Danish to Latvian: the person under an obligation need not be nominative
Recover the obligated person before reading the target case
Danish Universal Dependencies describes ordinary nominal subjects as nominative and distinguishes modal constructions from temporal auxiliaries. A Danish statement about someone having to perform an action identifies that person through the complete predicate and its subject.
The Latvian overview describes necessitative constructions in which the relevant person appears in the dative. Its example man jāskatās spēle means I have to watch the game. The dative form does not make that person merely the recipient of somebody else’s watching.
For an original Danish assignment, compare the writer having to inspect an item with another person inspecting it for the writer. These place the writer in different roles. A Latvian dative in an obligation construction must be interpreted through that construction, rather than automatically reconstructed as for me.
The thing acted on can have a nominative-looking form
The Latvian overview separately illustrates zēnam jāuzraksta mājasdarbs, with the boy under an obligation to write the homework. It describes the affected item as an object even where its form is nominative in that construction.
A Danish reader should consequently not assign the work itself as the actor just because its Latvian noun is in a form familiar from subject contexts. The obligated person, the required action, and the affected item remain separate contributions.
For an original Danish work request, compare a colleague needing to prepare a document with a document requiring a description of that colleague. The same person and document could occur in both, but their roles differ. A Latvian necessitative construction should preserve the intended task rather than let an isolated noun ending reverse the assignment.
This also explains why a word-by-word case correspondence is insufficient. Danish object relationships do not provide a universal command to select one Latvian case in every verbal environment. The target predicate’s construction affects the forms through which the same source roles are expressed.
A recommendation and a requirement remain different claims
The Latvian documentation also gives a dative-related modal example meaning he should hurry. A dative phrase alone therefore does not establish the exact strength of the modal relationship. The predicate determines what is required, recommended, or otherwise presented as necessary.
Danish modal expressions likewise need their intended force preserved. In an original arrangement, compare telling a colleague that they must finish before a deadline with suggesting that they should hurry if possible. The first assigns a requirement; the second can convey advice. A target construction with the correct person can still change the instruction’s force.
Nor does the absence of a tense feature on a Latvian necessitative form mean the real task lacks a time frame. The source can establish timing through the full sentence and surrounding arrangement. Preserve that time reference rather than infer it only from a familiar finite ending.
The practical comparison follows who is obligated, what action concerns them, and how strongly the source presents that obligation. Latvian can distribute those relationships across dative reference and a distinctive predicate while retaining the same Danish task and responsible person.
Language references