Re: What's going on here?

[Geoffrey Hacker <c9709244@ALINGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>]

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

> >> There was a headline on an editorial in La Nacion that asked (if I
> >> remember right) "?Somos o estamos indeciso?".  The distinction between
> the
> >> two possibilities (whether the public was indecisive or merely undecided
> >> on whatever issue it was) were obviously important enough for some editor
> >> to devote space to it.
> >
> >OK, well what I think is going on there (and again, Jorge will know more
> >about this than I do) is that "estamos" expresses a condition, and
> >consequently can be used here to express a tendency.
>
> The tendency one is "somos". "Estamos indecisos" would be
> "we are undecided", and "somos indecisos" would be "we are
> undecisive".  "Estar" is the temporary condition, "ser" is the
> immanent one.
>
> I once read that the ser/estar distinction reflected the tendency
> of Spaniards to let their spirit ponder on those transcendental
> issues of existence, leaving for the industrious Anglosaxons the
> more practical distinctions of doing and making.  :)

Right. Is that a general trait of ser/estar? If so, I really wish my
Spanish teacher had taught me that. It would have saved a lot of
confusion. And as far as states of being goes, there's a really
significant difference metaphysically going on there. Cool. u'aro'e :)

 > > > The
> >point is that I don't think that the "ser/estar" distinction contributes
> >anything significant to the English language-web, because its functions
> >are handled elsewhere - as your translation of the concepts
> >of "somos/estamos" into "indecisive/merely undecided" shows. Conversely,
> >"to do/to make" might not contribute anything significant to the Spanish
> >web, because Spanish speakers make this distinction in other ways that are
> >familiar to them as well.
>
> Of course, English makes do perfectly well with its single "to be", and
> Spanish with its "hacer". And each of them can make both distinctions
> in its own way.  And so can Lojban and any other language, or it wouldn't
> be a language.

Exactly. :) No reason we all need the same divisions in our own webs.
Variety is the spice of life.

Geoff