Learn Hardcore Malay: Saya tulis apa yang penceramah sebut dalam bengkel supaya saya boleh baca semula malam ini. - I write what the speaker mentions in the workshop so that I can read it again tonight.

Saya tulis = more informal / neutral, often used in speech; can feel a bit more direct and “spoken”.
Saya menulis = slightly more formal or “full”, often used in writing or in more careful speech.

In this sentence, saya tulis sounds natural and conversational:
Saya tulis apa yang penceramah sebut… = I wrote down what the speaker said…

If you say Saya menulis apa yang penceramah sebut…, it’s fine, but it may sound a bit more formal or “textbook-ish” in everyday conversation.

Where is the past tense marker in saya tulis? How do we know it means “I wrote (down)” and not “I write”?

Malay verbs do not change form for tense (no write / wrote / written equivalents). Time is understood from:

Context
Time words like tadi (earlier), semalam (last night), esok (tomorrow), etc.

In this sentence, the context is:

You want to read it again tonight: supaya saya boleh baca semula malam ini

This implies the writing already happened earlier (e.g. during the workshop), so saya tulis is understood as “I wrote (down)”. If you really want to make it clearly past, you can add:

Saya sudah tulis… / Saya telah tulis… = I already wrote (down)…

What exactly does apa yang do in apa yang penceramah sebut?

Apa yang here introduces a “what … that …” clause, similar to:

what the speaker said / the things that the speaker said

Breakdown:

apa = what
yang = a marker for a relative clause (like that/which/who in English)

apa yang penceramah sebut literally:
→ “what that the speaker mentioned”
→ natural English: what the speaker mentioned / what the speaker said

So Saya tulis apa yang penceramah sebut = I wrote down what the speaker said.

Why do we need yang in apa yang penceramah sebut? Can we just say apa penceramah sebut?

In standard Malay, with this structure, you normally need yang:

✅ apa yang penceramah sebut = correct, natural
❌ apa penceramah sebut = feels incomplete/incorrect in standard Malay

yang links apa to the clause penceramah sebut, marking it as a relative clause:

apa yang penceramah sebut = the “what” that the speaker said

Without yang, the sentence sounds broken to native speakers in a careful/standard context.

What is the difference between penceramah and other words for “speaker” like penutur or pemidato?

penceramah
- From ceramah = a talk / lecture.
- penceramah = a person giving a talk / lecturer / speaker (in a seminar, workshop, religious talk, etc.).
- This is the most natural choice in a workshop context.
penutur
- From tutur = to speak (often in the sense of a language).
- penutur = speaker (of a language), e.g. penutur jati = native speaker.
- Not usually used for “guest speaker at a workshop.”
pemidato
- From pidato = speech (formal address/oration).
- pemidato = orator, someone giving a formal speech.
- Sounds more formal and not as common in everyday speech.

So in a bengkel (workshop), penceramah is the natural word.

Why is it penceramah sebut and not penceramah berkata or penceramah cakap?

All are related to “saying”, but with slightly different flavors:

sebut = to mention, to state (often more about words/points mentioned).
- penceramah sebut = the speaker mentioned (certain points).
- Fits very well with writing notes in a workshop.
berkata = to say (quite neutral / slightly formal).
- apa yang penceramah berkata sounds awkward; you’d more likely see:
  - apa yang penceramah katakan (verb with -kan) – but still less natural than sebut here.
cakap = to speak / talk (more colloquial).
- apa yang penceramah cakap is understandable and used in informal speech, but sounds more casual.

In a sentence about writing down what the speaker said in a workshop, sebut nicely matches the idea of “the points the speaker mentioned”.

What does dalam bengkel mean exactly? Why dalam and not di?

bengkel = workshop (training session, seminar).
dalam = in / inside.
di = at / in (location marker).

Both dalam bengkel and di bengkel can appear, but there’s a nuance:

dalam bengkel
- Emphasizes within the event/activity of the workshop.
- Here, it’s like saying “during the workshop”.
di bengkel
- Emphasizes the place (at the workshop venue).
- Closer to “at the workshop (location)”.

In this sentence, dalam bengkel makes sense because you’re focusing on what happened during that workshop session.

What is the function of supaya in this sentence? Could we use agar or untuk instead?

supaya introduces a purpose / goal clause, like:

so that / in order that

supaya saya boleh baca semula malam ini
= so that I can read (it) again tonight.

Alternatives:

agar
- Very similar in meaning; a bit more formal or written.
- … dalam bengkel agar saya boleh baca semula malam ini.
- Perfectly acceptable.
untuk
- More like for / to (do something).
- Usually followed directly by a verb, not a full clause with a subject:
  - ✅ … untuk baca semula malam ini.
  - ✅ … untuk saya baca semula malam ini. (also used)
- Slight nuance: supaya/agar highlight the result you want, while untuk is more neutral “for/to”.

In natural speech, supaya here is very common and clear.

Why do we need boleh in supaya saya boleh baca semula malam ini? What does it add?

boleh = can / be able to / may.

supaya saya baca semula malam ini
- Grammatically possible, but a bit abrupt or less natural.
supaya saya boleh baca semula malam ini
= so that I can read (it) again tonight
- Emphasizes having the ability / opportunity to do it later.

In everyday Malay, adding boleh makes the purpose clause sound more natural when you mean “so that I can (do X) later”.

What’s the difference between baca semula and baca lagi? Both look like “read again”.

Both can mean “read again”, but there’s a nuance:

baca semula
- “to read again” with a sense of review / go over again.
- Often used for revising notes, re-reading for checking or understanding.
- Very suitable for workshop notes.
baca lagi
- Literally “read again / read more”.
- Can be more general: either repeat reading, or just “read more (further)”.

In this context (notes from a workshop), baca semula is slightly more precise and natural because it implies reviewing what was written.

Why is there no it/them after baca? How do we know what is being read again?

In Malay, objects are often omitted if they’re obvious from context.

The thing you will read again is what you wrote earlier:
- Saya tulis apa yang penceramah sebut… supaya saya boleh baca semula…

So the implied object is:

baca (apa yang saya tulis / apa yang penceramah sebut)

You could make it explicit:

… supaya saya boleh baca semula nota itu malam ini.
= … so that I can read those notes again tonight.

But it’s not necessary; leaving it implied is very natural in Malay.

Is this whole sentence formal, informal, or neutral? Would it sound natural in conversation?

The sentence is neutral and natural for everyday spoken Malay:

Uses saya (neutral, polite “I”).
Uses tulis, sebut, dalam bengkel, supaya, baca semula – all common and natural.
Not extremely formal, not slangy; suitable for:
- Talking to friends, classmates, coworkers.
- Even okay in semi-formal settings.

You could easily say this in a real conversation about attending a workshop.