2007-11-06 11:30:13 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
In Spanish - sorry I should of put that in my title question
2007-11-06 11:34:46 · update #1
The "it could change" rule is actually a rule that is made up to try to help students learn how to use ser and estar.. but native speakers just know how to use them because they are used in certain situations in certain ways. You'll find soon that there are some words that can be used with both ser and estar, but they give different meanings or indicate a different attitude about the situation.
In the case of "muerto", if you use "ser muerto" it would be interpreted as a passive form, "to be killed".
Franco está muerto. -> "Franco is dead."
Franco es muerto. -> "Franco is killed (regularly on this video game)."
2007-11-06 18:57:44 · answer #1 · answered by drshorty 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well I guess it depends on how you look at it. True, it's not like a person can come back to life. But with that being said it's not like it's possible for a person to have been dead their entire life either. At one point or another the person was alive and then went from being alive to dead. So I guess for Spanish speakers the state of death isn't viewed as completely being permanent in that sense. It's the same thing like when a person says "Estoy vivo" I'm alive. Sure that person may be alive today but that doesn't mean that they will always be alive, so "estar" is used.
Hope that helps a bit.
2007-11-06 20:37:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There's no logical explanation for that. It's just the way it's said.
'Estar' is also used with 'vivo'. So, at least, this one makes more sense.
"ser muerto" would only be used for the passive voice, usually in the past and meaning 'killed':
El hombre fue muerto por los bandidos = the man was killed by the bandits.
.
2007-11-06 19:38:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋