Están endulzados VS son endulzados

Question

If something is sweetened with sugar then how could it be están since it's a permanent thing?

Our book has "Debe evitar dulces que están endulzados con azúcar." This is one sense where ser seems like it would fit better to me.

What do you think?

Answer 1

Isn't "delicious" a description or characteristic? Doesn’t “delicious” classify, identify and describe those particular hamburgers?

Both ser and estar are used to describe things: the cid rule for using ser is classify, identify, or define.

Delicious can be considered to be a quality (and use estar) or a characteristic (and use ser.) The usual pattern is to use estar for a particular thing, such as the hamburger you are eating is delicious, and ser for the class of things, such as hamburgers in general are delicious. Many people do not follow this pattern though.

¡Das en el clavo este vez!, Lorenzo. ¡Muchas gracias! - territurtle, Dec 11, 2011

Nicely put :) - Kiwi-Girl, Dec 11, 2011

Answer 2

"Debe evitar dulces que están endulzados con azúcar".

La oración está bien. Por que también se endulza con miel de abeja y otros.

Answer 3

Hi Jeezz!

Debe evitar dulces que estén endulzados con azúcar.-->

(dulces endulzados con azúcar is too much sugar)

Debe evitar dulces que estén endulzados con azúcar. -->

(endulzado is an adjective, does not need "que estén"))

Debe evitar dulces que estén endulzados-->

(still too much sugar)

-->Debe evitar los alimentos endulzados.

-->Debe evitar los dulces.

Muy ingenioso, Cogumela. Sin embargo, la oración original tiene sentido, porque podríamos estar hablando de dulces endulzados con fructosa, con malitol, con aspartame, etc. Tal vez pueda consumir dulces endulzados con estevia, pero no con azúcar, ¿si? - Gekkosan, Dec 10, 2011

Ah, ¿entonces fructosa y malitol no son azúcares? Todo dulce es endulzado y lleva azúcar, o edulcorantes. - cogumela, Dec 10, 2011

Para mí la frase es una redundancia, no digo que no tenga sentido, pero muy redundante. ;) - cogumela, Dec 10, 2011

Well this is straight from the book so I guess the book and professor are wrong. Nevertheless I will take them as being right since that is my class. Thanks Cogumela. - jeezzle, Dec 10, 2011

No, de ninguna manera. Ciertamente, desde el punto de vista químico, cualquieir CHO es azúcar; pero en el mundo dietético, distintas escuelas promueven distintas preferencias en términos de edulcorantes deseables o indeseables. - Gekkosan, Dec 10, 2011

En ese contexto, la distinción entre azúcar (entiéndase azúcar de caña o remolacha), xilitol, estevia, o aspartame (edulcorantes no calóricos), y fructosa (otro tipo de azúcar que algunos dicen es más deseable que el azúcar de caña, y otro que es mucho..( - Gekkosan, Dec 10, 2011

...peor, es relevante y necesaria. Tu comentario tiene sentido desde el punto de vista de elegancia del lenguaje, pero no desde el punto de vista práctico de poder explicar cómo ciertos comestibles son endulzados, sin entrar en profundidades científicas. - Gekkosan, Dec 10, 2011

Que conste, Cogumela, que en principio estoy de acuerdo con tu postulado: mejor evitar los dulces y punto. Pero conozco más que suficientes personas que piensan que la vida sin dulce no vale la pena, así que activamente buscan y prefieren... - Gekkosan, Dec 10, 2011

...dulces endulzados sin azúcar - por redundante o extraño que suene. :-) - Gekkosan, Dec 10, 2011

No necesariamente es asi... se puede endulzar con miel de abeja tambien. - fox10, Dec 10, 2011

Answer 4

Both ser and estar are used to describe things: the cid rule for using ser is classify, identify, or define.

Delicious can be considered to be a quality (and use estar) or a characteristic (and use ser.) The usual pattern is to use estar for a particular thing, such as the hamburger you are eating is delicious, and ser for the class of things, such as hamburgers in general are delicious. Many people do not follow this pattern though.

Thank you for the clarification and correction, Lorenzo. I understand what you are saying. Intuitively this is beginning to make sense, in most cases. And that’s a good thing, because the logic is complex and convoluted. By the time I mentally run through the list of rules to choose between SER and ESTAR, I will have forgotten what I was talking about in the first place!

Answer 5

This reminds me of a sentence we encountered in class, to whit... "Las hamburguesas están deliciosas." Our instructor swore that this sentence is correct and struggled to explain where these delicious hamburgers fit into the categories we learned for Ser & Estar... and we struggled to comprehend. Isn't "delicious" a description or characteristic? Doesn’t “delicious” classify, identify and describe those particular hamburgers? And wouldn't those hamburgers continue to be delicious, at least for the duration of their short life as a hamburger?

So, do Ser & Estar have some implicit distinction regarding generalities vs. specifics, categories vs. subcategories? Not all hamburgers, only these? Not all sweets, but only those containing sugar?

Our instructor did say that some native speakers would use "son" in this sentence, so I guess I have lots of good neighbors here in the state of confusion.

I'll give you a vote for your second paragraph - nicely thought out, not an easy thing to get your head around but you are definitely on the right track :) - Kiwi-Girl, Dec 11, 2011

Gracias, Kiwi_Girl. Am I (on the right track)? Does this logic work with categories other than food? - ajaks, Dec 11, 2011

For instance, in the SD article written by Lazarus, he uses SER to describe his ring. Mi anillo es de oro. Mi anillo es amarillo. Mi anillo es bonito. According to the thread of logic I started in my post, he should be using ESTAR. So.... ??? - ajaks, Dec 11, 2011

@Ajaks: Not at all. Lazarus was referring to permanent qualities of his ring, therefore "ser" aplies. However, if he wanted to describe a temporary condition, say the ring was stained, then he'd use "estar": mi anillo está manchado. - Gekkosan, Dec 12, 2011

Thank you for your interest Gekkosan. This forum is such a great help to learners like myself, and it's entirely because there are members like you who are willing to give of your time and expertise. - ajaks, Dec 12, 2011

I just want to point out one thing. One major aspect of the article Lazarus wrote is that the distinction between SER & ESTAR is not one of permanence vs. transience. In fact, he strongly advises against the usage of this “psuedo-rule” (in his words). - ajaks, Dec 12, 2011

I was positing that *delicious* is to **hamburger** as *gold* is to **ring**, at least as far as subsets are concerned. But.... - ajaks, Dec 12, 2011

Lorenzo's post made short work of that thread of logic. (see below) Thanks to you both! :) - ajaks, Dec 12, 2011

Answer 6

Ser & estar are always ser & estar, Jeezle. I'm not exactly sure why it should be any more or less confusing when applied to sweets.

La mayoría de los dulces son endulzados con azúcar: most confections are sweetedned with sugar.

Estos dulces para diabéticos están endulzados con aspartame. These diabetic sweets have been sweetened with aspartame.

I guess the second one "están endulzados con aspartame" doesn't come to me as naturally as the first "son endulzados con azúcar". And yes this is about diabetics and they are saying he must not eat many things unless sweetened with aspartame etc..... - jeezzle, Dec 10, 2011

I guess I don't see how estar means "has been". Maybe it's a different use than I am used to or perhaps not entirely usual in everyday conversation. - jeezzle, Dec 10, 2011

I'm not translating literally, just using what I find most comfortably equivalent for me in either language. - Gekkosan, Dec 10, 2011

The point is, you can use ser or estar for similar expression, just as always. Sorry I can't make it any simpler for you, but you know that ser vs. estar is not easy. - Gekkosan, Dec 10, 2011

Answer 7

I guess the only way to see this is that a candy is manufactured and does not contain any sugar by itself..but it added?

Son de azúcar.

Está endulzados/tienen azúcar...