Another question on estuve vs estaba
Apologeis for asking about estuvo and estaba again. I did do a search but couldn't find any answers which helped me here. The sentence is:
Me encontré con Paulo y no lo reconocí: estuvo/estaba muy cambiado.
I agonised over this for ages and in the end I went for "estuvo". I thought, from the speaker's perspective, the change was a one-off event and all finished in the past; just a narration and not background info. Was I on the right track?
To be honest, I would have used the perfect tense myself - ha cambiado mucho, as the event is related to the present - the speaker is telling me now that he ran into Paulo but that he didn't recognise him. Or would the perfect tense convey a slightly different nuance?
What do you all think?
Ta very much !
4 Answers
It is easy
In this case the correct way is: Me encontré con Paulo y no lo reconocí, ESTABA muy cambiado.
Esto se debe a que "estuvo/estaba" de ninguna manera son sinónimos, "estuvo" se refiere a una acción del pasado de la cual tenemos la seguridadde que YA FINALIZÓ, y que ya no volvera a ocurrir, por ejemplo: "Mi examen de matemáticas ESTUVO muy difícil"
En cambio "ESTABA" es una acción del pasado pero que puede seguir ocurriendo en el presente, aunque no estemos del todo seguros, y que tal vez siga ocurriendo, por ejemplo: "Ayer vi a Juan y ESTABA haciendo ejercicio"
Otro ejemplo: "Ayer por la mañana vi a tu primo y ESTABA enfermo de gripe" (probablemente siga enfermo a la fecha)
I hope it is clear.
Thanks hombreman007 for your contribution. No, it isn't that clear for me. I agree with your two examples that the imperfect should be used. The first one, with Juan, he was doing exercises, so there was a continue action. In your second one, my cousin was ill (back ground contiuous action) when you saw him, so it's an interrupted event, so the "ver" is in the preterite tense.
Back to my example; at the point when the speaker spoke (to me), the changes in Paulo's appearance is what he wanted to comment on. Whether Paulo continues to change (he probably will) surly is irrelvant at that point. He might have lost all his hair, got a sun tan or a face full of wrinkles, but for the speaker, all the changes/events was something that occured once in the past. In other words, the sum total of the changes, as one event. Hence I thought it should be estuvo. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
In this case his appearance changed drastically. It seems unlikely that his appearance will continue to change each time that I see him. I concede that estaba may be the correct answer, but do not agree that it is an easy distinction between the choices.
It is easy
In this case the correct way is: Me encontré con Paulo y no lo reconocí, ESTABA muy cambiado.
Esto se debe a que "estuvo/estaba" de ninguna manera son sinónimos, "estuvo" se refiere a una acción del pasado de la cual tenemos la seguridadde que YA FINALIZÓ, y que ya no volvera a ocurrir, por ejemplo: "Mi examen de matemáticas ESTUVO muy difícil"
En cambio "ESTABA" es una acción del pasado pero que puede seguir ocurriendo en el presente, aunque no estemos del todo seguros, y que tal vez siga ocurriendo, por ejemplo: "Ayer vi a Juan y ESTABA haciendo ejercicio"
Otro ejemplo: "Ayer por la mañana vi a tu primo y ESTABA enfermo de gripe" (probablemente siga enfermo a la fecha)
I hope it is clear.
I am no expert so I will be watching for the others to help or confirm, but my understanding would lead me to agree with your choice of estuvo. The perfect tense would not convey the drastic nature of the change. ( imho)
