Ser & Estar -- The same or different? Or both same & different?
You know, I have a theory. And I'd like to find out if it makes sense to anyone else.
Supposedly, "ser" & "estar" both mean "to be", but they do not mean the same thing. Pretty confusing & confounding, eh?
Here's my theory: They both mean "to be", but only in English. Well, actually, even in literate English they don't both mean "to be". One means "to exist" (or something like "to exist") and the other means... ah... ummm... I don't know what the other means. And I don't know which is which (in other words, which: "ser" or "estar", means "to exist").
Probably, "ser" means "to exist". Probably "estar" means ...what? "To exist temporarily"? "To be"?
I do realize that "existir" means "to exist".
I tried English to-from Spanish, Spanish to-from Latin, and Latin to-from English to see if I could detect any pattern that would provide a clue.
In summary: "ser" seems to mean "to be". And "estar" seems to mean "to be". But I have a feeling that only one ("estar"?) means "to be", and the other ("ser"?) means "to exist".
...Or something like that. I've been at this Spanish stuff for only a little over a week now, so please don't be to hard on me.
Please, you guys, don't be mad at me. I get it that they are kind'a the same, but different. I get it that most people memorize which one is used in each of a couple dozen circumstances. What I'm proposing is that there is a better English translation for one or both of them that actually separates them and makes both of them more "memorable" in translation.
(... I'm about to click the "Ask Question" button ... here-goes!)
3 Answers
Different - or there almost certainly would not be two of them.
Two be or not two be - that really is the question. 
Ser ? Estar
For the answer, please go to my article on the Q&A page. It's titled "A simple outline on ser and estar. It's a little involved, but not too hard to understand.
What I'm proposing is that there is a better English translation
for one or both of them that actually separates them and makes
both of them more "memorable" in translation.
In a word: Nope.
To exist, to persist, to subsist, to occur, to remain... none of these comes close to being a decent all-purpose translation of either ser or estar.
Probably, "ser" means "to exist". Probably "estar" means ...what?
"To exist temporarily"?
Nope. And nope.
Soy de Chicago. I exist from Chicago.
Chicago está en Illinois. Chicago is temporarily in Illinois.
