I’ve watched hundreds of “learn Spanish” videos over the years, as well as taken multiple school courses and read countless books. This is hands-down the most informative lesson I’ve ever encountered. Makes it intuitive and simple! Essentially, if I can substitute “equals“ for “is” I use ser. If instead I’m describing a condition or relationship of any type, use estar. GRACIAS!!!!!
Thanks so much for the feedback!! One correction.. Estar is not simply used in a "relationship of any type". Instead, it's basically anything that answers a "how" question or a "where" question. For example, "María is my wife" would be "María es mi esposa" (Ser), because it's who she is. But "María is married" would be "María está casada" (Estar), because it's how she is.
@@learncraftspanish I was actually thinking of relationship in the adjective/descriptive sense ("relative/compared to something") where you can't substitute "equals." Examples: "My home is near the beach" or "The airplane is in the sky." As you pointed out, "relative" can also be a noun (e.g. "María is my wife"), but in that case it could be substituted with "equals" as per your rule (Maria = my wife). Either way passes the test, though I could've used less ambiguous verbiage in my initial comment. But this only serves to reinforce how your tip helps me derive the correct verb to use with minimal effort, whereas before your video I was just guessing😉I finally understand the underlying concept, rather than just memorizing specific instances. Thank you!
@@munkeepilot Gotcha. There's still some nuance that's a little counter-intuitive. For example, "this thing is for my friend" is "esta cosa es para mi amiga", using Ser. But that's because "for", or "intended for", is considered part of what something is. (Similarly, "this thing is from Colombia" - "esta cosa es de Colombia" - relates the thing to Colombia, but in a Ser way, not an Estar way.) Keep up the good work!
@@learncraftspanish Maybe so, but you've armed me with a powerful practice tool, so I don't mind guessing on the more nuanced things for now until I get stronger 🙂 ¡Gracias señor!
I loved the video, but am confused as to how it aligns with discussing events. When I say the time or location of an event I’m not saying what it is at all. I’d honestly connect it more to how the event will take place (between these times/ at this place). Is there an example or explanation with those cases?
A very good question. There *are* some cases that are a bit hard to explain to English speakers, and you do kind of have to force them into the paradigm. In a native Spanish speaker's mind, when and where an event takes place is a part of what it is (even though that's not the case in an English speaker's mind). Basically, you just have to drop these cases into the Ser, what-it-is "bucket". I know that doesn't sound particularly helpful, but if you can practice it a bit, it becomes easier over time. I also recommend checking out our video on why we recommend putting things into oversimplified buckets like this (we use por vs para as the example, but it applies to Ser vs Estar as well): ruclips.net/video/XqGtIFleK44/видео.html
in your debunking examples for OCCUPATION, faltan tildes en "aquí" y en “médico“ (besides the fact that you're asking about the *location* of those professionals).
also, para CHARACTERISTICS, “la dueña está viva“ y ”la tienda está cerrada” son condiciones, hablan del estado en que se encuentran la persona y el lugar... así como “es inteligente la dueña” y “la tienda es grande”
uy, papá, ahí sí que la metió bien profundo en RELATIONSHIPS... "estamos casados" is not a relationship... it's also a condition of their marital status (tristemente, eso es temporal como muchas otras condiciones: enfermo, cansado, triste, gordo, etc. - y si es una condición negativa, ¡ni tan tristemente! jajaja, o sea, menos mal que uno no queda cansado todos los días de su vida)... :) What I think was meant was SER used to label how people are related (por ejemplo: "es mi primo", o "soy su esposa")... ¿ya?
your example for POSITION is wonky... you know they mean “mis zapatos están en el piso“ o ”el control remoto está al lado del televisor“ (enfrente de, cerca de, lejos de, etc.) ...not the best example for debunking... seems like a clear description to me if you're telling me which (of the many pisos) is yours.... ¡es ése (el último, subiendo... no bajando, o sea no la planta baja)!
Great question - Adjectives are particularly tricky! They can very often describe either *what* or *how*, and it's a fuzzy line. If a speaker says that the situation está peligroso, they're talking about *how* the situation currently is. But if they say "es peligroso" (which is much, much more frequent), what they mean is that's *what* it is: A dangerous situation. Describing somethnig as "dangerous" is like describing something as "big", "red", "safe", "correct", etc., all of which tend use Ser, not Estar, because they're all considered a part of *what* something is.
Where (In Spain) is the closest to Mexican Spanish. I know there are different languages all over Spain. I'm looking for an area that speaks closest to Mexican Spanish I know a little spanish and want to go to spain, where would it be more useful
I read that with events (parties, concerts, etc), SER is used (for some reason). I'm sure that Anytime Español made a point of emphasizing that (strange) rule.
I found the video I'd seen on ANYTIME SPANISH (/LvxeOAAdGz4? feature= share). And while I loved "SER & ESTAR: D.O.C.T.O.R. & P.L.A.C.E. Debunked" and found it very useful, I think the other video I mentioned served as an exception to his rule.
You're right, it is a strange thing: You'd use Ser for this! And this for a nuanced reason: In a native Spanish speaker's mind, when and where an event takes place is a part of what it is (even though that's not the case in an English speaker's mind). Basically, you just have to drop these cases into the Ser, what-it-is "bucket". I know that doesn't sound particularly helpful, but if you can practice it a bit, it becomes easier over time. I also recommend checking out our video on why we recommend putting things into oversimplified buckets like this (we use por vs para as the example, but it applies to Ser vs Estar as well): ruclips.net/video/XqGtIFleK44/видео.html
Thanks for responding, much appreciated. And despite this strange contradictory rule, I found your simple rule for understanding SER vs ESTAR great. I actually had CHAT GPT create a Fill-In-The-Blank test for me. Using your rule(s), l aced it. Thanks again.
Oof. I usually like your grammar explanations, but this video frustrated me A LOT: It felt like you were intentionally misrepresenting the English meaning of the words in DOCTOR and PLACE. Your point that lists can be confusing and artificial is valid (and "what it is" vs "how it is" is a much better way to internalize ser vs estar), but you undercut your credibility by falsely "debunking" something by sneakily changing the English grammar (and thus the meaning). Consider "Lima is a city in Peru." You claim this is a false Location statement. It is not! It is an Origin/Identity (Lima = a city), ergo you must use ser, fitting under DOCTOR. If you re-wrote the sentence to be simply "Lima is in Peru," now it IS actually a Location (Lima = in a place) and estar is correct, fitting under PLACE. Your examples, rather than "debunking," actually prove the accuracy of the DOCTOR and PLACE lists IF YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH GRAMMAR. Disappointed in this one. I think there is a great point to be made that the DOCTOR and PLACE lists can be overly complicated or distracting for many learners, but your argument is based off poor English and comes off as almost willfully ignorant.
You are right that I'm intentionally misusing "doctor" and "place", but that's kind of the point! My main argument is that to choose between Ser vs Estar, you have to think about them grammatically, not topically. (As you've done correctly in your examples.)
@@learncraftspanish I guess I'd go with a different clickbait word like "made easy!" or "demystified!" instead of debunked, because the acronyms can be a fine tool for people who understand grammar (the acronyms have nothing to do with "topics"). They may not WORK for everyone, but they're not WRONG, which is what they'd have to be to be "debunked."
I’ve watched hundreds of “learn Spanish” videos over the years, as well as taken multiple school courses and read countless books. This is hands-down the most informative lesson I’ve ever encountered. Makes it intuitive and simple! Essentially, if I can substitute “equals“ for “is” I use ser. If instead I’m describing a condition or relationship of any type, use estar. GRACIAS!!!!!
Thanks so much for the feedback!! One correction.. Estar is not simply used in a "relationship of any type". Instead, it's basically anything that answers a "how" question or a "where" question. For example, "María is my wife" would be "María es mi esposa" (Ser), because it's who she is. But "María is married" would be "María está casada" (Estar), because it's how she is.
@@learncraftspanish I was actually thinking of relationship in the adjective/descriptive sense ("relative/compared to something") where you can't substitute "equals." Examples: "My home is near the beach" or "The airplane is in the sky." As you pointed out, "relative" can also be a noun (e.g. "María is my wife"), but in that case it could be substituted with "equals" as per your rule (Maria = my wife).
Either way passes the test, though I could've used less ambiguous verbiage in my initial comment. But this only serves to reinforce how your tip helps me derive the correct verb to use with minimal effort, whereas before your video I was just guessing😉I finally understand the underlying concept, rather than just memorizing specific instances. Thank you!
@@munkeepilot Gotcha. There's still some nuance that's a little counter-intuitive. For example, "this thing is for my friend" is "esta cosa es para mi amiga", using Ser. But that's because "for", or "intended for", is considered part of what something is. (Similarly, "this thing is from Colombia" - "esta cosa es de Colombia" - relates the thing to Colombia, but in a Ser way, not an Estar way.) Keep up the good work!
Amazing where have you been all this time 👍que maravilloso!!!!
@@learncraftspanish Maybe so, but you've armed me with a powerful practice tool, so I don't mind guessing on the more nuanced things for now until I get stronger 🙂 ¡Gracias señor!
Timothy levelling up his editing game!! Love it
Haha thanks.... Helps that I'm finally asking for help and not trying to do everything myself!
Thank you so very much for this video but could you please consider not having background music, or at the very least having it not so loud. Thanks.
Hey! Thanks for watching and for your feedback. We will take it into consideration :)
El mejor profe de español 😊 y para inglés es A.J Hoge. Los mejores profes
Muchas gracias por tu comentario!
Thanks. Good explanation.
Thank you!
I loved the video, but am confused as to how it aligns with discussing events. When I say the time or location of an event I’m not saying what it is at all. I’d honestly connect it more to how the event will take place (between these times/ at this place). Is there an example or explanation with those cases?
A very good question. There *are* some cases that are a bit hard to explain to English speakers, and you do kind of have to force them into the paradigm. In a native Spanish speaker's mind, when and where an event takes place is a part of what it is (even though that's not the case in an English speaker's mind). Basically, you just have to drop these cases into the Ser, what-it-is "bucket". I know that doesn't sound particularly helpful, but if you can practice it a bit, it becomes easier over time.
I also recommend checking out our video on why we recommend putting things into oversimplified buckets like this (we use por vs para as the example, but it applies to Ser vs Estar as well):
ruclips.net/video/XqGtIFleK44/видео.html
in your debunking examples for OCCUPATION, faltan tildes en "aquí" y en “médico“ (besides the fact that you're asking about the *location* of those professionals).
also, para CHARACTERISTICS, “la dueña está viva“ y ”la tienda está cerrada” son condiciones, hablan del estado en que se encuentran la persona y el lugar... así como “es inteligente la dueña” y “la tienda es grande”
de TIME, ni hablar... ufff... "your friend is at" (LOCATION, nada de hora)... the morning party
uy, papá, ahí sí que la metió bien profundo en RELATIONSHIPS... "estamos casados" is not a relationship... it's also a condition of their marital status (tristemente, eso es temporal como muchas otras condiciones: enfermo, cansado, triste, gordo, etc. - y si es una condición negativa, ¡ni tan tristemente! jajaja, o sea, menos mal que uno no queda cansado todos los días de su vida)... :) What I think was meant was SER used to label how people are related (por ejemplo: "es mi primo", o "soy su esposa")... ¿ya?
your example for POSITION is wonky... you know they mean “mis zapatos están en el piso“ o ”el control remoto está al lado del televisor“ (enfrente de, cerca de, lejos de, etc.) ...not the best example for debunking... seems like a clear description to me if you're telling me which (of the many pisos) is yours.... ¡es ése (el último, subiendo... no bajando, o sea no la planta baja)!
LOCATION, no señor, otro mal ejemplo... "Lima es una ciudad"
The phrase La situación es peligrosa describes HOW the situation is and accordingly to the rule proposed this should be estar. Please explain
Great question - Adjectives are particularly tricky! They can very often describe either *what* or *how*, and it's a fuzzy line. If a speaker says that the situation está peligroso, they're talking about *how* the situation currently is. But if they say "es peligroso" (which is much, much more frequent), what they mean is that's *what* it is: A dangerous situation. Describing somethnig as "dangerous" is like describing something as "big", "red", "safe", "correct", etc., all of which tend use Ser, not Estar, because they're all considered a part of *what* something is.
Where (In Spain) is the closest to Mexican Spanish. I know there are different languages all over Spain. I'm looking for an area that speaks closest to Mexican Spanish I know a little spanish and want to go to spain, where would it be more useful
What about,"the party is at Juan"'s house?" I know that rule always messes me up?
I expect the ans. to be ESTAR by the ‘where’ part of the ‘where/how’ question rule.
I read that with events (parties, concerts, etc), SER is used (for some reason). I'm sure that Anytime Español made a point of emphasizing that (strange) rule.
I found the video I'd seen on ANYTIME SPANISH (/LvxeOAAdGz4? feature= share). And while I loved "SER & ESTAR: D.O.C.T.O.R. & P.L.A.C.E. Debunked" and found it very useful, I think the other video I mentioned served as an exception to his rule.
You're right, it is a strange thing: You'd use Ser for this! And this for a nuanced reason: In a native Spanish speaker's mind, when and where an event takes place is a part of what it is (even though that's not the case in an English speaker's mind). Basically, you just have to drop these cases into the Ser, what-it-is "bucket". I know that doesn't sound particularly helpful, but if you can practice it a bit, it becomes easier over time.
I also recommend checking out our video on why we recommend putting things into oversimplified buckets like this (we use por vs para as the example, but it applies to Ser vs Estar as well):
ruclips.net/video/XqGtIFleK44/видео.html
Thanks for responding, much appreciated. And despite this strange contradictory rule, I found your simple rule for understanding SER vs ESTAR great. I actually had CHAT GPT create a Fill-In-The-Blank test for me. Using your rule(s), l aced it. Thanks again.
Oof. I usually like your grammar explanations, but this video frustrated me A LOT: It felt like you were intentionally misrepresenting the English meaning of the words in DOCTOR and PLACE. Your point that lists can be confusing and artificial is valid (and "what it is" vs "how it is" is a much better way to internalize ser vs estar), but you undercut your credibility by falsely "debunking" something by sneakily changing the English grammar (and thus the meaning).
Consider "Lima is a city in Peru." You claim this is a false Location statement. It is not! It is an Origin/Identity (Lima = a city), ergo you must use ser, fitting under DOCTOR. If you re-wrote the sentence to be simply "Lima is in Peru," now it IS actually a Location (Lima = in a place) and estar is correct, fitting under PLACE. Your examples, rather than "debunking," actually prove the accuracy of the DOCTOR and PLACE lists IF YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH GRAMMAR.
Disappointed in this one. I think there is a great point to be made that the DOCTOR and PLACE lists can be overly complicated or distracting for many learners, but your argument is based off poor English and comes off as almost willfully ignorant.
You are right that I'm intentionally misusing "doctor" and "place", but that's kind of the point! My main argument is that to choose between Ser vs Estar, you have to think about them grammatically, not topically. (As you've done correctly in your examples.)
@@learncraftspanish I guess I'd go with a different clickbait word like "made easy!" or "demystified!" instead of debunked, because the acronyms can be a fine tool for people who understand grammar (the acronyms have nothing to do with "topics"). They may not WORK for everyone, but they're not WRONG, which is what they'd have to be to be "debunked."