Learn Hardcore Spanish (Latin America): En conclusión, no deberíamos soportar injusticias en silencio, sino hablar con respeto como lo hace mi prima abogada. - In conclusion, we should not tolerate injustices in silence, but rather speak with respect as my cousin, a lawyer, does.

No deberíamos soportar… = We shouldn’t (we ought not to) put up with… → softer, more advisory.
No debemos soportar… = We must not put up with… → stronger, more categorical or strict.

So the choice of deberíamos makes the tone less absolute and more about what is advisable or ethically preferable, not an iron rule.

What does “soportar” mean here, and why not use something like “apoyar”?

In this context soportar means “to put up with / endure / tolerate unwillingly.”

soportar injusticias ≈ to endure injustices, to put up with injustices.

A common trap for English speakers is to think soportar = to support (false friend).

apoyar is the usual verb for to support (a cause, a person):
- apoyar una causa – to support a cause.

So no deberíamos soportar injusticias means we shouldn’t tolerate injustices, not we shouldn’t support injustices.

Why is “sino” used instead of “pero”?

Both pero and sino can be translated as “but”, but they’re used differently.

pero adds a contrast:
- Quiero ayudar, *pero no tengo tiempo. – I want to help, *but I don’t have time.
sino is used after a negation to correct or replace what was said before:
- No quiero café, sino té. – I don’t want coffee, but rather tea.

In the sentence:

no deberíamos soportar injusticias en silencio, sino hablar con respeto…

We first negate one option (put up with injustices in silence), and then replace it with the preferred option (speak with respect). That “correction” is why sino is required, not pero.

Why is “hablar” in the infinitive and not “hablemos” or “hablamos”?

The structure is:

no deberíamos soportar… sino hablar…

After deberíamos, Spanish often uses an infinitive to express what we should do:

Deberíamos estudiar. – We should study.
No deberíamos gritar, sino hablar con calma. – We shouldn’t shout, but (instead) speak calmly.

Here, soportar and hablar are parallel infinitives:

(no deberíamos) soportar injusticias
(sino [deberíamos]) hablar con respeto

You could also say no deberíamos soportar injusticias… sino que deberíamos hablar…, but the original is more concise and natural.

What does “en silencio” mean literally, and could you say “silenciosamente” instead?

En silencio is a common Spanish phrase meaning “in silence / silently.” Literally, it’s “in silence,” but it works like an adverb:

Escuchó en silencio. – He/She listened silently.

You could say silenciosamente, but:

en silencio is more common, more neutral, and sounds less formal or literary.

So soportar injusticias en silencio is the natural way to say to endure injustices silently.

In “como lo hace mi prima abogada”, what is the “lo” referring to, and why is it there?

In como lo hace mi prima abogada, the lo is a neuter direct object pronoun that refers back to the action mentioned before — speaking with respect.

Roughly:

como lo hace mi prima abogada ≈ the way my cousin the lawyer does it

The “it” in English (does it) is what lo represents in Spanish: that way of speaking with respect.

You could hear people say como hace mi prima abogada, but como lo hace… is very typical when hacer stands for to do that action.

Why is it “mi prima abogada” and not “mi abogada prima”?

Here, prima and abogada are both nouns:

mi prima abogada = my cousin, [who is] a lawyer

This is like an apposition in English: my cousin, a lawyer. Spanish often places the profession after a family term without an article:

mi hermano médico – my brother, (a) doctor
mi tío profesor – my uncle, (a) teacher

Mi abogada prima would be odd and normally interpreted as my lawyer-ish cousin (if at all); it doesn’t work for my cousin who is a lawyer. The natural pattern is:

[possessive] + family member + profession: mi prima abogada.

Why is “abogada” feminine here, and when would it be “abogado”?

Spanish grammatically marks gender for many nouns, including professions.

abogada (ending in -a) → feminine → refers to a woman.
abogado (ending in -o) → masculine → refers to a man.

Because the speaker is referring to “mi prima” (female cousin), the profession must also use the feminine form:

mi prima abogada – my (female) cousin, a lawyer.
mi primo abogado – my (male) cousin, a lawyer.

In Latin America, abogada and abogado are both widely used, and it’s normal to match the person’s gender.

Why do we say “con respeto” instead of an adverb like “respetuosamente”?

Spanish very often uses “con + noun” to express how something is done:

con paciencia – patiently
con cuidado – carefully
con respeto – respectfully

While respetuosamente exists and is correct, it sounds more formal and is used mostly in written or very formal language (e.g., “Respetuosamente,” at the end of a letter).

In everyday speech and neutral writing, hablar con respeto is much more natural than hablar respetuosamente.

Why is “injusticias” plural and without an article? Could you also say “la injusticia”?

Injusticias in the plural without an article is a common way to talk about injustices in general, not specific, countable events:

No deberíamos soportar injusticias ≈ We shouldn’t tolerate injustices (of any kind / in general).

You could say:

No deberíamos soportar la injusticia. – We shouldn’t tolerate injustice.

Here, la injusticia treats injustice as a general abstract concept (like “injustice as a phenomenon”). Both are possible; the plural injusticias makes you picture multiple concrete wrongs, many unfair situations.

Why is the negative “no” placed before “deberíamos” and not before “soportar”?

In Spanish, the basic rule is:

“no” goes before the conjugated verb.

In this sentence, the conjugated verb is deberíamos:

no deberíamos soportar injusticias…

The infinitive soportar depends on deberíamos, so you don’t place no directly in front of it. You normally wouldn’t say deberíamos no soportar injusticias unless you want a special emphasis or a different nuance; and even then, it can sound awkward.

So the standard, natural pattern is no + [conjugated verb] + [infinitive]:
no deberíamos soportar…

Why is “hace” in the present indicative and not a subjunctive like “haga”?

Como lo hace mi prima abogada is describing a real, known way that the cousin acts. There is no doubt, desire, hypothesis, or unreality here — it’s a straightforward statement:

(hablar) como lo hace mi prima – (speak) as my cousin does it.

The subjunctive haga would appear in structures that trigger it, such as:

como lo haga mi prima – depending on how my cousin does it (hypothetical, not a fixed known way).

In this sentence, we are imitating a real example, so indicative (hace) is correct and expected.