ASK A QUESTION When to use "sido" v. "estado"
I am looking for some rules and examples of when to use sido v. estado in a sentence. It seems to me that most of the time estado is the past participle of choice. For example: He estado pensando. ( I have been thinking) expresses some kind of action so estado seems right. Ha sido doctor por veinte años. Sido seems right in this case since this decribes a permanent condition?
I am pretty clear on the use of ser and estar in the present tense but unsure of the past tenses. Perhaps some examples will clear things
You've got it -- it's the difference between "ser" and "estar."
"Ha sido un buen día." (It's been a good day)
"Habia estado comiendo." (I had been eating)
"No he estado en Nueva York." (I've never been to N.Y.)
Sorry, It's already been answered well, so I'm deleting my post.
This was going to be one of my questions so I am very interested in the answers. Looking at Marianne´s example
No he estado en Nueva York.
I have used he estado to say where I have been, for example Esta mañana he estado al gymnasio, wanting to say - This morning I have been to the gym. This has always been corrected in class written or orally to he ido which to me seems to say I have gone. I don´t want to say I have gone but I have been. Any ideas or is this the Spanish way of expressing something that happened recently?