to damaging a car.


I don't know if we all know that. So, you mean that *one *can break something *ONLY *on purpose? Any backing up of this statement? 

I broke my watch. - sounds to me as something done by neglect.


----------



## Barque

Ivan_I said:


> So, you mean that *one *can break something *ONLY *on purpose?


No, I meant that you normally break something by doing something 'active', whether it's deliberate or accidental, like stepping on something or throwing something against a wall, and not something like forgetting to bring a chair in from the garden and leaving it to get wet in the rain.

Breaking also requires physical damage--separation of components. A chair being left out in the rain and developing mold isn't a broken chair. But if you yanked a leg off it, it is.



Ivan_I said:


> All I am doing is trying to solve the discrepancy between the definition "to (cause to) stop working." and live advice from the local folks.


Well, I can't see the discrepancy. Maybe someone else will.


----------



## DonnyB

Ivan_I said:


> OK. But I think a person can break a car.


The problem is that it isn't idiomatic.

You can achieve the same _effect _but it would be described as "wrecking" it or "damaging it beyond repair". You can also "break" any number of individual components - the windscreen, the fanbelt, the door handles etc etc. You could also, I think, "break" a toy car. Which leads me to think that it's just the sheer size of a car which is the reason why we don't, in practice, talk about "breaking" a car, any more than a train or a ship. There's nothing wrong with it grammatically, it just sounds extremely odd.


----------



## kentix

In normal use:

You can wreck your car but you can't break it.

You can break your watch but you can't wreck it.


----------



## Roxxxannne

In AmE you can total your car.   But that has to do with the cost of repair compared to the monetary value of the car, rather than the amount of damage per se.  

Idiomatically, 'my ____ broke' or 'I broke my______' doesn't work when the broken thing is a large, complex piece of machinery and electronics.
For instance, these aren't idiomatic:
_The rocket broke while it was on the launch pad.
Warren Buffett's yacht broke in the Caribbean yesterday.
I was driving along on the highway when all of a sudden my car just broke.
A fighter jet broke and crashed into a forest but the crew parachuted to safety.
When the submarine broke, 129 people died._

The use of _break _implies that these things all physically broke in two or more pieces.
If one wants to convey that they did physically come apart one would say something like _broke apart_ or _broke into several pieces_.


----------



## Ivan_I

Roxxxannne said:


> Idiomatically, 'my ____ broke' or 'I broke my______' doesn't work when the broken thing is a large, complex piece of machinery and electronics.


In that case " to (cause to) stop working." from the dictionary leads down the garden path.


----------



## JulianStuart

Ivan_I said:


> In that case " to (cause to) stop working." from the dictionary leads down the garden path.


No - it is an accurate definition.  It does *not* list *all* the situations where it *can* and *cannot* be used _idiomatically_ - no dictionary has that as its goal.  Perhaps you are expecting too much from the dictionary.  This discussion is an example of why the site's founder created WRF - to go beyond the capabilities of a dictionary.  If multiple native speakers tell you something is not idiomatic, that's a pretty good indication that it is not idiomatic.  If you keep saying it's the dictionary's fault, you will continue to be frustrated.


----------



## Barque

Ivan_I said:


> In that case " to (cause to) stop working." from the dictionary leads down the garden path.


That's something you've said multiple times. Perhaps you haven't followed the purpose of a dictionary. It's not an English teacher or an instruction manual on how to use a word. It just gives you the meaning. Additional details, such as how to use the word in idiomatic speech, come from practice. I don't think this is a feature of English dictionaries alone. It probably applies to all languages.


----------



## Myridon

Dictionaries are designed to be brief.  They also assume that the reader has some grasp of English, the culture of the country where it was produced and human culture in general (for example, the definitions below assume the reader knows a little about vases, watches and TVs).
In the Random House Unabridged section of the WRD, there are 68 definitions of the verb "to break" not counting the phrasal verbs and idioms.  That breakdown is artificial. If they did it again from scratch, they might only come up with 50 or they might come up with 80.  You can't pick one definition and say that is the exact, only and specific definition.  You can't pick one definition and make every usage follow it.

Some of the definitions referenced above:
break - WordReference.com Dictionary of English


> Transitive
> 1 to smash, split, or divide into parts violently;  reduce to pieces or fragments: He broke a vase.
> 18  to disable or destroy by or as if by shattering or crushing: to break a watch.
> Intransitive
> 37  to become inoperative or to malfunction, as through wear or damage: The television set broke this afternoon.


I can't find one that is exactly "to (cause to) stop working."


----------



## Roxxxannne

WordReference Random House Learner's Dictionary of American English © 2020
break _/breɪk/_  v.,  *broke/broʊk/  bro•ken/ˈbroʊkən/  break•ing,* n.
v.

to smash, split, or divide into parts violently: [~ + object]He took the vase and broke it open.[no object]  The vase broke.
to (cause to) stop working, as through wear or damage: [~ + object]I broke my watch.[no object]  My watch broke.


----------



## Myridon

Myridon said:


> I can't find one that is exactly "to (cause to) stop working."


... in the specific list of definitions that I am talking about. 
WordReference Random House *Unabridged *Dictionary of American English © 2020


----------



## Andygc

Roxxxannne said:


> to (cause to) stop working, as through wear or damage


Actually, I think that's a defective definition. It would be better to split it:
intransitive: to stop working, as through wear or damage,
transitive: to cause to stop working, as through damage.
But it comes from the simplified version of the dictionary - too simplified in this particular case. However, whichever way you play with that definition, it still doesn't work with cars, helicopters, buses, tugboats and cruise ships.


----------



## velisarius

Don't forget our English Collocations Dictionary:

break - WordReference.com Dictionary of English


----------



## Barque

Leading on from the capsized ship in #55, and at the risk of giving more fodder to the OP, I believe the Titanic broke in half. But no one broke it of course. It broke.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Myridon said:


> ... in the specific list of definitions that I am talking about.
> WordReference Random House *Unabridged *Dictionary of American English © 2020


Apologies for inadvertently causing your  .
I didn't read your post carefully enough to realize that you had cited the specific dictionary you used.

Moving on, this is a good example of the limitations of dictionaries: while they indicate the general context in which a particular definition _does_ make sense (law, cryptography, sport, etc.), they don't indicate the situations in which a definition _does not_ make idiomatic sense.


----------



## DonnyB

At the risk of appearing to curtail what has been an interesting discussion, I'm now going to close this thread.  The core question of whether you can talk about a car having a "breakage", or "breaking" a car, has been answered to the best of members' abilities, and the drift into the area of the deficiencies and limitations of dictionary definitions is taking us outside the limits of what our forum is really equipped to handle. 

Thanks to everyone for their contributions, which I hope Ivan has found useful.   DonnyB - moderator.


----------

