A very basic question that I should not ask but I ask anyway :)

Why we say "To be verbs" when it is actually "an infinitive". I think if it was a verb, then it mustn't have forms such as (am, is, are). This must actually be an infinitive with the base verb "be" and other forms based on different tenses.
I mean we should say "be" verb instead of "to be" verbs. Also, if "to be" was a verb, it's meaning should be similar based on each subject.

Take the example of "to walk". We say it's an infinitive with "walk" as a base verb. And the meaning of "walk" is intact based on the subjects. But, for "to be" it seems it is reverse.

Question

A very basic question that I should not ask but I ask anyway :)

Why we say "To be verbs" when it is actually "an infinitive". I think if it was a verb, then it mustn't have forms such as (am, is, are). This must actually be an infinitive with the base verb "be" and other forms based on different tenses.
I mean we should say "be" verb instead of "to be" verbs. Also, if "to be" was a verb, it's meaning should be similar based on each subject.

Take the example of "to walk". We say it's an infinitive with "walk" as a base verb. And the meaning of "walk" is intact based on the subjects. But, for "to be" it seems it is reverse.

Answer

I don't understand the question.

Answer

because you never use "to must", "to can", "to should" etc.

Answer

It is still a verb, it's just that this one is irregular, which happens to many verbs in English.

Answer

This is an interesting question.
I had not thought about this before.

"To be" does change forms more than other verbs.

"am / is / are" compared to "walk / walks" or "eat / eats."

I don't know why, but it is interesting to think about.
Good luck!

Antworten · 4

Haben Sie noch keine Antworten gefunden?

Verpassen Sie nicht die Gelegenheit, bequem von zu Hause aus eine Sprache zu lernen. Stöbern Sie in unserer Auswahl an erfahrenen Sprachlehrern und melden Sie sich jetzt zu Ihrer ersten Unterrichtsstunde an!