Danish to Bulgarian: an infinitive marker does not select an unchanged verb
A Danish at construction needs to be interpreted as a whole
Danish Universal Dependencies identifies at as an infinitive marker and separately describes modal verbs taking a bare infinitive. A Danish action can therefore appear in an infinitival construction with or without a visible at, depending on its governing expression.
The Bulgarian overview describes a different system: Bulgarian lacks an infinitive, using finite constructions with да instead. Its example да идвам corresponds to a coming-related infinitival explanation in another language. A Danish-to-Bulgarian translation should not seek an unchanged target verb merely because the source uses an infinitive.
For an original Danish plan to come to a meeting, the target’s person-marked verb can still belong to the intended dependent construction. Its finite shape does not automatically create an independent assertion that somebody is already coming. Conversely, simply inserting a coming-related dictionary form cannot establish the target relationship to the planning predicate.
The dependent actor must remain the intended person
Danish infinitival complements can leave their subject understood through the governing construction. Bulgarian finite predicates provide their own grammatical information, so the translation must preserve who is responsible for the dependent action rather than infer a different person from the presence of a separate target verb.
For an original Danish message, compare the writer planning to arrive with the writer asking another person to arrive. The same arrival vocabulary occurs, but the actor changes. A Bulgarian translation must preserve that distinction inside the dependent construction.
The source’s modal or governing verb also helps determine the relationship. An ability statement about arriving, a desire to arrive, and an instruction to arrange arrival are different propositions. The absence of Danish at after a modal does not mean the dependency has disappeared, and the presence of Bulgarian да does not make every such proposition a command.
Read the governing predicate and its dependent action together. A target person ending may be grammatical and still identify the wrong person if the source’s understood actor was never recovered.
A future particle is not the same dependent marker
The Bulgarian documentation separately identifies ще in future constructions. Its treatment makes clear that the language can express future time analytically, even though the annotation does not assign an independent future-tense value to every lexical verb.
Danish also distinguishes a main predicate from auxiliary constructions, including temporal have and modal verbs. A Danish sentence referring to a future event should therefore be interpreted through its complete predicate rather than through the assumption that every extra target particle corresponds to at.
For an original Danish arrangement, distinguish wanting an arrival from predicting an arrival. The first presents an intention or preference; the second places the event in a prospective assertion. A Bulgarian result that replaces one with the other changes the speaker’s commitment.
The translation’s dependent marker, person reference, and time expression must work together. Their visible organization can differ from Danish while preserving the same actor, the same dependent event, and the same distinction between an intention and a prediction.
Language references