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.)
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?