I often come across this grammatical structure /to be to/, more often in its negative form.
1: That man IS NOT TO BE trusted.
2: You ARE NOT TO speak to anyone about it.
In what extend is this different from the imperative form?
How about this sentence I heard once: does it make sense?
"I met X yesterday, she said she WAS TO leave for Germany?"
.... 'she said she was leaving for Germany?' or 'she said she would leave for Germany?'....may be more correct.
What do you think?
You are not to touch it = 1) mega-imperative- touch it and die. 2) Often used in formal language
be + infinitive- can be used as a future, like going to or the present continuous, again often used formally, but not exclusively. You're reading of the meaning is correct, but the original sentence is perfectly correct.