When to use the verb "Ser" and when to use "Estar" - Page 2

Para mi son comunes sendas maneras:

"Es casado". ---que sería como decir---> Su estado civil es casado.
"Esta casado".

Sin embargo la segunda es la más aceptada y gramaticalmente correcta, como explicaron más arriba.


'No quiso la lengua castellana que de casado a cansado hubiese más de una letra de diferencia.' - Lope de Vega

Good! :applause:

Very good! :applause:

When to use the verb "Ser" and when to use "Estar"
 

Im not an expert, and I havent done Spanish grammar for a while; so any and all of this can be incorrect.

But I think what you were told, that there are no rules, is wrong.

As I understand it, in general, if the situation is temporary or referring to location it uses estar. "La puerta está abierta." And if the situation is more permanent "el gato es rojo," ser is used instead. Then there are nuances, exceptions, and further specificity, but that is the basic use that I was taught. I dont think the third person singular conjugations are magically different in their uses from the other 5...

I would use "es" for pesado. Am I confused?

Generally estar means: to be in the state of (in the state if sadness in the
state joy , illness, Kansas;), etc.)
Ser is less transient and more of an inherent characterisitic. Sometimes ser and estar can be interchanged but the meaning changes. Ella es rubia. Ella está rubia for example.
With that in mind there a also genuine solid rules which you need to know and practive. You can always pull them up on the internet.
Here's an example:
http://www.spanishdict.com/answers/100040/ser-and-estar
Most people who are not native Spanish speakers make mistakes with ser
and estar, and native speakers will, for the most part, understand anyway.

That's where I got confused when I first learned about ser and estar, for example:

Éllos son estudiantes. (Most people don't stay a student forever!)

I was told that the difference was permanent/temporary, but I wasn't told about exceptions.

Just curious... does "Ella está rubia" mean that she is blond because she died it blond, but "Ella es rubia" means that she is naturally blond?

You would use ser for a person with blond hair, natural or dyed. You would use estar if one day the person's hair looked more blond than usual (a surprise).

Excellent explanation from Rusty.

An example of when you can use estar:

(dos amigas hablando)
A: Hace mucho que no veo a Sofía
B: Esta rubia ahora.
A: ¡¿Enserio?!

I'm reading a book about Spanish grammar. In the section on present indicative verbs, this statement is made: "Verbs with irregular first-person singular only; all other forms in the present are regular: ......." and it goes on to list a bunch of verbs like caber and traer, etc. It also includes estar on the list. Is the present indicative conjugation for estar really considered regular except for the first-person estoy? So, the accents don't make it irregular: estás, está, están, etc... :?:

Most grammar books do not consider accentuation as part of the infectional change, so yes, estar would be in that group. It depends on how you want to define 'regular' and 'irregular'. :rolleyes:

No one has asked me what I want. :) I suppose that I want all "regular" verbs to conjugate exactly the same without any exceptions whatsoever, in an expected way so that I don't have to consult a chart, but can just hear "blahblahblahar" and be able to conjugate it "blahblahblaho, blahblahblahas, blahblahblaha, blahblahblahamos, blahblahblaháis, blahblahblahan", etc.... :D

:lol::lol::lol: Here we come to the difference between mathematical exactness and the kind of exactness expected of a spoken language and the associated fuzzy thinking. It's tough out there. :D

Sometimes I wish I had a different brain................... :yuck:

That's why I've been telling you are doing this the other way around. I have never told you not to learn Spanish grammar. :)

High school rappers explaining ser y estar!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY10_...eature=related

Very good:D

There's some really helpful information here. "Ser" and "Estar" can be quite confusing. I was always taught in school that "ser" was more used for permanent like conditions, (Yo soy fuerte.), while "estar" was more for temporary conditions (Estoy cansado.).

Ser is used for permanent traits, estar for temporary things. Locations should always use estar.
Classic Ex: El está borracho (hoy temporalmente)
El es borracho (He is a drunk, I don't expect that to change, therefore permanent)

Or
el es un borracho

I am continuing to make errors in my ser/estar choices, so I have taken some time to do some reading online about the subject.

First, let me share some points that I found to be very helpful:

• One author says that he thinks of ser as a more passive verb and estar as a more active verb (NOT in a grammatical sense). Ser tells you what something is by the nature of its being. Estar refers to what something does. "Soy" = what I am, "estoy" = what I am being.
• 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.
• Another author points out that ser + participle is typically understood as the passive voice (and a compound verb), while the combination of estar + participle is not a compound verb, but the participle is understood to be an adjective referring to a previous action.
• Another author over-simplifies things by saying that a good rule of thumb is as follows: "The verb estar is used for health and location while ser is used for everything else."
• And yet another author specifically talks about estar being used to describe an ongoing action using the present progressive tense. He makes a specific note that "death is an ongoing action - in Spanish, death is seen as an ongoing action, not a permanent state, thus you use the verb estar and not ser." (MOST helpful to me, even though I see that "muerto" is not progressive tense, it helps a lot to think of death this way!)

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 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! :)

• 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!!