Translation:I am alive.
I would put an exclamation point at the end of that sentence but that's just me. :)
This came up right after "Lo quiero vivo". It's useful, duolingo, thanks!
Don't fall into the "Temporary vs Permanent" trap.
Using "Estar" indicates a persons condition even when it is permanent (immortality).
Since "Ser" has to do with describing a persons character (even a character that changes with the weather), I would guess that "Soy vivo" would be describing someone who is "full of life" in a kind of "carpe diem" kind of way.
Perhaps a native speaker could give us a more authoritative answer.
I am living is "Estoy viviendo"... if you want to create the present continous, you will see that the verb will have the terminations -endo, ando, -iendo...: leyendo-reading, caminando-walking, comiendo-eating
It depends. The word living is more commonly the progressive form of the verb live, but is also an adjective. "I am living" can be read as "I am a living being" or "I am currently living". It's not the best translation, but not strictly speaking wrong.
So why does she keep saying "EHS-toy" rather than "ehs-TOY"? I have to keep going back to verify that I haven't been saying it wrong all these years...
Using contractions in DL can be tricky. While DL usually accepts them, you will get more benefit by just avoiding them altogether.
Transitory things TEND to use estoy, and if you aren't sure which to use, that is a decent guideline, but the usage is slightly idiomatic. Death also uses estoy, but is pretty final. An unripe banana that is currently green still uses ser to describe its color.
So, we can all say "Estoy muerto," that's good to know, since if we who "estamos vivos" find it tricky, imagine a zombie...!
I don't understand why this should not be "Estoy viviendo" or something like that. Is "vivo" not the conjugated form of vivir, so that this sentence actually should say "YO estoy, YO vivo" ? Like "I am, I live"..? Why the conjugated "vivo" here?
In this sentence, "vivo" is an adjective. "Vivo" can also be a verb, meaning "I live", but it is an adjective in the sentence we were given. What I don't understand is why "estoy" and not "soy" is the verb being used.
I'm no expert, so I'll babble on anyway. Ser vivo is a noun phrase = living being. To be alive in the sense of a human is properly translated estar vivo. If you use a form of the verb ser with vivo - and that is done - it sounds like you are talking about a thing such as a painting "alive with action and color" or some aspect other than a condition of not being dead. At least that's they way it seems to me.
The reason I suggested it should be 'ser' is that 'ser' and its forms are used to express relatively permanent conditions, and 'estar' and its forms are generally used to express temporary conditions. This is a rule of thumb, but I don't know the reasoning used by Duolingo.
There are a whole lot of exceptions to that rule. Él ya está muerto. Estas flores están marchitas. La computadora ya está rota. Al otro lado, soy feliz ;-)
It's true there are exceptions - what I mentioned is just a general rule. In some cases, it is difficult to know which verb should be used. You used 'soy feliz', which is correct, but if you were to say 'contento', the correct way to state this is 'estoy contento'.
I agree if if it is a relatively recent state, pero César es muerto: http://www.linguee.com/spanish-english/translation/es+muerto.html (some of the translations on Linguee don't match the original).
Aha! But... could "César es muerto" mean "Caesar is a dead person"? Thanks for the link!
Sure, but we're only speaking of translation here, and that's an art. For example, a translator might also very logically write "Caesar is long gone" depending on the context.
Why? Did you try it? The only thing I can compare it to is the religious "He lives" which is sometimes "Él vive" but usually "Él está vivo". So if you were translating for something other than Duolingo, I'd think "why not?" That doesn't mean an editor added it to this particular question.