Ser/estar (was: Re: What's going on here?)

[Geoffrey Hacker <c9709244@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>]

On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote:

> >Well, you tell me, Jorge. Did you learn or notice anything significant or
> >deep and meaningful when you first learned that there was one kind of
> >hacer represented by "to do" and another kind represented by "to make"?
>
> I don't remember. I certainly see a difference now, as I see a
> difference between "ser" and "estar", and in many other distinctions
> that one language makes explicitly and the other doesn't.

I've always seen a difference between "ser" and "estar" as it was taught
to me in high school. My point *isn't* whether the two senses are
different as such. Lemme see, how can I explain this that will make it
clear? Possibly in terms of the language of an *essential* distinction
versus an *incidental* distinction.

Suppose that you look up "hacer" in the dictionary. Does it have one
definition, or many? If many, then does it have one that reasonably
corresponds with English "to do", and one that reasonably corresponds with
English "to make"? If so, then that seems an *essential* distinction
between the two different forms of "hacer". Otherwise, it just seems
incidental.

"Moegen" and "lieben" nicely correspond with two real definitions of the
word "love" in English, so this also seems to be an essential distinction
to make.

"Ser" and "estar", if they have two roughly corresponding definitions of
the word "to be", would also be essential distinctions of "being".
However, I think think of at least one way in which the definition of
being seems exactly the same whether you use "ser" or "estar", and that's
with "be" just being used as a copula. That's what I'm talking about with
respect to "being" in a place and "being" an Australian. In both these
cases, "being" is the same thing: a word that joins a subject to its
predicate. It could join that subject to any old predicate. In that case,
"ser" and "estar" would be incidental distinctions of the copula, because
one type of being in each case can't really be confused for the other,
becuase it's just a plain copula and a plain copula, six of one and half a
dozen of the other. But that "ser" and "estar" are different in the first
place in a way that is significant to the Spanish language-web seems
undeniable.

 > >If some distinctions weren't deeper than others, there would seem no
point
> >in learning any other languages to try to expand the mind.

> > I don't know. I enjoyed very much learning English and Esperanto,
> which are the languages besides Spanish in which I can "think"
> (meaning that I can formulate my thoughts directly in those
> languages without going through a process of translation). I haven't
> reached that point yet with Lojban, except for some short sentences
> with some often used constructions. Learning other languages has
> taught me a lot about my native language as well, things that I
> wouldn't have noticed otherwise.

I enjoy learning about other languages, and it teaches me a lot about my
own language and others, but I would have thought that was separate from
the kind of "mind expansion" Chris Bogart was originally talking about.
The latter has to do with improving thinking more than knowledge.
Still, maybe learning languages can do that in other ways. I don't
know... I'm getting tired...

By the way, exactly what IS the distinction being made with the headline,
"Somos o estamos indeciso?" My Spanish is practically nonexistant, and
that was the first time that I had ever seen "ser" and "estar" joining the
same predicate. The distincion, according to Chris, was whether the public
was indecisive, or merely undecided. Does that mean that "estar" picks out
nonce states of being, whereas "ser" picks out relatively permanent
states, or it is more context-dependent than that, or...? I'm just getting
confused now. What are the different possible definitions of "ser" and
"estar"?

Geoff