Ser vs Estar when "inherent qualities" change
I've read several guides on ser vs estar including both the ones on this site, but still have a few questions I would appreciate clarification on in the case of ser/estar used with adjectives:
The general understanding I have is that the difference between ser and estar when used with the same adjective is whether you mean that characteristic is part of the person/thing's identity versus being a state or an impression. Use of estar instead of ser for the same adjective may also carry the meaning that there has been a change in conditions.
My question is when the meaning you want to express involves a change in qualities that are typically described using ser, is use of estar always valid? Or are there qualities that you would always use with ser and would use the context of other words to convey the meaning of change?
For example I've seen "es alto (he's tall)" and "está alto (to mean he's gotten tall)" and "¿Es casado? (asked of a new acquaintance)" and "¿Estás casado? (asked of a friend to mean are you married (a change in marital status since I last saw you)?". So does this also work for all other qualities normally described with ser like color, hair color, religious/political affiliation etc.?
How about when conveying that a person's personality has changed? For example:
"He was a rude person before, but now he is very nice." (ser for both clauses? or estar for the latter?)
or
"He is generally a mean person, but he was nice today." (ser for the first, estar for the second?)
I'm guessing also though that when a change is in the meaning but it's a case where ser/estar + adj has a very different meaning (like with aburrido - a boring person vs. being bored), you would stick with ser and use other words to convey that a change has occurred?
As always your help is greatly appreciated.
6 Answers
Although the differences between ser and estar are usually distinct, that just doesn't seem to be so with the adjectives of marital status, where you'll often hear the two verbs used with little difference in meaning. In some areas, however, one or the other may be preferred, and estar probably has an edge in everyday speech, at least with casado.
The difference can be very pronounced, ie Estoy casado can mean that I am married, but I have plans to divorce or that I am simply unhappy in a marriage.
Soy casado is usually used when describing marital status for legal purposes. It means "I am a married person." This is used to show that being married is in fact part of a person's general make-up.
I took this from about .com. I thought it was a pretty good exposition on adjectives of marital status, ser and estar. Only addresses part of your question, though.
With adjectives of marital status — ones other than casado (married) include soltero (single), divorciado (divorced) and viudo (widowed), along with their feminine equivalents — estar and ser are more or less interchangeable.
Although the differences between ser and estar are usually distinct, that just doesn't seem to be so with the adjectives of marital status, where you'll often hear the two verbs used with little difference in meaning. In some areas, however, one or the other may be preferred, and estar probably has an edge in everyday speech, at least with casado.
Even so, use of estar can suggest (but doesn't always) there has been a change in marital status. Thus, while you might ask a new acquaintance "¿es usted casado?" you might ask a friend you haven't seen for a while "¿estás casado?" as a way of asking, "Have you become married since I saw you last?" or "Are you still married?"
The same is true with a very few adjectives, such as gordo ("fat") and delgado ("thin"), that describe personal characteristics. Both "es gordo" and "está gordo" can be used to say "he is fat," for example. The latter often suggests that there has been a change, while the former may suggest merely a description of the way a person is. So the choice of verb can suggest an attitude — estar may suggest a state of being at the moment, while ser may suggest an inherent characteristic. In fact, that is the safest way to make your verb choice, and estar must be used where indeed there has been a change. But in everyday descriptions, the distinction of meaning isn't always a sharply clear one.
"He was a rude person before, but now he is very nice."
My vote is for "ser" on both of these. However, I'd say to convey the image of someone having been rude for a long time in the past, use the imperfect.
"He is generally a mean person, but he was nice today." (ser for the first, estar for the second?)
I agree with you 100% here. A few days ago in Spanish class, my teacher was talking about this, and he said what you said...estar if someone is acting different on a particular day.
My two cents..from a native speaker (and rather none technical at that) are as follows:
For example I've seen "es alto (he's tall)" and "está alto (to mean he's gotten tall)"
how I would use them: -Que tan alto es Mario? (how tall is Mario?) Es alto, mide 6 pies (he's tall, he's 6 feet)
-Como ha crecido (how he has grown) ¡Esta Alto! (¡Boy he is tall!)
-Esta Alto ese edificio (this building is tall)
-¡Es alto! (He IS tall) [ I would say to a friend as I see a very tall stranger passing by i.e. basket ball player tall]
-¡Esta alto! (It's HIGH), [as in a building, either looking up or looking down from the top)
-- the word choice varies as to whom you are speaking to and what you are speaking about (the parties in the conversation vs a third party outside of the conversation)
So in ...¿Es casado? (So, is he married?) ( I would ask to a person next to me of a third person not withing speaking/listening distance i.e accross the room)
"¿Estás casado? ( I would as to the person nex to me about himself/herself either because I was unaware he/she was married OR I just learned of a change in status i,e. single to married, and the event happend a while ago, as when you catch up with an acquaintence from highschool (So, ...your are married?) You can ask it as a leading question or as a response to their change in status. Intonation will dictate the difference as the words would remain the same.
So does this also work for all other qualities normally described with ser like color, hair color, religious/political affiliation etc.?
Yes, I can /would use the same concept for the other parameters you just listed above.
-- Era una persona grosera, pero ahora es gentil "He was a rude person before, but now he is very nice." (ser for both clauses? or estar for the latter?)
I would use Ser (past tense) for the former and Estar (present tense) for the latter.
or
Es generalmente grosero, pero hoy fue amable. "He is generally a mean person, but he was nice today." (ser for the first, estar for the second?)
I would use Estar (present tense) for the former and Ser (past tense) for the latter
One thing that I seem to have noticed, although please correct me if I'm wrong, is that while ser is used to state a fact regarding an inherent quality for instance, the same fact can often be expressed with estar - highlighting that the speaker is having an emotional reaction to that fact. 
Eg - ¡Qué alto está Juan! How tall John is! (said by Aunty who hasn't seen him for ages and can't believe her eyes).
Sí, es muy alto. Yes he's tall. (said by Uncle who is just reiterating the fact that John is tall but isn't reacting to it so much).
Era una persona grosera, pero ahora es gentil "He was a rude person before, but now he is very nice." (ser for both clauses? or estar for the latter?)
I would use Ser (past tense) for the former and Estar (present tense) for hte latter.
or
Es generalmente grosero, pero hoy fue amable. "He is generally a mean person, but he was nice today." (ser for the first, estar for the second?)
I would use Estar (present tense) for the former and Ser (past tense) for the latteratus
Manaatus22.
Thank you for this explanation. I have wondered about the use of ser v estar in the cases.
However, just to clarify, did you mean to say "ahora es gentil" or "ahora está gentil"?
Also "Es generalmente" or "Está generalmente"?
