Re: What's going on here?

[Karen Stein <CloversImp@AOL.COM>]

<< 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.