"Es aquí" ?'?

Question

I've been watching Mi Vida Loca (Spanish lessons from the BBC, linked to by this site). A couple times they've said "Es aquí" in reference to a building (for example, when the taxi driver arrived at the apartment building, that's what he said).

I was always taught that in general, ser is used for permanent conditions and estar for temporary ones, but estar is always used for location. The previous discussions on this site about ser vs. estar don't seem to touch on this. I realize the apartment building isn't going to move . . . but still!! Is this right? Is this something that's peculiar to Madrid'

Answer 1

This is a bit tricky. I got this from Wikipedia: http://my.spanishdict.com/forum

Estar is used to refer to physical location. In Spanish, location is regarded as a state, and therefore is indicated with estar, even in those cases (e.g. Madrid está en España "Madrid is in Spain") when one might think that it is something so permanent and fundamental that it could be logical to use ser. With immobile things, quedar is sometimes used instead of estar, especially when there is a reference to a length of time, or a remaining distance, e.g.:

¿A cuánto queda la playa? / ¿A qué distancia queda la playa? = "How far away is the beach'"
Aún queda lejos = "There's still quite some way" / "It's still far"
El bar queda a cinco minutitos = "The bar's just five minutes away"

However, ser can sometimes occur with words such as aquí, which can mislead learners into thinking that physical location can be expressed with ser. In fact, the verb in this case identifies the place rather than expressing where it is. For example, one might say to a taxi driver the following phrases, to indicate that you have arrived:

Está aquí = "It's here"
Es aquí = "It's here"

The difference becomes clear if aquí is changed to esta calle:

Está en esta calle = "It's in this street"
Es esta calle = "It's this street"

Es aquí and es esta calle express the idea that "this is the place", a concept quite different from what is expressed by estar.

The only case in which true location is expressed by ser is when an event rather than a physical thing is referred to:

¿Dónde es la fiesta? = "Where is the party'"
¿Dónde está la sala de fiestas? = "Where is the discothèque'"

Answer 2

I was always taught that in general, ser is used for permanent conditions and estar for temporary ones

¡¡¡¡¡¡NOOOOOO!!!!!!

This is an evil myth perpetuated by lazy Spanish teachers. The difference between these verbs has nothing to do with premanence (or lack thereof).

"Ser" is used to describe; I tell my students it's when you're talking about the "essence" of a person (or place, or thing). This is why we say, "Ella es rubia" even though she may be on her way to the salon to dye her hair black (therefore this is not a permanent trait). We use "ser" with people's professions ("Soy profesora") even though I could easily quit my job tomorrow and become a head chef at Chilli's (again, not permanent). Your job is one thing that makes you who you are (part of your "essence"), so you use "ser."

"Estar" will describe a [e]state or condition - something that was brought on by a change (but this doesn't mean it will change back. The most famous non-temporary example is "Está muerto." Death is as non-permanent as you can get; the state of death was brought on by a change in condition (you were alive, something happened and now you're dead), which is why it takes "estar." Many people like to say "estar" is a temporary condition because most things that are brought on by change will change back, but not all.

An example that might help English-speaking brains see the difference is the use of "ser" and "estar" with "aburrido." "Bored" and "boring" are both translated as "aburrido/a;" the difference between the two comes with the "to be" verb.

If I say, "I am bored," I'm taking about my condition. I was prefectly happy, but then I started reading this neverending post about the differences between "ser" and "estar" and now I'm bored. It's a change in condition, so in Spanish I would say, "Estoy aburrida."

If I say, "I am boring," I am describing myself. Sadly, I am a very boring person (probably because I drone on and on about grammar aspects no one else gives a flip about - and I do this for English grammar, too. No one is safe!) This is part of my "essence," who I am, so I will say, "Soy aburrida." (Or, "Soy una persona aburrida.")

Then there is the list of other uses, such as "ser" is used with time ("¿Qué hora es'"), "estar" is used with location ("¿Dónde está ...'"), but if you twist your head around them, you can see how they also fit into the description of essence v. change in condition "rules" (okay, so building and cities are not going to move, but people are. I was outside, then a change happened, I walked inside, and I'm inside the house. When you're talking about Madrid being in Spain, it's part of its description... it kinda works). You can probably find that list on the References page of this site, under Grammar (I haven't read it, but I know it's there...) But for your everyday, "he is ___|" ser/estar, think of it as description v. change in condition.

To answer your specific question, though, Mark's answer explained it clearly. (I personally wouldn't use "Es aquí," but I can see why it makes sense gramatically.) I saw the permanent/temporary blasphemy (not your fault, you were taught by a lazy person) and I had to butt in.

Criss
'steps off her soapbox and walks quietly into the sunset'

Answer 3

['bangs her head against the wall in frustration']

I guess I exceeded the time limit - I edited the post, but the site ate it.

Short version (because my fingers are cramping up):

The Reference>Grammar>Ser and estar page on this site tell you "ser" is for more permanent things, then gives you six rules. If you look at the rules, all except "time" are descriptions of the person's "essence" (description, occupation, characteristics, relationships). And they are not permanent.

"Soy alta, morena y delgada." Yes, I was tall, dark-skinned, and thin, but then I ate Twinkies for every meal for a year, and now I'm a big, fat cow. I was tall for a fifth-grader, but all my friends hit their growth spurts in junior high and now I'm the shortest one in the class.

"Ellos son estudiantes." Well, I do hope they graduate someday, and go get jobs. (Oh, sure, you could argue that we are all "lifelong learners"... but then isn't everybody in the world a student? Then this description would be useless.)

"Mi esposo es romántico y cariñoso." This is a description of him, his "essence." However, as anyone who's gone through a divorce knows, these are not necessarily permanent qualities.

"Celia es de España." Again, description, essence. A person's cultural/ethnic background is a big part of who that person is. (No, this won't change, but so far it's the only "permanent" sentence we've seen.)

"Marcos es mi ex-novio." Wait - he's your ex-boyfriend? Which means, last week, he was your boyfriend, right? Which means, last week, you would have told me, "Marcos es mi novio." How "permanent" did that relationship turn out to be?

Same with "estar" - except for location and the present progressive, all the uses of "estar" are the result of a change in condition.

"Mi abuela está sentada." She was standing, got tired, then sat down.

"Estoy tan cansada esta mañana." I'm tired because I went to bed late, or I didn't sleep well, or something else happened to make me tired.

"Estoy triste." Something sad happened, and now I'm sad.

Description/essence v. change in condition is not that hard to grasp. And it has a heck of a lot less exceptions and problems than "permanent v. temporary." (For example, you don't have to pretend "death is an ongoing action" or that "está muerto" is present progressive, when "muerto" is an adjective. Nor do you have to make weird explanations for religion, since a person's religion is part of who they are.)

Okay, now I'm done. Putting the soapbox away for real this time...

Answer 4

This is an evil myth perpetuated by lazy Spanish teachers. The difference between these verbs has nothing to do with premanence (or lack thereof).

Criss is quite right!
The temporary vs permanent rule for ser/estar is used by lazy teachers, and it doesn't work far too often.

The same applies to the typical subjunctive rule (to express desire, doubt,... rubbish)

Answer 5

Estar is used to simply locate people, animals and things.

Ser can be used to indicate where events are taking place, or to identify places (i.e. buildings, rooms, streets...) that interest us, not for where they are, but for what we do in them.

By the way: it is not peculiar to Madrid. It is used everywhere.

Answer 6

"Death is as non-permanent as you can get" '? I see you share my hope for resurrection or, perhaps, reincarnation.
I enjoyed your sense of humor very much. Your posts were anything but boring.

Answer 7

Dead is the typical example we all give to show how useless the permanent/temporary rule is. A much better rule is to say that "ser" classifies, defines or identifies people and things, so using "ser" with "muerto" would be fine for a vampire or a zombie, since they can be classified and identified as dead kind of people. Permanent has nothing to do with it.

More examples:

Es menor de edad (underage) - A few seconds after that comment, you hear the bells... and he is 18 now, and therefore no longer underage. A few seconds: so much for permanent! What you really did was to identify that boy as as a minor, regardless of time considerations.

Es bajo - Permanent? Wait until he grows! This time he has been identified as short, regardless of time considerations.

Está muy alto - The person is not likely to shrink to half the size in the future, but we are not classifying him as "tall", but comparing him with previous situations when he wasn't that tall. Here past and present considerations trigger the use of "estar".

Answer 8

Muchas gracias a todos. Creo que entiendo estos verbos mejor ahora . . . pero no los voy a entender perfectamente nunca. ¡Ay!

Answer 9

Don't worry, I like grammar too. Speaking of talking about things no one else cares about: when I was in graduate school studying mathematics, I tried to explain to my husband about the different orders of infinity. Ever since then, he's been convinced that all mathematicians are loony!

Answer 10

So why have I heard this so much'!! Well, I'll work on the subjunctive some other day . . . when you publish your textbook . . .

Answer 11

This whole discussion reminds me of trying to explain to a Russian friend when to use the articles (a, an, the) in English. (This is exceedingly difficult, has anyone ever tried it') Russian, of course, does not use articles like we do. Just when you think you've explained it, you think of another example that doesn't quite fit. The fact is that in some cases, including or not including the article just slightly changes the meaning. This seems to be the case above . . .

Answer 12

I agree with Quentin

Answer 13

Haha! I was blinded by frustration, and couldn't type correctly!

(Thanks.)

Answer 14

The subjunctive can be fairly successfully using one simple rule that apply to over 99% of the cases, and it is based entirely on understanding why you use it, and not on memorizing blind rules, and verbs and structure lists. Some practice is required to understand when and how to use this rule, of course, but the interesting thing is that it can also be applied in English too most of the time!

My book does not just tell you "use subjunctive with this verb here and indicative there", but also why, with examples, and all based on the rule, so you can do the same once you understand how the rule works.

There are many articles published by very successful and experienced teachers of Spanish as a foreign language explaining the advantages of this system, and how their students' learning has improved dramatically since they abandoned the old system. There is, for example, one article called "Urban myths about the subjunctive". These three are mentioned:

PRIMERA LEYENDA URBANA: el modo subjuntivo es el que se usa para expresar sentimientos y emociones.
SEGUNDA LEYENDA URBANA: el subjuntivo se usa para hablar de lo que no es seguro.
ÿLTIMA LEYENDA URBANA: el subjuntivo se usa para expresar opiniones subjetivas, o la subjetividad en general.

Answer 15

This is an evil myth perpetuated by lazy Spanish teachers. The difference between these verbs has nothing to do with premanence
¿...?

Estar is used to simply locate people, animals and things.

¿ Estoy cansado, casado, aburrido, acostado, dormido, despierto, felíz, complacido, herído, descepcionado, ilusionado...?

Ser can be used to indicate where events are taking place, or to identify places .

¿Una fuerte tormenta esta azotando la costa Oeste del país, la boda se está realizando en la iglesia del pueblo'