A Grammatical Proposition

When one uses the words 'break' or 'brake' an easy distinction can be made as to what the speaker/writer/signer/telepather is meaning. However, when the aforementioned conveyer of message speaks int the past tense, he/she/it/they/neither/both/all would use the word 'broke'. Possible confusion can arise from this duplicity. Therefore, I propose that a change be made, and the sooner the better. The change that I propose is for the word 'break'. For the word 'brake' no change will be necessary, the past tense associated with 'brake' will remain 'broke'. For 'break', the new past tense will be my proposal of 'broak'. For example, "I broak my arm." Here, the author's meaning is as clear as crystal. If however, the author had said "I broke my arm." the interpreter would not know if the arm bone was ruptured, or if the arm had a hydraulic stopping system attached to it, and its action was intentionally cessated by the author. I like many other readers of English confront this type of problem every day. I hope that this small adjustment will be an easy fix to the brake/break conundrum.
As a last note, the word broke will have to be disassociated from the meaning of having no money. No new replacement will be needed as there are already enough words and phrases describing the condition of having no money. This is all I have to say on the subject. Thank you.

Captain Gorton