"I am a free man."
Translation:Soy un hombre libre.
I think the free here is descriptive, about his personality. He's a free man that free from the stereotypes of things set by society or that sorts of things, thus ser
In the philosophical sense of the phrase, Soy fits, but I think estoy makes much more sense in general. Also, estoy was used in a different sentence regarding freedom. I'm going to report it.
I choose "estoy". Freedom is not a guarantee, but a variable. (Both ser & estar should be accepted.) We have no context.
The rule about permanence isn't perfect though. I've heard it described this way though. Estar is regarding a state of being. HOW one is, etc. Ser is who one IS. So things that are 'permanent' or long term. Jobs, places you live, freedom!, etc
I am so frustrated. The last time I put the adjective after "hombre" I got it wrong! So, learning from my mistake, this time I placed the adjective before it--and got it wrong! Do some adjectives belong before the noun and some after?
I would also like some more help discerning whether to put adjectives before or after nouns in Spanish.
This doesn't fully answer your question, but I think of "hombre grande" to mean big man, and "gran hombre" to mean great man. That's one difference, but it doesn't address other modifiers. It does seem that there are some situations where putting the modifier in front seems to be okay. Don't know the rule for that.
I found this helpful in understanding adjective placement http://spanish.about.com/cs/grammar/a/whereadjective.htm
This may be helpful:
Soy would reflect permanent state of freedom while Estoy would address temporary state of freedom. So it would depend on the context.
Libre hombre should be right no? Like a state of mind for emphasis...
You would say 'estoy libre' after stepping out of jail, or if you previously weren't free. 'Soy libre' means you are free by definition, as in I am a free spirit, or you are someone who exercises personal freedom consistently.
This is a sentence where either estoy or soy should be acceptable. Soy would be appropriate where someone lives in freedom and estoy where they just got their freedom. Have submitted to DuoLingo that estoy should be acceptable.
Why not "estoy"? Especially considering that "no estoy libre" is suggested as a translation for "I am not free" in another sentence ...
I think this could show an instance of "conditional" rather than "essential," to one's being: if a person was asked to participate in an event but had a previous obligation, he could decline the invitation by saying, "No, no estoy libre eso día." (Correct my weak Spanish skills if that does not say, correctly, "No, I am not free that day.") Then the ser form of "to be," would be used for stating the essential free nature of mankind, not meant to be enslaved or owned by another man.