I know these are correct:
I am done.
He is chosen.
My phone is broken.
But why do we say
I am broke.
instead of
I am broken.
Is that even grammatically correct?
English Language Learners Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for speakers of other languages learning English. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityIn formal English both are quite grammatical, but they mean something different:
I am broken.
This means I am injured or in bad shape in some way.
I am broke.
This means that I have no money.
In colloquial speech, and even dialectic (informal) writing, some people do use broke in place of broken:
I'm all broke up about it.
It's similar to shook being used in place of shaken:
I'm all shook up.
This is understood and acceptable idiomatically, but it's not something that would be appropriate in a formal context.
Formally, the last two example sentences should be:
I'm all broken up about it.
I'm all shaken up.
Note that broke (see Merriam-Webster's definition) is the past tense of the verb break, and it can be used correctly in a formal context:
The chair broke.
But it's not an adjective. The only defined adjective broke is the one that means without money.
I am broke
, the broke
here is not the past tense of break
, just a homonym of it. Like record
(verb) and record
(noun).
"I am broke" doesn't refer to being broken. It's an informal way of saying that someone doesn't have any money left.
e.g. - "I can't order pizza today, I'm broke."