"He is currently an actor."
Translation:Él es actualmente un actor.
Why do we not use the more temporal version of to be namely "está" since there is an emphasis on how temporary this profession is? How extreme is this rule? Can I work in construction for a day and on that day claim "to be" a framer or mason?
That is a very general rule, but there are lots of exceptions. With professions we always use "ser", no matter how much time you have been working as that. If you want to indicate it is temporary, you can use "estar" with a different structure: "está trabajando de camarera" (she is working as a waitress), but "es camarera" (she is a waitress).
It's more of a fallacy than a rule, really. "Ser" is used for nature or identity (such as one's profession) while "estar" is used for states and conditions. The fact that the former is often permanent and the latter is often temporary is a misleading coincidence. Julio es un bebé (temporarily), y Pedro está muerto (forever).
Span¡shD!ct has some very useful information concerning when ser vs. estar. I especially liked the acronyms they provide for help with when to use which verb:
For ser think of the acronym DOCTOR: Description; Occupation; Characteristic; Time; Origin; Relationship.
For estar the acronym is PLACE: Position; Location; Action; Condition; Emotion.
Quick question: I was slammed down in a similar sentence when I wrote "Yo soy actualmente un maestro", and it told me that actualmente always goes to the beginning, and offered as a correct solution "Yo actualmente soy un maestro."
Fair enough, but then why is the correct translation here "El es actualmente un actor", which is almost the same sentence, but now actualmente is in the middle?
I don't believe there is any such rule as you mention. So I have no explanation for the experience you describe.
Adverbs typically are placed adjacent to the verb they modify, usually after. They can be separated by the object of the verb, but (unlike English) only if it's just a word or two. See http://spanish.about.com/cs/grammar/qt/adverbplaceqt.htm
what happened to a previous rule about not putting un/una before an occupation?
I believe the intervening "actualmente" is to blame for that. You can go straight from "ser" to a profession in general.
In "I'm currently a teacher," "soy actualmente un maestro" was marked wrong with the comments saying "actualmente" must come before "soy." So why is "es actualmente" correct here or "soy actualmente" incorrect before?
By the way, it's English that's the exception in this case. "Actual" comes from the same Latin root as "act" and "action," and variations on "actual" generally mean "current" in romance languages.
The article in English is not generally reflected in Spanish in describing professions "He is an actor" would be translated without it: "Él es actor."
Normally, yes, but I think adding the adverb to the sentence changed things.
Grammatically, nothing, but the sentence didn't actually say anything along the lines of "in this moment."
you don't write un/una if its with ser but in this case it's with estar
It is not with estar here and it shouldn't be. Nonetheless it sounds better with un here than usually, but without un it's fine as well.
Currently seems to me to mean "not usually, but right now" which made me think está should be used instead of es. Wrong I guess. (I see below that occupations are always "es")
OK the question right before this is worded the same and if you write it with él actualmente es... You get it right but the answer is written different... I'm confused
Isn't it possible to use "actriz" instead of "actor"? It was not accepted.
I never know when to use "él" with an accent mark of the "e" versus "el" without the accent mark.
Question: Yo soy actualmente un maestro vs El es actualmente un actor. Why is the first sentence incorrect and the second one correct. Is it because referring in first person you need actualmente at the beginning or end? (Summary: (actualmente/before) soy maestro(actualmente/after) is more correct and why isn't this sentence structured the same way?)
There's not much difference in meaning between "now" and "currently", but it's not a very accurate translation.
"Nuevamente" is for things that are currently true, but rencently weren't (including the case where before that, they were). So it's used the way English uses "newly" or "again."
Close enough for you, but grammatically off. :)
Remove the a. And some vowels off actualmente.
Does not make sense. Currently means as of now. Actualmente sounds like it should translate to actually and means really.
English has messed up the meaning of some Latin-based words pretty badly. :)
In the Continental-European languages, actual and its relatives mean "currently". It derives from the Latin "actus" - act, as a meaning of "in the act", "happening right now".
"Actually" is mostly translated as realmente or "en realidad".