[doliveira]

An example that comes to mind is the English "to be" working for both essence and state. In Portuguese we have different verbs, so we have the sentence "ele não é assim, ele está assim" which conveys the message that whatever he is going through right now, it doesn't define who he is deep down inside. But a literal translation just becomes the nonsensical "he isn't like that, he is like that".

I was trying to explain to a foreigner when to use "ser" or "estar" when translating "to be" and I tried to explain that one conveys essence and the other state, but that didn't seem to clarify things in his mind. He just kept saying it was all arbitrary which frankly doesn't make much sense in my head.

So I wonder if this linguistical difference provokes dramatical differences in inner thinking and culture as well. For instance, does the message of the aforementioned aphorism still works in English, I just have to find a better translation? Or do English natives will naturally have a stronger sense of a person being tainted by their actions?

[vulcan01]

> But a literal translation just becomes the nonsensical "he isn't like that, he is like that".

I guess a better translation is "He isn't that, he is like that." But I agree that English doesn't have a distinction between permanent states vs impermanent states in the "to be" verb.

[mc32]

Probably 'He isn't always like that, he's just being like that".

[moviewise]

> "ele não é assim, ele está assim"

"He is not like that, he is only acting like that" or "He is not like that, he is only currently like that."