Indirect Commands
When Latin reports a command — "he ordered them to come," "she begged him not to leave," "he persuaded the king to surrender" — most verbs of asking, ordering, and persuading take ut (or negative nē) plus a subjunctive.
Persuādet Casticō ut rēgnum occupāret — "he persuades Casticus to seize royal power."
The pattern is mechanical once you spot it: a verb of commanding/asking/urging in the main clause, then ut / nē, then a subjunctive whose tense is fixed by the sequence-of-tenses rule.
The trap is that two of the most common command verbs — iubeō ("order") and vetō ("forbid") — refuse the ut construction entirely.
They take an accusative + infinitive instead: Labiēnum iugum ascendere iubet, "he orders Labienus to ascend the ridge." Memorize that exception cold; it's the single biggest miss on AP translation passages.
Learnings0 core · 1 AP claim
AP framework claims (1)— verbatim from AP CED
"X commands / asks / persuades Y to do Z" — a command reported as a clause
Tense follows sequence: primary main verb → present subjunctive; secondary main verb → imperfect subjunctive. Negative is nē, not ut nōn.
See It In Action
— B. G. i. 3
Textbook indirect command. Persuādeō takes the dative of the person + ut + subjunctive. English collapses it into "persuade X to do Y" — Latin keeps the clause structure visible.
— B. G. i. 40
Negative indirect command uses nē, never ut nōn. Main verb imperāvit is perfect (secondary), so the subjunctive lands in the imperfect — sequence of tenses, no exceptions.
— B. G. i. 21
The iubeō exception in action. Two accusatives (Labiēnum = subject of infin., iugum = object of infin.) plus a bare infinitive ascendere. No ut. If you wrote iubet ut Labiēnus ascendat, you'd be wrong — that pattern doesn't exist with iubeō.
— Cic. Fam. xiii. 66
Rogō and ōrō both govern the accusative of the person asked — a different case-pattern from imperō / persuādeō / mandō (dative). Memorize the case each verb takes; the ut-clause part is identical.
Both verbs mean "order," but they take radically different constructions. Imperō takes ut + subjunctive; iubeō takes accusative + infinitive. Vetō ("forbid") follows iubeō.
command verb + ut (or nē) + subjunctive
hīs imperāvit ut conquīrerent
he ordered them to search
command verb + accusative + infinitive
Labiēnum ascendere iubet
he orders Labienus to ascend
Tip: Ask: which verb is doing the commanding? If it's iubeō or vetō, look for an accusative subject + bare infinitive — never ut. For every other command verb, default to ut / nē + subjunctive and check the case the verb governs (dative for imperō, persuādeō, mandō; accusative for rogō, ōrō, hortor).
Caesar writes Labiēnum iugum montis ascendere iubet (B. G. i. 21). Why is ascendere a bare infinitive instead of ut + ascendat?
Study Tips
- •Build a verb list and drill it. Imperō, ōrō, rogō, hortor, persuādeō, mandō, moneō, postulō, suādeō, cūrō — all take ut / nē + subjunctive. Iubeō and vetō take acc. + infinitive. That split is the whole topic.
- •When you meet iubet eum venīre, do NOT translate "he orders that he come." Translate "he orders him to come" — accusative subject, infinitive verb. Same for vetuit eum exīre.
- •Sequence of tenses is non-negotiable. Primary main verb (imperat, persuādet) → present subjunctive. Secondary main verb (imperāvit, persuāsit) → imperfect subjunctive. The pluperfect almost never appears here.
- •The person being commanded usually shows up in a case the verb governs — dative for imperō, persuādeō, mandō; accusative for rogō, ōrō, hortor; varies for the rest. Look it up once per verb.
- •When you see a passive iussus est or vetitus est, expect a complementary infinitive: īre in exsilium iussus est, "he was ordered to go into exile." The infinitive's subject becomes the new nominative subject.