18087
Recently, I read [this
article](http://ponderingnihongo.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/humble-beginnings-
the-%E3%81%A7-particle/) which interprets である as described by this post's
title, so 学生である would be analyzed as "(I) exist in the form of a student".

On one hand, である originated from [にて +
あり](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/12098/6840), with [にて being the
precursor of で
particle](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%A7?dic=daijirin&oid=DJR_de_-040).

非回答者 also mentioned [here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/13754/6840)
regarding the [splicing of である with a
topic](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/13753/6840)

> Grammatically, である can be treated as one word, which is probably why you
> feel it weird being spliced, but native speakers know instinctively that it
> consists of two parts で and ある and that the subject for ある could be squeezed
> in between. "in (= で) a certain state + subject + ある(exists)".

On the other hand, if one looks at the ある entry in dictionaries, e.g. [大辞林
definition
(二).1](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E6%9C%89%E3%82%8B%E3%83%BB%E5%9C%A8%E3%82%8B),
[大辞泉 definition (二).3](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E6%9C%89%E3%82%8B), and 広辞苑
definition (12), one would see something along the lines of

> 名詞に助動詞「だ」の連用形「で」を添えた形に付いて

i.e. で is specified as the 連用形 of だ instead of as a particle.

Also, since ある in である is listed as 補助動詞, and [Wikipedia JP's page on
補助動詞](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A3%9C%E5%8A%A9%E5%8B%95%E8%A9%9E) says
that

> 日本語などにおいて、別の動詞に後続することにより文法的機能を果たす動詞で、それ自体の本来の意味は保っていない（前の動詞との組合せで意味を持つ）ものである

is it still correct to isolate the ある and say it means "to exist"?

In short, can one break down である into the particle で and the verb ある, and
analyze である as "to exist in the form of ~"?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-02T03:53:54.577
18085
2014-11-03T18:19:16.520
2017-04-13T12:43:44.207
-1
6840
question
copula
Can the である copula be explained as で (particle) + ある (to exist), i.e. "to exist in the form of ~"?
The で in 「名詞 + である」 is not a particle/助詞, but a 助動詞(auxiliary verb).

The ある in 「名詞 + である」 is not a 補助動詞(subsidiary verb) because 補助動詞 should follow
a te-form verb. The ある in [包]{つつ}んである、[畳]{たた}んである、[組]{く}んである etc. would be a
補助動詞.

The である in 「名詞 + である」 consists of 助動詞「だ」の連用形「で」 + 動詞「ある」. 「名詞 + である。」 at the
end of a sentence functions in the same way as 「名詞 + です。」(polite) and 「名詞 +
だ。」(casual).

Yes, you can break down である into で(assertive auxiliary verb だ) and ある(the verb
在る/有る) and analyse it as "to exist as~~ / to exist in the state of ~~". You
don't "translate" it that way, though.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-02T05:15:24.903
18086
2014-08-02T05:42:28.390
2014-08-02T05:42:28.390
18085
answer
When you read that で is the 連用形 of 断定の助動詞「だ」, that's a _reanalysis_. That is,
from a modern perspective it makes sense to talk about it that way, and you
should be familiar with the concept if for no other reason than to understand
dictionary entries.

But that doesn't mean that's how it came about _historically_. Of course だ is
contracted from である, and etymologically で is just である without the tense-
bearing ある. The same thing is true of the old copula なり, which is a
contraction of にあり. If you look it up, you'll see that it's analyzed as having
に as a 連用形, but from an etymological perspective it's simply にあり without the
あり.

To assert that it's _etymologically_ a だ plus て, we'd need to suggest
something like にてありて somehow contracting all the way down to で, but this is
implausible historically, given that に and にて were used as copulas before the
derived copula である existed. [The copula に goes back all the way to proto-
Japonic](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/4691) and is clearly a more
basic form.

* * *

You also ask "is it still correct to isolate the ある and say it means 'to
exist'." Here I have to say **no**.

It's clear that in Modern Japanese ある in である is being used grammatically, not
lexically. "Exist" is a gross over-translation. If you'd like to suggest that
this was where it comes from _etymologically_ , that it's its _literal_
meaning, you could do so (although I think the "as" meaning of で is
historically secondary, so I don't think it's _quite_ right). But in any case
I don't think that's what it means _now_.

Remember that etymology does not determine what a word means in the modern
language. To determine that, you have to look at how it's used _now_.
Otherwise, you're falling victim to the [etymological
fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy).

* * *

So how _do_ we analyze it now? Well, there's more than one valid way to think
about it, and I won't attempt to teach you the One True Analysis. But I'll
present one possible alternative below.

The modern linguist Kunio Nishiyama, in his 1999 [_Adjectives and the Copulas
in
Japanese_](http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20100764?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21104026914781),
refers to で as the **predicative copula** and ある as the **dummy copula**. In
this analysis, the former is used to create copular predicates, and the latter
is a dummy verb whose sole purpose is to bear tense. (Of course, ある has other
uses where it is not a dummy verb.)

If we adopt this theory, we can treat the combination of である contracting into
だ when the two are next to each other. This contraction only happens under
certain conditions. For example, if you insert a particle such as も, the
contraction is blocked:

```

    　Ａで ****　Ｂで ****　ある　　→　　Ａで **** Ｂだ ****　　　　_(_ である _becomes_ だ _)_  
    　Ａで **も**　Ｂで **も**　ある　　→　　Ａで **も** Ｂで **も** ある　　_(contraction blocked)_
```

Here, both Ａで and Ｂで are copular predicates, but it's not a complete sentence
without ある, which turns the whole thing into a present tense sentence.

In similar fashion, we can treat だった as contracted from であった and です as
contracted from であります if we'd like (although the actual historical etymology
of です is uncertain).
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-02T05:56:51.623
18087
2014-11-03T18:19:16.520
2017-04-13T12:54:11.000
-1
18085
answer