SER Y ESTAR
I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD SAY "SOY POBRE" SINCE THE VERBE SER IS FOR PERMANANT CONDITIONS AND ESTAR FOR TEMPORARY LIKE FOR EXAMPLE "ESTOY ENFERMA"
I THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE "ESTOY POBRE"
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN PLEASE'
9 Answers
CrazyKit,
Lazarus is right in that the "permanent/temporary" rule isn't the judge and jury when it comes to ser and estar. These types of "rules" or guidelines should be taken with a grain of salt. I suggest you take a look at the ser vs. estar reference on this site. I did employ the "permanent/temporary" guide, but it is just a guide. I provided many specific situations and examples so that you can get a feel for when to use ser and estar without having to classify the situation as permanent or temporary, since this classification doesn't apply in many situations as Lazarus has pointed out. I hope that this clears some things up for you and if you have any questions, feel free to send me a message and I'll try to respond as best as I can.
-Paralee
I agree with what Lazarus has said, but we also have to remember that being poor is different from not having any money. "I'm broke" can be "Me quedo sin plata," which both mean that I don't have any money right now. But "I'm poor" and "Soy pobre" definitely do refer to a longer-term state than being broke. And we also have to remember that in the past, it was even harder to change from being pobre to being part of the landed gentry. Upward mobility was not a prevalent concept a few hundred years ago. We can't apply our modern concepts to language usage that has been around for centuries.
I learned this simplified method
Estar for condition, location or as a helping verb, ser for everything else
lazarus gave an even more simplified method
Ser is used to classify or identify, estar for everything else.
CrazyKit said:
well then how can I learn how to use SER y ESTAR? In french we only have one verbe ETRE so it's hard for me to see the difference. Do you have a better rule?
"Ser" is used to classify and identify. Used like this, it cannot be replaced by any other verbs (except for a few cases, like "llamarse", where the substitution verb also identifies), because it is the only one of its kind.
"Estar" is used for states localized in space and time, and it can often be replaced by many other verbs with similar meanings. "Está roto" - "Se encuentra roto". - "Se halla roto".
well then how can I learn how to use SER y ESTAR? In french we only have one verbe ETRE so it's hard for me to see the difference. Do you have a better rule'
Verb Master said:
SER indicates permanent conditions. And In Spanish you can use SER/ESTAR depending on what you would like to express. Example:
No, it is not for permanent conditions!
Look at your rule in action:
El señor es muerto? (permanent, right')
El jarrón es roto (permanent, right')
El paciente es enfermo de sida (permanent, right')
oops, lazarus
I can give you a list of several hundred cases where it doesn't work neither.
You've made that a double negative with the word "neither". In English that
makes it a positive. It should be "either" in this context.
"Neither you or nor I can understand this rule."
"Either one of us might someday understand it."
I just couldn't resist commenting on this Lazarus! 
lazarus1907 said:
The answer is simple: The permanent / temporary psedo-rule fails too often, and it should be avoided! I wouldn't even call it a rule, to be honest!
Being poor or rich is a classification (or identification), so it takes "ser", whether this person wins the lottery tomorrow or not. You can classify someone as a teacher (es profesor) even though he is planning to quit his job tomorrow and work as a cleaner. You can classify a boy as short (tu hijo es muy bajo) even though he can grow for years and become a basketball player. You can classify someone as underage even milliseconds before twelve o'clock, when he is no longer underage. Permantent, you said?
If a vase falls and breaks, we say "está roto", but this is not a temporary state at all (you are not going to glue thousands of pieces of glass). You wouldn't classify the vase as a "broken" (this vase is a broken one, but that one is not).
If you still don't believe that the permanent / temporary rule is useless, I can give you a list of several hundred cases where it doesn't work neither. Actually, it is extremely easy to find cases where it doesn't work.
>
The answer is simple: The permanent / temporary psedo-rule fails too often, and it should be avoided! I wouldn't even call it a rule, to be honest!
Being poor or rich is a classification (or identification), so it takes "ser", whether this person wins the lottery tomorrow or not. You can classify someone as a teacher (es profesor) even though he is planning to quit his job tomorrow and work as a cleaner. You can classify a boy as short (tu hijo es muy bajo) even though he can grow for years and become a basketball player. You can classify someone as underage even milliseconds before twelve o'clock, when he is no longer underage. Permantent, you said?
If a vase falls and breaks, we say "está roto", but this is not a temporary state at all (you are not going to glue thousands of pieces of glass). You wouldn't classify the vase as a "broken" (this vase is a broken one, but that one is not).
If you still don't believe that the permanent / temporary rule is useless, I can give you a list of several hundred cases where it doesn't work neither. Actually, it is extremely easy to find cases where it doesn't work.
Crazykit, my teacher explained it to me that it's like the "caste" system.
A person is born either rich or poor. Of course that leaves no improvement
possible, which has not proven to be the case in countries with no caste
system. Many "poor"' American children have become America's
wealthiest! Maybe whoever designed the Spanish language measured
'being rich" by another yardstick than money!
