What's the literal and natural translation of たるもの?


> 子{こ}たる者{もの}すべからく親{おや}の命{めい}に従{したが}うべし。
>
> Children should obey their parents

What I got from ALC is that a child isn't fit, unqualified, to be one's child
if it disobeys its parents. Or is it just "Those **who are** children..."?




H'm, I dunno. たる is actually not the classic form of the copula である; it is
most likely from とある (quotative particle + aru). なる describes what
someone/-thing is (essential nature), but たる describes how someone/-thing
appears, or acts, or should act (assigned role, etc.). There is often an
implied judgment (nowadays it is often paired with 〜すべきである or 〜てはならない, etc.,
and used to prescribe behavior to people in certain positions). I would say
that Louis's sample sentence does indeed imply that a child who disobeys their
parents is in that way unfit to be their child -- it's not an uncommon idea at
all in Confucian thought.

So, as sawa says below, you might say that a more "literal" translation would
be "Whoever is _supposed to be_ a child should obey their parents," or "A
person _in the position of_ a child should obey all of their parents'
commands," etc. For a more natural translation, just "Children" might work in
many cases (especially if you believed that たる者 was just being used to add
archaic flavor), or you might say "All children" to emphasize that you are
prescribing behavior required of anyone meeting the description "child", not
just suggesting a general rule. You might even use a word like "duty" to bring
the prescriptiveness out: "Obeying one's parents is one's duty as a child."
There are many possible translations that would be more or less appropriate
depending on context, translation philosophy, etc.




Your translation is right. `たる` is the classic form of the copula `である`. `子たる`
is is a relative clause. So `子たる者` means 'whoever is a child'.

