Learn Hardcore Spanish (Spain): Después de tanta sequía, el suelo estaba tan seco que mi abuelo decía que debe de ser difícil para las plantas. - After so much drought, the ground was so dry that my grandfather said it must be hard for the plants.

tan + adjective/adverb = so + adj/adv
- tan seco = so dry
- tan rápido = so fast
tanto/tanta/tantos/tantas + noun = so much / so many + noun
- tanta sequía = so much drought
- tanto calor = so much heat
- tantas personas = so many people

So:

sequía is a noun → needs tanta.
seco is an adjective → needs tan.

They agree like this:

tanto (m. sing.) → tanto calor
tanta (f. sing.) → tanta sequía
tantos (m. pl.) → tantos árboles
tantas (f. pl.) → tantas plantas

Why do we say después de tanta sequía and not just después tanta sequía?

In Spanish:

después de + noun / infinitive is the normal structure:
- después de la cena = after dinner
- después de estudiar = after studying
- después de tanta sequía = after so much drought

When después is followed by a noun or verb, it normally needs de.

You can drop de only when después stands alone, usually as an adverb meaning afterwards:

Primero comemos y después hablamos.
First we eat and afterwards we talk.

So después tanta sequía is ungrammatical; it has to be después de tanta sequía.

Why is there no article in tanta sequía? Why not tanta la sequía?

Tanto/tanta/tantos/tantas already functions as a determiner (like so much / so many), so you don’t normally add a definite article after it:

❌ tanta la sequía
✅ tanta sequía (so much drought)

Compare:

la sequía = the drought
mucha sequía = a lot of drought
tanta sequía = so much drought

The same happens with other quantity words:

mucha agua (not mucha la agua)
pocas plantas (not pocas las plantas)

What does the structure tan … que … mean in tan seco que mi abuelo decía…?

tan … que … expresses result: so … that ….

Pattern:

tan + adjective/adverb + que + clause

Examples:

El suelo estaba tan seco que se agrietaba.
The ground was so dry that it cracked.
Hablaba tan rápido que no le entendía.
He spoke so fast that I didn’t understand him.

In the sentence:

estaba tan seco = was so dry
que mi abuelo decía que… = that my grandfather said that…

So the dryness leads to the result: your grandfather’s comment.

Why is it el suelo estaba tan seco and not era tan seco or estuvo tan seco?

Two choices are involved: ser vs estar, and imperfect vs preterite.

ser vs estar
- estar + adjective often describes a state or condition, often temporary or resulting from something:
  - El suelo estaba seco. = It was (in a dry state).
- ser + adjective tends to describe inherent characteristics:
  - El suelo es seco. = The soil is (by nature) dry / arid.
Here we want the condition after the drought, so estar is natural: estaba tan seco.
imperfect (estaba) vs preterite (estuvo)
- estaba (imperfect) = background, ongoing state, description:
  - Después de tanta sequía, el suelo estaba tan seco…
    → description of how things were in that period.
- estuvo (preterite) = completed state during a closed time frame:
  - El suelo estuvo seco todo el verano.
    → stresses the whole period as a completed block.

So el suelo estaba tan seco paints the background condition rather than a bounded, completed state.

Why is it mi abuelo decía and not mi abuelo dijo?

Again, this is imperfect vs preterite:

decía (imperfect of decir)
- Often: used to say / would say / was saying
- Suggests habit or repeated action, or just background past.
dijo (preterite)
- A single, completed act: he said (once).

In your sentence:

…el suelo estaba tan seco que mi abuelo decía que…

This sounds like:

The ground was so dry that my grandfather *would say / kept saying that it must be hard for the plants.*

If you said mi abuelo dijo, it would sound more like one specific occasion when he said it, not a typical comment he made.

What’s the difference between debe ser and debe de ser here? Why is it debe de ser difícil?

Traditionally:

deber + infinitive → obligation / duty
- Debes regar las plantas. = You must / should water the plants.
deber de + infinitive → probability / supposition
- Debe de ser difícil para las plantas.
  = It must be / is probably hard for the plants.

So in the sentence, your grandfather is guessing or inferring how hard it is for the plants, not ordering anyone to do something. That’s why deber de (supposition) fits.

In real-life modern Spanish, many speakers (especially in Spain) often drop the de, and context decides:

Debe ser difícil para las plantas.
will also be understood as probability, not obligation.

But your sentence shows the “textbook” distinction: deber de = supposition.

Why is it debe de ser difícil in the present, even though the main verb is past (decía) ? Should it be debía de ser difícil?

Both are possible, but they mean slightly different things.

mi abuelo decía que debe de ser difícil…
- This often works as indirectly quoting what he said in his own “present”:
- Like: my grandfather used to say “it must be hard for the plants”.
- The present debe keeps his opinion as something generally valid, not tied strictly to the past.
mi abuelo decía que debía de ser difícil…
- Now both verbs are in the past (imperfect):
- Feels more like a description of what he thought at that time, a past perspective.

So:

debe de ser → his comment is presented as a still-relevant general idea.
debía de ser → his comment is situated more clearly in a past context.

Grammatically, both can be correct. The original sentence chooses debe de ser to sound like his habitual statement, still valid whenever those conditions occur.

Why is it para las plantas and not a las plantas or por las plantas?

Different prepositions express different relationships:

para often = for / intended for / in relation to:
- Es difícil para las plantas.
  = It is difficult for the plants (from their point of view).
a often marks indirect object / direction:
- Le doy agua a las plantas. = I give water to the plants.
- Not used for this kind of “it is hard for them” structure.
por often = because of / due to / by / through:
- Murieron por la sequía. = They died because of the drought.
- Es difícil por la sequía. = It is hard because of the drought.

So:

difícil para las plantas = hard for the plants
difícil por la sequía = hard because of the drought

In your sentence, we focus on who experiences the difficulty → para las plantas.

Could we say muy seco instead of tan seco? What’s the difference?

Both are correct Spanish, but they’re not interchangeable in this sentence:

muy + adjective/adverb = very
- muy seco = very dry
tan + adjective/adverb + que… = so … that … (result)
- tan seco que… = so dry that…

Your sentence needs the result clause:

El suelo estaba tan seco que mi abuelo decía…
= The ground was so dry *that my grandfather would say…*

If you use muy seco, you break that specific pattern. You could say:

El suelo estaba muy seco. Mi abuelo decía que…
(Two separate sentences.)

But within the tan … que … structure, you must use tan, not muy.

What exactly does suelo mean here? Could we use tierra instead?

Both are related but not identical:

el suelo
- Literally: the ground / floor / surface you walk on.
- In this context: the top layer of the ground, the soil as a surface where plants grow.
la tierra
- Can mean earth, soil, land, ground more generally.
- La tierra está seca = The soil/earth is dry.

In many contexts, suelo and tierra can both work when talking about dryness, but:

suelo is a bit more technical / neutral for “soil, ground”.
tierra is broader and can also mean planet Earth, land vs sea, etc.

You could say:

Después de tanta sequía, la tierra estaba tan seca que…

That would be natural too, just with a slightly different nuance.

Is the word order Después de tanta sequía, el suelo estaba… obligatory? Could we move things around?

Word order is fairly flexible in Spanish; here it’s chosen for emphasis and flow, not because it’s the only correct option.

You could also say:

El suelo estaba tan seco después de tanta sequía que mi abuelo decía…
El suelo, después de tanta sequía, estaba tan seco que…

All are grammatically fine. Placing Después de tanta sequía first:

Sets the time/condition as the background frame.
Feels natural for storytelling: After so much drought, the ground was so dry that…

The comma after sequía is also standard because that initial phrase is an introductory clause.