When to use "estar" or "ser" in "preterito imperfecto"?
I was readin a text about restrictions during the Franco regime and could not understand the distinction made in the text between "estar" and "ser" in certain instances. In one instance the text states "muchas peliculas y libros estaban prohibidos"" where as in another instance it says "los partidos politicos eran ilegales". I do not understand why one statement uses estar and the other ser. If somenone clould clear this up that would be great.
4 Answers
estaban prohibidos indicates a resultant state of an action done to them. They were prohibited whereas eran ilegales is simply the past for ser ilegales and you are telling what they were (identity).---= Sergio
It seems to me that the verb estar refers to a certain condition or status which is being described. The verb ser refers more to a described truth. I don't know if I'm making myself clear. Say, muchas películas y libros eran prohíbidos, and the meaning will pretty much be, many films and books were being banned which differs in meaning to muchas películas y libros estaban prohibidos which is pretty much the same as saying "many films and books had a banned status" or, in normal english "[...] were banned". And with no further to say or add I’ll just add this to what Sergio said, which is pretty much it.
Although I had the intention of making this longer and more detailed, he/she, I'm not quite sure, seems to have gotten to your senses way before I did with the most simple yet effective of anwsers.
Gmouse
I don't think the tense affects whether it is ser or estar.
That's a tough one. I'm native and sometimes I can't understand the reason; it just sounds natural to me; perhaps it's the whole point of being native 
, duh. Well, as I said this is a tough one. You will have to have a little patience and give me some time. I'm on duty, I'm working on it. 
I'm concentrating as hard as I can.
Will resume in the near future,
Gmouse 
