View Single Post
  #43  
Old March 20, 2011, 07:17 PM
aleCcowaN's Avatar
aleCcowaN aleCcowaN is offline
Diamond
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 3,127
Native Language: Castellano
aleCcowaN is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by laepelba View Post
  • The same author compares the use of ser as roughly equivalent to "equals" in a way that links nouns/pronouns to the subject of the verb.
Ser is the only verbo sustantivo in Spanish, that is, it's the only verb that asserts about the subject what the complement declares:

La leche es buena para los huesos.

Estar only can refer to attributes of the subject, but mainly it's not a verbo sustantivo (what is beyond obvious; the beyond part being the important one)

Quote:
Originally Posted by laepelba View Post
  • One of the authors says that you can use "either SER or ESTAR ... with locatives, with a consistent difference in meaning." He then goes on to give examples, which include the following: "(al taxista) Pare, pare, mi casa es aquí. (= mi casa es ésta)". I don't at all understand this. I don't see how this is any different than needing to use "estar" for location.
Just to add that you can say "está a 1000 millas de aquí" or "está delante de tu nariz", but when you say "es aquí" as well as "es ésta", the thing must be on sight or you must be on the spot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by laepelba View Post
  • The next question has to do with the choice of imperfect vs. preterite than with ser vs. estar. An author of one of the articles writes the following:
I sort of get this, but not entirely. Would someone kindly comment on this a bit further? Thanks!
The author is just referring to the expectation about the nature of the speech that follows one declaration or the other. In real Spanish you have the short answer ("Un general.") or the long answer that uses to mimic the verb within the question, that is "Fue un general que..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by laepelba View Post
  • When talking about the use of ser vs. estar + adjective or participle changing the meaning of the sentence, I don't see "sentado" on any of the lists. Doesn't "ser + sentado" mean "sensible" and estar + sentado" mean "to be seated"?
I don't know "ser sentado" with that exact meaning. It could be "ser sensato" (to have good sense) or "ser sentado" (dated: to be thoughtful, wise). Your question involves the fact that sentado as an adjective is more than sentado as a participle. DRAE is a good guide as you won't find "abrazado" in it because as an adjective it gets the meaning from "abrazar", but when a past participle has gotten its own meanings, you will find it in DRAE, as it happens with "sentar" and "sentado".
__________________
[gone]

Last edited by aleCcowaN; March 21, 2011 at 04:40 AM.
Reply With Quote