"La comida no está en la mesa."
Translation:The food is not on the table.
what's the difference between "está" and "es"? why is "es" wrong in this sentence?
Locations always use estar. "es" would suggest permanence, that the food will always be on the etable
Just think "es" is still inside the word "está" just look at the "tá“ part meaning “where is ta location? or ..where is the location“ if that helps.
Ahh, that's a good one to remember, es = (it) is forever, adding ta = (it) is curren't(a)'ly.
No you can't. If you use 'sobre' here then it would mean that the food is directly on the table without it being in plates or bowls or any other vessels. The use of 'en' shows that the food is just on the table in some vessel.
I disagree; both "en" and "sobre" would work. Either sentence would be acceptable in Spanish (although "en" sounds more natural).
Sorry, just making a joke. "The food is not on the table; the dog is not saying a word..." My sister's dog, alone in the dining room with the table set for a romantic steak dinner, ate the dinner right off the table while my sister & her husband were in the kitchen finishing the sauce. This sentence just reminded me of that incident.
I tried to use están, because we're not dealing with a single food here, that doesn't even make sense. I wonder if it's an issue of 'much vs many'. Money (measured by how much and not how many), for example, would also be está and not están, even if you're referring to a lot of money.