As for The Hague, it comes from a private, enclosed hunting grounds belonging to the Count and his family. This was from the 1200s through the 1400s. It came to be known as 's Graven hage, literally "the count's wood". It was never a hedge that surrounded a city, it was a small, wooded hunting grounds.
For Copenhagen, the origin is completely different. Copenhagen is from Danish Køpmannæhafn (merchants’ harbor); cf. German Kaufmannshafen. In Low German, it was called Kopenhagen. Not related to Dutch haag. —Stephen(Talk) 02:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
But hagen is not the Low German word for harbor. I suspect some sort of folk etymology that assimilated it to the numerous German place names in -hagen (which is from the "fence/enclosure/hedge" word), although there are so many other place names in -haven (Low German) and -hafen (High German) that folk etymology wouldn't necessarily be expected. —Angr 20:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The hagen in question appears either Low Germanic plural or Nordic definite singular of hage. --KYPark (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
A maze of hedges.
A few weeks ago I initiated The Hague#Etymology and today refined it a bit. Then I was unhappy about WP's passage reading:
literally "the count's wood", with connotations like "the count's hedge, private enclosure or hunting grounds".
You revived this denotation whereas I had refined it as follows:
literally, "the Count's hedge," i.e., the Count's hedge-enclosed hunting grounds.
The image of hedges shown on the right is so popular here but quite misleading, I fear, as the hedge may be basically or originally a defensive or fortified enclosure to keep from the exposure to the risks outside.
Common in this perspective are The Hague, La Hague, and Copenhague, as mostly surrounded by waters, say, as if by the moat.
It is worth wondering why European languages would rather prefer the Low German name to the Danish of originality. They would do so since Copenhagen was fortified mainly by Dutch engineers in Dutch fashion based on Amsterdam, The Hague, etc. --KYPark (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Are the a-mode and the e-mode above either alternate forms or doublets or still cognates or mere synonyms? --KYPark (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Why the two modes, while either appears enough? --KYPark (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
They're definitely cognates. The "a-mode" is from PGmc *hag-ōn-, while the "e-mode" is from *hag-jō, so they're from the same stem with different suffixes. I don't know why; maybe there was originally a difference in meaning which has since been obscured. —Angr 18:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
There are actually even more different formations. The stem was clearly hag- but there are many different suffixes. All the forms with e in the stem come from Template:termx. But for those with a in the stem there are several which I can't all explain. Old English haga and Old Norse hagi clearly come from Template:termx. But in continental West Germanic there were several competing formations. Old Saxon and Old High German both have hagu- with only appears in compounds, and which might indicate Template:termx; the Old High German form hag, modern German Hag and Old Dutch haghe (in a placename), modern Dutch haag could derive from that too. Then there is also hagan in Old High German and Old Saxon, which became hagen in Middle High German and Middle Dutch, and apparently became Hain in some German dialects; this seems to stem from Template:termx or Template:termx.
*haganaz looks suspiciously like a past participle, which may derive from a verb Template:termx, although only Old High German preserves any trace of this strong verb directly (the derived participle bihagan). All other languages including German have a class 2 weak verb Template:termx, Template:termx "to protect, to ease" (German behagen, Old English gehagian, Old Norse haga). There could be a link between the verbs and the nouns, possibly by means of 'protecting with a hedge'. I don't know whether the 'protect' sense or the 'hedge' sense is original, though. —CodeCat 19:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
In effect, both of you argue for the doublet. More at the end. --KYPark (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I can only really say one thing: 'Huh? What?' Please make your post a bit shorter and better structured because honestly I really don't understand what you're asking and how all the information you've given here is related. —CodeCat 16:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I expect or suspect everything I note here diverges from, and hence converges to, the hedge, simply the edge! This is where the elevation varies suddenly, regardless whether as diked (dammed, erected) or as ditched (dug, sunken). In practice, the dike or dyke, originating from Dutch dijk, is confused with the ditch so that they may feel like using the (deprecated template usage)levee and the (deprecated template usage)trench in addition to those doublets. The (deprecated template usage)hedge may be another unfortunate example regardless of the likely origin as a moat, as evidenced by The Hague, La Hague, Copenhague, etc., as a wet hedge, and by such likely cognates as ha-ha, etc., as a dry hedge! It appears to me that the hedge is such a case that the origin has obscured from the wet to dry edge, while the dyke is vice versa. Along with the doublet, this obscuration or confusion of the dry and wet edges seem to be widely problematic. Thus, a kind of "mass comparison" is needed, I guess. Questions may be asked and answered either in isolation, as usual, or in context, in a new perspective. On this occasion I just prefer the latter as the questions appear widely and highly interwoven. I see such toponyms as The Hague, La Hague, Copenhague, Saint Louis du Ha! Ha!, etc., etymologically relate to the wet edge or hedge in common! This is my motivation. To be preciser, I would rename Notes to be Excerpts. --KYPark (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Just like The Hague and Copenhagen, edge and hedge are completely unrelated. hedge ultimately comes from Proto-Indo-European *kagʰyo-. (to catch, seize; wickerwork, fence), while edge is from Proto-Indo-European*h₂eḱ-(“sharp”). Almost all of the above is unfounded, unsupportable supposition. It is classic folk etymology. —Stephen(Talk) 10:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Modes Ha-mode He-mode We-mode E-mode
deu: Hag Heck(e) Weck(e) Eck(e)
dut: haag heg wig eg
eng: haw hedge wedge edge
dum: hage hegge+ wegge+ egg(h)e+
ang: haga hecg wecg ecg
PGe: *hagô *hagjō *wagjaz *agjō
PIE: *kagʰyo- *ak-
+ Either dum or enm or both
*hagjō or *khagja (Which is better?)
*kagʰyo- or *kagh (Which is better?)
This chart is not necessarily to make any etymological claim, but to show up the likely morphological stimulus and response, likely extralinguistic!
The hearer would rather respond to such similar words (in sound and sense) as per pragmatic morphology, physiology, psychology, etc., than sophisticated etymology.
As shown above, to know the diachronic and synchronic variations of (deprecated template usage)edge, namely "E-mode," would enable you to predict almost perfectly, regardless of etymology, those of (deprecated template usage)wedge and (deprecated template usage)hedge that rhyme, as well as share some essential sense, with it, jointly impressing the human mind in context no doubt.
This scientific as well as commonsensical power is by virtue of morphology and probably folk etymology proper as well, if not etymology proper, deeply rooted in linguistic psychology and physiology.
Such prediction is unlikely with PIE (including PGe), say, *kagʰyo- ("fence") and *h₂eḱ- ("sharp") by nature, however jointly.
PGe *hagjō rhymes with *agjō, suggesting both descendants would keep doing so. Meanwhile, PGe appears not well prepared to explain the umlauting (from /a/ to /e/) in common in modern Germanics for hedge, wedge, and edge, and thus the relatedness in ways among them, and between *hagô and *hagjō at last where Angr and CodeCat noted the same stem elsewhere.
Words are not only natured in isolation but also nurtured in use in cobweb crisscross context in concert! Hence the famous debate w: nature versus nurture.
Who dare to declare for sure the above words are unrelated at all, especially based on the genetic nature only? If any, they would be helpless pseudo-scientific or positivistic nativists, I assume. Such authoritative declaration would certainly do harm and injustice to the free quest for a new horizon.
It is not too bad to keep questioning the likely relatedness of words, whether natured or nurtured. The edge-hedge case, however, is far from the main points but a side effect, at which you cavil instead of elaborating on them one after another. --KYPark (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Why do you talk about 'modes' instead of using the established Indo-European term, 'ablaut grade'? It would certainly help if you could try to explain yourself in terms familiar to Indo-European etymology because right now what you say is very hard to follow. And if you are not familiar with those terms, I think it would be a very good idea to study some basic Indo-European linguistics before trying to make too many conjectures...
Why is Proto-Germanic not able to explain the umlaut? Umlaut is very well explained; it's a result of i or j in the following syllable. And that's quite clearly what happened here. The geminated -gg-, -cg- or -dg- is a result of the West Germanic gemination, which was triggered by j following a consonant. Old English also has palatalisation.
Haw and hedge are related. They have the same root. Hedge, wedge and edge are not related because they don't have the same root. A root in PIE is the basic unit of meaning, and different roots generally don't have any relationship to one another. —CodeCat 11:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
How or why do you ask me to believe in Indo-European linguistics after such God most likely for the Indo-European sake? Would you insist on Eurocentrism? Then globally just nonsense! --KYPark (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I wonder if you still wonder "how all the information [I've] given here is related". --KYPark (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Huh? Why are you bringing religion into this? And Eurocentrism? Honestly I really don't understand you... —CodeCat 16:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me to go leftmost ...
Here and elsewhere, I host, so to speak, a lexical party, inviting people concerned while hoping them constructive or at least otherwise than destructive.
I regret Stephen repeats that The Hague and Copenhagen are definitely unrelated, while leaving -hagen and -haven obscured, among many other doubts, and facing away from Copenhague and La Hague, not to mention Saint Louis du Ha! Ha!. I do wonder if all of you agree with him fully and beyond.
No doubt all the dishes here are yet "unfounded" but found so debatable as to be founded via the scientific method from now on and on! This occasion would be just the beginning. We need to invite as many as possible to think it out over and over again, from way to way.
Sounding so unjust then is Stephen's authoritarian, dictative or declarative blame, likely for false etymology: "Almost all of the above is unfounded, unsupportable supposition. It is classic folk etymology." (He used to hit and run!) He looks like destroying, while at this checkpoint keeping people from entering, this hopefully constructive party. So do you, CodeCat, I suspect.
In principle, I'm such a liberal "against method" (1975) agreeing with Paul Feyerabend that "anything goes." Nonetheless, PIE is none of my method of choice, as I see it unbearably Eurocentric enough to see the rest paganic, as it were, metaphorically speeking. To me, believing in PIE is like believing in God, again metaphorically.
So I will go my way while you go by PIE linguistics. Honestly I really don't understand you, too, as you ask "Why do you talk about 'modes' instead of using the established Indo-European term, 'ablaut grade'?" This is not a place for PIE linguists only, I guess, but a open forum including the general readers ignorant of PIE or the like. If not for the blaming sake, I should not be blamed for not knowing "ablaut grade" even if I were a good PIE linguist, as we all suffer partial knowledge, and thus just swing from prejudice to prejudice, as I noted elsewhere.
Perhaps you misunderstood me and asked "Why is Proto-Germanic not able to explain the umlaut? Umlaut is very well explained..." Please answer why PGm *hagjō, *wagjaz, and *agjō umlauted so thoroughly and so commonly in Germanic in particular.
So far I've served a number of dishes for scrutiny. Meanwhile, I feel like a hospes, that is, host-cum-guest Janus, if not contradiction. As such a guest, I often enjoy the right to add my own views up to this party I host. Guests who behaves themselves are not to be blamed but just welcome, I hope. I prefer hospitality to hostility, which by the way are perhaps contradictory doublets cognate to contradictory hospes and hostis!
Lastly, I cannot help but ask again if you still "can only really say one thing: 'Huh? What?'" as in the beginning. By the way, I am testing, via this section and some others, another way of archiving the discussion sections. It simply rests on transclusion so that the archived subpages can be transcluded into any pages, differently from {{discussionsection}}. I like to know how much you prefer my way. --KYPark (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how studying the history of the European languages can help being Eurocentric, except to the extent that it takes some Asian languages (Anatolian, Armenian, Indo-Iranian, Tocharian) into consideration too. Here and elsewhere you have denounced historical linguists for being "positivists" as if that were a bad thing, but seeing [[positivism]] defined as "A doctrine that states that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method, refusing every form of metaphysics" I'm only too pleased to embrace that label when it comes to etymology. If you want to reject our reality and substitute your own, if you want to apply epistemological anarchism to your study of words, that's your prerogative, but that isn't the way real-life historical linguists do it. As with chess or soccer, if you refuse to follow the rules of the game, you can't be surprised when other people don't want to play with you. —Angr 12:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
All "studying the history of the European languages" is not Eurocentric, but PIE history appears, as I saw and said, as I'm also doing it.
All "historical linguists" are not positivists, but PIE linguists appear, as I saw and said, as I'm hopefully one of them.
This slippery way of your above rhetoric 1 and 2 may misguide the readers to hate me, hence harming me, I'm afraid.
As far as my knowledge goes, the first three quarters of the 20th century was overrided by logical positivism and scientism plus anti-metaphysics and anti-subjectivism, misguided by the Cambridge school of logical atomists and the Vienna Circle. It has been fatally crossfired since 1974, perhaps since Robert Pirsig arguing for the subject-object based Metaphysics of Quality. Another among many others was Paul Feyerabend (1975) I mentioned above. Strikingly, he was close to that circle. Positivism regardless of negativism is painfully or fatally partial while the universe is always a balance of both, yin and yang, implication and explication, action and reaction, and so on. You can positively see only the tip or 10% of the iceberg, which may be too little to explain the 90% hidden mass. Again, 1975 saw a special attention to implication, including Paul Grice's implicature and Mary Douglas's Implicit Meanings. Science itself is simply to make the implicit explicit. Interpretivism is a must to this end. Linguistics served as a great source of such revolutionary inspiration since then. The metaphor or connotation is an implicit meaning hidden below the explicit, literal meaning. To say the meaning is context-dependent is to say it is implied in context in concert rather than explicitly engraved in words as usually imagined. Such is etymology, either, I guess. The meaning of *hagjō or *hagja may be not well defined or engraved there to be the hedge in the modern sense but in the historical context back then, as it keeps changing.
You are a third person supposed to join attacking me as a pagan, to make up a wider tactical consensus against me, to hit and run alternatingly, ... But please answer frankly at least if Low German hagen and haven were used to mean the same thing, as suggested by Stephen. --KYPark (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel attacked or if you feel that what I said may lead readers to hate you. That wasn't my intention. I can't see anyplace where Stephen said that Low German hagen and haven were used to mean the same thing. For whatever reason, the Low German name of the capital of Denmark uses the element -hagen instead of -haven, even though the Danish name uses the semantic and etymological equivalent of -haven. Given the Danish name København, one would have expected the Low German name to be Kopenhaven, but it isn't, it's Kopenhagen. It's possible, as I mentioned above, that Kopenhagen became the established name because there are so many other Low German place names that do end in -hagen, so the name of the Danish capital became assimilated by folk etymology. On the other hand, there are also plenty of Low German place names that end in -haven, so there wouldn't actually be much pressure to change a hypothetical Kopenhaven into Kopenhagen. So I don't know why Copenhagen has the name it does. —Angr 22:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot indeed for your frank doubt in sharp contrast to Stephen's definite claim, which is exactly my and hopefully our critical point of departure.
I agree on the likely role of folk etymology (as nurture) in such assimilation free from nativist etymology (as nature) like PIE.
Nonetheless, Low German haven and hagen may differ in origin and meaning. The one definitely means the port whereas the other most likely the fort, fence or defensive or protective enclosure to bar exposure to the danger from outside.
The hedge is a farming fence. The ha-ha is a sunken gardening fence. The hedge fund is defensive, hence the name. First of all, the city and the castle should be protected or fortified anyway. The enclosing wall may be not enough. Desired was the further enclosing moat, likely dry in high lands and wet in low lands.
By the way, this word is strange elsewhere, suffering dubious etymology. The wall groove, as literally put into English, is widely used in Germanic instead rather implausibly, either. I view German (deprecated template usage)Burghagen and Latin (deprecated template usage)castrum hagen in that place.
Hagen im Bremischen belonged to the Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen, established as a territory of imperial immediacy in 1180. The prince-archiepiscopal fortress (Latin: Castrum Hagen, German: Burghagen) dates back to the 12th century, probably Prince-Archbishop Hartwig II initiated its construction. -- Excerpt from w:Hagen im Bremischen#History
In principle, to construct the port (haven) is one thing, and to fortify the fort (hagen) is another. In case of Kopenhagen, however, the fortification by Low German engineers was obviously most critical, probably hence such a defensive name instead of heavenly *Kopenhaven, I assume.
BTW, I never said "Stephen said" (explicitly) but "Stephen suggested" (implicitly) the same origin hence meaning of hagen and haven by saying "For Copenhagen, the origin is completely different. Copenhagen is from Danish Køpmannæhafn..." --KYPark (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Hagen does not mean fort, it means hedge. A fort is 'burg'. —CodeCat 11:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
To begin with, I specially recall Robert Louis Stevenson's penetrating insight: "The cruelest lies are often told in silence."
"What indeed, if no haw or hedge of trees, encloses Copenhagen and The Hague, hence the names?" This was my original question.
The Hague stems from the hedge, no doubt. But Stephen strongly denied that Copenhagen relates to the hedge and hence The Hague. Now you surprsingly note at last that "it means hedge." Splendid! Many thanks!
Furthermore, would you kindly advise him to confess formally that he was definitely and repeatedly wrong and misguided this enlightening party?
Yet my original question is to be answered, as the hedge is remotely defined in Wiktionary as "a thicket of bushes ... planted as a fence between any two portions of land." Here the hedge minimally suggests its defensive or protective aspect in my view.
In contrast with your somewhat misleading passage, I wrote in effect the hagen is (not only) "the fort," (but also) "fence or defensive or protective enclosure" so as to include or also mean the hedge, as you note. Why do I see the historical hagen make sense of a fort?
In spite of the names, The Hague and Copenhagen were admittedly not enclosed by the (deprecated template usage)hedge in the current lexical sense, as noted above, but in the archaic or historical sense beyond that, in the defensive, strategic, fortifying sense. What was the hedge at all back then?
Stephen is supposed to be misguided by the current lexical mirage. Instead we have to adapt ourselves to the historical context. Then why did they call their fortified city or fort either Burg ("wall") or Hagen ("hedge") esp. in low lands, near the sea?
On the right, you see a fort mainly composed of the wall and the moat (or ditch or trench). The wall is Burg, and the moat is Graben (or Wallgraben or Burggraben).
Here I ask you to pay a special attention again to German Burghagen (Latin Castrum Hagen), as I quoted previously, in place of Burggraben. And I would argue most seriously that as a fortifying structure Hagen is not Haven but Graben, whether or not filled with water, hence the moat anyway! --KYPark (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
As far as we can tell, 'hedge', 'haw' and its other Germanic cognates and varieties have always referred to a thicket of bushes from at least Proto-Germanic times. We can infer this because it has this meaning in all attested Germanic languages; this implies a common origin because it's unlikely that the meaning of the word changed in the exact same way in every language (Occam's razor). It's true that a hedge can be used for defensive purposes. However, a fort is quite a different thing from a mere row of bushes, and the fact that there was already a well-established word for a fort (burg) that has been used for 2000 years of attested Germanic history makes it unlikely that this word acquired a similar meaning in the middle ages, only to lose it again in modern times. It is also telling that 'hagen' never appears in the names of actual forts, while there are countless forts named 'burg'.
It is perhaps interesting to note that the word ancestral to 'town' originally meant enclosure. It does of course now refer to a type settlement. In the case of 'town', the word came to refer to what was inside the enclosure rather than the wall itself. But this is quite a different development called metonymy: a word is used to refer to something associated with it. The original word Template:termx was already used to refer to a defensive or protective enclosure of some kind (as well as enclosures for other purposes, such as gardens). The word 'hedge' or its relatives has never been used to refer to a protective wall as far as we can tell, so it is unlikely that it acquired that meaning. —CodeCat 17:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
In this party, we are enlightening, throwing light on something special, rather than enjoying chattering in all ways or in one's own way. So everybody here is wanted to focus on the focal question, say, why so many European coastal cities and towns are mysteriously called the hedge (eg, The Hague) or the like (eg, Copenhagen). Please try to resolve this very mystery at least above all, hopefully to the best of your knowledge, without lying in silence! I specially regret as well as Lao Tzu who said: "He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know." Sincerely yours --KYPark (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Stephen has really explained all that's known about the names. —CodeCat 23:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Is he your omniscient God? How do you know "Stephen has really explained all that's known about the names"? Did he said that to you? Or are you so omniscient, too? No more kidding, if any! Do you feel like being trapped in the blind alley, but finding no better breakthrough than such omniscience? You believe in omniscience while I believe in our partial knowledge and prejudice as I've stressed again and again. Hmm... We look like oil and water. Who's oil?
Yet please please let them out there know clearly whether or not the hagen ("hedge") you mentioned is the same as that of Copenhagen? --KYPark (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Are there nobody at all worldwide on my side? --KYPark (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Attention please! This two-week long series of serious talks should never end here with such a fake conclusion I believe both Stephen and CodeCat jointly appear responsible at least for fabricating in effect: "Stephen has really explained all that's known about the names." But the whole community should be responsible, I guess, for safeguarding wikis from falling into a place for such an easy academic fabrication. Accordingly I ask it to ask them to reconsider what's wrong with them and to retry to respond first of all to the simplest but most vital question "whether or not the (deprecated template usage)hagen [CodeCat] mentioned is the same as that of Copenhagen" as I asked. This way wikis could win wiki wiki, I hope. (This may be an ultimatum before I take next steps seriously.) Thanks for your attention. Sincerely yours --KYPark (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
About your question, KYPark: hagen in Copenhagen is not related to hagen. And I don't think that anybody believes that it is related. If you are in doubt, try to get a good etymological dictionary of placenames and check it. --MaEr (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I wonder why Stephen and CodeCat hesitate to respond to my simplest request for clarification of their point. They look like escaping from it, or more precisely from my real, implicit aim to examine whether or not they feel fully responsible for the contents of their talks.
So I unwelcome one way, but welcome another, your response on their behalf. And I'm surprised again at still another likely omniscient case such that "hagen in Copenhagen is not related to (deprecated template usage)hagen" which CodeCat did note in this context of Copenhagen.
If "hagen in Copenhagen is not related to (deprecated template usage)hagen" at all indeed, however, CodeCat should not have bothered but completely ignored (deprecated template usage)hagen, regardless whether "it means hedge" or fort, as (if) out of context.
Along with them, you are in effect suggesting there are more people than one who believe Copenhagen is not related even to the many nearby toponymic uses of (deprecated template usage)hagen in German. (Then may I ask you if the many nearby German toponyms called Hagen means hedge but for Copenhagen definitely, though there may be no dictionary bothering their etymology?)
Or, you together may be effective in effect in helping fabricate fake academic theses or conjectures, I fear most.
BTW I personally wish to do my best to fight against them under the banner of "World Brain" since H. G. Wells (1938) and metascience or "science of science" since J. D. Bernal (1939), both as a scientist for society in the global rather than local or racial perspective. (I recall one more scientist C. K. Ogden (1930) who formulated Basic English for global information sharing, now in vogue at the turn of the century!)
Say, Eurocentrism, if any, esp. in the disguise of mainstream theories as invested interests, thus may be unbearably evil in fact in such a likely way that "the bad money drives out the good." But it might do harm even to Eurocentrists themselves who suffer too partial information by ignoring orientalism and paganism. Is it unlikely that Westerners are ignorant of the eastern culture, say, Chinese ideograms, while Easterners are aware of both balancingly to their benefit intangible? --KYPark (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
You say: I wonder why Stephen and CodeCat hesitate to respond to my simplest request for clarification of their point. — probably they did respond, but their answers got lost in the huge amounts of text.
You say: Then may I ask you if the many nearby German toponyms called Hagen means hedge but for Copenhagen definitely — I do not know the etymologies of all German toponyms with hagen, so I will not say anything about them; I'm talking about Copenhagen.
You say: Or, you together may be effective in effect in helping fabricate fake academic theses or conjectures — if you want to distinguish between useless and useful theses and you don't trust us, you could read some linguistic literature. Try to get some introduction into linguistics in your local library or bookshop.
I am glad you sound more responsive and articulate than Stephen and CodeCat, who used to hit and run! out of sight, out of context, or out of focus. This is where or why I keep asking them to make clear something very dear, say, such that "I do not know the etymologies of all German toponyms with hagen, so I will not say anything about them; I'm talking about Copenhagen" [just in isolation], as you mentioned and suggested! (^_^) --KYPark (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
.JPG)
