# ser/estar + pasivo



## sonrisabonita

Hola....
what I've learned so far about the passive voice is that there are at least three ways to constructed it: 
*ser + ido/a + por
se + action verb
ser/estar + ido/a*
I am somewhat fuzzy on when  to use estar + ido/a....for example 
"La casa está rodeada de árboles."  vs.
"La casa es rodeada por la policía." (is this sentence in the voz pasiva, también??)

Gracias


----------



## honeypie

The difference between ser and estar in this case is interesting.  Estar is easier to explain as it simply describes the state of being: The house is surrounded by trees.  

Ser is more complicated because you could write the same sentence about "la policía" using estar and it would mean two different things in Spanish but you could translate it the same in English... For example:

La casa está rodeada de la policía: describes the scene, that the house is surrounded by the police.

La casa es rodeada por la policía: describes, in the passive voice, the action of the police when they surround the house: the house is surrounded by the police.  This is the same as what we would say in English except we'd probably use the active voice: The police surround/are surrounding the house.  

I hope that helps a bit.  Let me know if it's unclear or still doesn't answer your question.


----------



## palomnik

Sonrisa, what always worked for me is: if you could replace _is _with _has been _in English, then you will probably use _estar _in Spanish:

La casa está rodeada de la policía: the house is/has been surrounded by the police.  the image is of a house surrounded by police.  It's an accomplished fact.

La casa es rodeada por la policía: the house is in the process of being surrounded by the police, or more likely, as honeypie says, in English we would tend to use the active voice, since it tends to emphasize the fact that the police are doing the surrounding.  The image is of the police getting out and surrounding the house.


----------



## Ynez

Yes, both comments are right. I can only think of "La casa es rodeada por la policía" if someone is telling a story.


----------



## Outsider

Some authors do consider the *estar + past participle* construction a passive voice. However, speaking purely as another Spanish learner, I have always preferred a different interpretation:


The are only two passive voices in Spanish, *ser + past participle* and *se + verb*. 

In *estar + past participle*, the past participle can always be interpreted as an adjective, so that the phrase can be regarded as a copular construction, that is, an *"X is Y"* type of sentence. 

In "X is + adjective" sentences, all you need to figure out is whether to use _ser_ or _estar_, according to the usual rules that distinguish these verbs.
This may be an unorthodox approach, but it has worked well for me so far.


----------



## Ynez

I also think of the *past participle* after *estar* as if it was an *adjective*, Outsider


----------



## virgilio

sonrisabonita,
                  The verb "estar" is about the "state" or the "condition" in which someone or something is. Consequently, when it is used with the past participle, it is about the *resulting* state or condition (of someone/something), after something has been done to that person or thing.
The verb "ser" with a past participle is about that thing actually being done.
e.g.
(1) La casa es rodeada por la policía.
The house *gets* surrounded by the police.    (i.e. something happened)

(2) La casa está rodeada de la policía.  The house is (now) surrounded by the police.                                    (i.e. the present state of the house  resulting from what happened in (1)).

I hope this clarifies it a little.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## JB

Virgilio
Thanks for your explanation  Let me make sure I understand it.

I am watching a TV News report of a car chase (common fare on U.S. TV these days).  The car being chased finally stops.  The police get out of their cars and begin to approach and surround the car, cautiously, with their guns drawn, while yelling instructions at the driver.. 

In English, the reporter says *"The police are now surrounding the vehicle."  *
A literal translation in Spanish would be "la policia están rodeando" el vehículo.  But in Spanish this sounds as awful as sayng the man "está sentando", right?

So the usual way to say this in Spanish is
*"El vehículo es rodeado por la policía."  ¿Correcto?*

For some reason, it all seems clearer in the past tense, perhaps because it is closer to standard English speech.  
"Este edificio *fue construído por* los españoles.   *Está rodeado de* montañas y ríos."  1 is an action.  2 is a description. 
¿Correcto?  ¿10 puntos?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Sonrisa, I wrote this in my grammar course and many students have said it was very helpful. THough you've gotten great answers already all of which I agree with: Here's mine:
_ The most important distinction for the English native speaker to remember here is that the constructions with ‘estar’ are used to focus on a ‘resultant state’ after an action. To refer to ‘an action by somebody’ or ‘to only the action event itself’ we use one of the other passive constructions we’ve studied. So:_​_“Los archivos se dañaron” speaks to an event only: “The files got {somehow} damaged”; then_​_“Los archivos los dañaron” implies an impersonal “action doer”: “The files were {by “them”/somebody} damaged”; and finally_​_“Los archivos estaban dañados” focuses on the state of the files when observed: “The files were {in temporary state} damaged.”_​​One caveat... The 'done by somebody' aspect is also transmitted by the SE passive form, as you mentioned, and aldo by the SER Passive too -- it's just that the Spanish speaker uses most commonly a more active voiced construction, in Spanish,  to transmit 90% of the passive sentences we say in English; though they can be said with SE -- they're often not. Let me be clear. Constructions with SE are reserved often for more impersonal sentences and to speak of 'happenings'. _Se abrió la puerta_ (The door {just} closed). _Se terminó la reunión_ (The meeting ended).

What our grammar books often don't teach us is that the most common way to do passive (where "somebody did it" is implied) from English over to Spanish is a more active voice in the Spanish but has an English looking passive word order - like this:
The books were taken.​_ Los libros los llevaron._ (lit. The books, them, {impersonal} "they" took.)​--when the doer of the action is unimportant as in most passives the verb in Spanish is always 3rd person plural​----Now this one, without the doer of the action mentioned, can be done in SE Passive too (_Se llevaron los libros_).​----But you can't use the SE Passive when you mention the doer of the action.​​And if the doer of the action is mentioned then the verb goes in singular or plural matching the subject which is placed in the Spanish at the end in this construction:
The books were taken by John.​_ Los libros los llevó Juan._​​The books were taken by the teachers.​_ Los libros los llevaron los profesores._​​Hope that helps a little.

Regards,
Grant


----------



## sonrisabonita

Most helpful.....Very grateful to all....


----------



## virgilio

jbruceismay,
                 Another example:

La puerta fue abierta por mi hermano.
The door was open*ed* by my brother.

Y la cerró después? 
And did he close it afterwards?

No, está aún abierta
No, it's still open.

Note the difference between "open*ed*" and "open" in the example above.

Hope this helps.
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Ynez

jbruceismay said:


> In English, the reporter says "The police are now surrounding the vehicle."
> A literal translation in Spanish would be "la policia ESTÁ rodeando" el vehículo.  But in Spanish this sounds as awful as saying the man "está sentando", right? *(= NO, IN FACT THAT'S  THE MOST USUAL WAY TO EXPRESS THIS IDEA IN SPANISH)*
> 
> So the usual way to say this in Spanish is
> "El vehículo ESTÁ SIENDO rodeado por la policía."*  (BUT THE ONE ABOVE IS MORE COMMON)*
> 
> For some reason, it all seems clearer in the past tense, perhaps because it is closer to standard English speech.
> "Este edificio *fue construido por* los españoles.   *Está rodeado de* montañas y ríos."  1 is an action.  2 is a description. *(RIGHT, BUT IT'S ALSO NORMAL TO SAY "LOS ESPAÑOLES CONSTRUYERON ESTE EDIFICIO)*


"La casa es rodeada por la policía" is less normal than all this. It would be used if the events you stated in the example are reported, but not as happening at the moment of speaking. Instead,  the person would be reporting something that happened in the past. Normally, many different successive events will be reported when someone is talking this way:

"El coche acelera y se escapa por un camino de arena, pero otra furgoneta policial aparece por la derecha y el ladrón es (finalmente) rodeado por la policía"

Virgilio got it right.


----------



## Magmod

virgilio said:


> (1) La casa es rodeada por la policía.
> The house *gets* surrounded by the police. (i.e. something happened)
> 
> (2) La casa está rodeada de la policía. The house is (now) surrounded by the police. (i.e. the present state of the house resulting from what happened in (1)).


Good answer Virgilio 
Therefore it follows that with *ser* one can use *por* but with* estar *one cannot use *por*, although many hispanohablantes don't agree.

La casa está rodeada de la policía porque (la casa ) *fue *rodeada *por *la policía.
La casa está rodeada de la policía porque la *fue visto* *por *ellos en la selva.
Regards


----------



## Jellby

Magmod said:


> Therefore it follows that with *ser* one can use *por* but with* estar *one cannot use *por*, although many hispanohablantes don't agree.



I might be one of those who don't agree 

El examen es corregido por el profesor -> el profesor está corrigiendo el examen (it describes an action).
El examen está corregido por el profesor -> el profesor ha corregido el examen (it describes an effect).

This is what in general happens with participles, "ser + part." is used for actions, and it's a real passive voice (much less used than in English, anyway), "estar + part." is used for states or effects and the participle functions as an adjectivo (where other adjectives would be used with "ser"):

El coche es rojo (the car is red)
El coche está roto (the car is broken)

If you'd like to say that "the car is being broken" (i.e., someone breaks the car), you _could_ say "el coche es roto (por alguien)", but it sounds a bit awkward and a Spanish speaker wouldn't use it, we would prefer an active form here.


----------



## NewdestinyX

jbruceismay said:


> "Este edificio *fue construído por* los españoles.   *Está rodeado de* montañas y ríos."  1 is an action.  2 is a description.
> ¿Correcto?  ¿10 puntos?



Jbruice,
You've gotten great answers to other aspects of your questions but I just wanted to speak up on the "fue construido por.." thing. Though our grammar books say this is the only way to do passive where the actor of the action is mentioned -- this formation is rarely if ever practical in Spanish. Where you will see it all the time is in the news media both print and TV. But that's a style thing and it's virtually never used in non news media settings. Ynez showed you that changing it to an active voice is better -- but I've always wondered if Spanish really has less passive than English. The simple answer is yes -- but there is a 'passive-looking' active voice that Spanish uses that I've discovered is the real 'go-to' wording English speakers should learn to use in their Spanish for 90% of the passive wordings we have that aren't 'state oriented' (which is ESTAR) but 'done by somebody' in inference.

This building was constructed by the Spaniards.
Este edificio lo construyeron los españoles. (literally: This building, it, constructed the Spaniards).

That one is super common and works in almost all cases.

Now, when the doer of the action (what would come after the 'by' in English) is not mentioned then you simply put the verb in 3rd person plural signifying an informal "they".

This building was constructed last year.
Este edificio lo construyeron el año pasado.

This one of course can also be said with the SE Pasiva where the first example can't.

That's all. 
Grant


----------



## Outsider

In my opinion, you examples are lacking some punctuation:





NewdestinyX said:


> This building was constructed built by the Spaniards.
> Este edificio*,* lo construyeron los españoles. (literally: This building, it, constructed built the Spaniards).
> _"This building, the Spaniards built it."_
> 
> [...]
> 
> This building was constructed last year.
> Este edificio, lo construyeron el año pasado.
> _"This building, they built it last year."_


----------



## NewdestinyX

I assure you that's not the case. These sentences, without the comma, are very common. The comma would be needed in English but not Spanish -- anymore than you'd need a comma in: A Julio no le gusta nada. It's simply a syntactic redundant object pronoun needed in that syntax in the Spanish. But the comma is not necessary. (See Marcial Prado's book, "Ultimate Spanish REview and Practice" and "A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish", Butts & Benjamin) And "constructed" and "built" are interchangeable in English. Though you're right to note that 'build' is more common.

Grant


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> See Marcial Prado's book, "Ultimate Spanish REview and Practice" and "A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish", Butts & Benjamin


How odd!



NewdestinyX said:


> And "constructed" and "built" are interchangeable in English. Though you're right to note that 'build' is more common.


Not just more common, but more idiomatic. "To construct a building" sounds stilted in English.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> Native speakers don't always punctuate correctly. You shouldn't take what they write as gospel.
> 
> I think you are mistaken. I'll be curious to see what the native speakers have to say about this.



Though I'm interested too -- what ultimately interests me is what the grammar sources say. And they support no comma.

Grant


----------



## Outsider

You're quick! 

I thought better and edited my post. If the book you cited says the comma is optional, who am I to disagree?


----------



## Magmod

Jellby said:


> I might be one of those who don't agree
> 
> El examen es corregido por el profesor -> el profesor está corrigiendo el examen (it describes an action).
> El examen está corregido por el profesor -> el profesor ha corregido el examen (it describes an effect).


 
Thanks for your reply Jellby. Just to refresh my mind:

 One could say:

El examen está corregido porque el profesor ya lo ha corregido.
How do you explain the state or the effect of an action and yet use *por? *
My attempt of analysing your examples: 
*

El examen es corregido por el profesor > action completed
el profesor está corrigiendo el examen > action in process
El examen está corregido por el profesor > State of an action (por? )
el profesor ha corregido el examen > action completed
 If we take an example from Newdestiny good answer:

Se llevaron los libros.
Similarly one can't add por to this sentence.*

Un saludo


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> You're quick!
> 
> I thought better and edited my post. If the book you cited says the comma is optional, who am I to disagree?



Interestingly enough -- adding the comma in the Spanish actually 'changes the semantic a bit'. It adds a reiteration type of emphasis as if to say:

The building? They built it.....

Without the comma you get -- 'the building was built...." Again this precedent exists in a lot of Spanish when an object is first.

A Juan no le gusta nada. (no comma)
Tu chaqueta la dejaste en la sala. (no comma)
El edificio lo construyeron.... (etc.)

I'm guessing, from your surprise, that the same is not true in Portuguese which surprises me as it's a sister language.

Regards,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Magmod said:


> Thanks for your reply Jellby. Just to refresh my mind:
> How do you explain the state or the effect of an action and yet use *por? *
> My attempt of analysing your examples:
> *
> El examen es corregido por el profesor > action completed
> el profesor está corrigiendo el examen > action in process
> El examen está corregido por el profesor > State of an action (por? )
> el profesor ha corregido el examen > action completed
> If we take an example from Newdestiny good answer:
> Se llevaron los libros.
> Similarly one can't add por to this sentence.*
> 
> Un saludo



Mag, I've been trying to follow this aspect of the thread and am similarly having difficulty  -- and I don't know whose example are whose so if those sentences are not yours please forgive but I don't think this 'está + adj. + por' thing is possible in Spanish. As everyone's said 'ESTAR + PP as adj' refers to an observable resultant state. In this syntax we don't identify a doer of the action after por. Maybe por can identify some other aspect for us but not the marker of the action doer -- Spanish uses [SER + PP as adj] for that. I think you can likely say 'debido a' or 'por falta de' or other conjunctions like that after ESTAR + PP as adj. But I know I don't use it when I speak or write and I'm scouring through my books to find a precedent.

Additionally I don't agree that in "El examen 'es' corregido" that the "action is completed". You can't determine anything about the action in that syntax with regard to time frame. It could be a habitual statement.

I wonder if the natives can tell us if {estar + pp as adj + por} is possible.

Grant


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> I'm guessing, from your surprise, that the same is not true in Portuguese which surprises me as it's a sister language.


Punctuation can be a little subjective in any language, I suppose. Some people are very prolific with commas while others avoid them at all times, for example.

In the case of the Spanish sentences we're talking about (_Este edificio lo construyeron los españoles, Este edificio lo construyeron el año pasado_), I would add the comma because you have a noun phrase, and then a pronoun which represents that noun phrase again, and is the subject of a clause. The noun phrase is in apposition (I think this is the term).

But you gave a different example which left me in doubt, _A Julio no le gusta nada_. Indeed, I would not use a comma here, but I'll be damned if I can see the fundamental difference between the two types of sentence.


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> This building was constructed by the Spaniards.
> Este edificio lo construyeron los españoles. (literally: This building, it, constructed the Spaniards).
> 
> That one is super common and works in almost all cases.
> 
> Now, when the doer of the action (what would come after the 'by' in English) is not mentioned then you simply put the verb in 3rd person plural signifying an informal "they".
> 
> This building was constructed last year.
> Este edificio lo construyeron el año pasado.
> 
> This one of course can also be said with the SE Pasiva where the first example can't.
> 
> That's all.
> Grant



Totally right, and very good comment to have in mind 

About the comma, all these sentences mean the same:

Los españoles construyeron este edificio =
Este edificio fue construido por los españoles =
Este edificio lo construyeron los españoles 

Whatever structure we choose: Españoles (subject), Construir (verbo), Este edificio (direct object) = NO COMMA


Outsider, maybe you have seen some comma in a similar sentence but it must have been that it was a long idea that needed some separation to be expressed clearly. As it is in the example, it's a short, simple sentence.

And I agree the use of punctuation is very difficult


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> But you gave a different example which left me in doubt, _A Julio no le gusta nada_. Indeed, I would not use a comma here, but I'll be damned if I can see the fundamental difference between the two types of sentence.



Yeah -- that's Spanish for you. Different languages don't always parse the elements the same way. The comma is indeed possible -- but in the Spanish it adds a certain emphasis as I mentioned.

I feel like a bit of a crusader on this topic of the syntax I call "the Active Passive" in Spanish. For years as a student I couldn't get enough about SE and all its uses and I had a very wise native tell me one day -- you know, Grant, you're a little too overly focussed on the SE Passive and Impersonal -- because of all the passive you have in English. The 'main' way we (spanish native speakers) say those passives you cite is this way:..." and then he taught me the "Los libros los llevaron". I admit to having been stunned. Because the English-authored Spanish Grammar books nearly fully skip that syntax but have a bunch to say on SE. In the fall, after I learned that and started to apply it, -- natives started to tell me how much more fluent I sounded. I asked them 'what's the differece" -- to which they responded -- "Don't know -- but you sounded very 'como profesor' in the past. The 'SE' passives sound a bit more formal or as if you're on an infomercial. They just don't sound as native if you use them (SE Passives) to translate in your head all the English passives. But the answer isn't to switch everything to active voice either with SUBJ + VERB. That sounds elementary and I had to believe that that wasn't the case in Spanish -- that natives simply spoke in simple Active all the time.

So when I learned this everyday syntax I rewrote my chapter on passives to make this the '#1' choice when an Intermediate Spanish student is trying to get their passive over into Spanish fluently. Oddly enough -- it is an active voice and yet the word order follows English's passive perfectly. Hence why I coined the term "The Active Passive". It's Spanish word order flexibility that makes the syntax work smoothly in Spanish and just happen to then follow English's passive word order. That native also told me to basically forget the SER passive all together as it was a vestige of the past. Except in newspapers and news media and in set expressions.

Regards,
Grant


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> That native also told me to basically forget the SER passive all together as it was a vestige of the past. Except in newspapers and news media and in set expressions.


That seems like an exaggeration to me. What you called the active passive, while common, is, I think, a colloquial construction...


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Totally right, and very good comment to have in mind



Thanks Ynez. And it's good to hear you can verify the no comma thing.



> About the comma, all these sentences mean the same:
> 
> Los españoles construyeron este edificio =
> Este edificio fue construido por los españoles =
> Este edificio lo construyeron los españoles


AND --> Se construyó este edifico.  ¿verdad? Means the exact same as the others. Right? But you can't mention the 'españoles' in this structure. I know that.

And Ynez -- while I have your attention -- and I don't want to confuse students -- you can use 'por' after a 'se construction' when you are mentioning a 'natural cause' and not a person/group -- right? Like:

Se hundió el barco *por* la tormenta. ¿Es correcto?
The ship sank *because of* the storm.

But not:
Se hundió el barco *por* los británicos en la guerra.  ¿No es correcto?
The ship was sunk *by* the Brits in the war.
El barco fue hundido por los.....
El barco lo hundieron los británicos en la....

Gracias de antemano,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> That seems like an exaggeration to me. What you called the active passive, while common, is, I think, a colloquial construction...



Still gathering all my data on this one -- so I won't make any strong protests to your point. I guess all I'm saying is that it is so widespread in Spanish that the grammar books should deal with it. All I know is that in my time with natives I almost 'never hear' the SER Passive come out of their mouths and yet the grammar books give me the SER passive as my only option for saying a passive (from English) with the agent of the action mentioned. Now 'that's' an exaggeration.


----------



## Outsider

It's a topic-prominent construction, I think.


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> Thanks Ynez. And it's good to hear you can verify the no comma thing.
> 
> AND --> Se construyó este edifico.  ¿verdad? Means the exact same as the others. Right? But you can't mention the 'españoles' in this structure. I know that.
> 
> And Ynez -- while I have your attention -- and I don't want to confuse students -- you can use 'por' after a 'se construction' when you are mentioning a 'natural cause' and not a person/group -- right? Like:
> 
> Se hundió el barco *por* la tormenta. ¿Es correcto?
> The ship sank *because of* the storm.
> 
> But not:
> Se hundió el barco *por* los británicos en la guerra.  ¿No es correcto?
> The ship was sunk *by* the Brits in the war.
> El barco fue hundido por los.....
> El barco lo hundieron los británicos en la....
> 
> Gracias de antemano,
> Grant




You got all those examples right.

Now one thing, you should not relate that use of POR with estar, ser, etc...but with BECAUSE OF.

BECAUSE OF = A CAUSA DE/POR (being "por" the most commonly used)


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> Still gathering all my data on this one -- so I won't make any strong protests to your point. I guess all I'm saying is that it is so widespread in Spanish that the grammar books should deal with it. All I know is that in my time with natives I almost 'never hear' the SER Passive come out of their mouths and yet the grammar books give me the SER passive as my only option for saying a passive (from English) with the agent of the action mentioned. Now 'that's' an exaggeration.



I liked to see your example with "lo construyeron" because it's one idea I had never thought of, and it is true that we express many ideas like that. 

But the general idea to have about the Spanish Passive is that it is much less used than in English. The most important reason for this is that in Spanish we don't have to express the Subject, and in English the Subject of the verb must be present in all sentences (except imperative).

If you want we can think of examples


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> I liked to see your example with "lo construyeron" because it's one idea I had never thought of, and it is true that we express many ideas like that.
> 
> But the general idea to have about the Spanish Passive is that it is much less used than in English. The most important reason for this is that in Spanish we don't have to express the Subject, and in English the Subject of the verb must be present in all sentences (except imperative).
> 
> If you want we can think of examples



Thanks Ynez for all your help. The trick to helping Intermediate students be successful is to not take away one of their "security blankets" in their own language -- like taking away the passive -- but rather finding ways to make sentences that are natural Spanish that can 'remind them' of their own language. The process of learning is easier in the long run. That can't always be done -- but in the case of this construction: (Los libros los llevaron los prefesores) it helps a lot.

Grant


----------



## Magmod

NewdestinyX said:


> and I don't know whose example are whose so if those sentences are not yours please forgive but I don't think this 'está + adj. + por' thing is possible in Spanish. As *everyone*'s said 'ESTAR + PP as adj' refers to an observable resultant state. In this syntax we don't identify a doer of the action after por.
> 
> I wonder if the natives can tell us if {estar + pp as adj + por} is possible.
> 
> Grant


 The examples are not mine but of the native speaker Jellby #14 and he's in disagreement with everyone.

 Your idea of Active (Spanish ) > passive ( English ) is clearly mentioned in the book you quoted: Butt and Benjamin in the first page on the passive chapter 28 : impersonal 3rd person.

Dicen que las zanahorias son buenas para los ojos ( = se dice que ...)
They say carrots are good for the eyes
Saludos


----------



## Ynez

Magmod, giving examples out of context is difficult. I haven't answered Newdestiny and you about that "estar _ado por" because it is difficult to explain and I hope Jellby can explain it better. But here is my opinion:

We do use sentences like that, I can't say if they are right or wrong.

Este cuadro está valorado por los especialistas en la cantidad de XXXXX.

Este examen está corregido por María = it was María the one to check it (of course, it would be perfect to say "Este examen fue corregido por María", so I am not sure if "está corregido" is strictly correct here, but it is used. Anyway, as there are more ways to express the same idea, you should not worry about it, it is probably just some particular expressions.


----------



## Magmod

Ynez said:


> Magmod, giving examples out of context is difficult.  I haven't answered Newdestiny and you about that "estar _ado por" because it is difficult to explain and I hope Jellby can explain it better. But here is my opinion:
> 
> We do use sentences like that, I can't say if they are right or wrong.
> 
> Este cuadro está valorado por los especialistas en la cantidad de XXXXX.
> 
> Este examen está corregido por María = it was María the one to check it (of course, it would be perfect to say "Este examen fue corregido por María", so I am not sure if "está corregido" is strictly correct here, but it is used. Anyway, as there are more ways to express the same idea, you should not worry about it, it is probably just some particular expressions.


Thanks for your explanation Ynez 

 Ofcourse I knew what you're saying as hispanohablante - see #21, 14 and I asked Jellby to refresh my mind, which you did as un compatriota 

 I don't know why Newdestiny was confused about the author of the examples. 

 On the other hand, I can't follow why you were so much full of praise to Newdestiny and now you're saying that his argument could be wrong regarding : 

*estar _ado por*
Have you no corazon. How will he face his students now?


----------



## Ynez

My last post was the first time I referred to "estar ___ado por". If -in the middle of my praise to Newdestiny's comment- something related was included, I didn't pay attention to it. Here people think and talk too much and I cannot follow all of your ideas


----------



## NewdestinyX

Magmod said:


> Thanks for your explanation Ynez
> 
> Ofcourse I knew what you're saying as hispanohablante - see #21, 14 and I asked Jellby to refresh my mind, which you did as un compatriota
> 
> I don't know why Newdestiny was confused about the author of the examples.
> 
> On the other hand, I can't follow why you were so much full of praise to Newdestiny and now you're saying that his argument could be wrong regarding :
> *estar _ado por*
> Have you no corazon. How will he face his students now?



Now stop looking to spread ill-will, Mag.  Ynez acknowledged my correct interpretation of several other sentences not even remotely related to the discussion of estar + -ado + por -- that's why the mods want us to do one topic per thread -- it gets too convoluted to follow and now you've made Ynez have to defend herself -- shame on you  -- read the thread again -- ;-) I was confused about whose examples were whose and I just addressed  my thought to you hoping you'd be a guiding light out of the storm. I'm still -- suspect of this syntax in practicality and semantics. I'll bet somebody will be able to find that it's grammatically acceptable.

Let's just get to the answers, shall we?

Grant


----------



## Twist-ful

Hola;

Aunque entiendo bastante bien las diferencias entre los verbos _ser_ y _estar_, a veces en el modo pasivo me causan algunos problemas. Sé que la idea general es que si la frase se hace referencia a una acción se usa _ser _(El reloj fue fabricado en Suiza), mientras que si la frase es más bien el resultado de una acción el uso de _estar _es preferible (Las luces están encendidas _o_ El reloj está fabricado en Suiza).

Pero con las siguientes frases no me aclaro:
*
Los juzgados son/están protegidos por unos agentes de seguridad/unas cámaras de seguridad*. (yo optaría por SON, pero he visto la frase con ESTÁN)

*Estas máquinas *(las de un parque de atracciones) *son/están diseñadas para fallar *(al intentar coger un peluche con las pinzas). (yo creo que las dos opciones son correctas, pero que el uso de uno o otro verbo cambia un poco el sentido)

*Los bailarines del concierto son/están bien sincronizados. *(otra vez, creo que se puede usar los dos verbos, pero que el sentido cambiaría.)

Gracias


----------



## adrs

Twist-ful said:


> *Los juzgados son/están protegidos por unos agentes de seguridad/cámaras de seguridad*. (yo optaría por SON, pero he visto la frase con ESTÁN)
> 
> *Estas máquinas *(las de un parque de atracciones) *son/han sido/están diseñadas para fallar *(al intentar coger un peluche con las pinzas). (yo creo que las dos opciones son correctas, pero que el uso de uno o otro verbo cambia un poco el sentido)
> 
> *Los bailarines del concierto son/están bien sincronizados. *(otra vez, creo que se puede usar los dos verbos, pero que el sentido cambiaría.)



That's how I'd say them! Hope it helps!


----------



## Saúl Ortega

*Los juzgados están protegidos por unos agentes de seguridad:* Normalmente no son protegidos por agentes de seguridad, pero en este momento sí lo están. Es decir, es algo transitorio, temporal.

*Los juzgados son protegidos por unos agentes de seguridad:* Siempre han estado y estarán protegidos por agentes de seguridad. Es decir, es algo permanente.

Sin embargo, es interesante y curioso que, en teoría, lo mismo debería aplicar para "cámaras de seguridad"; pero no es así. Por alguna inexplicable razón, en cualquiera de los casos explicados anteriormente, debo decir:

*Los juzgados están protegidos por unas cámaras de seguridad*

Por supuesto, también es entendible (y correcto) usar "son" en vez de "están", pero eso no se usa.

A lo que quiero llegar es que es un tema algo complejo que muchas veces no sigue las reglas, sino que en ocasiones el uso de Ser o Estar es una cuestión de "costumbre".

Continuemos:

En teoría, se aplican las mismas definiciones anteriores ("Ser=permanente" y "estar=transitorio") a cualquier ejemplo. Sin embargo, hay otras maneras en que se puede entender:

*Estas máquinas están diseñadas para fallar:* Así me refiero a esas máquinas desde mi perspectiva como consumidor.

*Estas máquinas son diseñadas para fallar:* Así me refiero a esas máquinas desde mi perspectiva como fabricante de dichas máquinas.

Con el siguiente ejemplo sí se aplica lo de "ser=permanente y estar=transitorio":

*Los bailarines del concierto son  bien sincronizados:* O sea que me refiero a ellos como unos profesionales que nunca cometen errores.

*Los bailarines del concierto están bien sincronizados:* O sea que me refiero a ellos como a unos aprendices (o por lo menos no muy expertos) que pueden cometer errores, pero que en ente momento, en este concierto no están cometiendo errores.

------------------

Uffff... creo que me alargué un poco... 
En realidad es un tema bastante complejo... Es difícil de explicar...


----------



## Saúl Ortega

Para resumir las cosas:

1. Ser es algo permanente.
2. Estar es algo transitorio.
3. Si tienes dudas sobre cuál usar, no te compliques y usa Estar.


----------



## Perrito

Hola,

Estoy estudiando un tema del pasivo en español.  Me gustaría saber si se puede decir: 

En un Estado democrático, incluso los terroristas son/están amparados por la ley.  

Según mi libro de gramática se suele usar: estar en el pasivo si sigue provocando un resultado de acción.  Pero quizá 'ser' sería posible aquí porque son protegidos/están protegidos por la ley en general.  

Gracias por vuestras ideas,
Goyo


----------



## aldonzalorenzo

La verdad es que me suena mejor ...*están* *amparados*..., pero no descarto que se pueda usar ...*son* *amparados*...
En fin, que no te aclaro nada


----------



## hippie_omega

En este caso ambos verbos (son/están) son correctos, en virtud de que el pasivo de "amparar" puede ser utilizado (son amparados), sin embargo, "amparados" puede actuar como adjetivo, por lo que "estar amparados" también puede ser correcto.
Efectivamente, cuando queremos dar un pasivo, el verbo utilizado es "ser".
Ojalá sea de ayuda este comentario.
Saludos.


----------



## Perrito

Gracias por las respuestas, se me había olvidado de los ejemplos, pero acabo de volverles a echar un vistazo.  Tengo unos ejemplos más que a lo mejor me ayudarán a arrojar luz sobre el problema.  Me gustaría saber vuestras opiniones sobre: 

Mara es distraída por un ruido.  
Marta está distraída por un acontecimiento.  <---¿Ésta es posible?  ¿No sería un resultado de una acción en su pasado (el acontecimiento)?  

Otro ejemplo que es casi igual: Entre las bebidas la sangría es muy bien acogida por los extranjeros.  ¿No se podría decir: está muy bien acogida, para convertirlo en un adjetivo?  (Como lo que ha dicho hippie omega: "...sin embargo, "amparados" puede actuar como adjetivo, por lo que estar amparados [del previo ejemplo] también puede ser correcto."


----------



## hippie_omega

Hola Perrito:
En los primeros ejemplos (los de Mara), pueden ser, según mi manera de ver las cosas, ambos verbos: ser o estar, ya que (ojo) distraída puede ser una acción (pasiva) o bien un adjetivo.
Sin embargo, en cuanto a las bebidas, "acogida" *no* es un adjetivo, por lo que no se puede utilizar el verbo estar: 
            Entre las bebidas, la sangría* es* muy bien acogida por los extranjeros.
Espero que te sea de utilidad.
Saludos.


----------



## Perrito

Gracias hippie_omega.  Entonces, en mi ejemplo de 'destraer' estar y ser ambos valen, pero lo de acoger, no.  Y para acoger, no funciona con estar.  Ya entiendo las dos formas.  ¡Gracias!  

Goyo


----------



## duvija

Por favor, ¡ es 'distraer' !


Saludos


----------



## Perrito

Ah, perdona, sí sí, ya lo sabía, pero me equivoco mucho al teclear!  Gracias por la correción.


----------



## Twist-ful

Hola:

Es correcto decir:

_El elevado número de personas implicadas en los programas *es contemplado *por EE.UU y Rúsia como motivo para mantener la guardia._

Pero si no se incluye el agente, o sea EE.UU y Rúsia, es mejor usar ESTAR?

_El elevado número de personas implicadas en los programas *está contemplado *por EE.UU y Rúsia como motivo...._

Gracias


----------



## capitas

La primera es pasiva normal PASIVA SIEMPRE CON SER.
La segunda es correcta, pero no es pasiva.  "está contemplado" se puede interpretar como "está considerado".


----------



## donbill

Ser + participle = action. 
Estar + participle = result of an action. 

La puerta fue cerrada por el guarda. (action)
La puerta está cerrada. (result of the action)

Do you want to express action or result?

The nativos will tell you more.


----------



## donbill

Twist-ful,

Consider this example from the late William Bull, one of the best applied linguists ever.

The road was blocked by the troops. (action)
El camino fue bloqueado por las tropas.

The road was blocked by the troops. (state)
El camino estaba bloqueado por las tropas.

It's a hard choice for us because we can use exactly the same construction and words to mean two quite different ideas.


----------



## capitas

donbill said:


> Twist-ful,
> 
> Consider this example from the late William Bull, one of the best applied linguists ever.
> 
> The road was blocked by the troops. (action)
> El camino fue bloqueado por las tropas.
> 
> The road was blocked by the troops. (state)
> El camino estaba bloqueado por las tropas.
> 
> It's a hard choice for us because we can use exactly the same construction and words to mean two quite different ideas.


Fantastic! (Wow! in English).
You'll never go to bed wituout learning one more thing!, as we say in Spanish.


----------



## Jay Lang

I agree with Capitas: Fantastic!

Many times foreigners explain better de rules of spanish than the natives. We know how to say it but not the reason to do it in that way.

Bye,
Jay


----------



## Istriano

_La puerta fue/ha sido cerrada_ = The door has been closed (cerrada/closed is participle)
_La puerta está cerrada._ = The door is closed  (cerrada/closed is normal adjective)

In English, many times one uses_ is+adjective_ where _has been+participle _would be more suitable:
_
My books are sold [sold = adjective] = My books have been sold. [sold = participle]
different than: My books are sold every year [sold = participle]_

In Spanish, when used with _estar, _an adjective has a function of simple adjective, and not a participle. When used with _ser_, adjective functions as a participle.

This is the problem for English speakers because, MY BOOKS ARE SOLD can mean two totally different things: 
1. _sold _= simple adjective
2. _sold _= participle:
   a) ''my books are sold'' as a version of ''my books have been sold''
   b) ''my books are sold every year''

La puerta está abierta. = The door is open.
La puerta fue/ha sido abierta. = The door has been opened.
La puerta es abierta. = The door is opened.

_estar _abierto = to be _open   _(abierto = adjective = open)
_ser _abierto = to be _opened  _(abierto = participle = opened)


----------

