Learn Hardcore Malay: Bas keluar dari terowong gelap dan kami nampak pelangi di langit. - The bus comes out of the dark tunnel and we see a rainbow in the sky.

Malay does not have articles like English “a/an” or “the”. A bare noun can mean a bus, the bus, buses, etc., depending on context.

Bas keluar… can mean The bus came out… or A bus came out…
…nampak pelangi… can mean (we) saw a rainbow or (we) saw the rainbow.

If you really need to make it clear that it is that specific bus or rainbow, you usually add a demonstrative such as:

bas itu – that / the bus
pelangi itu – that / the rainbow

Can I say Bas itu keluar dari terowong gelap? What is the difference from Bas keluar…?

Yes, Bas itu keluar dari terowong gelap is correct.

Bas keluar… – neutral; could be a bus or the bus, depending on context.
Bas itu keluar… – more clearly that bus / the bus (a specific bus already known in the context).

Similarly:

Kami nampak pelangi di langit. – we saw a/the rainbow.
Kami nampak pelangi itu di langit. – we saw that rainbow (one already known or pointed out).

What does keluar do in this sentence? Is it a verb? Why isn’t there something like “come out”?

Keluar is a verb meaning to go out / to come out / to exit. Malay doesn’t need an extra verb like “come” or “go” here.

Bas keluar… literally: The bus exited / went out…
Depending on context, in English we choose came out, went out, drove out, etc.

So keluar already carries the basic movement-outward meaning; you don’t add another main verb to say “come out” or “go out”.

Why do we use dari in keluar dari terowong gelap? Could we use daripada?

Dari and daripada both mean roughly from, but they are used in different contexts.

dari – mostly for physical origin / direction / time
- keluar dari terowong – come out from the tunnel
- datang dari sekolah – come from school
- dari pagi sampai malam – from morning to night
daripada – mostly for non-physical sources, comparison, or agents
- hadiah daripada ibu – a present from mother
- lebih tinggi daripada Ali – taller than Ali
- surat daripada kawan – a letter from a friend

Because a tunnel is a physical place of origin, dari is correct:
Bas keluar dari terowong gelap.
Keluar daripada terowong would sound odd in standard Malay.

Why is gelap after terowong instead of before it, like in English “dark tunnel”?

In Malay, adjectives normally come after nouns:

terowong gelap – dark tunnel (literally: tunnel dark)
rumah besar – big house
budak nakal – naughty child

So the normal order is:

noun + adjective

Putting gelap before terowong (gelap terowong) would be ungrammatical in standard Malay.

Could we say terowong yang gelap instead of terowong gelap? Is there a difference?

Yes, you can say terowong yang gelap, and it is grammatically correct.

terowong gelap – neutral, compact phrase: a dark tunnel
terowong yang gelap – slightly more descriptive/emphatic, like the tunnel that is dark

You might use yang:

when contrasting: bukan terowong yang cerah, tetapi terowong yang gelap
when adding more detail: terowong yang gelap dan sempit – the tunnel that is dark and narrow

In your sentence, terowong gelap is simpler and more natural in everyday speech.

What is the difference between nampak, lihat, tengok, and melihat? Why is nampak used here?

All are related to seeing, but with different nuances and levels of formality.

nampak
- everyday, neutral/colloquial
- can mean to see / to notice / to appear
- Kami nampak pelangi. – We saw a rainbow.
tengok
- colloquial, often “to look at / to watch”
- Tengok itu! – Look at that!
- Saya tengok TV. – I watch TV.
lihat / melihat
- more formal; lihat is the root, melihat is the standard verb form
- often used in writing, speeches, formal contexts
- Kami melihat pelangi. – also means We saw a rainbow, but feels more formal.

In this sentence, nampak sounds natural and conversational for “we saw / we caught sight of” a rainbow.

There is no past tense marker in the Malay sentence. How do we know it means “came out” and “saw”?

Malay verbs do not change form for tense (no -ed, -s, etc.). Time is usually understood from:

Context – narratives often default to past.
Time words:
- tadi – earlier / just now
- semalam – yesterday
- esok – tomorrow
Aspect words:
- sudah / telah – already (often past)
- sedang – in the middle of (progressive)
- akan – will (future)

So:

Bas keluar dari terowong gelap dan kami nampak pelangi di langit.
→ in a story, this is naturally interpreted as past.

If you want to make it clearly past, you could say:

Tadi bas keluar dari terowong gelap dan kami nampak pelangi di langit.
Bas telah keluar dari terowong gelap dan kami telah nampak pelangi di langit. (more formal)

What is the difference between kami and kita? Could we use kita here?

Both mean “we”, but they differ in who is included:

kami – we (NOT including you) → exclusive we
kita – we (INCLUDING you) → inclusive we

In your sentence:

…dan kami nampak pelangi di langit.
→ The speaker and some others saw the rainbow, but the listener is not part of that group.

If the speaker wants to include the listener (e.g., you were on the bus with us), then:

…dan kita nampak pelangi di langit.

Both are grammatically possible; which one is correct depends on whether the listener was part of the “we”.

Can we leave out kami and just say Bas keluar dari terowong gelap dan nampak pelangi di langit?

You can drop kami, but it changes the sentence.

Bas keluar… dan kami nampak pelangi…
→ clear: the bus did the first action, we did the second.
Bas keluar… dan nampak pelangi…
→ the second clause has no explicit subject.
→ It sounds incomplete or vague in standard Malay: “The bus came out of the dark tunnel and (someone) saw a rainbow in the sky.”
→ In everyday speech, people might infer we, but it’s not as clear.

For clarity and good standard Malay, it’s better to keep kami in this sentence.

Is pelangi countable? Do we need a classifier like sebuah to say “a rainbow”?

Pelangi is countable, but Malay does not always require a classifier when a noun is singular.

You have options:

Kami nampak pelangi di langit.
→ We saw a/the rainbow in the sky. (perfectly natural)

You can add a classifier + satu to emphasize one:

Kami nampak satu pelangi di langit. – We saw one rainbow.
Kami nampak sebuah pelangi di langit. – also possible; sebuah is a general classifier for many inanimate things, but here it can sound a bit more literary/unusual.

In everyday speech, just saying pelangi is enough to mean a rainbow unless you need to stress the number.

Why do we use di with langit? Could we say pada langit or ke langit instead?

Di is the normal locative preposition meaning “at / in / on” for places:

di langit – in the sky
di rumah – at home
di sekolah – at school

Pada can also mean at/on, but it is more often used for abstract locations, times, or recipients:

pada masa itu – at that time
pada pendapat saya – in my opinion
Pada langit is not natural in this sentence.

Ke means to / towards (direction, movement):

melihat ke langit – look towards the sky
pergi ke sekolah – go to school

So:

pelangi di langit – a rainbow in the sky (correct)
pelangi ke langit – would be wrong; pelangi is not moving to the sky.

Is it possible to rewrite this using a time or cause relation instead of dan? For example, can we say something like “when the bus came out of the tunnel, we saw a rainbow”?

Yes. Dan simply links two events:

Bas keluar dari terowong gelap dan kami nampak pelangi di langit.
The bus came out of the dark tunnel and we saw a rainbow in the sky.

If you want to be more explicit about the relation between the two actions, you can use other connectors:

apabila / ketika / semasa (when)
- Apabila bas keluar dari terowong gelap, kami nampak pelangi di langit.
- Ketika bas keluar dari terowong gelap, kami nampak pelangi di langit.

These mean:

When the bus came out of the dark tunnel, we saw a rainbow in the sky.

Dan is simpler and very common in storytelling when the time relation is obvious from context.