Whats the difference between ser hecho y estar hecho?
son hecho-
estan hecho-
se hacen-
What's the difference between these 3. Do they all mean "they are made"?
3 Answers
elaboration on the post of lazarus
English frequently does not make a distinction between the words used to describe an action and those used to describe the state that results from that action, whereas Spanish usually does. This is just one example of this difference between the two languages.
Just in case anyone is wondering the same here is what I found thanks to the previous link
The question of ser vs. estar with past participles is one of event (ser) versus inactive & static descriptions (estar). Lorca fue asesinado and Las ventanas del edificio fueron destruidas por el huracán use SER because they are passive constructs of events: Somenoe assassinated Lorca and the hurricane destroyed the windows. Compare to non-events: El cuerpo de Lorca está perdido para siempre and Las ventanas estaban destruidas. The difficulty for English speakers lies in that in English, The windows were destroyed does not distinguish between the idea that something destroyed them (event: fueron destruidas) and the condition they were in (static: estaban destruidas).
ser + past participle = action
estar + past participle = result of an action
