Infinitive with Iubeo, Veto, and Sino

The verbs iubeō “order,” vetō “forbid,” and sinō “allow” characteristically take an accusative plus infinitive: iubeō mīlitēs manēre, “I order the soldiers to remain.” The accusative names the person or thing responsible for, or affected by, the infinitive’s action. English often places the same noun directly after “order,” “forbid,” or “allow,” but Latin structure must still be identified from case, voice, and dependency rather than position.

These are control or causative constructions, not ordinary indirect statements. The infinitive normally denotes an action subsequent to the order, prohibition, or permission even though it is morphologically present.

The Basic Pattern

In every sentence, the plural accusative is understood as the subject of the infinitive. It is not the direct object of the infinitive: manēre, lūdere, and abīre are intransitive. Traditional descriptions call this accusative-and-infinitive, but its meaning differs from a reported assertion after dīcō or putō.

Why the Present Infinitive Can Refer to the Future

An order necessarily precedes its intended execution, and permission opens the way for a later act. Latin therefore uses the ordinary present infinitive without building a future infinitive.

Proficīscī is a present deponent infinitive, while crās makes the intended departure future. A future infinitive such as profectūrōs esse would recast the content as a prediction—“that they will depart”—rather than the action commanded.

Similarly, negation is built into the lexical meaning of vetō. Latin does not need an added nōn before the infinitive.

Adding nōn can create difficult scope: nōn vetuit means “did not forbid,” not “forbade not.” Use vetō + infinitive to express a prohibition clearly.

Active and Passive Infinitives

With an active infinitive, the accusative performs the infinitive’s action:

Fabrōs is the subject of facere; pontem is its direct object. Their identical accusative case makes word order tempting but unreliable. The human engineers are plausible builders, and the lexical structure confirms the parse.

The relevant case contrast is developed further under Accusative Subject of the Infinitive.

With a passive infinitive, the accusative undergoes the action and the agent may be omitted:

Now pontem is the subject of passive fierī. The commander orders an outcome without naming the builders. This passive infinitive is especially common when the result matters more than the person carrying it out.

The prohibition concerns the passive event “the doors being closed.” Translation must not turn iānuās into an object of an imagined active claudere.

Passive Iubeor and Vetō

When iubeō or vetō becomes passive, the accusative controlled subject commonly becomes the nominative subject of the main verb. The infinitive remains.

The nominatives mīlitēs and frāter meus agree with iussī sunt and vetitus est. They are also understood as the agents of manēre and tangere. This “raised” personal passive is normal Classical Latin and often corresponds naturally to English.

An inanimate outcome can likewise be made the grammatical subject in (formal) prose: pōns fierī iussus est, “the bridge was ordered to be built.” Such compression is grammatical but can be stylistically heavy. Active imperātor pontem fierī iussit is often clearer when the authority matters.

Passive sinor exists, but active sinō is generally the most transparent way to express permission. Do not assume that every member of the semantic set occurs equally freely in every passive pattern; lexical convention matters.

Iubeō Is Not Imperō

English “order” can conceal two different Latin government patterns. Iubeō normally takes accusative + infinitive, while imperō normally takes a dative of the person commanded and ut with the subjunctive for the command.

The meanings overlap, but the dependencies differ: accusative mīlitēs is the subject of mūnīre; dative mīlitibus is the recipient of imperat, while nominative understood “they” is the subject of mūniant. There is no logical shortcut that lets learners exchange the cases. Memorize the government with the verb.

Omitted and Expressed Controllers

The accusative can be omitted when context makes the responsible person indefinite or obvious. Iubet tacēre can mean “he orders [them] to be silent”; vetuit intrāre can mean “he forbade [us/them] to enter.” This omission is licensed by discourse, not by a rule that converts the infinitive into the main verb’s direct object.

The deponent infinitive prōgredī is active in meaning. The military context supplies the unexpressed soldiers. In an isolated sentence, adding mīlitēs would prevent ambiguity.

With sinō, reflexive sē can show that the person allowed is the main subject:

Here sē is accusative subject of quiēscere and refers to the unexpressed subject of sinit. It is not an object acted upon by “rest.”

Register and Variants

Accusative + infinitive is productive Classical prose with all three verbs. Poetry may separate the controller widely from its infinitive, omit recoverable elements, or choose a rarer construction for meter. Later Latin increasingly extends finite subordinate clauses in environments where Classical prose prefers an infinitive. Such attested variation does not make iubeō ut the neutral model for Classical composition.

Commands in legal and administrative writing are often impersonal or passive because the required action matters more than the responsible agent. Everyday Classical dialogue can use the same syntax, but direct imperatives are often more immediate: venī! “come!” versus tē venīre iubeō “I order you to come.” The latter explicitly foregrounds authority and therefore sounds stronger.

Common Mistakes

Giving iubeō a dative controller

Copying the iubeō pattern after imperō

Using a future infinitive for a future commanded act

Misreading two accusatives by position

Keeping an accusative when the governing verb is passive

Key Takeaways

• Iubeō, vetō, and sinō characteristically take an accusative subject plus infinitive.
• A present infinitive can denote the later action commanded, forbidden, or permitted.
• With an active infinitive the accusative acts; with a passive infinitive it undergoes the action.
• Imperō uses a different frame: dative of the person commanded plus ut and the subjunctive.

The practical rule is to build from dependencies: choose the governing verb’s frame, identify who performs or undergoes the infinitive, and assign case accordingly. Then use word order to manage topic and emphasis, never to substitute for morphology.