34

I know it is rather rude to think of it this way and I don't want to offend anyone religiously, but being dead is usually thought of as a very permanent condition in the United States.

So why does Spanish use the word 'estar' instead of 'ser' to indicate that condition? Is there some background to this in terms of religion or politeness?

If I say 'Mi padre es muerto', would that have a drastically different meaning than if I had used estar, or is the first one just plain incorrect and should never be used at all?

fedorqui
  • 34,063
  • 114
  • 271
  • 434
Gordon Gustafson
  • 2,761
  • 6
  • 28
  • 32
  • 7
    One way of thinking about it is to see estar as not necessarily dealing with permanence, but condition (estado) as opposed to being (ser). Being dead is a (albeit permanent) condition or situation that a human is in. – jrdioko Dec 06 '11 at 22:35
  • n this link you can find a good answer about the same question as the one you asked: http://spanish.about.com/od/usingparticularverbs/a/muerto.htm – Javi Dec 06 '11 at 22:49
  • 3
    I'm not sure there are always hard rules for things in language. Another exception to the permanance rule for using ser and estar is the location of buildings: La escuela está en Mango Street. – JohnJamesSmith Dec 07 '11 at 02:58
  • 1
    There are always hard rules; they are just not always obvious or even known yet. That's what the entire field of linguistics is about. – Paul Legato Jan 01 '14 at 19:10
  • I did some research into academic linguistics papers on this topic, and the short answer is that nobody knows in the general case. There are many proposed theories that remove some categories of exceptions, but none that seems to cover all of the cases yet. – Paul Legato Oct 08 '14 at 04:07

8 Answers8

25

Although it is true that estar usually indicates a non-permanent, temporary condition whereas ser usually signals a permanent condition, you have to take into account that estar is normally used to express a condition resulting from a transformation, process or actual change, and ser is normally used when referring to an inherent characteristic, with no involvement of process, change or transformation; in other words, ser normally has the purpose of including the subject into a certain class.

This explains why there are some adjectives that express a permanent condition but can only be combined with estar: this is so because they express the result of a change or transformation; muerto is one of those adjectives, and another example is roto: el vaso está roto and not el vaso es roto.

Gonzalo Medina
  • 6,474
  • 3
  • 35
  • 46
  • This can't be correct, since "ser" is used for professions (among other things): "Jorge es médico." Becoming a doctor is most certainly a condition that results from a process (going to medical school), yet one uses "ser" for it. – Paul Legato Jan 01 '14 at 18:58
  • 2
    @Paul: it is correct, but it has exceptions. The arbitrariness of languages is everywhere. – Lucas Oct 01 '14 at 10:36
  • @Lucas if essentially arbitrary exceptions are needed, this means that the supposed rule is incorrect or incomplete in some way. Languages aren't arbitrary, but the rules are sometimes complex and non-obvious. This is what the field of linguistics studies. – Paul Legato Oct 08 '14 at 04:03
  • 3
    @Paul Legato: Ok, then look harder and tell me when you find the rule without exceptions. – Lucas Oct 08 '14 at 13:01
  • @Lucas, it's not about me; this is what professional academic linguists do all day. Finding the rules for ser vs. estar is an active area of research right now. This doesn't mean there are no rules or that language is arbitrary; it just means the rules are complex and haven't been fully figured out yet. Linguists have resolved many supposedly arbitrary situations in the past, and I have every confidence that they will do so again in this case in time. – Paul Legato Oct 08 '14 at 23:14
  • 3
    @paullegato: Médico is a noun. You use 'ser' to unite one noun (e.g. él) with another noun (médico). Muerto, in the context of the example you gave, is an adjective. The rule applies to adjectives, not nouns. – Paul Jan 22 '17 at 04:27
7

Soy muerto is not incorrect, just not commonly used:

¿Piensas tú que no soy muerto
por no ser todas de muerte
mis heridas?
Pues sabe que puede, cierto,
acabar lo menos fuerte
muchas vidas;
mas está en mi fe mi vida,
y mi fe está en el vivir
de quien me pena;
así que de mi herida
yo nunca puedo morir
sino de ajena.

A la fortuna, de Jorge Manrique (a very good poet)

fedorqui
  • 34,063
  • 114
  • 271
  • 434
Dr. belisarius
  • 1,949
  • 1
  • 11
  • 13
  • 5
    Though I agree that it may be possible "soy muerto", I just want to point out that Jorge Manrique was a poet of the 15th century and there may be some differences between that Spanish and the current one. – Javi Dec 07 '11 at 01:00
  • @Javi I just want to point out that I wish I could write like that :) – Dr. belisarius Dec 07 '11 at 01:27
  • 2
    Medieval Spanish usage varies in many ways from modern usage. Nobody would say "ser muerto" today (unless they were trying to imitate a medieval style.) – Paul Legato Jan 01 '14 at 19:07
  • I've been told that "soy muerto" can colloquially mean "I'm very bored" (estoy muy aburrido). Is this correct? – GMA Jan 15 '16 at 12:50
  • @George I haven't heard that. Perhaps some localism – Dr. belisarius Jan 15 '16 at 14:54
  • @Dr.belisarius interesting - where are you from? (I live in Barcelona) – GMA Jan 15 '16 at 16:11
  • @george Argentina, but with a few stickers in my luggage ... – Dr. belisarius Jan 16 '16 at 03:01
  • Okay. Tbh I might be remembering it wrong, I can't find any references online to "ser muerto" used this way. – GMA Jan 16 '16 at 10:01
  • from the point of view of Fortuna, to be muerto is a permanent state, it's a question of perspective, so when dialoguing with Fortuna it makes sense to write "soy muerto". Likewise in dialogues involving dead souls, they would say "soy muerto." You can find many examples via Google books. – PatrickT Jul 21 '21 at 02:09
6

While agreeing with Gonzalo Medina's explanation, I would like to add my rule of thumb for this one. "Ser" means that the property does not change for the object, while "Estar" means a transition.

So, "él está muerto" because he was alive before, but "mi camiseta es verde" because it will not change by itself(*1). In the case of "verde", you can also say "la manzana está aún verde", because while the T-shirt does not change by itself, the apple does.

dusan
  • 3,732
  • 2
  • 23
  • 32
SJuan76
  • 807
  • 5
  • 8
  • 3
    "la manzana está verde" means the apple is green, in the sense of not ripe. If you're talking about a granny smith, you could say "la manzana es verde"; and it could actually be both... "la mansana está verde y es verde"... – Flimzy Dec 06 '11 at 22:54
  • 1
    Yes (I did not remember the english word for "verde (no madura)". Very good example, btw – SJuan76 Dec 06 '11 at 23:09
  • @SJuan76 I guess the word you're looking for is "green" or "unripe" – Javi Dec 06 '11 at 23:15
  • @SJuan76: "green" is the common word, but "immature" would also work. – Flimzy Dec 06 '11 at 23:40
  • 1
    This is incorrect, as per previous comments: Jorge era flaco pero ahora es gordo. Jorge era estudiante pero ahora es médico. Jorge nació en México pero ahora es ciudadano de España. Weight, citizenship, profession, and many other things are not permanent and are routinely changed by various transitions, yet use "ser" rather than "estar". – Paul Legato Jan 01 '14 at 19:06
  • 1
    @paullegato: weight, citizenship, and professions are nouns. You should limit your critique of the rule strictly to the adjectives (e.g. Gordo & flaco is valid). – Paul Jan 22 '17 at 06:52
5

Because estar is used to signify that they weren't always dead--that they were once alive.

Ser is used to indicate a state of being--that they were always that way and always will be.

To say es muerto is incorrect because they used to be alive. Therefore, estar.

Richard
  • 2,199
  • 2
  • 20
  • 31
  • 4
    I wasn't always a computer programmer, yet "soy programadora de computadoras." :) – Flimzy Dec 06 '11 at 22:52
  • 2
    indeed "es muerto" is not incorrect, but quite unusual. It would be the passive voice of verb "morir" that when it is transitive it means kill, so "él es muerto por..." means "he's killed by..." though this meaning quite unused and doesn't sound natural (morir is usually used as an intransitive verb and we use "asesinar" with "kill" meaning) – Javi Dec 06 '11 at 22:56
  • This can't be correct, since "ser" is used for professions, citizenship, and so on: "Jorge es médico, Jorge es ciudadano de tal país", etc. Professions and citizenship can be acquired; people who have them did not necessarily always have them, and will not necessarily always have them in the future. – Paul Legato Jan 01 '14 at 19:01
  • I've been told that "soy muerto" can colloquially mean "I'm very bored" (estoy muy aburrido). Is this correct? – GMA Jan 15 '16 at 12:50
3

I think the answer is that while ser defines the subject, estar defines its state.

So one defines characteristics, the other one defines conditions. The rule "permanent", "non permanent" is a good rule, but a rule of thumb, so not always true:

  • John is tall — characteristic — Juan es alto.
  • John is sick — condition — Juan está enfermo.

See more on this PPT document "Ser and estar" that gives some simple, yet interesting explanations.

Alenanno
  • 3,229
  • 2
  • 27
  • 30
  • 2
    Yes ser muerto exists, and in past tense it means to be killed (by), as in fue muerto por asaltantes (It was killed by muggers); however, it's almost never used nowadays (except in archaic constructs). A related (and also scarcely used) expression: ha sido muerto por. – Gonzalo Medina Dec 06 '11 at 23:22
  • @GonzaloMedina I added that just for completeness, otherwise someone would complain that I didn't add it... :) But do you confirm the other meaning I talked about? – Alenanno Dec 06 '11 at 23:23
  • @Alenanno Can you provide an example of the use of "ser muerto" as "to be boring"?, thanks. – Javi Dec 06 '11 at 23:29
  • @Javi This one comes from my grammar textbook: "Esta película es un muerto." – Alenanno Dec 06 '11 at 23:33
  • @Alenanno OK, but in this way "muerto" is used as a noun, not as an adjective. It's not the same, you can't compare both uses. Indeed you can't say "ser muerto" in that way, you have to use the determiner "un" as "ser un muerto". – Javi Dec 06 '11 at 23:39
  • @Alenanno: no, sorry,I can't confrim the use you mentioned. I've never heard or read (as far as I can recall) the expression ser muerto with the sense of to be boring. Perhaps, metaphorically, ser un muerto can be understood as to be boring (notice the article un). – Gonzalo Medina Dec 06 '11 at 23:41
  • Javi and Gonzalo: You both make a good point... I'll delete that part, but I'll save the comments. They might be helpful in the future. :) – Alenanno Dec 06 '11 at 23:41
  • 3
    I always prefer to related Spanish ser to English essence since those words are in fact related, just as Spanish estar and English state are related. – hippietrail Dec 07 '11 at 10:23
  • 1
    "fue muerto por asaltantes" is a case of the passive voice, not a translation of "being dead." It translates "He was killed by attackers", not "he is dead." – Paul Legato Jan 01 '14 at 19:08
  • I agree. When a person passes from life to death, the person does not take on a new identity. – Walter Mitty Jan 22 '17 at 04:16
1

In modern Spanish both verbs ser and estar can be used with muerto.

Estar is used to describe the condition of being dead. The key is that the subject has not always been dead; the subject was alive sometime in the past. So, here being dead or alive is a transient condition. Other adjectives that depict a transient condition are vivo, enfermo, sano, preso, libre, soltero, casado, divorciado, viudo

El hombre está vivo
El hombre está sano
El hombre está libre
El hombre está casado

Examples like libre, soltero, casado, divorciado, viudo can also have the verb ser without changing the meaning.

El hombre es libre
El hombre es soltero
El hombre es divorciado

Sano can be preceded by the verb ser but the meaning is altered.

El hombre es sano (means that the man is healthy, not only is well but he probably has a healthy life that maintains him well)

With adjectives like muerto, casado, divorciado and sano (although with sano is somewhat weird) you can use tenses other than present to indicate that the new condition is initiated by the action of a third party.

Fue muerto a balazos
Serán casados por un ministro
Ha sido divorciado en dos ocasiones (correct but estado is more usual)
Y por su palabra fue sano (It's correct but somewhat archaic)

Krauss
  • 2,513
  • 8
  • 23
0

Usually one uses "estar" to describe a non-permanent characteristic or something subject to changing its state. "Ser" is used to describe something permanent or an inherent characteristic of something. But in this case, "estar muerto", you need to use the verb "estar" because "estar muerto" comes from the participle form of the verb "morir = él ha muerto" so almost any adjetive or characteristic that comes from the participle of a verb uses "estar".

For instance, a window can be open or closed, it is not permanent. But you say "la ventana ESTÁ abierta, la ventana ESTÁ cerrada" because "abierta/abierto" is the participle of "abrir" as "cerrada/cerrado" is the participle of "cerrar". If you use the verb "ser" with these participles then you are using the passive voice. So if you say "él está muerto"= he is dead; "él es muerto" would be something like "he is being killed".

jacobo
  • 19,466
  • 5
  • 60
  • 108
Pedroyurrita
  • 1
0

I think it's because you use "ser" + participle when it's passive voice:

The fire was put out by him. (El fuego fue apagado por él.)

And you use "estar" in other cases:

I'm very bored right now. (Ahora mismo estoy muy aburrido.)

As I side note, we never say "es muerto". It's sounds unidiomatic and I don't even think it would make any sense when writing poetry either.

Diego
  • 48,072
  • 36
  • 141
  • 266
Peripes
  • 23
  • 2