When is 「だ／である」required between a noun and the quotation particle と?


_Note: Edits in response to comments have been added in italics_

The sentence prompting this question is:

> 時下ますますご清栄のことと、お喜び申し上げます

Which I have always "loosely" taken to mean:

> _I am glad to hear you are doing so well these days._

_Based on the explanation of と on page 464 of "A dictionary of intermediate
Japanese Grammar", I think there is an ellipsis of 伺いまして, and hence is quotive
but I am not entirely sure._

_But to return to my question, when is 「だ／である」required between a noun and the
quotation particle と?:_

There some straight forward cases that are easy to remember such as (1)with
names (2) direct quotes and (3)"fixed expressions" such as "とばかり”:

> (1) Tim と言います| I am called Tim
>
> (2)「＿＿＿＿」と言います。｜normal direct quote
>
> (3)負けじとばかりゴールを目ざして走った｜Determined not to be beaten, he dashed toward the
> goal.

I also found the advice in the Dictionary of Basic Jpse Grammar that in the
sentence:

米国の貿易赤字は しばらくのまま 続く もの と 予想される。 It is predicted that the US trade deficit will
remain as it is for a while.

"Mono followed by a quotative と is used in general statements or opinion. This
mono could be dropped without a change in meaning. Note that copula だ does not
follow と."

But when making my own sentences of indirect quotes (etc?) it is not so
straightforward because I am not sure what rule/principle applies.

Could somebody some insight on when the copula (だ）particle と go together?

(If sentence 3 is based on the same principle as sentence 2 then perhaps I
have covered all the expceptions?)




I think it is simply an issue of whether you are quoting a complete sentence
or not.

> ティムと言います。  
>  He is called Tim.
>
> ティム **だ** と言っています。  
>  It's being said that he **is** Tim.

As quoting particle, と is allowed to quote anything. But there are other uses
of と, like the conditional と, the AとB(と) construction for "and", and the と of
と-adverbs (like 負けじと of the third sentence), which I would say is related to
the と of the mimeses like じっと, ちらっと, which are also adverbs.

The question of whether or not a だ・である should come before と is only relevant
to と as quoting particle. For example, when an idea is presented with
ということ（です）, the idea is something that should be presented as a full sentence,
which, when ending in a noun, should be followed by だ.

> 今日はお休みだということです。  
>  It means that today is a holiday.

Quoting incomplete sentences only makes sense in appropriate contexts, for
example when you give your name (where you only "quote" your name).

In English, too, quoting incomplete sentences (i.e. sentences without a verb)
makes sense in few cases. The last example without a verb in the quoted
sentence would render as

> It means that today a holiday.

I think that both in English and Japanese indirect quotes should always be
full sentences, i.e. in this case, in Japanese you should always use だ after
noun phrases.

Of course, this rule may be broken for more polite Japanese, as in your
example sentence:

> 時下ますますご清栄のことと、お喜び申し上げます。

would be a short & formal version of

> 時下ますますご清栄のことだと伺いまして、お喜び申し上げます。

(Of course that's not the only usual rule of grammar that polite language
breaks: 申し上げる is transitive, but お喜び is not marked by を.)




I think it is simply an issue of whether you are quoting a complete sentence
or not.

> ティムと言います。  
>  He is called Tim.
>
> ティム **だ** と言っています。  
>  It's being said that he **is** Tim.

As quoting particle, と is allowed to quote anything. But there are other uses
of と, like the conditional と, the AとB(と) construction for "and", and the と of
と-adverbs (like 負けじと of the third sentence), which I would say is related to
the と of the mimeses like じっと, ちらっと, which are also adverbs.

The question of whether or not a だ・である should come before と is only relevant
to と as quoting particle. For example, when an idea is presented with
ということ（です）, the idea is something that should be presented as a full sentence,
which, when ending in a noun, should be followed by だ.

> 今日はお休みだということです。  
>  It means that today is a holiday.

Quoting incomplete sentences only makes sense in appropriate contexts, for
example when you give your name (where you only "quote" your name).

In English, too, quoting incomplete sentences (i.e. sentences without a verb)
makes sense in few cases. The last example without a verb in the quoted
sentence would render as

> It means that today a holiday.

I think that both in English and Japanese indirect quotes should always be
full sentences, i.e. in this case, in Japanese you should always use だ after
noun phrases.

Of course, this rule may be broken for more polite Japanese, as in your
example sentence:

> 時下ますますご清栄のことと、お喜び申し上げます。

would be a short & formal version of

> 時下ますますご清栄のことだと伺いまして、お喜び申し上げます。

(Of course that's not the only usual rule of grammar that polite language
breaks: 申し上げる is transitive, but お喜び is not marked by を.)

