Ser vs Estar

[Aubrey]

This was complicated for me, & since my 1st Spanish class, I've realized that...well...people understand you even when you use the wrong one, &...maybe it's a finer point of Spanish grammar that can be touched on but not really emphasized until later.

 

I guess what I'm saying is...I *think* I'd rather my kids USE the wrong form of IS than to NOT use either because they're trying to figure out which one to use.

 

Is this too crazy? Is it ok if I just kind-of teach them as synonyms for now & clarify later?

[MorganClassicalPrep]

Hm.

 

Well. I think I'd teach both and clarify which is the right one, but encourage them to use at least a form. In general it seems to be easier to learn things the right way from the beginning, than correct something that was learned incorrectly.

 

And if you were to teach them as synonyms, what happens when you get to past tense? You'd be teaching another concept incorrectly, or at that point you'd have to teach the right usage of ser and estar in order to teach fui/fuiste/etc. vs. estuve/estuviste/estuvo/etc.

 

(As a side note: One of the ways I keep the difference straight is in general, if I am talking about myself- ser is for permanant conditions, estar is for temporary. I will always be from the same place, so, Soy de Maryland. But I won't always be in the same place, so Estoy en casa. Very simplified, but it helps me keep it straight a little. :tongue_smilie:Might help the kids start to develop a sense of what the difference is)

[Aubrey]

Hm.

 

Well. I think I'd teach both and clarify which is the right one, but encourage them to use at least a form. In general it seems to be easier to learn things the right way from the beginning, than correct something that was learned incorrectly.

 

And if you were to teach them as synonyms, what happens when you get to past tense? You'd be teaching another concept incorrectly, or at that point you'd have to teach the right usage of ser and estar in order to teach fui/fuiste/etc. vs. estuve/estuviste/estuvo/etc.

 

(As a side note: One of the ways I keep the difference straight is in general, if I am talking about myself- ser is for permanant conditions, estar is for temporary. I will always be from the same place, so, Soy de Maryland. But I won't always be in the same place, so Estoy en casa. Very simplified, but it helps me keep it straight a little. :tongue_smilie:Might help the kids start to develop a sense of what the difference is)

 

I'd tell them that both forms mean IS but they're used at different times. Simple, but they're expecting to learn more details about it later. I think many things in foreign languages are presented this way (though I can't think of any at the moment, lol).

 

I'm not sure how this would be different in the past tense? Still teaching two forms, still both mean was (unless I've forgotten something important here).

 

Between high school & college combined, I've had about 4yrs of Spanish, & honestly? Very little of that was spent as far into things as the future tense, so...I guess I'm thinking...the easier I can make it to get TO that point & to USE what they learn (as opposed to the formal, grammar-heavy methods I learned w/)...maybe that would be better?

 

I hope I don't sound argumentative...I'm just trying to think through it out loud w/ you guys who know better than I do! :D

[Just Robyn]

I guess it makes me wonder through what means they are learning Spanish. If they are getting a lot of input and not so much output is expected of them (So, lots of audio, perhaps listen and repeat, or listen to these many examples (possibly in the form of a story) and then I'll ask you a question. Not so much in the form of a workbook.), then I would think it fine to give a simplified explanation (like the one you gave, "They're used at different times, but we'll cover the specific rule later.") in the beginning, along with lots of correct input. Then they'll copy what they hear. If they consistently don't copy what they hear I think I would correct them so they don't get the idea that it really doesn't matter and they get to use them whenever they feel fit for now.

[Dmmetler]

Since you're planning to use SfC, and SfC takes the Latin route towards Spanish, focusing on conjugations, translation, and building sentences from the start, I'd go ahead and teach it when the book does. This is the kind of thing that's easier to pick up in a grammar-based program than in a conversation/immersion based one.

[Aubrey]

Since you're planning to use SfC, and SfC takes the Latin route towards Spanish, focusing on conjugations, translation, and building sentences from the start, I'd go ahead and teach it when the book does. This is the kind of thing that's easier to pick up in a grammar-based program than in a conversation/immersion based one.

 

Maybe that will make a difference--I've always learned via, well, means that were *intended* to be immersion-based (but weren't).

 

I found a chart online about the differences, & I was about to print it when I remembered I didn't really want to focus on this issue that much for now & asked here--I actually haven't even looked to see when it's taught in SfC yet. :lol:

[Ester Maria]

It is actually not a subtlety, even if it seems such to you - but amongst the speakers of the language it is one of those things that are immediately recognized if wrong. It is hard to find a mistake of a similar kind to give you the taste of it, but it is maybe close to much and many in English. Whenever a foreigner confuses the two, you understand them, but it also hurts your ears a bit, i.e. you notice it.

 

And here we come to the crux of the issue: are you teaching the language exclusively as a means of practical communication, with a "utilitarian" mindset that whatever makes you understood is "good enough", or are you also aiming to attain a certain degree of sophistication in use - which may not be parallel to that of a native speaker, but will still allow for a more nuanced use of the language and, thus automatically, allow for the possibility of reaching a much (now imagine many :tongue_smilie:) higher level? Once you learn things the wrong way, it is not impossible to reverse the situation, but it is incredibly difficult as the wrong things are semi-"cemented" in your brain... not a problem if you have one or two easy-to-fix problems, but if you miss out on the existence of a distinction in use in cases like this, and learn from the beginning to use interchangeably some forms which are actually not nearly the same and are not a finer point but something used all the time, it might be very difficult later to fix that without having to "think" every time you use it. There is a chance that they might still self-correct via massive input and just figuring out when which is used, but for that you need a lot of exposure... and even then some clarifications might be needed.

 

I would absolutely correct the incorrect usage from the beginning, even if you do not offer a full explanation at this point. When I studied foreign languages at school, things were always addressed that way: "We have not studied that yet, so it does not 'count' as a mistake, but it is actually ...", i.e. not allowing you to form bad habits, but at the same time not overwhelming you and getting into rabbit trails with every mistake of the kind. I try to do the same, either with my daughters or as a tutor.

[redsquirrel]

I think it is always better to begin like you mean to end. That means doing it correctly from the beginning.

 

And it does sound very wrong to experienced ears...and can make you look silly on occasion...

[Pata]

It is actually not a subtlety, even if it seems such to you - but amongst the speakers of the language it is one of those things that are immediately recognized if wrong. It is hard to find a mistake of a similar kind to give you the taste of it, but it is maybe close to much and many in English. Whenever a foreigner confuses the two, you understand them, but it also hurts your ears a bit, i.e. you notice it.

 

 

:iagree: Having lived in a Spanish speaking country, I completely agree with this. I think that it's worth teaching the difference between the two.

[cathmom]

This was complicated for me, & since my 1st Spanish class, I've realized that...well...people understand you even when you use the wrong one, &...maybe it's a finer point of Spanish grammar that can be touched on but not really emphasized until later.

 

I guess what I'm saying is...I *think* I'd rather my kids USE the wrong form of IS than to NOT use either because they're trying to figure out which one to use.

 

Is this too crazy? Is it ok if I just kind-of teach them as synonyms for now & clarify later?

 

I don't know the curriculum you are using, so I don't know how this is presented, but ser vs. estar is NOT a finer point of Spanish grammar! It's basic, it's foundational. But with children I would not give them a list like "You use estar when..." or "You use ser when..." but just use them.

 

"Soy de los Estados Unidos" means "I am from the US." They should learn that you ALWAYS say "Soy de" in that context.

 

Likewise, they would always hear, "¿Cómo estás?" and respond, "Estoy bién." Nothing else fits there!

 

What will you say when they learn how to say their ages? "Tengo diez años." You cannot say "Soy diez" or even "estoy diez" (it bothers my head just to type that!)

 

I agree that the goal should be to do it right from the beginning and learn the situations in context when estar is used and when ser is used.

Edited May 29, 2011 by cathmom

[Just Robyn]

I don't know the curriculum you are using, so I don't know how this is presented, but ser vs. estar is NOT a finer point of Spanish grammar! It's basic, it's foundational. But with children I would not give them a list like "You use estar when..." or "You use ser when..." but just use them.

 

"Soy de los Estados Unidos" means "I am from the US." They should learn that you ALWAYS say "Soy de."

 

Likewise, they would always hear, "¿Cómo estás?" and respond, "Estoy bién." Nothing else fits there!

 

What will you say when they learn how to say their ages? "Tengo diez años." You cannot say "Soy diez" or even "estoy diez" (it bothers my head just to type that!)

 

I agree that the goal should be to do it right from the beginning and learn the situations in context when estar is used and when ser is used.

 

:iagree:with all of this. However, with the description of the program that was given by dmmetler, it sounds like the program is heavier on output than on input, in which case I'm not so sure the above is going to happen and a rule to think about would help. If the program is not giving tons of input and you can't fill that void, I can't see getting around rule teaching.

[cathmom]

:iagree:with all of this. However, with the description of the program that was given by dmmetler, it sounds like the program is heavier on output than on input, in which case I'm not so sure the above is going to happen and a rule to think about would help. If the program is not giving tons of input and you can't fill that void, I can't see getting around rule teaching.

 

In that case, well, LOL, I probably wouldn't use that program! :lol:

[Aubrey]

It is actually not a subtlety, even if it seems such to you - but amongst the speakers of the language it is one of those things that are immediately recognized if wrong. It is hard to find a mistake of a similar kind to give you the taste of it, but it is maybe close to much and many in English. Whenever a foreigner confuses the two, you understand them, but it also hurts your ears a bit, i.e. you notice it.

 

Some native speakers have said it's not as big of a deal as we Americans seem to think. They're not necessarily the BEST speakers of their own language, but that's where the idea began to form for me.

 

Plus, I noticed that non-native English speakers mixed up words like much & many, & I could still understand them. They usually get these "details" w/in a few years of really speaking the language, though. I've avoided more speaking of Spanish for the sake of getting the grammar right *first* & in the end haven't spoken it much at all.

 

And here we come to the crux of the issue: are you teaching the language exclusively as a means of practical communication, with a "utilitarian" mindset that whatever makes you understood is "good enough", or are you also aiming to attain a certain degree of sophistication in use - which may not be parallel to that of a native speaker, but will still allow for a more nuanced use of the language and, thus automatically, allow for the possibility of reaching a much (now imagine many :tongue_smilie:) higher level?

 

First the former, then the latter, I think.

 

Once you learn things the wrong way, it is not impossible to reverse the situation, but it is incredibly difficult as the wrong things are semi-"cemented" in your brain... not a problem if you have one or two easy-to-fix problems, but if you miss out on the existence of a distinction in use in cases like this, and learn from the beginning to use interchangeably some forms which are actually not nearly the same and are not a finer point but something used all the time, it might be very difficult later to fix that without having to "think" every time you use it. There is a chance that they might still self-correct via massive input and just figuring out when which is used, but for that you need a lot of exposure... and even then some clarifications might be needed.

 

You may be right, but for the sake of argument, are you sure this REALLY counts as teaching something WRONG? For ex, when I teach phonics, I only teach a single sound for each letter--a hard 'g' for G, short vowel sounds, etc. *Later* I add the nuances, because my goal is to get them reading as fast as possible.

 

I *think* that the use of ser vs estar will require one to think about it every time *for a while* no matter when it's taught. I'm wondering if that activity is better added at the beginning when everything is new or later, when some degree of comfort has been achieved.

 

Fwiw, every book I've seen teaches it early on, so I know you're probably right, I'm just...well, I can't help questioning basic stuff. :lol:

 

I would absolutely correct the incorrect usage from the beginning, even if you do not offer a full explanation at this point. When I studied foreign languages at school, things were always addressed that way: "We have not studied that yet, so it does not 'count' as a mistake, but it is actually ...", i.e. not allowing you to form bad habits, but at the same time not overwhelming you and getting into rabbit trails with every mistake of the kind. I try to do the same, either with my daughters or as a tutor.

 

For me--& I'm not fluent in any foreign language, so my experience may not be worth much--I have to filter out the minor things in order to grasp the major things. If it doesn't "count," then it goes down the hierarchy, & I ignore it.

 

On that note, though, I know I've had teachers who didn't "count" macrons early on, & so I learned vocab w/out macrons, & that *was* difficult to add on later. Hmm...

[PenKase]

Some native speakers have said it's not as big of a deal as we Americans seem to think. They're not necessarily the BEST speakers of their own language, but that's where the idea began to form for me.

 

FWIW, ser and estar should not be taught as one and the same. Yes, I totally understand the complexity in usage between the two forms of to be....and a non native speaker would initially have trouble choosing the one appropriate, but I also think it extremely important to teach their distinctive usages from the beginning of study. As a native Spanish speaker, I fell all over my face when learning how to speak English, but I did make a concerted effort to practice the language's nuances every time I spoke it. This native speaker would tell you that although you'd be understood, you'd still want to attempt using it in context as much as possible.

[cmarango]

I think that when to use ser or estar is a big deal and it is not that difficult to learn. The problem between the two only comes during translation since we do not discriminate between the two ideas in english.

 

Now, when to use tu/vos/vosotros is an issue that I have completed wimped out on by only using the tu form. I have been told by my dh and other friends that this is not that big of a deal.

[Chelli]

Now, when to use tu/vos/vosotros is an issue that I have completed wimped out on by only using the tu form. I have been told by my dh and other friends that this is not that big of a deal.

 

From what I understand (via my high school and college Spanish instructors) only Spain and Argentina use the vos/vosotros forms. All other Latin American countries do not (I'm sure that I'm wrong about this, so I'm just waiting to get slammed! ;)), thus I was not taught the vos/vosotros forms at all during my Spanish studies with the idea that if you need to learn it because you are in Spain or Argentina then you can pick it up pretty quickly and easily.

 

Fast forward to the end of college where I was in Buenos Aires for 6 weeks...I quickly started kicking myself for not paying closer attention to those vos/vosotros verb conjugations but in the end I did pick them up within a week or so.

[cathmom]

You may be right, but for the sake of argument, are you sure this REALLY counts as teaching something WRONG? For ex, when I teach phonics, I only teach a single sound for each letter--a hard 'g' for G, short vowel sounds, etc. *Later* I add the nuances, because my goal is to get them reading as fast as possible.

 

Right, you wouldn't sit down with a young child and say, ok, this letter can make 5 different sounds, here are the rules when you use this sound, here are the rules when you use this sound...I think in the same way, you wouldn't say to a child "here is when you use ser" and "here is when you use estar." I think when it's presented like that, like they are equivalent, that makes it so a non-native speaker seems to never go beyond that and has to think "is this ser or estar?"

 

I *think* that the use of ser vs estar will require one to think about it every time *for a while* no matter when it's taught. I'm wondering if that activity is better added at the beginning when everything is new or later, when some degree of comfort has been achieved.

 

 

 

I don't see how you would do that without practicing things that are wrong.

 

I think sometimes we introduce artificial ideas when presenting things like this. For example, when teaching my oldest German, I told him, "In German, "wer" is "who" and "wo" is "where" - don't be messed up by that!" and in doing so, I messed him up so that he ALWAYS had to think "Is it wer or wo I want???" I felt so bad about that! But even in teaching my German classes, I have to fight myself NOT to point it out because I think it's interesting. So when we English speakers begin studying Spanish and immediately it's presented as the ser/estar dichotomy, of course we mess it up! But if you just begin learning the contexts in which both are used, the problems will be lessened IMO.

[Ester Maria]

I've avoided more speaking of Spanish for the sake of getting the grammar right *first* & in the end haven't spoken it much at all.

This is a common problem... Rooted, possibly, in perfectionism :), which is generally the enemy of learning past a certain stage. I can relate to that.

 

But the two aproaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive: when studying, at home, in the quiet of your own place, or when talking to somebody for the purposes of learning, I find that it is good to go "analytic" and "correct", to talk while actively thinking what you are talking and why you are talking it this way (of course, with time many things become entirely automatic, but it is important that the things that are becoming automatic are the correct ones). On the other hand, when "in the world", when using the language (not for the sake of learning, but using as a part of life), it is a time to, maybe, put most of that theory aside, most of the thinking aside, and just let it flow, to the best of your ability. I think that way you get the best of both worlds, just if you make a mental "cut" between "talking for learning, in an analytical setting" and "talking as a part of life, where communication is primary".

You may be right, but for the sake of argument, are you sure this REALLY counts as teaching something WRONG? For ex, when I teach phonics, I only teach a single sound for each letter--a hard 'g' for G, short vowel sounds, etc. *Later* I add the nuances, because my goal is to get them reading as fast as possible.

Correct, but put things in a perspective: how much later? Do you really allow the kids minds to "get used to" G being read in only one possible way, or do you switch to nuances fairly quickly, probably within the same semester or academic year? Your kids will also be reading English all their lives, consistently, so even if they do "mislearn" something at the beginning, it will self-correct relatively quickly and painlessly, but not so when you have something like Spanish, which is not so present in their lives to just pick up. You do not have to teach all the nuances right away - in fact, it would probably be overwhelming and a disaster - but those that you intend to use should be taught, in my opinion, so the little you use (and then that "little" will grow) is used correctly and can be corrected all times, so good habits are fostered.

I have to filter out the minor things in order to grasp the major things. If it doesn't "count," then it goes down the hierarchy, & I ignore it.

No, you think you ignore it ;), but in reality you do notice it happening, especially if you commit the same mistake many times. For example I always correct subjunctives, even total beginners. They have no clue why, what is this thing and I tell them not to worry about it, but then later when they get to study subjunctives, they find the concept a lot more intuitive, actually, because they had subconsciously already generated some "rules" for when those are used.

 

If you want me to get a little bit theoretical on this issue, the catch is that people, when they learn a language naturally (as little children, from their surroundings), do not really *learn* it, but *reconstruct* it - they just reconstruct whatever happen to be the rules of the language, they infer those. When learning a language analytically, you have a great advantage that you are being taught explicitly that which would normally have to be inferred, BUT, you STILL "reconstruct" rules... and if you are given an impression, consistently, that some forms do not require subjunctives, or that there are no "real" distinctions between some things (like ser and estar), and nobody corrects you and you do not have the whole childhood with formal education to just "pick it up", you reconstruct the language incorrectly, and that messes you up a little bit later. In a way, you pick up the worst of both approaches: "having to think" that you got from the analytical approach, but at the same time failure in relying to your intuition, which you could not develop properly. Then people have to "unlearn" and "relearn" things, which is possible, but just hard, time-consuming and unnecessary... better to learn it all correctly from the beginning, IMO. :)

Edited May 29, 2011 by Ester Maria

[Matryoshka]

From what I understand (via my high school and college Spanish instructors) only Spain and Argentina use the vos/vosotros forms. All other Latin American countries do not (I'm sure that I'm wrong about this, so I'm just waiting to get slammed! ;)), thus I was not taught the vos/vosotros forms at all during my Spanish studies with the idea that if you need to learn it because you are in Spain or Argentina then you can pick it up pretty quickly and easily.

 

Tú and vos are sinuglar; vosotros is plural. I'm fairly sure the use of vosotros is limited to Spain, but there it is used pretty much to the exclusion of Uds.

 

Tú is used in Spain and most of Latin America; vos (as a subject rather than object pronoun) is used in Argentina and some other places in Latin America.

 

What's a bit funny is that in Spain and Argetina, the 2nd person, both singular and plural, are completely different. Spain has tú/vosotros; Argentina has vos/ustedes. Although... I'm pretty sure vos is colloquial speech, not formal, and that it's not what's taught in school (please, someone correct me if I'm wrong - my Argentinian Spanish is mostly limited to copious reading of Mafalda comics and La besa de la mujer araña). I've only seen vos taught in one formal Spanish text, and it was amusingly one from Europe, which taught that it was the (entire) Latin American second person singular. :ohmy:

 

The conjugations for vos and vosotros are not the same, but similar.

 

Vosotros tenéis - you all want

vos tenés - you (singular) want

 

and then, tú tienes.

 

And to the original question, Aaaaah!!! Just thinking about teaching ser and estar as the same thing make me want to :willy_nilly: . Even though it does sometimes bug me that they have to have this nuance of meaning the rest of the world seems to do fine without (not to mention the whole imperfect/preterite thing) :toetap05:, the nuance is there. Using one or the other can make a sentence mean something different.

 

¿Cómo estás? = How are you?

¿Cómo eres? = what kind of a person are you?

 

As someone else said, a good way to think of it is permanent (or defining characteristic) or temporary/changing condition.

Las uvas son verdes - the grapes are green

Las uvas están verdes - the grapes are not ripe

Las chicas son listas - the girls are smart

Las chicas están listas - the girls are ready (to go)

Los niños son aburridos - the kids are boring

Los niños están aburridos - the kids are bored

 

(I did lift those last three examples from my kids' Spanish text... :D)

 

Spanish abounds with these kinds of differences. When to use preterite/imperfect? When to use por or para? When to use subjunctive mood which has 6 whole tenses when we seem to get along just fine without using it in English at all?

Edited May 29, 2011 by matroyshka

[wapiti]

for the sake of argument, are you sure this REALLY counts as teaching something WRONG?

 

IMO, even with my limited Spanish, yes. I agree with the others.

[Just Robyn]

 

You may be right, but for the sake of argument, are you sure this REALLY counts as teaching something WRONG? For ex, when I teach phonics, I only teach a single sound for each letter--a hard 'g' for G, short vowel sounds, etc. *Later* I add the nuances, because my goal is to get them reading as fast as possible.

I teach the hard sound of 'g' only at first, but also give books to read that exclude words with the soft 'g' sound. So, rather than giving them partial information and allowing them to apply it incorrectly, I'm giving them partial information and making sure they aren't confronted with a situation where they have to either apply it incorrectly or learn more rules. That would be like only teaching 'ser' and then carefully excluding exposure to and production of sentences and phrases that would require 'estar'. That does sound like a good approach if you can make it work with the curriculum you're using. You could find some extra 'ser' or 'estar' lessons and practice exercises to do first, then move into the lessons in the book.

[Ariston]

This was complicated for me, & since my 1st Spanish class, I've realized that...well...people understand you even when you use the wrong one, &...maybe it's a finer point of Spanish grammar that can be touched on but not really emphasized until later.

 

I guess what I'm saying is...I *think* I'd rather my kids USE the wrong form of IS than to NOT use either because they're trying to figure out which one to use.

 

Is this too crazy? Is it ok if I just kind-of teach them as synonyms for now & clarify later?

 

I wholeheartedly agree with what the others have said...that using ser y estar interchangeably should in no way be condoned, even if it is a common mistake for English speakers! And I have to say, using the wrong one in some or most cases might still be understood, but in many others would be very confusing or not understood at all. If someone asked me 'de donde estas'? instead of 'de donde eres?' I would not think they were asking me where I grew up unless I realized they were an English speaker and could piece together the mistake they were making. Likewise for someone asking me "como eres?" instead of 'como estas?" I would totally not get that they were asking me how I was

 

I mean they really don't mean the same thing, so I can't imagine why you'd tell your child that they do. They are merely translated into the same word (is) in English. But they are TWO DIFFERENT WORDS. It just seems like in the long run, it will cause more problems than its worth. To me, it is not in any way a 'finer point' of grammar but rather fundamental. I think its much more fundamental than the example of 'much' versus 'many.' I think its closer to the example someone else said of saying 'soy 5 años' instead of 'tengo 5 años.' If you asked someone in English "how old are you?" and they said "I have 17 years" yes we would understand them, but at the same time I can't imagine actually teaching them that its OK to say that!

 

Also, there's a big difference between your two sentiments...on the one hand, yes, its better to use the wrong one than not to speak. BUT, I just can't fathom actually telling kids they can choose which one to use at their discretion because, well, that's just so not true! For instance, my 4 year old often says 'Tienes hambre' instead of 'tengo hambre' (much the way a toddler will say 'hold you' when they want to be picked up.) Now, I am thrilled that she spontaneously speaks Spanish and am not upset that she makes this error. I don't sit her down and review conjugations when she says it. But I make sure that she hears the correct usage plenty of times and when it comes time for more formal learning, there's no way I'd teach her she can just use any form of 'tener' because its easier and people will understand her anyway!

 

So, while I totally get that mistakes will be common and that one should be flexible with one's demands, I just can't imagine actually telling students that the words are interchangeable which is in fact quite untrue.

[Dmmetler]

For what it's work, SfC does have dialogues in Spanish, which are designed to build the conversational skills as well-but it also focuses on grammar and grammar rules and forms very early. It's basically Latin For Children, only in Spanish.

[Ariston]

You may be right, but for the sake of argument, are you sure this REALLY counts as teaching something WRONG? For ex, when I teach phonics, I only teach a single sound for each letter--a hard 'g' for G, short vowel sounds, etc. *Later* I add the nuances, because my goal is to get them reading as fast as possible.

 

I *think* that the use of ser vs estar will require one to think about it every time *for a while* no matter when it's taught. I'm wondering if that activity is better added at the beginning when everything is new or later, when some degree of comfort has been achieved.

 

 

Just wanted to quickly respond to this too...Yes, it is actually WRONG. :tongue_smilie: Instead of thinking of them as two ways to say 'is', i'd think of them as two different words with different meanings, which happen to have the same translation in English. Just looked up 'to be' on dictionary.com and it lists 10 different meanings. It just so happens that in Spanish there are different words for some of those different meanings.

 

And yes, sometimes they'll have to think about which one to use. But for a lot of phrases, they really should not have to think about which ones to use because they are so ingrained. Como estas, de donde es usted, soy de USA, que es la fecha, etc. All of these phrases which you have drilled into them will be useful when they are later old enough to actually step back and think about the two words and the difference in their meaning.

[Meriwether]

(please, someone correct me if I'm wrong - my Argentinian Spanish is mostly limited to copious reading of Mafalda comics and La besa de la mujer araña). :ohmy:

 

QUOTE]

 

I just wanted to say I love Mafalda.

 

ETA: I would teach the differences between ser and estar, but I do understand where you are coming from. If I waited until I could get all the prepositions correct, I would never use Spanish. I have a dear friend from Bolivia. She has lived in the US for over 35 years and speaks English very well. I always know when she is agitated, though; the prepositions are the first things to go!

Edited May 29, 2011 by Meriwether

[Ariston]

Tú is used in Spain and most of Latin America; vos (as a subject rather than object pronoun) is used in Argentina and some other places in Latin America.

 

What's a bit funny is that in Spain and Argetina, the 2nd person, both singular and plural, are completely different. Spain has tú/vosotros; Argentina has vos/ustedes. Although... I'm pretty sure vos is colloquial speech, not formal, and that it's not what's taught in school (please, someone correct me if I'm wrong - my Argentinian Spanish is mostly limited to copious reading of Mafalda comics and La besa de la mujer araña).

 

 

I'm sorry, I'm one of those annoying people who doesn't know how to quote multiple posts in the same reply :glare:

 

Just wanted to add that in Uruguay and Argentina, vos is the accepted form for 'you'....it is used everywhere, by every class and station of person. So I wouldn't classify it as a colloquial use. It is simply the word for 'you' in that part of the world. The president would say it, your teacher would use it with you, etc. (Tu is also understood and used occasionally.) Trying to think of an example in English...maybe one of the many ways in which American English has departed from British. For example I remember being taught when to use 'shall' and when to use 'will', but I don't know what the point was since nobody uses it on this side of the pond.

 

I remember my grandfather would always remark on a neighbor of his who was a professor and only spoke in the 'tu' form....it would be like living next to some guy who used 'shall'. There is nothing wrong with it, but it would sound affected and foreign. So use of voseo is more deeply ingrained than just being colloquial...it is really just how they talk. (Though of course it is the informal 'you', so it is informal.)

 

I speak to my kids in the vos form I'd say 90% of the time. I'm not sure what I'll do when they get old enough to learn conjugations...It will sound a little wrong to me to teach them the tu forms, but at the same time they have to be able to understand them to speak to people from other countries. Luckily for most verbs, they are very similar (Vos tenés, tu tienes; vos podés, tu puedes.) Maybe I'll teach them both? Ugh...sounds cumbersome...

[Matryoshka]

Just wanted to add that in Uruguay and Argentina, vos is the accepted form for 'you'....it is used everywhere, by every class and station of person. So I wouldn't classify it as a colloquial use. It is simply the word for 'you' in that part of the world. The president would say it, your teacher would use it with you, etc. (Tu is also understood and used occasionally.)

 

I may have phrased that badly... I didn't mean it was slang or only used by a certain "class" - what I was uncertain about is whether the vos form was taught as the correct way in grammar lessons in those countries. Since it sounds like you are from one of those countries, could you satisfy my curiosity? :D

 

If you are in grammar classes there, is the vos form used in conjugations in place of the tú form, and you only learn tú as something to know in case you have to interact with Spanish speakers from other countries (similar to how vosotros would be treated in Mexico), or are they taught alongside each other, or ??? What is written in the textbooks for the 2nd person singular? If you chant a conjugation, what is there... tengo, tenés. tiene or tengo, tienes, tiene? Like I said, I've only seen it even mentioned in one grammar text for foreign learners, but I've of course never seen a Spanish grammar text for a native Argentinian child. :) Is it used in speech but not taught formally in school (this is what I was thinking might be the case and was wondering if I was wrong about)

 

Ooo, and while I'm asking questions, just 'cause I love learning about this kind of stuff, I know how to conjugate vos in the present tense... how does it get conjugated in other tenses, like preterite or conditional? Is it like tú or different? I only ask because after all those Mafaldas I can't seem to remember noticing its distinctive structure in anything other than the present tense (though it's been a while... ;))

Edited May 29, 2011 by matroyshka

[Aubrey]

I teach the hard sound of 'g' only at first, but also give books to read that exclude words with the soft 'g' sound. So, rather than giving them partial information and allowing them to apply it incorrectly, I'm giving them partial information and making sure they aren't confronted with a situation where they have to either apply it incorrectly or learn more rules. That would be like only teaching 'ser' and then carefully excluding exposure to and production of sentences and phrases that would require 'estar'. That does sound like a good approach if you can make it work with the curriculum you're using. You could find some extra 'ser' or 'estar' lessons and practice exercises to do first, then move into the lessons in the book.

 

This is a really good point. And obviously, I have no problem pronouncing 'g' sounds correctly in front of them.

 

(On a side note, 4yo came across a word that started w/ A but made a short O sound. She said, "A says ahhhhh," with her dramatic frown, and added, "A LIED!!") :lol:

 

So maybe instead of holding off on ser vs estar until the end of year 1 or later, I should teach one (which one?) from the first chapter and avoid the use of the other until...it comes up in chapter 17. That seems fine to me. Yes? No?

 

I really appreciate this whole conversation, guys. It sounds like I should at the least just follow the book, but it helps me SO much to understand WHY. Otherwise I'm quite subversive. :lol:

[Aubrey]

I wholeheartedly agree with what the others have said...that using ser y estar interchangeably should in no way be condoned, even if it is a common mistake for English speakers! And I have to say, using the wrong one in some or most cases might still be understood, but in many others would be very confusing or not understood at all. If someone asked me 'de donde estas'? instead of 'de donde eres?' I would not think they were asking me where I grew up unless I realized they were an English speaker and could piece together the mistake they were making. Likewise for someone asking me "como eres?" instead of 'como estas?" I would totally not get that they were asking me how I was

 

Oh, these are good points.

 

I mean they really don't mean the same thing, so I can't imagine why you'd tell your child that they do. They are merely translated into the same word (is) in English. But they are TWO DIFFERENT WORDS.

 

Do you think it might be helpful to translate them differently, at least at the outset? It would make a kind-of stilted translation, but surely *that* would be ok to smooth out later...

 

For ex: "De donde esta?" could be (I apologize for the grammar): "Where are you at?" :lol: "De donde eres?" could be "Where are you [from]?" Other translated things add words in brackets to aid in understanding...maybe that's a good thing for beginners here, too?

 

I do think, after reading all of these replies, that you all are brilliant for NOT teaching these as synonyms. It seems to me that they are *always* taught that way: "These words mean the same thing, but they're used in different contexts. Memorize the contexts." Approaching them as two different words that *don't* mean the same thing is very...well, revolutionary for me.

 

It just seems like in the long run, it will cause more problems than its worth. To me, it is not in any way a 'finer point' of grammar but rather fundamental. I think its much more fundamental than the example of 'much' versus 'many.' I think its closer to the example someone else said of saying 'soy 5 años' instead of 'tengo 5 años.' If you asked someone in English "how old are you?" and they said "I have 17 years" yes we would understand them, but at the same time I can't imagine actually teaching them that its OK to say that!

 

Also, there's a big difference between your two sentiments...on the one hand, yes, its better to use the wrong one than not to speak. BUT, I just can't fathom actually telling kids they can choose which one to use at their discretion because, well, that's just so not true! For instance, my 4 year old often says 'Tienes hambre' instead of 'tengo hambre' (much the way a toddler will say 'hold you' when they want to be picked up.) Now, I am thrilled that she spontaneously speaks Spanish and am not upset that she makes this error. I don't sit her down and review conjugations when she says it. But I make sure that she hears the correct usage plenty of times and when it comes time for more formal learning, there's no way I'd teach her she can just use any form of 'tener' because its easier and people will understand her anyway!

 

So, while I totally get that mistakes will be common and that one should be flexible with one's demands, I just can't imagine actually telling students that the words are interchangeable which is in fact quite untrue.

 

That makes sense. One of the things I regret about learning languages is that we don't have the freedom to make child-like mistakes in the beginning, BUT I hadn't thought about the level of exposure kids get that ultimately corrects these things naturally.

[Aubrey]

For what it's work, SfC does have dialogues in Spanish, which are designed to build the conversational skills as well-but it also focuses on grammar and grammar rules and forms very early. It's basically Latin For Children, only in Spanish.

 

That's why I chose it, lol. It's very much the way my brain works. From what I've seen (so far--just planning a few weeks--not teaching it yet), it's a brilliant program. But I realize that that opinion would put me in the minority. ;)

 

LfC is coming soon, too, & at this point, I'm thrilled to use anything from that company.

[Matryoshka]

For ex: "De donde esta?" could be (I apologize for the grammar): "Where are you at?" :lol: "De donde eres?" could be "Where are you [from]?" Other translated things add words in brackets to aid in understanding...maybe that's a good thing for beginners here, too? .

 

The problem with those examples is that you wouldn't ever say "¿De dónde está?" It doesn't make any sense. You would say ¿Dónde estás? which means "where are you?" -- "¿De dónde eres?" does mean "where are you from?" The 'de' is the 'from'.

 

I do think, however, that it's a great idea to translate some otherwise identical sentences differently, but ones that would make sense and be used in Spanish - for good examples, go back to the post I made earlier. And yes, I lifted them from my kids' text - although my Spanish is quite good, it suffers from lack of use, and with something that nuanced, I don't trust myself to avoid putting my foot in it and giving an invalid teaching example - I'd rather be sure it's right.

 

I have seen lots of programs that avoid explicitly teaching the difference at the beginning and use both, but they are very careful to always use them correctly in context. My guess is that they are also expecting these programs to be used with a teacher who can correctly model them, and correct the children. These programs are also for younger children and I think meant to be used in an immersion-type program.

[Aubrey]

The problem with those examples is that you wouldn't ever say "¿De dónde está?" It doesn't make any sense. You would say ¿Dónde estás? which means "where are you?" -- "¿De dónde eres?" does mean "where are you from?" The 'de' is the 'from'.

 

Ok, sorry--I *have* actually memorized that the right way, I was just copying your post, which (duh!) was illustrating why that was the wrong construction.

[Spock]

From what I understand (via my high school and college Spanish instructors) only Spain and Argentina use the vos/vosotros forms. All other Latin American countries do not (I'm sure that I'm wrong about this, so I'm just waiting to get slammed! ;)), thus I was not taught the vos/vosotros forms at all during my Spanish studies with the idea that if you need to learn it because you are in Spain or Argentina then you can pick it up pretty quickly and easily.

 

Fast forward to the end of college where I was in Buenos Aires for 6 weeks...I quickly started kicking myself for not paying closer attention to those vos/vosotros verb conjugations but in the end I did pick them up within a week or so.

 

 

Guatemalans also use "vos"--but for a singular form among close friends/family, much like "tu". It is often used interchangeably with tu in that context.

 

Also, if Bible reading will matter to you, it is important to be comfortable understanding vosotros forms, because they appear in the Bible a lot.

 

However, those aren't crucial concepts for beginners. My Spanish classes (9th and 10th grade, and all 4 years of college) all pretty much skipped vosotros, just mentioning its existence. However, I have had no trouble understanding it during my 19 years of marriage to a Guatemalan, attending Spanish church services.

 

For ser/estar--we try to raise our children bilingual. I do correct these errors (as well as "soy 9 años" instead of "tengo 9..."). However, I don't really teach Spanish grammar directly until around 5th grade or more, when I do teach rules for things they haven't picked up from usage.

[cmarango]

Just for educational purposes:

 

In Colombia, tu is used among friends unless males are talking to each other, then they use vos. :001_huh: I have found my mil using vos every now and then. Vosotros is occasionally used, but I have only heard it a handful of times. Since I am female, my dh said that tu would be acceptable in all (familiar) circumstances.

[Matryoshka]

Just for educational purposes:

 

In Colombia, tu is used among friends unless males are talking to each other, then they use vos. :001_huh: I have found my mil using vos every now and then. Vosotros is occasionally used, but I have only heard it a handful of times. Since I am female, my dh said that tu would be acceptable in all (familiar) circumstances.

 

That is very interesting!!

[Mabelen]

Tú and vos are sinuglar; vosotros is plural. I'm fairly sure the use of vosotros is limited to Spain, but there it is used pretty much to the exclusion of Uds.

 

Tú is used in Spain and most of Latin America; vos (as a subject rather than object pronoun) is used in Argentina and some other places in Latin America.

 

What's a bit funny is that in Spain and Argetina, the 2nd person, both singular and plural, are completely different. Spain has tú/vosotros; Argentina has vos/ustedes. Although... I'm pretty sure vos is colloquial speech, not formal, and that it's not what's taught in school (please, someone correct me if I'm wrong - my Argentinian Spanish is mostly limited to copious reading of Mafalda comics and La besa de la mujer araña). I've only seen vos taught in one formal Spanish text, and it was amusingly one from Europe, which taught that it was the (entire) Latin American second person singular. :ohmy:

 

In Spain we still use the formal singular and plural forms usted and ustedes alongside the informal forms tú and vosotros, although it is true that as a society we have evolved not to be as formal as we used to and this is reflected in language usage. In practical terms this means that you only use usted and ustedes in very formal contexts i.e., I would probably use tú for an elderly person that is a friend of a friend or a friend of a relative (e.g. my mom's friend) or my kid's teacher or doctor but I would not address someone in high authority such as a judge, a police officer or a school principal with the form tú.

[Matryoshka]

In Spain we still use the formal singular and plural forms usted and ustedes alongside the informal forms tú and vosotros, although it is true that as a society we have evolved not to be as formal as we used to and this is reflected in language usage. In practical terms this means that you only use usted and ustedes in very formal contexts i.e., I would probably use tú for an elderly person that is a friend of a friend or a friend of a relative (e.g. my mom's friend) or my kid's teacher or doctor but I would not address someone in high authority such as a judge, a police officer or a school principal with the form tú.

 

Yeah, that's why I said "pretty much... " :) When I lived there I did hear usted used in very limited contexts - I'd use it when speaking to a store clerk, but we did not even use it with our teachers.

 

The reason I singled ustedesout as being particularly rare is that it's hard to find a group of judges, police officers or school principals to address as a group. Vosotros rules. :D

 

Having lived in Spain where tú is so widely used, I get all confused about when to use it when talking to someone from Latin America, where usted is much more common, but even there usage differs from country to country. Much more relaxing in Spain where you reserve usted for really formal situations.