Quick Spanish translation question.

[Joey_P]

I’m watching a movie in Spanish (with English subtitles). Character 1 asks about someone, character 2 replies “He’s dead.”
The words out of her mouth were “Esta muerto.” Shouldn’t it be Es muerto. IIRC from college and HS Spanish, Ser is typically used for things that are permanent (color, location of a building, death status), while things that are temporary (location of a person, how you are feeling etc) use estar.

Is Estar typically used saying someone is dead?

[Pyper]

Yes.

Hard to explain the reasoning behind it, but think of it this way: he wasn’t always dead. Once, estuvo vivo. Now, esta muerto.

[Joey_P]

@Pyper

Yes.

Hard to explain the reasoning behind it, but think of it this way: he wasn’t always dead. Once, estuvo vivo. Now, esta muerto.

I figured it was just an exception (I wonder if something like that has any basis in religion…He’s dead, but he’s still with us/in a better place/with god etc…)

I mean, the library wasn’t always there (and won’t be forever). The ball wasn’t always red, it started out as some plastic pellets.

Not a big deal, I just wasn’t expecting it. Based on the fact that this is a ‘real’ Spanish movie, with Spanish Actors and a Spanish director filmed in Spain, I assumed they had it right.

[GIGObuster]

Yes, it is an exception.

Using the Spanish Verb "Estar" With "Muerto"

I’ll mention just two related rules that make a good case for using estar.

First is that when a form of ser is followed by a past participle, it generally refers to the process of a verb’s action taking place, while estar followed by a participle generally refers to a completed action. For example, in los coches fueron rotos por los estudiantes (the cars were broken by the students), fueron rotos passively refers to the action of the cars being broken. But in los coches están rotos (the cars are broken), the action has been completed.

Similarly, the use of estar generally suggests there has been a change. For example, tú eres feliz (you are happy) suggests the person is by nature happy, while tu estás feliz (you are happy) suggests that the person’s happiness represents a change from a previous state.

Following either of these guidelines for choosing the right “to be” would result in the use of a form of estar in a sentence such as mi padre está muerto.

As I mentioned earlier, one might also come up with arguments for using ser, and ser is often the choice incorrectly made by beginning Spanish students. But the fact is that estar is used with muerto, and it is also used with vivo (alive): Mi padre está muerto, mi madre está viva. (My father is dead, my mother is alive.)

All logic aside, the indisputable rule that estar is the verb of choice with muerto is just something you’ll have to remember. That’s just the way it is. And after a while, estar is the verb that will sound right.

[Pyper]

@Joey_P

@Pyper

Yes.

Hard to explain the reasoning behind it, but think of it this way: he wasn’t always dead. Once, estuvo vivo. Now, esta muerto.

I figured it was just an exception (I wonder if something like that has any basis in religion…He’s dead, but he’s still with us/in a better place/with god etc…)

I mean, the library wasn’t always there (and won’t be forever). The ball wasn’t always red, it started out as some plastic pellets.

Not a big deal, I just wasn’t expecting it. Based on the fact that this is a ‘real’ Spanish movie, with Spanish Actors and a Spanish director filmed in Spain, I assumed they had it right.

If you’re speaking of the location of something such as a library, estar is still the correct verb. La biblioteca esta en la esquina. (Agh, it bugs me not to have the accent mark.)

The use of estar that always bugged me was when it is used to refer to food tasting good. You say los huevos rancheros estan muy buenos, not son muy buenos. Hey, Spanish Language, the eggs are good, it’s not a temporary situation! Oh well, who says languages have to make sense?

[Washoe]

@Joey_P

I figured it was just an exception (I wonder if something like that has any basis in religion…He’s dead, but he’s still with us/in a better place/with god etc…)

According to my Spanish II professor, that’s exactly the reason. It has its basis in Roman Catholicism.

[Nava]

@Pyper

The use of estar that always bugged me was when it is used to refer to food tasting good. You say los huevos rancheros estan muy buenos, not son muy buenos. Hey, Spanish Language, the eggs are good, it’s not a temporary situation! Oh well, who says languages have to make sense?

Oh hell yes it’s temporary! Because in a minute, the huevos rancheros won’t be any more!

Well, yes… they will be eaten

There is a concept called “collocation”. Some words “just go together”, we can rationalize but it’s a post-facto explanation. GIGObuster’s example talks about “estás feliz” vs “eres feliz”, but (at least in Spain, I haven’t heard it elsewhere except from foreigners but I can’t promise it isn’t done by any Hispanics) we do not say “estás feliz” - either “estás contento” or “eres feliz”. Why? Because. Being alive and being dead both go with “estar”. Why? Because. And Washoe, “being with God” (which is as permanent as it gets) also carries “estar”. It’s just the verb we use for life states. Why? C’mon guys, you know it: because!

[Ale]

En otras noticias, el Generalisimo Franco sigue estando muerto.

If I’d have to give a reason for using “Está” for a case like this is because it refers to the state of a person, animal or object. My understanding of the verb “estar” in such context (I am a native Spanish speaker BTW) would be as a current status but that doesn’t necessarily imply a transitional or temporal condition.

[Nava]

Ya, Ale, but the rule of thumb given to foreign learners is that “estar” is for temporary conditions and “ser” for permanent ones (as in GIGObuster’s cite). And then you get to professions (where people use “trabajar en/como/de” [work as] when they think of it as temporary but “ser” when they think of it as permanent… nobody “está gerente” but you have people who “are gerentes” and people who “trabaja en gerencia”) and to life states (where it’s always estar), and that’s also general but at a subtler level than the rule JoeyP knew.

[bardos]

As an English teacher, when a student asks me a “Why” question in regard to the language structure, I say "I do not answer questions that begin with “why”. Ask me “How”.

[outlierrn]

@Nava

Ya, Ale, but the rule of thumb given to foreign learners is that “estar” is for temporary conditions and “ser” for permanent ones (as in GIGObuster’s cite). And then you get to professions (where people use “trabajar en/como/de” [work as] when they think of it as temporary but “ser” when they think of it as permanent… nobody “está gerente” but you have people who “are gerentes” and people who “trabaja en gerencia”) and to life states (where it’s always estar), and that’s also general but at a subtler level than the rule JoeyP knew.

I was taught that ser is for essences and estar was for states. I could see how a state of decomposition would be appropriate

At work, I always introduce myself with soy enfemero, that’s ok isn’t it?

[Nava]

Yes, it’s your profession. You are a nurse whether you’re currently working as one or not.

[bardos]

There are exceptions to 99.9% of all grammar rules.

[Balthisar]

@outlierrn

I was taught that ser is for essences and estar was for states. I could see how a state of decomposition would be appropriate

At work, I always introduce myself with soy enfemero, that’s ok isn’t it?

That’s kind of how I learned it. “Estar” even looks etymologically related to “state,” right?

Using your example reminds me of a peculiarity of Spanish (from my perspective) wherein the meaning of two things is completely differentiated from the form of “to be” that’s used:

“Estoy aburrido” = “I’m bored.”
“Soy aburrido” “I’m a boring person.”