# break down vs break



## ladybugEnglishFan

Am I right that we can't say "The car broke" but we have to say "the car broke down" (it won't start), but I can say "My nephew broke the car" but can't "my nephew broke the car down"?


----------



## JamesM

Well, you could, but it would mean something else.   To break something down as an action (using it as a transitive verb) is to reduce it to its component parts.  If your nephew disassembled the car you could say he broke the car down. I don't think that is what you wanted to communicate, but I'm not sure.

What do you want to say?

Also, to follow up on the other point, I think it would be rare to say "He broke the car".  It's the way a child would put it, in my experience.  Objects break but we don't generally refer to engines as "breaking".

Can you describe the situation?  Did the nephew drive the car and now it won't start?  Are you trying to communicate that he deliberately caused that?


----------



## ladybugEnglishFan

"Can you describe the situation?  Did the nephew drive the car and now it  won't start?  Are you trying to communicate that he deliberately caused  that?" 
Yes, for emample.
But my main point is to understand the difference between break and break down, if "break" is transitive.


----------



## JamesM

"Break" can be transitive or intransitive.  It is not usually applied to very large objects or machinery.  

"He broke the vase."
"He stepped on his watch and broke it."
"He broke his glasses when he sat on them."

"He broke the car."  
"He broke the car door by slamming it too hard."  
"The missile broke the building." 
"The earthquake broke the mountain." 

Are you asking if "break down" can be used in an active voice?  "He broke the vase down", for example?


----------



## Loob

There are a couple of useful definitions of "[to] break down" in the WRF English dictionary, ladybugEnglishFan: 





> *break down *
> 
> 1 cease to function or continue; fail.
> 
> 
> 2 lose control of one's emotions when in distress.



Here are some more examples from the Collins COBUILD Phrasal Verbs Dictionary:

1. When an arrangement, plan or discussion *breaks down*, it fails because of a problem or disagreement.
2. When a vehicle *breaks down*, it stops working.
3. To *break down*  an idea, a statement or information means to separate it into smaller  parts in order to understand it or to deal with it more easily.
4.  When a substance *breaks down* or when something breaks it down, it changes as a result of a chemical or biological process.
5.  If you *break down* a problem or obstacle, you weaken or remove it so that it no longer prevents you from doing something.
6.  If someone *breaks down*, they start crying uncontrollably.
7. If someone *breaks down*, they become very depressed and ill because they cannot cope with their problems.
8. To *break down* something such a a door or wall means to hit it so hard that it breaks and falls to the ground.


----------



## sdgraham

And, if we haven't confused the matter sufficiently, we have the bluegrass classic _Foggy Mountain Breakdown_ performed by Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs.

The answer, lbef, as I'm sure you see by now is that the expressions "break" or  "break down" are highly dependent on context.


----------



## Loob

What does "breakdown" mean in "Foggy Mountain Breakdown", sdg?  (I assume, in any event, that it's a noun rather than a verb....)

The bottom line, ladybugEnglishFan, is that phrasal verbs usually have a meaning which is different from that of the 'parent verb'.  Sometimes the difference is quite small; sometimes it's huge.


----------



## ladybugEnglishFan

One more question. Can I use break not followed by an object, for example : "The car door broke" (for example if someone is slamming them again and again and) or do I have to say "The car door is broken"?


----------



## sdgraham

> What does "breakdown" mean in "Foggy Mountain Breakdown", sdg?  (I  assume, in any event, that it's a noun rather than a verb....)


(Since I'm not musical, I can't explain the following. All I know is that I like bluegrass music, and especially Flatt and Scruggs. )
From Wikipedia:
In DJ parlance, a break is where all elements of a song (e.g., pads, basslines, vocals), _except for percussion_, disappear for a time. This is distinguished from a *breakdown*, a section  where the composition is deliberately deconstructed to minimal elements  (usually the percussion or rhythm section with the vocal re-introduced  over the minimal backing), all other parts having been gradually or  suddenly cut out.[1]  The distinction between breaks and breakdowns may be described as,  "Breaks are for the drummer; breakdowns are for hands in the air".[1]


----------



## zaffy

Are these correct? The camera doesn't work any more, ceased to function.

-I've broken your camera, I'm sorry.
-The camera has broken so I can't lend you it.
-The camera has broken down so I can't lend you it.


----------



## DonnyB

zaffy said:


> Are these correct? The camera doesn't work any more, ceased to function.
> 
> -I've broken your camera, I'm sorry.
> -The camera has broken so I can't lend you it.
> -The camera has broken down so I can't lend you it.


I wouldn't personally use (3).

I tend to associate "broken _down"_ with a vehicle or a piece of machinery.  So while a bus or a train or a washing machine could have broken down, it sounds a bit odd to me applied to a camera.


----------



## zaffy

So gadgets  and devices like computers, telephones, air-conditioners, ovens, vacuum cleaners 'break', whereas some machinery like engines, cars, dishwashers, lawn mowers 'break down'?


----------



## london calling

Generally speaking computers, telephones, air-conditioners, ovens, vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, engines and  lawn  mowers  break if you drop them on the floor, jump on them, take a hammer to them  or throw them off a cliff. Otherwise, they stop working/functioning.

Usually it's vehicles that break down: cars, buses, lorries, motorbikes.


----------



## kentix

Generally, it's used for machines that move and transport. If they stop doing the job they were designed to do, they are said to have broken down. A car could look entirely normal but if the engine does not start the car has broken down. When things break, that generally means parts have separated from each other. It's obvious that something is wrong because the different parts can be seen - like with a broken plate or glass.

The reason a car might break down is because a part inside the car broke. For instance, a metal part might have snapped in half. If you replace the broken part the car is no longer broken down (non-functional). It's working again.

Mechanical/electronic things that don't move we generally describe as not working or not coming on.

Semi-crossposted and repeating much of what London Calling said.


----------



## zaffy

This is really all confusing. So how do I distinguish between such three situations.

situation 1: Someone is trying to set something in my wrist watch, presses and turns the buttons numerous times and suddenly the watch is not working. What do I say? 'You've broken my watch!' ?
situation 2: Someone steps accidentally on my watch and the front glass breaks in half.  What do I say? 'You've broken my watch!' ?
situation 3:  Someone drops my favourite vase and it brakes into pieces. What do I say? 'You've broken my vase!' ?

All 3 the same?  2 and 3 are similar and in Polish we would use a different verb than in 1


----------



## london calling

Yes, yes and yes.


----------



## zaffy

1. So 'break' covers both 'not functioning' and 'falling into pieces' and we have two different verbs for these two in Polish.


----------



## zaffy

kentix said:


> Generally, it's used for machines that move and transport.






london calling said:


> Usually it's vehicles that break down: cars, buses, lorries, motorbikes.




These are all dictionary examples for learners od English and, sadly enough, none of them is  a vehicle. It is really hard not to be confused. So you wouldn't use 'break down' in them? Or things like washing machines should be treated as things that move, which kentix mentioned


1. The printing machines are always breaking down.

2. If the central heating breaks down again, I will refuse to pay the repair bill.

3. Our dishwasher broke down just a month after the guarantee had expired.

4. Oh no - has your washing machine broken down again?


----------



## 2PieRad

Hi



zaffy said:


> These are all dictionary examples for learners od English and, sadly enough, none of them vehicles. It is really hard not to be confused. So you wouldn't use 'break down' in them? Or things like washing machines should be treated as things that move, which kentix mentioned
> 
> 1. The printing machines are always breaking down.
> 
> 2. If the central heating breaks down again, I will refuse to pay the repair bill.
> 
> 3. Our dishwasher broke down just a month after the guarantee had expired.
> 
> 4. Oh no - has your washing machine broken down again?


Well, they did qualify their statements with _generally _and _usually_. I'd say that_, generally_, larger machines can break down, machines that obviously contain mechanical parts. And when one of those mechanical parts _breaks/stops working_, that would be what causes the entire thing to _break down. _(I'm kind of pulling this out of thin air right now...not sure if it'll prove to be an accurate generalization.)


----------



## Jazz007

2PieRad said:


> Hi
> 
> 
> Well, they did qualify their statements with _generally _and _usually_. I'd say that_, generally_, larger machines can break down, machines that obviously contain mechanical parts. And when one of those mechanical parts _breaks/stops working_, that would be what causes the entire thing to _break down. _(I'm kind of pulling this out of thin air right now...not sure if it'll prove to be an accurate generalization
> 
> 
> ladybugEnglishFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I right that we can't say "The car broke" but we have to say "the car broke down" (it won't start), but I can say "My nephew broke the car" but can't "my nephew broke the car down"?he Polish member who raised this topic. I came to this forum because I was
Click to expand...


----------



## Jazz007

Interresting topic raised by the Polish member. Unfortunately, none of the comments provided by other membres are useful. If anyone else posses the right answer, please add it to the discussion. It will help learners of English like myself.


----------



## DonnyB

Jazz007 said:


> Interresting topic raised by the Polish member. Unfortunately, none of the comments provided by other membres are useful. If anyone else posses the right answer, please add it to the discussion. It will help learners of English like myself.



Well, first of all, forget how you would say it in Polish.  Most languages use different verbs to describe different actions, so if you model how you would say something in English on how you would say it in, for example, French, a lot of the time it isn't going to work. 

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there isn't a single "right answer" to this.  To most native speakers, the idea of something "breaking down" conveys the scenario of something major ( a car, a train, a washing machine ... etc) totally ceasing to function.  There may or may not be any visible _damage_ to it.  Which is why we wouldn't tend to refer to it as "broken".

Within those two broad distinctions, there could be shades of meaning or degree: so you could describe a printer as either "broken" or "broken down" depending on what had happened to it and whether it worked at all.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Jazz007

DonnyB said:


> Well, first of all, forget how you would say it in Polish.  Most languages use different verbs to describe different actions, so if you model how you would say something in English on how you would say it in, for example, French, a lot of the time it isn't going to work.
> 
> I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there isn't a single "right answer" to this.  To most native speakers, the idea of something "breaking down" conveys the scenario of something major ( a car, a train, a washing machine ... etc) totally ceasing to function.  There may or may not be any visible _damage_ to it.  Which is why we wouldn't tend to refer to it as "broken".
> 
> Within those two broad distinctions, there could be shades of meaning or degree: so you could describe a printer as either "broken" or "broken down" depending on what had happened to it and whether it worked at all.
> 
> Hope that helps.


Thank you for your input. Let me clarify that the discussion we are having here is not about how these words (break vs break down) translate into a foreign langage (Polish, French, etc). The discussion is purely about the meaning in English. So let's stick to the original discussion. The Polish member gave examples of sentences found in English dictionnaires. Can you comment on that ? Are these sentences incorrect ? You gave your explanation, but can you refer us to an official linguistic publication that backs up your explanation ? Many thanks in advance.


----------



## DonnyB

Jazz007 said:


> The Polish member gave examples of sentences found in English dictionnaires. Can you comment on that ? Are these sentences incorrect ? You gave your explanation, but can you refer us to an official linguistic publication that backs up your explanation ? Many thanks in advance.


Assuming you're asking about the sentences in posts #15  and #19. then yes - I would say those look to fine to me.


Jazz007 said:


> You gave your explanation, but can you refer us to an official linguistic publication that backs up your explanation ? Many thanks in advance.


No. As you may know, the English language unlike many others doesn't have any form of "official linguistic publication" which decrees what is or isn't permissible.  We rely primarily on what's taught in schools, supplemented by "usage notes" shown in dictionaries and the like. 

If you have any doubts about the accuracy of the answers I as a native speaker have given you, you're very welcome to wait and see if anyone else gives you a better one.


----------



## Keith Bradford

I think that the problem may come from a supposition that these two terms (a) are mutually exclusive and (b) cover all cases.  That may not be true.  Can I suggest a different scenario?

Is the item non-mechanical (e.g. a glass)?
Is the item smaller than, say, a computer?
Is there a visible fracture on the item?
If the answer to any of these is _yes_, use *broken*.​
Is the item a means of transport?
Is the item a system or process, or similar abstraction?
Is the item larger than, say, a computer?
If the answer to any of these is _yes_, use *broken* *down*.​
Of course, the item may come into both categories.  A bridge, for example, might be broken or broken down (big and with a visible fracture). A sledge is a means of transport, but may also have a visible fracture. So who said life would be easy?   But this method might help you on your way.


----------



## london calling

DonnyB said:


> If you have any doubts about the accuracy of the answers I as a native speaker have given you, you're very welcome to wait and see if anyone else gives you a better one.


They won't. The answers are all here. 😊


----------



## Jazz007

london calling said:


> They won't. The answers are all here. 😊


Dear Keith,
Thank you for your comment. I have the following two questions about it:
1)Suppose the TV stops working (without any visible sign of physical damage), how would you rephrase this sentence by using the word "break"? Would you say: a)The TV is broken Or b)The TV is broken down?
I've personally never heard of sentence b) above. However, the rule that you are propositing seems to suggest that sentence b) is the correct sentence because a TV is typicaly larger than a personal computer. Do you maintain your statement?
2)From where do you get the rule that you have proposed in your previous post? From English school books, dictionaries, etc? I am just asking so I can learn about how native English speakers validate the accuracy of their language usage.
Many thanks in advance for your reply!


----------



## Andygc

The TV is broken down. 
The TV has broken down.


----------



## kentix

They validate it through years of experience mostly. English works by consensus and you know what you normally hear and what you don't. Of course there are grammar rules and expert opinions and style guides, but they are simply part of the overall consensus that guides English. There is no hierarchy and not everyone agrees on everything. And it's not necessary that they do.

Personally, I would say the TV is not working. That's what I use for electronic devices that have no visible moving parts and aren't traveling anywhere.

The more it moves from place to place or the more obviously moving mechanical parts it has, the more likely I am to use "it broke down". So my car breaks down, a bus breaks down, and a threshing machine breaks down.

My watch stops working, my phone stops working and my TV stops working. I might get any of those working again, possibly, by fiddling with the controls.

If I drop my phone and it physically breaks, then I broke my phone and it needs replacing or repairing.


----------



## Jazz007

Andygc said:


> The TV is broken down.
> The TV has broken down.


You're right. The context provided in my previous post makes it clear that TV failure has just happened. In this instance, I completely agree that "has" makes more sense than "is". But let's suppose I want to use "broken down" as an adjective phrase, which means that "The TV _is_ broken down". Would this still make sense? 

Sorry, I don't want to walk away from the original topic and start another discussion about the difference between "has" and "is". So I propose to ignore the above. Allow me to rephrase my questioning as follow:

a)The TV broke Or
b)The TV broke down

Which sentence is correct?


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Jazz007 said:


> a)The TV broke Or
> b)The TV broke down
> 
> Which sentence is correct?


Neither is natural.

'Broke' suggests a physical fracture of some kind.

'Broke down' is not commonly used for televisions.

I'd say 'The TV's not working' or 'The TV's stopped working'.


----------



## Jazz007

Wordy McWordface said:


> Neither is natural.
> 
> 'Broke' suggests a physical fracture of some kind.
> 
> 'Broke down' is not commonly used for televisions.
> 
> I'd say 'The TV's not working' or 'The TV's stopped working'.



Below is an extract from Collins English dictionary:

===============
British English: break  /breɪk/ verb
*stop working* If a machine _breaks_, or if you _break_ it, it stops working.
My brother broke the television.
===============

Are English dictionaries wrong?


----------



## DonnyB

Jazz007 said:


> Below is an extract from Collins English dictionary:
> 
> ===============
> British English: break  /breɪk/ verb
> *stop working* If a machine _breaks_, or if you _break_ it, it stops working.
> My brother broke the television.
> ===============
> 
> Are English dictionaries wrong?


That suggests to me that he did something to deliberately break it, such as putting his foot through the screen.  I wouldn't expect it to mean that it was a result of wear and tear such as a component failing while he was watching it.


----------



## 2PieRad

How's about this:

If you can fathom seeing smoke/steam/fumes coming out of it when it stops working/running, then you can say that it "broke down_." 



_


----------



## Jazz007

DonnyB said:


> That suggests to me that he did something to deliberately break it, such as putting his foot through the screen.  I wouldn't expect it to mean that it was a result of wear and tear such as a component failing while he was watching it.





2PieRad said:


> How's about this:
> 
> If you can fathom seeing smoke/steam/fumes coming out of it when it stops working/running, then you can say that it "broke down_."
> View attachment 64091_


And if there is no smoke at all, but the car has stopped working, how do you say it by using the word "break or broke"?


----------



## Polyglot Jurist

The following sentences are all correct and natural imho:

The car broke down.
The TV is broken. (Note the use of a participle here)
He broke the tv.


The following, by contrast are not correct or natural:

He broke the car (I would say another verb instead: he wrecked the car, he crashed the car, he ruined the car, etc.)
The tv is broke.
He broke down the tv.
The tv broke down

This usage is highly idiomatic and I think each context needs to be learned separately. Rules are hard to state here, and my view is that any rules you see in this thread have exceptions.


----------



## Jazz007

DonnyB said:


> That suggests to me that he did something to deliberately break it, such as putting his foot through the screen.  I wouldn't expect it to mean that it was a result of wear and tear such as a component failing while he was watching it.



Hello Donny,

The dictionary says that "break" means "stop working":

===============
British English: break /breɪk/ verb
*stop working* If a machine _breaks_, or if you _break_ it, it stops working.
My brother broke the television.
===============

According to the above definition, it does not matter whether the machine itself breaks or a person breaks it (either by damaging it physically or just using it wrongly.)


----------



## Jazz007

Polyglot Jurist said:


> The following sentences are all correct and natural imho:
> 
> The car broke down.
> The TV is broken. (Note the use of a participle here)
> He broke the tv.
> 
> 
> The following, by contrast are not correct or natural:
> 
> He broke the car (I would say another verb instead: he wrecked the car, he crashed the car, he ruined the car, etc.)
> The tv is broke.
> He broke down the tv.
> The tv broke down
> 
> This usage is highly idiomatic and I think each context needs to be learned separately. Rules are hard to state here, and my view is that any rules you see in this thread have exceptions.


Thank you for your inut.
You wrote:
>>Rules are hard to state
If rules are unclear, how to know whether native speakers got it right?


----------



## Polyglot Jurist

Jazz007 said:


> Thank you for your inut.
> You wrote:
> >>Rules are hard to state
> If rules are unclear, how to know whether native speakers got it right?



I fall into the camp that believes grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive. If native speakers generally say something a certain way, that is what makes it “correct” for a descriptivist grammarian. I’ll note that, regarding usage in specific examples, there’s no disagreement among native speakers in this thread.


----------



## Jazz007

Polyglot Jurist said:


> I fall into the camp that believes grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive. If native speakers generally say something a certain way, that is what makes it “correct” for a descriptivist grammarian. I’ll note that, regarding usage in specific examples, there’s no disagreement among native speakers in this thread.


>>If native speakers generally say something a certain way, that is what makes it “correct” for a descriptivist grammarian

I speak French and I know a lot of expresions that are commonly used by native French speakers that are gramatically incorrect. We cannot always measure the accuracy of a language by how native speakers generally say. Otherwize, can you explain why English is taught to native speakers at school? Why not just trust that native speakers know the language perfectly?

>>I’ll note that, regarding usage in specific examples, there’s no disagreement among native speakers in this thread.

I don't want to point a finger to anybody because I want to keep this conversation polite. I've read all the previous posts in this forum and I've not come to the same conclusion as you. I am sorry to disagree politely.


----------



## Polyglot Jurist

Jazz007 said:


> >>If native speakers generally say something a certain way, that is what makes it “correct” for a descriptivist grammarian
> 
> I speak French and I know a lot of expresions that are commonly used by native French speakers that are gramatically incorrect. We cannot always measure the accuracy of a language by how native speakers generally say. Otherwize, can you explain why English is taught to native speakers at school? Why not just trust that native speakers know the language perfectly?
> 
> >>I’ll note that, regarding usage in specific examples, there’s no disagreement among native speakers in this thread.
> 
> I don't want to point a finger to anybody because I want to keep this conversation polite. I've read all the previous posts in this forum and I've not come to the same conclusion as you. I am sorry to disagree politely.



If you think that something is “incorrect” despite it being used by native speakers, that makes you a “prescriptivist”. And that’s fine. We will simply disagree about what is “correct” because we approach grammar and usage differently. 

That said, this is getting well beyond the scope of this thread. I have chimed in with my thoughts on usage to answer the OP’s question and will leave it at that.


----------



## DonnyB

Jazz007 said:


> Hello Donny,
> 
> The dictionary says that "break" means "stop working":
> 
> ===============
> British English: break /breɪk/ verb
> *stop working* If a machine _breaks_, or if you _break_ it, it stops working.
> My brother broke the television.
> ===============
> 
> According to the above definition, it does not matter whether the machine itself breaks or a person breaks it (either by damaging it physically or just using it wrongly.)


As a number of us have tried to tell you in this thread, usage is heavily dependent on context and how we interpret what a sentence means. In the sentence "My brother broke the television", a native speaker will interpret that as meaning that he did something to cause it to break: it didn't just break of its own accord.  He may not have done anything as dramatic as putting his foot through the screen, he may have just mis-used it or done something that the operating instructions tell you not to, but the end result is that what he did  _caused it to break_.

I accept that it may be difficult for anyone learning English to pick up the some of the nuances of how the language is used and that we sometimes use it it non-standard ways.  I'm really sorry, but I feel we're just going round in circles with this thread, and we don't seem able to come up with the answer you seem to be looking for.  Dare I suggest that maybe you're just over-thinking the whole thing?


----------



## 2PieRad

Jazz007 said:


> And if there is no smoke at all, but the car has stopped working, how do you say it by using the word "break or broke"?


Please read again. I wrote *fathom. *

Can you *fathom *smoke coming out of the hood of a car? Sure. That's why you can say that a car broke down (regardless if there's actually smoke or not in this instance.)
Can you *fathom *smoke rising from a broken watch? I can't. My watches ain't that fancy. That's why you can't say that a watch broke down.

Can you *fathom *smoke coming out of your broken TV? Kind of depends on your own age and thus the age of the TVs you're familiar with, doesn't it? If you're familiar with TVs from the last century, which may have been more prone to spewing smoke and fumes when they stopped working, then you may be more comfortable using "break down".

If you can fathom smoke/fumes/steam coming out of it when it stops working/running, then you can say that it broke down. If not, then you can't. If some people can fathom and others cannot for a given piece of machinery, it also explains why the former group feels comfortable using _break down _while the latter doesn't for the same piece of machinery. Can you find instances where this litmus test doesn't work? If not, then tah-dah, it seems like you got the "rule" you're searching for.

---
If we're actually referring to the OP's first post,


> "1) The car broke" but we have to say "2) the car broke down" (it won't start), but I can say "3) My nephew broke the car" but can't "4) my nephew broke the car down"?


then I'm pretty sure the answers were already provided near the beginning of the thread. I'll reiterate.

1 and 3 are not comparable. _Broke _in 1 in intransitive, while _broke _in 3 in transitive.
2 and 4 are not comparable.
From the WR dictionary, the definition of _break down _from sentence 2 is definition #1: (intransitive) to cease to function; become ineffective.
The definition of _break down _from sentence 4 is definition #3 (and a bit of definition #6): (transitive) to crush or destroy/to separate or cause to separate into simpler chemical elements; decompose


----------



## Keith Bradford

Jazz007 said:


> ...2)From where do you get the rule that you have proposed in your previous post? From English school books, dictionaries, etc? I am just asking so I can learn about how native English speakers validate the accuracy of their language usage.
> Many thanks in advance for your reply!


Good Lord no!  I hope I didn't suggest that this is a "rule" and I certainly didn't get it from any published source.

Like you, I'm just trying to make sense of the thousands of times I must have heard these expressions, and that's the best suggestion (not rule) that I can come up with so far. I'll be very happy if someone else can improve on it.


----------



## Jazz007

Polyglot Jurist said:


> If you think that something is “incorrect” despite it being used by native speakers, that makes you a “prescriptivist”. And that’s fine. We will simply disagree about what is “correct” because we approach grammar and usage differently.
> 
> That said, this is getting well beyond the scope of this thread. I have chimed in with my thoughts on usage to answer the OP’s question and will leave it at that.


Generally, dictionaries tend to be descriptive (i.e., reflecting how language is commonly used in society) or prescriptive (i.e., advocating for proper academic usage). There is nothing wrong in being prescriptive. In this discussion thread, people have suggested some rules that I could not explicitely find in any official dictionary. Hence my question: where do these rules come from and how to validate whether they are correct or not? Assuming simply that these rules are correct because they are proposed by native speakers would imply that native speakers never make mistakes in their own language. From my experience with my native language, I know that this is not true.


----------



## kentix

Yes, that's not true. But it's just a fact that there is no official regulator of English. Number one, we wouldn't like it, and number two, it's impractical. There are many distinct varieties of English with millions of speakers each. Some words and phrases and grammar that are accepted as correct in one variety are not seen as correct, in the others. At the very least, they may be seen as very uncommon or old-fashioned. There is no official body to make a "ruling" for the entire English-speaking world on right and wrong, so both forms exist simultaneously in English - but their common use is restricted to one variety.

As I said above, English is run by consensus, not book rules. Some things have 100% consensus ("I have two arms" needs an s on "arms". "I have one head" should not have an s on "head".), but many other things have a much less strong consensus, based on regional variety, or age of the speaker, or changing fashion, or newness (like tech terminology).



Jazz007 said:


> where do these rules come from and how to validate whether they are correct or not?


They come from millions of people speaking billions of sentences every day and noticing the patterns in them. Strictly speaking there is no correct, even as a concept. We all learned rules in school and there are many basic rules with near 100% consensus. But no single book or body is authoritative. Those rules are correct because people accept them and use them, not because they are written in a book. It's shared knowledge. We hear those usages applied by other speakers every day and that reinforces how we speak. And how grammar books are written. And between all those millions of interactions, and the millions of written words we read, a consensus coalesces society-wide and we know what's normal and what's not. Some people have grammar training and can explain things more technically but most people just "know" through experience. So a person might at times stray outside the consensus and say things that sound odd. If they stray far enough, it will be considered wrong, because it doesn't match generally accepted patterns anywhere. But if they stray a little, it can be hard to tell if they are "wrong" or from somewhere where that form is correct. We can't be too quick to judge. But we can live with that.

Break down, broke down, broken, not working --
One of the areas with the least consensus is specific vocabulary. That can vary greatly by region. Dictionaries can't list every possible meaning, use and nuance of every word in every country and region. Novel sentences are spoken every day and words adapt and change. Words are used figuratively. But after listening to millions of words spoken over twenty, thirty and forty plus years, we all have a storage locker in our brain full of this information. We know how "everyone else" uses certain words in certain contexts so we use them that way too. When they are used in other contexts we have never heard, they seem wrong. No dictionary can tell us that. Dictionaries list the commonest ways words might be used. They can't list all the ways words are almost never used.

Since everyone has a different life experience, opinions vary a bit. We have given you our experiences of ways in which _break down, broken down, broken, not working, stopped working, isn't working _are used in common situations. Don't expect 100% agreement. You might get stronger agreement on what's considered wrong than what is right. I expect there is a firm consensus that broke down would be inappropriate to use for a pen. (_I was writing a letter and my pen broke down._) I expect there is firm consensus that it is right to use for a car. (_I was driving to work and my car broke down._) So where is the dividing line between a pen and a car? You won't find that in any dictionary. Not everyone will agree. But somewhere between those two, one becomes wrong and the other becomes right. We have told you some factors that tend to influence that decision of which one to use (see Keith, #25). But there is no 100% consensus in the middle. It depends on the person and the exact sentence. That's the reality of English.



Jazz007 said:


> any official dictionary


There is no official dictionary. They are just labors of love by people who like words.


----------



## Polyglot Jurist

I would likely say the communication in this thread has broken down. But I might be wrong about that.


----------



## 2PieRad

Jazz007 said:


> In this discussion thread, people have suggested some rules that I could not explicitely find in any official dictionary.


Sorry, I don't get what your goal is. If you're looking for rules found in official dictionaries, there are entries a-plenty. What's the point in asking people here, then? The original post (post #1), which seems to be what you're referring to, did not ask about dictionary definitions. It asked about usage. Why we can't use sentence 1, but sentence 2 is okay. Why we can use sentence 3 but sentence 4 is not okay. The answer has been provided by referencing dictionary definitions: transitive/intransitive use of break/break down. 

Or are you referring to the additional question in post #10? [Machine] breaks/breaks down.


Jazz007 said:


> Hence my question: where do these rules come from and how to validate whether they are correct or not? Assuming simply that these rules are correct because they are proposed by native speakers would imply that native speakers never make mistakes in their own language.


Well, this is where we borrow a little from something scientists call the scientific method. One makes observations (eg. on the usage of break/break down by native speakers). One proposes a hypothesis/rule on how these terms are used (post #34, #25, #22 and others). One goes out and tests said hypothesis/rule to see if one can find counterexamples to disprove it. The more one tests it successfully, the more one "validates" it. Hence why I asked you (and others) in post #43 to go out and test my proposed rule. Have you found any potential counterexamples we could discuss yet? It'd be far more productive than dragging out whatever point you're trying to make here, methinks. Ain't this, more or less, how people who write "official dictionaries" do it as well? 



Jazz007 said:


> Assuming simply that these rules are correct because they are proposed by native speakers would imply that native speakers never make mistakes in their own language. From my experience with my native language, I know that this is not true.


Yeah, hate to break it to you, but we're well aware. We weren't born yesterday. 🙃


----------



## DonnyB

Several different members have done their best to explain the difference between "break" and "break down", which was the original question.  Despite that, this thread has started drifting into areas which are well outside the scope of our forum: in particular, the question of why the English language is structured in the way that it is is virtually unanswerable.  The thread is therefore now closed. My thanks to everyone who has taken part: I hope that anyone reading the thread will find at least something of use to them.  DonnyB - moderator.


----------

