Estuvo genial? Why not, fue genial?
I've never really gotten a good answer to this. Maybe I just need to memorize it.
Why does one say "estuvo genial" when something cool happens, and not "fue genial"?
I thought I understood the difference between ser and estar...but apparently not.
Help me out, yo!
I think both would work depending on the circumstance. I found this in a search...
Se puede usar indistintamente tanto ser como estar si lo que sigue es un adjetivo.
Pero si es un adverbio, solo estar.
Ha estado/sido genial, pero Ha estado bien/mal.
Yeah, I've heard you could use either in this circumstance, but I almost exclusively here "estuvo genial." It may depend on where the Spanish speakers are from though.
Or, it could be "Estuvo genial en el partido." as he was brilliant in the game denoting just that circumstance versus "Fue un hombre genial." as he was a great man.
Well, in the context that I'm referring to, it's an action. For example:
Some dude does a double backflip in front of you. In English, you say, Woah! That was cool! Referring to the act of doing a double backflip.
In this situation in Spanish, I've always heard "estuvo genial."
Yes, that would seem correct because it is referring to that action as opposed to some characteristic.
That's what I don't get, why the action is referred to with "estar" instead of "ser." To me, the act of doing a double backflip, or whatever, is inherently "genial." It's always that way. So "fue genial" makes more sense to me.