What does "to" mean when an infinitive takes it? The "to" used with infinitives has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. It is just there to show grammatically, where necessary, that an infinitive is being used, and not some other

a unique situation is correct. You have to go by the pronunciation, not by the spelling. yoo-neek is the pronunciation of unique . CJ

You posted this question in two different threads. It must be at least three. I've also already answered the same question somewhere, and my response is not found above. CJ

"Not only did she drop the wine, she also broke the glass. " "Not only did she drop the wine, but also broke the glass." "Not only did she drop the wine ,but she also broke the glass." Which of these is

The noun after "one of" is always plural. friend s in this case. I can't think of an exception. CJ

Must the preposition infinitive marker 'to' be repeated in these cases? No. You can always include it or leave it out as you like. There is no rule. Most of the time you'll find that people leave it out. CJ

We often use 'would' when we mean 'used to' (When I was a kid I would stay out until midnight). Quite true. But do the Google exercise I suggested above, and on each Google hit, read it though as it is originally, and then again,

a new Google trick with the asterisks Oh, yes! That's a good trick! You're welcome. CJ

In other words, I thought that, as an object (noun), I should use the verb in the -ing form, and not in the infinitive. Actually, the infinitive can also serve the function of a noun and be an object. It depends on the verb. Note, below, how the

Does that happen because of the type of the verb? Yes, it does. In fact the formula that I showed you above depends entirely on the verb do . The pattern is called a 'pseudo-cleft with do ', and there are other posts on English Forums that