# ser/estar perfecto



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo. 
 I've been reading a lot about when to use "ser" or "estar" in Spanish.
Can a good soul tell me why Outsider wrote " Está perfecto" and not " Es perfecto" ?
Muchisimas gacias de antemano.
GS

Moderator's note: this thread has been moved from this one.


----------



## Outsider

To tell the truth I hesitated between the two, so I'd appreciate confirmation from a native speaker, too...


----------



## elprofe

Outsider lo dijo bien 
En ese contexto usamos: "está perfecto", no "es perfecto".

La explicación de por qué usamos "estar" se la dejo a otros foreros


----------



## juandiego

Hi all.
With _estar_ it's more idiomatic but also _ser_ was possible. In a way, the thread this one stems from posed the implicit question on the condition of the translation proposed, whether it was right or wrong, so the natural consequence was to answer by precisely pointing to its condition, which is mainly brought about by using _estar_. However, it could have also been answered by pointing to the nature of the translation suggested, an intrinsic attribute of the reply in relation to its correctness, and attributes are mainly brought about by using the verb _ser_. But, I insist, this latter option would have been odder.


----------



## chacahua

I don't know how to backtrack the original thread, but I think I've seen enough in this one to say - and this dovetails with juandiego's excellent explanation - that to use *ser* one would best structure it as something like *e**s una traducción perfecta*. Whenever you define what something is, *ser* is always used. But when you're throwing some sort of value judgement on something, more often than not it's *estar*. Using *estar *gives you latitude to cast judgement (and therefore carries the implication that others could reasonably feel otherwise), whereas *ser *tends to ask for a more enduring, unchanging definition of something; using *ser* is a bit of a _commitment_! (Chapters could be written on this _value judgement vs definition _distinction alone!) So *está perfecta* is ultimately a value judgment, whereas *es una traducción* is a definition. (That *traducción* is then judged, in this case, as being a perfect one doesn't change the fact that what we are talking about here is fundamentally a translation, _by definition._)


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Thank you very much from a ... speechless beginner in Spanish as a Foreign Language.
Best.
GS


----------



## donbill

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Thank you very much from a ... speechless beginner in Spanish as a Foreign Language.
> Best.
> GS



It's very much an over-generalization for me to say it this way, but I will: 'es perfecto' is a description; 'está perfecto' is a reaction. Both lead to a consideration of what is being commented on, but they have a different point of departure. Am I merely stating objective fact (ser), or am I in some way reacting to what I perceive (estar)?

This is, by the way, a 'gringo approach' to the issue. I'm sure many natives will reject it.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Don.
I believe there is much truth in your approach to the description of the uses of the two verbs. I'm currently reading a superbly written work by a friend of mine, a native Spanish speaker and a teacher of Spanish as a Foreign language. He, like myself, belongs to a current of linguistic theory which interprets linguistic "facts" in terms of essentially two criteria: mere factuality vs. personal intervention of the speaker on what he/she says. This of course is a long way from the traditional view disseminated by traditional grammar books on the "permanent state" as opposed to the "momentary/transient state of the action, state, process, etc. In other words, in his view "estar" always marks in some way the personal involvement of the speaker, which is not so far removed from the criteria that govern the use of modal auxiliaries in English.
Thank you very much 
Best.
GS


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

As an aside, I'll add that, yes, the majority of native speakers of ANY language, if they have never had the opportunity to study their native tongue LINGUISTICALLY, won't be able to describe it: ie linguistic competence has very little to do with linguistic awareness. I know from experience.
All the best.
GS


----------



## Lurrezko

donbill said:


> This is, by the way, a 'gringo approach' to the issue. I'm sure many natives will reject it.



Not me. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Saludos


----------



## donbill

Lurrezko said:


> Not me. It makes a lot of sense to me.
> 
> Saludos



¡Muy agradecido!


----------



## juandiego

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> As an aside, I'll add that, yes, the majority of native speakers of ANY language, if they have never had the opportunity to study their native tongue LINGUISTICALLY, won't be able to describe it: ie linguistic competence has very little to do with linguistic awareness. I know from experience.
> All the best.
> GS


So true, Giorgio.
Now it's time to let you know that the relation attribute—_ser_ and condition—_estar_ that I mentioned above, was also brought up by a non-native Spanish speaker. I guess that this thread on this matter and where it was firstly discussed will be of your interest.
Best regards.


----------



## Peterdg

juandiego said:


> So true, Giorgio.
> Now it's time to let you know that the relation attribute—_ser_ and condition—_estar_ that I mentioned above, was also brought up by a non-native Spanish speaker. I guess that this thread on this matter and where it was firstly discussed will be of your interest.
> Best regards.


I remember this thread very well; it is one of those "evergreens".

I hope that now that the RAE in its NGLE also adheres to this theory, the classical one (permanent/temporary) will gradually disappear from the textbooks (and the teacher's minds)

For those interested, I'll give a small quote from the NGLEem:


> 37.5.1a Una primera distinción se basa en la suposición de que el verbo _ser_ se combina con atributos que designan características permanentes de los sujetos, mientras que _estar_ lo hace con atributos que indican propiedades transitorias, y por ello accidentales. Se piensa hoy que esta diferenciación, que remonta a unos tratados clásicos, persenta dificultades.
> ...


In the following articles, they actually elaborate the subject and it comes down to the attribute/state opposition (with much detail).


----------



## duvija

donbill said:


> ¡Muy agradecido!



And, as usual, fantastic!   (gringos are the best. They studied the language!)


----------



## Outsider

Without disagreeing with the explanations others have given, here's another perspective. Now that my choice of "está perfecta" has been confirmed I see another reason to prefer this over "es perfecta". Without further context, "es perfecta" would tend to be interpreted as a statement about a person: she is perfect. Whereas "está perfecta" (again, out of context) is more likely to be interpreted as a statement about a thing: it is perfect. (Although it's true that "está perfecta" could also mean "she looks perfect" in some contexts.)

The traditional permanence/transience rationale that often distinguishes "ser" from "estar" also works: being a perfect person is regarded as a lasting quality, while an imperfect translation may, with some changes, easily become perfect.


----------



## inib

Outsider said:


> Without disagreeing with the explanations others have given, here's another perspective. Now that my choice of "está perfecta" has been confirmed I see another reason to prefer this over "es perfecta". Without further context, "es perfecta" would tend to be interpreted as a statement about a person: she is perfect. Whereas "está perfecta" (again, out of context) is more likely to be interpreted as a statement about a thing: it is perfect. (Although it's true that "está perfecta" could also mean "she looks perfect" in some contexts.)
> 
> 
> The traditional permanence/transience rationale that often distinguishes "ser" from "estar" also works: being a perfect person is regarded as a lasting quality, while an imperfect translation may, with some changes, easily become perfect.


Hi, Outsider, like you, I'm not by any means rejecting any of the first explanations, and nor do I reject your latest one in the examples you give, but this _ser/estar_ business was never intended to be easy for us foreigners, and I'm afraid that the person/thing theory may not work as often as we'd like!
I was thinking about the following situations:
1) I'm in a shop trying to choose a new tablecloth. The assistant shows me many, and then suddenly she lays before me one that is the right size, the right shape, easily washable, doesn't need ironing and it matches my dining-room decor wonderfully. I would exclaim "Este es perfecto".
2)I get home, lay the table with my new acquisition, put a nice vase of flowers on it, verify that it really does match the curtains and the upholstery, and admiringly sigh "Está perfecto".
Now it could well be that I'm using the verbs incorrectly myself, because I'm not a Spanish native, but should I be right, I think it brings us back to the old _quality vs state_ argument. In situation 1, the qualities of the tablecloth are just right for what I want. In situation 2, the tablecloth is perfect because it's in the right place at the right time!


----------



## Outsider

You do have a point, and your examples _son perfectos_.  

This _ser/estar_ business can be tricky even for someone who speaks a closely related language in which the same verbs exist, and are used the same way — most of the time.


----------



## duvija

Then let me use my eternal straw man. 
Soy feliz.
Estoy feliz (used in some areas, not in others. Fine in Perú, not so much in Uruguay).
Soy contento . (No believable explanation ...)
Estoy contento. 
And let's not forget 'está muerto'. (but never 'es muerto' , - besides that strange use of 'muerto' as 'killed in battle' - when there is no reason for this not to be a plain statement of facts.)


----------



## Istriano

It's funny that the usage of SER and ESTAR varies so much
1. between Spanish in Portuguese_ (No es correcto ~ Não está correto)_
2. withing Spanish dialects/variants and within Portuguese dialects/variants
So, any logic is relative.

In Argentina, you can use SER with locations, and no one will consider it an error:_ Amo Iguazú pero es muy lejos de Buenos Aires para ir con auto.
_And in Portuguese, (especially in Brazilian) we can use ESTAR for (unknown) locations too.It's not that the object is movable_,_ but it is not localizable at the moment.
In both Es, and Pt, you can use both SER and ESTAR with CASADO and SOLTE(I)RO,

_Estoy casado_ is the usual adjectival way,
_Soy casado_ is a reduction of _soy un hombre casado.

As for SER FELIZ, in both Spanish and Portuguese, there are two theories:
__1. _we can interpret as in the case of _casado/soltero:  soy feliz = soy una persona feliz.
2. _it's a fixed expression which survived from the old language, so we can say  _Hoy soy feliz_, and we don't necessarily mean _Hoy soy una persona feliz.


_


----------



## duvija

Istriano said:


> It's funny that the usage of SER and ESTAR varies so much
> 1. between Spanish in Portuguese
> 2. withing Spanish dialects/variants and within Portuguese dialects/variants
> 
> In Argentina, you can use SER with locations, and no one will consider it an error:_ Amo Iguazú pero es muy lejos de Buenos Aires para ir con auto._



With places 'fixed', it's used with no problem. (but you may always use 'estar' too. And 'quedar').
_La sucursal más importante del banco central es en el centro_. 
_Montevideo es en Uruguay, no Paraguay_.


----------



## cbrena

inib said:


> 1) I'm in a shop trying to choose a new tablecloth. The assistant shows me many, and then suddenly she lays before me one that is the right size, the right shape, easily washable, doesn't need ironing and it matches my dining-room decor wonderfully. I would exclaim "Este es perfecto".
> 2)I get home, lay the table with my new acquisition, put a nice vase of flowers on it, verify that it really does match the curtains and the upholstery, and admiringly sigh "Está perfecto".


En el ejemplo 1 yo diría "este es perfecto". En el ejemplo 2 seguiría diciendo que el mantel es perfecto, sin embargo diría que la mesa está o queda perfecta. ¿Por qué?



Outsider said:


> You do have a point, and your examples _son perfectos_.


En este caso sí usaría son perfectos y, curiosamente, parece que también se está juzgando, como se estaba haciendo en el "está perfecto" que abrió este hilo. ¿Por qué?



duvija said:


> _Montevideo es en Uruguay, no Paraguay_.


Sin embargo:_ Madrid está en España._
¿Por qué?




> _Estoy casado is the usual adjectival way,
> Soy casado is a reduction of soy un hombre casado.
> _



Para preguntar, en España, solemos utilizar: ¿Estas casado?, sonaría extraño preguntar: ¿Eres casado?

Sin embargo, a la hora de responder, lo habitual es utilizar el verbo estar para casados y ambos (ser o estar) para solteros.
Estoy casado.
Estoy/ soy soltero.

¿Por qué?

Mi sensación, como nativa, es que nunca habrá una explicación lógica que incluya ni todos los casos ni los diferentes usos de estos verbos en diferentes países.

No obstante, de todos los hilos que he leído sobre _ser/estar_ (aquí en WR), este hilo me parece uno de los más interesantes. Hay más apreciaciones que teorías.

Saludos.


----------



## Forero

No soy nativo, pero tengo algunas ideas sobre los porqués:





cbrena said:


> En el ejemplo 1 yo diría "este es perfecto". En el ejemplo 2 seguiría diciendo que el mantel es perfecto, sin embargo diría que la mesa está o queda perfecta. ¿Por qué?


Me parece que "es perfecto" dice que es exactamente lo que tenía en la miente o que es la opción perfecta para la situación, y "la mesa está/queda perfecta" dice que el estado de la mesa está/queda muy bien.





> Sin embargo:_ Madrid está en España._
> ¿Por qué?


Me parece que depende de lo que quiere expresarse: Montevideo es en Uruguay (es una ciudad/la capital de Uruguay), no Paraguay. Madrid está (se ubica) en España.





> Para preguntar, en España, solemos utilizar: ¿Estas casado?, sonaría extraño preguntar: ¿Eres casado?
> 
> Sin embargo, a la hora de responder, lo habitual es utilizar el verbo estar para casados y ambos (ser o estar) para solteros.
> Estoy casado.
> Estoy/ soy soltero.
> 
> ¿Por qué?


Por no querer o no poder casarme, puedo ser característicamente soltero, o puedo ver "soltero" como un estado que se ha cambiado o que puede cambiarse. "Casado" es un estado, el resultado de un cambio, no exactamente una característica.


----------



## Lurrezko

Es un tema complicado, ya lo sabíamos. ¿_Montevideo es en Uruguay_ os suena natural? Jamás lo diría así, y eso que en catalán, mi otra lengua materna, sí que usamos el verbo ser en estos casos. 



Forero said:


> Por no querer o no poder casarme, puedo ser característicamente soltero, o puedo ver "soltero" como un estado que se ha cambiado o que puede cambiarse. "Casado" es un estado, el resultado de un cambio, no exactamente una característica.



Sin embargo, decimos *soy viudo*, que también es el resultado de un cambio.

Un saludo


----------



## duvija

Lurrezko said:


> Es un tema complicado, ya lo sabíamos. ¿_Montevideo es en Uruguay_ os suena natural? Jamás lo diría así, y eso que en catalán, mi otra lengua materna, sí que usamos el verbo ser en estos casos.
> 
> 
> 
> Sin embargo, decimos *soy viudo*, que también es el resultado de un cambio.
> 
> Un saludo



Y 'soy divorciada/estoy divorciada', ambas como resultados de cambios. Tal vez el significado no es idéntico.
Y no decimos 'El Papa es un solterón'. Ni 'está soltero' tampoco. (Los ejemplos con el 'Papa' son muy usados en lingüística para explicar características de adjetivos).
Y Madrid es en España, no en Italia (acá creo que sirve algo de lo que dijo Forero en el #22, además de que aparentemente se usa para 'no es aquí, sino allá')


----------



## juandiego

En el caso de _estar/ser en (país/región/...)_ parece claro que que el primero denota se ubica y el segundo pertenece, aunque en este último caso la preposición _en_ intermedia hace más difícil el contexto en el que pueda darse.

Lo de _soltero/casado_ siempre cabe plantearlo tanto como condición (estar) como atributo (ser), al igual que como con _perfecto_. Es curioso lo de _viudo_, que difícilmente cabe plantearlo como una condición (estar_)_, será porque en el fondo se percibe como algo que acompaña a uno para siempre.


----------



## Lurrezko

No si eres Elizabeth Taylor. Juan, ¿a ti te suena natural _Pamplona es en Navarra_? 

Un saludo


----------



## juandiego

Descarado, la Taylor ha estado viuda en varias ocasiones ¿no?
Ahí, así por sí sólo, no, Lurrezko, nada natural; algo más en el ejemplo de Duvija:_ Madrid es en España, no en Italia_. Es por lo que decía que _ser_ con _en_ es mucho más difícil de encajar en un contexto y en el fondo creo que implica un cambio en la lógica semántica entre el verbo y el sintagma nominal de ubicación. Ahora bien, _Pamplona es Navarra_, sí lo veo natural si el contexto en el que se da no se refiere tanto a su ubicación como a su pertenencia: _Granada no es Andalucía_ (reivindicación); _Israel es ya Asia, no me vayas de Europeo, Jacob._


----------



## Lurrezko

juandiego said:


> Ahora bien, _Pamplona es Navarra_, sí lo veo natural si el contexto en el que se da no se refiere tanto a su ubicación como a su pertenencia: _Granada no es Andalucía_ (reivindicación); _Israel es ya Asia, no me vayas de Europeo, Jacob._



Concuerdo, pero ciertamente hablamos de pertenencia, no de ubicación, y suprimimos ese* en*. En mi tierra hay un eslogan típico con esa construcción, con sentido negativo.

Un saludo


----------

