12098
I think of だ as being the only copula, which can be inflected to で and な. In
my mind all other copula-like words are derived from these forms, i.e.

> です ⇔ であります  
>  じゃない ⇔ ではない  
>  だろう ⇔ であろう etc.

But is this (etymologically) reasonable?

Alternatively one could consider だ to be a contraction of である, which as far as
I can tell can step in for だ anywhere, and consider で to be the "given"
copula-like word (which may itself be simply a fancy use of the particle
で...?).

Is it accurate to call な an inflection of だ? Since である can also replace な
anywhere (as far as I can tell), could it be possible that な and だ derive from
the same word, which through sound change has come to be differentiated
according to function (終止形 and 連用形)?

Are there any sources that would help corroborate/disprove these hypotheses?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-06-08T19:00:51.923
12097
2013-06-08T20:40:52.457
1628
question
etymology conjugations contractions copula
Etymology of the copula だ
First, let me comment on your three examples:

> です ⇔ であります

We discussed [です](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/11074/where-
does-%E3%81%A7%E3%81%99-come-from/11075#comment22361_11075) before. According
to 大辞林, there are several theories, but we don't know its etymology for sure.
This is one of the three theories it lists, though. [I've read
that](https://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang.japan/msg/4e5d6a4cd535c9c2?hl=ja&dmode=source)
でございます may be more likely, but I never read an explanation why, so I won't
make that assertion here.

> じゃない ⇔ ではない

Keep in mind there are two distinct `じゃ`s. This one is a contraction of では.
The other is historically spelled ぢゃ and [contracts from
である→であ](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?dtype=0&dname=0ss&index=108828100000),
just like
[だ](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%A0&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=111654000000).

> だろう ⇔ であろう etc.

Yes, [that's
right](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/detail?p=%E3%81%A7%E3%81%82%E3%82%8D%E3%81%86&stype=0&dtype=0).

> Is it accurate to call な an inflection of だ? Since である can also replace な
> anywhere (as far as I can tell), could it be possible that な and だ derive
> from the same word, which through sound change has come to be differentiated
> according to function (終止形 and 連用形)?

Historically, である derives from にてあり (see
[大辞林](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%A0&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=111654000000)
again), which is にて plus あり. The combination にて is in turn に plus て. In にてあり,
the classical あり became ある, probably before にて became で, so the progression
looks something like `d'a < de a < de aru < nite aru < nite ari`.

The progression of な is pretty similar, but without the て. The combination に
plus あり became なり, then なる (note: _not_ the same as the verb なる "to become"),
and then it lost its る, becoming simply な. (Note that this is a slightly
different path than だ took, since there was never a だる.) So the big
etymological difference between the two is, more or less, whether they contain
a て, and our progression for な is `n'a < n'aru < n'ari < ni ari`.

Finally, で is historically the particle で, which again derives from にて. The
difference in this case is that the ある (historically あり) is missing, because
the sentence is still going. (Something like A にて B にてあり, I think.) We get the
simple progression `de < nite`.

So yes, they're closely related. And yes, I think most grammars consider them
inflections of the same thing.

Remember, though, that diachronic and synchronic analyses are two different
things, and one doesn't necessarily determine the other. The above is _not_
how they're normally analyzed in modern Japanese, in which they're all
reanalyzed as forms of だ. To be specific, I believe で is reanalyzed as a 連用形
form of だ; the combination である is reanalyzed as our reanalyzed で (which is
「だ」の連用形) plus ある; and な is likewise analyzed as the 連体形 of だ.

But then, Japanese school grammar doesn't use the term "copula" at all (I
think the closest it gets is something like 「断定の助動詞」). Perhaps ironically for
this question, that term was introduced by the structuralist Bernard Bloch,
who ignored etymology entirely in his analysis. So if you're analyzing
Japanese the way Bloch and Jorden do, copula included, I'm not sure if
etymology is even a factor.

But hopefully by this point you can see how the words fit together
historically, and you can decide for yourself how you want to think about it
:-)
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-06-08T20:40:52.457
12098
2013-06-08T20:40:52.457
2017-04-13T12:43:43.857
-1
12097
answer