Ejercicio 24-10

[laepelba]

This was a translation exercise. I won't post the whole paragraph because I have only four, very specific questions.

1) Original English sentence: He also says he does not want ever to see any sad movie.
My translation: También dice que no quiere ver ninguna película triste nunca.
The book's translation: También dice que no quiere ver jamás ninguna película triste.
My question: Does my placement of "nunca" in the sentence also work? (By the way, I don't like the original English sentence. It's a bit awkward.)

2) Original English sentence: He does not want to go shopping either.
My translation: No quiere ir de compras tampoco.
The book's translation: Tampoco quiere ir de compras.
My question: Again, is my placement of "tampoco" in the sentence okay?

3) Original English sentence: I have never heard a comment like this.
My translation: Nunca he escuchado un comentario como éste.
The book's translation: No he escuchado jamás un comentario como éste.
My question: And again, was my use/placement of "nunca" in this sentence okay? (It seems to me that one answer for my first three questions would be sufficient.... Possibly a quick discussion on the placement of nunca and/or jamás in a sentence....)

4) Original English sentence: If Ray does not stop watching television and step out of his house, no one is going to believe he is alive!
My translation: Si Ray no deja de mirar la televisión y sale de casa ¡nadie va a creer que él es vivo!
The book's translation: Si Ray no deja de mirar la televisión y sale de casa ¡nadie va a creer que está vivo!
My question: Okay, I will readily admit that I often still get ser and estar confused. I'm working on that. But I really don't understand it here. How can it be estar when you're talking about someone being alive or not? Or is it only because it is used in a figurative sense?

Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated!!!

[chileno]

Originally Posted by laepelba

This was a translation exercise. I won't post the whole paragraph because I have only four, very specific questions.

1) Original English sentence: He also says he does not want ever to see any sad movie.
My translation: También dice que no quiere ver ninguna película triste nunca.
The book's translation: También dice que no quiere ver jamás ninguna película triste.
My question: Does my placement of "nunca" in the sentence also work? (By the way, I don't like the original English sentence. It's a bit awkward.)

2) Original English sentence: He does not want to go shopping either.
My translation: No quiere ir de compras tampoco.
The book's translation: Tampoco quiere ir de compras.
My question: Again, is my placement of "tampoco" in the sentence okay?

3) Original English sentence: I have never heard a comment like this.
My translation: Nunca he escuchado un comentario como éste.
The book's translation: No he escuchado jamás un comentario como éste.
My question: And again, was my use/placement of "nunca" in this sentence okay? (It seems to me that one answer for my first three questions would be sufficient.... Possibly a quick discussion on the placement of nunca and/or jamás in a sentence....)

4) Original English sentence: If Ray does not stop watching television and step out of his house, no one is going to believe he is alive!
My translation: Si Ray no deja de mirar la televisión y sale de casa ¡nadie va a creer que él está vivo!
The book's translation: Si Ray no deja de mirar la televisión y sale de casa ¡nadie va a creer que está vivo!
My question: Okay, I will readily admit that I often still get ser and estar confused. I'm working on that. But I really don't understand it here. How can it be estar when you're talking about someone being alive or not? Or is it only because it is used in a figurative sense?

Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated!!!

Ser vivo = (formal) live being (Informal) be smart/wise (opportunistic)

[laepelba]

Thanks for verifying my correctness on #1,2,&3.... But I still don't understand WHY #4 is estar.......

[Rusty]

Chileno already gave you the answer.
To describe a bubbly, vivacious person, you use ser vivo. To describe a person who is alive, you use estar vivo.

A dead person, by the way, está muerto.

Dismiss the 'permanent/temporary' idea when dealing with ser and estar.

Being dead is the result of a change or a process. It's not an intrinsic characteristic of a person. Therefore, estar is used. You can apply the same logic to being alive. It's a process, not a characteristic.

[laepelba]

Okay, I sort of get it ... I didn't follow Hernán's formal/informal comment.... Native Spanish speakers have told me to think of "temporary" & "permanent" with estar & ser..... I really need to find a good review of them, because I've been mixing them up MORE lately, not less.... Thanks, Rusty!!

[chileno]

Originally Posted by laepelba

Okay, I sort of get it ... I didn't follow Hernán's formal/informal comment.... Native Spanish speakers have told me to think of "temporary" & "permanent" with estar & ser..... I really need to find a good review of them, because I've been mixing them up MORE lately, not less.... Thanks, Rusty!!

And strangely enough, the fact that you are mixing them up more lately, to me it is indicative that you are progressing.

It will become clear soon.

[Cloudgazer]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Dismiss the 'permanent/temporary' idea when dealing with ser and estar.

I've also been taught that 'permanent' and 'temporary' can be used to roughly differentiate ser and estar from each other. Though this might not hold for all situations, isn't it a useful lens? Are you suggesting we not use this idea at all or just in this situation?

Originally Posted by Rusty

Being dead is the result of a change or a process. It's not an intrinsic characteristic of a person. Therefore, estar is used. You can apply the same logic to being alive. It's a process, not a characteristic.

Is this really how the majority of Spanish speakers view being alive or dead, that these characteristics are not intrinsic to a person? If so, does anyone know what this philosophical perspective is rooted in?

Thanks!

[irmamar]

I thik that more than a philosophical point of view, there is the religious point of view. Before the existence of the living being, it didn't exist; God is supposed to create it. During its life, this is temporary. Its death is also temporary, because there is another kind of life later. I guess that's the explanation why we use "estar", instead of "ser".

However, there are exceptions to the rule you know about "ser" and "estar". For instance, we say "ser feliz" (although "estar feliz" is also used with the same meaning). And there is not a very long happiness

[Cloudgazer]

Así que cuando alguien dice "es feliz" en cuanto a otra persona, ¿quiere decir que "esta persona se muestra por lo general la felicidad"?, y cuando dice "está feliz" ¿se refiere a que la otra tiene ánimo de felicidad por ahora? ¡Gracias!

[laepelba]

Originally Posted by chileno

And strangely enough, the fact that you are mixing them up more lately, to me it is indicative that you are progressing.

It will become clear soon.

I'm not sure how MORE mistakes = progressing....

[chileno]

Originally Posted by laepelba

I'm not sure how MORE mistakes = progressing....

Do not worry, you'll get it soon enough.

Besides, this "over thinking it" might be working against you.

Take for instance, when you forget something and you have it in "the tip of your tongue" the more you think about it, the farther it gets and you feel frustrated.

Well, I think it is pretty much the same thing with your "difficulty" of having to understand a concept, that in my opinion you know but you want to re-assert yourself about it and then you get entangled by it...

It is, after all my opinion, but please don't take it in bad way as I know you will get it, sooner than what you think.

Think about what I am telling you. I am not being mean, on the contrary. Ok?