To be and not to be

(Disclaimer: this post contains strong language such as 'verb', and 'subjunctive'. But, as Miranda's mother would say, bear with...)

Having lived in Spain for almost 9 months now, I hope my Spanish language skills have improved slightly. To be honest, my way of measuring progress is more negative than positive. It's not so much that I notice the fluent utterances issuing from my mouth. Rather, the occasions on which a Spaniard is talking to me and I have no idea what's going on - and  therefore make ambiguous noises which can be interpreted as both 'si' and 'no' - are fewer and further between.

Yet, there are still two banes of my Spanish-speaking life. The first is called the subjunctive. (Convincing explanations of why this linguistic feature is really necessary, or suggestions for how we can plot to phase it out of the Spanish language, very welcome.) The second is the existence of two verbs which mean 'to be'. 

I had spent 20 years managing very nicely with just the one verb: 'I am tired', 'I am a girl', 'I am not enjoying PE', 'I am so uncomfortable when my feet get wet that I am unable to think of anything else until they are dry' (does the wet feet thing happen to anyone else?). It was therefore an unwelcome shock to the system to discover that I now had to decide whether to use 'estar' or 'ser' every time I wanted to say 'I am...' (or indeed, 'it's...', 'we're...', the confusion goes on). Many a time I just choose one at random, holding on to the comforting thoughts that: a) there's a 50% chance that I've opted for the correct one and b) if I say it quickly enough and make enough hand gestures, it's possible no one will notice. 

However, despite my bewilderment, I have to admit that having two words for 'to be' actually has some sort of logic, and quite a profound one at that. Put very simply, the verb 'estar' refers to things which are temporary or superficial: 'it's sunny', 'I'm bored', 'I'm cooking'. Whereas 'ser' is about essential, permanent, deeper facts of being: 'You are a man', 'She is the Queen', 'They are very generous'. These things are not about someone's current situation but about qualities or facts which are integral to who they are. God's name in the old testament is YAHWEH - which means, 'I am who I am'. In Spanish, it has a further power because this is translated using the verb 'ser': 'Yo Soy el que soy'. He's not here while good things happen and gone when things get a bit messy. He's not around when I'm being good and away when I muck things up. He is unchanging, everlasting.  Most importantly, he is. Constantly. Eternally.

In English, we can equally say 'I am thin' or 'I am overweight' and 'I am your friend' or 'I am an architect'. These all describe who or what we are. The diet industry - magazines, creams, foods, workout DVDs, cookbooks - finds this ambiguity particularly profitable. Its basic advertising premise is: if you are thin, you are successful. One's physical appearance - particularly one's weight - is part of who you are and it communicates who you are. It therefore struck me as interesting, and rather refreshing, to discover that the intermingling of these concepts is much less possible in the Spanish language. You might 'be' (estar) thin, fat, plump or skeletal; but to 'be' (ser) a friend or an architect is something very different. It's not just that 'it's more important to be a good friend than to be skinny'. It's that those are two completely different kinds of 'being', which have little bearing on one another. 

Likewise, in English, as I've suggested, 'I am' covers a whole lot of emotional ground: 'I'm really happy', 'I'm fed up', 'I'm brave', 'I'm feeling low', 'I'm open-minded'. We are all of these things. In Spanish, these aren't all thrown together in the same category. It is one thing to 'be' (estar) fed up, really happy, low. That is how you are feeling now. It is quite a different concept to 'be' (ser) open-minded or brave. That is about the type of person you are. 'Estar' pesimista (to be feeling pessimistic today) is a very different thing from 'ser' pesimista (to be a pessimistic person). 

Too often, I look at how I am feeling today, or how I am feeling about a particular situation and, from this, I draw conclusions about the sort of person I am. I find potential problems with plans for this weekend and I decide I am a negative person. I feel uncomfortable in a particular crowd and I conclude that I am socially inept. I find myself bored with something which is of unparalleled excitement to those around me and, suddenly, I am a boring person. I jump from how I am now (estar) to who I am (ser) - and I confuse the two.  It's only gradually that I'm realising that I can be (estar) low today and still be (ser) an optimist. I can   be (estar) in the mood to do nothing but curl up in bed with a good book tonight and still be (ser) sociable. I can be (estar) in a complete mess and still be (ser) God's child, who he loves. 

Of course, I'm not saying Spanish-speakers don't fall into the same traps of distorted thinking that English-speakers do. The existence of two verbs is hardly an impermeable armour of defence against cultural messages or emotional experiences. But reflecting on two different ways of being has at least made me think. It has helped me to look at my current feelings and situations from a different perspective, and to separate them from other, deeper truths. It gives me another resource with which to challenge ideas before I absorb them, before I draw radical conclusions. To be (estar) or to be (ser)? That is the question.