Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:18:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711051918.OAA20195@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: CloversImp@AOL.COM Sender: Lojban list From: Karen Stein Subject: Re: What's going on here? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 920 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 5 14:18:11 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU << Incidentally, I'm not entirely convinced that the "ser"/"estar" distinction is especially objective. "Estar" means to be in a place, or to be in a certain condition, and whatever other uses it has, and then "ser" seems to be for all the other senses of being. But I don't think that the kinds of being picked out by "estar" have any distinct metaphysical characteristics from the kinds that are picked up by "ser". There's nothing fundamentally different about the two forms of being; they're just used linguistically for different cases. If a native Spanish-speaker feels differently, speak now or forever hold your peace. :) >> I may not be a native speaker, but I still disagree. :) As it was explained to me years ago when I first studied Spanish, SER is used to denote "being" as a permanent state, while ESTAR is used for transient states. These do seem fundamentally different to me. co'o .karis.