estar vs ser question
If something IS important is ser used?
6 Answers
I suggest you read the article at the above link, that explains the use of ser quite well. An example from that article points out that you would use "estar" to say that someone "is" dead. I think whether or not someone is dead is fairly important. His article also points out why a temporary vs. permanent rule does not work. Obviously death is also permanent. It is, however, not a defining characteristic of the person as a person- instead being a state that they are in, so you use estar.
Late addition:
Several examples I like are:
Plátanos son amarillos, pero este plátano está verde. We define (characterize) bananas as being yellow, however a banana can be in a green "state". Mi coche está roto. Even if it is permanently broken, a car is characterized by running, so broken is a "state" it is in. Ella es una niña. We define a child as a child (with all the characteristics a child has), so we use ser.
Bananas are yellow (for that short period between green and black), cars run, people are alive, and children are children (for as long as they are children-not permanently).
You should read/review this reference article on Ser and Estar. It ought to help you a lot.
It's not a temporary condition, so it would be ser.
As was said before, this rule is misleading.
Está muerto.
Please have a look at this compilation:
"La cosa es importante." It's not a temporary condition, so it would be ser.
"La cosa es importante." It's not a temporary condition, so it would be ser.
