Breakdown of Se sospecha que la infidelidad arruinó el matrimonio.
que
that / than
se
(impersonal) one / passive marker
sospechar
to suspect
el matrimonio
the marriage
Questions & Answers about Se sospecha que la infidelidad arruinó el matrimonio.
Why do we say se sospecha instead of es sospechado for "it is suspected"?
While the literal passive es sospechado exists, Spanish strongly prefers the impersonal se construction (se + third-person verb) for general statements. Se sospecha is the most natural way to express "it is suspected," "one suspects," or "people suspect" when you aren't specifying exactly who holds the suspicion.
Since a suspicion implies doubt, why does this sentence use the indicative arruinó instead of the subjunctive?
Verbs that express belief or assumption, like sospechar (to suspect), creer (to believe), or suponer (to suppose), take the indicative when they are affirmative. This is because they declare what someone believes to be a fact. You would only trigger the subjunctive if you negated the suspicion, as in no se sospecha que...
Could I drop the word la and just say que infidelidad arruinó... if I mean infidelity in a broad, general sense?
No, you always need the article here. In Spanish, abstract nouns and general concepts (like infidelity, love, or justice) require a definite article (la or el) when they act as the subject of a sentence or clause. Even if the English translation had omitted "the", Spanish would still require la infidelidad.
Why use the preterite arruinó instead of the imperfect arruinaba?