Imperfect vs. Preterite & Ser/Estar--Again!

Question

Quiero decir "The turkey was juicy, not tough." Puedo (debo?) decir "El pavo era (fue) jugoso, no duro" o "El pavo estaba (estuvo) jugoso, no duro"?

Muchisimas gracias por responder.

I know that you say "estar rico" so I imagine juicy is the same. Whether it's estaba or estuvo would depend on the context. - rabbitwho, Oct 14, 2011

Thanks. So simply the fact that I am describing something in the past is not enough to go with the imperfect? - scratch2486, Oct 14, 2011

Answer 1

Is "Juicy, not tough" an essential characteristic, classification, or defining attribute of this turkey? Or was it just well prepared?

Remember that ser is used to define, estar is used to describe. I would use estar unless this turkey was a genetic mutant designed to be juicy.

I appreciate the way you phrase the distinction between ser and estar. I ofen go with stable vs. temporary, but I think I prefer yours. - scratch2486, Oct 14, 2011

Answer 2

The preterite would apply for a completed event. Was the turkey juicy yesterday and stopped being so, later? That's what the preterite would suggest.

I would go with imperfect here.

I learned today that you can say "Frida Kahlo has been one of the most important artists of all time." in Spanish. Just because time still is, the fact she's dead and it was all in the past doesn't matter. How strange! - rabbitwho, Oct 14, 2011

It's not about the event, it's what you are saying about the event that determines the tense. There are also regional differences regarding the usage of the past perfect vs. the preterite. - lorenzo9, Oct 14, 2011

That's fascinating. Thank you. - scratch2486, Oct 14, 2011