Ser and Estar in the past

[tacuba]

I've noticed that the user Gramática has been posting a lot about when to use Ser or Estar in the past, and whether to use the Preterite or the Imperfect. I came across this article and would like to get some input from some other members whether or not they agree with the main points.

Thanks

http://www.brighthub.com/education/languages/articles/9061.aspx

[Rusty]

Overall, the article made me feel like there must be exceptions to the simple rules presented. Learning how to use estar and ser is a stumbling block for beginners and even some seasoned speakers. This is because the rules are more complex than outlined in the article.

[gramatica]

It talks about "Quien fue"? Fue...and "era..." (to indicate you are going to keep talking). Would it be correct to answer the question "quien fue"? with "era..." or did they mean "quien era?" era...

Overall, I think the site is pretty good, maybe a little simplified.

It says "debieras estudiar mas" is more polite than "deberías estudiar mas". Is that true? Do they mean the same thing but "debieras" is more polite in some countries?

Thanks

[irmamar]

"Don't use the preterite of estar!" :eek: :eek: :eek:

Estuve a punto de hacer algo.:good:
Fui a punto de hacer algo. :bad:

Estaba decepcionado por su actitud. :good:
Era decepcionado por su actitud. :bad:

Estaba dispuesto a todo. :good:
Era dispuesto a todo. :bad:

Estuvo hablando durante horas. :good:
Fue hablando durante horas. :bad:

etc.
:)

@Gramatica: both tenses are usually interchangeables, although in Spain the conditional tense "deberías" is more common. None of them is more polite than the other (here, of course). :)

[gramatica]

Thank you very much

Also, it talks about "Quien fue"? Fue...and "era..." (to indicate you are going to keep talking). Would it be correct to answer the question "quien fue"? with "era..." or did they mean "quien era?" era...

Thank you

[chileno]

"Don't use the preterite of estar!" :eek: :eek: :eek:

Estuve a punto de hacer algo.:good:
Fui a punto de hacer algo. :bad:

Estaba decepcionado por su actitud. :good:
Era decepcionado por su actitud. :bad:

Estaba dispuesto a todo. :good:
Era dispuesto a todo. :bad:

Estuvo hablando durante horas. :good:
Fue hablando durante horas. :bad:

etc.
:)

@Gramatica: both tenses are usually interchangeables, although in Spain the conditional tense "deberías" is more common. None of them is more polite than the other (here, of course). :)


You fui el que dijo eso.

Está mal dicho?

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

@Hernán: Evidentemente no está mal dicho, pero los ejemplos de Irma son para subrayar la diferencia entre "ser" y "estar" en ese tipo de oraciones... y lo extraño que es el consejo de no usar "estar" en pretérito. ;)

[chileno]

@Hernán: Evidentemente no está mal dicho, pero los ejemplos de Irma son para subrayar la diferencia entre "ser" y "estar" en ese tipo de oraciones... y lo extraño que es el consejo de no usar "estar" en pretérito. ;)

Ya estoy bastante "aurismado" (chilenismo por curado de espanto)
Cada vez me convenzo más de que no hablo castellano, ni menos inglés....

[gramatica]

It also talks about "Quien fue"? Fue...and "era..." (to indicate you are going to keep talking). Would it be correct to answer the question "quien fue"? with "era..." or did they mean "quien era?" era...

Gracias de antemano

[Rusty]

To my mind, the "¿quién fue...?" question is used when you desire/expect a 'superficial' answer.
If you wanted the story behind the name/event (or more elaboration than was given when you asked the first question), you would use a "¿quién era...?" question.
If the first question was "¿quién fue...?" but you wanted to go on about all the particulars, you would use "era" in your answer.

[gramatica]

Thank you very much

Regards