Learn Hardcore Indonesian: Kakek menjelaskan bahwa jejak itu milik kelinci liar yang sering bersembunyi di balik batu. - Grandfather explains that those tracks belong to a wild rabbit that often hides behind the rocks.

In Indonesian, kinship terms like kakek (grandfather), ibu (mother), ayah (father), etc., can stand alone and still mean “my …” if the context is clear.

Kakek here most naturally means “Grandpa / my grandfather”, not just any random grandfather.
If you want to be explicit, you can say:
- kakek saya = my grandfather
- kakekku = my grandfather (more informal, with suffix -ku)

But in many stories, especially children’s stories or narratives, just Kakek is used to mean “Grandpa” because it’s clear whose grandfather it is from context.

What is the role of “menjelaskan bahwa”? Is “bahwa” like “that” in English, and can it be left out?

Yes, bahwa is very similar to English “that” in reported speech or explanations.

menjelaskan = to explain
bahwa = that (introducing a clause)

So:

Kakek menjelaskan bahwa jejak itu …
= Grandpa explained that those tracks …

In spoken Indonesian, bahwa is often optional:

Kakek menjelaskan jejak itu milik kelinci liar…
(acceptable in everyday speech)

You will also hear kalau used in a similar way in informal speech:

Kakek menjelaskan kalau jejak itu milik kelinci liar…

However:

bahwa is more formal / standard and used in writing or careful speech.
kalau is more colloquial in this function.

So here bahwa neatly and clearly introduces the clause that explains what Grandpa explained.

Why is it “jejak itu milik kelinci liar” and not “jejak itu adalah milik kelinci liar”? Is “adalah” missing?

Both are grammatically possible, but the version without adalah is very natural.

jejak itu milik kelinci liar
literally: those tracks belong to the wild rabbit
jejak itu adalah milik kelinci liar
literally: those tracks are the property of the wild rabbit

Notes:

milik is a noun meaning “property / belonging of”, often translated as “belong to” when used in this pattern.
In Indonesian, you often don’t need a copula (like “is/are” or adalah) between two noun phrases.
- Dia guru. = He/She is a teacher.
- Rumah ini milik saya. = This house is mine / belongs to me.

So jejak itu milik kelinci liar is fully complete and natural without adalah, especially in spoken and neutral written Indonesian.

What does “itu” do in “jejak itu”? Is it “that” or “the”? Why not just say “jejak”?

Itu is a demonstrative, but it often functions like both “that/those” and “the”, depending on context.

jejak = tracks / footprints (in general)
jejak itu = those tracks / the tracks (specific ones already known from context)

By saying jejak itu, the speaker refers to specific tracks they are both looking at or already talking about.

If you said only jejak, it would sound more general or non-specific, like “tracks” in general, not a particular set of tracks in the situation.

Why is it “kelinci liar” and not “liar kelinci”? What’s the normal word order for adjectives?

In Indonesian, most adjectives come after the noun they modify.

kelinci liar = wild rabbit
- kelinci = rabbit
- liar = wild

So:

rumah besar = big house
buku baru = new book
anjing kecil = small dog

Liar kelinci would not be grammatical here. The natural and standard order is noun + adjective: kelinci liar.

What exactly does “milik” mean, and how is it different from just saying “kelinci liar punya jejak itu”?

Milik expresses ownership / belonging, similar to “property of” or “belonging to”.

jejak itu milik kelinci liar
= those tracks belong to the wild rabbit

You could rephrase informally with punya:

jejak itu punya kelinci liar
(more colloquial)

Differences:

milik is more neutral / standard, works well in writing and formal speech.
punya is very common in everyday, informal speech.
Grammatically, milik behaves more like a noun (“property of”), while punya is a verb-like word (“to own / have”), though in practice they can both express possession.

In this sentence, milik sounds a bit more neutral or narrative, which fits a descriptive storytelling style.

What does “yang” do in “kelinci liar yang sering bersembunyi di balik batu”?

Yang introduces a relative clause—a clause that describes or qualifies a noun.

kelinci liar = the wild rabbit
yang sering bersembunyi di balik batu = that often hides behind rocks

Together:

kelinci liar yang sering bersembunyi di balik batu
= the wild rabbit that often hides behind rocks

So the structure is:

[noun] + yang + [clause describing the noun]

Other examples:

anak yang memakai topi merah = the child who is wearing a red hat
rumah yang saya beli = the house that I bought

Here yang tells you that “sering bersembunyi di balik batu” is describing kelinci liar, not starting a new sentence.

How does “sering” work here? Where does it go with the verb “bersembunyi”?

Sering means “often / frequently” and usually comes before the verb it modifies.

sering bersembunyi = often hide(s)

Word order:

sering (adverb of frequency) + bersembunyi (to hide)

Other similar patterns:

sering makan = often eat(s)
sering datang terlambat = often come(s) late
tidak sering bersembunyi = not often hide(s)

So yang sering bersembunyi di balik batu literally is “that often hides behind rocks.”

What is the nuance of “di balik batu” compared to “di belakang batu”?

Both can be translated as “behind the rock”, but there’s a nuance:

di belakang batu
- literally: at the back of the rock
- more spatially neutral; simply indicates the back side of the rock.
di balik batu
- literally: on the other side / hidden side of the rock
- often has a “hidden from view / concealed behind” feeling.

Since bersembunyi is “to hide”, di balik batu fits very well: it suggests the rabbit is concealed by the rock, not just physically located somewhere on its far side.

How is “bersembunyi” formed, and why does it have “ber-”?

Bersembunyi comes from the root sembunyi (hide, hidden) plus the prefix ber-.

sembunyi = hide (as a root)
bersembunyi = to hide (oneself), to be in a hidden state

The prefix ber- often:

turns a root into an intransitive verb (no direct object),
can mean “to do / be in the state of X.”

Other examples:

berjalan (from jalan) = to walk
berdiri (from diri) = to stand
bermain (from main) = to play

So bersembunyi is the standard, natural verb “to hide (oneself)” used here.

How is tense expressed here? How do we know “Kakek menjelaskan” is past, like “Grandpa explained”?

Indonesian does not mark tense on the verb the way English does. The verb form menjelaskan itself is not specifically past, present, or future.

Kakek menjelaskan can mean:
- Grandpa explains / is explaining
- Grandpa explained

The time reference usually comes from:

Context (earlier sentences, the situation in the story)
Optional time expressions:
- tadi (a short while ago)
- kemarin (yesterday)
- besok (tomorrow), etc.

In a narrative describing something that happened, readers naturally interpret menjelaskan as past (“explained”) even though the form itself is not marked for tense.

Could the sentence be split or reordered, for example: “Jejak itu milik kelinci liar… Kakek menjelaskan.”? Would that change the meaning?

You could split or reorder, but it slightly changes the focus and naturalness.

Original:

Kakek menjelaskan bahwa jejak itu milik kelinci liar yang sering bersembunyi di balik batu.
Focus: what Grandpa explained.

Alternative split:

Jejak itu milik kelinci liar yang sering bersembunyi di balik batu. Kakek menjelaskan.
- First you state the fact about the tracks.
- Then you add that Grandpa explained (it), somewhat as an afterthought.

In the original, the whole clause starting from jejak itu is clearly the content of the explanation, nicely packaged with bahwa. That’s more natural if your main point is: Grandpa explained that X.

Is this word order generally S–V–O? How is the whole sentence structured?

Yes, Indonesian’s default word order is broadly Subject – Verb – Object / Complement, and this sentence follows that pattern with embedding.

Breakdown:

Kakek
- Subject (S)
menjelaskan
- Verb (V)
bahwa jejak itu milik kelinci liar yang sering bersembunyi di balik batu
- Clause functioning as the object / content of “explained”

Inside that clause:

jejak itu = subject of the embedded clause
milik kelinci liar yang sering bersembunyi di balik batu = predicate telling who they belong to

So structurally:

[S Kakek] [V menjelaskan] [O bahwa + clause]
Inside the clause: [S jejak itu] [Predicate milik …]