3 ms·

In Spanish, we have two different versions of "to be": 'ser' is for defining what something is (I am a human), and 'estar' is for temporary states of being (I a

In Spanish, we have two different versions of "to be": 'ser' is for defining what something is (I am a human), and 'estar' is for temporary states of being (I am sad). I do find it strange that English assigns the two meanings to one word.

Sosh101 5y ago
It reminds me of the Polish phrasing "masz racje", literally "you have right", as compared to the English "you are right".
- ithinkso 5y ago
  On the other hand, 'you have right' translated literally to polish is 'masz prawo' which is exactly what 'you have right' means. I think 'masz racje' -> 'you have correct' -> 'you are correct' would be a better way to show the difference. And the longer I think about the word 'racja' the less I'm confident I'm able to explain precisely what it means using english. I guess that's part of the fun of learning other languages, I will never understand articles in english and I made peace with it. Now I'm also learning spanish and subjuntivos drives me nuts but spanish and polish grammar are surprisingly similar (waaay closer than both are to english)
  - mid 5y ago
    To me 'masz racje' is somewhat between 'you are correct' and 'makes sense'
- ggambetta 5y ago
  The Spanish version, literally translated, is "you have reason" :)
wsinks 5y ago
I love this about spanish. Took me forever to initially get it, and then I've never gone back. It helps identify permanence in a very useful way.
- nathancahill 5y ago
  Yes, this and the very common use of passive voice (at least in LATAM): El vaso se rompió vs Rompí el vaso.
michaelhoffman 5y ago
English uses "to be" even further where other languages like Spanish would use another verb—for example statements about the weather are "it is hot" rather than Spanish's "hace calor".
- mrwh 5y ago
  I hadn't really thought about that, but yes of course. E.g. French "il fait beau", "elle a quarate ans" etc. Making and having, rather than being.
- Tagbert 5y ago
  I have read that the use of the “meaningless it” with an impersonal verb like this in English is due to an influence from the Celtic languages that were extant across Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion.
Zababa 5y ago
French has something a bit like that: we don't say "I'm hungry" but "I have hunger", or "I'm scared" but "I have fear". I'm not sure if there's a rule on when to use which though.
k__ 5y ago
I never got far into Spanish, but I remember that there were exceptions to that rule. Like things that aren't really permanent, but still use ser. In the end I just saw it as a strange and random language quirk. Like articles in German or Dutch.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  My favorite is that it's ingrained in the language that living is temporary: "I am alive" uses "estar" -> "Estoy vivo." But "I am dead" also uses "estar" -> "Estoy muerto." AFAIK, when most people die, they are dead forever.
  - eloisius 5y ago
    Because temporary vs permanent is not the correct categorizations of estar and ser. It's more like state vs characteristic. State and characteristic is still a fuzzy boundary, but hey it's a human language.
- losvedir 5y ago
  Yeah, I think about this a lot as I've been brushing up on my Spanish lately. A lot of people are eager to come up with and apply "rules" to the grammar, but I suspect most of these rules are post-hoc, and the way it _really_ works is largely statistical. Peter Norvig has a great discussion here[0] that asserts as much, compared to Chomsky's idea that language is based on instinctual rules. I help out on /r/EnglishLearning, and a lot of the time my answers are like, "well, I don't know why but it sounds better this way...", which makes me think of the statistical model. On the Spanish side, I recently thought about it with regard to the subjunctive mood, and in particular its use with the verbs pensar and creer (to think/believe). The upshot is that you use the indicative mood in the positive case, and subjunctive mood in the negative case (creo que estas bien / no creo que estés bien). People give lots of motivated reasons for why this is, and how in the negative case you're not "sure" of it, while in the positive case you're "sure" that you "think" it, or something like that. But ultimately, I think it's just the simple aforementioned positive/negative rule that native speakers build up over time from being exposed to sentence constructions, maybe without even realizing it, and only post-hoc rationalize why it is. [0] https://norvig.com/chomsky.html https://norvig.com/chomsky.html
reggieband 5y ago
I recall an incident while I studied Spanish. An older woman in my class was nearly in tears of frustration as she angrily demanded of our teacher why they use "estar" to denote locations. For example "París está en Francia". Given the naive classification of estar as temporary it seems counter-intuitive to suggest Paris is temporarily in France. There are a few other ambiguous ser/estar situations we were taught, exceptions to the permanent/temporary distinction that I can't recall. But the near break-down this woman had about Paris was quite memorable.
- mlmonge 5y ago
  It's made sense to me that "estar" is used as a means to "localize" the subject to a particular space/time. Thus the non-permanence (i.e. "non-global") meaning of the word.
jdevera 5y ago
Native Spanish speaker here: it was very interesting to me to read this way of explaining the difference. I always thought about it as ”ser" for essence and "estar" for state, but reading the comments below made me realise this isn't fully accurate either, but I'd still argue it's closer.

Sosh101 5y ago

It reminds me of the Polish phrasing "masz racje", literally "you have right", as compared to the English "you are right".

ithinkso 5y ago
On the other hand, 'you have right' translated literally to polish is 'masz prawo' which is exactly what 'you have right' means. I think 'masz racje' -> 'you have correct' -> 'you are correct' would be a better way to show the difference. And the longer I think about the word 'racja' the less I'm confident I'm able to explain precisely what it means using english. I guess that's part of the fun of learning other languages, I will never understand articles in english and I made peace with it. Now I'm also learning spanish and subjuntivos drives me nuts but spanish and polish grammar are surprisingly similar (waaay closer than both are to english)
- mid 5y ago
  To me 'masz racje' is somewhat between 'you are correct' and 'makes sense'
ggambetta 5y ago
The Spanish version, literally translated, is "you have reason" :)

wsinks 5y ago

I love this about spanish. Took me forever to initially get it, and then I've never gone back. It helps identify permanence in a very useful way.

nathancahill 5y ago
Yes, this and the very common use of passive voice (at least in LATAM): El vaso se rompió vs Rompí el vaso.

michaelhoffman 5y ago

English uses "to be" even further where other languages like Spanish would use another verb—for example statements about the weather are "it is hot" rather than Spanish's "hace calor".

mrwh 5y ago
I hadn't really thought about that, but yes of course. E.g. French "il fait beau", "elle a quarate ans" etc. Making and having, rather than being.
Tagbert 5y ago
I have read that the use of the “meaningless it” with an impersonal verb like this in English is due to an influence from the Celtic languages that were extant across Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion.

Zababa 5y ago

French has something a bit like that: we don't say "I'm hungry" but "I have hunger", or "I'm scared" but "I have fear". I'm not sure if there's a rule on when to use which though.

k__ 5y ago

I never got far into Spanish, but I remember that there were exceptions to that rule. Like things that aren't really permanent, but still use ser. In the end I just saw it as a strange and random language quirk. Like articles in German or Dutch.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
My favorite is that it's ingrained in the language that living is temporary: "I am alive" uses "estar" -> "Estoy vivo." But "I am dead" also uses "estar" -> "Estoy muerto." AFAIK, when most people die, they are dead forever.
- eloisius 5y ago
  Because temporary vs permanent is not the correct categorizations of estar and ser. It's more like state vs characteristic. State and characteristic is still a fuzzy boundary, but hey it's a human language.
losvedir 5y ago
Yeah, I think about this a lot as I've been brushing up on my Spanish lately. A lot of people are eager to come up with and apply "rules" to the grammar, but I suspect most of these rules are post-hoc, and the way it _really_ works is largely statistical. Peter Norvig has a great discussion here[0] that asserts as much, compared to Chomsky's idea that language is based on instinctual rules. I help out on /r/EnglishLearning, and a lot of the time my answers are like, "well, I don't know why but it sounds better this way...", which makes me think of the statistical model. On the Spanish side, I recently thought about it with regard to the subjunctive mood, and in particular its use with the verbs pensar and creer (to think/believe). The upshot is that you use the indicative mood in the positive case, and subjunctive mood in the negative case (creo que estas bien / no creo que estés bien). People give lots of motivated reasons for why this is, and how in the negative case you're not "sure" of it, while in the positive case you're "sure" that you "think" it, or something like that. But ultimately, I think it's just the simple aforementioned positive/negative rule that native speakers build up over time from being exposed to sentence constructions, maybe without even realizing it, and only post-hoc rationalize why it is. [0] https://norvig.com/chomsky.html https://norvig.com/chomsky.html

reggieband 5y ago

I recall an incident while I studied Spanish. An older woman in my class was nearly in tears of frustration as she angrily demanded of our teacher why they use "estar" to denote locations. For example "París está en Francia". Given the naive classification of estar as temporary it seems counter-intuitive to suggest Paris is temporarily in France. There are a few other ambiguous ser/estar situations we were taught, exceptions to the permanent/temporary distinction that I can't recall. But the near break-down this woman had about Paris was quite memorable.

mlmonge 5y ago
It's made sense to me that "estar" is used as a means to "localize" the subject to a particular space/time. Thus the non-permanence (i.e. "non-global") meaning of the word.

jdevera 5y ago

Native Spanish speaker here: it was very interesting to me to read this way of explaining the difference. I always thought about it as ”ser" for essence and "estar" for state, but reading the comments below made me realise this isn't fully accurate either, but I'd still argue it's closer.