La arquitecta dice que sin las ruinas antiguas no entenderíamos el origen de la ciudad.

The architect says that without the ancient ruins we would not understand the origin of the city.

Breakdown of La arquitecta dice que sin las ruinas antiguas no entenderíamos el origen de la ciudad.

• nosotros: we
• de: of
• que: that
• la ciudad: the city
• decir: to say
• sin: without
• entender: to understand
• no: not
• antiguo: ancient
• el arquitecto: the architect
• la ruina: the ruin
• el origen: the origin

Questions & Answers about La arquitecta dice que sin las ruinas antiguas no entenderíamos el origen de la ciudad.

Why is it la arquitecta and not el arquitecto here?

Arquitecta is the feminine form of arquitecto. In Spanish, most job titles have a masculine and a feminine form:

• el arquitecto = the (male) architect
• la arquitecta = the (female) architect

So the sentence is telling you the architect is a woman.

Also notice the article la agrees with the feminine noun:

• el arquitecto
• la arquitecta

Why is there an article (la) before a profession? I learned “Ella es arquitecta,” without an article.

You’re right that after the verb ser (to be), professions usually appear without an article in Spanish:

• Ella es arquitecta. = She is an architect.

But in your sentence, la arquitecta is not after ser; it’s being used as a regular noun phrase, like “the architect” as a specific person:

• La arquitecta dice que… = The architect says that…

So:

• No article: after ser talking about someone’s profession in general.
• Definite article (el / la): when we’re talking about “the [profession]” as a particular person.

Why is it dice and not dijo? What’s the nuance of using the present tense here?

• dice = she says / she is saying (present)
• dijo = she said (simple past)

Using dice in Spanish often works like English “says” in texts, reports, or comments that are still valid now:

• La arquitecta dice que…
  “The architect says that…” (this is her opinion now or generally)

If you said:

• La arquitecta dijo que…

it would feel more like you’re referring to a specific past moment when she said it, and you’re just reporting that event, not necessarily stressing that this is her current, ongoing view.

What is the function of que in dice que? Could you drop it?

Here que is the conjunction “that” introducing a subordinate clause:

• La arquitecta dice que…
  = The architect says that…

In Spanish you must keep que in this structure. You can’t say:

• ✗ La arquitecta dice sin las ruinas antiguas…

That sounds wrong. You need que to connect “says” with what she is saying.

Also, avoid adding de here:

• ✗ dice de que is usually incorrect.
• ✓ dice que is the standard form: decir que + clause.

What does sin do here, and why is it followed by las ruinas antiguas and not something like a verb?

Sin means “without” and is a preposition. The basic pattern is:

• sin + noun (with or without article/adjective)

In your sentence:

• sin las ruinas antiguas = without the ancient ruins

So the structure is:

• sin (without) + las (the) + ruinas (ruins) + antiguas (ancient)

You don’t say “sin entender” here because the idea is specifically without the ruins, not “without understanding.”

Why is it ruinas antiguas and not antiguas ruinas?

The default word order in Spanish is:

• noun + adjective

So:

• ruinas antiguas = ancient ruins

You can say antiguas ruinas, but putting the adjective before the noun often:

• sounds more poetic or literary, or
• can slightly shift the nuance.

With antiguo/a, position can matter:

• un amigo antiguo = a friend who is old (in age)
• un antiguo amigo = a former friend

With ruinas, the difference is smaller because ruins are already “remains,” but:

• ruinas antiguas is the neutral, common way to say ancient ruins.
• antiguas ruinas might sound more emphatic or stylistic, like “those old ancient ruins” in more expressive English.

Why is entenderíamos in the conditional? Couldn’t it be no entendemos or no entenderemos?

Entenderíamos is the conditional (“we would understand”), and it matches the hypothetical idea created by sin:

• sin las ruinas antiguas, no entenderíamos…
  = without the ancient ruins, we wouldn’t understand…

This is similar to an English “If it weren’t for…” structure:

• If it weren’t for the ancient ruins, we wouldn’t understand the origin of the city.

If you used:

• no entendemos = we don’t understand (general fact, not hypothetical)
• no entenderemos = we will not understand (simple future prediction)

you would lose that unreal / hypothetical flavor. The sentence is saying:

In an imaginary world where the ruins didn’t exist, we would not understand the origin.

That’s why the conditional entenderíamos is natural here.

Why conditional and not subjunctive after dice que? I thought verbs like decir que often use the subjunctive.

The mood (indicative vs. subjunctive) in the que-clause depends on the meaning of the clause itself, not just on the verb decir.

Here the architect is stating an opinion about a hypothetical situation, and that’s expressed with a conditional, not with the subjunctive:

• no entenderíamos el origen de la ciudad
  = we wouldn’t understand the origin of the city

There’s no need for the subjunctive because:

• We’re not expressing doubt about “understand”;
• We’re describing a hypothetical consequence (handled by the conditional), triggered by the condition sin las ruinas antiguas.

Subjunctive with decir que appears in different situations, e.g.:

• Me dice que lo haga. = He tells me to do it.
  (Here hacer is a command/indirect order, so subjunctive: haga.)

In your sentence, entenderíamos is just the main verb of the hypothetical scenario, so conditional is the right choice.

How is entenderíamos formed? Why doesn’t the stem change like in entiendo?

The verb is entender (to understand).

In the present indicative, it’s a stem-changing verb:

• yo entiendo
• tú entiendes
• nosotros entendemos

But the conditional is regular for almost all verbs: you keep the infinitive and add the conditional endings:

• entender + íamos = entenderíamos

That’s why there’s no “entienderíamos”. The stem change (e → ie) happens in certain present-tense forms, but not in the conditional.

Why is it el origen and not la origen?

In Spanish, origen is grammatically masculine:

• el origen (the origin)

The article must agree with the gender of the noun, so you say:

• el origen de la ciudad

There’s no feminine form la origen in standard Spanish.

Why do we say de la ciudad and not just de ciudad?

De ciudad would sound like “of a city” in a very vague, generic way, and even then it’s not a natural phrase here.

In the sentence, we’re talking about the city’s origin — a specific city that is already known from context:

• el origen de la ciudad = the origin of the city

So we use:

• de + definite article + noun
  de la ciudad (of the city)

Also note the contraction rule:

• de + el → del (for masculine nouns): del país, del río
• de + la → de la (for feminine nouns): de la ciudad, de la casa

Here ciudad is feminine, so de la, not del.

Why is no placed before entenderíamos?

In Spanish, the basic rule is:

• No goes immediately before the conjugated verb.

So:

• no entenderíamos = we would not understand
• no entiendo = I do not understand
• no dijo nada = he/she didn’t say anything

You generally can’t put no after the verb in Spanish the way you might in colloquial English (“We would understand not”). It must go before:

• ✗ entenderíamos no el origen
• ✓ no entenderíamos el origen

Who does entenderíamos refer to? Is the architect included?

Entenderíamos is 1st person plural (“we would understand / we wouldn’t understand”).

In context, it usually means:

• we = people in general (including the speaker, possibly the listener, and likely including the architect too).

So the idea is:

Without the ancient ruins, we (as people interested in the city / as a society) wouldn’t understand the origin of the city.

The subject of dice is la arquitecta (she), and the subject of entenderíamos is nosotros (we). This change of subject is normal and understood from the verb endings.