More on "ser" and "estar": And the converse: sometimes, "estar" introduces a permanent enough property; e.g., we say "Está muerto", not "*Es muerto". However, that 'exception' is only apparent. Why do we use "estar" as if the property were temporary, then? Well, because it IS temporary, if you also compute time backwards. The property 'muerto' is reversible from a logical point of view: if it were not, the deceased would never have existed, :-); if he is dead now, he must have been alive at some previous time. Observe that "*está permanentemente muerto" is incoherent (whereas "permanentemente cansado o triste o borracho" are not). In English you cannot say "*He's always been dead/alive", either (unless 'dead' means something else, e.g., insensitive, out of touch, whatever). So, the rule works well enough, after all, but, as I said, "permanent" properties are relativized and treated (grammatically) as if they were temporary. To give you an easy example, "guapa" (= pretty) is a permanent property, and we say "Ana ES guapa" instead of "*Ana está guapa". However, we still say without incoherence "Hoy Ana está guapa" or "¡Qué guapa está hoy!" (but not *¡Qué guapa *es hoy"). Another 'exception'? No; by adding a term that delimits the interval at which the property holds we convert a 'permanent' property into a different (= transitory) one. Note that the meaning of "guapa" changes: "Hoy está guapa" does NOT entail "She is pretty", only that she looks more attractive (better dressed, better made up, etc.) than usual. As you see, the use of Spanish "ser" and "estar" is inevitably entangled with deep metaphysical issues like existence, possibility, etc., but I hope the rules of thumb above will suffice to help you decide in most cases. Good luck!

Simplifying a bit, "soy" supports long-lasting properties, whereas "estoy" supports temporary properties treated as logically reversible. So, we say "soy americano, alto y rubio" and not "*estoy americano/estoy alto/estoy rubio", and it is incoherent to say "*soy permanentemente americano/alto/rubio". On the contrary, we say "estoy cansado/triste/borracho" and not "*soy cansado/contento/borracho", and it is not incoherent at all to say "estoy permanentemente cansado/triste/borracho". Intuitively, if you are American (etc.) you are 'permanently American' (tall, fair-haired...), but one is not permanently tired, sad or drunk, and therefore it is relevant to add "permanently" (or e.g. "today") in such cases. That is the basic rule. Unfortunately, permanence or transience is relative to context, and reversibility applies on the logical, rather than the temporal scale. Hence "Ahora soy americano, pero antes era cubano, y pronto seré canadiense" is not incoherent. In certain cases you must use "ser" with properties that are NOT ABSOLUTELY permanent, but only lasting enough. [More to come]

(ser) utilize para adjetivo que son para siempre , no cambia y (estar ) para adjetivo que puede cambiar !!

“Soy” is when you talk about "you" (like a person) Instead…”Estoy” is when you are "somewhere".

Questions regarding the differences between "ser" and "estar" in Spanish have been previously raised a number of times, according to the following search results: http://www.italki.com/search/questions/q/estar.htm?bl=&st=&s=1&IKLan=Spanish&p=2&sid=1 [N.B. "soy" and "estoy" are the present tenses of the first-person singular conjugation of the infinitives "ser" and "estar", respectively.] Therefore, please kindly refer to the respective posts. In particular, you may refer to some answers given in the following webpages: http://www.italki.com/answers/question/8718.htm http://www.italki.com/answers/question/36547.htm http://www.italki.com/answers/question/5291.htm http://www.italki.com/answers/question/37448.htm Please be aware that sometimes the best chosen answer might not be indeed the best one, and hence you should judge them carefully. Take care and good day. / Cuídate, y que tengas buenos días.