Several common Latin verbs govern a dative complement even though their usual English translations look transitive: rēgī pāret is “he obeys the king,” not “he obeys to the king.” Traditional grammar calls them special intransitive verbs because the affected person is not an accusative direct object. Their case government is a property of the Latin verb and must be learned with it.
Unless marked otherwise, these are neutral constructions in ordinary Classical prose. Poetic extensions and later alternatives are labeled explicitly.
Learn the verb together with its case
The verbs form useful meaning groups, but the groups are memory aids rather than rules that license every synonym.
| Meaning group | Frequent verbs with dative | Typical English translation |
|---|---|---|
| favor, please, indulge | faveō, placeō, indulgeō | favor, please, indulge |
| believe, trust | crēdō, cōnfīdō | believe, trust |
| command, obey, serve, resist | imperō, pāreō, serviō, resistō | command, obey, serve, resist |
| harm, spare, pardon | noceō, parcō, īgnōscō | harm, spare, forgive |
| envy, feel anger, threaten | invideō, īrāscor, minor | envy, be angry with, threaten |
| advise, persuade, devote oneself | suādeō, persuādeō, studeō | advise, persuade, pursue |
The “trust” group particularly rewards learning full frames. Cōnfīdō takes a dative for a person or group trusted, but an ablative is common for the basis relied on; fīdō likewise occurs with both cases and is rarer as a finite verb in Classical prose. These are lexical alternatives, not interchangeable case decoration.
Fīlius patrī pāret, sed amīcīs malīs nōn crēdit.
The son obeys his father but does not trust bad friends.
Both patrī and amīcīs are dative complements. English places “father” and “friends” directly after transitive-looking verbs, but English syntax does not make the Latin nouns accusative.
Haec medicīna mihi nocet; alia autem mihi placet.
This medicine harms me, but I like another one.
The literal structures are “is harmful to me” and “is pleasing to me.” In the second clause alia is nominative feminine singular and is the thing pleasing; mihi is the dative experiencer. English reverses the viewpoint to “I like it.”
Cūr frātrī tuō invidēs?
Why do you envy your brother?
Mihi parcit atque īgnōscit, quamquam graviter errāvī.
He spares and forgives me, although I made a serious mistake.
Why “intransitive” matters
An accusative direct object normally becomes the nominative subject of a personal passive. A dative complement does not. This gives a powerful structural test.
Lēgātō nōn crēditur.
The envoy is not believed.
Lēgātō remains dative. The passive crēditur is impersonal, literally “there is no believing of the envoy.” Latin does not say lēgātus crēditur in this meaning under the ordinary Classical pattern.
Captīvīs ā mīlitibus parsum est.
The prisoners were spared by the soldiers.
The perfect passive is neuter singular parsum est, not a participle agreeing with captīvīs. The personal agent is ā mīlitibus; the people spared remain dative.
Lēgibus pārendum est, etiam cum nōbīs displicent.
The laws must be obeyed, even when we dislike them.
The impersonal gerundive pārendum est likewise retains dative lēgibus. In the subordinate clause, plural lēgēs is the nominative subject of displicent, and nōbīs is the dative experiencer. The translation “we dislike them” reverses the Latin perspective.
Personal passives such as poetic invideor “I am envied” do occur (literary), and later Latin expands some personal constructions. They are marked exceptions, not the model for neutral Classical composition.
Commands and persuasion take clauses, not accusative people
Imperō takes a dative of the person commanded and commonly an ut or nē clause for the command’s content.
Dux mīlitibus imperāvit ut portās clauderent.
The commander ordered the soldiers to close the gates.
English uses “soldiers” as direct object followed by an infinitive. Latin uses dative mīlitibus plus ut and an imperfect subjunctive. By contrast, iubeō normally takes an accusative person with an infinitive: dux mīlitēs portās claudere iussit. This contrast is lexical, not a stylistic choice.
Persuādeō likewise takes a dative person and commonly an ut or nē clause.
Ōrātor cīvibus persuāsit ut in urbe manērent.
The speaker persuaded the citizens to remain in the city.
Successful persuasion is often implied by persuādeō. For merely trying to persuade, context or a verb such as cōnor makes the lack of success explicit.
Tibi suādeō nē hoc cōnsilium temere accipiās.
I advise you not to accept this plan rashly.
The negative content clause uses nē. Dative tibi is the person advised; hōc cōnsilium is the accusative object inside the subordinate clause.
A dative person can coexist with an accusative thing
Calling these verbs intransitive does not mean that no accusative can ever appear. Some allow a separate accusative of the thing believed, commanded, grudged, threatened, or forgiven.
Tibi hoc crēdō, sed omnia nōn crēdō.
I believe you about this, but I do not believe everything.
In the intended context, tibi is the person whose claim is credited, while neuter hoc and omnia are things accepted as true. But tibi hoc crēdō in isolation can also mean “I entrust or lend this to you,” from the verb’s older commercial sense. Context must distinguish believing a claim from entrusting a thing. Crēdō also introduces an accusative-and-infinitive statement: crēdō eum venīre, “I believe that he is coming.”
Cīvitātī pecūniam imperāvērunt.
They demanded money from the community.
Cīvitātī is the community on which the command is laid; pecūniam is accusative, the thing exacted. In the passive, that accusative can become subject while the dative remains: cīvitātī pecūnia imperāta est, “money was demanded from the community.”
With invideō, an accusative thing alongside a dative person is mainly (literary) or later: it should be recognized but not treated as the safest neutral prose pattern. Lexical dictionaries are essential because each verb permits a different range of complements.
Similar English meanings, different Latin cases
Latin often has near-synonyms with different government. This is where English transfer causes the most errors.
| Dative-governing verb | Example | Accusative-governing near-synonym | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| noceō “harm” | oculīs nocet | laedō “injure” | oculōs laedit |
| placeō “please” | mihi placet | dēlectō “delight” | mē dēlectat |
| imperō “order” | mīlitibus imperat | iubeō “order” | mīlitēs iubet |
| subveniō “help” | amīcō subvenit | iuvō “help” | amīcum iuvat |
Fūmus oculīs nocet, sed pulvis oculōs quoque laedit.
Smoke harms the eyes, and dust injures them too.
The English objects are identical; the Latin cases differ because noceō governs dative and laedō governs accusative. There is no semantic shortcut reliable enough to replace learning the entries.
Some verbs change meaning with case. Cōnsulō aliquem means “consult someone,” with accusative; cōnsulō alicuī means “take thought for someone’s interests,” with dative. Timeō/metuō aliquem means “fear someone,” with accusative, while timeō/metuō alicuī can mean “fear for someone.” This concerned-person dative is Classical, though less common than the accusative object; it does not make these verbs members of the fixed dative-governing class. The case encodes a different relation, not alternative decoration.
Boundaries of this page
Many prefixed verbs also admit a dative—resistō, subveniō, and numerous others. Their historical prepositional force and variable government receive focused treatment on the dative with compound verbs page. Here the practical point is lexical: when the dictionary lists a dative complement, retain it even where English uses a direct object.
Common Mistakes
1. Copying an English direct object after pāreō
❌ Fīlius patrem pāret.
Incorrect—pāreō governs the dative, not the accusative.
✅ Fīlius patrī pāret.
The son obeys his father.
2. Using the same case with near-synonyms
❌ Hic fūmus oculōs nocet.
Incorrect—noceō requires a dative complement.
✅ Hic fūmus oculīs nocet.
This smoke harms the eyes.
3. Giving imperō the construction of iubeō
❌ Centuriō mīlitēs imperāvit manēre.
Incorrect—this mixes accusative-plus-infinitive syntax with imperō.
✅ Centuriō mīlitibus imperāvit ut manērent.
The centurion ordered the soldiers to remain.
4. Creating a personal passive
❌ Cīvēs ab hostibus parsī sunt.
Incorrect in neutral Classical prose—parcō is passivized impersonally and retains the dative.
✅ Cīvibus ab hostibus parsum est.
The citizens were spared by the enemy.
Key Takeaways
These verbs select dative complements because Latin construes their objects as indirectly affected, even when English uses a direct object. Learn verb and case together, use impersonal passives as a structural test, and keep near-synonyms separate: noceō oculīs but laedō oculōs, imperō mīlitibus ut … but iubeō mīlitēs ….
Now practice Latin
Reading grammar gets you part of the way. The exercises are where it sticks — free, no signup needed.
Start learning Latin →Related Topics
- Dative as Indirect ObjectA2 — Use the Latin dative for recipients and addressees alongside an accusative thing transferred, told, shown, or promised.
- Dative with Compound VerbsA2 — Learn why certain prefixed Latin verbs govern a dative and how to distinguish that complement from a direct object or literal destination.
- Transitive and Intransitive VerbsA2 — How a Latin verb's lexical argument pattern determines whether it can govern a direct accusative object.
- Verbs Governing the DativeB1 — How Latin verbs select dative complements for people affected, trusted, obeyed, helped, opposed, or otherwise related to an action.
- Impersonal Passive ConstructionsA2 — Recognize subjectless third-person singular passives and translate the activity naturally instead of inventing a nominative subject.