I’m trying to learn Spanish on my own. My boyfriend is from Cali Colombia. And we’ve been a few times, but now we’re planning a trip where I have to go there without him. I’m limited to what I learned in high school.
I just never got the hang of ser vs estar. From my understanding of what I remember in school, is to use Ser for permanent descriptors (like nationality) and to use Estar for temporary states (like mood and locations). So now, I’m reading a Spanish book, and I come across these examples:
“Soy trabajadora autonóma”(I’m self employed)
“Estoy desempleada” (I’m unemployed)
“Soy soltera” (I’m single)
“Estoy casada” (I’m married)
When I asked my boyfriend’s help to explain this to me, he said it’s not really that serious. Pretty much they’re interchangeable in these contexts and you’d be understood either way. So I’m curious of other people’s inputs. Was my Spanish teacher just being way too picky and it’s not all that serious? Am I thinking too hard about this?
Comments
Think in the difference between what you are, and where you are (with where that can be a location, a stage, etc). You may think that a particular stage defines what you are now, or from now on, or not.
I mean, is the difference between to take and to drink important? Those are two very different verbs with very different meanings. The same happens here.
Estoy empleada and soy casada are also correct though. 😬
Yes, I’ll take you a bit to get the nuance. You’ll get there.
Not to frustrate you further but there is a difference between "yo soy soltera" and "yo estoy soltera". Rather than type too much have your BF go over the nuance of that, it may help you understand.
When you’re using them in conversation, for everyday stuff, they can be interchangeable. It’s not always grammatically correct but people will understand you.
The difference comes to specific moments (you can’t say "soy embarazada" for example) and more importantly, when you’re trying to explain complicated concepts and ideas.
From a philosophical point of view the difference between ser and estar is abysmal. Same goes for psychology.
But for everyday use? People would understand you anyway or at most, make some funny misunderstandings.
It’s not exactly about permanent vs temporary, the simplest way to put it would be that ser is about being whereas estar is more about describing states, whether temporary or permanent.
That’s just a rule of thumb though. When you’re learning a language and come across one of these very nuanced differences, I think it’s better to just wing it and you’ll slowly learn through experience which is correct in each situation. I don’t think you’ll be able to learn a rule that will guarantee you get it right 100% of the time from now on.
Hey, language teacher here! It’s really hard to learn to separate concepts that are described by the same word in your native language! Everyone struggles with this.
While it’s true that this difference isn’t super important in the specific examples you mentioned, there are other cases where it is absolutely necessary. For example, saying "estoy molesta" means I’m annoyed, while "soy molesta" means I’m annoying. It matters a great deal in that case!
The way I usually explain this is to use ser for things that relate to your identity. So one’s career (or being self-employed) is often a part of one’s identity while being unemployed is usually not. One usually considers being unemployed to be a temporary condition, one they hope to fix soon. I do not have an explanation for the "soltera/casada" issue, that just seems to be a random exception, and it still bugs me, lol.
It is also worth mentioning that simply being a native speaker does not necessarily qualify a person to explain why their language works the way it does. The book or a teacher is probably better equipped for that than your bf.
Yes, it’s very important
Maybe he meant "its not really that serious" in the sense that people will cut you some slack knowing you’re still learning the language. But there is obviously a difference and you’re better off knowing that than not knowing it.
As for the phrases from your book, a profession, like "trabajadora autonóma" is usually considered something permanent (and if someone uses "Estar" for that they’re implying it’s something temporary). But if someone said "soy desempleado", that would be kinda funny, bc it implies the person is settled on not working at all. You can probably see when it comes to your marital status this distinction is more fluid, and both can be used, still carrying a nuanced layer. If you tell me "estoy" single, it implies you’re looking to change that. But if you’re going to state your legal status in a formal setting, for instance, it wouldn’t make sense to bring that added information, so you only say "soy soltera".
BTW, same applies for Portuguese, if you’re wondering why the hell I’m answering a question meant for spanish speakers… XD
Yeah, as all languages, some words are interchangable in some contexts. The problem here is that you’re thinking of ser/estar as the same verb that is said differently depending on the context, and therefore you’re looking for a rule and exceptions. That’s wrong. These two are different verbs and should be treated as such. And as all languages, there’s two different verbs that can mean the same in some contests.
"In" and "On" are both "En" for us. Is there a difference between "In my resume" and "On my resume"? As far as I read from English speakers, not really. Does this mean I can call y’all picky or unserious for using one of the other depending on the context? Hell no.
These are like the most important verbs in Spanish. I know it’s hard to grasp but ser means what you are like think about identity, Soy una mujer / I am a woman. And estar means where you’re at right now, I’m at home / Estoy en la casa.
Your teacher was right. "Ser" is permanent or at least long term. "Estar" is transitive. There are some instances where you can choose either, and it’s a matter of perspective. You might say "Soy casada." if you think of being married as something permanent or transformational. You might say "Estoy casada." if you think of marriage as something that you currently are, but might not be in the future. So you CAN choose which one to use in this case, but your theoretical spouse might not consider them equal.
It’s like "to remember" and "to remind". In English, you remember your own memories, and remind other people of their memories. They are very similar concepts, but use different words. In Spanish, we have only the verb "recordar", and we understand the difference between them by context. The inverse is true for "ser" and "estar". For a Spanish speaker, the difference is important. In English, you use a single verb for both.
It is very important as they can either change the meaning or lead to nonsensical sentences when used wrong.
If you say something like "estoy doctora" or "soy en casa", people are going to be confused because those sentences don’t really mean anything coherent.
There are some cases where they can be switched without changing the meaning too much, for example, "estoy casada" and "soy casada", because you can be married and be in a state of being married. But this doesn’t always apply.
> Was my Spanish teacher just being way too picky and it’s not all that serious?
She wasn’t being picky. As I just mentioned, most of the time, the sentence won’t be coherent. Let me bring up the same examples I just mentioned.
If you want to say "I’m a doctor" and, instead of saying "soy doctora," you say "estoy doctora," aside from sounding like a caveman (I don’t mean to offend), the first thing that will come to my mind is that you’re with a doctor, not that you are a doctor.
If you want to say "I’m at home" and, instead of saying "estoy en casa," you say "soy en casa," it sounds like something a philosopher or a poetic book would say. But the first question you’d get would be, "You’re what? In the house?"
That’s the fun part of learning a language during your early childhood. You don’t know it has grammar, rules and if you ask why you get a "because fuck you that’s why"
You don’t find the difference serious because you only know English, so you’re thinking, “They both are to be!” Like yeah in English translation they’re the same thing, but in Spanish these are two different words with different meanings. That’s why u/TheWarr10r rhetorically asked if the difference between to take and to drink was important. Because your thought process would be, “Duh, the difference is important.” And that’s your answer.
Estoy could be transitory while soy is like a fixed status
Your boyfriend probably considers it a waste of his time to teach you proper Spanish, that’s why he gave you a BS answer.
If I say "I eat yesterday a apple" the chances of you understanding me correctly would be very high, don’t you think? Would you say that there’s nothing seriously wrong with that sentence just because you can understand it? It is ok if you aren’t perfect in Spanish and get ser/estar confused now and then, but you will never be considered fluent if you don’t take those mistakes seriously.
Ser: inherent and constant quality of being (age; race, personality etc)
Estar: temporary condition of being (geographical position, emotions etc)
Yes. I hope I answered your question.
Former Spanish teacher, here….
One of the things I love most about the Spanish language is how exciting it is to have the choice between soy, eres, es, somos, son, estoy, estas, esta, estamos and estan in comparison to the boring is/are/am.
I may be biased, but I think the nuances here help people to convey meaning in the most meaningful and accurate way – so DO try to use the language accurately if you’d like to truly be understood!
location: estoy aquí
general state: estoy enojado (I’m angry right now)
general state: estoy comiendo (I’m eating right now)
characteristic: soy enojado (I’m an angry person in general)
characteristic: soy $nombre (I am $name)
characteristic: me es difícil (it’s difficult for me)
there’s also other cases like "¡ya está!" which means "that’s it!"
I see that other comments have already explained the difference better, which also exists in Portuguese.
Since you mentioned that you were reading a book, I remember a relevant point: it is quite common in literature and in jokes to use "ser" and "estar" inverted or even interchangeable ways for artistic purposes, metaphor, etc.
If I say in Portuguese or Spanish "Sou desempregado" this can be seen as a joke in a more funny context or even as self-deprecation.
When I say "Estou casado*" you emphasize that there is a before and an after this marriage, you emphasize the state and not an identity with this fact.
It’s quite common to see situations where someone, for example, wanting to cheer you up, says things like "Você não É triste. Você ESTÁ triste". That wouldn’t make much sense in English "You’re not sad. You’re sad"
Its important you learn the difference because the meaning can change drastically depending on which one you use.
It’s not that it’s more or less serious.
The thing is, it’s absolutely essential and I pity all the languages that don’t have it.
GO SPANISH, GO PORTUGUESE.
We are so right.
tbh I think you should just memorize phrases for now. You will get the hang of it eventually.
It’s like saying: Is the difference between “do” and “make” that serious? For us those two words mean the same believe it or not.