How interchangeable are の／である／なる／たる when qualifying nouns?


So we know that we can qualify/equate two things with a `の`.

>   * 友達のジョン → My friend John
>   * 先生の山田さん → A/My teacher Ms. Yamada
>   * 勝利者の亀さん → The winner: the turtle (as opposed to the hare)
>

It seems like most of the time, the `の` can be replaced with `である` without any
change in meaning. Or is there some nuance where the meaning changes slightly?
With `先生の山田さん`, to me it has more of the sense of **_my_** teacher, whereas
`先生である山田さん` definitely does not. Does the `である` necessarily diminish the
personal-ness of the qualification, or does it just depend on what you happen
to be talking about?

Further, we can go on to include the `なる` connector as I discuss somewhat in
this topic ([“Grammatically-correct” particle-less
phrases/sayings](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/5235/78)). `なる` appears
to add a little more formality, but other than that I can't really see what
else it brings to the table. For example, in my Japanese Bible, I've seen the
following when referring to God:

>   * 父なる神様 → God the/our Father; Father God
>   * 神なる主【しゅ】 → Our Lord God
>

If I recall correctly, these were both instances (although appearing multiple
times in the whole Bible) where someone was referring **to** God while
speaking to other people. Is this likely just due to a different writing style
by different Biblical authors, or is there really some subtle difference in
meaning?

Finally, there is `たる` which seems to be the most formal (?), most archaic
(?), and mostly literary (?). Again, all I can tell is that I usually see this
paired with some kind of recommendation / moral suggestion / responsibility.

>   * 教師たる者、忍耐力がなくてはならない → All teachers must have patience
>   * 学生たるもの、勉強すべきである → All students should study
>

Obviously if the meaning changes completely they are not interchangeable.

>   * (社長たる道 = 社長の道) ≠ 社長である道 ≠ 社長なる道
>     * Doesn't work because we're showing a possessive with the の, not
> equating.
>

So at what times are these connectors interchangeable, and what nuance(s) does
each bring? Is my reasoning correct in any of these areas?




These are my thoughts.

> 友達のジョン → My friend John  
>  先生の山田さん → A/My teacher Ms. Yamada  
>  勝利者の亀さん → The winner: the turtle (as opposed to the hare)

These are all adnominal copulas historically coming from the defective Old
Japanese copula, に (infinitive), にて (continuative), にあり (conclusive), の
(adnominal).

It can be replaced with である, but である has a slightly more literary/formal
feeling. That is the only difference in my (non-native) opinion.

> 父なる神様 → God the/our Father; Father God

This is the adnominal form of one of the Classical Japanese copula, なり (coming
from に + あり). It has a more historical/old feel to it than である.

> 教師たる者、忍耐力がなくてはならない → All teachers must have patience

This is the adnominal form of the other Classical Japanese copula, たり (coming
from と + あり). My feeling is that it has an even more archaic feel to it than
なり. Historically, the difference between it and なり was that it expressed
something temporary and なり expressed something permanent, but I do not think
that distinction exists in Modern Japanese.




These are my thoughts.

> 友達のジョン → My friend John  
>  先生の山田さん → A/My teacher Ms. Yamada  
>  勝利者の亀さん → The winner: the turtle (as opposed to the hare)

These are all adnominal copulas historically coming from the defective Old
Japanese copula, に (infinitive), にて (continuative), にあり (conclusive), の
(adnominal).

It can be replaced with である, but である has a slightly more literary/formal
feeling. That is the only difference in my (non-native) opinion.

> 父なる神様 → God the/our Father; Father God

This is the adnominal form of one of the Classical Japanese copula, なり (coming
from に + あり). It has a more historical/old feel to it than である.

> 教師たる者、忍耐力がなくてはならない → All teachers must have patience

This is the adnominal form of the other Classical Japanese copula, たり (coming
from と + あり). My feeling is that it has an even more archaic feel to it than
なり. Historically, the difference between it and なり was that it expressed
something temporary and なり expressed something permanent, but I do not think
that distinction exists in Modern Japanese.

