# Estar - preterite/imperfect - estuvieron nerviosas toda la noche y no pudieron dormir



## al.magnus

¡Hola!

I am a Spanish teacher and came across this sentence in one of our workbooks. I cannot explain to myself or my students why *estar* is used in the preterite in the second sentence. My understanding is that *estar, *when used to describe how someone was feeling, should be used in the imperfect as opposed to the preterite.

_De repente, Patricia se despertó porque oyó un ruido. Por eso, *estuvieron* nerviosas toda la noche y no pudieron dormir.

_So, why is the sentence not written, "Por eso, *estaban* nerviosas toda la noche y no pudieron dormir."? Or, if it were written that way, how would it change the meaning of the sentence?

¡Gracias! I will share your responses *con mis estudiantes.*

-Profe B.


----------



## _SantiWR_

al.magnus said:


> ¡Hola!
> 
> I am a Spanish teacher and came across this sentence in one of our workbooks. I cannot explain to myself or my students why *estar* is used in the preterite in the second sentence. My understanding is that *estar, *when used to describe how someone was feeling, should be used in the imperfect as opposed to the preterite.
> 
> _De repente, Patricia se despertó porque oyó un ruido. Por eso, *estuvieron* nerviosas toda la noche y no pudieron dormir.
> 
> _So, why is the sentence not written, "Por eso, *estaban* nerviosas toda la noche y no pudieron dormir."? Or, if it were written that way, how would it change the meaning of the sentence?
> 
> ¡Gracias! I will share your responses *con mis estudiantes.*
> 
> -Profe B.



Hi,

I would say that, despite what you thought, the preterite is fine. Actuallly, it's probably the only option, because if you say "estaban nerviosas toda la noche' without other context, it sounds like they would get nervous at night, I mean, as something that used to happen in a regular basis, not just once. We are talking about the completion of an action, event or state here (being nervous all night, that is, until the end of the night) so we must go for the preterite. I can't go any further without knowing exactly why you'd choose the imperfect here (makes no sense really), so hope that helps.

EDIT: Well, here it is


> My understanding is that *estar, *when used to describe how someone was feeling, should be used in the imperfect as opposed to the preterite.



So how would you say that in English? _They were nervous all night_ or _they were feeling nervous all night_? It's the same?



Santiago.


----------



## gengo

Here is a clip from a website discussing such things.

_You could also use the preterite to indicate something was complete. For example, *estuvo lista*, she was ready. Similarly, the preterite could be used to show that something had a definite beginning and/or end. Note, for example, the difference between *estuvo enfermo* (she got sick) and *estaba enferma* (she was sick).

_Hope this helps.


----------



## autremoi

I agree with with gengo (I didn't get the point at first) 

Sometimes we use the imperfect to refer to the present:

Me dijo que* estaba* enfermo. He told me he* is *sick.
Me dijo que *estuvo *enfermo. He told me *was* sick.


----------



## Peterdg

gengo said:


> Here is a clip from a website discussing such things.
> 
> _You *could* also use the preterite to indicate something was complete. For example, *estuvo lista*, she was ready. Similarly, the preterite *could *be used to show that something had a definite beginning and/or end. Note, for example, the difference between *estuvo enfermo* (she got sick) and *estaba enferma* (she was sick).
> 
> _Hope this helps.


I like this quote. Look at the words I have highlighted in bold. It says "could", not "must". That is the same with almost all so called rules for the use of the imperfect or the preterite. Unfortunately, some interpret this "could" as "must" and conclude that in some situations one *must* use this or that tense. This is a very common misconception, illustrated by the multitude of senseless excercises about the use of the preterite or the imperfect.

These "rules" are guidelines and they just try to illustrate what a native speaker may consider when choosing one tense over the other. But nobody can see in the head of the speaker and tell in what context he sees the things he says. In your example, the preterite may be inspired by the fact that they are not nervous anymore (a determined end point in the past; they were only nervous _that_ night). 

There is actually only one very clear and imperative rule in the selection of the preterite and the imperfect: the interrupting action goes in the preterite and the interrupted action in the imperfect. If the context does not make it clear there is an interrupting action and an interrupted one, then it's the speaker's choice on what tense he uses.

(There are some exceptions: e.g. age is almost (there are counterexamples) always expressed with the imperfect: cuando tenía 15 años)


----------



## fenixpollo

Another point is the second verb in that clause: no pudieron dormir.  That tense can _only _be preterite because it's saying "they were not able to sleep that night" or "they never fell asleep that night". It's an action with a definite beginning and end. As the others have said, the author is treating the action of estar nervioso in the same way.


----------



## autremoi

fenixpollo said:


> Another point is the second verb in that clause: no pudieron dormir.  That tense can _only _be preterite because it's saying "they were not able to sleep that night" or "they never fell asleep that night". It's an action with a definite beginning and end. As the others have said, the author is treating the action of estar nervioso in the same way.



That's exactly why you MUST use preterit here, because you have _"toda la noche"_. If you remove that from the phrase then you could use the imperfect:

_De repente, Patricia se despertó porque oyó un ruido. Por eso, *estaban* nerviosas y no *podían* dormir.  _


----------



## autremoi

Actually, you also have to remove the _"De repente"_ or it sounds awkward:

_Patricia se despertó porque oyó un ruido. Por eso, *estaban* nerviosas y no *podían* dormir.  _


----------



## gengo

Very nice post by Peterdg.  I think it's safe to say that many or most non-native speakers of Spanish struggle with this issue, and often struggle even to grasp the difference between the two tenses in certain contexts.  I know that I have chosen the wrong tense numerous times, and will continue to do so for the rest of my life, despite my efforts to the contrary.


----------



## Peterdg

gengo said:


> Very nice post by Peterdg. I think it's safe to say that many or most non-native speakers of Spanish struggle with this issue, and often struggle even to grasp the difference between the two tenses in certain contexts. I know that I have chosen the wrong tense numerous times, and will continue to do so for the rest of my life, despite my efforts to the contrary.


I don't believe you.

You should check some threads about the use of the imperfect or the preterite. Some native speakers say: "this should definitely be the imperfect" and  two posts later someone else says: "I'd use the preterite there". And both are right. They just see the same sentence in a different context; so don't let too many people tell you you chose the wrong tense. If you follow the only one important and imperative rule I mentioned in the previous post (interrupting and interrupted action), there is not really much you can do wrong.


----------



## autremoi

It's true what Peredg says, however I think everyone will agree that _Por eso, *estaban* nerviosas toda la noche y no *podían* dormir. _doesn't make sense in any context.


----------



## Peterdg

autremoi said:


> It's true what Peredg says, however I think everyone will agree that _Por eso, *estaban* nerviosas toda la noche y no *podían* dormir. _doesn't make sense in any context.


Why not?



> Aquella mañana, Carlos Dorada estaba nervioso.
> 
> El miércoles de la semana pasada Santiago Medina estaba nervioso.


Son dos citas del CREA de la RAE.


----------



## autremoi

Peterdg said:


> Why not?
> 
> 
> Son dos citas del CREA de la RAE.



A no confundir gordura con hinchazón, esas dos citas funcionan perfectamente porque el circunstancial no especifica la duración de la acción sino que simplemente la ubica en un contexto temporal. Si usáramos circunstanciales más parecidos a los de la frase _Por eso, *estuvieron* nerviosas *toda la noche* y no *pudieron* dormir_:
_Carlos Dorada *estuvo* nervioso *toda la mañana*.
El miércoles de la semana pasada Santiago Medina *estuvo *nervioso *desde que llegó hasta que se fué*. 			 		_


----------



## duvija

Check how we change back and forth:

El miércoles de la semana pasada Santiago Medina estaba nervioso y no dejaba de morderse las uñas. Le pregunté qué le pasaba y me dijo que el debate de los candidatos republicanos siempre lo ponía mal y que esta vez fue terrible.


----------



## _SantiWR_

autremoi said:


> It's true what Peredg says, however I think everyone will agree that _Por eso, *estaban* nerviosas toda la noche y no *podían* dormir. _doesn't make sense in any context.



¿Mande?


----------



## inib

autremoi said:


> It's true what Peredg says, however I think everyone will agree that _Por eso, *estaban* nerviosas toda la noche y no *podían* dormir. _doesn't make sense in any context.


In post 8, you gave an example yourself in which you defended the imperfect, if I haven't misunderstood your intention.


----------



## autremoi

Yes but in that example I removed the "toda la noche".


----------



## inib

autremoi said:


> Yes but in that example I removed the "toda la noche".


True. Sorry, I hadn't noticed that.


----------



## fesesito

Let me change it a little bit:

_De repente, Patricia se despertó porque oyó un ruido. Por eso, *estuvo* nerviosa toda la noche y no *pudo* dormir.

"toda la noche"  *estuvo and pudo *_meaning the writer that happened in the past. 
_
De repente, Patricia se despertó porque oyó un ruido. Por eso, *estaba* nerviosa durante la noche y no *podía *dormir.
"durante la noche" *estaba and podía*_ meaning the writer that there was a continuous process


----------



## autremoi

fesesito said:


> Let me change it a little bit:
> 
> _De repente, Patricia se despertó porque oyó un ruido. Por eso, *estuvo* nerviosa toda la noche y no *pudo* dormir.
> 
> "toda la noche"  *estuvo and pudo *_meaning the writer that happened in the past.
> _
> De repente, Patricia se despertó porque oyó un ruido. Por eso, *estaba* nerviosa durante la noche y no *podía *dormir.
> "durante la noche" *estaba and podía*_ meaning the writer that there was a continuous process



I'm not sure I get the point but if you're saying that you have to use imperfect with "durante", think again: _"*Durante* la Segunda Guerra Mundial, los Estados Unidos *se vieron* ante una  situación sin precedentes:* tenían* que luchar simultáneamente contra  enemigos en dos frentes."_ (borrowed from http://www.laporthistory.org/spanish/bethlehem_product_2.html)


----------



## fesesito

I just used "durante" to show a continuous action, but it is not a big deal, I just know that it depends on the speaker.

Imperfect is used to tell a story in the past and describe it with continuous actions. 

I used this song when I was teaching Spanish in Alfred University, NY. I hope it is useful for you.

http://www.lyricskeeper.com/los_pericos-lyrics/208986-complicado_y_aturdido-lyrics.htm


----------



## autremoi

fesesito said:


> I just used "durante" to show a continuous action, but it is not a big deal, I just know that it depends on the speaker.
> 
> Imperfect is used to tell a story in the past and describe it with continuous actions.
> 
> I used this song when I was teaching Spanish in Alfred University, NY. I hope it is useful for you.
> 
> http://www.lyricskeeper.com/los_pericos-lyrics/208986-complicado_y_aturdido-lyrics.htm



I know that's the way we usually introduce the imperfect to non-native speakers, and that's precisely why they get confused when they see a phrase like _"estuvieron nerviosas toda la noche y no pudieron dormir". _

If they "were nervous all night" we're talking about a "continuous action", however, we use preterite, and it does not depend on the speaker, I never heard a native speaker using the imperfect with a complement that delimits the duration of the action, whether or not it's a continuous one.


----------



## fesesito

What about:

I was walking in the park yesterday when the plane crashed. (Estaba caminando ayer en el parque cuando el avión se estrelló)

I walked in the park yesterday with my mom (Caminé ayer en el parque con mi mamá).

I was nervous yersterday, but today I´m ok (estaba nervioso ayer, pero hoy me siento bien) or (estuve nervioso ayer, pero hoy me siento mejor)

As a native speaker, both are correct and it depends of the one who is talking. 
I guess it is also confusing because we are using an adjetive. 

La mamá de Ana estaba enferma. La mama de Ana estuvo enferma.
El papá de Oscar estaba feliz en la fiesta. El papá de Oscar estuvo  feliz en la fiesta.

you decide which one to use

have a good day


----------



## inib

I recommend that we all re-read Peterdg's post 5. Guidelines can be very helpful, rules are hard to come across, and even when they do exist, you have to learn the list of exceptions along with them.


----------



## _SantiWR_

autremoi said:


> If they "were nervous all night" we're talking about a "continuous action", however, we use preterite, and it does not depend on the speaker, I never heard a native speaker using the imperfect with a complement that delimits the duration of the action, whether or not it's a continuous one.



You must have heard it when talking about something that used to happen in the past, so when you said "in any context", you're obviously not thinking about all the possible contexts. For example:

_Se pasaba toda la noche llorando._


Now, if we are talking about something that happened only once, the preterite is clearly better suited, like with the sentence in the OP. For example:

_El miercolés se pasó toda la noche llorando.
_

I hope it's clearer now.


Santiago.


----------



## XiaoRoel

O también: _*estuvieron* nerviosas toda la noche y no *podían* dormir_.


----------



## Irma2011

A mí me gustaría saber si al.magnus ya tiene claras las cosas. Parece que los demás endendemos perfectamente cuándo se utiliza cada uno de estos dos tiempos. Sólo falta saber si las explicaciones han sido suficientes o hay que seguir dándolas.


----------



## fesesito

Bueno ella solo tenía la duda de porque el autor usó estuvieron y no estaban.

al igual hay un pudieron que pudiera haber sido  podían.

ambos casos estarían bien.


----------



## Irma2011

Pero, ¿por qué complicarle las cosas? La frase es _"De repente, Patricia se despertó porque oyó un ruido. Por eso, *estuvieron* nerviosas toda la noche y no *pudieron *dormir"._
al.magnus parece entender que se haya utilizado _'pudieron'_. Sólo necesita saber que se ha empleado _'estuvieron' _por la misma razón, ¿no?


----------



## autremoi

Irma2011 said:


> Pero, ¿por qué complicarle las cosas? La frase es _"De repente, Patricia se despertó porque oyó un ruido. Por eso, *estuvieron* nerviosas toda la noche y no *pudieron *dormir"._
> al.magnus parece entender que se haya utilizado _'pudieron'_. Sólo necesita saber que se ha empleado _'estuvieron' _por la misma razón, ¿no?



The original question was why _*estar*_ is used in preterite, and I think a lot of people are missing that point, that's why this discussion keeps on going. The phrase that _SantiWR_ proposed:

_Se pasaba toda la noche llorando. 

_is absolutely perfect but it doesn't use _*estar*_.


----------



## juandiego

Hi autremoi.
I agree with you. "Toda la noche" makes the action perfected in the past hence it blocks the _imperfecto_. However, I disagree that to alter the first sentence is necessary if the second sentence were using the _imperfecto_: "Por eso, *estaban* nerviosas y no *podían* dormir"; after all, that "Por *eso*" is standing for the whole first sentence and it's irrelevant for its plausibility whether it's referring to a punctual past fact or to a then ongoing process.


----------



## juandiego

autremoi said:


> The phrase that _SantiWR_ proposed:
> 
> _Se pasaba toda la noche llorando.
> 
> _is absolutely perfect but it doesn't use _*estar*_.


But that's a different context, other meaning of "toda la noche" since it's not about one precise night but all the nights of the period considered. To express the same intended only for one night long, one must use the perfect: "Se *pasó* toda la noche llorando".


----------



## autremoi

juandiego said:


> But that's a different context, other meaning of "toda la noche" since it's not about one precise night but all the nights of the period considered. To express the same intended only for one night long, one must use the perfect: "Se *pasó* toda la noche llorando".



Very true!


----------



## _SantiWR_

juandiego said:


> But that's a different context, other meaning of "toda la noche" since it's not about one precise night but all the nights of the period considered. To express the same intended only for one night long, one must use the perfect: "Se *pasó* toda la noche llorando".



Different from what? I'n not sure where I stand now. I was replying to this statment:




autremoi said:


> It's true what Peredg says, however I think everyone will agree that _Por eso, *estaban* nerviosas toda la noche y no *podían* dormir. _doesn't make sense in any context.



And this one:



autremoi said:


> If they "were nervous all night" we're talking about a "continuous action", however, we use preterite, and it does not depend on the speaker, I never heard a native speaker using the imperfect with a complement that delimits the duration of the action, whether or not it's a continuous one.



in neither of which I think we're necessarily referring to a single night, and even if we were, journalist language is riddled with such usage just for starters, so you can diminish that as if it was impossible or non-existent. The thing is that we're making a bit of a mess out of this thread, and that considering that we all seem to agree on the use of the preterite in the OP. We can't help ourselves


----------



## autremoi

_SantiWR_ said:


> Different from what? I'n not sure where I stand now. I was replying to this statment:
> 
> 
> 
> And this one:
> 
> 
> 
> in neither of which I think we're necessarily referring to a single night, and even if we were, journalist language is riddled with such usage just for starters, so you can diminish that as if it was impossible or non-existent. The thing is that we're making a bit of a mess out of this thread, and that considering that we all seem to agree on the use of the preterite in the OP. We can't help ourselves



could you please give me some examples?


----------



## juandiego

_SantiWR_ said:


> Different from what? I'n not sure where I stand now. I was replying to this statment:
> 
> And this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true what Peredg says, however I think everyone will agree that _Por eso, *estaban* nerviosas toda la noche y no podían dormir_. doesn't make sense in any context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in neither of which I think we're necessarily referring to a single night, and even if we were, journalist language is riddled with such usage just for starters, so you can diminish that as if it was impossible or non-existent. The thing is that we're making a bit of a mess out of this thread, and that considering that we all seem to agree on the use of the preterite in the OP. We can't help ourselves
Click to expand...

 Hola Santi.
Well, I just wanted to point out that it wasn't the same time context of the OP sentence therefore the imperfect/perfect dilemma there was different.
However, I do agree with autremoi that in the sentence: _Por eso, *estaban* nerviosas toda la noche y no podían dormir_, the imperfect is inappropriate because that _toda la noche_ is referring to one night in the past and the action was completed at the end of that night.
Saludos.


----------



## _SantiWR_

juandiego said:


> I do agree with autremoi that in the sentence: _Por eso, *estaban* nerviosas toda la noche y no podían dormir_, the imperfect is inappropriate because that _toda la noche_ is referring to one night in the past and the action was completed at the end of that night.
> Saludos.



Well, I can't agree with that of course. The sentence you wrote makes perfect sense to me.

Un saludo.


----------



## _SantiWR_

autremoi said:


> could you please give me some examples?





> La actividad política de nuestro país ha estado este miércoles prácticamente paralizada. José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero *comparecía* *durante la mañana* en los pasillos del Congreso de los Diputados ante los medios de comunicación para confirmar que nuestro país reforzará las medidas de seguridad en las centrales nucleares.



You just need to open a newspaper or turn on the radio to find plenty of sentences like this.


Santiago.


----------



## juandiego

Hola Santiago.

The more I read the sentence, the more I'm inclined to admit that it may be used, especially once it's without the first part and now with the second verb being also in the imperfect. However, I keep in my point that the imperfect doesn't suit the temporal frame properly and, in order to admit it, one should allow a rhetorical license that I don't see how it may improve the sentence.

This is probably worse in the second example you've brought up (Zapatero's) in which the temporal frame is even more punctual. Here it seems as if the writer would have set an agreement between the imperfect and the preposition _durante_, which is not the most appropriate one here since conveys all along the morning rather than at some point in the morning, and would have forgot the temporal frame of the facts.

I am probably being a bit strict and fussy here and now I wonder whether I also use the imperfect in similar occasions; possibly I also may do it.

Saludos.


----------



## autremoi

_SantiWR_ said:


> La actividad política de nuestro país ha estado este miércoles prácticamente paralizada. José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero *comparecía* *durante la mañana*  en los pasillos del Congreso de los Diputados ante los medios de  comunicación para confirmar que nuestro país reforzará las medidas de  seguridad en las centrales nucleares.


It is true that this particular use of the imperfect is common in journalistic language, but once again* you're missing the OP question*. Please tell me if you think the following phrase would even make sense in a newspaper:

José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero *estaba* *durante la mañana*  en los pasillos del Congreso de los Diputados ante los medios de  comunicación para confirmar que nuestro país reforzará las medidas de  seguridad en las centrales nucleares.


----------



## Irma2011

autremoi said:


> once again* you're missing the OP question.*


Ésta es la cuestión. Es algo que hacemos continuamente en este foro. Aunque también es verdad que si quienes hacen las preguntas no vuelven a decir nada, pueden dar lugar a estos hilos interminables.


----------



## Peterdg

autremoi said:


> ..., but once again* you're missing the OP question*.





Irma2011 said:


> Ésta es la cuestión. Es algo que hacemos continuamente en este foro. Aunque también es verdad que si quienes hacen las preguntas no vuelven a decir nada, pueden dar lugar a estos hilos interminables.


I absolutely disagree with that.

The OP asked HOW and WHY, not just, "Is this correct?". He even asks how the different tenses would influence the meaning.

Now, in my opinion, all answers were related to this question. Most say that they would intuitively go with the indefinido "estuvieron nerviosas"; some say that only "estuvieron" is correct and others say that, given the correct context, also "estaban" could be correct. We have given examples of "durante..." + imperfect and autremoi says that these are acceptable but *that it is not acceptable with the verb "estar"* but you never say why "estar" would be any different than any other verb.

That is where we are now.  

So, opinions differ and that gives rise to discussion. Isn't that what this forum is all about?


----------



## Irma2011

Peterdg said:


> I absolutely disagree with that.


Puede que tengas razón en no estar de acuerdo, Peter. Es más, seguro que la tienes. Para mí está tan claro que la frase es correcta tal como está escrita (_“estuvieron nerviosas *toda la noche* y no pudieron dormir) _que quizá estoy ciega a otras alternativas. A veces me parece que buscar múltiples posibilidades a una frase y no limitarse a la interpretación más sencilla puede confundir a quien pregunta. Pero estoy segura de que es culpa mía.[/QUOTE]



Peterdg said:


> but you never say why "estar" would be any different than any other verb


Sólo añadir que creo que ha habido una serie de malentendidos a este respecto en el hilo. Lo que es seguro es que todos los foreros que hemos intervenido tenemos claro el uso de ‘estar’.


----------



## autremoi

Peterdg said:


> but you never say why "estar" would be any different than any other verb.


I don't know *why* it would be different from any other verb, I'm speaking based on the way it *sounds* to me. I read the sentence out loud and it sounds odd (to me). Over the last 10+ years I've been speaking to native speakers of Spanish from all over Latin America (not Spain unfortunately), coming from different social backgrounds, and I'm very aware of regional differences. But I'm also aware of certain grammatical constructions that we all follow unconsciously and this one is one of those (methinks). So when I see a question like the OP one, I respond having current usage in mind primarily, not just what scholars wrote 50 years ago in grammar compendiums.


----------

