What is the difference between "broke" and "be broken" in the following?
The pot broke as I kicked it.
The pot was broken as I kicked it.
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
The first is sometimes called an unaccusative verb. While similar to the passive participle in the second example, they are semantically distinct.
The passive construction overtly implies an agent which caused the event; this agent could be animate or inanimate, such as in "The window was broken by the storm."
In contrast, the unaccusative form does not imply an agent. The meaning is more vague, and could suggest that the noun in question seemingly broke spontaneously with no cause.
However when you explicitly communicate the cause of the breakage through the adjunct "as I kicked it", this semantic distinction almost disappears.
There is no appreciable difference in meaning. However, your first example
Your second one
is slightly ambiguous, for three possible reasons:
1) "was broken" can be read as passive, yet the sentence says that you (actively) kicked it.
2) "was broken" can be taken as a participial modifier (describing the state of the pot, not the action on it); almost as if the pot was already broken.
3) "as" is occasionally construed as "because" rather than "while", yielding "The pot broke because I kicked it." (which is true, but not exactly what you meant.)
In fact, the pot became broken when you kicked it. Or in other words, it broke. So the first way is clearer.
Note: In some languages, reflexive verbs are used when things are damaged, as if things "cause" damage to themselves. In Spanish, for instance, "la olla se rompió" (literally, the pot broke itself) or "el vaso se cayó" (the glass fell itself). Not so in English. Either