# Den Haag



## Thomas1

*Den Haag *

Is the _Den_ always in the upper case in Dutch? Is it an article?


Tom


----------



## Suzejuice

Hello Tom,

I'm from Holland so I'll try to help you a bit.
'Den' is an old article, from the time they were conjugated in Holland. Now just the articles 'de' and 'het' are used.
In this name it means 'the', so you get 'The Hague' when you translate it into English.

Greetings,
Suzanne


----------



## Joannes

It was (a form of) an article, yes. It's a relic. Although it is always capitalized in the phrase *Den Haag*, it is not always in other instances where it is found as a relic. Typically not in Dutch names, e.g. the swimmer Pieter van den Hoogenband. Belgian Dutch names do tend to have capitalized *de*s, *van*s, *den*s, etc. though.

By the way, *den* is still used as a definite article in the Brabantic dialect area for masculin nouns.


----------



## floridasnowbird

Der offizielle Name von Den Haag ist übrigens *'s-Gravenhage *(mit kleinem s und großen G) als alte Genitivkonstruktion.

Vgl. Den Bosch und *'s-Hertogenbosch.*


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Joannes said:


> By the way, *den* is still used as a definite article in the Brabantic dialect area for masculin nouns.


If those masculine nouns start with a vowel, such as 'den otto', 'den oven', with a dental stop 'den tand' or with a bilabial stop 'den boom' (where -n is almost pronounced as 'm' due to assimilation).
I never heard 'den stoel', 'den schoolmeester', 'den meester'.
Idem dito for given names of males, btw.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Thomas1

I suspected it could be an inflected form, I didn't think of archaisation, though. Thanks.  

Could you please tell me what kind of inflection you have in mind -- according to cases, persons, genders, etc?

Is _den_ capitalized in _Den Haag_ because it is a propper name (if not, could you please elaborate)?


Tom

EDIT: please answer in English as I don't know a word in German.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Thomas1 said:


> I suspected it could be an inflected form, I didn't think of archaisation, though. Thanks.


 
Is it really an inflected article? I thought the -n is more a kind of linking consonant (the English word escapes me, but in French it's élision).

Groetjes,
Frank


----------



## Thomas1

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> Is it really an inflected article? I thought the -n is more a kind of linking consonant (the English word escapes me, but in French it's élision).
> 
> Groetjes,
> Frank


Well, this was also one of my hunches but I read Suzejuice's post and concluded so. 


Tom

NB: élision -- elision


----------



## sarcie

floridasnowbird said:


> Der offizielle Name von Den Haag ist übrigens *'s-Gravenhage *(mit kleinem s und großen G) als alte Genitivkonstruktion.
> 
> Vgl. Den Bosch und *'s-Hertogenbosch.*





Thomas1 said:


> EDIT: please answer in English as I don't know a word in German.



Thought I'd give you a quick translation of floridasnowbird's post above, since you don't speak German :

_By the way, the official name of Den Haag is *'s-Gravenhage *(written with a small 's' and a capital 'G') - an old genitive construction.

See also Den Bosch and *'s-Hertogenbosch*._


----------



## Joannes

Frank06 said:


> If those masculine nouns start with a vowel, such as 'den otto', 'den oven', with a dental stop 'den tand' or with a bilabial stop 'den boom' (where -n is almost pronounced as 'm' due to assimilation).
> I never heard 'den stoel', 'den schoolmeester', 'den meester'.
> Idem dito for given names of males, btw.



Yes, of course, thanks for adding. You seem to have forgotten about one environment, though: before masculine nouns starting with /h/, *den* is also used. However, I must admit that initial /h/ is omitted in most Brabantic dialects (but not in my father's for instance who grew up in the Kempen (Mol)).



Frank06 said:


> Is it really an inflected article? I thought the -n is more a kind of linking consonant (the English word escapes me, but in French it's élision).



I thought 'élision' involved omission of sounds rather than inserting them? (Hm, you don't take *de* as a clipped form of *den* or do you? That makes me wonder again why we shouldn't. )

Anyway, it's an interesting question. The fact that *den* only occurs with masculine nouns (admittedly, only in certain phonetic contexts) and not with feminine nouns (not even in those same phonetic contexts) makes me think it's also a morphological process rather than just a phonological one.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Thomas1 said:


> Well, this was also one of my hunches but I read Suzejuice's post and concluded so.


I'm sorry, I should have quoted Suzejuice's post . 
I have been searching for more information, but so far I haven't found any conclusive explanation. The explanation here seems to suggest that 'den' (or 'Den' in the name) is indeed an article which is not inflected.


> de naam Die Haghe of Den Hag(h)e


However, I find Suzejuice's explanation equally attractive, especially since the 's in 's-Gravenhage _does_ refer to the genitive form 'des', as already indicated by few other posters.
I'm getting more and more curious .

Groetjes,

Frank



> NB: élision -- elision


Now _that_ was really clever of me... 
Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Joannes

For clarity's sake: my last post was on *den* in Brabantic dialects so kind of off topic, but I'm getting more focused now.  



Thomas1 said:


> Could you please tell me what kind of inflection you have in mind -- according to cases, persons, genders, etc?


 
Hard question because it depends on when the name evolved. I did some research to find out.

According to my Middle Dutch grammar book, this was the inflection of the definite pronoun back then:
           M-SG         F-SG           N-SG             PL
NOM   *die*/*de* *die* *dat* *die*
GEN    *dies*/*des* *dier*/*der* *dies*/*des* *dier*/*der*
DAT    *dien*/*den * *dier*/*der* *dien*/*den* *dien*/*den*
ACC    *dien*/*den* *die* *die* *die*

This was the system of definite articles in 'New Dutch' (from 1500 onwards) according to the WNT. This system is out of use already quite some time now.
          M-SG    F-SG   N-SG     PL
NOM     *de         de       het      de*
GEN      *des       der     des     der*
DAT      *den      der      den     den*
ACC      *den      de        het       de*

The appearance of *Die Haghe* (cf. Frank's website) suggests that the name arised in Middle Dutch. But *haag* is feminine and we don't find *den* in the feminine (singular) paradigm. But the WNT offers the solution: apparently *haag* switched gender during time. My Middle Dutch dictionary confirms: *hage* could be both masculine and feminine in Middle Dutch. (Possibly/probably in Old Dutch it was exclusively masculine.)

So *Den Hage* is in the dative or accusative. Why at all? Well, we could very well imagine a place name to occur very often in a prepositional phrase ('in ...' / 'to ...' / 'near ...'), and many prepositions required some case in Middle Dutch. Says here *in* 'in' for example required either dative or accusative case in Middle Dutch, depending on the meaning (maybe involving movement like in Latin and German?). After time the expression probably got fixed and people didn't mind case anymore, it was simply *Den Ha(a)g(e)*.



Thomas1 said:


> Is _den_ capitalized in _Den Haag_ because it is a propper name (if not, could you please elaborate)?


 
I think it is. Because it is seen as a whole and it's a place name it gets a capital. But we don't seem to be very consistent in this. In Antwerp there's a city area called het Kiel of which the article isn't normally capitalized, there's also het Noord ('the North'). Then again we also have De Pinte near Ghent with capitalized article. I'm sure there's tons of other examples to show that there's no real system in it, but at most a statistical probability.


----------



## Frank06

Hi


Joannes said:


> I thought 'élision' involved omission of sounds rather than inserting them? (Hm, you don't take *de* as a clipped form of *den* or do you? That makes me wonder again why we shouldn't. )


LOL, you're right... I got it completely wrong... I was thinking of a kind of *liaison* (as in French), but now that I had time to check thngs out, even that isn't really what I had in mind.
Let's forget about it, shall we .

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Joannes said:


> For clarity's sake: my last post was on *den* in Brabantic dialects so kind of off topic, but I'm getting more focused now.


 
I strongly doubt if your comment on Brabantian *den* was really that off topic. My problem with attributing the accusative or dative case to 'den' are (older) placenames as De Lierde, De Rotte... Where is the casus there?

As for Brabantian *den* -- and I don't know in how far that is limited to Brabant and in how far this feature is shared by (southern) Holland dialects -- the story is a bit more complicated: den (+ male noun) is an old accusative which got re-interpreted as a nominative. To make things more obscure, the -n got dropped before certain sounds.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Whodunit

's-Gravenhage: (= the court's hedge)

's - short form of 'des' (definite genitive article)
graven - genitive singular of 'grav' (modern Dutch "graaf"?)
hage - nominitive: hedge
Den Haag: (the hedge)

den - I'm quite sure it is the definite accusative article*; the '-n' is a typical accusative marker among the Germanic languages
haag - a newer form of 'hag' = hedge
*In German, "Hag" is masculine, so I think it could have been masculine in Old/Middle Dutch as well. Then, "den" would make sense.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Whodunit said:


> Den Haag: (the hedge)
> 
> den - I'm quite sure it is the definite accusative article*; the '-n' is a typical accusative marker among the Germanic languages
> haag - a newer form of 'hag' = hedge
> *In German, "Hag" is masculine, so I think it could have been masculine in Old/Middle Dutch as well. Then, "den" would make sense.


Well, as Joannes explained already, the grammatical gender of Old/Middle Dutch 'haag' changed. That change is even reflected in the older names of the city: Die Haghe, Den Haghe.

But, let's assume DEN Haag IS a 'full' accusative (both in form and usage, cf. also my previous mail on this), wouldn't that be a weird casus to use for, to denote *location*.

And an extra note: as far as I understand (and, to be honest, remember): despite the fact that almost every Middle or Early Modern Dutch grammar book (still) gives the full paradigms of the cases, those cases were already in decline in Middle Dutch and Early Modern Dutch, to such an extent that hypercorrective forms in texts are almost the rule rather than the exception...


Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Whodunit

Frank06 said:


> Well, as Joannes explained already, the grammatical gender of Old/Middle Dutch 'haag' changed. That change is even reflected in the older names of the city: Die Haghe, Den Haghe.


 
As I said, the name _Den Haag_ is newer than _'s-Gravenhage_. However, before _'s-Gravenhage_, _Die Haghe_ was used, later _Den Haghe_. While the name _Den Haghe_ changed to _Den Haag_ (the more modern words), _'s-Gravenhage_ was maintained in its original form. _Haag_ should be the today's word for _hedge_ in Dutch, if it still exists at all. In German, _Hag_ (masculine) is very poetic. So, it was feminine in Middle Dutch and was converted to a masculine noun between the 17th and 18th century, I suppose.



> But, let's assume DEN Haag IS a 'full' accusative (both in form and usage, cf. also my previous mail on this), wouldn't that be a weird casus to use for, to denote *location*.


 
I'm not 100% sure, but could it be that the preposition "to" in Old/Middle Dutch required the accusative case? Unfortunately, I can't prove that by help of German, because the preposition "zu" (to) always requires the dative case, even though it descibes a direction. For a *location* in general, you would use the dative or locative in most case-based languages. I just checked it for Russian and Czech, but both _к_ (k) and _k_(_e_) require the dative case. In Latin, _ad_ requires the accusative, but I don't think that it does in Germanic and Slavic languages.

Why _Den Haag_ is used in the accusative, I don't know for sure, but it would be intersting to see old poems about a haghe. I can't find any in German. Maybe it had a special declension ...


----------



## Joannes

Frank06 said:


> My problem with attributing the accusative or dative case to 'den' are (older) placenames as De Lierde, De Rotte... Where is the casus there?


 
I suppose it all depends on when the phrase gets fixed as a name. And I think that's just mere chance or fate deciding.  



Whodunit said:


> graven - genitive singular of 'grav' (modern Dutch "graaf"?)


 
This puzzled me earlier. Shouldn't it be *gravens* in the genitive? If so, where did the /s/ go?



Frank06 said:


> But, let's assume DEN Haag IS a 'full' accusative (both in form and usage, cf. also my previous mail on this), wouldn't that be a weird casus to use for, to denote *location*.


 
I really believe in prepositional phrases as the trigger.



Frank06 said:


> And an extra note: as far as I understand (and, to be honest, remember): despite the fact that almost every Middle or Early Modern Dutch grammar book (still) gives the full paradigms of the cases, those cases were already in decline in Middle Dutch and Early Modern Dutch, to such an extent that hypercorrective forms in texts are almost the rule rather than the exception...


 
True, important note. But sometimes letter gets to rule over sound, which I think would be typical to happen with place names.



Whodunit said:


> _Haag_ should be the today's word for _hedge_ in Dutch, if it still exists at all. In German, _Hag_ (masculine) is very poetic.


 
It still exists, and indeed means 'hedge'. It didn't become poetic yet.  



Whodunit said:


> So, it was feminine in Middle Dutch and was converted to a masculine noun between the 17th and 18th century, I suppose.


 
No, way before that. It could be masculine or feminine in Middle Dutch already.


----------



## Whodunit

Joannes said:


> This puzzled me earlier. Shouldn't it be *gravens* in the genitive? If so, where did the /s/ go?


 
No, I suppose the word "grav(io)" (I'm not sure; do you have an etymological dictionary of Dutch handy or do you know one online? In Old High German, it is _grâvo_) belonged to the consonant declension of weak nouns, where the genitive and dative ended in -en and the accusative in -on in Frankish Old High German. In Middle High German, all three cases (except for the nominative) ended in -en. I guess the same is true for the Old/Middle Dutch declension. It would be helpful if someone could check this in an etymological Dutch dictionary.

This is the pattern of "hano" (cook), a Proto-Germanic word (I'm not sure about this term, but I mean that this word is not derived from a non-Germanic language), taken from my Old High German grammar book, if it helps you:

Old High German: (the second form is Upper German)
_singular:_
N: dër hano
G: dës hanen, hanin
D: dëmu hanen, hanin
A: dën hanon, hanun
_plural:_
N: dê hanon, hanun
G: dëro hanôno
D: dêm  hanôm, hanôn
A: dê hanon, hanun

Middle High German:
_singular:_
N: dër han(e)
G: dës hanen
D: dëm(e) hanen
A: dën hanen
_plural:_
N: die hanen
G: dër(e) hanen
D: den hanen
A: die hanen

Old Saxon: (second form: used in Heliand; third: 
_singular:_
N: thê hano, hana
G: thës hanon, hanan
D: thëm hanon, hanan
A: thëna hanon, hanan
_plural:_
N: thea hanon, hanun
G: thëro hanono
D: thêm hanôm
A: thea hanon, hanun

Gothic:
_singular:_
N: sa hana
G: þis hanins
D: þamma hanin
A: þana hanan
_plural:_
N: þai hanans
G: þizê hananê
D: þaim hanam
A: þans hanans

New High German:
_singular:_
N: der Hahn
G: des Hahn(e)s
D: dem Hahn
A: den Hahn
_plural:_
N: die Hähne
G: der Hähne
D: den Hähnen
A: die Hähne

You could apply this pattern to "grâvo" (OHG) very well, but I'm not sure if that's possible for Old Dutch, too.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Whodunit said:


> As I said, the name _Den Haag_ is newer than _'s-Gravenhage_.


I'm sorry, but that is definitely not the case.
Groetjes,
Frank


----------



## Whodunit

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm sorry, but that is definitely not the case.
> Groetjes,
> Frank


 
Sorry, I should have been clearer. Not the designation _Den Haag_ (it started as _Die Haghe_) is newer, but the spelling as opposed to _'s-Gravenhage_, which has never been changed in spelling.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Whodunit said:


> Sorry, I should have been clearer. Not the designation _Den Haag_ (it started as _Die Haghe_) is newer, but the spelling as opposed to _'s-Gravenhage_, which has never been changed in spelling.


I'm sorry for misunderstanding...

Meanwhile, I contacted some other e-groups and I found an explanation in Schönfelds _Historiese Grammatika van het Nederlands_ (1932): "In placenames, the *locative dative* often became the generally used form" (my literal translation).
Which means I had it wrong altogether.  

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Joannes

Whodunit said:


> No, I suppose the word "grav(io)" (I'm not sure; do you have an etymological dictionary of Dutch handy or do you know one online? In Old High German, it is _grâvo_) belonged to the consonant declension of weak nouns, where the genitive and dative ended in -en and the accusative in -on in Frankish Old High German. In Middle High German, all three cases (except for the nominative) ended in -en. I guess the same is true for the Old/Middle Dutch declension. It would be helpful if someone could check this in an etymological Dutch dictionary.



Yes, it must have been a weak noun. I looked it up and - indeed - that would've made *graven* in the genitive. (If it was strong, it would have been *graves*, by the way, as *grave* is the stem. So my *gravens* was wrong either way. )

Thanks for your extensive data!


----------



## Linnets

A question about _hage_ and _haag_: is it the same word written in two different forms?


----------



## Grytolle

It's two form variants of the same word, "hage" being the older one - you should pronounce them like they're written.


----------



## Lawrencelot

Hage is an ancient word. Even haag is a bit old, we use heg now. These three words have the same meaning (I think).


----------



## Linnets

Do _hage_, _haag_ and _heg_ all have a long vowel?


----------



## Lawrencelot

Hage has a long vowel because the a is followed by a consonant+vowel. Haag has a long vowel because it has two a's. Heg has a short vowel because it is followed by a consonant+nothing.


----------



## Linnets

Are you sure they are the same word? It seems strange to me that an archaic form of a word has a long vowel and the most recent has a short one.


----------



## Grytolle

heg is another word [hɛx]
hage and haag are the same except for the e at the end [ha:x]/[ha:ɣə]


----------



## Lawrencelot

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heg

And Vandale (Dutch dictionary) says:

heg de; v(m) -gen; -getje omheining van struiken

haag de; v(m) hagen 1 heg

Hage doesn't exist anymore.


----------

