The addition of the infinitive to the subject or object is one of the syntactic structures in which accuracy plays an important role in the correct understanding the meaning of the verses of the Holy Quran. Sometimes there is disagreement among the scholars who interpret the Holy Book of Quran in determining whether the infinitive is added to the subject or to the object. Translators have sometimes provided an inadequate translation. This article has tried to discover ways to resolve the difference in determining the qualificative role of genitive case and also to provide an expressive translation of this structure by using a descriptive-analytical-critical method and by examining a number of infinitives added to the subject or object in the Holy Quran. The solutions to resolve the dispute are as follows: Paying attention to how the sentences relate to each other, paying attention to the citation of the subject in the verse, paying attention to the reason for using rhetorical devices in the verse, paying attention to the interpretive context (the context of the discussed verse, the guiding purpose of the Surah), paying attention to the verses and narrations of the same subject of the verse and paying attention to the requirements of servant politeness. The use of these solutions in order to provide a correct and expressive translation of the infinitive structure added to the subject or the object is necessary: The use of verb in the translation of the infinitive, the use of an appropriate word for translation of the pronoun, the use of an appropriate word in addition to the accompanying added infinitive, the use of the explanations in parentheses, the avoidance of compression writing and the avoidance of literal translation.

Propositional characteristics can be expressed by infinitives in Russian language. So the sentence is one-word. Infinitives can express potential acts; so that they can express virtual or indirect meanings. In a one-word sentence or a single-capacity structure, infinitive can have meanings like: mandatory agreement of speaker with audience and inevitability of an act with sыть infinitive, disagreeability, a state or act done directly by a physical or mental perception, logical subject evaluating an action or a state, indispensability, etc. This article explains the mentioned meanings in the structure of infinitive one-word sentences and discusses the methods of expressing them in Persian language.

The Infinitive Noun is one of the types of names in the Arabic and Persian languages, which is different from the Infinitive sometimes. . . The most important new results of the research can be summarized in: that the Persian language has more diverse ways to formulate the Infinitive Noun of the Arabic language; In Arabic and its semantic effect is most often used in non-source and non-issuer use, while the Infinitive Noun in Persian is due to the large number of its forms. This may lead to the meaning of the Infinitive. The meaning of the name may be descriptive and maybe in two different contexts. Although there is a difference in the meaning of the subject of derivation in Arabic and Persian, but the Infinitive Noun in Arabic is not one of the eight known derivatives, although it has a root and weight, and in Persian is a derivative name. The Infinitive Noun is rarely used in Arabic in the sense of the Infinitive, and it is rarely used in its work. However, there is a common point for the Infinitive Noun in both languages. The Infinitive Noun in both languages gets subject and object by additional structure if it has meaning and significance.

In Bahram Gur and Lonbak, the water seller tale there is an episode where Lonbak stands to receive Bahram. Right after this scene there is a couplet. With respect to the records found in different manuscripts of Shahnameh and one or two such parallels, probably the right form of the verb in the second hemistich is Bebanjid. This verb is a derivative of the infinitive “ Banjidan” which means to divide, and cut into pieces. The present mode stem used to make this false or secondary infinitive may be the second present mode stem of the infinitive “ Bakhtan” in Pahlavi in which case banj is taken from the root baj which means to divide and to give so that the meaning of the couplet considering the deductive edition will be as follows: Bahram divided the food Lonbak offered him into two or three parts and put them of the table.

There are a number of infinitive forms in some Iranian dialects and patois of Isfahan Province, belonging to the Central dialects, i.e. Central Plateau Dialect (CPD) group or Median dialects by some western scholars. In this paper, which is mostly based on the author's fieldwork, an attempt is made to describe the structure of the infinitive in these dialects. There are four major types of infinitives that are formed by adding suffixes to the past stem and in one case, to the present stem. However, in most dialects there are two or three complementary types, one as verbal noun, and another as main verb usually used with modals.

IntroductionEver since the onset of generative tradition in the nineteen fifties, probing into the nature of the theory of grammar received its greatest impact from the English-type accounts. Finite theory of control, as such, was not considered a mainstream approach at the time (Landau, 2004; Landau, 2013; Landau, 2024) with PRO appearing only in nonfinite clauses, receiving no case (Chomsky, 1981). As a result, this study aims at investigating control constructions in Persian in their finite subjunctive clauses and comparing and contrasting them to the infinitive control constructions typically found in languages like English.To do so, we juxtapose the clausal architecture of finite subjunctive control as seen in Persian and the clausal architecture of non-finite infinitive control as found typically in a language like English. Whereas control constructions in a language like English appear in their bare infinitive clauses, with no overt manifestation of formal properties, the same type of constructions in Persian appear productively in non-bare finite clauses of the subjunctives. This dissimilarity in clausal architecture of English and Persian can be compared and contrasted in (1) and (2) respectively.Sara tæsmim=gereft ke    æz   talar  birun be-r-e.Sara decision=took.3Sg. that from hall   out    Sbj-go-3Sg.[1]“Sarah decided to leave the hall.”Generally, these differences amount to saying that the two constructions in the two languages have two different types of embedded clause architectures, i.e. infinitive vs. finite complementation for the relevant embedded clause. The architecture, interestingly includes several properties that mark these clauses absolutely different from the infinitives. In what follows, we will demonstrate these differences by contrasting the two types of constructions in English and Persian as seen typically in examples (1) and (2) above.The juxtaposition of the two types of embedded constructions, as seen in the two types of languages above, provides us with two relevant types of architectures for the embedded clause cross-linguistically, i.e. the non-finite infinitive clause and the finite subjunctive complementation. While the embedded clause in (1) is a typical non-finite clause of the type bare infinitive construction found in a language like English, the parallel construction in (2) is a finite construction in Persian (Darzi, 2008; Karimi, 2008a; Ilkhanipour, 2014; Pirooz, 2010; 2016). As a result of the finite complementation, the embedded clause in (2) includes person and number endings, and as such introduces a TP projection in the embedded clause with [parson], [number], and [tense], similar to that of the matrix clause. As such, these embedded clauses are finite clauses (Cowper, 2016) as the verbal element obligatorily receives person and number ending completely similar to that of the matrix clause verbal element. This divorces the infinitival nature of the embedded control construction in these constructions, and as a result, integrates finite complementation into the embedded control constructions, as found similarly in other languages (Landau, 2004; 2013; 2024; Terzi, 1997). This is interesting when we also find non-finite control in the Persian with nominal infinitives, or gerunds in this language as well (Darzi, 2001; Pirooz, 2011; 2021).Interestingly, PRO actively appears in finite control constructions, similar to the non-finite, infinitive found typically in a language like English, contra the GB approach of the time (Chomsky, 1981) and as such, values/checks structural Nominative in the course of the embedded clause derivation, contra the Null Case approach (Martin, 2001), divorcing the PRO Theorem (Chomsky, 1981) in these finite environments (Landau, 2006; Sigurdsson, 2008; Pirooz, 2016). The construction of an embedded control construction in a sentence like (2) above has a TP, with the [person], [number], and [tense] actively present in the derivation, where the verbal element obligatorily receives person and number ending. As such, PRO base-generated within vP moves Spec;TP to check Nominative structurally (Pirooz, 2016). These appear in (2) above, repeated as (3) below with the relevant elements added to the derivation, shown in boldface for the convenience sake.Sara tæsmim=gereft …[TP PRONom. [vP PRO æz talar birun be-r-e]].Secondly, whereas the embedded clause in (1) typically appears in a bare infinitive construction, the embedded clause in (2) appears in the subjunctive construction, with the subjunctive clitic be- prefixed to the verbal element. This makes it possible to introduce a mood phrase (i.e. MoodP) into the derivation, headed by the subjunctive clitic be- prefixed ultimately to the beginning of the verbal element. These elements that appear in (2) above, are included in the derivation (4) below in boldface the for convenience sake.Sara tæmim=gereft … [MoodP [TP PRO [vP PRO æz talar birun be-r-e]]].Thirdly, whereas the embedded clause in a control construction in a language like English does not hold a CP projection, the embedded clause in (2) inadvertently includes a CP projection, with the complementizer ke “that” appearing as the head of the CP (Darzi, 2008; Hashemipour, 1989; Ilkhanipour, 2014; Karimi, 2008a; Pirooz, 2010; Pirooz, 2016). The CP projection and its relevant complementizer head ke in (2) above, are added to the derivation shown in in boldface in (5) below:Sara tæsmim=gereft [CP ke [MoodP [TP PRO [vP PRO æz talar birun be-r-e]]]].Therefore, the difference between the infinitive-type English complementation for a language like English and the finite-subjunctive complementation in embedded control constructions can be linearized below.Finite vs. Infinitive ComplementationInfinitive complementation (English)… [InfP PRO …]Finite complementation (Persian)… [CP ke [MoodP be- [TP PRONom. [vP [ PRO … be-v …]]]]]]These differences undoubtedly show a change of the idea of the control constructions from the early English-type accounts of non-finite control complementation, to the inclusion of finite and/or subjunctive complementation in the minimalist accounts. More specifically, the finite-subjunctive theory of control, as we see here, and as we see cross-linguistically, results in a shift of attention from merely considering finite and/or subjunctive control constructions as something marginal to the mainstream control constructions of the GB-type era, to embracing them as a new typology of control constructions with a new clausal architecture that shares its architectural properties with those ones in the matrix clause architecture (Landau, 2004; 2013; 2024).  Conclusion In what follows, we will demonstrate how this theory of finiteness, as we illustrated here and as are found in the relevant literature of control complementations in other languages, resulted in the development and/or extensions in the theory of control, starting from the pre-GB era to the most recent minimalist accounts.Firstly, as the theory of generative grammar took its earliest explanations from the English-type languages, the earlier accounts of the theory of control and PRO dissociated finiteness from control constructions altogether, and related them to infinitive complementation found in a language like English. Therefore, a language like Persian at the time with the finite,  non- infinitive control construction (Hashemipour, 1988; 1989) or having a subjunctive clause having merely a bare vP (Wurmbrand, 2001) to lack a CP projection (Ghomeshi, 2001) was considered exceptional, or marginal to the conception of the infinitive control, found in the mainstream-type languages like English. Secondly, since English does not typically utilize the subjunctive complementation, or alternatively, since the class of subjunctives in English does not generate control constructions, the earlier accounts of control in subjunctive constructions in the languages that have these constructions appeared marginal to the mainstream generativist accounts, though these studies have a history of their own, beginning in the 1980s and the 1990s (1998; Terzi, 1997; Hashemipour, 1988; 1989), among many others.Thirdly, the earliest accounts of infinitive-type control constructions considered the empty category PRO to be ungoverned with no Case, appearing only in the subject position of the infinitive clause (Chomsky, 1981). This was again to the exclusion of this empty category PRO in the finite clauses in the theory of syntax. Subsequently, at the time PRO was considered an exceptional nominal empty category, appearing only in the subject position of a non- finite infinitive construction, and not in that of a finite construction. However, with the development of the idea that PRO is a regular empty category, checking regular structural Case, and having regular morphological case similar to any other nominal elements elsewhere in the sentence (Sigurdsson, 2008; Landau, 2008), a regular Case/case was valued/checked for the PRO, and was received morphologically by PRO in languages like Persian that show PRO having regular Case/case (Pirooz, 2016).Finally, with the overt manifestation of the CP, and with the overt complementizer head ke “that” in these control constructions (Darzi, 2008; Ilkhanipour, 2014; Pirooz, 2016; Karimi, 2008a), Persian illustrates that the presence of a controlled CP is a possibility in control constructions. This makes the language similar to other languages that have this type of projection in their embedded control construction (Witkos, 2010; Sevdali, 2012), and dissimilar to the infinitive-type languages with no CP in their control environments. Nonetheless, as these control CPs in Persian are porous to a matrix probe, they allow for the ϕ-features of PRO to be controlled, i.e. valued/checked phase-externally, the theory of finite control in Persian provides challenges for the Phase Impenetrability of Condition. [1]. 3Sg.: third person singular, Sbj.: subjunctive, tæsmim=gereft: a complex-predicate control verb

Regarding its historical.background, the structure of Urdu has some considerable forms the investigation of which helps us to understand it better. Infinitives are among the structural components of any language and since the majority of words in Urdu are borrowed from other languages, taking into account the ever-increasing acceptance rate of words from other languages, simple, compound and fictitious infinitives in Urdu have various features,. The investigation of the background and the structures of infinitives are of paramount importancein understatingthis language..

What is renowned among Shi’ite jurists, is that minor ablution (wuḍū) has the meaning of the gerund, based on popular belief cleanliness resulting from acts of ablution (ritual washings–ghaslāt–and three ritual wiping touches–masḥāt) is meant for ablution. In contrast to this view, some theoreticians (uṣūlīs) believe that "ablution" has the infinitive meaning. In this paper, on the one hand the reasons each of the two groups have presented or can be presented to prove their claim is going to be mentioned and on the other hand, by bringing up the affects that each of these two principles have, will provide the ground for research on some fundamental issues such as the "implications of prohibition of corruption" and "taking wages for acts of obligation" and finally, in addition to strengthening the infinitive meaning for purification and as evidence for the theory of "Pierce" on this point, it evaluates the correctness and incorrectness of the results, which mean infinitive and gerund in some issues.

Infinitive, as one of the types of quasi-verbs, is a noun that refers to doing something or occurring a state without a conjugation to time. The infinitive acts like its verb it is derived from: if it is derived from an intransitive verb, it will have only the subject and often is added to it. But if it is derived from a transitive verb, it verbally will make its subject take the Jar marks((ًَ and become Majroor,and it also make the object take the Nasb marks ((ٍِ become Mansoob. The acceptance of the object by the transitive infinitive has several states and rulings,the knowledge of which helps the reader to understand the exact meaning of the phrase. One of the important and at the same time challenging topics of this field is the category of acceptance of the object by the infinitive in both direct and indirect modes. This study is to express the various grammatical roles and spiritual functioning of infinitive through descriptive-analytic method, for the readers better understand that infinitive’s effect on the object is not only in the form of Nasb, i. e. ( (ٍ, rather, its scope is far more than that, encompassing the Majroor objects as well, which due to Jarr words take the Majroor marks i. e. ((ًَ. Though the classic Nahv (Arabs grammar) due to its attention towards E'arab(Sounds) and detailism does know these group of the objects as alien infinitives and has opened another chapter for them.

Value creation as a new paradigm is a factor in investment criterion, so it can measure and manage shareholder,s value to maximize wealth and return of shareholders. In this subject, management shareholder,s value(MSV) suggests some tools such as economical value added (EVA), market value added (MVA) and cash value added (CVA).In this paper we have examined management shareholder,s value in capital stock exchange companies during the years 1380 to 1385, number of companies existed in metal industry group were about twenty six but only twenty four companies financial information (observations) were available for our sample test.We have examined value based factors such as economical value added and market value added with shareholders value added (SVA) by regression analysis and according to the result, correlation between these variables (EVA & MVA) with (SVA) proved, there was a negative correlation between (EVA) and (SVA) and  positive correlation between (MVA) and (SVA) so, the results indicate that they are appropriate predictors in managing investment value added for investors.