Quote:
Originally Posted by laepelba
Now I still have just a couple of quick questions:
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.  |
The use of "mi casa es aquí" is to relate immediately say, to the taxi driver, that you home is in this location. Just like you might say "it is here!" to tell the driver to stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by laepelba
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:
Quote:
|
Consider a question like ¿Quién fue Simón Bolívar? -- Imagine a child standing in front of a parent and asking the question. The answer Fue un general pretty much closes the subject. It's time for dinner and there is no time for elaboration - book closed. On the other hand, Era un general suggests strongly that the parent is about to take the time, open up the book, so to speak and begin to tell the child more.
|
I sort of get this, but not entirely. Would someone kindly comment on this a bit further? Thanks!  |
Correct. You can use both to say the same thing, but generally you use "fue" to give a "short" answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by laepelba
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"?
Thanks SO much!!
|
Correct again, but consider the following:
Be seated at theater (instead of standing)
Be seated by your host.
March 20, 2011, 12:47 PM
Threaded Mode
Similar Threads
