I have always wondered where the で in ~である (and ~でございます) comes from.

In the answer to the question [「です」, what is it really? Is my analysis
correct?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/62645/%e3%81%a7%e3%81%99-what-
is-it-really-is-my-analysis-correct), Eiríkr Útlendi states that the で in ~である
is the particle で. He also writes that in "older stages of the language,
you'll find just that -- あり serves as the primary copular verb".

Concluding from this, somewhere along the way the old copula あり gained the
particle で.

In an answer to the question [Can the である copula be explained as で (particle)
+ ある (to exist), i.e. "to exist in the form of
~"?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/18085/can-
the-%e3%81%a7%e3%81%82%e3%82%8b-copula-be-explained-
as-%e3%81%a7-particle-%e3%81%82%e3%82%8b-to-exist-i-e-to-exist), however,
Snailboat presents a view on the matter by linguist Kunio Nishiyama. If I
understand correctly, Nishiyama basically refers to で as the real "to be",
while the ある is only there as a "dummy" to indicate tense.

It strikes me as odd that the semantic core would be omitted back when あり on
its own was used as the copula. Baring a misunderstanding on my part, doesn't
it seem like these two analyses of である kind of clash with each other because
of this?

I have two other questions relating to this: Why was this で (or maybe にて)
added to (or reinserted into) the copula あり? Also, back when あり was used as
the main copula, what was the distinction between what is today the copula
~である and the existential verb ある?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-14T12:02:48.017
68217
2019-10-28T19:31:44.667
33212
question
particles etymology history particle-で copula
で in the copula である
Note: This answer is more in response to you saying you want it to be easier
to understand, as opposed to the interest in the history.

This isn't backed up by any research, but the way I think about it is similar
to the で used when stringing together adjectival nouns:

きれいで賑{にぎ}やかなまちだね? - It's a pretty and lively town, right?

Similar to て-forms, I see the で in ではありません similar to how Snailboat explains
it, as a way to attach tense to the sentence in a way that sounds grammatical.
The で to me sort of "functionalizes" the sentence in preparation for "a
grammar" to happen.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-15T08:03:46.123
68246
2019-06-14T17:02:28.857
2019-06-14T17:02:28.857
5229
34034
68217
answer