Close.

I would do it this way:

I am like a child who would cry if they were to touch (him/her).

Its present tense

Hmmm my English was poor 

"who would cry" is better, and thanks for giving the correct meaning  

Yes but hypothetical. Similar to

If I were you

I wonder if there are some sites of similar kind (with free membership, helping people around, etc.) for other languages. I am interested in Italian and Spanish and maybe Russian.

Livemocha.com is useful.

Just be very selective with adding friends. Choose people who are native speakers and also have lots of points from teaching others. It has helped me find Turks who have really helped with understanding Turkish. 

The future participle often pays my attention in texts. It’s a beautiful verb form. In many sentences it has a huge power of expressing complicated meanings in short.

In the fairy tale of Emperor’s New Chothes (Kralın Elbisesi) the famous foreign weavers’ products are described with this sentence.

Renklere ve desenlere diyecek yoktu.

(renk ‘colour’, desen ‘design, pattern’, demek ‘to say’ )

A quick glance shows that it is a sentence which talks about existence. Or actually non-existence. yok|tu = yok + past tense marking.

> There was not [something].

When we begin to gather material inside the brackets we notice that this time the subject cannot be in the beginning of the sentence. renk|ler|e and desen|ler|e have dative endings and thus they must be parallel modifiers for the next word, diyecek, which is the only alternative for the subject.

> There was not [something for colours and patterns].

It seems that the whole clue is in this small word di|y|ecek = verb stem de- + BUFFER + future marking. The syntactic position of the subject makes it impossible to interpret it as a verbal future form of demek even though it looks the same.

The future participle form expresses time but also often ability, possibility. Participles are usually adjectives, but as diyecek is standing alone here without a governor it must be governing itself and that’s why we can look at it as a noun. We get something like

> There was not [(future possible to say) (for colors and patterns)].

Some creativity is needed in order to transfer the meaning into English. My Try:

‘Nothing could be said for the colours or the patterns.’

No, we have to go a step further:

‘It was impossible to describe the colours and patterns with words.’

I am amazed again Abla. Your explanation on that sentence is quite clear.

Its that creativity you speak of that I often find difficult. One would think if I could understand the Turkish words, then realizing what is being said and the context of it in English would be clear. However they way Turkish is structured, it is not always expressed the same way as it would be in English. So its not always so cut and dry. As an English speaking learner, I found I had to toss out many preconceptions that a given suffix only has one job. 

I know -ki has many uses and doesn´t -dir also have many uses?

There was nothing to say about the colours and design.

 Would this translation be still legitimate?

Yes, right translation, but i wont be able to say anything about "legitimate"

I think the one you quoted, ercheksargo, is still quite literal. That´s why I suggested the last alternative

         ‘It was impossible to describe the colours and patterns with words’

which I think is better but of course risky, especially because I don´t master either of the languages well enough. But there is always a chance for debate, no matter how we say it.

By the way, I will open another thread about translation problems. I will do it  -  now.