Abstract
Every language pair produces a two-way ledger of expressive asymmetry: places where the target language requires machinery the source language handles with a single word, and places where the reverse holds. Learners typically notice only the first column, because that column is where the errors are. This paper works both columns for Danish and English, taking kan lide (“like”) as the anchor case on the Danish-complex side and the modal particle system as the anchor case on the Danish-compact side. It proposes four analytically distinct types of asymmetry — lexical splitting, periphrastic construction, obligatory grammatical marking, and cultural keyword density — and argues that most of the phenomena learners lump together as “Danish is harder here” belong to different types with different consequences for acquisition and translation. It closes with a caution against reading the ledger as a claim about the relative complexity of the two languages.
1. The Question
An English speaker learning Danish meets kan lide early and finds it strange. English like is a single transitive verb: I like coffee. Danish requires a modal verb plus a bare infinitive, conventionally with an adverb wedged in: jeg kan godt lide kaffe. Three words where English has one, and the three words do not mean “like” when taken apart.
The reflexive conclusion — Danish is more complicated — is too fast in two directions. It is too fast because the same learner will shortly meet jo, pyt, unde, and gide, each of which requires a sentence of English to render. And it is too fast because “more complicated” conflates several different things.
Following Jakobson’s (1959) observation that languages differ less in what they can express than in what they must, and Boas’s (1911) earlier version of the same point, this paper separates four kinds of asymmetry:
- Lexical splitting — one language has a single lexeme where the other has a set that must be chosen among.
- Periphrastic construction — one language expresses with a single inflected form what the other expresses with a multi-word construction.
- Obligatory grammatical marking — one language forces a distinction that the other leaves to context.
- Keyword density — one language has a conventionalized single word for a culturally loaded concept that the other must paraphrase.
These are not the same phenomenon, and the learner’s remedy differs for each. Types 1 and 3 require decision procedures. Type 2 requires memorized templates. Type 4 requires cultural knowledge and cannot be drilled.
2. Anchor Case: Kan lide
2.1 The construction
Kunne lide is not a verb but a fixed pairing of the modal kunne with the bare infinitive lide. The inflection lives entirely in the modal: kan lide (present), kunne lide (past — homographic with the infinitive), har kunnet lide (perfect). Lide never changes form within the idiom, which is precisely why learners inflect it wrongly. In affirmative statements the adverb godt is near-obligatory to a Danish ear; in questions and negatives it typically drops (kan du lide…?, jeg kan ikke lide…).
2.2 The etymology
Lide on its own means “to suffer, endure.” The construction therefore reads literally as “be able to endure.” The structural parallel with German leiden können is exact — er kann sie nicht leiden, “he cannot bear her” — and it has been proposed that the Danish construction is a calque of the German, though this etymology is flagged as needing sourcing. Two things are worth noting regardless of whether the calque hypothesis holds. First, the semantic path runs through the negative: “cannot bear” is the transparent sense, and the affirmative “like” looks like a back-formation from it. Second, the litotes has bleached completely. No Danish speaker hears endurance in jeg kan godt lide dig.
2.3 Why it is genuinely harder
Kan lide is a Type 2 asymmetry compounded by a Type 1 asymmetry. English like fans out into several Danish expressions that are not interchangeable:
| English | Danish | Domain |
|---|---|---|
| I like coffee | jeg kan godt lide kaffe | general fondness |
| I’m fond of him | jeg holder af ham | affection, warmer |
| I like this proposal | jeg synes godt om forslaget | evaluative approval |
| I’d like a coffee | jeg vil gerne have en kaffe | volition/request |
| She looks like her mother | hun ligner sin mor | resemblance |
| a house like ours | et hus som vores | comparison |
| child-like | barnlig / barneagtig | derivational |
English like is one of those high-frequency words that has accreted unrelated senses. Danish distributes those senses across a modal idiom, two other verbs, a volitional construction, a resemblance verb, a comparative particle, and two suffixes. The learner’s difficulty is not that kan lide is long. It is that like is a false unity, and Danish makes you disassemble it before you can speak.
3. Further Cases: Simple in English, Complex in Danish
3.1 Know → vide / kende
English know covers propositional knowledge and acquaintance. Danish splits them: jeg ved, hvor han bor (I know where he lives) against jeg kender ham (I know him). Most European languages make this cut; English is the outlier. Type 1.
3.2 Think → tro / synes / mene / tænke
A four-way split with no clean English mapping. Tro is belief about a matter of fact (“I think it’s Tuesday”). Synes is subjective evaluation grounded in one’s own experience (“I think the film was good”). Mene is a considered position one would defend (“I think the policy is misguided”). Tænke is the cognitive process itself (“I was thinking about you”). Getting synes and mene wrong does not produce nonsense; it produces a wrong register, which is worse, because nobody corrects it.
3.3 Please
Danish has no equivalent. The work is distributed across gerne (jeg vil gerne have…), the softening particle lige (kan du lige…), the formal venligst, the negative-interrogative politeness frame (vil du ikke godt…?, literally “won’t you kindly”), and intonation. Learners either omit politeness entirely and sound blunt, or import venligst everywhere and sound like a form letter. This is a Type 2 asymmetry with a Type 4 shadow: the absence reflects a politeness culture organized around different resources, a point Levisen (2012) develops for Danish sociality terms generally.
3.4 Progressive aspect
English inflects: he is reading. Danish has no progressive inflection and must build one, chiefly by pseudo-coordination with a posture verb — han sidder og læser, literally “he sits and reads” — or with er ved at (immediacy, near-completion) or holder på med (sustained effort). The posture-verb pattern is shared across Mainland Scandinavian and has been analyzed as a case where stability of posture and location facilitates the activity named in the second conjunct. Whether the construction has grammaticalized into a true progressive is contested; Lødrup (2019) argues the traditional bleaching account overstates the case, and Bjerre and Bjerre (2007) treat the sidder og phrase as a hybrid that carries properties of both coordination and subordination. For the learner, the practical burden is that one must choose a posture — sitting, standing, lying, walking — that is semantically appropriate to an action English marks with a bare suffix.
3.5 Perfect auxiliary selection
English uses have uniformly. Danish splits between have and være on roughly the motion-and-change-of-state line familiar from German and the Romance languages: han har gået (he has walked, activity) against han er gået (he has left, change of location). Type 3 — the distinction is forced, and choosing wrongly changes the meaning rather than merely sounding foreign.
3.6 Numerals
The Danish system above forty is vigesimal with a subtractive twist. Tres is short for tresindstyve, “three times twenty,” hence 60. Halvtreds is halvtredsindstyve, “half-third times twenty” — that is, (3 − ½) × 20 = 50. Likewise halvfjerds = 70, firs = 80, halvfems = 90. Units precede tens (femoghalvfems, “five and half-fifth-twenty,” 95). Clock time follows the same subtractive logic: halv tre is 2:30, “half toward three,” not half past three.
This is the single most cited case of Danish being harder than English, and it deserves a qualification. The etymological arithmetic is opaque to Danish speakers too. Halvtreds is memorized as a chunk, not computed. The difficulty is genuinely a learner’s difficulty and not a processing difficulty for natives — an important distinction the rest of this paper depends on.
3.7 Definiteness
Danish marks definiteness enclitically on the bare noun (huset) but switches to a free-standing article when an adjective intervenes (det store hus). Unlike Norwegian and Swedish, Danish does not double-mark — det store huset is ungrammatical in the standard language. The learner must therefore track not just definiteness but whether modification is present, a conditional rule with no English counterpart.
4. The Reverse Ledger: Compact in Danish, Diffuse in English
4.1 Modal particles
This is the mirror image of kan lide and arguably the larger asymmetry of the two. Danish deploys a set of short unstressed particles — jo, da, nok, vel, nu, vist, sgu, bare, altså — that carry no lexical content but position the speaker relative to the hearer’s presumed knowledge and stance (Andersen, 1982; Therkelsen, 2001).
- jo: this is common ground; we both know it
- da: mild pushback against what you seem to assume
- vel: hedged claim, inviting agreement
- nok: probability, softened assertion
English does the same work with tag questions, adverbs (surely, after all, you know), and intonation contours — all of which are longer, less precise, and less stackable. Danish particles combine in fixed order (jo nok, da vel, jo nok ikke) to layer shared knowledge, probability, and negation into a single clause. Rendering det er jo ikke så slemt into English requires either a clumsy explicit gloss (“well, as you know, it isn’t that bad”) or the silent loss of the interpersonal layer. Translators routinely take the loss.
4.2 Jo as a contradicting affirmative
Separately from the particle, jo answers a negative question in the affirmative — the function of French si and German doch. Kan du ikke lide kaffe? — Jo! English has no word for this and must reconstruct the whole proposition: “Yes, I do like it.” A one-syllable asymmetry with no English resource at all.
4.3 Verbs of capacity, willingness, and inner disposition
Danish has a compact set for which English requires phrases:
| Danish | English gloss |
|---|---|
| gide | to be bothered to, to have the inclination for |
| orke | to have the energy or stamina for |
| nænne | to have the heart to |
| unde | to feel someone deserves and to be glad of it |
| overskue | to be able to take in and manage |
| undvære | to do without, to manage in the absence of |
Unde is the most striking. English has begrudge, which exists chiefly in the negative; Danish has the positive term and uses it constantly. Jeg under dig det is an ordinary sentence with no compact English translation. Levisen (2012) treats this cluster as evidence that the Danish lexicon is organized around social-emotional distinctions that English leaves implicit.
4.4 Reflexive possessive sin / sit / sine
Han tog sin hat means he took his own hat. Han tog hans hat means he took someone else’s. English his is ambiguous across exactly this line and must be disambiguated with his own or by rewriting. Danish encodes coreference in the possessive itself. Type 3 in Danish’s favor — Danish forces a distinction English cannot easily make.
4.5 Impersonal man
Man gør ikke sådan. English one is stiff and receding; you is ambiguous between generic and addressed. Danish has a clean generic that carries no register cost.
4.6 Time and kinship
Døgn is a 24-hour period as a unit — English has no word and must say “twenty-four hours” or “day and night.” I forgårs and i overmorgen compress “the day before yesterday” and “the day after tomorrow” into two syllables each. Kinship terms encode lineage: farmor, farfar, mormor, morfar specify which side, where English needs “paternal grandmother.” Fætter and kusine distinguish male and female cousins.
4.7 Cultural keywords
Hygge is the famous case, but it is not the only one and arguably not the most interesting. Tryghed (a settled security, safety-as-felt-condition), overskud (surplus personal capacity, the reserve one has left over for others), arbejdsglæde (satisfaction taken in one’s work as an ordinary expectation), pligtopfyldende (conscientious in the discharge of duty), dygtig (capable and skilled, applied to persons across domains), and pyt (a one-word dismissal of a small misfortune, roughly “let it go”) all resist compact English rendering. Levisen (2012) analyzes several of these using the Natural Semantic Metalanguage framework of Wierzbicka (1997) and Goddard and Wierzbicka (2002), on the argument that keyword inventories index the distinctions a speech community habitually attends to.
4.8 Compounding
Danish forms single orthographic words freely where English strings out noun phrases. Arbejdsmarkedspolitik, sundhedsvæsenet, ejendomsmæglerforening. English can compound too, but with weaker orthographic and prosodic unity. This is a systematic Danish compactness advantage that operates below the level of any individual lexical item.
5. What Accounts for the Distribution
Three factors, in descending order of confidence.
Different inventories of grammaticalized categories. English grammaticalized aspect (the progressive) and left interpersonal stance to prosody and periphrasis. Danish did the reverse: it grammaticalized stance into a particle system and left aspect to lexical periphrasis. Neither language is doing more work; they have loaded the work onto different components. This accounts for the kan lide-versus-jo pairing directly, and it is the most defensible generalization in this paper.
Lexical splitting where one language merged. English know, think, and like are merged categories by continental standards; Danish keeps distinctions that Old English also once made. English’s history of contact-driven simplification in the lexicon of mental states is the likely background, though establishing that would require diachronic work beyond the scope of this paper.
Keyword density as a social fact. Type 4 asymmetries follow the distinctions a community routinely makes. This is the weakest of the three explanations in the sense that it is the hardest to falsify, and it shades into claims about linguistic relativity that must be handled carefully. Slobin’s (1996) “thinking for speaking” framing is the safer version: the claim is about what speakers must attend to when preparing an utterance, not about what they can conceive.
6. Two Cautions
The ledger does not measure complexity. Nothing above supports “Danish is harder than English” or the reverse. Every asymmetry in section 3 is matched by one in section 4. What the ledger measures is the distance a speaker of one language must travel to speak the other — a relation between two systems, not a property of either. Comrie (1989) and the typological tradition generally treat global complexity comparisons as ill-formed, and this paper takes that position.
Difficulty for learners is not difficulty for natives. The Danish numeral system is opaque to learners and automatic for natives. The converse case is instructive: Danish children’s early vocabulary comprehension scores come out lowest across a comparison of seventeen CDI studies, a delay hypothesized to follow from Danish sound structure presenting a harder segmentation task (Bleses et al., 2008). That is a genuine native-side processing cost — and it lies in phonology, not in any of the lexical or grammatical asymmetries this paper has catalogued. The two kinds of difficulty are unrelated, and conflating them is the standard error in popular writing on the subject.
7. Practical Implications
For learners, the four types call for different tactics. Type 1 splits (vide/kende, tro/synes/mene) need decision rules learned as rules, not vocabulary lists. Type 2 constructions (kan lide, the progressive periphrases) need whole-template memorization, since the parts mislead. Type 3 markings (auxiliary selection, sin/hans) need attention at the point of production, because context will not rescue an error. Type 4 keywords cannot be drilled and are acquired only through use.
For translation, the asymmetries are not symmetrical in cost. Danish-to-English translation systematically loses the particle layer, which is where much of the interpersonal texture lives; the loss is invisible in the output and therefore rarely edited back in. English-to-Danish translation more often produces detectable errors — wrong synes for mene, missing godt, an auxiliary mismatch — which at least get caught.
8. Conclusion
Kan lide is a good entry point to the asymmetry question precisely because it is a compound case: a periphrastic construction sitting on top of a lexical split, where English’s apparent simplicity is really the false unity of an overloaded word. Working outward from it produces a ledger with roughly balanced columns. Danish demands periphrasis where English inflects, and splits where English merges; English demands paraphrase where Danish has particles, capacity verbs, and conventionalized keywords, and it cannot mark coreference in the possessive at all.
The useful conclusion is not that either language is harder. It is that the two languages have grammaticalized different portions of what a speaker might want to convey, and that the learner’s felt difficulty is a map of the mismatch rather than a measurement of either system.
References
Allan, R., Holmes, P., & Lundskær-Nielsen, T. (2011). Danish: An essential grammar (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Andersen, T. (1982). Modalpartikler og deres funktion i dansk. In I. Kjær, F. Lundgreen-Nielsen, & N. Houkjær (Eds.), Danske Studier (pp. 86–95). Akademisk Forlag.
Basbøll, H. (2005). The phonology of Danish. Oxford University Press.
Bjerre, A., & Bjerre, T. (2007). Hybrid phrases: The Danish sidder og phrase. In A. Søgaard & P. Haugereid (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Typed Feature Structure Grammars (pp. 39–46). CST Publications.
Bleses, D., Vach, W., Slott, M., Wehberg, S., Thomsen, P., Madsen, T. O., & Basbøll, H. (2008). Early vocabulary development in Danish and other languages: A CDI-based comparison. Journal of Child Language, 35(3), 619–650. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000908008714
Boas, F. (1911). Introduction. In Handbook of American Indian languages (Part 1, pp. 1–83). Government Printing Office.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. (n.d.). Den Danske Ordbog. https://ordnet.dk/ddo
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (Eds.). (2002). Meaning and universal grammar: Theory and empirical findings. John Benjamins.
Grønnum, N. (2005). Fonetik og fonologi: Almen og dansk (3rd ed.). Akademisk Forlag.
Hansen, E., & Heltoft, L. (2011). Grammatik over det danske sprog (Vols. 1–3). Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab.
Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. A. Brower (Ed.), On translation (pp. 232–239). Harvard University Press.
Levisen, C. (2012). Cultural semantics and social cognition: A case study on the Danish universe of meaning. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294651
Lødrup, H. (2019). Pseudocoordination with posture verbs in Mainland Scandinavian: A grammaticalized progressive construction? Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 42(1).
Lundskær-Nielsen, T., & Holmes, P. (2010). Danish: A comprehensive grammar (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vols. 1–2). MIT Press.
Therkelsen, R. (2001). The Danish discourse particles jo, da and vel. In A. Holmes, J.-O. Svantesson, & Å. Wiberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 255–270). Lunds Universitet.
Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese. Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals. Cambridge University Press.
