Okay, so the RAE didn't literally endorse this Reddit post, but the following is more or less an English-translated summary of the sections in their
Nueva gramática de la lengua española that detail the difference between these two verbs that cause so many problems for non-native speakers. I'm an Australian citizen and Mexican resident, I study a BA in Hispanic Literature at the University of Guadalajara, I privately tutor a few other expats living in the city, and I'm currently using the summer vacations to prep for the DELE C2, which I hope to take at the end of the year. This is an end-of-semester project in which I had to explain a grammatical topic with apples and oranges, and for which I was given 100. I've just rejigged it for an English-speaking audience. If you're a learner or non-native speaker of Spanish, I hope this helps dispel some doubts for you. Even if you're a native, you might learn something interesting, so read on!
The most common explanation, the one that abounds in internet forums for Spanish learners, is that
ser means "permanent" and
estar means "temporary". Most native speakers give this explanation, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is plainly, objectively incorrect. It is true that
usually sentences with
ser refer to something more or less permanent and
usually sentences with
estar refer to something impermanent, which is why this myth gets propagated so much, but as the saying goes,
correlation does not imply causation. Here is an example of a sentence with
ser which is definitely not permanent:
Soy estudiante de Letras Hispánicas de segundo semestre. As soon as the semester finishes, this is no longer true. Conversely,
Martin Luther King está muerto is very much a permanent situation, despite using
estar, so permanent vs temporary is clearly not right.
Let’s look at the following two sentences:
El muchacho es alto.
El muchacho está alto.
First things first: both of these sentences are grammatically correct, and both of them plant the idea of a tall boy in the listener’s mind. So what’s the difference between them then? Focus.
El muchacho está alto isn’t trying to say that the boy is temporarily tall, and that he’ll be short again tomorrow. That’s just ridiculous. Rather, using
estar focuses our attention on one of two things: the boy is taller than he was, or taller than the speaker had expected him to be. And that is essentially the nuts of
estar:
a state that has come about as the result of a process of change, or a state that is in some way circumstantial, or a state that flies in the face of our expectations. This isn’t all there is to know about
estar, but when it comes to using
estar with an adjective, this is pretty much the essence of it. The other sentence, then,
El muchacho es alto is focusing on
an intrinsic characteristic of the boy: he is a definitively tall boy. An example to illustrate, but not restrict, the prior explanation: if the boy is 6’7”, without a doubt,
el muchacho es alto. Few people grow to that height, so at any time of his life, in any company, he is tall. On the other hand, if at 11 years old, he’s 5’8”,
el muchacho está alto, because while 5’8” isn’t all that tall in the grand scheme of things, it is quite tall for an 11 year old boy, certainly taller than we would expect. If the boy is 6’7”, you can still say
El muchacho está alto. You’d just be focusing on his growth and change, or on your own surprise at his height, rather than the absoluteness of
El muchacho es alto.
You may have noticed that
estar carries more semantic weight than
ser. Neither of the two words are really very heavy with meaning, since they’re both copulative verbs at the end of the day, whose job is simply to link two lexical elements, but you should be able to see that
estar does have a little more nuance behind it than
ser.
---
This is the
TL;DR line. Everything above is the main argument. Everything below is a supporting detail. If you're still a beginner, you should definitely stop here to avoid overloading yourself with too much information.
Of course, it gets more complicated than that. When qualifying a group (when dealing with plural nouns),
ser applies to the group in its totality, whereas
estar only takes on meaning if referring to a specific portion of the group recognisable to the listener. Let’s look at these two examples to see what I mean:
Los perros son lindos. - Dogs are cute or lovely in general.
Los perros están lindos. - The specific dogs in question are cute or lovely. Again, the aforementioned applies about inherent vs resultative or circumstantial. The dogs could be looking lovely because they’ve just been bathed, for example, which would constitute a process of change.
Let’s look at another example:
Los tacos son ricos. - Tacos, in general, are delicious. It’s an inherent characteristic. This doesn’t necessarily mean that every taco ever made is delicious, but that they generally are.
Los tacos están ricos. - That is, the ones I’m eating right now. They’ve gone through a process of change (being prepared by the taquero), and they’ve attained a delicious state.
NOTE: this rule doesn’t apply when the adjective is a participle. In this case,
estar is used to apply an attribute to the total group, since
ser with a participle would form the passive voice. So
Los perros están prohibidos means that dogs, all dogs, are prohibited.
Since I’ve just mentioned the passive voice, this is always formed with
ser. This is a set construction of the language, just like it is in English:
La víctima fue agredida por un sujeto en motocicleta/The victim was assaulted by an individual on a motorcycle. This construction is used frequently in newspaper Spanish, although it is also useful when we don’t know or don’t care who performed an action:
El agave es cultivado para hacer tequila (por miles de personas). Of course, Spanish also has the impersonal passive, with
se, but that is beyond the scope of this lesson.
Only
ser can be used with nouns, while only
estar can be used with adverbs. So,
Soy estudiante is correct, but *
Estoy estudiante isn’t. On the other hand,
Estoy bien is totally fine, but
\Soy bien
definitely isn’t. In an example like *Estás burro (literally: "You are donkey", an affectionate way of calling someone silly in Mexico and possibly other countries),
burro is acceptable because it’s actually functioning as an adjective. Even the great Cervantes converted nouns into adjectives with
estar:
Muy filósofo estás, Sancho (Cervantes, Quijote II). This literally means, "Very philosopher you are, Sancho", which we can take to mean that Sancho was speaking or behaving very philosophically in that moment.
There is one other situation in which you can use
estar with a noun, and that is to indicate the presence of someone or something. In this case, an adverb of location, such as
aquí or
ahí, is always implied. So
Estamos cinco means five of us are present, whereas
Somos cinco means we are five people or, in more natural-sounding English, there are five of us.
Somos cinco en mi familia: madre, padre, mis dos hermanas, y yo. If you ask
¿Está el jefe?, you’re asking if the boss is here (if you’re speaking face-to-face) or if the boss is there (if you’re speaking over the phone). Contrast this to
¿Es el jefe? which is asking if someone
is the boss.
For expressions of place,
ser identifies a place, whereas
estar localises it. What does this mean?
Aquí es mi casa. - This (place) is my house. I’m saying what the place is.
Aquí está mi casa. - My house is (located) here. I’m saying where the place is. Notice how this is once again a use of estar to express a permanent state (unless your house is a campervan, of course).
We always use
estar for localising objects, as in:
Mis llaves están en mi casa.
On the other hand, for denoting the place where an action or event is carried out, we must use
ser:
La fiesta es en mi casa.
The question of identifying vs localising also extends to time:
Hoy es jueves. - I’m identifying today as Thursday. This applies for any period of time. Es junio. Es 2020. Es el siglo XXI. Es la una y media de la tarde. Son las nueve de la noche.
Estamos a jueves. - I’m localising us: we’re “in” Thursday.
Many adjectives change their meaning if combined with
ser or
estar. There is, however, often (although not always) a logical connection between the different meanings based on the canonical meanings of
ser as inherent or defining and
estar as a resultative, perceived or circumstantial state.
Pedro es listo. - Pedro is clever. (I like to think of this as being inherently ready for almost anything due to his cleverness; it’s a satisfying explanation for my English-speaking mind.)
Pedro está listo. - Pedro is ready.
Estudiar es cansado. - Studying is tiring or tiresome.
Martha está cansada. - Martha is tired.
Tu mamá es buena. - Your mother is a good person, or perhaps she has good abilities for raising her children.
Tu mamá está buena. - It’s probably best that you don’t say this to anyone, ever. (It means "Your mum is hot.")
There are lists of these adjectives that can be searched on the internet or in grammar manuals. None of them, not even the one in the Real Academia´s behemoth 6700-page
Nueva gramática de la lengua española, are exhaustive, but they do usually cover the most common and important ones, and from there you can use your logic to figure out the rest as you go.
Another key distinction with adjective use is personality (
ser) vs mood or circumstantial behaviours (
estar). Let’s examine another pair of examples:
Catalina era valiente y decidida. - Catalina was brave and resolute. This is her personality. Combining the adjectives with ser paints them as inherent characteristics of Catalina: her personality.
Catalina ha estado muy valiente frente a la situación; está decidida a seguir luchando por la justicia. - Here we are talking about behaviours that arise due to a particular circumstance: she has been brave and determined to overcome the situation that she is confronting.
However, when the behaviour comes to affect other people, we use
ser with the preposition
con. For example,
La maestra ha sido muy indulgente con nosotros. The teacher has been very lenient with us. She may not always be lenient, but with us she has been.
Think about
Joaquín es triste and
Joaquín está triste. One of them is saying that Joaquín is a sad, melancholic guy, while the other is saying he’s upset due to the circumstances: his dog died or something. This also explains why
Soy feliz is congruent. The happiness might not last forever. One day you might be lonely and broke with no hope for the future, but for the time being, your average mood is positive.
Estoy feliz, once again, would be the result of a circumstance.
Estoy feliz porque mi prima vino a visitarme.
Impersonal statements that follow the structure
It’s + adjective + that in English or
It’s + a/an + noun + that follow the same structure in Spanish with
ser:
Es evidente que has mentido.
Es una lástima que haya tanta corrupción.
Just like the earlier example about the lovely dogs, this sentence structure requires
estar if the adjective is a participle:
Está comprobado que el universo se expande.
An exception to this rule is the adjective
claro, which can be used with either
ser or
estar without any significant change in meaning.
Es/Está claro que te gusta jugar con mis sentimientos.
Equative sentences –sentences which essentially say that one thing equals another– use
ser. These order of these sentences is reversible, and they require the use of a definite article (
el/la/los/las). For example,
Fabián es el ganador or
El ganador es Fabián. Furthermore, sentences with infinitive complements always use
ser, such as
Eso es sufrir. On the topic of set sentence structures,
estar is always used in the progressive tenses, to describe an action that is currently under way –
Estoy aprendiendo latín– or to describe the action of a given moment in the past or future:
Estaba caminando por la calle cuando se escuchó la balacera. En una semana más, estaré festejando el fin del semestre.
Ser is always used to mention someone’s profession or occupation, such as
Juan es médico, or my original example,
Soy estudiante de Letras Hispánicas de segundo semestre. Temporary jobs can, however, be mentioned with the expression
estar de, as in the example
Estoy de repartidor de comida, pero en realidad, soy ingeniero aeroespacial. (I’m working as a food delivery man, but I’m really a rocket scientist).
We use
ser de to talk about the origin of something or someone:
Soy de Sídney.
Estos cigarros son de Cuba.
To mention the material with which something is made, we can also use
ser de, as in
Este escritorio es de madera or
Las Macbooks son de aluminio. However, we can express more or less the same information with a slightly different focus using the phrase
estar hecho/a de:
Este escritorio está hecho de madera.
Las Macbooks están hechas de aluminio.
This is congruent with our baseline uses of
ser (inherent characteristic or state) and
estar (state achieved as a process of change; in this case, being made is the process of change).
Finally, when we want to say that something is or seems a certain way for or to someone, or talk about the impression something has on us, we use
ser with an indirect object pronoun (me, te, le, nos, os, les)
Esto me es molesto/útil/interesante.
Espero que esta explicación les haya sido útil.
Let's go back, then, to the first example of
estar that I used:
Martin Luther King está muerto.
This was the first sentence that made me realise that
estar isn't necessarily temporary, but now I know that it is congruent, because it describes a state achieved through a process of change. Life is the process. The end of the process, death.
So, that's just about it. If you have any doubts or disagree with anything that I've said above, feel free to comment below, and I'll be happy to share the relevant documentation with you.
---
Principal Reference Real Academia Española. (2011).
Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Sintaxis II. (subsections 37.7a-37.9t). Barcelona, Spain: Espasa Libros.
Additional References Bradley, P. & Mackenzie, I. (2004).
Spanish: An Essential Grammar (pp 211-212). London, UK: Routledge.
Butt, J. & Benjamin, C. (1994).
A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish (2nd Edition, pp 375-381). London, UK: Routledge.
Kattán Ibarra, J. & Pountain, C. (2003).
Modern Spanish Grammar: A Practical Guide. (2nd Edition, pp 103-107). London, UK: Routledge.
Larousse. (2010).
Gramática de la lengua española (subsections 158 & 161). Barcelona, Spain: Larousse.
Ser and Estar - The No-Nonsense Guide. (2016). Recovered from:
https://itsnachotime.com/ser-esta Hello, again!
Now, let's discuss some common problematic rules of thumb about the preterite and the imperfect.
This is going to be a fairly long post, so if you want a TL;DR, skip to the second-to-last section.
Here's a list of some of the most problematic rules of thumb:
- The imperfect describes background actions or describes the scene.
- The imperfect and preterite change the meaning of some verbs.
- The imperfect can be replaced with “used to + verb,” “would + verb,” or “was verb + 'ing'.”
- The imperfect describes emotional activity.
- Certain phrases are used with the imperfect whereas others are used with the preterite.
- The imperfect expresses repeated actions.
- The preterite involves actions with a specific or explicit time frame.
- The preterite is used for punctual events (i.e. events with a single dot on a timeline).
All of these are either half-truths or falsities. As a whole, they're not entirely wrong, but they fail to capture all or even most instances of the proper use of the imperfect and preterite.
Let's look at some counterexamples, shall we?
1. The imperfect describes background actions or describes the scene. This rule is pretty useless as not all imperfective actions describe background actions or scenes.
How do you explain a sentence such as,
“Yo no estaba listo para el examen”? That sentence doesn't involve a background action.
Moreover, how do we even define “background action”? That’s a vague rule of thumb because it’s subjective. What one person interprets as a background action may be interpreted as something else by another person.
A similar issue is present with the "snapshot = preterite" and "movie = imperfect" analogy. Again, it's quite vague and subjective.
2. The imperfect and preterite change the meaning of some verbs. No, not quite. How do you explain the following sentence?
“Siempre quise ser abogado.” “Quise” and its sister conjugations are always said to mean “to try” in the past. Here, that rule of thumb doesn't work very well. Both “quise” and “quería” mean “to want.” The only thing that differs is whether or not the action or state is “completed” at a relevant moment of time in the past.
Here’s another sentence:
“Mis padres nunca quisieron decirme la verdad, así que la escondieron.” Here, it is often said that “quise” in the negative means “to refuse,” but that isn’t always the case. There’s no refusal taking place here. The parents simply didn’t want to tell their child the truth, so they hid it from her.
Here's one final example.
"A medida que ellos se conocieron, se enamoraron."
Those who have read the first post of this series will remember this example. "Conocer" is often said to mean "to have met" in the preterite. Though that interpretation can work sometimes, it won't always work.
It certainly doesn't work at all in this example. This particular sentence means, "As they
got to know each other, they fell in love."
3. The imperfect can be replaced with “used to + verb,” “would + verb,” or “was verb + 'ing'.” This is only half-true. Consider the following examples.
“Yo jugaba/solía jugar al baloncesto cuando era joven.” “I
used to play/would play basketball when I was young.”
“Mientras Ana leía/estaba leyendo el periódico, el teléfono sonó.” “While Ana
was reading the newspaper, the telephone rang.”
These sentences work.
However, you would never say, “When I
used to/would be a kid” or “When I
was being a kid.”
Instead, you would say, “When I
was a kid,” which corresponds with the clause,
“Cuando era niño.” That, and the “was + -ing” rule doesn’t always work. In Spanish, “-ing” verbs can be either imperfect or preterite. Consider the following examples.
“Yo estaba viendo la televisión cuando la apagaste.” “I
was watching the television when you turned it off.”
“
Estuve hablando del partido durante tres horas.” “I
was talking about the sports game for three hours.”
So, what’s the difference, then? The first puts the listener in the middle of the action whereas the second does not.
4. The imperfect describes emotional activity. Nope. Either aspect can be used. Take a look at the two sentences below.
“
Tuve miedo cuando el incendio empezó.” “Ella se puso triste cuando su abuela murió.” If you're trying to express that one past action immediately resulted in another action, then using the imperfect here would not make much sense. Only the preterite would work here.
5. Certain phrases are used with the imperfect whereas others are used with the preterite. No, not quite. “Siempre” is said to trigger only the imperfect, but that's not always the case. How do you explain a sentence such as,
“Siempre supe que tu novio te fue infiel”?
“Siempre” can be used with either aspect. The choice of aspect isn't dependent on adverbs, conjunctions, or phrases, such as “ayer,” “siempre,” “anoche,” “a menudo,” “mientras,” “cuando,” “todos los días,” “de vez en cuando,” etc. It depends on how the speaker wants to convey the action.
6. The imperfect expresses repeated actions. Not necessarily. Both aspects can do that.
“Él me pegó repetidamente cuando éramos niños.” “Él me pegaba repetidamente cuando éramos niños.” Either aspect can convey a repeated action. The only difference is that the second sentence implies that the past action took place regularly whereas the first sentence does not imply that.
7. The preterite involves actions with a specific or explicit time frame. This rule of thumb never really made sense to me, even as a beginner, and it’s pretty easy to see why.
There are plenty of cases where the preterite involves a clear time frame. For example:
“Durante dos minutos, la profesora gritó.”
But, there are also plenty of cases where the preterite does
not involve a clear time frame. For example:
“La tormenta fue horrible. Mis hermanos y yo tuvimos miedo.” There’s definitely a time frame here, but it isn’t explicit at all, yet the preterite is still used.
8. The preterite is used for punctual events (i.e. events with a single dot on a timeline). This rule of thumb is actually not wrong. The preterite is often used for one-time events. However, this rule is not complete because it fails to account for the following sentence:
“Durante varios meses, el tren llegó tarde.” This event is not a single dot on a timeline as “durante varios meses” implies, yet the preterite is used, anyway. Why? It’s because the event is seen as “whole” (i.e. it's expressed in its entirety).
In fact, this rule of thumb seems to be a by-product of flawed rule of thumb #6 mentioned above:
"The imperfect expresses repeated actions." For whatever reason, many learners often have a hard time understanding that events that occur repeatedly within a bounded or closed interval of time can be seen as preterite. This
paper explores that issue in more depth.
Instead, these learners think that “repeated = imperfect” and “punctual = preterite” when that doesn’t adequately cover the entire concept.
For example, if a wife wanted to talk about her late husband, she might say something along the lines of,
“Mi esposo siempre me amó.” This is not a punctual event, but it is seen as "completed," nonetheless.
-----
Anyway, I could keep providing more counterexamples, but you get the point.
TL;DR -- Basically, you shouldn't rely on rules of thumb to decide when to use these aspects because these rules are often very wrong.
Don’t worry too much about it, though. Even if you screw up the aspects, people may still understand what you mean. You just won’t sound as precise.
As an example, let me share an anecdote with you. When I was a student in high school, I was taking a Spanish 3 class, and we were to write a short story. I wrote mine entirely in the past tense, and because I was a beginner, I randomly chose which aspect to use. As you would expect, my teacher, who was a native, marked most of these verbs as incorrect and wrote down the correct forms. When I asked about why I made the wrong choices, he couldn’t explain it to me. That’s okay, though. He still understood what I meant.
-----
Now, here’s a little exercise for you. Can you decide what appropriate aspect to use for the following sentence?
“Cuando vimos los zapatos nuevos en la tienda, _____ (quisimos/queríamos) comprarlos.” For additional context, a few girls are shopping together at a mall, and they saw a new pair of shoes that looked very cool. Then, they wanted to buy the shoes.
(Hint: See the section discussing flawed rule of thumb #4.)
If you said
"quisimos," you were correct!
Stay tuned for post #4!
Preterite of Jugar. We use the preterite to talk about finished actions in the past. Jugar is regular in this conjugation, except for a small change in the first person, so you will just need to Conjugate Jugar in every Spanish verb tense including preterite, imperfect, future, conditional, and subjunctive. Jugar is an irregular verb so pay close attention to its modifications in different tenses. playing soccer When used with sports or games, jugar is almost always followed by the preposition a and the article el, la, los, las . Jugamos is a conjugated form of the verb jugar. Learn to conjugate jugar. Preterite (Past Tense) Conjugation of jugar – Pretérito (pretérito perfecto simple) de jugar. Spanish Verb Conjugation: yo jugué, tú jugaste, él / Ud.… Jugar: Related Words and Expressions. Un juego: a game. Un juguete: a toy. Jugador(a): player. Try our interactive game to practice the Verb Jugar in different tenses: Jugar - Game. If you found this Conjugation of the Spanish Verb JUGAR useful, share it with others: Using the chart below you can learn how to conjugate the Spanish verb jugar in Preterite tense. Definition. to play. Additional information. Is it irregular? Is it reflexive? What is the gerund? What is the past participle? Yes: No: jugando: jugado: Remember: these verb charts are only a tool to use while one is learning the language. In other Full verb conjugation table for jugar along with example sentences and printable version. Over 1000 Spanish verbs conjugated. Learn the verb jugar past tense with free interactive flashcards. Choose from 500 different sets of the verb jugar past tense flashcards on Quizlet. Present Tense Conjugation of jugar – Presente (de indicativo) de jugar. Spanish Verb Conjugation: yo juego, tú juegas, él / Ud.…
SUBSCRIBE for more Spanish videos: http://bit.ly/XGe7weFollow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/srjordanspanishTweet me: https://twitter.com/senorjord... How to conjugate ser, ir, and regular ar, er and ir verbs in Spanish, explained in an animated video with optional subtitles.For a song to help you memorize ... Learn the irregular participles in Spanish to the tune of Alouette!Common Ground International (www.commongroundinternational.com) produced this video for it... *In the chart, the él/ella/usted form shouldn't have an accent mark on the "io" form since ver = vio and dar = dio.(although in archaic Spanish, they did hav... Spanish 1 "AR" Verbs Instructional Music Video. Irregular Verbs Learn All Irregular Verbs in One Song💥 CHECK OUT NEW SONG: Prepositions of Place 👉 https://youtu.be/HjCeMJKNRGYPrepositions of Time ?...
