Learn Hardcore Spanish (Latin America): La nevera está casi vacía, así que deberíamos ir al supermercado hoy. - The fridge is almost empty, so we should go to the supermarket today.

la nevera – common in parts of Latin America (e.g., Colombia, Venezuela, the Caribbean) and also in Spain.
el refrigerador – very common in much of Latin America (Mexico, Central America, etc.).
la heladera – common in Argentina, Uruguay, and some other Southern Cone areas.

All of them are correct; they’re just regional preferences. In this sentence, la nevera simply reflects one of those regional choices. Grammatically, they work the same way:

La nevera está casi vacía.
El refrigerador está casi vacío.
La heladera está casi vacía.

Why does the sentence use “está” instead of “es”?

Estar is used for temporary states or conditions, while ser is used for more permanent characteristics or definitions.

Here, está casi vacía describes the current condition of the fridge, not something that defines it permanently. So:

✅ La nevera está casi vacía. – The fridge is (currently) almost empty.
❌ La nevera es casi vacía. – Sounds wrong; it would suggest “being almost empty” is an inherent, permanent quality of the fridge.

So está is the natural choice because the emptiness is a temporary situation.

Why is it “vacía” and not “vacío”?

Adjectives in Spanish must agree in gender and number with the noun they describe.

nevera is feminine singular: la nevera
So the adjective must also be feminine singular: vacía

Comparison:

La nevera está vacía. – feminine singular
El refrigerador está vacío. – masculine singular
Las neveras están vacías. – feminine plural
Los refrigeradores están vacíos. – masculine plural

That’s why the correct form here is vacía.

What exactly does “casi” mean here, and why is it placed before “vacía”?

Casi means “almost” or “nearly”.

It usually goes before the word it modifies:

casi vacío – almost empty
casi lleno – almost full
casi nunca – almost never
casi siempre – almost always

So casi vacía = almost empty.

Changing its position would sound unnatural or change the meaning. For example:

La nevera está casi vacía. – natural and correct.
❌ La nevera está vacía casi. – grammatically understandable but sounds wrong in normal speech.

So casi comes before the adjective it modifies.

What does “así que” mean here, and how is it different from words like “entonces” or “por eso”?

In this sentence, así que means “so” / “therefore” and introduces a consequence.

La nevera está casi vacía, así que deberíamos ir al supermercado hoy.
→ The fridge is almost empty, so we should go to the supermarket today.

Comparison with similar connectors:

entonces – “then / so” (often sounds a bit more conversational or loosely connected)
por eso – “for that reason / that’s why” (more explicit about cause-effect)

You could also say:

La nevera está casi vacía, por eso deberíamos ir al supermercado hoy.
La nevera está casi vacía, entonces deberíamos ir al supermercado hoy.

They’re all understandable; así que is very common and natural in speech.

Why does the sentence use “deberíamos” instead of “debemos” or “tenemos que”?

All three express obligation, but with different levels of softness:

deberíamos (conditional of deber): we should
- Suggestion, recommendation, polite/soft obligation.
debemos: we must / we should
- Stronger sense of duty, more direct.
tenemos que: we have to
- Very strong, practical necessity.

In the sentence:

…así que deberíamos ir al supermercado hoy.
→ “…so we should go to the supermarket today.” (polite suggestion)

Compare:

…así que debemos ir al supermercado hoy. – We must go (stronger).
…así que tenemos que ir al supermercado hoy. – We have to go (strong, almost unavoidable necessity).

Using deberíamos makes it sound more like a proposal than an order.

What tense is “deberíamos”, and how is it formed?

Deberíamos is the first person plural conditional of the verb deber.

Conditional endings in Spanish (for -ar, -er, -ir) are added to the infinitive:

yo: -ía → debería (I should / would owe)
tú: -ías → deberías
él/ella/usted: -ía → debería
nosotros: -íamos → deberíamos
vosotros: -íais → deberíais
ellos/ustedes: -ían → deberían

So deber + íamos → deberíamos = we should (or “we would have to / we would owe,” depending on context; here it clearly means should).

Why is it “ir al supermercado” and not “ir a el supermercado”?

In Spanish, the preposition a and the masculine singular article el combine into the contraction al:

a + el = al

So:

❌ ir a el supermercado
✅ ir al supermercado

This contraction is mandatory in standard Spanish whenever a is followed by el (masculine singular definite article), except when el is part of a name like El Salvador:

Voy al banco. – I’m going to the bank.
Voy a El Salvador. – I’m going to El Salvador. (no contraction, because it’s a proper name)

Do we always need the article in “ir al supermercado”, or can we say “ir a supermercado”?

You almost always use the article here. In natural Spanish, you say:

ir al supermercado – to go to the supermarket

Omitting the article (ir a supermercado) sounds incorrect or at least very unnatural in this context.

In general, when talking about going to a place in a generic / habitual sense, Spanish usually keeps the article:

Voy al banco. – I go to the bank.
Vamos al cine. – We’re going to the movies.
Van al mercado. – They’re going to the market.

So ir al supermercado is the standard expression.

Why is “hoy” at the end of the sentence? Could it go somewhere else?

Yes, hoy (today) can move, but its usual, most natural position here is at the end:

…deberíamos ir al supermercado hoy. – very natural.

Other possibilities:

Hoy deberíamos ir al supermercado. – also perfectly natural; puts more emphasis on today as the topic.
Deberíamos hoy ir al supermercado. – grammatically correct but sounds more formal or slightly unusual in everyday speech.

Spanish is flexible with adverb placement, but putting time words like “hoy” at the end is extremely common and neutral in tone.

Why isn’t there a subject pronoun like “nosotros” before “deberíamos”?

Spanish usually omits subject pronouns when the verb ending already makes it clear who the subject is.

deberíamos clearly shows first person plural (we), so nosotros is not needed.

Both of these are correct:

Deberíamos ir al supermercado hoy. – We should go to the supermarket today.
Nosotros deberíamos ir al supermercado hoy. – We should go to the supermarket today. (adds emphasis on we)

The version without nosotros is more typical in everyday speech, unless you want to emphasize we (and not someone else).

Could I replace “así que deberíamos ir al supermercado hoy” with something like “por eso vamos al supermercado hoy”? How would that change the meaning?

Yes, you can, but the nuance changes slightly.

Original:

…así que deberíamos ir al supermercado hoy.
→ The fridge is almost empty, so we should go today. (suggestion / plan, not yet decided)

Alternative:

…por eso vamos al supermercado hoy.
→ The fridge is almost empty, that’s why we are going today. (decision is already made)

So:

deberíamos ir – suggests a recommendation, a plan being proposed.
vamos – indicates a firm decision / arrangement.

Both are grammatically correct; you just choose based on whether you’re suggesting going or stating that you’re going.