# la mar estaba gruesa y el viento era fuerte. ("Ser" instead of "estar")



## ribran

Hello everyone,

_Ya en el agua y luego de quitarse el paracaídas, Mielniczuk enciende una bengala. Es evidente que la falla impidió al Capitán Villagrán planear hacia la costa y efectuar un aterrizaje con ruedas arriba en la playa._ *La mar estaba gruesa y el viento era fuerte*, _no habiéndose observado fuego a bordo que hubiera obligado a los tripulantes a abandonar el avión de inmediato._

In the sentence above, why did the author use _estar_ with _gruesa_ and _ser_ with _fuerte_? Could one say, "La mar era gruesa y el viento estaba fuerte"?

There must be some subtlety in this that I have yet to perceive. 

Thank you in advance!


----------



## Autumn Rain

Hi,

I don't know if this will help, but as far as I know "estar" is normally used with a state of being.  That is, it describes a quality that can change:

La tienda est*á *en la esquina = the store is located on the corner, but it won't necessarily be there forever.
Estoy feliz = I'm happy (at this point in time).

"Ser" on the other hand has a more perminant quality about it:

Soy feliz = I'm a happy person or I have a happy life.

however, your example doesn't seem to follow this rule.  The sea at this point in time is wild, but I would think that would also apply for the wind, so maybe the author was just exercising artistic preference, or there is a little more to the rule.

You should wait and see what other people have to say.

Good luck.


----------



## k-in-sc

Maybe because the ocean is always there, although its state changes, but the wind kind of is its state. You can say "el viento estaba fuerte," but "la/el mar era gruesa/o" sounds a little odd.


----------



## ribran

k-in-sc said:


> Maybe because the ocean is always there, although its state changes, but the wind kind of is its state.



I thought about that, but it's fairly easy to find examples like _La mar era fuerte aquel día_ or _El viento estaba fuerte y tuvimos que esperar un rato_. 

EDIT: I have found some examples of _La mar era gruesa._

_Esta mañana, por ejemplo —dice el corresponsal—, la mar era gruesa y las condiciones atmosféricas malas..._ - La Vanguardia

_Rápida y poco peligrosa resultó la travesía, puesto que la realizamos en poco más de diez y ocho horas; pero, con todo, durante la noche experimenté algún temor, porque la embarcación era pequeña, el peso del carruaje inclinaba una de sus bandas, la mar era gruesa y el viento fuerte._ - http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/s3/...11d/fac/c70/021/85c/e60/64/mimes/p0000002.htm


----------



## Autumn Rain

Exactly.  The sea can be calm at one moment, wild at another, and we can even attribute human characteristics to it like angry or unforgiving.

I'm sure there must be more to the rule, but I guess having grown up with the language, one is not always aware of the nuances or the why behind meaning.


----------



## ribran

Autumn Rain said:


> Exactly.  The sea can be calm at one moment, wild at another, and we can even attribute human characteristics to it like angry or unforgiving.
> 
> I'm sure there must be more to the rule, but I guess having grown up with the language, one is not always aware of the nuances or the why behind meaning.



Fine, but that doesn't explain the following:

_Cuando lo encontré, estaba blanco y su respiración era trabajosa._ 
_Cuando lo encontré, estaba blanco y su respiración estaba trabajosa._ 

_La vida está allí barata._  - María Moliner


----------



## Milton Sand

Hi,
The curiosity there is "el viento era fuerte"; and now I realize I don't like it with "estaba". Besides sounding nicer than repeating "estaba", the choosing of verb "ser" brings to me the idea of the wind being unabated. I mean, it brings a sense of "being constant".
Regards,


----------



## ribran

Milton Sand said:


> Hi,
> The curiosity there is "el viento era fuerte"; and now I realize I don't like it with "estaba". Besides sounding nicer than repeating "estaba", the choosing of verb "ser" brings to me the idea of the wind being unabated. I mean, it brings a sense of "being constant".
> Regards,



Are there really any significant differences between the original sentence and the following?

_La mar era gruesa y el viento estaba fuerte._
_La mar estaba gruesa y el viento fuerte._
_La mar era gruesa y el viento fuerte._ - as in the example I gave earlier.


----------



## Milton Sand

ribran said:


> Are there really any significant differences between the original sentence and the following?
> 
> _La mar era gruesa y el viento estaba fuerte._
> _La mar estaba gruesa y el viento fuerte._
> _La mar era gruesa y el viento fuerte._ - as in the example I gave earlier.


Maybe just a matter of style and a slight variation of meaning:

_La mar era gruesa y el viento estaba fuerte._
The sea had big, agitating waves, as usual; the wind was particularly strong in that moment.

_La mar estaba gruesa y el viento fuerte._
In that moment, the sea had got big waves and the wind had became strong.

_La mar era gruesa y el viento fuerte._
Big waves and strong wind, as usual or constantly.

Regards,


----------



## ribran

Milton Sand said:


> Maybe just a matter of style and a slight variation of meaning:
> 
> _La mar era gruesa y el viento estaba fuerte._
> The sea had big, agitating waves, as usual; the wind was particularly srtong in that moment.
> 
> _La mar estaba gruesa y el viento fuerte._
> In that moment, the sea had got big waves and the wind had became strong.
> 
> _La mar era gruesa y el viento fuerte._
> Big waves and strong wind, as usual.
> 
> Regards,



Thank you for your help. I really appreciate it.

I know you're going to think I'm obnoxious, but isn't the following true?

_Cuando lo encontré, estaba blanco y su respiración era trabajosa (por lo que acababa de ver). _ 
_Cuando lo encontré, estaba blanco y su respiración estaba trabajosa (por lo que acababa de ver). _


----------



## Milton Sand

ribran said:


> Thank you for your help. I really appreciate it.
> 
> I know you're going to think I'm obnoxious, but isn't the following true?
> 
> _Cuando lo encontré, estaba blanco y su respiración era trabajosa (por lo que acababa de ver). _
> _Cuando lo encontré, estaba blanco y su respiración estaba trabajosa (por lo que acababa de ver). _


Ser trabajoso = To require a lot of effort; to be painful; to be naturally laborious.
Estar trabajoso = To be unexpectedly/unusually laborious or complicated to carry out.

(I think I'm moving this new question to a new thread since it doesn't deals with «"estaba" and "era" in the same sentence and used the same way.») 

Regards,


----------



## ribran

Milton Sand said:


> Ser trabajoso = To require a lot of effort; to be painful; to be naturally laborious.
> Estar trabajoso = To be unexpectedly/unusually laborious or complicated to carry out.
> 
> (I think I'm moving this new question to a new thread since it doesn't deals with «"estaba" and "era" in the same sentence and used the same way.»)
> 
> Regards,



His breathing was painful, but it wasn't "naturally laborious." 

It's like, "¡Ayúdenme! Es urgente." The speaker's situation isn't "natural." Perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean by _as usual_ or _normal_.

Am I making any sense? Maybe I should just go to bed.


----------



## k-in-sc

I think at a certain point you just have to give up trying to apply logic and go with what sounds natural to native speakers in a particular situation


----------



## Milton Sand

Oh, no, I didn't mean all three options were the same. I meant I think it can take any of those meanings according to a context.
La reparación de este motor es trabajosa. <—Known to be laborious.
Al caminar, sus pasos eran trabajosos. <—Painful / requiring effort. "Estar" doesn't fits here since the steps are suppose to be continuous.
Esos eran años muy trabajosos. <—Painful/laborious.

Anyway, I need to sleep too. Have a nice night,


----------



## ribran

k-in-sc said:


> I think at a certain point you just have to give up trying to apply logic and go with what sounds natural to native speakers in a particular situation



Believe me, I don't expect languages to be logical; I'm just thinking "aloud."

Anyway, I have always found the intrinsic/extrinsic explanation to be much more helpful and accurate than the traditional temporary/permanent one.


----------



## ribran

Milton Sand said:


> Oh, no, I didn't mean all three options were the same. I meant I think it can take any of those meanings according to a context.
> La reparación de este motor es trabajosa. <—Known to be laborious.
> Al caminar, sus pasos eran trabajosos. <—Painful / requiring effort. "Estar" doesn't fits here since the steps are suppose to be continuous.
> Esos eran años muy trabajosos. <—Painful/laborious.
> 
> Anyway, I need to sleep too. Have a nice night,



But what about my sentence? Do you need me to create a new thread?


----------



## capitas

k-in-sc said:


> I think at a certain point you just have to give up trying to apply logic and go with what sounds natural to native speakers in a particular situation


 I wholy agree.
"el viento" usualy takes "ser", and "el/la mar" usually takes "estar", although it is posible " la mar esta gruesa". 
To avoid any chance of misuse, use "hacer":
Hacía un viento muy fuerte.
Hacía muy mala mar ( Note that "mar" is usually masculine, but when dealing with its state, usually femenine: Buena mar, mala mar, mar gruesa, mar tranquila: they all are "estados" in which the sea can be.).


----------



## ribran

capitas said:


> I wholy agree.
> "el viento" usualy takes "ser", and "el/la mar" usually takes "estar", although it is posible " la mar esta gruesa".
> To avoid any chance of misuse, use "hacer":
> Hacía un viento muy fuerte.
> Hacía muy mala mar ( Note that "mar" is usually masculine, but when dealing with its state, usually femenine: Buena mar, mala mar, mar gruesa, mar tranquila: they all are "estados" in which the sea can be.).



What differences, if any, do you perceive between the original sentence and those in post #4?

Again, I find that writing helps me sort things out in my mind.


----------



## donbill

ribran said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> _Ya en el agua y luego de quitarse el paracaídas, Mielniczuk enciende una bengala. Es evidente que la falla impidió al Capitán Villagrán planear hacia la costa y efectuar un aterrizaje con ruedas arriba en la playa._ *La mar estaba gruesa y el viento era fuerte*, _no habiéndose observado fuego a bordo que hubiera obligado a los tripulantes a abandonar el avión de inmediato._
> 
> In the sentence above, why did the author use _estar_ with _gruesa_ and _ser_ with _fuerte_? Could one say, "La mar era gruesa y el viento estaba fuerte"?
> 
> There must be some subtlety in this that I have yet to perceive.
> 
> Thank you in advance!



In such contexts,_ ser_ expresses the norm, while e_star_ expresses departure from the norm.

The author/speaker is either surprised or impressed by the waves and the wind. The former are bigger and the latter is stronger than he might have expected. _Estar_ expresses his feeling or reaction to what he sees at the moment.

p.d. ooops! I didn't read carefully! I apologize for that. It is unusual that the author mixes ser and estar. Is he expressing a reaction to one (the sea) and characterizing the other (wind)? My comments on ser and  estar come from what I've gleaned from study and experience, and I stand by them. I must admit, however, that the mixture in this context perplexes me.


----------



## capitas

ribran said:


> I thought about that, but it's fairly easy to find examples like _La mar era fuerte aquel día_ or _El viento estaba fuerte y tuvimos que esperar un rato_.
> 
> EDIT: I have found some examples of _La mar era gruesa._
> 
> _Esta mañana, por ejemplo —dice el corresponsal—, la mar era gruesa y las condiciones atmosféricas malas..._ - La Vanguardia
> 
> _Rápida y poco peligrosa resultó la travesía, puesto que la realizamos en poco más de diez y ocho horas; pero, con todo, durante la noche experimenté algún temor, porque la embarcación era pequeña, el peso del carruaje inclinaba una de sus bandas, la mar era gruesa y el viento fuerte._ - http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/s3/...11d/fac/c70/021/85c/e60/64/mimes/p0000002.htm


 The original, "la mar estaba gruesa y el viento (era) fuerte" would be my most natural option.
La mar es gruesa and el viento está fuerte, they are wholy meaningful but sound (both) odd to me. They just sound odd to me ( "La mar es gruesa" odder than "el viento está fuerte". In fact, I think that you could use "el viento está fuerte" to emphasize the unusual strenght of the wind, as Don  Bill stated.)


----------



## Bark

Well, I think there is something else to take into account here. The wind is not always there so when it is it can be as an attribute (ser), not to be as an state (estar), either strong or weak.

_La mar estaba gruesa y el viento era fuerte _makes perfect sense to me because and it follows the general rule said in post #2. "El mar" is always there so "estar" describes how it was in that particular moment, while the wind is something that might or might not be there so when it appears, it has its own state so we say "ser".

Is the same with, for example, the waves: "las olas eran altas" instead of "estaban" because you are talking about those particular waves that appeared (or were appearing) during that particular moment so the states belongs to the waves and is not temporary. 

Regards,

Bark


----------



## k-in-sc

Bark said:


> "El mar" is always there, so "estar" describes how was it it was in that particular moment, while the wind is something that might or might not be there, so when it appears, it has its own state, so we say "ser".


That's what I thought too. 


k-in-sc said:


> Maybe because the ocean is always there, although its state changes, but the wind kind of is its state.


----------



## Bark

k-in-sc said:


> That's what I thought too.


 
Sorry, I didn't notice you said it before 

Thanks for the correction 

Regards,

Bark


----------



## k-in-sc

Well, I was just guessing. You're a native


----------



## Milton Sand

ribran said:


> But what about my sentence? Do you need me to create a new thread?


There's no need. I've fixed the title ("Ser instead of "estar") so we can have a deeper discussion. Please, check previpus posts. I tried to give you my opinion on the expression with "ser/estar" in your sentence. In short, I agree that "su respìración estaba trabajosa" sounds weird.


----------



## ribran

Bark said:


> Well, I think there is something else to take into account here. The wind is not always there so when it is it can be as an attribute (ser), not to be as an state (estar), either strong or weak.
> 
> _La mar estaba gruesa y el viento era fuerte _makes perfect sense to me because and it follows the general rule said in post #2. "El mar" is always there so "estar" describes how it was in that particular moment, while the wind is something that might or might not be there so when it appears, it has its own state so we say "ser".
> 
> Is the same with, for example, the waves: "las olas eran altas" instead of "estaban" because you are talking about those particular waves that appeared (or were appearing) during that particular moment so the states belongs to the waves and is not temporary.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bark



Do you agree with what's said in post #20?

Before I asked this question, this is essentially what I thought, but isn't the case of, "..._y su respiración era trabajosa_ quite similar?


----------



## Bark

ribran said:


> Do you agree with what's said in post #20?
> 
> Before I asked this question, this is essentially what I thought, but isn't the case of, "..._y su respiración era trabajosa_ quite similar?


 
Well, "el viento estaba fuerte" sounds really odd to me but I reckon I wouldn't correct anyone saying it.

About "la respiración estaba trabajosa", the whole sentece sounds strange to me (i'd say "le costaba respirar" instead), but if I had to say either "era trabajosa" or "estaba trabajosa", I'd stick to "era" and (I don't know the reason )


----------



## ribran

Bark said:


> Well, "el viento estaba fuerte" sounds really odd to me but I reckon I wouldn't correct anyone saying it.
> 
> About "la respiración estaba trabajosa", the whole sentece sounds strange to me (i'd say "le costaba respirar" instead), but if I had to say either "era trabajosa" or "estaba trabajosa", I'd stick to "era" and (I don't know the reason )



I understand what you are saying, but I felt the question needed asking.

You have been very helpful to me. Thank you so much.


----------



## donbill

ribran said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> _Ya en el agua y luego de quitarse el paracaídas, Mielniczuk enciende una bengala. Es evidente que la falla impidió al Capitán Villagrán planear hacia la costa y efectuar un aterrizaje con ruedas arriba en la playa._ *La mar estaba gruesa y el viento era fuerte*, _no habiéndose observado fuego a bordo que hubiera obligado a los tripulantes a abandonar el avión de inmediato._
> 
> In the sentence above, why did the author use _estar_ with _gruesa_ and _ser_ with _fuerte_? Could one say, "La mar era gruesa y el viento estaba fuerte"?
> 
> There must be some subtlety in this that I have yet to perceive.
> 
> Thank you in advance!



Hi Ribran,

I suppose that this post is ancient history by now, but I'll risk revisiting it. I was looking through the Alarcos Llorach text, _Gramática de la lengua española_ (Madrid, 2008) and found this sentence:

_A pesar del sol, el frío era intenso_. (p. 392)

It reminded me of the very productive question that you asked in your post. 

It occurs to me that using_ era_ in this context and in yours is, perhaps, elliptical. I'll reword to explain what I mean:

A pesar del sol, el frío era *[un frío]* intenso.
La mar estaba gruesa y el viento era *[un viento]* fuerte.

Maybe it's a way to call more attention to the entity than to the condition. (I confess that there are subtleties of _ser_ and _estar_ that I will never master, but I enjoy thinking about them.)

At any rate, as a non-native, I'd say that the effect is more a matter of style than of substance. (Some of the nativos commented that they would not object to _el viento estaba fuerte,_ even though they seemed to prefer _era fuerte_.) Perhaps it's similar to English _the wind was strong (estaba?)_ vs. _it was a strong wind (ser)._ Perhaps they'll comment on the possibility of using _estar_ in the sentence from Alarcos Llorach.

I doubt that this has cleared up anything, and I apologize if it has confused the issue more.

Saludos


----------



## blasita

OK, here we are again.  Sorry about it; my intention here is just to try to help many foreros and people reading this thread. 

Creo que las reglas sobre ser/estar están muy claras, pero que a veces depende de como el hablante perciba la situación en sí, y también puede ser que en muchos casos se trate simplemente de un recurso literario. Sí que yo podría decir p.ej. ´El tiempo está frío´; pero no diría ´El viento está fuerte´, ni en el último ejemplo de Donbill ´El frío está intenso´. (Pero no estoy diciendo que sean incorrectos).

La explicación de K-in-sc y Bark me parece razonable.  Confieso que no he podido reflexionar lo suficiente sobre este tema, pero espero que mi (probablemente inútil) comentario sirva para que alguno de los maravillosos foreros que tenemos alrededor pueda ofrecer sus valiosos comentarios.

Saludos.


----------

