More on Distinguishing Between Ser and Estar

From the mailbox:

In ser vs. estar, my tutor has given me the following guideline:

One of the instances in which ser is used: With adjectives (like bueno or malo). El precio no es malo.

And one of the instances in which estar is used: With adverbs (like bien or mal). El precio no está mal.

Question 1: Is there merit to idea of using ser with adjectives and estar with adverbs?

Question 2: You have written an article entitled "Using Spanish Adjectives as Adverbs." But can the converse also be true? Can adverbs (like mal) function as adjectives?

Question 3: Which brings us to the most basic element of this confusion: Is "price" an "essential characteristic" (ser) or a "temporary condition" (estar)? Are there certain situations (like the price of something) which could go either way, which would then require the above distinction of adjectives vs. adverbs?

Great questions! The matter of ser vs. estar certainly can be a matter of confusion — and that's only partly because both words can be translated as "to be." In some situations, native speakers don't always carefully distinguish between them, and even when they do the difference isn't always readily translatable (such as when discussing marital status).

To answer your last question first, both estar and ser can be used with price. A quick web search suggests the following are used in increasing order of frequency to say "the price is good":

El precio es bueno.El precio está bueno.El precio está bien. (This is by far the most common.)

The same pattern is followed in expressing the opposite, with "El precio está mal" the overwhelming preference.

Your questions prompted me to put together a lesson detailing the use of estar as a way of expressing impressions that the speaker has of something. With that in mind, it's logical for estar to be the verb of choice here — usually, when you're talking about whether the price of something is good or bad, you're giving an impression rather than describing a quality that's inherent in something.

As to why the adverb bien is preferred over the adjective bueno, I can't really tell you except to say that bien and mal are commonly used with estar and are preferred over bueno and malo in a wide variety of circumstances. While under some circumstances está bien and está bueno are understood differently, I'm not aware of any way of predicting what those differences will be.

And now to answer your other questions:

1. Ser is almost always followed by a word or phrase that functions as an adjective or noun. It doesn't make sense to use ser with an adverb. Estar, on the other hand, can be followed by an adjective or adverb (or, if you're talking about mere existence, can stand alone).

2. While it is possible for some adjectives (e.g., claro and rápido) to function as adverbs, the reverse isn't true. In fairnesss, though, I must say that some grammarians would disagree with me. In a sentence such as "me siento bien" (I'm feeling good) or "huele mal" (it smells bad), some would see bien and mal as functioning as invariable adjectives. I don't, though. I see them as adverbs; it's just that estar and oler function differently than do their English counterparts.

I hope you find this helpful. Although such talk of grammar can ending up sounding arcane, as you learn and study Spanish you'll develop a feel for what "sounds right." Sometimes, that provides as good of a rule to follow as any.

View the original article here