Q: Where do evokes the infinitive as a reality, the modals evoke it as a potentiality. とはどういう意味ですか?
A: Ummm I have no idea. I don't think it means anything!
Q: which is the infinitive of wrought? とはどういう意味ですか?
Q: infinitive とはどういう意味ですか?
A: Yes, it is the basic (unconjugated) form of a verb. With verbs when learning a foreign language you typically learn the infinitive of the verb first, then you learn how to conjugate it.

So for example, the verb “to run” is in the infinitive form (It is healthy to run- this is an impersonal sentence meaning that it has no subject, hence the verb is not conjugated) The conjugated form of the infinitive “to run” could be “I ran all the way home just to say I’m sorry” for example.
Q: be to + infinitive

example: what I could see, if I *were to* open my eyes would be the huge ship

please, put some other examples in order to get the meaning better :) thank you so much! とはどういう意味ですか?
A: it is the English subjunctive tense.
Think of it as having a similar meaning to the incorrect indicative tense "if I was to..."


Q: noun➕S➕V➕to infinitive clause を使った例文を教えて下さい。
A: Thank you kindly for your useful tips!
Q: V+ing & To - infinitive を使った例文を教えて下さい。
A: planning to travel
trying to see
wanting to learn
jumping to escape
fighting to win
working to earn
paying to play
Q: perfect infinitive and perfect gerund を使った例文を教えて下さい。
A: He should have finished the letter

It was hard for him to write it having been busy all week


Q: An infinitive verb with to (ex: to read) と An infinitive verb without to + ing (ex: reading) はどう違いますか?
A: The second example is a gerund, not an infinitive. Gerunds are more natural at the beginning of a sentence ("reading is fundamental") but they are more general and are sometimes inappropriate as the object of a sentence when describing a specific action ("I want to read this book.")
Q: infinitive と relative pronouns はどう違いますか?
A: I think it’s indefinite pronouns meaning these pronouns does not have a particular subject, while relative pronouns marks a relative clause or simply it is found in between an independent and dependent clause

Indefinite Pronouns:
Someone etc.

Relative Pronouns:

Infinitive Pronouns are verbs that starts with ‘to’

To Jump
To fly
To die

Q: like + to + infinitive と like + -ing はどう違いますか?
A: No important difference.
Q: try and + infinitive と try to + infinitive はどう違いますか?
A: QAの全文をご確認ください
Q: try to + infinitive と try + ing form はどう違いますか?

I’m trying to learn Japanese but it’s very difficult.
Try + to + infinitive means that something is difficult and you make an attempt to do it.

Have you tried using butter instead of oil?
Try + ‘ing’ means make an experiment. It’s not difficult – it might work, it might not.


Q: Can I use infinitive at the past sentence in English ? は 英語 (アメリカ) で何と言いますか?
A: Oh! Yes you can use infinitives in a sentence with a past tense verb, just like how you used it.

one correction for the first sentence, though,
I had washed the dishes before [coming to watch]* the movie

but yeah, nice! :)

Q: you can show me how to use the to-v (infinitives) and v+ing(gerund)
please は 英語 (アメリカ) で何と言いますか?
A: I’m sorry I don’t understand your question.
Q: ing or infinitive は 英語 (アメリカ) で何と言いますか?
A: my answers would be...

to set up
to fill
to look
to review
hosting or staying
to review
Q: infinitive は 英語 (アメリカ) で何と言いますか?
A: QAの全文をご確認ください


Q: The infinitive is a verb-form that has some of the properties of a noun. Its two-sided character comes out clearly when it is used as the subject of a sentence.

In the part, saying “two-sided character”
What does that mean ?
What does that refer to ?
A: “Two-sided character” basically means that infinitive verbs have two different ways that they can be used in a sentence. They can be used just as a verb, or as a noun when it’s the subject of a sentence.
For example, the infinitive verb “sleep”:
I sleep. (Here, “sleep” is the verb of the sentence)
Sleep is great. (Here, sleep is the subject of the sentence; it’s being used as a noun).
Q: I learned about different between infinitive and gerund at the ESL.
I have already learned about that things in Japan, but I noticed that I don't understand all of them still now.
Teacher John said to me that I have no choice that getting a command of using these sentences are only practicing.
I have to make a lot of sentences including infinitives or gerunds, and talk to other people. この表現は自然ですか?
A: I learned about the difference between infinitive and gerund in the ESL class.
I have already learned about it in Japan, but I noticed that I still don't understand it completely. Teacher John told me that to get a command of this subject I have no choice but to practice using them in sentences. I have to make a lot of sentences containing infinitives or gerunds and talk to other people.
Q: what is the infinitive aspect of "struck"?
Q: ​​Tell me please Is "going" infinitive or participle in this sentence?⬇️

"I have breakfast before going to school."
A: Participle.

Participle = "" going
Infinitive = "to..." to go
Q: Was/were to + infinitive
A: Basically, these sentences are telling us what happened in the past but presenting it to us as if we were still at that point in time - except with knowledge of what happens afterwards.

"1. He was to find out years later that the car he bought was stolen."
In this sentence, 'was to' means 'was going to' or 'would'. In other words, 'he would find out years later that the car he bought was stolen' or 'he was going to find out years later that the car he bought was stolen'.

It is similar with example 3 that you gave - you can replace 'was to' with either 'would' or 'was going to' and get the same meaning: 'It would take 48 hours...' or 'It was going to take 48 hours...'

"2. We were to stay with Vince in Lisbon many times before he moved to Madrid."
In this case 'were to' indicates an arrangement that has been decided on. Since we know that Vince moved to Madrid afterwards and that the subject of the sentence ('we') knows about staying with him in Lisbon 'many times', we can assume that this sentence is said after the events outlined have taken place. Therefore you could replace 'were to' with 'were going to' or 'would' like the other two examples, but with 'were' instead of 'was': 'We were going to stay...' or 'We would stay...'

Many stories that are written in the past tense use this approach - they give the impression that we are in the same point in the timeline as the events but since the events are actually in the past, writers are able to include hints of what happens later on.

Sometimes, narrative-style history books or articles are also written like this, for example you might see something like, 'Shakespeare was a playwright and actor born in Stratford-upon-Avon. He was to write some of the most famous English plays of all time.' Here, 'was to' outlines what was going to happen but this has already happened - at the time of Shakespeare's birth, nobody knew he would become famous for his plays but in the present day, many people know who Shakespeare is.

This was a much longer explanation than I had expected, but I hope this helps!

Edit: It might help to contrast 'was/were + infinitive' with 'am/is + infinitive'.

For example: 'I am to go to London for a business trip.' Here, we know that the plan for the person is to go to London for a business trip, but we don't know anything about what will happen afterwards because it is not something that has already happened.

In the same way, 'She is to visit a friend in New York as a surprise.' tells us a plan for the future but nothing about what happens afterwards. If this event has already happened and we know something about an event that followed, you could say something like 'She was to visit a friend in New York as a surprise, only to find that her friend had moved to San Francisco.'