Danish to French: his and her need not choose different possessive forms
French agreement follows the possessed noun
Sproget.dk distinguishes Danish hans and hendes among personal-pronoun genitives and notes that these forms do not inflect like min, mit, and mine. Their reference identifies a possessor, rather than agreeing with every following noun in the same way as those inflected possessives.
The University of Texas French grammar explains son, sa, and ses as forms that can mean his, her, or its. Their choice reflects the possessed noun’s gender and number. A Danish-to-French translation should therefore not select sa merely because the source possessor is a woman.
For an original Danish account involving a woman’s book and a man’s book, the same French possessive form can refer to either owner when the same noun is used. The owner must remain recoverable through the sentence and discourse. A shared target form is not itself an error, but assigning the woman’s object to the man would change the source relationship.
Danish sin supplies a relationship that French son alone does not
The Danish guidance explains sin as referring to the sentence’s subject, with sit and sine among its inflected forms. Its example Han tog sin bog describes the subject taking their own book. The guidance warns that hans in that position can be understood as referring to somebody else’s book.
A French son-related expression does not independently reproduce the same subject-linked versus other-possessor opposition. The French lesson expressly leaves the owner’s reference to context. A translation must therefore retain the Danish ownership relationship through the whole sentence rather than assume one target determiner carries every source distinction.
For an original Danish scene with two colleagues, compare one colleague taking their own document with taking the other colleague’s document. These events can contain the same action and document vocabulary. The difference lies in who owns the item. A French result should preserve that difference even if a simple possessive determiner could otherwise be ambiguous.
Where the source already identifies the other owner by name or role, retain that information instead of replacing it with a personal form whose reference becomes uncertain. The issue is the specific subject–possessor relationship established by Danish, rather than a universal requirement to repeat names.
A feminine noun can still use a son-like form before a vowel
The Texas lesson also explains that ma, ta, and sa change to mon, ton, and son before feminine nouns beginning with a vowel sound. A visibly masculine-looking possessive form can consequently precede a feminine noun without changing that noun’s gender.
A Danish reader should not repair such a form on the assumption that it proves a male owner or a masculine person. In an original family introduction, a feminine relative or friend remains that person even where the French sound environment selects another possessive shape.
The translation therefore requires three separate decisions: identify the owner from Danish reference, identify the possessed French noun’s number and gender, and account for the relevant sound environment. Reading son or sa as an immediate translation of Danish hans or hendes bypasses those distinctions and can produce the wrong ownership relationship.
Language references