We’ve been discussing how verbs that demand and decree take a substantive clause of purpose (ut/nē + subjunctive). Allen and Greenough no sooner outline the phenomenon of these purpose clauses than they start demonstrating common exceptions.
Iubeō (order) and vetō (forbid) are more likely to take the infinitive + accusative.
He orders them to send more loaves: aliōs panēs eōs ferre iubet.
She forbids them from approaching the temple: aedem adire vetat.
Where the verb is passive, the verb remains infinitive, but the subject accusative becomes nominative:
They are ordered to be present the next day: adesse iubentur postrīdiē.
He was ordered to go into exile: īre in exsilium iussus est.
Simonides was forbidden to sail: Simōnidēs vetitus est nāvigāre.
This construction is most common with these two verbs, but not unheard of with other verbs of commanding.
He orders that a bridge be built: pontem fierī imperat.
Matters at hand warn us to be on our guard so that we don’t perish too soon: rēs praestentēs nōs monet cavēre nē citior pereant.
(careful with that last one — it’s meant to differentiate the two options on the table, but if you read it too quickly it might just conflate them)