"Es aquí" ?'?
I've been watching Mi Vida Loca (Spanish lessons from the BBC, linked to by this site). A couple times they've said "Es aquí" in reference to a building (for example, when the taxi driver arrived at the apartment building, that's what he said).
I was always taught that in general, ser is used for permanent conditions and estar for temporary ones, but estar is always used for location. The previous discussions on this site about ser vs. estar don't seem to touch on this. I realize the apartment building isn't going to move . . . but still!! Is this right? Is this something that's peculiar to Madrid'
22 Answers
So why have I heard this so much'!! Well, I'll work on the subjunctive some other day . . . when you publish your textbook . . .
Don't worry, I like grammar too. Speaking of talking about things no one else cares about: when I was in graduate school studying mathematics, I tried to explain to my husband about the different orders of infinity. Ever since then, he's been convinced that all mathematicians are loony!
Muchas gracias a todos. Creo que entiendo estos verbos mejor ahora . . . pero no los voy a entender perfectamente nunca. ¡Ay!
"Death is as non-permanent as you can get" '? I see you share my hope for resurrection or, perhaps, reincarnation.
I enjoyed your sense of humor very much. Your posts were anything but boring.
Estar is used to simply locate people, animals and things.
Ser can be used to indicate where events are taking place, or to identify places (i.e. buildings, rooms, streets...) that interest us, not for where they are, but for what we do in them.
By the way: it is not peculiar to Madrid. It is used everywhere.
This is an evil myth perpetuated by lazy Spanish teachers. The difference between these verbs has nothing to do with premanence (or lack thereof).
Criss is quite right!
The temporary vs permanent rule for ser/estar is used by lazy teachers, and it doesn't work far too often.
The same applies to the typical subjunctive rule (to express desire, doubt,... rubbish)
['bangs her head against the wall in frustration']
I guess I exceeded the time limit - I edited the post, but the site ate it.
Short version (because my fingers are cramping up):
The Reference>Grammar>Ser and estar page on this site tell you "ser" is for more permanent things, then gives you six rules. If you look at the rules, all except "time" are descriptions of the person's "essence" (description, occupation, characteristics, relationships). And they are not permanent.
"Soy alta, morena y delgada." Yes, I was tall, dark-skinned, and thin, but then I ate Twinkies for every meal for a year, and now I'm a big, fat cow. I was tall for a fifth-grader, but all my friends hit their growth spurts in junior high and now I'm the shortest one in the class.
"Ellos son estudiantes." Well, I do hope they graduate someday, and go get jobs. (Oh, sure, you could argue that we are all "lifelong learners"... but then isn't everybody in the world a student? Then this description would be useless.)
"Mi esposo es romántico y cariñoso." This is a description of him, his "essence." However, as anyone who's gone through a divorce knows, these are not necessarily permanent qualities.
"Celia es de España." Again, description, essence. A person's cultural/ethnic background is a big part of who that person is. (No, this won't change, but so far it's the only "permanent" sentence we've seen.)
"Marcos es mi ex-novio." Wait - he's your ex-boyfriend? Which means, last week, he was your boyfriend, right? Which means, last week, you would have told me, "Marcos es mi novio." How "permanent" did that relationship turn out to be?
Same with "estar" - except for location and the present progressive, all the uses of "estar" are the result of a change in condition.
"Mi abuela está sentada." She was standing, got tired, then sat down.
"Estoy tan cansada esta mañana." I'm tired because I went to bed late, or I didn't sleep well, or something else happened to make me tired.
"Estoy triste." Something sad happened, and now I'm sad.
Description/essence v. change in condition is not that hard to grasp. And it has a heck of a lot less exceptions and problems than "permanent v. temporary." (For example, you don't have to pretend "death is an ongoing action" or that "está muerto" is present progressive, when "muerto" is an adjective. Nor do you have to make weird explanations for religion, since a person's religion is part of who they are.)
Okay, now I'm done. Putting the soapbox away for real this time...
