Danish to Lithuanian: min, deres and possession linked to the subject
Danish min can require Lithuanian savo when the owner is the subject
Danish distinguishes first-person possession with min, mit and mine, whose forms agree with the following noun. The Lithuanian Grammar edited by Ambrazas describes savo as referring possession back to the subject regardless of that subject’s person or number. The target form therefore cannot be selected solely by matching Danish my with Lithuanian mano.
The grammar’s examples use savo in statements equivalent to I do not believe my ears and you do not believe your ears. The same possessive refers back to different subjects. Its role is to maintain that connection, not to name a single permanent third-person owner.
For a Danish first-person report, determine whether the speaker also owns the relevant item. If so, a Lithuanian subject-linked possessive can preserve the relationship even though Danish uses a first-person word. If the speaker discusses somebody else’s item, that link must not be introduced merely because the sentence contains jeg.
Danish deres can refer to a group’s own things
The separate Danish guidance describes deres, rather than sin, with ordinary third-person plural subjects under its traditional standard pattern. A Danish statement about a group’s belongings can consequently refer either to that group’s own things or, in another context, to things associated with another group.
The Lithuanian description does not restrict savo to singular subjects. A plural source therefore needs the same owner-versus-subject analysis as a singular one. Do not assume that an absence of Danish sin means the Lithuanian target must avoid the subject-linked construction.
This becomes useful in a Danish account involving two teams. One team may prepare its own materials and later borrow the other team’s materials. The Danish pronoun can look similar across those clauses, while the ownership relationship changes. Preserve which group owns which materials before choosing the Lithuanian possessive.
The Danish guidance also recognizes regional variation and ambiguous embedded constructions. Where the source itself leaves the owner uncertain, the Lithuanian choice cannot resolve that uncertainty through guesswork. Recover the intended reference from the report’s participants or retain an explicit owner expression.
Possessive mano is distinct from the genitive form used for me
The Lithuanian grammar distinguishes possessive mano from manęs used in other genitive functions. Its examples contrast reading my letter with friends waiting for me. Both involve a first-person reference, but only the first expresses possession of a noun.
Danish likewise distinguishes min from mig, yet the corresponding Lithuanian forms cannot be selected by asking only whether a word is labelled genitive. That label covers different functions in the target. A Danish person affected by an action must not become an owner simply because the Lithuanian construction uses genitive marking.
The same caution applies when evaluating a translation. A target form related to me can be grammatically appropriate even where a literal English gloss suggests of me. Check the verb’s relationship to the participant before interpreting it as a property claim.
In this pair, three questions guide the choice: is there possession, is the possessor also the subject, and does the source concern one person or a group? Lithuanian possessive and case forms distribute those answers differently from Danish. Keeping the relationships distinct is more reliable than maintaining one dictionary equivalent for every occurrence of min or deres.
Language references