4 ms·

I can't understand its function. Is this a Danish language thing that was carried over in translation?

mrkeen 3y ago
Usually you do put a comma to separate two adjectives that modify a noun. Native speakers know not to include it here, and I don't know why.
- azangru 3y ago
  See "coordinate adjectives" vs "non-coordinate adjectives".
- civilitty 3y ago
  > Native speakers know not to include it here, and I don't know why. Native speakers would phrase it as "critical Danish infrastructure." Commas are only used to separate coordinate adjectives that are equal in importance. Here, "Danish" gives us an immutable property of the noun which is more important that "critical" which is a statement of quality. "Broken critical Danish infrastructure" is also grammatically valid since it's "(condition) (quality) (national association) (noun)"
  - plugin-baby 3y ago
    > Native speakers would phrase it as "critical Danish infrastructure." As a native speaker, I’m not convinced by this.
    - brookst 3y ago
      As a native, speaker I am.
    - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
      I agree with it, how would you phrase it?
      - plugin-baby 3y ago
        Seems fine as Danish critical infrastructure. Similarly French blue cheese, Prussian light infantry, American civil war.
    - xcdzvyn 3y ago
      There's an inherent order to adjectives in English[0], so the sentence is objectively formed as "critical Danish infrastructure". I do understand why someone would (knowing those rules) write "Danish critical infrastructure", possibly for emphasis, but it's not - and take this word very loosely - correct. [0] https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/adjectives/order-of-adjectives https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/adjecti...
      - plugin-baby 3y ago
        I’m not sure quite how to read these rules - isn’t “critical” a “purpose or qualifier”? Which would mean the original formulation follows the rules.
        civilitty 3y ago
        No, a "purpose or qualifier" is (usually) the defining characteristic of a noun. For example, power infrastructure vs water infrastructure. If you said "power Danish infrastructure" or "water Danish infrastructure", power/water don't make sense as adjectives. Sometimes "critical" is a qualifier like "critical condition" but in this case, it's a quality.
  - thomasahle 3y ago
    I don't think "critical is a statement of quality". In the security industry "critical infrastructure" is basically a noun in its own right. I wouldn't be surprised if they started spelling it with a dash.
yokoprime 3y ago
Could it be danish and critical infrastructure as in two different entities?
- mistrial9 3y ago
  Danish is used as an adjective
- plugin-baby 3y ago
  It could be, presumably implying an attack against the danish people or language, and which critical infrastructure implied by context. In which case the comma would make more sense, but the situation would be quite weird!
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Core servers supporting the Danish language were compromised! 'Slå til Søren' possibly corrupted. People named Søren suspected.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    Language yes, people no, that would be 'Danes' or perhaps 'the Danish'.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  It reads as an attack against a pastry and critical infrastructure. It's very upsetting, I love Danishes, so delicious.
mannykannot 3y ago
I thought I knew the answer, but it is a tricky question, at least in English. Firstly, there is the order of adjectives: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adjectives-order https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adj... Secondly, whether to separate them with a comma: https://getitwriteonline.com/commas-between-adjectives/ https://getitwriteonline.com/commas-between-adjectives/ These two principles together seem to suggest "The attack against Danish critical infrastructure" (you would not put an "and" between them, and place comes before type), but to me, "The attack against critical Danish infrastructure" feels slightly better. I'm not sure why, but it might have something to do with my feeling that when I hear about an attack on infrastructure, perhaps the question of how serious it is puts any other adjective in context. One could also say "The [May, 2023] attack on Denmark's critical infrastructure" or "The/An attack on critical infrastructure in Denmark."
- ethbr1 3y ago
  The attack against Danish critical infrastructure Feels maximally neutral. Critical infrastructure was attacked. That infrastructure was Danish. The attack against critical Danish infrastructure Conveys more of an emphasis that the infrastructure was critical to Denmark (with a very slight flavor that maybe it's not generally accepted critical infrastructure?). In practice, as a southeastern US English speaker (if that matters?), adjectives closer to the noun rank higher in emphasis. I'm sure there are exceptions (ugh, English), but increasing-emphasis ordering if it's a generic bag-of-adjectives.
  - brookst 3y ago
    FWIW as a northwest USian, “Danish critical infrastructure” reads like the attack was against critical infrastructure of Danish origin, wherever it might be now. “Critical Danish infrastructure” tells me it is critical infrastructure perhaps made anywhere but deployed in Denmark. It is surprisingly ambiguous though.
dboreham 3y ago
Modem noise?
tokai 3y ago
Yes its a Danish comma thing. Even in Danish its a bit too much though. But that is what you get for making some commas optional.[0] Use of commas is generally a mess in danish. The whole report is full of wrong commas, for written English. Quite embarrassing. [0] https://dsn-dk.translate.goog/ordboeger/retskrivningsordbogen/%c2%a7-40-60-tegnsaetning/%c2%a7-45-51-komma/%c2%a7-49-50-ledsaetninger/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://dsn-dk.translate.goog/ordboeger/retskrivningsordboge...
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Use of commas is a mess in other EU countries as well, especially when it comes to numbers. Some countries - including my own - use the , for a . and vice versa in numbers. So 1.000(nl) => 1,000(uk/us etc). This causes a ton of trouble with students who will consume all kinds of information online where the '.' is used as a decimal point and then have to correctly answer questions on their exams where it uses a ',' and a '.' is simply ignored leading to what are in principle correct answers flagged as errors. This is super annoying because at the same time school mandated computers and calculators will use a confusing mixture of the two depending on whether you are using local software or online software or a physical device intended for another market.
  - mmastrac 3y ago
    I would love it if we could move to thin-line thousands separators and middle dot for decimals [1]. I know it won't happen, but that would be amazing. [1] https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/117982/central-dot-as-decimal-point-in-top-journal https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/117982/central-...
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      I'd read that as multiplication instead... This is what you get from using inconsistent symbols for important functions, I would not be surprised at all if people died over '.' vs ',' in a piece of medical gear or avionics. I'd use a completely new symbol before repurposing an old one. And in a way the '*' that computer languages tend to use for multiplication serves as a nice way to avoid mixups (as opposed to 'x').

Usually you do put a comma to separate two adjectives that modify a noun. Native speakers know not to include it here, and I don't know why.

azangru 3y ago
See "coordinate adjectives" vs "non-coordinate adjectives".
civilitty 3y ago
> Native speakers know not to include it here, and I don't know why. Native speakers would phrase it as "critical Danish infrastructure." Commas are only used to separate coordinate adjectives that are equal in importance. Here, "Danish" gives us an immutable property of the noun which is more important that "critical" which is a statement of quality. "Broken critical Danish infrastructure" is also grammatically valid since it's "(condition) (quality) (national association) (noun)"
- plugin-baby 3y ago
  > Native speakers would phrase it as "critical Danish infrastructure." As a native speaker, I’m not convinced by this.
  - brookst 3y ago
    As a native, speaker I am.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    I agree with it, how would you phrase it?
    - plugin-baby 3y ago
      Seems fine as Danish critical infrastructure. Similarly French blue cheese, Prussian light infantry, American civil war.
  - xcdzvyn 3y ago
    There's an inherent order to adjectives in English[0], so the sentence is objectively formed as "critical Danish infrastructure". I do understand why someone would (knowing those rules) write "Danish critical infrastructure", possibly for emphasis, but it's not - and take this word very loosely - correct. [0] https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/adjectives/order-of-adjectives https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/adjecti...
    - plugin-baby 3y ago
      I’m not sure quite how to read these rules - isn’t “critical” a “purpose or qualifier”? Which would mean the original formulation follows the rules.
      - civilitty 3y ago
        No, a "purpose or qualifier" is (usually) the defining characteristic of a noun. For example, power infrastructure vs water infrastructure. If you said "power Danish infrastructure" or "water Danish infrastructure", power/water don't make sense as adjectives. Sometimes "critical" is a qualifier like "critical condition" but in this case, it's a quality.
- thomasahle 3y ago
  I don't think "critical is a statement of quality". In the security industry "critical infrastructure" is basically a noun in its own right. I wouldn't be surprised if they started spelling it with a dash.

yokoprime 3y ago

Could it be danish and critical infrastructure as in two different entities?

mistrial9 3y ago
Danish is used as an adjective
plugin-baby 3y ago
It could be, presumably implying an attack against the danish people or language, and which critical infrastructure implied by context. In which case the comma would make more sense, but the situation would be quite weird!
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Core servers supporting the Danish language were compromised! 'Slå til Søren' possibly corrupted. People named Søren suspected.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  Language yes, people no, that would be 'Danes' or perhaps 'the Danish'.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
It reads as an attack against a pastry and critical infrastructure. It's very upsetting, I love Danishes, so delicious.

mannykannot 3y ago

I thought I knew the answer, but it is a tricky question, at least in English. Firstly, there is the order of adjectives: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adjectives-order https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adj... Secondly, whether to separate them with a comma: https://getitwriteonline.com/commas-between-adjectives/ https://getitwriteonline.com/commas-between-adjectives/ These two principles together seem to suggest "The attack against Danish critical infrastructure" (you would not put an "and" between them, and place comes before type), but to me, "The attack against critical Danish infrastructure" feels slightly better. I'm not sure why, but it might have something to do with my feeling that when I hear about an attack on infrastructure, perhaps the question of how serious it is puts any other adjective in context. One could also say "The [May, 2023] attack on Denmark's critical infrastructure" or "The/An attack on critical infrastructure in Denmark."

ethbr1 3y ago
The attack against Danish critical infrastructure Feels maximally neutral. Critical infrastructure was attacked. That infrastructure was Danish. The attack against critical Danish infrastructure Conveys more of an emphasis that the infrastructure was critical to Denmark (with a very slight flavor that maybe it's not generally accepted critical infrastructure?). In practice, as a southeastern US English speaker (if that matters?), adjectives closer to the noun rank higher in emphasis. I'm sure there are exceptions (ugh, English), but increasing-emphasis ordering if it's a generic bag-of-adjectives.
- brookst 3y ago
  FWIW as a northwest USian, “Danish critical infrastructure” reads like the attack was against critical infrastructure of Danish origin, wherever it might be now. “Critical Danish infrastructure” tells me it is critical infrastructure perhaps made anywhere but deployed in Denmark. It is surprisingly ambiguous though.

dboreham 3y ago

Modem noise?

tokai 3y ago

Yes its a Danish comma thing. Even in Danish its a bit too much though. But that is what you get for making some commas optional.[0] Use of commas is generally a mess in danish. The whole report is full of wrong commas, for written English. Quite embarrassing. [0] https://dsn-dk.translate.goog/ordboeger/retskrivningsordbogen/%c2%a7-40-60-tegnsaetning/%c2%a7-45-51-komma/%c2%a7-49-50-ledsaetninger/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://dsn-dk.translate.goog/ordboeger/retskrivningsordboge...

jacquesm 3y ago
Use of commas is a mess in other EU countries as well, especially when it comes to numbers. Some countries - including my own - use the , for a . and vice versa in numbers. So 1.000(nl) => 1,000(uk/us etc). This causes a ton of trouble with students who will consume all kinds of information online where the '.' is used as a decimal point and then have to correctly answer questions on their exams where it uses a ',' and a '.' is simply ignored leading to what are in principle correct answers flagged as errors. This is super annoying because at the same time school mandated computers and calculators will use a confusing mixture of the two depending on whether you are using local software or online software or a physical device intended for another market.
- mmastrac 3y ago
  I would love it if we could move to thin-line thousands separators and middle dot for decimals [1]. I know it won't happen, but that would be amazing. [1] https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/117982/central-dot-as-decimal-point-in-top-journal https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/117982/central-...
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    I'd read that as multiplication instead... This is what you get from using inconsistent symbols for important functions, I would not be surprised at all if people died over '.' vs ',' in a piece of medical gear or avionics. I'd use a completely new symbol before repurposing an old one. And in a way the '*' that computer languages tend to use for multiplication serves as a nice way to avoid mixups (as opposed to 'x').