Danish to Italian: a relative clause must retain the noun’s relationship
Danish som does not select one Italian relative form everywhere
The Danish dictionary explanation by Lars Trap-Jensen identifies relative som as referring back to an earlier expression. It also distinguishes other relative introducers, including hvis and hvor. The relationship expressed inside the clause matters beyond the fact that a clause follows a noun.
Accademia della Crusca describes Italian cui as invariant and normally associated with an indirect relationship, usually following a preposition. It distinguishes that use from ordinary subject or direct-object relationships expressed with che. A Danish-to-Italian translation therefore needs more information than a fixed substitution for som.
For an original Danish account, compare identifying a person who spoke with identifying a person to whom somebody spoke. The person is the speaker in the first and the recipient in the second. Using a subject-related target construction for both changes who communicated.
Possessive relatives identify two linked entities
The Danish dictionary discussion illustrates hvis introducing a relative relationship concerning someone’s father. Such a construction connects the earlier person with a relative or possession inside the describing clause; it does not simply make the earlier person the subject of every following verb.
The Crusca explanation describes cui between an article and a noun with a possessive or specifying function. In that construction the ordinary separate di is omitted. This is distinct from adding a preposition to cui for another indirect relationship.
For an original Danish introduction, compare a visitor whose colleague sent a document with a visitor who sent a colleague a document. The same visitor, colleague, and document can occur in both accounts, but the sender changes. The Italian relative phrase must preserve the possession-related link rather than turn the visitor into the sender automatically.
Likewise, a description of the document’s owner must not be attached to an unrelated nearby person merely because their noun is closer in the target order. Recover the Danish antecedent and the possessed or associated noun as separate parts of the relationship.
An invariant pronoun can still occur within an agreeing phrase
Crusca explicitly states that cui itself does not vary with masculine or feminine, singular or plural. An unchanged target relative form is consequently not sufficient evidence that a Danish gender or number distinction disappeared.
Danish noun phrases can establish singular or plural reference through their own morphology and agreement. In an original account involving one visitor and then several visitors, the Italian phrase must preserve the actual count even though cui remains unchanged. Other parts of the construction and the surrounding predicate provide the relevant relationships.
The Crusca discussion also records variation between cui and a cui in a recipient-related function. The presence or absence of that particular preposition is therefore construction-sensitive, rather than a universal test for an omitted to-related meaning.
The practical comparison follows the earlier noun into the relative clause: is it acting, receiving communication, supplying a location, or linked to another noun through possession? Italian can express those relationships through different relative constructions while leaving cui itself unchanged. Preserving the Danish relationship is more informative than demanding identical connector shapes across all descriptions.
Language references