"We are looking at the animals that live in Denmark."
Translation:Vi kigger på de dyr som bor i Danmark.
I am also confused about why it is "de dyr" instead of "dyrene". My guess would be that the relative clause ("som bor i Danmark") behaves the same way with a noun as an adjective would, and therefore requires the separate definite article rather than the usual suffix...?
This is more an irregularity in English. It would probably be "more correct" saying "..which live in Denmark" as this corresponds closer to the Danish word som, but in English you can also say "..that live in Denmark". Rule of thumb is, if you can substitute "that" for either "who/which" in English and the meaning doesn't change, then use som
Google translate lists 'som' as the pronoun 'that', so maybe in this sentence 'that' could be considered a pronoun? (If it helps, Google also lists it as the pronoun 'who'. Swapping the two words gives "We are looking at the animals who live in Denmark" which I'm pretty sure means the same thing in English, just a little odd to say.)
I had a discussion with a native speaker and he said, it sounds funny to use "de dyr" and unusual. So at least "dyene" should be accepted.
Maybe it is because ´Vi´ is the subject, and ´de dyr´ is the object? If you switch the two I think it would say: 'Dyrene som bor i Danmark kigger på os'. I'm not sure though.
In Swedish both lever and bor is equivalent to live in English. But bor indicates that you are a resident of a place, which you would not normally say about a wild animal. But I see nothing grammatically wrong with it.