Verbs of Hindering and Preventing

Latin verbs meaning “hinder,” “prevent,” “restrain,” or “stand in the way” can take a subjunctive clause introduced by nē or quōminus. After a negative or virtually negative governing expression, quīn is also common. Some verbs—notably prohibeō—can instead take an accusative plus infinitive when a person is directly forbidden or prevented from acting.

English hides these choices behind “prevent someone from doing something.” Latin makes the relation visible: it can present the blocked action as a clause, as something made “less” possible, or as an infinitival action controlled by a named person. There is genuine lexical variation here; no single connector mechanically translates English “from.”

Core construction choices

Both are grammatical. Nē marks the prevented action directly. Quōminus, historically “by which the less,” presents the obstacle as reducing or blocking that action. The distinction is often stylistic rather than a difference in the event described.

Nē after an affirmative expression of prevention

After an affirmative verb such as impediō “hinder,” prohibeō “prevent, prohibit,” dēterreō “deter,” or retineō “hold back,” nē plus subjunctive is a regular Classical pattern. Here nē is not translated as “not”: the main verb already supplies the preventing force.

Both examples have affirmative governing verbs, the environment in which prevention nē is most straightforward. Once the governing expression becomes negative, Classical prose generally favors quōminus or quīn rather than asking nē to carry a potentially confusing stack of negative ideas.

Because this nē belongs to a prevention complement, it differs from negative purpose. In portam claudit nē intrent “he closes the gate so that they do not enter,” the clause states the purpose of closing. In eōs impedit nē intrent “he prevents them from entering,” it completes the meaning of impedit.

Quōminus: the connector that ignores polarity

Quōminus can follow both affirmative and negative expressions of hindrance. That flexibility makes it a safe and highly characteristic choice in (formal) prose. It is written as one word in modern editorial practice, with long ō in the first element and short i in minus: quōminus.

With recūsō, Classical Latin may also use an infinitive or nē clause depending on what is refused. It belongs near the edge of the prevention family, not at its most predictable center. Learners should master impediō/prohibeō quōminus before generalizing to every English verb containing the idea “resist.”

The subject of the subordinate clause need not be the direct object of the governing verb, although it often is. Latin identifies roles through endings and context:

Tempestās is the subject of impedit; nāvēs is the subject of subjunctive exeant. English turns nāvēs into the object of “prevents,” but Latin need not.

Cicero provides an authentic (formal) example after a negative matrix:

The nihil does not force quīn: quōminus remains available with either polarity. The source therefore confirms the construction directly rather than serving as an exception to it.

Quīn after a negative obstacle

After nōn, nihil, nēmō, vix, a negative question, or another expression amounting to “there is no obstacle,” quīn plus subjunctive is idiomatic: “nothing prevents but that X,” hence “nothing prevents X.” This is one branch of the broader quīn-clause system.

The interrogative quid obstat? expects “nothing” and is therefore virtually negative. Quīn does not itself mean a portable English “that”; its force comes from the interaction between the blocked action and the removal of an obstacle.

An affirmative matrix does not normally license prevention quīn:

Because obstat here asserts a real obstacle rather than denying one, quōminus is the regular choice. Changing it to quīn would erase the polarity relation that makes the Classical pattern intelligible.

Prohibeō with an accusative and infinitive

Prohibeō frequently takes accusative plus infinitive, particularly when an authority actively forbids a person to do something. This is ordinary Classical syntax and often more direct than a finite clause.

The accusatives discipulōs and mercātōrēs are understood subjects of exīre and adhibēre. Do not put them in the nominative merely because English makes them the logical actors.

Prohibeō also occurs with nē and quōminus. The infinitive is especially natural with a directly controlled person; the finite clause can foreground the prevented event or supply a subject not neatly governed as the direct object. These are tendencies, not a ban on one construction.

Mood, tense, and negation

The subordinate subjunctive is licensed by the prevention construction, not by uncertainty. It follows ordinary sequence tendencies:

Present capiant accompanies a primary present; imperfect caperent accompanies a historic imperfect. English may use the same “from taking” in both, so English form does not reveal Latin tense.

To negate something inside the blocked action, use nōn. This can produce a logically demanding sentence, so paraphrase before composing:

The obstacle applies to not coming: the promise in effect compels his attendance. Such examples are grammatical but stylistically heavy; Classical prose often recasts them. Honest composition sometimes requires a clearer main verb rather than a pile of negatives.

Parsing diagnostic

When reading a suspected prevention clause:

1. Identify the governing word: does it mean hinder, prevent, restrain, refuse, or stand in the way?
2. Determine its polarity, including words like nihil and rhetorical questions.
3. Recognize nē/quōminus/quīn plus subjunctive as its complement, not automatically as purpose, result, or relative characteristic.
4. Find the subordinate subject independently; English may have promoted it into an object of “prevent.”
5. Establish tense from sequence and relative time, then translate the whole construction idiomatically.

Common Mistakes

1. Translating prevention nē as ordinary “not”

2. Using quīn after a plainly affirmative obstacle

3. Missing the accusative subject of an infinitive

4. Translating a prevention subjunctive with “would”

Key Takeaways

After affirmative prevention, expect nē or quōminus plus subjunctive. Quōminus can occur regardless of matrix polarity; quīn is characteristic when the obstacle is denied or questioned. Prohibeō also commonly takes accusative plus infinitive. Learn the whole governing frame, because neither English “from” nor the subjunctive alone tells you which Latin construction is present.