# Indonesian: passive voice and use of conjunctions



## sufler

Hello!
I've got two questions concerning Indonesian grammar:

*1.)* As far as I know passive voice is used when the performer of the action is not known (at least in English). But in Indonesian texts I often encounter construction when the doer is well-know (mentioned in previous sentence), but in the next sentence the action that he or she performs is in the passive. For example: 



> (...) petani itu akhirnya kaya raya. Karena tak ingin tetangganya tahu mengenai kekayaannya, seluruh tabungannya dibelikan emas dan dikuburnya emas itu di sebuah lubang di belakang rumahnya. Seminggu sekali digalinya lubang itu, dikeluarkan emasnya, dan diciuminya dengan penuh kebanggaan. Setelah puas, ia kembali mengubur emasnya.



The doer of all the actions is well-know since the first sentence (he's a farmer). So why all the forms "was bought", "was buried", "was kissed" ?
"Once a week the hole was dug, his gold was taken out and kissed with full pride" 

I also wonder what is the function of the suffix -nya after the verb "digali". Is it possible that passive voice with prefix di- and suffix -nya replaces the third person? So you can say "Dia membaca buku itu" = "Dibacanya buku itu"?

*2.)* My second question also relates to that quote above. Namely, the use of conjunctions "to", "in order to" and "that" in Indonesian. Do you use them in Indonesian or they are rather omitted? Let's take the sentence "He didn't want his neighbor(s) to know about his treasure". - "tak ingin tetangganya tahu mengenai kekayaannya", but there is no "untuk" or "guna" in this sentence, so I suppose those conjunctions are omitted. 

Also the conjunction "that". I have always thought it is not omitted in Indonesian, so we say:
Aku berpikir bahwa ... - I think that ...
Aku tahu bahwa ... - I know that ...
Dia berkata bahwa ... - She says that ...

But I encountered a sentence: 


> Si rakus mengira ada anjing lain yang menggigit daging juga...



The greedy (dog) thought that there was another dog which also bit meat... 

There should be the conjunction "that", but "bahwa" doesn't appear in the original Indonesian text. Why?

In sum my question is when we use conjunctions like bahwa, unktuk, guna in Indonesian and when are they omitted?


----------



## Mauricet

The slight difference between the active _dia menggali lubang itu_ and the passive _digalinya lubang itu_ is one of emphasis: on the agent (active voice) or on the object (passive voice), while the agent may be known in both.





> I also wonder what is the function of the suffix -nya after the verb  "digali". Is it possible that passive voice with prefix di- and suffix  -nya replaces the third person? So you can say "Dia membaca buku itu" =  "Dibacanya buku itu"?





> Once a week the hole was dug, his gold was taken out and kissed with full pride


Once a week he would dig that hole, get his gold out and kiss it with full pride.

Conjunctions are not omitted in Indonesian, they are not needed in your examples. (Their being used more often nowadays may be a result of relatively recent Western influence, mostly from English, I think).


----------



## sufler

Thanks a lot,
I would ask you for just one more explanation. When we replace the 3rd person with di-, is the -nya suffix actually  needed? Can I just say "dibaca buku itu" and that would mean the same as "dibacanya buku itu"? Because in the example "dibelikan emas" there's no suffix "-nya" used and it indicates the 3rd person anyway. 

I  wonder, do native speakers actually consider that form to be passive  voice, or the "di-" prefix is just shortened form of "dia" and has nothing  to with passive? I keep asking, because something isn't right with the  sentence order. 

Active sentence order is SVO:
Dia membaca buku itu. - He read this book.
But in a passive sentence first we put the noun and then the verb with di- and finally the doer:
Buku itu dibaca ayahku. - The book was read by my father.
And in the sentence where we replace 3rd person with di-, we first put the *verb*:
Dibaca(nya) buku itu.

That's why I wonder if natives consider it passive, or just shorten the pronoun "dia" this way:
Dia + baca  buku itu.


----------



## Mauricet

The agent may be omitted altogether, this is why you sometimes read _dibaca buku itu_ for _the book was read (by him)_ or _he read the book_. This is also why _-nya_ is lacking between _dikeluarkan_ and _emasnya_ in your example: it's his gold, no need to say it's him who would get it out of the hole after digging the hole ...

And no, _di_ never stands for _dia_! But you could certainly hear _dia baca buku itu_ as _membaca_ belongs to a more formal, written language. And obviously the order of words in Indonesian passive voice need not be as in English ...


----------



## sufler

Aha, so when the agent is 3rd person, the verb with di- and -nya goes first:
Dibacanya buku itu.

And when the agent is a special person, the noun goes first and the verb with di-
Buku itu dibaca ayahku.

I hope I understand. Thanks for your help and effort


----------



## mignons

sufler said:


> Aha, so when the agent is 3rd person, the verb with di- and -nya goes first:
> Dibacanya buku itu.



not necessarily, you can write it _Buku itu dibacanya_ as well, or _Buku itu dibaca olehnya_. The latter is more formal.


----------



## sufler

Today in Indonesian news on youtube I heard such sentence:
"Mitsuko Ito tinggal sendirian, dan ia dibantu keluarga lain untuk mengungsi."

I don't understand who helped whom. Does it mean that
"she helped another family to flee" 
or 
"she was helped by other family to flee" = "other family helped her to flee"?


----------



## mignons

sufler said:


> Today in Indonesian news on youtube I heard such sentence:
> "Mitsuko Ito tinggal sendirian, dan ia dibantu keluarga lain untuk mengungsi."
> 
> I don't understand who helped whom. Does it mean that
> "she helped another family to flee"
> or
> "she was helped by other family to flee" = "other family helped her to flee"?


"she *helped* another family to flee" = Ia *mem*bantu keluarga lain untuk mengungsi.

"she *was helped* by other family to flee" = Ia *di*bantu keluarga lain untuk mengungsi.


----------



## sufler

Once I came across such a sentence that meant "to make it easy (for people) to read...":


> Supaya mudah dibaca...


Can I use such form in every case? For example when I want to say "to make it easy to get in" can I say


> Supaya mudah dimasuk...


?


----------



## kawaii neko

Hi, I'm Indonesian, but not fluently in english..but i will try my best to explain it..

yes you can use "supaya mudah dimasuk...." when you want to say "to make it easy to get in"...but you must add_ i _after _k..._so the sentence should be "supaya mudah dimasuki..."

you can also change "_supaya_" with "_agar_".....in informal conversation "mudah" can be change with "gampang"....but i heard "gampang" means "children born without marriage" in malay language..yeah, but it doesn't matter...many words in many language have similar in writing, but have different meaning...

one question for you, but I wanna ask this in Indonesian informal language...

"apa yang bikin kamu tertarik belajar bahasa indonesia?"


----------



## kawaii neko

Ah, I almost forget.... you can use "_supaya mudah...._" in every case, but sometime you must add "_i" _or "_kan_" after the basic word....it depends on what word you use...


----------



## spb90

sufler said:


> *to make it easy (for people) to read*
> _ supaya mudah dibaca_
> 
> *to make it easy to get in
> *_supaya mudah dimasuk_





kawaii neko said:


> yes you can use "supaya mudah dimasuk...." when you want to say "to make it easy to get in"...but you must add_ i _after _k..._so the sentence should be "supaya mudah dimasuki..."



I'm not sure what _kawaii_neko_ said is entirely accurate. I can think of a few verbs, just off the top of my head, that end with _k_ that don't require the suffix -i, for example:


*to be shot *_ditembak_
*to be stepped on* _diinjak_
*to be invited*_ diajak_

That is, not to say that those verbs _can't_ take the suffix, but rather that the suffix -i is not always necessarily because of the word ending in a certain letter.

A *verb* can usually take a suffix -i for one of two reasons: to signify a location (locative suffix -i) and to signify repetition (repetitive -i). 

Though the conjugation of _masuk_ seems uncommon to me, depending on context, _dimasuki_ can signify a location (*rumah itu dimasuki pencuri* _that house was entered by a burglar_) and a repetitive action(*).

As with my previous example, the suffix -i can also work on _ditembak_ to form _ditembaki_ (*to be fired at*) and on _diinjak_ to form _diinjaki_ (*to be trampled*).


(*): Personally, I would avoid the conjugation _dimasuki_ altogether, because of this meaning. In colloquial terms, the word can imply sexual acts.


----------



## kawaii neko

*to be shot *_ditembak_
*to be stepped on* _diinjak_
*to be invited*_ diajak_

That is, not to say that those verbs _can't_ take the suffix, but rather that the suffix -i is not always necessarily because of the word ending in a certain letter.

A *verb* can usually take a suffix -i for one of two reasons: to signify a location (locative suffix -i) and to signify repetition (repetitive -i). 

Though the conjugation of _masuk_ seems uncommon to me, depending on context, _dimasuki_ can signify a location (*rumah itu dimasuki pencuri* _that house was entered by a burglar_) and a repetitive action(*).

As with my previous example, the suffix -i can also work on _ditembak_ to form _ditembaki_ (*to be fired at*) and on _diinjak_ to form _diinjaki_ (*to be trampled*).


----------



## sufler

How should I understand such sentence:


> Puri Lumbung Cottage adalah sebuah proyek yang bertujuan untuk menjawab beberapa isu yang dihadapi Bali.


"Puri Lumbung Cottage is a project that aims to answer some problems that are faced by Bali".
From the sentence order I may infer that "problems face Bali" not "Bali faces problems".
Is that all right?

*Can I translate the verb menjawab = "to answer" as "to solve (the problems)" in this sentence?


----------



## adrnstyd

sufler said:


> How should I understand such sentence:
> 
> "Puri Lumbung Cottage is a project that aims to answer some problems that are faced by Bali".
> From the sentence order I may infer that "problems face Bali" not "Bali faces problems".
> Is that all right?
> 
> *Can I translate the verb menjawab = "to answer" as "to solve (the problems)" in this sentence?



I'm a native Indonesian.
For this:


> Puri Lumbung Cottage adalah sebuah proyek yang bertujuan untuk menjawab beberapa isu yang dihadapi Bali.


I guess I would translate it to this:


> Puri Lumbung Cottage is a project that aims to answer some problems that the  Bali government is facing.



"Menjawab" commonly used when you're just trying and to solve and not really sure about your answer. But recently it also used when refering to something that has been done/will be done by the government or some officials to overcome a problem that occured in their area of expertise.
For example:


> Pemerintah Bali telah menjawab permasalahan krisis air minum dengan mengadakan alat filtrasi canggih untuk perusahaan air minumnya.


The above use usually appears on the news.

Actually you can also replace the word "menjawab" in that sentence with "memecahkan" (to solve/to crack a problem). And both will still have the same meaning, which is:


> Bali government solved the drinking water shortage problem by providing some high-end filtration equipment for their water company.



Memecahkan is only used when you are really sure that the problems are solved by that answer/action and you think no further discussion needed.
Menjawab generally used when you are *answering questions* and recently used also (due to influenced by English) when you are solving problems (mostly used in an official statement).


----------



## Ridwan Nurhayat

sufler said:


> Once I came across such a sentence that meant "to make it easy (for people) to read...":
> 
> Can I use such form in every case? For example when I want to say "to make it easy to get in" can I say
> ?



IMHO,
"to make it easy to get in" = supaya mudah masuk
"to make it easy for something to get into" = supaya mudah dimasuki


----------

