Skip to main content
added 249 characters in body
Source Link
TheLearner
  • 5.4k
  • 15
  • 54
  • 101

How would one choose between ser and estar while translating this syntax into Spanish? Here's an example sentence:

Those homes had been demolished.

Which of the following would be a more appropriate way to say it in Spanish and why?

Se habían sido demolidas aquellas casas.

Se habían estado demolidas aquellas casas.

And whyOr, would it be more natural to just skip ser/estar altogether and say something like this (although I understand it slightly alters the meaning to "...were demolished" instead of "...had been demolished")?

Se demolieron aquellas casas

How would one choose between ser and estar while translating this syntax into Spanish? Here's an example sentence:

Those homes had been demolished.

Which of the following would be a more appropriate way to say it in Spanish?

Se habían sido demolidas aquellas casas.

Se habían estado demolidas aquellas casas.

And why?

How would one choose between ser and estar while translating this syntax into Spanish? Here's an example sentence:

Those homes had been demolished.

Which of the following would be a more appropriate way to say it in Spanish and why?

Se habían sido demolidas aquellas casas.

Se habían estado demolidas aquellas casas.

Or, would it be more natural to just skip ser/estar altogether and say something like this (although I understand it slightly alters the meaning to "...were demolished" instead of "...had been demolished")?

Se demolieron aquellas casas

Source Link
TheLearner
  • 5.4k
  • 15
  • 54
  • 101

"Has been" + <past participle>

How would one choose between ser and estar while translating this syntax into Spanish? Here's an example sentence:

Those homes had been demolished.

Which of the following would be a more appropriate way to say it in Spanish?

Se habían sido demolidas aquellas casas.

Se habían estado demolidas aquellas casas.

And why?