Yes. But, you can say "¡Eres hombre muerto!" for example. (You are a dead man!)

And you can also say "Ese hombre está calvo". Yesterday his head was full of hair but he shaved it.

Please read the following: http://www.spanishdict.com/answers/7690/ser-estar


And again, I recommend you to transcribe from Spanish to Spanish and then translate to English, just aiming to understand what's being said. I think you are so advanced in Spanish that you can just use only a Spanish - Spanish dictionary, and if you still don't understand the definition of a word, then use a bilingual dictionary.

Then, you are going to fully understand these elusive rules.

And it isn't a joke.

You don't always say "estar calvo". If you use attributes like "calvo", "gordo", "flaco", "viejo", etc., the choice between "ser" or "estar" depend on what you mean. If you say "Juan es calvo", you're describing Juan as having a characteristic all bald people do, and include him in such group. If you say "Juan está calvo", you're talking about Juan as having endured a process in which he lost his hair (implying you know he hasn't been bald all his life).


To be dead is the result of an action or a process (a murder, an accident, an illness...).
Same case for:

·El policía está herido; el ladrón le disparó.
The policeman is wounded; the thief shot him. -> His current situation is given by the fact he's been shot
·El canario está lastimado de una pata
The canary has an injured leg. -> Something happened to the canary that brought him to this situation
·Mi muñeca está rota. Alguien jugó con ella.
My doll is broken; someone has been playing with it. -> Transformation was caused by careless manipulation.

And I'll quote myself in this same thread:

The verb estar often translates to the English verb to be in the state of.
I hope this helps, but the difference between ser and estar is a puzzlement for most of us non-native speakers.

Eso es una verdad como un templo.

(The literal translation of this expression would be: 'that is a truth like a temple', meaning that something is completely, absolutely true;the truth being as big as a temple).

I´ve witnessed that puzzlement very often. It´s good to have some rules, but you´ll come across exceptions and things whose reason you won´t understand. My advise: take it easy and beware of the difficulty.:)

Okay - thanks y'all - that makes a lot of sense!!!

Tomasimo,
The English verb "to be" is by far the most commonly used verb (roughly 1 in 4 times when we say a verb it is a conjugation of "to be") and also by far the most irregular verb in the language with multiple forms. Despite it's simplicity it is a mash up of several different Anglo Saxon verbs. In vernacular forms of English it has multiple variations that different from standard English "We be nice when we’re trying to impress the teacher."

What always helped me was to realize that the Spanish verb ser is related to the same concept linguistically as the English word essence. The correlation goes way back before Latin to Proto Indo European.

The Spanish verb estar is related to the Proto Indo European root sta from which we get the English words "status","station", and "state".

The "case by case" description of when to use estar and ser outlines in your post, can all be seen to fundamentally relate to the concept of "essential" or to "status".

There are some advantages to thinking about the verbs this way, instead of the classic "ser" is for permanent things, and "estar" is for temporary things. For instance the English sentence "My grandfather is dead", is difficult to translate for many students. The reasoning is that death would appear to be a permanent, so students believe they should use "ser".

But if you think about it using the other cognates, you see that you don't want to say "My grandfather is essentially death". What you want to say is "The status of my grandfather is dead".

"Mi abuela esta muerte" is the correct translation. The choice of verb has nothing to do with the temporary or permanence of death.

Please note that the post you're quoting, as the original poster said, is not exhaustive, and it was meant for people to add useful ideas and tips for learners (and findings by learners themselves).

Also, please note that the hardest things for some students who have been taught the temporary/permanent rule have also been discussed and explained in later messages. :)

Thank you for the corrections. I should have read the entire thread first.

Pedantically, it helps the student to understand that the English verb "to be", and it's accidents "am,are,is,was,were, and being" was formed from several different Anglo Saxon words. There exists an English variant since the 1960's called E-prime which eliminates the verb entirely from written and spoken English. The verb "to be" more often confuses than clarifies. It takes a lot of training to eliminate this verb from speech.

Once you realize that fact, it is easier to see that "ser" and "estar" are not variations of "to be". They are in reality separate words with different etymologies. The close spelling of the Spanish verb "es" and the English word "is", is purely coincidence. While it is possible (with training) to eliminate the verb "to be" from the English language and still have a comprehensible language, it is impossible to eliminate "ser" and "estar" from Spanish.

In their book, Juan and Susan Serrano say that ser is used for “WHATNESS” and that estar is used for “HOWNESS” and “WHERENESS” (Serrano & Serrano, 19). This definition is preferable “nature vs. state” or the "permanent vs. temporary" versions of "to be".

Ser or Estar
 

Lo siento por la misma repetida pregunta. Se que posible hay alguan respuesta ahi, pero honestamente me no tengo tanto tiempo para leer mas de 7 paginas.
Ser o Estar y porque?
-Recuerdas que esta noche vamos al concierto?
- Ay si, donde ES?
- En el auditorio. Creo que va a SER/ESTAR muy bueno? (Creo que va a ser muy bueno? Creo que va a estar muy bueno?)
2. When he was young he was crazy. Era loco/ Estuvo loco ?
Gracias

Crazy and insane are two different things. The first takes 'estar' and the latter takes 'ser'. The imperfect is used to describe a characteristic in the past, so 'era loco' is the correct usage to describe an insane person. If the person was crazy, both 'estaba loco' or 'estuvo loco' can be used. The preterite tense form rules out that the person is currently crazy - the craziness had a start and an end in the past. The imperfect tense form allows for continuance of the craziness - it was ongoing in the past and may still be an issue.
'Ser bueno' is used to describe something characteristically. 'Estar bueno' is used to describe an unexpected characteristic or a change in character. (It's also used in a suggestive way to mean that someone is 'hot' (attractive).)