I can't understand its function. Is this a Danish language thing that was carried over in translation?
The whole report is full of wrong commas, for written English. Quite embarrassing.
[0] https://dsn-dk.translate.goog/ordboeger/retskrivningsordboge...
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.
I know it won't happen, but that would be amazing.
[1] https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/117982/central-...
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').
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adj...
Secondly, whether to separate them with a comma:
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."
The attack against Danish critical infrastructure
The attack against critical Danish 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.
“Critical Danish infrastructure” tells me it is critical infrastructure perhaps made anywhere but deployed in Denmark.
It is surprisingly ambiguous though.
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)"
As a native speaker, I’m not convinced by this.
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/adjecti...
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.
'Slå til Søren' possibly corrupted.
People named Søren suspected.
It's very upsetting, I love Danishes, so delicious.