Difference between passé composé and imparfait, especially using être?

Question

I'm having trouble distinguising between passé composé and imparfait especially using être...

When is it appropriate to use the passé composé form of être?

I think I have some understanding of the use of the imparfait form of être...(quand j'etais petit, etc...)

For example, which form would you use for the following sentences?

The father of the Eiffel Tower was Gustav Eiffel.

The cost was 1,200,000 Euros...

Thanks!

Answer 1

In your example, the verb to use would be present. We call that historic present. Le père de la tour Eiffel est Gustave Eiffel.

However, you would say La tour Eiffel a été construite en 1900 (?). Les travaux ont coûté l'équivalent de 1 200 000 euros.

Because that is a past event that does not reoccur.

And you would say: La tour Eiffel était illuminée quand je l'ai vue à Paris.

Hope these examples help.

The best way to get a feeling for these tenses is to read a lot. It will become second nature to you. Like this site:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_Eiffel

Answer 2

u use passé compossé when something just happenned like it happenned once. u use imparfait when it used to happen during a period of time like when i was younger and i went to school i ...

Answer 3

I think For the second sentence you should use passé composé !

the cost was 1,200,000 Euros = ça a couté 1 200 000 euros ! moreover I agree ";;;ok" and u could also use the imparfait in a description.

Answer 4

The passé composé is used when you are describing a situation as it existed at that precise moment - For example, "On Monday, I was in Paris", would translate using the passé composé.  You would use the imparfait when describing a situation that was true over a longer period of time "My father was a tall man." would use the imparfait.

Answer 5

In my view "Soleil" has given the definitive answer.