soy y estoy

DaniBet

DaniBet

how do you know which context to use the two words soy y estoy?
nohablo

nohablo

Hola. Bienvenido al foro. It's not clear from your question whether you've already read the Rocket Spanish lessons dealing with ser and estar. If not, do take a look at sections 1.12 for ser and 2.8 for estar (and no, I don't know why they've separated them so much). If after studying these lessons you still have questions, there are lots of other resources on the Web that can help you. Here are four: __http://spanish.about.com/cs/verbs/a/servsestar.htm__ __http://www.bowdoin.edu/~eyepes/newgr/ats/25.htm__ __http://www.lingolex.com/ser/index.htm__ __http://studyspanish.com/lessons/serest1.htm__ All four sites deal with LOTS of grammar issues, so you may want to bookmark the overall sites. I should note, however, that use of ser vs. estar is quite difficult to master. The more you read and hear Spanish, the more you'll pick up a sense of which verb to use in a given situation, but certainly it helps to know the overall grammar rules, which Rocket Spanish and the four sites above all deal with. Buena suerte (good luck).
sjlkh

sjlkh

The different uses for ser and estar are often difficult to understand. The simple rule is that that ser refers to permanent situations or things that are in essence and estar refers to temporary situations or things that are not in essence. For example if you refered to the coffee being cold when it should be hot, you would use estar. If it was hot and it should be hot you would use ser. Unfortunatley these are only broad rules and exceptions do occur. If you check the websites in other replies you will see lists of various exceptions to this rule of thumb. I hope this helps. :)
Noble-R

Noble-R

Question: In listening to spanish conversations I've heard both: Soy casado, and estoy casado. I would think ser would be the correct verb. Which of these is correct?Are there regional differences?
nohablo

nohablo

There are some very useful discussions of this issue in the WordReference.com forums. For example, http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=37958 . Here's part of how one Spanish speaker explained it: "En lo que respecta al uso, no hay diferencia. Ambas son correctas, se usan por igual y significan lo mismo. Hilando super fino, supongo que la diferencia está en que en el ejemplo "ella es casada", "casada" implica lo que ella es, como decir "ella es abogada", "ella es alta". En el caso "ella está casada" está bien porque la gente no nace "casada", sino que hoy "está" casada, pero no lo estaba ayer, y quién sabe mañana. Ojo, eso no quiere decir que ella tenga un mal matrimonio... " For those who are just beginning their study of Spanish, here's my rough translation: As far as usage is concerned, there's no difference. Both are correct, they're used equally and mean the same thing. Looking very closely, I suppose that the difference is that in the example "ella es casada," "casada" implies what she is, as in "she is a lawyer," "she is tall." In the case of "ella está casada," "está" is OK because people aren't born married, but rather today they are married, but they weren't married yesterday, and who knows about tomorrow. But be careful, that doesn't mean that she has a bad marriage....
James-B211

James-B211

A bit confusing for a complete beginner at age 72 when the last Spanish I took was three years in high school! I probably knew the difference then!
ricardo-rich

ricardo-rich

Hola James, I'm 69 and I resumed my pursuit of learning Spanish sometime ago. I too took high school and college Spanish, which taught me little. I found Rocket Spanish several years ago and it inspired me and got me on track .Keep at it at your own pace, don't give up, and you will improve. ¡Te prometo y buena suerte! Saludos, Ricardo
Ava Dawn

Ava Dawn

I just followed the lessons the way it is set up.
Dan-H24

Dan-H24

I believe that ser is the verb usually used with casado, since to be married is more of a defining characteristic of a person as opposed to a more fluid condition. In my mind it is similar to the use of ser as an occupation. Soy fotografo. I am a photographer. Era bombero...I used to be a firefighter. I think it is interesting how many...uh..."mature" learners there are here. Tengo sesenta y uno años.
Steven-W15

Steven-W15

56. Right behind you...
Pam-M13

Pam-M13

I was taught that soy applies to something more permanent, i.e., yo soy reportera de la corte. I am a court reporter, something not likely to change, as opposed to estoy aprendiendo Español, I am learning Spanish, a temporary situation, in the hope that one day I'll master it.
Dan-H24

Dan-H24

Using estar for a temporary condition and ser for a permanent one is one way that is taught, but it can be inaccurate and even confusing. For example, estar is used for location: Las pirámides estan en Egipto. They have been there for thousands of years and are likely to be there for thousands more, which would seem to be a permanent condition. Estar is also used to say that someone is dead: Elvis murió en 1977. There are few things more permanent than death, yet estar is the correct verb. On the other hand, ser is used to express time: Es la una. It is only going to be 1:00 for one minute, then it is going to be 1:01. Hardly a permanent condition. Occupation, as you state, uses ser....Era bombero, pero ahora soy fotografo...I used to be a firefighter, now I am a photographer. Stating that I used to be a photographer negates the idea that it was a permanent condition. It is less confusing for me to think about occupation as a defining characteristic of someone. I was, and am, identified by what I do, as well as being tall, having brown hair, etc.
Pam-M13

Pam-M13

Excellent point Dan. I think it's pretty common at the beginning to be taught the permanent, transient version for clarification when you're learning, at least it was in my case. However, as I progress I can see how that might become more confusing. Thanks for the information. As I work my way through I'm sure I'm going to discover lots of little bumps in the road. Pam
Robert-C7

Robert-C7

The way I approach it is to realize that certain rules take highest priority. For instance, you use estar to talk about location and ser to talk about personal traits. There are times when you can legitamately use either ser or estar and you will get two different meanings. For instance, if you had a night out on the town and had a few too many margaritas, you might say to your roommate: Estoy borracho. (I'm drunk) you would not want to say "soy borracho" because you saying "I am a drunkard". Here, the permanent versus transient nature helps one pick the correct verb. This lesson has a good explanation of when to use each: http://members.rocketlanguages.com/lessons/685
Ava Dawn

Ava Dawn

Nice conversations especially with the permanence of the pyramids in Egypt and death.
chuckyk

chuckyk

Hi,  i'm currently taking spanish lessons in addition to using Rocket Spanish.   Today our teacher said that when you use "donde",  you should be using the verb Estar (e.g. "Donde esta?" for "Where are you?" ) .   Seemed reasonable until i got home and saw "De donde eres? ".   This makes sense to me because "where i'm from"  is something that defined me and should use "Ser".   But then he asked us "Donde esta Canada?" to which we answered "Canada esta al norte de Los Estados Unidos".   Since Canda is not likely to move anytime soon,  wouldn't "Donde es Canada"  have been good too?

Steven-W15

Steven-W15

"Dónde es la primera parada?" "Dónde es la fiesta de cumpleaños?"

There is a helpful point made on this in the Platinum course (18.3):

- use estar if you are interested in communicating where something is geographically (or in giving directions, for example)

- use ser if you are simply interested in communicating the name of the place 

Ask a question or a post a response

If you want to ask a question or post a response you need to be a member.

If you are already a member login here .
If you are not a member you can become one by taking the free Rocket Spanish trial here .