be + to + verb and be + verb

Question

What's the difference between the following sentences?

All I wanted was + to + break your walls

All you ever did was + wreck me

One of them with to but the other one without to.

And Could we add to to the second sentence?

All you ever did was + (to) + wreck me

Hi, PrisonPants, The first part of your question is identical to the question you asked before, (be + to + verb) Grammar and you need to include the link and explain why you are asking the same question again. — , Feb 04 '16 at 04:54

score 0 · Accepted Answer · answered Feb 03 '16 at 22:03

0

The difference is that the first uses "wanted", which takes a to-infinitive, not a bare infinitive.

The second uses "did", which takes a bare infinitive.

Having said that, "to" is possible in the second example, and I'm not sure why.

answered Feb 03 '16 at 22:03

Colin Fine

All I wanted was break your walls is wrong? – PrisonPants Feb 03 '16 at 22:09
It's not something that I would regard as grammatical. – Colin Fine Feb 03 '16 at 23:23

score 0 · Answer 2 · answered Apr 10 '17 at 01:12

Simply be + to + verb means both HAVE TO, OUGHT TO and BE + VERB + ING.

HAVE TO : It means the person doesn't have any choice than doing it.

OUGHT TO : A suggestion or instruction

BE + VERB + ING : something that you are going to do in the future but it's planned and the day is known.

So be + to + verb are used ONLY in the above scenarios.

Examples

Future: The train is going to arrive in the station in the next hour NOW remove "going" The train is to arrive in the station in the next hour

Command: You have to complete your assignments NOW replace "have to" with "are to" You are to complete your assignments

Suggestion: You ought to complete your new movie NOW replace "ought to" with "are to" You are to complete your new movie

Now for your question. No you can't use (to) because neither the sentences do satisfy the aforesaid scenarios.

2 Answers2