Feminae vocant

[Anonymous]

Hi,

I am new to learning Latin. The book I am working from - Latin Made Simple by Rhoda Hendricks - gives the translation of 'feminae vocant' as 'the women call', but from my understanding so far might it not also be translated as 'they call for the woman'?

Kind regards Simo Jacobus

 

[Chamaeleo]

Yes, it could be.

 

[Matthaeus]

Wouldn't that be feminam vocant?

 

[Cato]

The OP wants to interpret feminae as a dative indirect object. This would be OK if the verb were (say) dico, but voco takes an accusative of the person called upon; to my knowledge it doesn't take an indirect object.

But don't be discouraged simo-jacobus; your question shows that you're thinking about the language, and this detail regarding voco is a detail you learn from experience.

 

[Chamaeleo]

The person called, summoned, etc is in the accusative. However, if you have such a person, and also a person for whom the calling is done (the original poster said ‘for’), wouldn’t the dative be suitable for that?

The Vulgate seems to use both the dative and ‘ad’ + accusative for this.

et respondit rēx David dicēns, «vocāte ad mē Bethsabee,» qvæ cum fuisset ingressa cōram rēge et stetisset ante eum

dīxit qvoqve rēx David, «vocāte mihi Sadoc sacerdōtem et Nathan prophētēn et Banaiam filium Joiadæ,» qvī cum ingressī fuissent cōram rēge

 

[Cato]

The person called, summoned, etc is in the accusative. However, if you have such a person, and also a person for whom the calling is done (the original poster said ‘for’), wouldn’t the dative be suitable for that?

Yes, I took "for the woman" to mean the person summoned. Chamaeleo offers other interpretation which I hadn't considered, that "for" = "on behalf of" (or similar).

I agree the ad me and mihi in I Kings are pretty much equivalent here. But I personally would take the mihi of I Kings 1:32 to be an ethical dative, a form which is limited to pronouns. In short, I'm not sure an equivalent construction would apply to feminae.

 

[Imber Ranae]

If feminae were an indirect object to vocant, you'd certainly expect a direct object as well. Since there isn't one I very much doubt "they call [unspecified] to the woman" is an acceptable translation of feminae vocant.

 

[Anonymous]

Thank you to all - your responses have been very interesting and helpful.

Kind regards Simo-Jacobus

 

[Matthaeus]

"they call [unspecified] to the women" is an acceptable translation of feminae vocant.

Shouldn't that be woman?

 

[Chamaeleo]

Minor mistake.

 

[Imber Ranae]

Thanks, I fixed it.