3 ms·

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

by 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
Kaze404 5y ago
As a native speaker of portuguese, which uses the exact same two words, I can't think of any exceptions. I don't see why this would be a "strange" and "random" language quirk when it makes perfect sense in practice. The only situations I can see where it wouldn't make perfect sense would be in situations where you're translating to English, which is not a productive way to think about languages.
- wpasc 5y ago
  Not to pick a fight (just a student of spanish), but my spanish teacher would caution us against the categorization of permanent vs temporary and gave us acronyms instead because of examples like: It is 1 => Es la una (describing time uses Ser) I am an engineer => Soy ingeniero (describing a profession which can be seen as a temporary state of affairs)
  - probably_wrong 5y ago
    I can't think of a counterexample for "estar", but you are absolutely right about "ser". Off the top of my head: "soy rubio" (I'm blonde), "soy joven" (I'm young), "soy ciudadano Español" (I'm a Spanish citizen). My favorite quirk is "estoy muerto" (I'm dead), which leads to plenty of metaphysical discussions.
  - Kaze404 5y ago
    Good point, I never thought about those. Still, I'd personally say these are the quirks rather than the entire premise of permanent vs temporary. This is from the perspective of a native speaker though, I don't know anything about linguistics.
  - ruds 5y ago
    I still remember the mnemonic my 9th grade Spanish teacher gave for this: DONT BE LOCO DONT: Ser is for Description, Origin, Nationality, and Time. BE: these verbs mean "to be" LOCO: Estar is for Location and Condition. Determining whether a sentence describes the subject or describes the subject's condition is the trickiest part.

by k__ 5y ago

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

Kaze404 5y ago

As a native speaker of portuguese, which uses the exact same two words, I can't think of any exceptions. I don't see why this would be a "strange" and "random" language quirk when it makes perfect sense in practice. The only situations I can see where it wouldn't make perfect sense would be in situations where you're translating to English, which is not a productive way to think about languages.

wpasc 5y ago
Not to pick a fight (just a student of spanish), but my spanish teacher would caution us against the categorization of permanent vs temporary and gave us acronyms instead because of examples like: It is 1 => Es la una (describing time uses Ser) I am an engineer => Soy ingeniero (describing a profession which can be seen as a temporary state of affairs)
- probably_wrong 5y ago
  I can't think of a counterexample for "estar", but you are absolutely right about "ser". Off the top of my head: "soy rubio" (I'm blonde), "soy joven" (I'm young), "soy ciudadano Español" (I'm a Spanish citizen). My favorite quirk is "estoy muerto" (I'm dead), which leads to plenty of metaphysical discussions.
- Kaze404 5y ago
  Good point, I never thought about those. Still, I'd personally say these are the quirks rather than the entire premise of permanent vs temporary. This is from the perspective of a native speaker though, I don't know anything about linguistics.
- ruds 5y ago
  I still remember the mnemonic my 9th grade Spanish teacher gave for this: DONT BE LOCO DONT: Ser is for Description, Origin, Nationality, and Time. BE: these verbs mean "to be" LOCO: Estar is for Location and Condition. Determining whether a sentence describes the subject or describes the subject's condition is the trickiest part.