A reported command presents a desired action rather than asserting that the action is real. Esperanto therefore normally uses ke + explicit subject + -u verb after verbs of ordering, requesting, advising, proposing, or requiring. The reporting verb shows who exerted influence; the volitive shows what action was wanted.
Direct command to reported command
A direct command uses the volitive -u and often omits the understood subject vi:
La estro diris: ‘Sendu la dosieron antaŭ tagmezo.’
The manager said, ‘Send the file before noon.’
In indirect reporting, make the performer explicit and introduce the desired action with ke:
La estro diris, ke mi sendu la dosieron antaŭ tagmezo.
The manager told me to send the file before noon.
The form sendu is not present or future tense. It presents sending as wanted, requested, or commanded. The action may later happen or fail to happen:
La estro ordonis, ke mi sendu la dosieron, sed mi ne sukcesis sendi ĝin ĝustatempe.
The manager ordered me to send the file, but I did not manage to send it in time.
The command existed; the sending did not. This is why ordinary future sendos would express the wrong relationship.
The reporting verb supplies the force
The same ke … -u clause can follow verbs with different strengths:
La kuracisto konsilis, ke mi ripozu dum kelkaj tagoj.
The doctor advised me to rest for a few days.
La gardisto postulis, ke ĉiuj montru sian bileton.
The guard demanded that everyone show their ticket.
Mi proponis, ke ni renkontiĝu pli frue.
I proposed that we meet earlier.
Ŝi petis, ke ni parolu pli mallaŭte.
She asked us to speak more quietly.
The volitive does not itself distinguish advice, demand, proposal, and polite request. Konsilis, postulis, proponis, and petis do that work, together with context and tone. See the volitive in subordinate clauses for the wider mood system.
English “ask” is ambiguous: it can mean “pose a question” or “request an action.” Esperanto normally distinguishes them. Demandi introduces a question; peti requests something or asks someone to act:
Ŝi demandis, ĉu mi povas fermi la fenestron.
She asked whether I could close the window.
Ŝi petis, ke mi fermu la fenestron.
She asked me to close the window.
The first seeks information about ability or permission. The second seeks the closing itself.
Negative commands keep ne before the volitive
Direct prohibition:
La kuracisto diris: ‘Ne veturu hodiaŭ.’
The doctor said, ‘Do not drive today.’
Reported prohibition:
La kuracisto diris, ke mi ne veturu tiun tagon.
The doctor told me not to drive that day.
Ne belongs inside the reported clause because it negates the requested action. The reporting itself remains positive.
La instruisto ne petis, ke ni silentu.
The teacher did not ask us to be quiet.
This is different: ne negates petis, so no such request was made. Compare:
La instruisto petis, ke ni ne parolu dum la testo.
The teacher asked us not to talk during the test.
The request occurred, and its content was negative. This scope contrast matches ne decidis fari versus decidis ne fari.
The subordinate subject must be stated
In a direct command, vi is normally understood. In a finite reported clause, the subject cannot simply disappear because Esperanto verbs do not mark person:
La policano ordonis, ke la ŝoforo haltu ĉe la vojrando.
The police officer ordered the driver to stop at the roadside.
La organizanto petis, ke ni atendu ekster la salono.
The organizer asked us to wait outside the hall.
The subject can be mi, vi, li, ŝi, ĝi, ni, ili, oni, or a noun phrase. Adjust it to the current narrator's viewpoint rather than mechanically converting every direct vi into li or ili.
— Kion la organizanto diris al vi? — Li petis, ke mi atendu ĉi tie.
— What did the organizer say to you? — He asked me to wait here.
Because the original addressee now reports the request, the understood vi of the direct command becomes mi.
Do not use si as this subject. Si may appear only as a reflexive referring to the subordinate subject:
La trejnisto ordonis, ke la ludantoj preparu sin.
The coach ordered the players to get themselves ready.
Sin refers to la ludantoj, not to the coach.
No tense backshift: the volitive remains -u
The volitive is not tied to present, past, or future time. A past reporting verb does not change it:
Hieraŭ ŝi petis, ke mi venu hodiaŭ je la naŭa.
Yesterday she asked me to come today at nine.
The time expressions locate the requested action. If the report is made later, they may be adjusted:
Ŝi petis, ke mi venu la sekvan matenon je la naŭa.
She asked me to come the following morning at nine.
Do not change venu to venus merely because the request was in the past. Venus presents a hypothetical action, not simply a past request. Do not change it to venos either: that would report a prediction or statement about what will happen.
Compare the minimal contrast:
La estro diris, ke ni laboros sabate.
The manager said that we would work on Saturday.
La estro diris, ke ni laboru sabate.
The manager told us to work on Saturday.
The first reports information or prediction. The second reports a directive. The final vowel marks a fundamental speech-act difference.
An infinitive construction is often an alternative
With several action-influencing verbs, Esperanto can use an infinitive whose understood performer is expressed with al:
La estro ordonis al ni atendi ekstere.
The manager ordered us to wait outside.
This corresponds to the finite version:
La estro ordonis, ke ni atendu ekstere.
The manager ordered that we wait outside.
The ke clause makes both subject and mood explicit. The infinitive version is compact and natural with verbs such as ordoni, permesi, malpermesi, konsili, and rekomendi, provided the influenced participant is clear.
Do not copy English object-plus-infinitive word for word with every verb. In particular, English “tell someone to do” is not a reason to make diri take that person as a direct object. Use diri al iu, ke …, peti iun …, or a more precise influence verb:
Mi diris al ŝi, ke ŝi telefonu al la kliniko.
I told her to call the clinic.
Choosing petis, konsilis, or ordonis can specify whether this was a request, recommendation, or order.
Reporting commands in formal prose
In (formal) minutes, regulations, and news reports, a noun plus a content clause can package the directive:
La komisiono adoptis la rekomendon, ke ĉiuj kandidatoj ricevu la samajn informojn.
The committee adopted the recommendation that all candidates receive the same information.
An impersonal passive is also possible:
Estis ordonite, ke la konstruaĵo estu tuj evakuita.
It was ordered that the building be evacuated immediately.
The adverbial participle ordonite is used because the subject is the following clause, not a masculine or feminine noun. Such dense packaging is normal in (formal) administrative writing but often sounds heavy in conversation.
Punctuation and information structure
Indirect commands are subordinate clauses, not quotations. They normally use a comma before ke, no quotation marks, and sentence-final punctuation determined by the whole sentence:
Ĉu la kuracisto vere petis, ke vi revenu morgaŭ?
Did the doctor really ask you to return tomorrow?
The question mark belongs to the main yes-no question. The embedded directive itself is not punctuated with an exclamation mark.
The neutral order gives the source and force before the requested action. Fronting a long command clause is grammatical but strongly marked; in ordinary prose, La direktoro postulis, ke … is clearer than beginning with the entire ke clause.
Common Mistakes
Using the indicative for a command
❌ La estro ordonis, ke ni venos frue.
Wrong for a command — venos reports a future fact.
✅ La estro ordonis, ke ni venu frue.
The manager ordered us to come early.
Omitting the subordinate subject
❌ La estro ordonis, ke venu frue.
Incomplete in neutral prose — the reported clause does not identify who should come.
✅ La estro ordonis, ke la teamo venu frue.
The manager ordered the team to come early.
Using demandi for a request
❌ Ŝi demandis, ke mi helpu ŝin.
Incorrect in the intended sense — demandi asks a question, not an action.
✅ Ŝi petis, ke mi helpu ŝin.
She asked me to help her.
Keeping direct vi after the viewpoint changes
❌ Li diris al mi: ‘Atendu ĉi tie.’ Poste mi rakontis, ke li petis, ke vi atendu tie.
Incorrect viewpoint — I, the original addressee, should be the reported subject.
✅ Li diris al mi: ‘Atendu ĉi tie.’ Poste mi rakontis, ke li petis, ke mi atendu tie.
He said to me, ‘Wait here.’ Later I related that he had asked me to wait there.
Key Takeaways
Use ke + explicit subject + -u to report a command, request, recommendation, proposal, or requirement. The main verb states the force; the volitive marks the desired action without tense. Put ne inside the ke clause for a prohibition, adjust the performer and deictic expressions to the current viewpoint, and use an infinitive alternative only when its understood subject is structurally clear.
Now practice Esperanto
Reading grammar gets you part of the way. The exercises are where it sticks — free, no signup needed.
Start learning Esperanto →Related Topics
- Reported StatementsB1 — Report speech, thought, perception, and written information with finite ke-clauses while preserving the original tense and adjusting viewpoint clearly.
- Reported QuestionsB2 — Embed yes-no and content questions with ĉu or a ki-correlative while preserving finite clause structure, tense, case, and viewpoint.
- The Volitive in Subordinate ClausesA2 — Learn when Esperanto uses -u in ke- and por ke-clauses to express a request, purpose, intended result, or other desired action.
- The Volitive for CommandsA2 — Learn how Esperanto uses invariant -u for direct commands, prohibitions, instructions, and third-person directives with appropriate politeness.
- Infinitives as ComplementsA1 — Build verb chains with an -i infinitive, assign its understood subject, and keep tense, negation, objects, and clause boundaries clear.
- Pronouns in Reported SpeechB1 — Shift personal and possessive pronouns according to the current reporter and listener while preserving clause-bound reflexive reference.