# Что or то, что



## DareRyan

In the following phrase would I be able to use the conjunction что alone or do i need to use то, что? Is there any rule I can follow in regards to conjunctions in subordinate clauses?

Он говорил, что нельзя читать, когда он говорит.
or
Он говорил то, что нельзя читать, когда он говорит.


----------



## Kraus

Broadly speaking, *что *= that and *то что* = what

Both the sentences are correct, but their meanings is different:

"He said *that *you can't read when he speaks"

"He said *what *you can't read when he speaks" (a bit odd)


Знаю, что знаешь = I know (that) you know
Знаю то, что знаешь = I know what you know

Excuse me for my poor English!


----------



## papillon

Ryan, welcome back!

Your first sentence is correct, the second one doesn't make sense.
In general, if in English two clauses are connected by _that_, you would simply use что.
I think that she is pretty.
Я думаю (мне кажется), что она хорошенькая.

то, что is used to mean _...that, which..., _(or _what_ and the like) in the following context:
He's doing what he's told.
Он делает то, что ему говорят.

As a side note:
are you sure you don't mean:
Он сказал, что нельзя читать, когда он говорит.


----------



## DareRyan

I appologize, but I am a bit confused.

"He said *what *you can't read when he speaks"

is "what" a direct object to читать or something different? At which point, why isn't the accusative necessary?


----------



## Kraus

I think "*what*" is a direct object both to читать and to говорил. So *то, что* is an accusative to these two verbs too.


----------



## DareRyan

papillon said:


> As a side note:
> are you sure you don't mean:
> Он сказал, что нельзя читать, когда он говорит.



You are right! сказать is a much better choice of verb in this case. Thank you for the correction!


----------



## DareRyan

To see if I truely understand this, if I were to use the phrase, "I don't understand what he is saying." would it be

Я не понимаю то, что он говорит.


----------



## DareRyan

Another fairly simplistic question.

How is то, что pronounced? is there an audible pause (то – что) or do they run on (то что)?


----------



## Kraus

As far as I know, there isn't any pause, but I haven't a Russian ear, so my opinion is not so reliable. Let's wait for the natives...


----------



## papillon

DareRyan said:


> To see if I truely understand this, if I were to use the phrase, "I don't understand what he is saying." would it be
> 
> Я не понимаю то, что он говорит.


This is correct. 

However, I just realized that in many instances, --то, что-- is replaced by a simple --что--.
In your case, 
Я не понимаю, что он говорит
means the same and sounds perfectly acceptable. 

You may find this recent thread interesting: link.


----------



## Crescent

DareRyan said:


> Another fairly simplistic question.
> 
> How is то, что pronounced? is there an audible pause (то – что) or do they run on (то что)?


No, no, there's no real audible pause (what a lovely phrase you've made up!  ) between то, что  - they do indeed just run into each other and you can't really 'hear' that coma. At least not the way native people speak. But please do remember that when you write there is _always always always_ a coma before the word 'что' (well.. probably with a few exceptions, of which I cannot think of this very minute). 

e.g. Он сказал это _так, что_ она аж вздрогнула. 
      Он не хотел там появляться _потому, что_ _знал, что_ D)  его там никто не ждёт.


----------



## Mirynka

Crescent said:


> e.g. Он сказал это _так, что_ она аж вздрогнула.
> Он не хотел там появляться _потому, что_ _знал, что_ D) его там никто не ждёт.


 
Crescent, you also can write Он не хотел там появляться _потому что_ _знал, что_ without coma. You rarely write _потому что_ with coma, more often it is without.


----------



## Crescent

Mirynka said:


> Crescent, you also can write Он не хотел там появляться _потому что_ _знал, что_ without coma. You rarely write _потому что_ with coma, more often it is without.



Really?  In that case, sorry - I must have forgotten or something.. I don't know, I mean I tend to write it with a coma, but I guess that's wrong then. 
Thanks for the correction, Mirynka!


----------



## Yanebot1

Crescent said:


> Really?  In that case, sorry - I must have forgotten or something.. I don't know, I mean I tend to write it with a coma, but I guess that's wrong then.
> Thanks for the correction, Mirynka!



As a Ukrainian I may say that Mirynka is right this time. Too bad my weighty opinion is six years retarded :'(


----------



## Maroseika

Yanebot1 said:


> As a Ukrainian I may say that Mirynka is right this time. '(



Never thought Ukrainian punctuation might be that much different. At least in Russian потому что without a comma (before or inside it) is completely wrong.


----------



## oirobi

DareRyan said:


> To see if I truely understand this, if I were to use the phrase, "I don't understand what he is saying." would it be
> 
> Я не понимаю то, что он говорит.



Ha-ha! (I just realised how damn difficult Russian is, just like any other natural language, though)

In fact, "я не понимаю, что он говорит" would be more frequently used than your variant. But all the explanations above are correct and 

Я знаю то, что знаешь ты = I know what (the same things) you know
Я знаю, что ты знаешь = I know that you know (something)
But I don't know exactly _what_ you know (Но не знаю, что именно ты знаешь - again "то" is not required here!)

 Too complicated for me! I give up! ))


----------



## Sobakus

Yanebot1 said:


> As a Ukrainian I may say that Mirynka is right this time. Too bad my weighty opinion is six years retarded late :'(



If you knew you weren't adding anything of value to the topic, why did you disturb its grave?

Anyhow, both Crescent and Mirynka are at least partially wrong, the placement of the comma in потому что and other compound conjunctions is up to the author.
If the conjunction is phonetically stressed (more precisely, its first part), you point out the reason and the comma is between. If the conjunction is unstressed, the comma is before and the result is pointed out.


----------



## oirobi

6 лет!?!?! Фигасе! Я думал что не то что отдельные темы, но даже форумы столько не живут! Вот это да!


----------



## Yanebot1

Sobakus said:


> If you knew you weren't adding anything of value to the topic, why did you disturb its grave?
> 
> Anyhow, both Crescent and Mirynka are at least partially wrong, the placement of the comma in потому что and other compound conjunctions is up to the author.
> If the conjunction is phonetically stressed (more precisely, its first part), you point out the reason and the comma is between. If the conjunction is unstressed, the comma is before and the result is pointed out.



Sorry for my poor English and, moreover, for disturbing the grave. I just wanted to justify that comma is not always placed before "что". I didn't notice that Mirynka is also partially wrong. You did it much better.


----------

