Mi coche esta roto
Mi coche está roto.
So we learn that estar is used for temporary conditions- but all of a sudden I am being told that it is for permenant conditions - El Titanic está hunido. ( it is never going to be re-floated it is sunk forever)
So - Mi coche está roto, could mean - my car is not working ( temporary condition) or my car is not working ( never to be fixed again ) so now we don't know what we are saying, do we ?
Can someone please explain
Thanks.
13 Answers
It is perhaps clearer to think of ser as referring to essence and estar as referring to current status...whether that status is permanent or temporary. But, even then, you are going to run into things that don't fit that "rule." In the end, it will boil down to getting a "feel" for when which one should be used by experiencing them being used correctly in lots of different situations.
I got this idea from this article, by the way.
In essence, it is a ship, a vehicle, a machine, a thing, big, useful, white, pretty It's current status is: sunk, decorated, at the bottom of the sea, rusty
Another way to look at it: What it is (ser) vs. How it is (estar)
Saying that estar is for temporary things and ser is for permanent things is an oversimplification. Actually, it's often wrong. There's a lesson here about it. Many people claim that there are no rules. It's all ad hoc. Está muerto = He is dead. That's pretty permanent, but that's the way you say it.
Yes, Tu coche está roto. No "es" roto. You can think of it as a temporary thing, or a sudden change, or an ad hoc rule, but that's the way you say it.
I like to think of it more in terms of a change of state. Although this is not always the case, it makes things pretty clear. Use estar if a change of state has taken place or can take place. For example even though a car may be broken for good it once worked. Even though somebody is dead forever, depending on your religious beliefs or lack thereof, they were once alive.
May I offer the explanation that I was given for using estar with the verb morir i.e. está muerto.
I am not of the catholic faith but my spanish teacher is and explained that a credo in catholicism is that because you believe in an afterlife their is no such thing as a permanant death so to die is not a permanent state.
He that believeth in me shall never die but have everlasting life<
- I don´t pass comment or opinion upon this but I can see it as a reason why spanish would use estar with morir.
I have also heard, "Mi coche no está funcionando," and "Mi coche no funciona."
My car is not functioning.
If you try to translate literally, "My car is not working," into "Mi coche no está trabajando," you will get lots of puzzled looks.
Also, it can be said, "Mi coche se rompió."
My car broke (itself).
Here is a good little article about it. (Try not to look at the header for too long if you are prone to seizures.)
Los abrolos son grandes, en otoño los arbolos estan rojos y cafes, pero en verano ellos estan verdes.
I was wrong about colors and size...they take ser usually...I imagine even for leaves that change color. My understanding on this is still developing...I understood it less than I thought. But, having made a big, public error out of it, my understanding is better off now.
Apparently, color is considered by the Spanish language to be an essential, identifying trait...whether it changes or not. Even in English, we may identify a person solely by the color of their hair: There goes a pretty blonde.
El camaleón es verde. Espera, ya es marrón.
Location, on the other hand, is not considered by Spanish to be an essential, identifying trait...even though location can be permanent. The mountain is big and white and it is south of the border. It will never move north of the border. We would classify it as a white mountain, a big mountain, simply a mountain...but it would be unusual to classify it (as to its essence) as a south-of-the-border mountain. If you could somehow move it north of the border, it would be the same as to its essence: a big, white mountain. Location is generally a result of happenstance or will.
Es montaña. Es blanca y grande. Está sud de la frontera y para siempre estará allí.
Estar is associated so much with location that, in certain circumstances, it means "is here / there" all by itself.
¿El jefe está? (Is the boss here? Is the boss there? Is the boss in?)
Or, in the negative...
¡No está! (He's not here / he's gone / he's out / he's disappeared)
The thing is, some words take ser, some take estar. Some can take either but mean different things depending on which one you use. There is not necessarily logic in all cases so it will take time, practice, experience.
Es feliz. (He's a "happy person")
Está feliz. (He's happy)
That's interesting.
You can say the same in different ways. Mi carro no funciona. Mi carro no esta funcionando. Mi carro no trabaja. Mi carro no esta trabajando. Mi carro esta descompuesto. Mi carro se arruino. Etc...
OK, thank you all. If the following is correct then I have got. Ready ?
Here we go....Los abrolos son grandes, en otoño los arbolos estan rojos y cafes, pero en verano ellos estan verdes.
I wait with baited breath.
Okay I am a beginner, but now I am even more confused:
I learned (if these are indeed correct)
Era un niño, jugaraba al tenis
or even for a girl who died her hair
Era rubia
I have studied linguistics, so I am perfectly okay with any explanation that is "that's just the way we do it, so learn it"
but
" Use estar if a change of state has taken place or can take place"
seems to fit childhood equally as well or better than death
I have been looking at "ser" as refering to more of an essential (from part of ones essence) or intrinsic quality and "estar" as more of a mood or affected quality (with affect being used in the sense of something you take on)
I would have looked at death as being a state of being but if I really try to stretch my mind around it I can maybe see it as a condition you take on?
Okay- late addition
you define a child as being a child, you define a blonde as being a blonde, you define a person as being boring (but not bored, by definition), etc.
you define a person as being living and a car as something that is drivable, unless, as noted by one person above, it was built not to work on purpose.
I think I can even see the current time as being defined as the time it is (even though it is continuously changing), and the location of something not being part of its essence (generalized to things that cannot be moved), but where it originated being so.
It all makes sense again until I encounter the next exception
If the issue it that you want to say that your car is a bit broken but can probably be fixed you could use a different adjective. I'd say:
Mi auto está malogrado.
Great comments before about the use of ser and estar!
ser as referring to essence and estar as referring to current status.
In essence, it is a ship, a vehicle, a machine, a thing. It's current status is white, big, useful, pretty, sunk
But I would say Mi coche es blanco. Not está blanco.
