# éramos amigos (pret/imp usage)



## minnkidd

I have a question about preterit/imperfect usage.  I'll start with an example:

María:  ¿No vas al cine con Juan?
Diego:  No.
María:  Qué raro, si sois tan amigos...
Diego:  *Éramos* amigos.

Diego uses the imperfect to contrast the past friendship with the present state of non-friendship; in effect, he is no longer friends with Juan.  Am I correct in assuming that the preterit *Fuimos amigos is not possible in this specific context (i.e., absent a specific time frame)?  If the preterit is indeed incorrect, I'm curious as to the grammatical explanation, given that traditional pret/imp contrasts stress that the preterit indicates that an action has come to an end, and in the example, it is definitely the case that the friendship has come to an end.  So why is the preterit not possible?


----------



## Forero

Welcome to the forum, minnkidd.

I am not sure the preterite is impossible in such a sentence, but you need to wait for answers from native Spanish speakers.

In the meantime, I can inject a few ideas that might help:

The preterite can also be used for things with clear beginnings, whether or not they have ended.  In this case, preterite might mean that the friendship was begun and ended essentially all at once.  Could "fuimos" be misinterpreted as a form of "ir" rather than "ser" in such a sentence?


----------



## Outsider

I am also not sure that the preterite is impossible, although my guess is that it is at least uncommon (perhaps emphatic). The reason why the imperfect is used, I think, has to do with the fact that being someone's friend is a lasting experience, not a momentary one. The idea is that they were friends _for a while_, although they no longer are. But they weren't friends just for an hour, or for a couple of disjointed moments; that would go against the nature of friendship, which is a lasting state. It's a bit like being married.


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

minnkidd said:


> I have a question about preterit/imperfect usage. I'll start with an example:
> 
> María: ¿No vas al cine con Juan?
> Diego: No.
> María: Qué raro, si sois tan amigos...
> Diego: *Éramos* amigos.
> 
> Diego uses the imperfect to contrast the past friendship with the present state of non-friendship; in effect, he is no longer friends with Juan. Am I correct in assuming that the preterit *Fuimos amigos is not possible in this specific context (i.e., absent a specific time frame)? If the preterit is indeed incorrect, I'm curious as to the grammatical explanation, given that traditional pret/imp contrasts stress that the preterit indicates that an action has come to an end, and in the example, it is definitely the case that the friendship has come to an end. So why is the preterit not possible?


 
Again, Spanish uses the imperfect to discuss states in the past. And friendship is a state. An accurate translation of Diego´s last line would be: _We used to be friends._


----------



## Aerostudent

Si dices "fuimos amigos", implicaría que fue hace muchísimo tiempo, y que esa amistad está definitivamente "muerta".
El uso de "eramos" implica que la rotura de la amistad ha sido mas o menos reciente.


----------



## Rayines

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Again, Spanish uses the imperfect to discuss states in the past. And friendship is a state. An accurate translation of Diego´s last line would be: _We used to be friends._


"Fuimos" could be used, but the answer with the imperfect refers to a "description in the past", and besides it's as if the person was saying: "We still were friends when you met me the last time" (simultaneousness between two actions in the past). Well, hope this not to be too confused.


----------



## San

minnkidd said:


> I have a question about preterit/imperfect usage.  I'll start with an example:
> 
> María:  ¿No vas al cine con Juan?
> Diego:  No.
> María:  Qué raro, si sois tan amigos...
> Diego:  *Éramos* amigos.
> 
> Diego uses the imperfect to contrast the past friendship with the present state of non-friendship; in effect, he is no longer friends with Juan.  Am I correct in assuming that the preterit *Fuimos amigos is not possible in this specific context (i.e., absent a specific time frame)?  If the preterit is indeed incorrect, I'm curious as to the grammatical explanation, given that traditional pret/imp contrasts stress that the preterit indicates that an action has come to an end, and in the example, it is definitely the case that the friendship has come to an end.  So why is the preterit not possible?



There is no way for the preterite to be incorrect o impossible here. It doesn't need a explicit time frame, although maybe it is always in the speaker's mind. So, both options are possible.


----------



## minnkidd

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Again, Spanish uses the imperfect to discuss states in the past. And friendship is a state. An accurate translation of Diego´s last line would be: _We used to be friends._



Thanks for the ideas thus far.  Diego doesn't mean "We used to be friends."  He means "We _were_ friends."  His only point is to correct María's suggestion that they _are_ friends.  "You think we _are_ friends?  Wrong, we _were_ friends!" 

Can anyone tell me what the preterit, if it's possible, would mean in this context?  I'm interested in Aeorstudent's suggestion that the imperfect implies a more recent break than the preterit, and I've heard similar explanations from other peninsular speakers.  But it's certainly not a contrast to be found in the textbooks.  A ninety-year-old could say, for example, "Cuando era niño...," correct?

I'm also unconvinced by the "friendship is a state" explanation.  One can say, "Fue mi mejor amigo en el colegio."  That's a state, but the preterit is used because the relationship is understood to be over.  So why isn't the preterit possible (or likely) in the other example, when the friendship is also understood as over?  Let's assume, even, that it ended very abruptly, as the result of a quarrel.  Is the imperfect still more likely?


----------



## Outsider

minnkidd said:


> I'm also unconvinced by the "friendship is a state" explanation.  One can say, "Fue mi mejor amigo en el colegio."  That's a state, but the preterit is used because the relationship is understood to be over.


No, it's used because you're speaking of a well-defined time frame. _During that time_, you were your own best friend. Afterwards, that may or may not have continued to be the case. There is no way to tell from the tense.


----------



## Jeromed

Both are possible:

_Fuimos amigos:_ The friendship ended. Period.
_Éramos amigos_: We used to be friends; the friendship lasted for a while.


----------



## Outsider

Jeromed said:


> _Fuimos amigos:_ The friendship ended. Period.


Counterexample:

Fuimos amigos durante nuestra infancia. Después, mi familia cambió de casa y nos perdimos de vista por muchos años, pero el diciembre pasado nos hemos encontrado por azar, y hoy somos otra vez amigos.


----------



## Jeromed

Yeah, but that's cheating... it still ended and was apparently over with. There was a clearly an interruption. The additional context sheds new light on the situation, though. 

In any case, I would use _Éramos amigos en la infancia_, although _Fuimos amigos en la infancia _also works, because of the additional context.


----------



## Outsider

Giving a context is not cheating. Omitting it is what often leads to mistakes and oversimplifications.


----------



## Rayines

Como siempre, hay sutilezas que sólo pueden ser pescadas en plenitud en el propio idioma. Gramaticalmente, se puede responder tanto "éramos" como "fuimos", en el ejemplo inicial.
Pero es común, por lo menos en Argentina (y creo que no varía en los demás países hispanohablantes) la respuesta en imperfecto cuando la otra persona pregunta acerca de algo, que ya no es: 

A- "¿Qué tal te sentís en tu trabajo tal?"
B- "Me sentía" (le da a entender que no trabaja más allí)

A- "Me imagino que estarás contento con tu nuevo auto".
B- "Estaba" (se lo robaron).

A - "Supongo que tu novia te adora".
B- "Me adoraba" (la encontró con otro).

Y así sucesivamente.............Es una manera de responder, con cierta ironía, y que a su vez responde a la norma gramatical .


----------



## Jeromed

Outsider said:


> Giving a context is not cheating. Omitting it is what often leads to mistakes and oversimplifications.


 
True. But there's nothing wrong with simplification; that's often what students, especially beginners, look for. Otherwise if, from the start, they took into account all the exceptions, all the nuances, all the dialectal differences, and all the grammatically-incorrect, yet native constructions, they'd go crazy and soon get disenchanted with the language. A rule of thumb ('simplification') is, in my view, very practical for those students with difficulties with the preterit and the imperfect. Over time, if they apply themselves, talk to native speakers, and read both the good and the bad authors, they'll pick up those subtleties that Rayinés alludes to.

(By the way, I never omitted anything. Or did I?)


----------



## minnkidd

Rayines said:


> Como siempre, hay sutilezas que sólo pueden ser pescadas en plenitud en el propio idioma. Gramaticalmente, se puede responder tanto "éramos" como "fuimos", en el ejemplo inicial.
> Pero es común, por lo menos en Argentina (y creo que no varía en los demás países hispanohablantes) la respuesta en imperfecto cuando la otra persona pregunta acerca de algo, que ya no es:
> 
> A- "¿Qué tal te sentís en tu trabajo tal?"
> B- "Me sentía" (le da a entender que no trabaja más allí)
> 
> A- "Me imagino que estarás contento con tu nuevo auto".
> B- "Estaba" (se lo robaron).
> 
> A - "Supongo que tu novia te adora".
> B- "Me adoraba" (la encontró con otro).
> 
> Y así sucesivamente.............Es una manera de responder, con cierta ironía, y que a su vez responde a la norma gramatical .



Thank you, Rayines; your examples perfectly illustrate my point.  The reason it's so puzzling for me is that grammar books say that the preterit is the verb to use when the action is considered over or complete, which is the case in all these cases.  So, while I understand that the imperfect is preferred, I'm still a bit mystified as to why.


----------



## Outsider

Jeromed said:
			
		

> True. But there's nothing wrong with simplification; that's often what students, especially beginners, look for. Otherwise if, from the start, they took into account all the exceptions, all the nuances, all the dialectal differences, and all the grammatically-incorrect, yet native constructions, they'd go crazy and soon get disenchanted with the language. A rule of thumb ('simplification') is, in my view, very practical for those students with difficulties with the preterit and the imperfect. Over time, if they apply themselves, talk to native speakers, and read both the good and the bad authors, they'll pick up those subtleties that Rayinés alludes to.
> 
> (By the way, I never omitted anything. Or did I?)


In my opinion, saying that "the Spanish preterite is for finished actions" can be too misleading. It often is, but not always. This kind of pseudorule creates incorrect restrictions in the minds of language learners. Apart from being a waste of neurons, it can lead to bad habits that will be hard to get rid of later. "Be careful what you put into your head, because you will never, ever, get it out." 

I did not mean to suggest that you had omitted anything from the context. It's the users who consult us here in the forum who often give us insufficient context.


----------



## Jeromed

In the imperfect, the action is done and complete, too!  However, the speaker refers to them, not from the point of view of their beginning or their end, but as something on-going in the past, as if reliving it. That's why some authors call the imperfect _a present in the past._


----------



## minnkidd

Outsider said:


> In my opinion, saying that "the Spanish preterite is for finished actions" can be too misleading. It often is, but not always. This kind of pseudorule creates incorrect restrictions in the minds of language learners. Apart from being a waste of neurons, it can lead to bad habits that will be hard to get rid of later. "Be careful what you put into your head, because you will never, ever, get it out."
> 
> 
> Fair enough.  So, can you give me a brief, non-pseudo definition of the preterit?


----------



## minnkidd

Jeromed said:


> In the imperfect, the action is done and complete, too!  However, the speaker refers to them, not from the point of view of their beginning or their end, but as something on-going in the past, as if reliving it. That's why some authors call the imperfect _a present in the past._



I understand that explanation, but it makes the imperfect appear optional in these examples, something of a literary choice.  Yet, as Rayines confirms, most native speakers would choose the imperfect in this context even if they're not intending to "relive the past."  The only information conveyed is that it's "algo, que ya no es," as Rayines puts it.


----------



## Outsider

minnkidd said:


> Fair enough.  So, can you give me a brief, non-pseudo definition of the preterit?


You're not asking for easy stuff.
And is it me, or do I detect some sarcasm in your post? 

But anyway, you'll find a good previous thread with _many_ good analyses and desciptions of the preterite here. _Depois diga que eu sou mau._


----------



## Jeromed

I think that (in that context), my response above still holds:

_Fuimos amigos:_ The friendship ended. Period.  (We were)
_Éramos amigos_: We used to be friends; the friendship lasted for a while. (We used to be)

My view is that there's not necessarily a conscious effort to relive the past, but the intention is there. It's exactly the same difference as the one in the two English versions above.


----------



## minnkidd

Outsider said:


> You're not asking for easy stuff.
> And is it me, or do I detect some sarcasm in your post?
> 
> But anyway, you'll find a good previous thread with _many_ good analyses and desciptions of the preterite here. _Depois diga que eu sou mau._



No, absolutely no sarcasm intended; sorry if it appeared that way.  I agree completely with what you say about pseudo-definitions; that's precisely why I started the post, because I was unhappy with all the explanations I'd found previously.  I'll take a look at the other thread.  Thanks.


----------



## David

The answer is that the grammar books are often wrong, because it is impossible to write rules covering every nuance of meaning, and preposterous to think that one will have time to consult a rule for every verb in every tense and every mood when one is speaking. English grammarians tell you that prepositions require an object. If your cat crawls into the eaves of the house, and you ask him "What are you doing on up in under  there?", what are the ojbects of on, up, in, and under? They tell you that _ser _is for permanent things, while _estar_ refers to temporary things. _Está muerto. _Pretty permanent, but takes _estar._ I agree with Jeromed: rules of thumb can be helpful; the rest comes from practice, _listening,_ and _reading._

I would suggest the following answer to your original question: Eramos amigos = We were friends (in those days, at that time, for an indefinite period). No implication that we aren´t now; only that during a vague period in the past, we were friends.

Fuimos amigos. We were friends (during the specific period we are talking about.) Maybe we still are, but that´s irrelevant. Desde el primer día del kinder hasta el último examen de la secundaria, fuimos amigos. Nos criamos casi como hermanos. Hoy día, sigue siendo mi mejor amigo.


----------



## Jeromed

Outsider said:


> You're not asking for easy stuff.
> And is it me, or do I detect some sarcasm in your post?
> But anyway, you'll find a good previous thread with _many_ good analyses and desciptions of the preterite here. _Depois diga que eu sou mau._


 
I think that Minn just wants *your definition*, *not other people's*, given that you have such strong feelings about how this subject is explained and taught.

And if that's not what he wants, *it is what I want.*


----------



## Outsider

Minnkidd, here's another article which you may find helpful: Imperfecto-indefinido: cambios en el valor aspectual. I also found this reply interesting.
Jeromed, I also contributed to that other thread. You'll find my ideas laid out there, though mixed with those of others.


----------



## Jeromed

Minn, here some good rules-of-thumb. They're not mine, but I stand by them:

1) The _imperfect_ is used for 
a) actions and states in progress at some focused point in the past
b) habitual past actions
c) repetitious past actions
d) anticipated/planned past actions

2)The _preterite _is used to focus on 
a) the completion of past actions or states
b) the beginning of past actions or states

Edited to add:  I see the same principles in the first thread mentioned by Outsider.


----------



## Aerostudent

A ver si esto si sire para zanjar la discusión. Anyways the threat that we are talking about, is one of the complex uses of spanish languague. There are a lot of people in Spain, and it seems in south america too, who don´t use it properly.



> Usos del imperfecto      1.- Utilizamos el imperfecto cuando queremos describir una situación en relación con otros hechos pasados.
> 'Llamé a Juan porque estaba muy nervioso.'​     2.- Cuando hablamos de una actividad realizada durante un período de tiempo en el pasado.
> 'Antes vivía en una ciudad pequeña.'​     3.- Para describir los estados emocionales en el pasado:
> 'Él estaba muy contento / feliz.'​     4.- Cortesía.
> 'Quería unos zapatos marrones.'​      5.- Acciones habituales en pasado
> 'Todos los días íbamos a la playa.'​      6.- Acción que se expresa en proceso, en su duración
> 'A medida que él hablaba de si mismo, el psicólogo lo iba analizando.'​     7.- Acción empezada y no acabada
> 'Iba a salir cuando sonó el teléfono.'​      8.- Referencia de la edad en el pasado
> 'Tenía 8 años cuando fui a Marruecos.'​      9.- Acción larga en el pasado (imperfecto) interrumpida por otra acción corta (indefinido)
> 'Estaba en el banco, cuando llegó María.'​      10.- Acciones simultáneas.
> 'Comía y veía la televisión.'​     11.- Acciones anteriores que continúan hasta el momento de hablar.
> 'Te esperábamos.'​     12.- Movimientos cíclicos
> 'Saltaba y corría, saltaba y corría.'​      13.- Hacía + expresión de tiempo + imperfecto
> 
> 'Hacía 5 años que no venía por Barcelona'​


----------



## minnkidd

Jeromed said:


> Minn, here some good rules-of-thumb. They're not mine, but I stand by them:
> 
> 1) The _imperfect_ is used for
> a) actions and states in progress at some focused point in the past
> b) habitual past actions
> c) repetitious past actions
> d) anticipated/planned past actions
> 
> 2)The _preterite _is used to focus on
> a) the completion of past actions or states
> b) the beginning of past actions or states
> 
> Edited to add:  I see the same principles in the first thread mentioned by Outsider.



Right, which is why I'm still stumped by my original example.  In English, if I say, "No, we're _not_ friends; we _were_ friends," I'm emphasizing the fact that the relationship is over, completed, which suggests the preterit.  But in Spanish, in the very same context, the consensus seems to be for the imperfect, which I guess would come under rule 1a.  It appears to be a case were the conventions of the language draw one into focusing on different aspects of reality, rather than reality dictating the choice of language.  A real conundrum (for me, at least).  Thanks for your insights.


----------



## minnkidd

Aerostudent said:


> A ver si esto si sire para zanjar la discusión. Anyways the threat that we are talking about, is one of the complex uses of spanish languague. There are a lot of people in Spain, and it seems in south america too, who don´t use it properly.



Aeorstudent, I don't see a codification of your previous post, that imperfect is used for recent events whereas preterit implies something that happened long ago.  Which of your rules here explains "éramos amigos," a completed state?


----------



## Jeromed

Minn,
I don't know if you can conclude that the imperfect is the consensus here(too few responses). I would say that both tenses are possible.  In this case, which one you use depends on how you want to express yourself: _He was my friend_ vs. _he used to be my friend_ are two different ways to view a past friendship.



> It appears to be a case where the conventions of the language draw one into focusing on different aspects of reality, rather than reality dictating the choice of language.


 
Right on!   You're getting there.


----------



## Aerostudent

And now "pretérito perfecto simple"


> *ALGUNOS USOS GENERALES*
> 
> 
> Usamos el pretérito perfecto                                                                                                  simple para hablar de una acción o evento pasado que tuvo lugar en un punto                                                                                                  específico del pasado. Podemos decir exactamente cuándo ocurrió, o no, si así                                                                                                  lo preferimos.
> 
> Ejemplo
> Ayer fui al cine
> Yesterday I went to the cinema
> Esta mañana                                                                                                          fui al supermercado
> This morning I went to the supermarket
> Trabajé para                                                                                                          la misma empresa durante dos años
> I worked for the same company                                                                                                      for two years
> 
> Este último ejemplo muestra que                                                                                                  la acción de trabajar para la misma empresa está terminada aunque no                                                                                                  especificamos cuándo empezó y terminó.
> 
> El pretérito perfecto simple se                                                                                                  refiere a una acción pasada (terminada) en un tiempo pasado. Esto quiere decir                                                                                                  que no sólo la acción está terminada sino que también el tiempo cuando ocurrió                                                                                                  está terminado y pasado.
> 
> Ejemplo
> La semana                                                                                                          pasada leí un libro
> Last week I read a book
> El año pasado                                                                                                          viajé por Europa
> Last year I travelled around Europe
> 
> Con el pretérito perfecto simple                                                                                                  es frecuente encontrar en la frase adverbios de tiempo o expresiones de tiempo                                                                                                  específicos al pasado como: Ayer (yesterday), anteayer (the day before                                                                                                  yesterday), la semana pasada (last week), el año pasado (last year), hace dos                                                                                                  años (two years ago), etc.
> 
> Ejemplo
> Fuimos al cine                                                                                                          ayer por la tarde
> We went to the cinema yesterday evening
> Comió una                                                                                                          comida china hace dos semanas
> He had a Chinese meal two weeks ago
> Fueron a                                                                                                          Australia el año pasado en sus vacaciones
> They went to                                                                                              Australia last year on their holiday


It´s important and additional explanation: In american spanish is more used the simple tense and in Spain is more used the compound tense"
In addition, "preterito imperfecto" is used to exprees a past verbal proccess in no determined time unit, that´s no matter when it started or finished.
Otherwise, "preterito perfecto simple" express an action that finished so far in time, regarding up to the present situation.


----------



## Jeromed

> Originally Posted by *Aerostudent:*
> A ver si esto si sire para zanjar la discusión. Anyways the threat that we are talking about, is one of the complex uses of spanish languague. There are a lot of people in Spain, and it seems in south america too, who don´t use it properly.


 

Although your statement is true (many native speakers do 'misspeak'), I can't recall anyone, on either side of the Atlantic, ever misusing these two tenses. I know that the preterit is used somewhat differently in the Americas than in Spain, but that's not a mistake, just a different approach to the language.


----------



## Aerostudent

minnkidd said:


> Aeorstudent, I don't see a codification of your previous post, that imperfect is used for recent events whereas preterit implies something that happened long ago.  Which of your rules here explains "éramos amigos," a completed state?


In my first post, I try to explain the use of the two different tenses in that sentence "Fuimos o eramos amigos". In the other posts I give you a full explanation of the main uses of these tenses


----------



## Aerostudent

I would use "fuimos amigos" if there´s long time ago and your relationship wasn´t too extense, and  I´d use "eramos amigos" if our relationship finished not long time ago, and we were friends during an important period.


----------



## Aerostudent

Jeromed said:


> Although your statement is true (many native speakers do 'misspeak'), I can't recall anyone, on either side of the Atlantic, ever misusing these two tenses. I know that the preterit is used somewhat differently in the Americas than in Spain, but that's not a mistake, just a different approach to the language.


I told you that 





> It´s important and additional explanation: In american spanish is more used the simple tense and in Spain is more used the compound tense"


 I tried to express that are many people both in Spain and South America that generally don´t use these tenses properly


----------



## Jeromed

Aerostudent said:


> I told you that I tried to express that are many people both in Spain and South America that generally don´t use these tenses properly


 
Ahí es donde estás equivocado. Es que estos tiempos (_pretérito simple_ y _pasado perfecto_) se usan de forma distinta, según el lado del Atlántico en que estés. Por ejemplo, ninguna de las dos oraciones siguientes es incorrecta:

Hoy fui al cine (Américas)
Hoy he ido al cine (España)
La RAE las acepta como usos *distintos, pero válidos,* del castellano (y no tiene alternativa, ya que el peso de 350 millones de hablantes es mayor que el de menos de 40 millones). Sin embargo, nos estamos alejando de la pregunta original. Si quieres continuar con esto, hay que empezar otra madeja.


----------



## Rayines

Just a last thing to add to my previous post. In these examples, where a person takes it for granted that something happens, and the other person says: "Happened", well -again I have no explanation for it-, we answer with the imperfect. (Maybe it's a little softer?).


----------



## Aerostudent

ok
Tenía entendido que el uso del pretérito perfecto simple era incorrecto, o al menos  así es en  España. Pero tienes razón, hay mas hispano-parlantes en Sudamérica que aquí.
Bueno, en cuanto a la cuestión en si, yo utilizaría "eramos amigos" si nuestra relación se hubiese extendido en el tiempo y hubiese acabado hace poco. Y como ya dije antes "Fuimos amigos" si lo fuimos durante poco tiempo y nuestra relación fue poco extensa en el tiempo


----------



## Jeromed

Aero:


> Hay mas hispano-parlantes en Sudamérica que aquí.


Súmales los de Norte y Centroamérica. Sólo en México hay más de 100 millones, y en EEUU más de 30.

Bueno lo de los números es nada más _la guinda en el pastel_. El uso americano del pretérito es correcto, entre otros, porque hay numerosos ejemplos del mismo en los clásicos y en el habla de ciertas regiones de España. También son correctos el _'leísmo madrileño' (lo _por _le_ como CD_)--_a pesar de los números, ya que el leísmo es escaso en América--y el '_seseo hispanoamericano y andaluz'_.


----------



## minnkidd

Sorry to beat a dead horse; if you're bored with this topic, please feel free to skip.  I thought I'd rephrase my question to attempt to solicit more precise responses:

Mary:  Aren't you going to the movies with John?
David: No.
Mary:  Why not?  You two are such good friends...
David: Wrong, we *were* friends!

¿were = _éramos_ o _fuimos_?  See below for context.

David corrects Mary's assertion because his friendship with John ended abruptly the week before as the result of a quarrel.  It's over, finished, complete, and there's no possibility in David's mind that it will begin anew.  Moreover, it ended eight years to the date it started, on John's birthday, so the time frame is very well defined, although unspecified in the context; David simply uses "were" to contrast with Mary's "are," meaning the relationship no longer is.

So, which verb would you use, _éramos_ or _fuimos_?  Or do you believe both are equally possible in this specific context?  I'm particularly interested to hear from native speakers, though I welcome any comments.  

¡Y no duden en contestarme en español si hace falta!


----------



## Dudu678

_Éramos. _I don't think both are equally possible.

_¿No vas al cine con John?
No.
¿Por qué no? Sois muy buenos amigos...
Te equivocas, éramos amigos.
_


----------



## YoPlatero

Bueno minnkidd, parece una tontería pero es la misma diferencia que describir y narrar. Me explico:

Si tu dices 'eramos amigos' estás describiendo cual era tu relación con esa persona.
Si dices 'fuimos amigos' estás informando de un hecho completado y como diría Terminator, terminado.
Por tanto, si lo que quieres es describir usa el imperfecto y si quieres informar de algo pasado usa el pasado.

En español solemos decir en este caso: tanto me da que me da lo mismo.


----------



## minnkidd

YoPlatero said:


> Bueno minnkidd, parece una tontería pero es la misma diferencia que describir y narrar. Me explico:
> 
> Si tu dices 'eramos amigos' estás describiendo cual era tu relación con esa persona.
> Si dices 'fuimos amigos' estás informando de un hecho completado y como diría Terminator, terminado.
> Por tanto, si lo que quieres es describir usa el imperfecto y si quieres informar de algo pasado usa el pasado.
> 
> En español solemos decir a esto: tanto me da que me da lo mismo.



Gracias.  ¿Quieres decir entonces que, en el ejemplo citado, vale cualquiera de las dos formas dependiendo tan sólo del punto de vista del hablante?  ¿El contexto dado no te lleva a eligir una en particular?


----------



## YoPlatero

minnkidd said:


> Gracias. ¿Quieres decir entonces que, en el ejemplo citado, vale cualquiera de las dos formas dependiendo tan sólo del punto de vista del hablante?


Exacto.


> ¿El contexto dado no te lleva a eligir una en particular?


Podría si lo que estas intentando es describir tu situación con la susodicha persona.
En este contexto valen las 2 por lo que te he comentado. De todas formas yo enfatizaría la última linea de la siguiente forma:
_Te equivocas, *fuiiimos* amigos._
Recalcando con la voz lo que fuisteis alargando la 'i'.
Tambien: _Te equivocas, *eramos* amigos *pero ya no*._

Es muy triste perder amigos por ahí con lo caros que están


----------



## Rayines

Hola YoPlatero: Quisiera que me respondas -ya que este mismo tema fue de alguna manera tratado en otro hilo en el que participé- si te encuentras en la calle con A, y mantienes el siguiente diálogo:

_A:¡Hola, YoPlatero, qué tal, tanto tiempo!_
_Tú: ¡Muy bien, qué tal!_
_A: Justamente me andaba preguntando si no lo has visto a Carlos._
_Tú: ¡¿A Carlos?, hace por lo menos 2 años que no lo veo!_
_A: ¡Cómo, con lo amigos que son!_
_Tú: Que ________, A que,__________

(¿Qué contestarías, "que fuimos, A, que fuimos", o "que éramos, A, que éramos")
Y disculpá si el ejemplo te parece pavo.


----------



## Dudu678

Yo lo tengo claro: _que éramos._


----------



## Rayines

Dudu678 said:


> Yo lo tengo claro: _que éramos._


Sí, yo también lo diría así.


----------



## minnkidd

Rayines said:


> Sí, yo también lo diría así.



Muy curioso entonces porque tenemos todos los criterios clásicos que indican el uso del pretérito:  un acción completada y terminada en el pasado y con un marco temporal muy específico (por lo menos en el ejemplo original: ocho años), que ya no continúa en el presente, y sin embargo se usa el imperfecto.  ¿Por qué?


----------



## Rayines

minnkidd said:


> Muy curioso entonces porque tenemos todos los criterios clásicos que indican el uso del pretérito: un acción completada y terminada en el pasado y con un marco temporal muy específico (por lo menos en el ejemplo original: ocho años), que ya no continúa en el presente, y sin embargo se usa el imperfecto. ¿Por qué?


No tiene mucha explicación. De todas maneras, puedes responder "Que fuimos, A, que fuimos", y nadie lo considerará un error. 
Mi respuesta vale para el ejemplo que yo di. Si la relación se terminó hace 8 años, obviamente el otro amigo ya sabrá de esto. Igualmente siguen siendo posibles las dos respuestas


----------



## willturner

Hola:

Yo creo que si usamos eramos es porque tenemos esperanza de volver a la situación anterior, porque no quieres que acabe la amistad. Quizás la discusión no fue tan fuerte como para no tener arreglo. ¿Qué opinais?


----------



## Rayines

willturner said:


> Hola:
> 
> Yo creo que si usamos eramos es porque tenemos esperanza de volver a la situación anterior, porque no quieres que acabe la amistad. Quizás la discusión no fue tan fuerte como para no tener arreglo. ¿Qué opinais?


Sí, como si hubiera una cierta nostalgia por la situación perdida.
Me gusta tu interpretación.


----------



## minnkidd

willturner said:


> Hola:
> 
> Yo creo que si usamos eramos es porque tenemos esperanza de volver a la situación anterior, porque no quieres que acabe la amistad. Quizás la discusión no fue tan fuerte como para no tener arreglo. ¿Qué opinais?



Entonces, willturner, si no quieres volver a la amistad, ¿dirías _fuimos_ en el contexto citado arriba?  Es decir, "Hemos cortado porque es un rata y no quiero volver a verlo.  Fuimos amigos, pero ya no."  ¿Te suena correcto de verdad?


----------



## willturner

Sí, yo lo usaría así.


----------



## San

David said:


> The answer is that the grammar books are often wrong, because it is impossible to write rules covering every nuance of meaning, and preposterous to think that one will have time to consult a rule for every verb in every tense and every mood when one is speaking. English grammarians tell you that prepositions require an object. If your cat crawls into the eaves of the house, and you ask him "What are you doing on up in under  there?", what are the ojbects of on, up, in, and under? They tell you that _ser _is for permanent things, while _estar_ refers to temporary things. _Está muerto. _Pretty permanent, but takes _estar._ I agree with Jeromed: rules of thumb can be helpful; the rest comes from practice, _listening,_ and _reading._
> 
> I would suggest the following answer to your original question: Eramos amigos = We were friends (in those days, at that time, for an indefinite period). No implication that we aren´t now; only that during a vague period in the past, we were friends.
> 
> Fuimos amigos. We were friends (during the specific period we are talking about.) Maybe we still are, but that´s irrelevant. Desde el primer día del kinder hasta el último examen de la secundaria, fuimos amigos. Nos criamos casi como hermanos. Hoy día, sigue siendo mi mejor amigo.



Of course, otherwise it couldn't be possible a conjunction such as "era *y* es", so common in speech. Ditto with fuimos. I agree with all you said.

It is the fact that you dismiss the present (sois) in order to highlight the past (éramos) what tells the other that doubtless the thing is over.

So, we are talking about a reply, in the imperfect case you say that the statement sois amigos is correct just moving a bit the time coordinate, that's to say, there was a time when the phrase sois amigos was right. So you are not opposing her, but only qualifying her statement, making a remark. This sort of play on words doesn't work so well with the preterite, because it is not a present in the past as Jeromed said the imperfect is.


----------



## caro.gnr

we were friends. not now


----------



## Rayines

> So you are not opposing her, but only *qualifying *her statement, *making a remark*


Me gustó eso, San .


----------



## YoPlatero

Rayines said:


> Hola YoPlatero: Quisiera que me respondas -ya que este mismo tema fue de alguna manera tratado en otro hilo en el que participé- si te encuentras en la calle con A, y mantienes el siguiente diálogo:
> 
> _A:¡Hola, YoPlatero, qué tal, tanto tiempo!_
> _Tú: ¡Muy bien, qué tal!_
> _A: Justamente me andaba preguntando si no lo has visto a Carlos._
> _Tú: ¡¿A Carlos?, hace por lo menos 2 años que no lo veo!_
> _A: ¡Cómo, con lo amigos que son!_
> _Tú: Que ________, A que,__________
> 
> (¿Qué contestarías, "que fuimos, A, que fuimos", o "que éramos, A, que éramos")
> Y disculpá si el ejemplo te parece pavo.


 
No no me parece pava tu pregunta. Así que trataré de contestarte de la manera que yo lo entiendo:

Yo diría 'que éramos' como todos vosotros. El problema es cómo explicar algo que en inglés solo se dice con un tiempo verbal y el español,sin embargo, tiene dos. 
¿Por qué decimos 'éramos'? 
1) Estamos describiendo la relación con un amigo en el pasado.
2) Por exclusión estamos indicando que esa relación ocurría en el pasado y no en el presente(linea inmediatamente anterior a la última). O sea,_*pero ya no, *no es necesario._

¿Por qué se puede decir "fuimos"? porque estamos hablando de un *hecho* acabado y concluido hace 2 años.

Pero ya digas 'eramos' o 'fuimos' nadie dice que mañana no podais volver a ser amigos.
Repito, para el habla cotidiana, se dice 'que eramos' a no ser que quieras recalcar 'fuimos' como algo definitivamente acabado porque te ha hecho una buena jugarreta,por ejemplo.

Bueno no sé si lo he liado más.
Saludos.


----------



## ampurdan

La idea general sobre los dos tiempos es que:

Imperfecto: duración o hábito.
Perf. simple: acción puntual o referida como un todo terminado.

El presente, "son" o "sois" en este caso (¡Con lo buenos amigos que sois!) está usado con un valor durativo, de realidad que se extiende en el tiempo. Quizá para contrastar con eso es por lo que se utiliza un verbo con el mismo valor durativo, pero de pasado (el imperfecto), para resaltar que eso ya es agua pasada.


----------

