# chiamare in causa



## _forumuser_

Dear anglophones worldwide:

I need a good current translation for chiamare in causa, which means to drag someone into a dispute, to address, to interpellate, to take to task (but not quite). To explain the meaning any better I would need to know the word I am asking... Here is the full sentence:

Non posso fare a meno di sentirmi chiamata in causa dalle tue parole.
I can't help feeling .............. by your words.

I am positive there is a phrasal verb very similar to 'to single out' but it doesn't come to mind right now. Qualcuno mi sa aiutare?


----------



## TimeHP

Non sono madrelingua ma avrei usato _to get involved._
Anche se forse è un po' più neutro...


----------



## valy822

_forumuser_ said:


> Non posso fare a meno di sentirmi chiamata in causa dalle tue parole.
> I can't help feeling .............. by your words.


 
Ciao forumuser!
Naturalmente non sono madrelingua quindi non ti fidare! 
Anyway, what comes to my mind is _I can't help feeling involved/implicated by your words._
Aspetto correzioni, grazie.


----------



## cas29

To call someone into question? Usually it is actions or situations which are called into question though.

My dictionary offers "involved" but that sounds too simple for what you are trying to get at.
Implicated could be good.
Can you give more background about the context?


----------



## _forumuser_

Grazie a tutti. To involve is good, but not quite what I'm looking for yet. Imagine this situation: a person is giving a speech to a large audience, s/he does not mention you explicitly but of all the people in the room you feel she is talking to/about you. You feel chiamato/a in causa...


----------



## cas29

You feel "singled-out"?
Identified? 
Called upon?

Do you want to take action, or do you feel embarrassed?


----------



## Poianone

Hi folks!
forum, what about of "closely touched"?


----------



## _forumuser_

You want to take action. The person has carefully avoided naming you but you know s/he is accusing/referring to _you_. 

Now, to feel called upon is very good.  To feel singled out. I've looked it up before asking and all that dictionaries give is to feel isolated, marginalized. Am I missing something?


----------



## cas29

Singled out can be negative or positive. It depends on...... (surprise!) context.

My niece was singled out by a talent scout because she dances so well!

I felt singled out by her comments, even though everyone else had done the same thing! (I wanted to speak out and say.. "well just a minute!")


So, perhaps in your context you want 
"called upon" 
"called to action" 
"moved to act"
"stirred to action"
"prompted to respond"(verbally or with action)


Are we getting there?


----------



## _forumuser_

So you do say to single out in the sense of selecting an individual as target for one's attacks. This other Italian idiom comes to mind:

Prendere di mira

In the positive sense of your example 'to single out' translates as "selezionare": mia nipote e' stata selezionata...

Unless others have something to add, I consider myself satisfied.  Grazie infinite, cas29 and the others!


----------



## cas29

Yes, singled out as for a target, absolutely.
Glad you are satisfied!


----------



## mateintwo

Single out seems fine but there is another word that came to my mind:
Pick on or to feel picked on.
Pick on is often used in the context of some kids (bullies) picking on one kid to provoke a reaction or just to be mean.

Dictionary.com shows this for pick on: 
a.
Informal. to criticize or blame; tease; harass.
b.
to single out; choose: The professor always picks on me to translate long passages.


----------



## Einstein

Maybe this is too simple: "I can't help feeling you're referring to me".


----------



## giovannino

Actually one of the phrases forumuser said he considered (and discarded) in his original post - "take to task" - doesn't sound too bad to me:

*chiamare qualcuno in causa  *implicarlo in una questione, spesso chiedendogli di prendersi le sue responsabilità
(Devoto-Oli)


----------



## phillyitalianstudent

How about this:

"I can't help feeling that you are implicitly calling upon me."


----------



## Paulfromitaly

phillyitalianstudent said:


> How about this:
> 
> "I can't help feeling that you are implicitly calling upon me."


This could be really good, however I still have doubts about it: when you call upon someone do you always want them to do something or can you simply want to drag them in a discussion? Call for their opinion?


----------



## candel

hi,

concerning this example: context relief for the flooding in Italy:

Un’emergenza che chiama in causa anche la difesa del territorio.  Legambiente parlando della tragedia sarda denuncia: in dieci anni in  Italia l’area colpita da alluvioni e frane è raddoppiata e viene  ignorata una seria politica di prevenzione.

An emergency that involves or entails the defence of the territory..? Grazie


----------



## joanvillafane

Nobody mentioned that "causa" seems to have a legal connotation - to call somebody to court, to bring charges, etc.  In general I think "call into question" might work.
The emergency in Sardegna calls into question the defense of the territory (defense/AE)


----------



## candel

Hi joan   yes your translation works great!


----------



## GavinW

joanvillafane said:


> Nobody mentioned that "causa" seems to have a legal connotation - to call somebody to court, to bring charges, etc. In general I think "call into question" might work.
> The emergency in Sardegna calls into question the defense of the territory (defense/AE)



Good point, but I think you don't take your own excellent suggestion to its full (logical?) conclusion:
The emergency in Sardinia _points the finger at _(the defense of the stability of local surface geology/soil stability/the local terrain/hydrogeology etc... sorry, I don't like the "territorio=territory" equation, but that's another question, for another thread...).

You see, the idea of responsibility is always present, and sometimes strongly present, in the Italian expression (as has already been mentioned once above, I think). But "call into question" does not explicitly address this aspect.

My suggestion might not be very elegant, but I think it's accurate, at least (well, accurate enough, let's say...).


----------



## candel

Surely, call into question means just raises the issue of...is there a danger of pushing the legal metaphor too far for this type of context?


----------



## GavinW

Interpreting the original context, it seemed clear to me that the writer was saying that the emergency reveals the fact that preventive measures conducted earlier were inadequate. In other words, we are to understand a close connection of cause and effect. The emergency wouldn't have happened if the authorities responsible for defending the soil, and monitoring alterations to geomorphology (the lie of the land, including the construction of new buildings, roads etc) and to water courses, had done their job properly. I believe these are the issues and problematics being referred to.


----------



## candel

Hi Gavyn, of course your argument is sound, that the writer was making a connection...but I think your phrase was as you say a little less elegant and not really one that would be commonly used in this context at least...instead of point the finger at...maybe draws attention to...but I am not sure the legal metaphor translates so easily into an English idiom....at least I cannot think of one...


----------



## GavinW

candel said:


> instead of point the finger at...maybe draws attention to...



Fair points, every one of them. Actually, what we've got here is a phrase in Italian that notoriously "dice e non dice". In other words, it "throws a stone and then hides the hand", as the (Italian) expression has it. In other words, they are almost weasle words. They appear to say something challenging or contentious, but only implicitly, before covering up the traces immediately afterward. It's sly language (again, an ambiguous cliché: this one's a typical journalistic cliché; the newspapers are full of 'em!). 
The translator has a choice: call the writer's bluff and pin him/her down with an unambiguous translation, or use a similarly vague expression in English that conveys the same degree of ambiguity (assuming such an expression is available). Or else do what you suggest: say "draws attention to" (or "raises the question of"), and leave it to the reader to infer, from the rest of the text, that somebody is indeed accusing somebody else of doing sthg or not doing sthg. Here, the context goes on to mention an accusation (from Legambiente), so you're justified in taking this "diplomatic" approach, perhaps.


----------



## Odysseus54

GavinW said:


> Interpreting the original context, it seemed clear to me that the writer was saying that the emergency reveals the fact that preventive measures conducted earlier were inadequate. In other words, we are to understand a close connection of cause and effect. The emergency wouldn't have happened if the authorities responsible for defending the soil, and monitoring alterations to geomorphology (the lie of the land, including the construction of new buildings, roads etc) and to water courses, had done their job properly. I believe these are the issues and problematics being referred to.





How about also : " The emergency brings up the issue of etc etc. "  ?

All in all, though, I think that " The emergency points at.. " is the translation I like the best so far ( leaving the finger where it belongs  ) , in that it retains some of the vague accusatory flavor of the Italian expression, which in this case is not casual and needs to be part of the translation, I think.


----------



## GavinW

Nice try/tries, but I have to say...



Odysseus54 said:


> How about also : " The emergency brings up the issue of etc etc. " ?
> 
> The phrasal verb "bring up" (with this sense) is restricted to a verbal/spoken context: you raise an issue while speaking.
> 
> All in all, though, I think that " The emergency points at.. " is the translation I like the best so far
> 
> Sorry, I don't think "point at" works. It's not a phrasal verb, and therefore has no metaphorical/idiomatic meaning at all. It's literal only, and just means to point (with one's finger) at (ie in the direction of) sb/sthg (ie sb/sthg that is very close to where one is).


----------



## Odysseus54

Understood, thanks.

How about " ..points to .. "  ?


----------



## candel

I agree with Gavyn.."points towards" might have more mileage..."points to" is quite structurally similar..".points at" just doesn't fly in this context....I just think Gavyn described the situation very well  in post 24.
Un’emergenza che chiama in causa anche la difesa del territorio.    An emergency that points out/highlights/ draws attention to the defence of the territory....not every one of these works so well in English despite their being quite similar in meaning.

"Calls into question" might work here.....


----------



## King Crimson

GavinW said:


> Nice try/tries, but I have to say...



Hi Gavin,
but in post #20 you seem to suggest that "emergency in Sardinia _points the finger at_" is a viable translation of the subject expression in the given context. Or maybe is there a difference between "points at" (no figurative meaning attached) and "points *the finger *at" (which can have a figurative meaning)?


----------



## candel

point the finger at implies accusation...point at is more neutral...


----------



## King Crimson

candel said:


> point the finger at implies accusation...point at is more neutral...



Ok, therefore I gather that the finger makes all the difference...


----------



## candel

Yes it certainly can make all the difference


----------



## PatsRule

direi "Listening to you/from your words, I can't help but feel as though you are questioning my motives/actions/reasoning"


----------



## King Crimson

PatsRule said:


> direi "Listening to you/from your words, I can't help but feel as though you are questioning my motives/actions/reasoning"



This is in response to the OP, not candel's, I guess...


----------



## GavinW

candel said:


> point the finger at implies accusation...point at is more neutral...



Exactly. (Except I would have used a different adjective instead of "neutral". But I think the message is clear.)
This answer may seem superfluous, but it's a courtesy to KC. ;-)


----------



## candel

I like to answer concisely, lazily maybe, it is always good to have guys like Gavyn who offer a more in-depth response....and KC did address you in particular anyway...


----------

