Cartagena is in Colombia

Luchadorconan

Luchadorconan

Senior Member
Kansas
English - United States
Buen día,

Tengo entendido que se usa el verbo estar para ubicar las cosas, pero creo que suena mejor decir Cartagena es en Colombia. ¿O suena mejor decir Cartagena está en Colombia?

Les doy las gracias de antemano,

Conan
 
Last edited:
    • Hola:
    Luchadorconan said:
    pero creo que suena mejor decir Cartegena es en Colombia.
    Click to expand...
    La verdad es que es incorrecto por donde lo mires, un/a hablante nativo/a de castellano siempre emplearía estar para dar la localización geográfica de un sustantivo (y para expresar la ubicación en la avasalladora mayoría de los casos). En lenguaje muy descuidado podrías a lo lejos escuchar a alguien decir Cartagena es en Colombia, pero para mí esto es sólo una forma awkward de decir Cartagena es (un lugar/ una playa (que está)) en Colombia.

    G.
     
    And I think @gvergara will agree that even if it is vaguely possible that some native speaker somewhere might possibly on some rare occasion say "Cartagena es en Colombia," non-natives certainly shouldn't.
     
    No es un error relevante para la pregunta tampoco, no cambia en nada la respuesta, podría pensarse incluso en un nombre inventado.
     
    Luchadorconan said:
    Buen día,

    Tengo entendido que se usa el verbo estar para ubicar las cosas, pero creo que suena mejor decir Cartegena es en Colombia. ¿O suena mejor decir Cartegena está en Colombia?

    Les doy las gracias de antemano,

    Conan
    Click to expand...
    No, sería "está" porque este verbo significa -entre otras cosas- ubicación, lugar, y sin embargo "es" tiene -entre otros- un significado de identidad.


    Cartagena está en Colombia: located in Colombia :tick:
    Juan está enfermo:     a passing situation :tick:
    Juan es un hombre:     a permanent trait of him :tick:

    Pero siempre que expreses una ubicación, se usa "estar", aunque no sea un estado permanente.
    Mi casa está al final de la calle: permanent :tick:
    El libro está en la mesa: it might be a permanent situation or not, who knows? :tick:
    El libro estaba en la mesa hace dos minutos, pero alguien se lo ha llevado: it wasn´t a permanent situation, someone took it away, but as it´s an idea of location, use "estar" :tick:
     
    gato radioso said:
    se usa "estar", aunque no sea un estado permanente.
    Click to expand...
    I think this is the source of the confusion. Spanish learners are also taught (unhelpfully, I think) to associate "ser" with permanent characteristics and "estar" with temporary conditions.

    Obviously, this more-or-less works with many adjectives: Juan es alto. Juan está nervioso ahora porque tiene un examen.

    So when non-natives hear "Cartagena está en Colombia (o España)," it makes us think that this may not be a permanent situation; that maybe there are plans to pack up the whole city and move it to Canada.

    (And not to digress, but you can imagine how Spanish learners feel when they see "Juan está muerto" or "Juan es estudiante.")
     
    gvergara said:
    Or in Chile, we have our own Cartagena :D


    Not always, strictly speaking. You do not say that the reunión está:cross:en el quinto piso, but es:tick:en el quinto piso.
    Click to expand...
    Claro.
    Pero en ese sentido que comentas sería más bien como tener lugar, celebrarse...la fiesta es en casa de Pedro/¿sabe usted dónde es el mitin del partido conservador?, por ejemplo, no una ubicación permanente (como sería el caso de Cartagena).

    Y para empeorar más las cosas: :confused:
    -¿Cómo estuvo el mitin del partido conservador? (preguntamos una opinión a un amigo, el resultado de algo)
    -Pues fue un aburrimiento. El orador era el alcalde y estuvo pesadísimo.
     
    gato radioso said:
    Pero en ese sentido que comentas sería más bien como tener lugar, celebrarse.
    Click to expand...
    En efecto, pero aún así responde a la pregunta ¿Dónde?, lo cual confunde a muchos/as aprendices. Yo cada vez le encuentro más grietas al tradicional contraste permanente-temporal de ser y estar.
     
    Last edited:
    gvergara said:
    En efecto, pero aún así responde a la pregunta ¿Dónde?, lo cual confunde a muchos/as aprendiendo dices. Yo cada vez le encuentro más grietas al tradicional contraste permanente-temporal de ser y estar.
    Click to expand...
    Si, tienes toda la razón. Yo, a amigos que están aprendiendo español les digo que si tienen que aprender alguna regla que sea algo sencillo y fácil de memorizar... pero que en casos tan resbaladizos como ser/estar es simplemente cuestión de oidos, escuchar mucho a los nativos hasta que las cosas salgan automáticamente con naturalidad, casi sin pensar.
     
    Luchadorconan said:
    Tengo entendido que se usa el verbo estar para ubicar las cosas, pero creo que suena mejor decir Cartegena es en Colombia.
    Click to expand...

    You already have your answer, but I wonder what made you think it sounded better with ser. Did someone tell you that? Did you see it somewhere?

    I ask because indicating location is one of the most basic functions of estar, so much so that non-natives have to learn the exception of using ser to indicate the location of an event.

    I'm not trying to put you down; just curious about what led to your question, since you obviously have a fairly good command of Spanish.
     
    Luchadorconan said:
    From what I've experienced, the rule of using ser with events is the traditional approach.
    Click to expand...

    No, it's not. The "traditional" approach, as regards teaching non-natives to speak Spanish, is that ser is used for permanent conditions and estar for temporary ones. An event is temporary, so it should, according to this "rule," use estar, while a city is (relatively) permanent, so it should use ser, but of course that is not the case.

    That is what gvergara (and User) was referring to. That is, the "rule" taught to foreigners has many exceptions.
     
    gengo said:
    You already have your answer, but I wonder what made you think it sounded better with ser. Did someone tell you that? Did you see it somewhere?

    I ask because indicating location is one of the most basic functions of estar, so much so that non-natives have to learn the exception of using ser to indicate the location of an event.

    I'm not trying to put you down; just curious about what led to your question, since you obviously have a fairly good command of Spanish.
    Click to expand...
    It's a thoughtful question. I had a vague notion from something I read long ago that the example is more a case of identification as opposed to location. Also, my wife is a native Spanish speaker who came to the U.S. when she was 35. She prefers ser in this context. A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish 4th Edition quotes Borges: "¿Dónde es la casa de su amigo?" They also provide a second example "Turku es en Finlandia, ¿no?." It notes that these are colloquial uses with nouns that are permanent fixtures or features.
     
    gengo said:
    No, it's not. The "traditional" approach, as regards teaching non-natives to speak Spanish, is that ser is used for permanent conditions and estar for temporary ones. An event is temporary, so it should, according to this "rule," use estar, while a city is (relatively) permanent, so it should use ser, but of course that is not the case.

    That is what gvergara (and User) was referring to. That is, the "rule" taught to foreigners has many exceptions.
    Click to expand...
    That's a bit dismissive, friend. Apparently, you came across the permanent vs temporary rule somewhere in your journey with Spanish, but my experience with "traditional" methods is that they don't teach that because it's wrong. It would be a poor source of information if it did.
     
    Luchadorconan said:
    It's a thoughtful question. I had a vague notion from something I read long ago that the example is more a case of identification as opposed to location. Also, my wife is a native Spanish speaker who came to the U.S. when she was 35. She prefers ser in this context. A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish 4th Edition quotes Borges: "¿Dónde es la casa de su amigo?" They also provide a second example "Turku es en Finlandia, ¿no?." It notes that these are colloquial uses with nouns that are permanent fixtures or features.
    Click to expand...

    ¿Dice la cuarta edición de A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish en qué cuento de Borges está esa frase? Tal vez sea un personaje cuyo manejo del lenguaje es pobre. No todo lo que escribe Borges es elevado, puede reproducir un habla coloquial.
     
    Luchadorconan said:
    That's a bit dismissive, friend. Apparently, you came across the permanent vs temporary rule somewhere in your journey with Spanish, but my experience with "traditional" methods is that they don't teach that because it's wrong. It would be a poor source of information if it did.
    Click to expand...

    It is routinely discussed in this forum that what I said is the conventional method for teaching Spanish to foreigners. This is not something that I made up on my own, or something unusual. And I wasn't being dismissive at all. I was merely trying to explain the comments made by two other foreros in this thread, since you didn't seem to understand those.
     
    Quinta edición de A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish:
    33.3.2 Estar to indicate location
    Estar is used to say where something is, but ser must be used for the location of events, as explained
    at 33.2.5.
    Sitges está en Cataluña
    p.418

    (1) With nouns that are permanent fixtures or features there is a colloquial tendency to use ser:

    ¿Dónde es la casa de tu amigo? Where’s your friend’s house?
    Aquí era la plaza de las Carretas (JLB, Arg.,

    This is where Carretas Square used to be
    dialogue)

    p. 419
     
    Mister Draken said:
    Aquí era la plaza de las Carretas (JLB, Arg.,
    Click to expand...
    I'm not a native (as you well know), but this sounds okay to me. The idea would be "[Este lugar] era la plaza de las Carretas."

    I perceive it as very, very different from "Cartagena es en Colombia/España/Chile." (Esos señores conquistadores no eran muy creativos...)

    Am I wrong?
     
    No suena mal para un registro coloquial.

    Se trata aparentemente de un diálogo de Borges que el Manual no cita (y que no puedo encontrar):

    –¿Dónde es la casa de tu amigo?
    –Aquí era la plaza de las Carretas.
     
    User With No Name said:
    The idea would be "[Este lugar] era la plaza de las Carretas."

    Am I wrong?
    Click to expand...
    I am in no position to state that you are/ this is right right or wrong, but I do share your line of thinking, and I also think that Aquí refers to (and can in fact be replaced by) Ese lugar.

    Luchadorconan said:
    ¿Dónde es la casa de su amigo?
    Click to expand...
    Interesting, come to think of it, I feel that in questions introduced by ¿dónde? ser might from time to time sound more acceptable . I am pretty sure that I have used it in this kind of questions myself. But not all the time, I would only use it in a context in which I (want to) express surprise:

    A: Pasé mis vacaciones en Timaukel.
    B: ¿Timaukel? ¿Y dónde (diablos) es eso?
    A: Está en la Región de Magallanes. La verdad es que nadie tiene idea de la existencia de este pueblo.

    Yes, in such a case my brain could choose to use ser instead of the 100% correct verb estar; however, I would still expect an answer with the verb estar.
     
    Last edited:
    Luchadorconan said:
    They also provide a second example "Turku es en Finlandia, ¿no?."
    Click to expand...
    As to this other example (first one discussed above), I think that it follows the logic of what I said in my first post in this thread (number 02), and that such a sentence could be heard from time to time and should be understood as a shortened form of the sentence Turku es un lugar/ una ciudad/ un pueblo/ etc (que está/queda) en Finlandia, ¿no?. It can be heard, yes, but do not think that it is correct and that you can freely use it all time.
     
    The OP is probably so confused by now that he or she doesn't even know whether Kansas es en Estados Unidos or está en Estados Unidos.
     
    En definitiva, “estar” es el verbo que se emplea generalmente, pero en algún caso se puede emplear “ser”.

    Ser. 6. Estar en lugar o situación.(DLE)
     
    Juan es un hombre: a permanent trait of him
    Click to expand...
    Sentences of this kind I explain differently: Use "ser" when it's a case of "noun = noun".
    Think about "temporary" and "permanent" only when linking to an adjective.
    "Soy estudiante" doesn't imply that I am permanently a student.
     
    Hay usos un poco más rebuscados donde sí que podría ir el ser indicando un lugar: el evento será en Colombia (=ocurrirá en, tendrá lugar en...). Pero en esta frase donde solo se indica ubicación espacial, y no el transcurso de un suceso o alguna otra cosa que justifique ese ser más allá de una mera localización, definitivamente corresponde estar. A oídos nativos suena horrible con ser: Cartagena está en Colombia.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top