sido vs estado vs ido differences
Hi! I would like to express "I have never been to New York" in spanish, not sure which is the most common way that native speakers do it.
Hola! Me gustaría decir "I have never been to New York" en español, pero no estoy seguro de que manera es más común. Gracias por ayudarme.
No He estado a Nuevo York
No he sido a Nuevo York
No he ido a nuevo York
Duy
13 Answers
Remember that estar is for location.
No He estado a Nueva York (Pretty bad)
No he sido a Nueva York (Can't be worse. It doesn't even make sense)
No he ido a Nueva York (Good)
No he estado en Nueva York (best).
I've always wondered why "I've been to" and not "I've been in" or "I've never gone to" in English.
Cristal said:
no he ido a nuevo york sounds right
It is Nueva York, and city names are capitalized.
I have no idea about WHY, but the various phrases you mention are used.
It's always dangerous to speak for someone else, but I think Lazarus was not saying that those phrases aren't used, but rather was wondering why those phrases aren't used all the time instead of the somewhat illogical "have been to." If there is any doubt about its lack of logic, try using it in a tense other than the present perfect.
I am being to NY tomorrow.
I was to NY two years ago.
I will be to NY when I have the money.
I would have been to NY if I had had the time.
etc.
It's just a strange twist of language.
They are both grammatically correct. However, they have slightly different meanings, like James says, "presence in a place and traveling to a place". I don't know why we tend to use "have been to" more often.
lazarus1907 said:
I agree with you, James. But I still wonder why in English you don't say:
I have been in Paris
I have gone to Paris
instead of "I have been TO Paris". This distinction could easily be added to the usual "why-do-you-" list in Spanish, I guess. Trying to find a rational answer here is probably a waste of time, like in many other circuimstances.
>
I have no idea about WHY, but the various phrases you mention are used.
I've been to New York City, but not upstate New York.
I've been in New York before; I was there when Flight 800 crashed.
I've never gone to Chicago, but I grew up in St. Louis.
All those sound perfectly natural (to me), but then Missouri is fast losing credibility on this forum. (There's an old joke that says "I've been all over the world, and to Arkansas." Perhaps y'all would like to apply it to Missouri instead . . . ha ha.)
lazarus1907 said:
I agree with you, James. But I still wonder why in English you don't say: I have been in Paris
I have gone to Paris
instead of "I have been TO Paris". This distinction could easily be added to the usual "why-do-you-" list in Spanish, I guess. Trying to find a rational answer here is probably a waste of time, like in many other circuimstances.
>
Nunca he estado en Nueva York = I have never been in N Y.
No he estado en nueva york.
no he sido is like u are not.
or u can used no he ido a nueva york too.
Banana
You probably replied before I edited my post to include your question. See above.
I have actually wondered the same thing myself. The preposition "to" implies movement, while the verb "to be" is a static verb, so it's strange that we use them together to mean "to have traveled to." But this is by far the most common way to express this idea. As the 1960's group Three Dog Night sang, "I've never been to Spain..."
Definitely a member of that list!
I agree with you, James. But I still wonder why in English you don't say:
I have been in Paris
I have gone to Paris
instead of "I have been TO Paris". This distinction could easily be added to the usual "why-do-you-" list in Spanish, I guess. Trying to find a rational answer here is probably a waste of time, like in many other circuimstances.
No he ido a Nueva York (Good)
No he estado en Nueva York (best).
I certainly don't doubt you here, but this is contrary to my own experience with native speakers, who almost invariably use the former of the above two. To me, the difference is similar to the difference between the following.
I have never been in New York
I have never been to New York
The first emphasizes presence in the place, while the second emphasizes traveling to the place. Of course, the difference is subtle, but we use the second one more often, and I thought that I had heard the same tendency among native Spanish speakers. Am I mistaken?
I've always wondered why "I've been to" and not "I've been in" or "I've never gone to" in English.
Excellent question! But I have no answer.
motley said:
Remember that estar is for location.
Location because an object happens to be in a place (situation), but not because a place can be defined as "where certain things happen".
of material objects, but not places where things take place.
Nunca he ido a Nueva York.
