Learn Hardcore Spanish (Latin America): Mi tía enseña en el centro comunitario y explica que hay que beber suficiente agua. - My aunt teaches at the community center and explains that one must drink enough water.

tía is pronounced TEE-ah (two syllables: tí-a).
Without the accent (tia), a learner might be tempted to say it as one syllable or stress it incorrectly.

This is similar to día (day), which is DEE-ah, not like dia in English words such as diagonal.

So the accent:

Marks the stress (the í is stressed).
Shows that í + a form two syllables, not a single combined sound.

Why is it mi tía and not mía tía or la tía mía?

Spanish has two types of possessive forms:

Short (unstressed) possessives – used before the noun:
- mi tía = my aunt
- tu tía = your aunt
- su tía = his/her/their/your (formal) aunt
Long (stressed) possessives – usually used after the noun:
- la tía mía = the aunt of mine
- una tía mía = an aunt of mine

In this sentence, mi tía is the normal, neutral way to say my aunt.
Mía tía is incorrect; the form mía does not go before the noun.

Why are enseña and explica both in the -a form? What subject do they agree with?

Both enseña and explica are in the third person singular, present tense, and they both agree with the same subject: mi tía.

mi tía enseña = my aunt teaches
(mi tía) explica = (my aunt) explains

You don’t need to repeat mi tía or add ella:

Mi tía enseña en el centro comunitario y explica…

The subject mi tía covers both verbs joined by y. This is very natural in Spanish; once the subject is clear, you usually don’t repeat it.

Why is it enseña en el centro comunitario and not enseña al centro comunitario?

In Spanish:

en = in / at (location)
a = to (direction, movement towards)

Here, we’re talking about where she teaches (location), not where she goes (direction).

enseña en el centro comunitario = she teaches at/in the community center
va al centro comunitario = she goes to the community center

Al is a contraction of a + el, so it implies movement or direction. Since teaching happens in that place, we use en, not a.

Why is it el centro comunitario and not un centro comunitario?

The article changes how specific the noun is:

el centro comunitario = the community center (a particular, known one)
un centro comunitario = a community center (any one, not specific)

In context, mi tía enseña en el centro comunitario suggests there is a specific community center that both speaker and listener can identify (maybe the one in their neighborhood).

Using el is like saying the in English when you mean a particular place you have in mind.

What does centro comunitario literally mean, and why is it comunitario (masculine)?

centro = center
comunitario = community (used as an adjective: community-related)

So centro comunitario is literally community center.

Centro is a masculine noun (el centro), so the adjective must also be masculine singular:

centro comunitario (masculine singular)
If the noun were feminine, the adjective would change:
clínica comunitaria (feminine singular)
servicios comunitarios (masculine plural)

The adjective comunitario agrees in gender and number with centro, not with any English idea of the word community.

Why is there a que after explica? Can you say explica hay que beber… without que?

In Spanish, when a verb like explicar (to explain) introduces a full clause (something with its own verb), you usually need the conjunction que.

explica que hay que beber suficiente agua
= she explains that one must drink enough water

You cannot normally drop que here:

✗ explica hay que beber suficiente agua (incorrect)
✓ explica que hay que beber suficiente agua (correct)

So que in this sentence works like English that introducing a subordinate clause.

What does hay que mean exactly, and how is it different from tener que or deber?

Hay que + infinitive expresses a general, impersonal obligation: what people in general should/must do.

Hay que beber suficiente agua.
= One must / You have to / People should drink enough water.

Key points:

No specific subject (not I, you, she, etc.).
It’s more like a general rule, a recommendation, or a guideline.

Compared with other forms:

Tener que + infinitive: obligation for a specific person
- Tengo que beber agua. = I have to drink water.
- Ella tiene que beber agua. = She has to drink water.
Deber + infinitive: expresses duty, recommendation, or moral obligation
- Debes beber agua. = You should/ought to drink water.

So:

hay que = one must / it’s necessary to (in general)
tener que = someone in particular has to
deber = should / ought to

Who is supposed to drink water in hay que beber suficiente agua if there is no subject?

In hay que beber suficiente agua, the subject is impersonal—it doesn’t refer to a specific person.

Possible English translations:

One must drink enough water.
You have to drink enough water. (generic you)
People should drink enough water.
It’s necessary to drink enough water.

The idea is that everyone in general is supposed to drink enough water, not just the aunt, not just the listener. Spanish shows this by using hay que without a personal subject.

Why is the verb after hay que in the infinitive (beber) and not conjugated (like bebe or bebemos)?

After hay que, you always use the infinitive form, not a conjugated verb:

hay que beber (to drink)
hay que estudiar (to study)
hay que descansar (to rest)

The structure is: > hay que + infinitive

You would not say:

✗ hay que bebemos
✗ hay que bebo

The infinitive keeps the action general and impersonal, which matches the general obligation expressed by hay que.

Why does the sentence use beber and not tomar, and are they interchangeable here?

Both beber and tomar can mean to drink, but there are some tendencies:

beber: more directly means to drink, often for liquids in general.
tomar: very common in Latin America with the meaning to drink, especially in everyday speech:
- tomar agua
- tomar café
- tomar vino

In this sentence, both are correct:

hay que beber suficiente agua
hay que tomar suficiente agua

Depending on the country and tone:

tomar agua sounds very natural and colloquial in much of Latin America.
beber agua is also correct and may sound slightly more neutral or formal in some contexts.

So yes, they are interchangeable here in meaning.

Why is suficiente before agua, and could you also say beber agua suficiente?

Suficiente is an adjective meaning enough / sufficient, and it usually comes after the noun, but it is also very commonly used before:

Both are possible:

beber suficiente agua
beber agua suficiente

They mean essentially the same thing: to drink enough water.

Notes:

suficiente does not change for gender:
- agua suficiente, comida suficiente
It does change for plural:
- suficientes vasos de agua (enough glasses of water)

In practice, suficiente is very flexible in position, and suficiente agua is perfectly natural.

Is agua masculine or feminine, and why doesn’t it have el or la in this sentence?

Agua is grammatically feminine:

el agua fría (the cold water)
mucha agua (a lot of water)
suficiente agua (enough water)

Two important points:

Gender:
- It is feminine, which you see in the adjectives:
  - agua fría (not frío)
  - mucha agua (not mucho)
Article:
- When agua is singular and you use a definite article, you say el agua, not la agua, to avoid the awkward sound of la a-:
  - el agua está fría
- But in this sentence, there is no article at all:
  - beber suficiente agua = drink enough water
    There is no need to say la agua or el agua here.

So:

Agua is feminine.
No article appears in this structure, so we just see suficiente agua.