Passive of Verbs Governing the Dative

Some Latin verbs govern a dative person where English uses a direct object: mihi persuādet “he persuades me,” captīvīs parcit “he spares the captives,” tibi nocet “it harms you.” Because that dative is not an accusative object, it cannot become a nominative subject in an ordinary personal passive. Latin therefore uses an impersonal third-person singular passive and leaves the person in the dative: mihi persuādētur “I am being persuaded.”

This structure is (neutral Classical) and particularly common in historical, forensic, and deliberative prose (formal). English hides the syntax by making “I,” “you,” or “the captives” its grammatical subject. The essential skill is to parse the visible Latin case and singular verb before translating idiomatically.

The core contrast

Compare a verb with an accusative object and one with a governed dative:

English “the boy” becomes a subject in the second translation, but Latin puerō is visibly dative. The singular persuādētur has no nominative controller. A literal scaffold—“persuasion is being applied to the boy by Marcus”—can help reveal the structure, but natural English should be “the boy is being persuaded.”

Common verbs that keep the dative

The pattern is lexical: you must know which senses of which verbs govern the dative. There is no English shortcut that predicts every member.

The first clause of the second example has dative bonīs cīvibus and singular favētur. The second has dative improbīs understood substantivally and singular parcitur. Neither dative becomes nominative even though English turns both into subjects.

Some verbs allow different constructions in different senses or periods. Invideō classically governs the dative person and may also take the thing begrudged in the accusative. Later authors sometimes extend accusative patterns (later). Learn the government of the actual verb sense in context rather than applying a blanket English label.

Classical verse can exceptionally use a personal passive where prose expects the retained dative. Horace asks in Ars Poetica 55–56 (literary quotation); the wording is reproduced without added macrons:

Here nominative ego controls personal invideor. This marked poetic construction is important for reading, but it does not overturn the prose production rule: write mihi invidētur, not ego invideor, unless the literary register and evidence justify the exception.

Formation in the present system

Present-system impersonal passives use the ordinary third-person singular passive ending. The stem comes from the first two principal parts, not from the perfect or supine stem.

The dative can be singular or plural, but the impersonal verb stays singular. Tibi persuādētur and nōbīs persuādētur differ in the number of the dative person, not in verbal agreement.

That tempting plural is built from the English translation. Latin instead requires nōbīs persuādētur.

Formation in the perfect system

The perfect system uses the verb’s supine stem in a fixed neuter singular participial form plus third-person singular sum: persuāsum est, persuāsum erat, persuāsum erit. The participle does not agree with the dative person.

The forms must come from the correct principal part. Persuāsum belongs to persuādeō; parsum belongs to parcō. They are not predictable by translating “persuaded” or “spared” into an imagined regular participle. Here persuāsum and parsum are neuter singular because the entire construction is impersonal.

Adding an agent and other complements

The person affected remains dative, while the person doing the persuading, sparing, or harming can appear with ā/ab plus ablative:

Mihi is the dative person persuaded. Ab amīcīs is the personal agent. Neuter singular persuāsum est remains impersonal. These three forms perform different jobs and should not be collapsed merely because English says “I was persuaded by my friends.”

Other complements also retain their own construction. A purpose or commanded outcome may be expressed by ut plus subjunctive after persuādeō. A thing begrudged can appear as an accusative with invideō while the person envied remains dative:

This active example shows why dictionary government matters. Eī is dative person, glōriam is the accusative thing begrudged. If a genuinely accusative complement is passivized, its behavior must be analyzed separately; the dative person does not automatically become nominative.

The subjectless shape belongs to the wider system described in Impersonal Passive Constructions. What makes the present pattern distinctive is lexical government: a dative complement survives because there was never an accusative object available for promotion.

A step-by-step diagnostic

For mīlitibus ab imperātōre parsum est:

1. Recognize parsum est as perfect passive from parcō, parcere, pepercī, parsum.
2. Observe that parsum is neuter singular and est is singular.
3. Parse mīlitibus as dative plural governed by parcō.
4. Parse ab imperātōre as personal agent.
5. Classify the clause as impersonal passive, with no nominative subject.
6. Translate naturally: “The soldiers were spared by the commander.”

This method starts from visible morphology. Starting from English “soldiers” would tempt you to invent nominative mīlitēs and plural parsī sunt, destroying the Classical construction.

Common Mistakes

1. Promoting the dative to nominative

2. Making the verb plural after a plural dative

3. Making the perfect participle agree with the dative person

4. Omitting the dative ending because English uses a direct object

5. Building a perfect form from the present stem

Key Takeaways

When a Latin verb lexically governs a dative person, that person stays dative in the passive. The present system uses third-person singular passive forms such as parcitur and persuādētur. The perfect system uses fixed neuter singular forms such as parsum est and persuāsum est. English will often translate the dative as its subject, but Latin remains impersonal; case, principal parts, and singular morphology must guide the analysis.