Please read this sentence and answer the question below.

"He threw a stone to a frog to hit it."

So, did he hit a frog? I mean, did he manage to hit a frog eventually?
That is about the infinitive of result.

According to this notion, "to hit it" means the event be the result. so that he managed to hit it.
How can it be like that? It can't mean as the result by anybody's perspective, I think.

So, here's the question.

Can it mean that he finally managed to hit a frog with the stone thrown by him?
Or that he just threw in order to hit it, but whether he hit it or not is not yet shown?

well, i'm slightly confused.
I have known that to-infinitive meaning the result is in English. isn't it? then,

How can I use "to-infivitive" meaning the result properly?

and sorry for my question to be "falling" enormously like this.
He threw a stone at a frog to hit it. = ... in an attempt to hit it. = ... in order to hit it.

This is not an infinitive of result; it is an infinitive of purpose. He wanted to hit the frog with the stone; he attempted to hit the frog with the stone. There is no mention whether the attempt was successful. He may have hit the frog; he may have missed. The infinitive of purpose occurs much more often in English than the infinitive of result. In fact, most discussions of the infinitive of result that you may find on the internet are discussions of the grammar of the Greek language.

The infinitive of result is often preceded by only.

The teacher raised our expectations only to disappoint them.
The guests arrived (only) to find the house empty.

Other examples occur after specific verbs, such as come, manage, and remember.

Eventually they came to hate the dictator. (They did hate him.)

Most of the students managed to pass the exam. (They did pass.)
Louise remembered to turn off the lights before leaving. (She did turn off the lights.)

It sometimes takes a keen awareness of the subtleties of English to distinguish between an infinitive of purpose and an infinitive of result. It is actually much more difficult to construct a convincing sentence with an infinitive of result than it may seem at first. Both interpretations are sometimes possible.

The lecturer mentioned the poetry of Dorothy Parker only to criticize it.
... for the sole purpose of criticizing it.
... and then criticized it.

If both interpretations are possible, you may as well call it an infinitive of purpose.

He threw the stone in an attempt to hit the frog with it. The sentence does not tell you if he was successful at hitting the frog. You know this because it is almost impossible for a frog to hit a moving stone.

However, the meaning would be much different if the sentence said, "He threw a baseball at the batter to hit it." This would mean the ball was thrown so the batter could hit it." Batters are people, and therefore not referred to as "it." Also, batters can easily hit a flying ball and are expected to do so. Again, this sentence does not tell you if he was successful.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
 CalifJim's reply was promoted to an answer.
Great post, CJ!