Some suppositions about passive structures. Are they correct?

[Doubtful]

Hello everybody! This is my first post here and first of all I would like to introduce myself a little: I´m a Spanish student very interested in grammar English structures. When I read English grammar books I like to go a little beyond because I always try to compare English structures with the Spanish ones and I like to see the similarities and the differences they may have. The other day I was reading a unit about reporting with passive verbs so I focused my attention on this structure:

It + passive verb + that-clause
(Example: It is reported that the damage is extensive.)

The book says there´s another way of saying the same, using as well a verb in passive form that is used when we want the subject to be the topic of the sentece. The structure is as follows:

Subject + passive verb + to-infinitive
(Example: The damage is reported to be extensive.)

The book doesn´t say much more about this and there are few exercises to practice both structures. But I´ve thinking about this second structure a lot because in Spanish there isn´t anything similar like that. I mean, if we want to translate in Spanish a sentence with the structure Subject + passive verb + to-infinitive we have to do it as if it was written It + passive verb + that-clause, so they are both equivalent. My doubts arise when I try to make out about the possible different combinations of these second structure using different verbal tenses. So, I first focus my attention on the to-infinitive verb. Please, correct me if I´m wrong but I think there are at least four kinds of infinitives. I don´t know if the following ones are their right names but I have tried to name them as I see them. Let´s take for example, the werb "to write". The different four kinds of infinitive would be the following:

Full infinitive-------------------------------> to write
Full perfect infinitive-----------------------> to have written
Full continuous infinitive-------------------> to be writing
Full perfect continuous infinitive-----------> to have been writing

So I think with the structure Subject + passive verb + to-infinitive would admit these four variations:

He is said to write a new novel.
He is said to have written a new novel.
He is said to be writing a new novel.
He is said to have been writing a new novel.

If all I have written until now is correct, here come more doubts: I think these four infinitives would admit different translations depending on the context, what is to say, these four sentences by themselves don´t always give us a clue about the right tense. They need to bet put in a concrete context if I want to be sure about that. For example, let´s imagine a conversation between two friends, when one of them knows a famous writer:

John: What about the new novel of that famous writer? When will it see light?
Peter: I don´t know much about it but he is said to write a new chapter everyday so I think it will be released soon.

And now let´s imagine another slightly different conversation:

John: What about that famous writer? He hasn´t released a book for years!
Peter: Oh well, I´ve heard he has been very busy but the good news are that he is said to write a new novel next year.

I´m not sure if both conversations are possible or well written, but if that´s the case I think the verb "to write" in the first conversation would have a present value whereas the verb "to write" in the second conversation would have a future value.

Am I right or I´m completely wrong? I have more doubts about this but for now I´ll very pleased if someone may explain to me whether all these thoughts are accurate.

Thanks in advance!

[engee30]

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/as...tructures.html

[Doubtful]

Thank you so much engee30!