Learn Hardcore Spanish (Latin America): Mi profesora dice que toda ley debería proteger la igualdad básica dentro del matrimonio y en el trabajo. - My teacher says that every law should protect basic equality within marriage and at work.

debe proteger = must protect / has to protect
- Stronger, sounds like a firm obligation or a statement of how the law is (or should very clearly be).
debería proteger = should protect / ought to protect
- Softer, more like an opinion, recommendation, or ideal situation.

In the sentence, “Mi profesora dice que toda ley debería proteger…”, the teacher is expressing an opinion about what laws ought to do, not laying down a strict rule. That’s why the conditional (debería) fits better than the present (debe).

Why is it “toda ley” and not “todas las leyes”?

Both are possible, but they’re not identical in feel:

toda ley
- Literally “every law / any law”.
- Singular, but used in a generic, generalizing way.
- It talks about the idea of “any law whatsoever” as a category.
todas las leyes
- “All (of) the laws”.
- Feels a bit more concrete, like we’re thinking of a set of laws.

In context, “toda ley debería proteger…” means “every law, as a general principle, should protect…”, so toda ley sounds very natural and slightly more abstract or philosophical. Todas las leyes would also be correct, just a bit more down‑to‑earth and specific.

Why is there no article in “toda ley” (and not “toda la ley”)?

toda ley = “every law / any law” (non‑specific, general)
toda la ley = “the whole law” (all the parts of one specific law)

In your sentence, we’re not talking about one particular law and all its sections; we’re talking about any law in general. So:

✅ toda ley debería proteger… = every law should protect…
❌ toda la ley debería proteger… would mean “the entirety of the law should protect…”, which doesn’t fit the intended idea.

Can I say “básica igualdad” instead of “igualdad básica”?

No, not in normal Spanish.

Most adjectives in Spanish normally go after the noun:

igualdad básica = basic equality
ley importante = important law
matrimonio civil = civil marriage

When you put many adjectives before the noun, it sounds either poetic, very literary, or just wrong. “básica igualdad” sounds wrong in everyday Spanish.

So you want:

✅ la igualdad básica
❌ la básica igualdad (only maybe in poetry or highly rhetorical style)

What does “dentro de” add in “dentro del matrimonio”? Could I just say “en el matrimonio”?

Both are possible, but they differ slightly in nuance:

dentro del matrimonio
- Literally “inside marriage”.
- Emphasizes the internal sphere of marriage: what happens within that institution or relationship.
en el matrimonio
- “In marriage”.
- A bit more neutral; it can overlap in meaning, but doesn’t highlight the “inside/boundaries” idea as strongly.

In your sentence, “dentro del matrimonio” stresses the idea of equality within the framework of marriage itself, which fits very well with human‑rights or legal language. “En el matrimonio” would also be correct and understandable; it just feels slightly less vivid.

Why is it “del matrimonio” and not “de el matrimonio”?

Spanish has mandatory contractions with de + el and a + el:

de + el → del
a + el → al

So:

❌ de el matrimonio
✅ del matrimonio
❌ a el trabajo
✅ al trabajo

You cannot write de el or a el as two separate words when el is the masculine singular article (“the”). They must contract.

Why do we say “en el trabajo” and not just “en trabajo”, like English “at work”?

In Spanish, nouns usually take an article (el, la, los, las) even when English leaves it out:

at school → en la escuela
at home → en casa (this one is a special case, no article)
at university → en la universidad
at work → en el trabajo

“En trabajo” is not idiomatic for “at work”. You might see en trabajo in other contexts (e.g. un país en trabajo de parto = “a country in labor pains”), but for the workplace or the general idea of “at work”, you need the article:

✅ en el trabajo

Why is “dice que” followed by “toda ley debería proteger…” and not by a subjunctive form like “proteja”?

Look at the structure:

Mi profesora dice que [toda ley debería proteger la igualdad básica…].

Inside the que‑clause, the main verb is debería, and proteger is just its infinitive complement:

toda ley debería proteger
- debería = main verb (conditional)
- proteger = infinitive (what it should do)

So the mood question (indicative vs. subjunctive) is applied to debería, and we already chose conditional there. There is no separate finite verb “proteja” to be in the subjunctive.

If we changed the structure, we could have a subjunctive after dice que, but the meaning would change. For example:

Mi profesora dice que las leyes protegen la igualdad…
- “says that the laws protect…” (reported statement, indicative)
Mi profesora me dice que proteja la igualdad…
- “tells me to protect equality…” (reported command, subjunctive proteja)

In your sentence, we are reporting an opinion about what “every law should do”, so “dice que toda ley debería proteger…” is the natural construction.

Does “dice que” here mean “says that” or “tells (me) that”? Where is the “me”?

As written:

Mi profesora dice que… = My teacher says that…

This is a general statement; it doesn’t specify whom she is speaking to. If you want “tells me that”, you must add the indirect object pronoun:

Mi profesora me dice que… = My teacher tells me that…

So:

dice que = “says that” (no specific listener mentioned)
me dice que / nos dice que / les dice que = “tells me / us / them that”

What exactly does “matrimonio” mean here? Is it marriage in general or a married couple?

Matrimonio can mean both in Spanish:

The institution or state of being married
- el matrimonio igualitario = equal marriage
- el matrimonio civil = civil marriage
A married couple (less relevant here, but common)
- Un matrimonio joven se mudó al lado.
  “A young married couple moved in next door.”

In your sentence:

“…dentro del matrimonio y en el trabajo”

clearly uses matrimonio in sense (1): the institution or context of marriage, not a specific couple. So it means “within marriage (as an institution)”.

In Latin America, is “profesora” used for school teachers too, or only for university professors?

Usage varies by country, but generally in Latin America:

maestro / maestra
- Very common for elementary/primary school teachers.
profesor / profesora
- Used for high school and university,
- and often also used informally for any teacher, including at lower levels.

So “Mi profesora” in Latin America is very natural for:

a high school teacher,
a university professor,
sometimes a middle‑school or even primary teacher, depending on local habit and formality.

It does not only mean “university professor.”

Could I rephrase it as “Mi profesora dice que la igualdad básica debería ser protegida por toda ley…”?

Yes, that’s grammatically correct. You’ve changed it to a passive structure:

toda ley debería proteger la igualdad básica
- active: law (subject) → protects (verb) → equality (object)
la igualdad básica debería ser protegida por toda ley
- passive: equality (subject) → should be protected (passive verb) → by every law (agent)

Both mean the same thing. Differences:

The active version is more direct and usually preferred in everyday speech:
- toda ley debería proteger la igualdad básica…
The passive version sounds more formal/legalistic and heavier:
- la igualdad básica debería ser protegida por toda ley…

In normal conversation or clear writing, the original active version is usually better.