# だ + たい



## Encolpius

Hello, I am just wondering if is it possible to combine the verb だ with the suffix - たい in Japanese to make the phrase "want to be"? I think it is not possible, just want to be sure. Thanks. Encolpius (I have been a beginner at Japanese)


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

No, I don't think so.
You're correct.


----------



## Flaminius

The evolution of だ is said to be; である > であ > だ.  The original's role of ending a sentence is retained in だ because this development is relatively recent.  In other words, just like である cannot take verb-like elements, nor can だ take them after it.

Another point of importance is that the English "want to be" is ambiguous and translates into two Japanese constructions.  One is BECOME as in, "I want to be a pilot when I am grown up" and the other is STAY as in, "I want to be faithful to you."

BECOME: X になりたい, where the verb is なる, or "to become."
STAY: Y でいたい, where the verb, or "stay."


----------



## Joschl

I think the only possibility to combine "_da_" with the derivational suffix "_ta-i_" is to use the _te_-form of "_da_" (i.e., "_de_") followed by the _masu_-form of "_ar-u_" (i.e., "_ar-i_").

"*X* _de ari-tai._" (*X* = a noun or an adjectival noun/a _na_-adjective)


----------



## Encolpius

Nice examples, I think I got it. 👍


----------



## gengo

Flaminius said:


> In other words, just like である cannot take verb-like elements, nor can だ take them after it.



Are you saying that である cannot conjugate as a verb?  (And, yes, I realize that である is actually the particle で + the verb ある.)  As Joschl says, でありたい is a fairly common form, and it does indeed translate to "want to be."

For example, "ずっと子供でありたい" could translate to "I want to be a child forever."  And "いつも前向きでありたい" as "I always want to be positive."

That said, I agree with your suggestions (になりたい and でいたい), and the former in particular is the most common translation of "I want to be."

I want to be happy = 幸せになりたい
I want to be rich = 金持ちになりたい
I want to be an astronaut = 宇宙飛行士になりたい
etc.


----------



## Flaminius

gengo said:


> Are you saying that である cannot conjugate as a verb?


Notice that I am here talking about である as a conjugation (終止形), not a conjugatable word whose citation form is である.


----------



## gengo

Flaminius said:


> Notice that I am here talking about である as a conjugation (終止形), not a conjugatable word whose citation form is である.



I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.  You said "である cannot take verb-like elements," which sounds as if you are saying that it cannot conjugate like a regular verb.  However, we know that it does take verb endings, such as であった、であったり、であってほしい, であっては、でありながら、であったら、and so forth.  And, of course, でありたい.


----------



## Flaminius

Well, である as a conjugation (終止形) cannot take anything after it; *であるます, but であります.  Ditto, *であるたい is wrong.


----------



## gengo

Flaminius said:


> Well, である as a conjugation (終止形) cannot take anything after it; *であるます, but であります.  Ditto, *であるたい is wrong.



Ah, I see what you mean:  「である」そのもの。  Agreed.


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

This thread seems very confusing to me.
Therefore, I try to write it in Japanese.


1. 「だ」と「である」は意味は同じかもしれないが、全く別の単語である。
2.　オリジナルの質問「だ」（およびその活用形）に「たい」をつなげて"want to be" という意味を表す日本語を作ることができるか、という問いに対する答えは「できません」が正しい。
３．「である」に直接「たい」をつなげて「であるたい」とすることはできない。
４．「である」の活用形「であり」に「たい」をつなげて「でありたい」とすることは可能。
(5.  「でいたい（～で+居たい）」という表現も日本語にあるが、単語の構成は全く別物。）

以上より、「だ」に「たい」をつなぐことはできないが、別の単語「である」を用いて「でありたい」とすることで"want to be" を意味する日本語を作ることができる。

Do you agree with these points? 

If you agree with them thus far, I'd say that でありたい has a different meaning to the ordinary translation for "want to be" (～になりたい).

弁護士になりたい。I want to be a lawyer. (I want to become a lawyer.)
弁護士でありたい。 Weird.
cf) 真実を守る弁護士でありたい。This sentence means "I want to stay being a lawyer that follows the fact, anytime or always, although it's very difficult" or something like that.
弁護士でいたい。  I want to stay being a lawyer, and I don't want to quit.

The usage of でありたい and になりたい seems different in my humble opinion.
でありたい is used for "want to become something that is ideal." ( cf. #6)

Therefore, going back to the original question, I still believe that my answer in #2 is simple and correct.


----------



## Joschl

What I meant by my post #4 above is just that we need to use both the _te_-form of the essive copula "_da_" and the _masu_-form of the verb "_ar-u_" at the same time because we cannot attach the essive copula "_da_" directly to the suffix "_-ta-i_", no matter what form it takes (i.e., both *"_X_ _ni ta-i_" and *"_X de ta-i_" are ungrammatical).

As _*Encolpius*_ didn't say anything about what context the fragment "_want to be_" should be used in (see post #1), I do believe that my general information on the construction "_*X* de ari-tai_" will also be helpful for him/her. As long as we don't know exactly what context it is about, we cannot know if it is an odd thing to talk about the construction "_*X* de ari-tai_", irrespective of whether the nominal is preceded by an attribute.


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

It seems that we are talking the same thing from a different viewpoint.
For example:

Question) "Can I use "is" + "love" when I want to say 私はあなたを愛している?"

A: No.
B: Yes, it's possible, but you need to change "is" to "am" and "love" to "loving": "I'm loving you."
"I is love you" 
"I am love you."
"I am loving you."

A: But "I'm loving you" has a special connotation in it, and it is not a common structure of English.

A or I just wanted to let a Japanese learner know that だ+たい (私は弁護士だたい）is not possible, just like "I is love you."


----------



## Joschl

SoLaTiDoberman said:


> I just wanted to let a Japanese learner know that だ+たい (私は弁護士だたい）is not possible, just like "I is love you."


I see. I thought that _*Encolpius*_ wanted to know if the essive copula _da_ as "a part of speech" and the suffix _-ta-i_ could be combined and how.



SoLaTiDoberman said:


> 1. 「だ」と「である」は意味は同じかもしれないが、全く別の単語である。


However, I must admit that I can't quite follow what you were saying above.

To my knowledge, there has been a broad consensus among medievalists and historical linguists that the word form "_da_" developed from the construction "_ni-te ar-i_". "_ni-te_" is the _te_-form of the essive copula "_nar-i_".


			
				大辞泉 広辞苑無料検索 said:
			
		

> 《断定の助動詞「なり」の連用形「に」に接続助詞「て」、補助動詞「あり」の付いた「にてあり」の音変化》https://sakura-paris.org/dict/大辞泉/prefix/である


The inflected form "_ni-te_" changed into "_de_" after going through a process of phonetic assimilation. Therefore, the initial consonants "_d-_" of the form "_da_" and that of "_de_" have a common etymological origin. By the way, there are grammarians who claim that "_de-ar-u_" is a single univerbated word (連語). But we can divide it into "_de_" and "_ar-u_" by inserting the particles like "_wa_", "_mo_", "_sae_" etc. between the two, can't we? (i.e., "*X*_ de wa/mo/sae ar-u_").


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

「Ａ］という英単語が、「Ｂ」というラテン語を語源に持つ、という蘊蓄（教養・素養）と、「Ａ」と「Ｂ」は同じ言葉だからinterchageableに使える、とか、「Ａ］で表現できないが、「Ｂ」を使えば表現できる、という説明の仕方と、

「A」と「Ｂ」は別の単語ですから分けて考える必要があります。「Ｂ」を使って表現することはできますが、「Ａ」を使って表現することはできません。また「Ｂ」を使って作文すると、ニュアンスが変わります。  という説明の違いではないでしょうか。

「にてあり」と「であり」を入れ替えて作文したりはしないと思いますし、「にてあり」と「であり」ならまだしも、「であり（orにてあり）」と「だ」は同じ単語（？）です、という説明は、初心者の日本語学習者にはとても分かりにくい話だと、（私が勝手に）思っただけです。

たとえば、couldをつかって「出来なかった」という可能の過去形の表現ができますか？という質問にたいして、
「できません。（ただし could をwas/were able toに変えればできます。）」という回答と、
「できます。was/were able toで表現できます」という回答の違いであり、最終的に内容は同じだが視点が違うだけだと思いました。

いずれにしても私自身は無教養なので、「である」と「だ」は（「あり、おり、はべり、いまそかり」がそれぞれ別物であるように）、それぞれ独立した、全く別の単語であると認識しておりました。ごめんなさい。


----------

