Danish to Cantonese: a past-tense report can still describe an unfinished activity
Danish tense does not settle the Cantonese aspect
Danish distinguishes past forms and compound forms with auxiliaries and participles. The Danish Language Council’s examples show that a participle can belong to a larger verb construction rather than function as an ordinary adjective. When translating into Cantonese, these source forms are evidence about time, but they do not provide a one-to-one choice among Cantonese aspect markers.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong’s Cantonese grammar illustrates a progressive construction with 起緊, describing a building that was still being built at an earlier time. This is a useful reminder that a past setting does not make the activity complete. A Danish report meaning “The flats were still being built then” must not become an announcement that construction had finished merely because the source contains a past form.
Having experienced an event differs from reporting one occasion
The CUHK lesson distinguishes perfective 咗 from experiential 過. Its experiential example asks whether someone has ever eaten a particular dish. A Danish question built with har and a participle can be used in a conversation about experience, but the auxiliary alone is not sufficient to establish that reading. The source context must say whether the writer asks about any earlier occasion or a particular event under discussion.
Compare the meanings “Have you ever tried that dish?” and “Have you eaten the dish we ordered?” The first enquires about experience; the second can ask whether a particular meal has been eaten. A Cantonese translation that treats both as a general experience question may fail to answer the immediate practical concern of the second. Conversely, making the first question about one definite meal would narrow what the Danish speaker wanted to know.
An earlier action can create a condition that continues now
CUHK illustrates perfective marking in a question about how long people have been married. This shows why a perfective-looking target marker should not be interpreted as saying that the marriage has ended. The marriage event and the continuing married condition are related but not identical. A Danish duration question can be about that continuing condition rather than repeated instances of getting married.
The same lesson gives a negative auxiliary example with 冇 for not having gone out today. In a Danish update, “I have not been out today” differs from “I was going out then” and “I have been out before.” The first denies an occurrence within a specified period, the second presents an unfolding activity, and the third can express experience. The Cantonese grammar must preserve those different claims while retaining the time expression that frames them. A Danish past ending or har construction is therefore the beginning of interpretation, not a target suffix selection rule. Determine whether the source reports progress, completion, experience, or a continuing state arising from an event before evaluating the Cantonese predicate as a whole.
Language references