Weird usage of verb "anvertrauen" in Passiv

Question

I have found the following sentence to be wrong (the cases in this sentence are, I think, wrong) and I want to explain why I think that and how it should be written. Please correct me.

Schützling: jmd., der dem Schutz eines anderen anvertraut ist

Source: DWDS

To make more simple:

Er ist dem Schutz eines anderen anvertraut.

The original verg is: jmdm. etw.(Akk) anvertrauen. When we use the passive voice we change the Akkusativ into Nominativ, and Dativ stays Dativ. Then why is "dem Schutz" here Dativ?

Wir vertrauen ihm den Schutz eines anderen an.

Thus the sentence should be like this:

Ihm ist der Schutz eines anderen anvertraut.

So going back to our original sentence from DWDS, it should be like this:

Schützling: jmd., dem der Schutz eines anderen anvertraut ist

Am I wrong or is the DWDS wrong?

Answer 1

Both versions

Wir vertrauen ihm (Peter) den Schutz eines anderen (Paul) an.

and

Wir vertrauen ihn (Peter) dem Schutz eines anderen (Paul) an.

are valid, meaningful German sentences, but assign just the opposite roles to Peter and Paul. In the first sentence, Peter is the one who protects Paul, in the second one, Paul protects Peter.

Your modified definition

Schützling: jmd., dem der Schutz eines anderen anvertraut ist

no longer matches "Schützling", but "Beschützer".

Wir vertrauen ihm (Peter) den Schutz eines anderen (Paul) an.

In this sentence, "den Schutz eines anderen (Paul)" is the Akkusativ object, what we place into the responsibility of "Peter" (Dativ object).

Wir vertrauen ihn (Peter) dem Schutz eines anderen (Paul) an.

Here, "dem Schutz eines anderen (Paul)" is Dativ, and denotes where we want to see "Peter" (the Akkusativ object).

The expression "etwas dem Schutz eines anderen anvertrauen" is quite idiomatic in German, although it stresses the literal meaning of "anvertrauen" (in good trust, to place something into the responsibility of someone) a bit. Typically, we can trust in a person's responsibility, and not so much in abstract concepts like "protection".

Answer 2

Your analysis is right, but since you are confusing the roles of the parties involved, your conclusion is wrong.

Let's make it very simple by using variables A and B. As you noticed, the active form is:

• A_(Akk.) einem B_(Dat.) anvertrauen
• ihn_(Akk.) dem Schutz eines anderen_(Dat.) anvertrauen

As you also noticed, the accusative object becomes nominative when we change to passive (ihn becomes er), but the dative object remains as it is:

• A_(Nom.) ist einem B_(Dat.) anvertraut
• er_(Nom.) ist dem Schutz eines anderen_(Dat.) anvertraut

---

I guess the confusion came up when you introduced a third party, C = wir, to make a full sentence in active voice. You wrote

Wir vertrauen ihm den Schutz eines anderen an.

However, ihm (Dat.) is wrong. Remember that we have defined A = ihn (Akk.) and, therefore, the correct pattern is:

• C_(Nom.) vertraut ein A_(Akk.) einem B_(Dat.) an.
• Wir_(Nom.) vertrauen ihn_(Akk.) dem Schutz eines anderen_(Dat.) an.