Using of infinitive

[Efl_unit]

Hi to all! I have some questions about some cases of infinitive using.
Infinitive in perfect:
"I intended to have finished my work last night".
I have read about what the perfect tense in the perfect form is used for, but I don't understand if it is really clear from the sentence above I haven't finish that work?

Naturally, it's easier for me to express the same idea using the past simple tense. However, I doubt it will have the same meaning.

By the way, if I would like to express that in one sentence, and if "I intended to have finished my work last night", I didn't finished it, or I haven't finished it so far? I didn't understand to which tense at the first part ot the sentence I must refer (intended= past simple tense, have finished= present perfect tense).

The second case. Infinitive in continuous :
"The weather seems to be improving."
It seems this sentence could be expressed in the following way:
"The weather is getting better". As for me the last sentence is simpler, easier to understand and has the same meaning. Which one is more usable?

I don't give any context because those are examples from a grammar book...

[heather]

"The weather seems to be improving."

кажется ,тут нет continuous.а вот Complex Subject -похоже.Расшифровка:
it seems that the weather will be improving-кажись,погода будет налаживаться.
improving-это типа,прилагательное.

[Yety]

кажется, тут нет continuous

Есть continuous infinitive.

improving - это, типа, прилагательное.

Это не прилагательное - это present participle в составе continuous infinitive.

а вот Complex Subject - похоже.

Да, эта конструкция в отечественной традиции обозвана так - по образцу латинской грамматики.

Расшифровка:
it seems that the weather will be IS improving - кажись, погода будет налаживаЕться.

Кажется, погода налаживается.

I have a few questions

Will address a bit later, asap.

[Yety]

1/5.

I have a few questions about the usage of the infinitive.

Perfect Infinitive:
"I intended to have finished my work last night".
I have read about why the perfect infinitive is used here, but I'm not sure if it is really clear from the sentence above that 'I' never finished that work.

It is absolutely clear that the action in the perfect infinitive form did not take place by the designated time.
But it is also obvious that the syntax you are using here was picked up from either very dated or not authentic sources.=)

If you were to have a look at the books, you'd find hardly any entries of a perfect infinitive after intended that are less than a hundred years old. In fact, the vast majority of quotes are from books published in the 18th and 19th centuries, to quote but a couple:

1833
I intended to have finished my letter before, but could not. We were much pleased with the appearance of the congregation with which we worshipped, at Auburn, on the Sabbath. There is evidently a work of the Spirit among them.
1747
He intended to have finished a supplement to that work, from 1660 to 1683, but was prevented by death.

Actually, the only example of a recent entry that could be found reads as follows:

1995
However, because the crushing schedule included 10 working days of slack time, we conclude that, absent delays, appellant intended to have completed all of the crushing work before the onset of the rainy season, consistent with its bid schedule.

And the latter quote is from a book in legalese, the phrasing clearly meant to emphasise the idea of 'a failed deadline'.

[Yety]

2/5.

Long story ...Показать

The construction in question turns out to have been frequently discussed [sic!] in grammar books, - mostly vintage (check out the dates!) ones, though.
Here it was used in an example sentence:

· 1896
PAGE 235
6. The use of the perfect infinitive phrase throws the completion of the act back of the time expressed by the principal verb, or by an adverbial adjunct.
Ex. - He is supposed to have gone to Chicago.
I intended to have finished the work before this date.
To have accomplished the work is all that is necessary.

But this syntax is frowned upon in the other books, both older and more recent than the one above.
The oldest (and most eloquent=)) book found that addresses the subject:

· 1779
PAGE 107
One of the greatest barbarisms in the English tongue, and which amazes me that scarcely any author avoids, is the using the preter-perfect tense of the infinitive mood where we ought to use the present or future.
I was going to have written him a letter. - I intended to have written to him. - Can there be a greater impropriety than this? Is it not plain we ought to say I was going to write him a letter . - I intended to write to him.
When we talk of going to have done a thing, or of intending to have done it, we speak of the thing's being done, as prior to the setting about it, or intending it.

The most recent book that deals with the topic, by an Indian publisher, is a paraphrase of earlier authors:

· 2017
4. In order to employ the two tenses of the infinitive mood with propriety, particular attention should be paid to the meaning of what we express.
Verbs expressive of hope, desire, intention or command, ought to be followed by the PRESENT tense of the Infinitive mood.
“Last week I intended to have written,” is improper. The intention of writing was then present with me; and, therefore, the construction should be, “I intended to write.” The following examples are also inaccurate; “I found him better than I expected to have found him;" "My purpose was, after spending ten months more in commerce, to have withdrawn my wealth to another country." They should be, "expected to find him;" "to withdraw my wealth." ...

[Yety]

3/5.

Looong story ...Показать

Other sources have been arranged in chronological order so that you could clearly see who 'borrowed' from whom. The wave started by Robert Baker seems to have been pushed forward by the highly-esteemed Mr Murray with most horrifying consequences envisioned=):

· 1819
PAGE 187
1. With regard to verbs in the infinitive mood, the practice of many writers, and some even of our most respectable writers, appear to be erroneous. They seem not to advert to the true principles, which influence the different tenses of this mood. We shall produce some rules on the subject, which, we presume, will be found perspicuous and accurate.

"All verbs expressive of hope, desire, intention or command, must invariably be followed by the present, and not the perfect of the infinitive." “The last week I intended to have written,” is a very common phrase; the infinitive being in the past time, as well as the verb which it follows. But it is evidently wrong: for how long soever it now is since I thought of writing, "to write" was then present to me; and must still be considered as present, when I bring back that time, and the thoughts of it. It ought to be; “The last week, I intended to write.”

The following sentence is properly and analogically expressed: "I found him better than I expected to find him." "Expected to have found him," is irreconcilable alike to grammar and to sense. Indeed, all verbs expressive of hope, desire, intention, or command, must invariably be followed by hte present, and not the perfect of the infinitive. Every person would perceive an error in this expression -- "It is long since I commanded him to have done it," yet "expected to have found" is no better. It is as clear that the finding must be posterior to the expectation, as that the obedience must be posterior to the command.

Some writers on grammar contend, that the sentence, "I intend to have written," is correct and grammatical; because it simply denotes, as they assert, the speaker's intention to be hereafter in possession of the finished action of writing. But to this reasoning the following answer may be given: that the phrase, "to have written," is stated, in English grammars, as the established past tense of the infinitive mood; that it is as incontrovertibly the past tense of the infinitive in English, as scripsisse is the past tense of the infinitive in Latin; that no writers can be warranted in taking such liberties with the language, as to contradict its plainest rules, for the sake of supporting an hypothesis; that these writers might, on their own principles, and with equal propriety, contend, that the phrase, "I intend having written," is proper and grammatical; and that, by admitting such violations of established grammatical distinctions, confusion would be introduced, the language would be disorganized, and the most eccentric systems of grammarmight be advanced, and plausibly supported. -- In short {ТУТ СТАЛО ОЧЕНЬ СМЕШНО=)))}, the phrase, "I intend to have written," appears to involve the following absurdity; "I intend to produce hereafter an action or event, which has been already completed."

As the verbs to desire and to wish, are nearly related, ...

Later, he simplified and abridged his musings on the subject:

· 1834
PAGE 180

... It may, however, be of use to give a few examples of irregular construction. “The last week I intended to have written," is a very common phrase; the infinitive being in the past time, as well as the verb which it follows. But it is certainly wrong: for how long soever it now is since I thought of writing, "to write" was then present to me, and must still be considered as present, when I bring back that time, and the thoughts of it. It ought, therefore, to be, "The last week I intended to write." The following sentences are also erroneous: "I cannot excuse the remissness of those whose business it should have been, as it certainly was their interest, to have interposed their good offices." "There were two circumstances which made it necessary for them to have lost no time." "History painters would have found it difficult to have invented such a species of beings." They ought to be, "to interpose, to lose, to invent."...

[englishbook]

Just for the record.

I was surprised to read this:

I didn't understand to which tense at the first part ot the sentence I must refer (intended= past simple tense, have finished= present perfect tense).
You seem to have a good grasp of English but you don't understand that the perfect infinitive and the present perfect tense are different phenomena in terms of grammar. The sentence has nothing to do with the present perfect tense.

[Yety]

4/5.

Loooooong story ...Показать

The great Dr Johnson also had a say on the matter:

· 1839
PAGE 51
It very often happens that the auxiliary to have is employed with the participle to give the infinitive mood a perfect or past signification; but in so using it a great many mistakes occur, when the governing verb itself expresses a past time. We should on all these occasions consider the force of the auxiliary to have, and pay particular attention to the times we mean to express. The following instances of erroneous construction in this particular will afford the best explanation: "Last week I intended to have written;" this is incorrect, for we do not mean to say that "we intended to have written at some time previous to last week," but that "we intended to write last week:" "I found him better than I expected to have found him:" this is also incorrect, for we do not mean "beter than we expected to find him at the time we found him," and not, "better than we expected to have found him at any previous period:" "I commanded him yesterday to have done it;" here we instantly perceive the error, and yet it is not more incorrect than the above instances; we mean that "we commanded him to have done something the day before;" for in such case th eobedience would be previous to the command, which is absurd.

· 1840
PAGE 254
ЦИТИРУЕТ МЮРРЕЯ:
960. All verbs expressive of hope, desire, intention or command, must invariably be followed by the present, and not the perfect of the infinitive. “Last week I intended to have written.” It ought to be, “Last week I intended to write.” -- MURRAY.

РАЗЪЯСНЯЕТ ОТ СЕБЯ:
961. The infinitive in the last example is used relatively; it refers to the past action expressed by the verb intended, and expresses an action present in past time. To say, 'I intended to have written,' presupposes the writing to be prior to the intention, which is impossible. Substitute the participle, 'I intended writing,' and all doubt respecting the more appropriate form is removed. --
И ДАЛЕЕ ОЧЕНЬ МНОГО ПРИМЕРОВ ТАКОГО БЕЗОБРАЗИЯ.

· 1859
PAGE 158
"I intended to have written." Will you point out the incorrectness of this sentence, and give a rule for it ? "
...
... when verbs of that mood are expressed as follows -- to have been writing, to have written, and to have been written - they always denote something antecedent to the time of the governing verb. This remark is thought to be of importance; for, if duly attended to, it will, in most cases, be sufficient to direct us in the relative application of these tenses.
The following sentence is properly and analogically expressed: "I found him better than I expected to find him." "Expected to have found him," is irreconcilable alike to grammar and to sense. Indeed, all verbs expressive of hope, desire, intention, or command, must invariably be followed by hte present, and not the perfect of the infinitive. Every person would perceive an error in this expression -- "It is long since I commanded him to have done it," yet "expected to have found" is no better. It is as clear that the finding must be posterior to the expectation, as that the obedience must be posterior to the command.

· 1864
PAGE 110
EXERCISES TO BE CORRECTED
I always intended to have rewarded my son according to his merit. ... I intended to have written you last week.*

*RULE.
After the Past Tense, the indef. infinitive (and not the perfect) should be used; as, I intended to write my father, and not, I intended to have written: - for however long it now is since I thought of writing, to write was the act I intended, and must still be considered as present when I bring back that time, and the thought of it.

The discussed construction is listed among errors in the use of English:

·1881
PAGE 98
Akin to the above is the error of using the perfect form of the infinitive, for the simple or indefinite form, after a perfect verb,* e.g., 'I intended to have written' for 'I intended to write. ' When the action or state denoted by the secondary verb (the infinitive) is prior to that expressed by the primary verb, then of course that infinitive must be in the perfect, e.g., 'He was proud to have been born in France,' or 'I seemed to have seen the book before.' These are no violation to the rule that, in making a present statement past, only the principal verb need change its tense. Thus 'I expect to hear' becomes 'I expected to hear;' ... and 'He is believed to have written,' [becomes] 'He was believed to have written.' The following specimens of correct usage exemplify our meaning: --
И ДАЛЕЕ ОЧЕНЬ МНОГО ПРИМЕРОВ КОРРЕКТНОГО ПЕРФЕКТНОГО ИНФИНИТИВА.

[Yety]

5/5.

... short.Показать

The meagre discussion, the scarce response and incoherent explanations at the link only go to show how odd it sounds to a native speaker's ear.

A much more straightforward (negative) answer here proves my point at the beginning of the post:

Q.1: The quesiton is from Test of English as a Foreign Language.

I intended to __________ (write) her a letter yesterday, but I forgot to because of the day and evening appointments that I had. (TOEFL)
A. have written B. write

My questions:
1. Which, in your opinion, is the best choice?
2. What's the difference between the two?

A.1: The correct choice is (B) write.

With the verb "intend" (also with plan, expect, try, attempt, decide) we use the simple infinitive because one has the intention to do something right away in the future, never in the past.
You cannot intend to have done something in the past -- it makes no sense.

Q.2: I'd think that we could use 'have written' if we added 'by' before 'yesterday':

I intended to have written her a letter by yesterday, but I forgot to because of the day and evening appointments that I had.

What's your opinion, Gustavo?

A.2: I would have said:

- I had intended to write her a letter by yesterday, but I forgot to because of the day and evening appointments I had.

Wish I'd found it sooner. That would've saved me a couple hours at least.=)

As you can see, according to Gustavo, the idea of a failed deadline can be highlighted by the [plu]perfect form of the main verb rather than that of the infinitive. The perfect form of the infinitive sounds redundant and anachronistic, so to speak.=)

To make matters worse, any past verb form could be used in that context:
I intended/was intending/had intended/had been intending to write her a letter by yesterday, but I forgot...
See this post and the part above it for further research.

PS No matter how redundant/anachronistic the perfect infinitive is here, we should realise that the motivation behind this phrasing is the speaker's intention to stress that 'failed deadline' aspect of the action. Thus, this aspect alone easily makes for the definitive answer to your question:

is it really clear from the sentence above that I never finished that work?

For sure.=) Excessively so.

PPS Now that you know the answer to your first question, you'll know what is meant when you see something like this in a letter by the renowned man of letters:

1768
PAGE 145
... I repent he ever had it. I intended to have written a book on that subject. I believe he has spent it all in one paper, and all the under-hints there are mine too; but I never see him or Addison. The queen is well, but I fear will be no long liver; for I am told she has sometimes the gout in her bowels (I hate the word bowels.)

[Yety]

you don't understand that the perfect infinitive and the present perfect tense are different phenomena in terms of grammar.

Well, I think I do.=)

The sentence has nothing to do with the present perfect tense.

I never said it does.

The most recent book that deals with the topic, by an Indian publisher, is a paraphrase of earlier authors:
English Grammar in Familiar Lectures - Samuel Kirkham пишет:
· 2017

И этот тоже оказался из 19-го века...
· 1833

[englishbook]

The sentence has nothing to do with the present perfect tense.

I never said it does.

Actually, you did say that:

I didn't understand to which tense at the first part ot the sentence I must refer (intended= past simple tense, have finished= present perfect tense).

[Yety]

Actually, you did say that:

Please quote me saying so.

I didn't understand to which tense at the first part ot the sentence I must refer (intended= past simple tense, have finished= present perfect tense).

Actually, those were your words, from the original post, weren't they?=))
See above:

I didn't understand to which tense at the first part ot the sentence I must refer (intended= past simple tense, have finished= present perfect tense).

PS I have to apologise to you for such a lengthy answer. I forgot to warn you that you might want to skip the text under spoilers. Those were parts of my own research - I'd just got mesmerised by this cross-cutting grammatical theme from the purely historic point of view. The short answer is hidden under the final spoiler. Please ignore the rest.

[Yety]

you did say that:

Oh, now I see.
Yety, Efl_unit and englishbook are three different people!=))

[englishbook]

I apolofize, it was Efl_unit who said that.

[Yety]

Nothin' to apologise for, really.
I confused you with Efl_unit myself.=))

[Efl_unit]

I have to apologise to you for such a lengthy answer. I forgot to warn you that you might want to skip the text under spoilers.

You have nothing to apologize for, too))
Moreover, I'm grateful to you for the time you have spent doing such a great job. And it wouldn't be decent not even to see at the text under the spoilers)). I've read it carefully. Thanks!

but you don't understand that the perfect infinitive and the present perfect tense are different phenomena in terms of grammar.

That wasn't the only thing I had mixed up. I wrote that it was naturally for me to use the past simple tense in that example instead of the PERFECT INFINITIVE(of course), but I meant the simple infinitive indeed. I don't know why I wrote about the past simple tense. Sometimes my brain and hands live their own lives separately.
It was the first idea to come into my mind for saying: "I intended to finish...". Anyway, thank you for your corrections too.

[Yety]

The second case. Continuous Infinitive:
"The weather seems to be improving."
It seems this sentence could be expressed in the following way:
"IT SEEMS the weather is getting better".

For me, the latter sentence is simpler, easier to understand

Well, the level of complexity of the former sentence is not much higher (especially for a native speaker), so it is hardly an argument in favour of your hypothesis.

and has the same meaning.

Not unless you provide the 'IT SEEMS' part.

Which one is more often used?

See no big difference between "The weather seems to be getting better" and "It seems the weather is getting better".
The former sounds smooth enough.

PS Just like:

It seems this sentence could be expressed in the following way:

could be, perhaps just a little awkwardly, rephrased:
This sentence could seem to be expressed in the following way ...

If you can't seem to understand how the underlined part works, you may want to study the multiple examples here:
can't seem to understand
=)))

You have nothing to apologize for, either.))

Well, I meant nothing too serious by that apology, either.

Thanks!

You're most welcome. I couldn't seem to stop/help digging in those books and obviously got carried away just a little.
=))))))

#ComplexSubject

[Efl_unit]

the level of complexity of the former sentence is not much higher

It’s more about the complexity of seeing something new. My own complexity if perception first...
I'm accustomed to some kind of constructions(actually, as all the learners, I think...), so, I try to rephrase each unknown construction subconsciously. Fist, when I see a new construction, I try to find out if the construction is commonly used. If it is, I try to remember and use it...

See no big difference between "The weather seems to be getting better" and "It seems the weather is getting better".

I keep trying to avoid the "seem to be" construction because of this:

"Seem is often followed by to be. We prefer seem to be when we are talking about objective facts – things that seem definitely to be true."

I consider every situation from MY point of view mostly. So, I'm not sure others to have the same opinion.

[Yety]

I'm accustomed to certain kinds of constructions (actually, as all learners, I think...), so I try to rephrase each unknown construction subconsciously. Fist, when I see a new construction, I try to find out if the construction is commonly used.

This one is very common. Time to broaden your horizons.=)

I keep trying to avoid the "seem to be" construction because of this:

"Seem is often followed by to be. We prefer seem to be when we are talking about objective facts – things that seem definitely to be true."

I consider every situation from MY point of view mostly. So, I'm not sure if others hold the same opinion.

You misunderstand Michael Swan's instruction here, I'm afraid. You can read the text of it in its full context here:
Yety (To be)

The opposition is between sentences like She seems a nice girl and She seems to be a nice girl.
The latter is phrased to sound more objective, which is quite logical - the 'to be' in it is a relict of the copula verb ('is') in the "original" sentence
It seems she IS (COP) a nice girl.
In short, if there's 'to be', she definitely IS so!

But this opposition has little to do with the discussed sentence. The verb 'to be' in "The weather seems to be getting better" is a relict of the auxiliary verb 'IS' in the "original" sentence
It seems the weather IS (AUX) getting better.
"The weather seems to be improving" is very rarely used without 'to be' -- "The weather seems to be improving" sounds a bit too "elliptical", iykwim. This version with an omitted auxiliary 'to be' is much less frequent than sentences with an omitted copula 'to be'. Don't know whether it reads like a more subjective statement or not without the AUX 'to be'.

Thus, the reference to Michael Swan's instruction is irrelevant here.

[Yety]

try to remember and use it...

Also see here:
Yety (there seems no doubt)

and here.

[Efl_unit]

You misunderstand Michael Swan's instruction here, I'm afraid.

I meant it was difficult for me to determine the boundary between subjective and objective opinions when I wrote about avoiding the construction "seem(s) to be". Considering the same example about the girl. She seems (to be) a nice girl. I must have certain objective reasons(facts) to consider that girl as a nice person. Perhaps some statistics in this case))... Even M.Swan himself isn't quite sure about it, writing the following: "The difference is not always clear-cut, and both are often possible".

As for using the auxiliary verb in this construction it's just looks like the "seem(s) to be construction"...
In certain cases, whether it’s a rush or a lack of experience, I don’t see the forest for the trees.

[Yety]

I meant it was difficult for me to determine the boundary between subjective and objective opinions when I wrote about avoiding the construction "seem(s) to be".

I realise that. I understand what you meant; you didn't quite understand what I wrote, though. I'd tried to find the most accurate wording, but you don't seem to have read it carefully enough, I'm afraid. Поэтому продублирую на более родном языке.)

Considering the same example about the girl. She seems (to be) a nice girl. I must have certain objective reasons(facts) to consider that girl as a nice person. Perhaps some statistics in this case))... Even M. Swan himself isn't quite sure about it, writing the following: "The difference is not always clear-cut, and both are often possible".

Again: this reasoning is not applicable to the original sentence about the seemingly improving weather.

Выше указал, что, когда вы признаётесь в идиосинкразии к конструкции The weather seems to be improving по той как бы причине, что вам неловко объективничать, вы некорректно апеллируете к этому правилу от Майкла Свона как к обоснованию. Между прочим, потому, что вы игнорируете ограничение, оговоренное в самом правиле. (Судя по всему, вы также не нашли в себе сил пройти по всем ссылкам и вчитаться в предоставленные цитаты.)

В самой цитате из Свона по ссылке выше есть такое уточнение (подчёркнуто и зафонтонировано):

...
3 with nouns
Seem to be is normal before noun phrases.
I looked through the binoculars: it seemed to be some sort of large rat. (not . . . it seemed some sort of large rat.)
I spoke to a man who seemed to be the boss, (not . . . who seemed the boss.)

However, to be can be dropped before noun phrases which express more subjective feelings, especially in British English.
She seems (to be) a nice girl.
The cup seemed almost doll’s size in his hands.
It seems a pity, but I can’t see you this weekend, (not It seems to be a pity . . .)

Это уточнение про noun phrases помогает понять, что различие to be - objective fact/no to be - subjective impression работает именно в контексте noun phrases. И если вы посмотрите на примеры над этой цитатой (пункт 2 seem and seem to be), вы увидите, что там приведены примеры исключительно с noun phrases.
Я попробовал объяснить это вам через различение двух TO BE - как глагола-связки copula или как вспомогательного глагола auxiliary.

СпойлерПоказать

Должен признать, что это первый раз, когда различие внутри umbrella brand 'helping verb' to be возымело какое-то практическое применение. Привет агенту 007!)))

1. Copula с noun phrases:
It seems she IS (COP) a nice girl. - She seems TO BE a nice girl.
Этот COP TO BE может быть удалён, если вы не претендуете на объективную истину и не дерзаете рубить с плеча)):
She seems TO BE a nice girl.

2. Auxiliary в составе verb form - НЕ с noun phrases:
It seems the weather IS (AUX) improving. - The weather seems TO BE improving.
Этот AUX TO BE удаляется с бааальшим трудом, даже если вы не претендуете на объективную истину и не дерзаете рубить с плеча)):
(The weather seems TO BE improving - очень редко.)

Надеюсь, сейчас стало яснее, что можно, конечно, продолжать повсеместно избегать seem + to be по причине какой-то личной антипатии, но апеллировать к правилу от Свона было бы некорректно.
Смутное различие "объективное-субъективное" может быть усмотрено только в сочетаниях с noun phrases.

Наконец, на всякий пожарный - стоит обратить особое внимание на случаи, когда наличие/отсутствие to be не вполне логично (подчёркнуто):

СпойлерПоказать

2 seem and seem to be
Seem is often followed by to be. We prefer seem to be when we are talking about objective facts - things that seem definitely to be true. Seem is used without to be when we are talking about subjective impressions. (The difference is not always clear-cut, and both are often possible.) Compare:
- The bus seems to be full.
She seems excited.
- The doctors have done the tests, and he definitely seems to be mentally ill.
It seems crazy, but I think I'm in love with my bank manager, (NOT It seems to be crazy . . .)
- According to the experts, the north side of the castle seems to be about 100 years older than the rest.
He seems older than he is. (NOT He seems to be older than he is - this would suggest that he might actually be older than he is.)
- She doesn’t seem to be ready yet.
She seems (to be) very sleepy today.

3 with nouns
Seem to be is normal before noun phrases.I looked through the binoculars: it seemed to be some sort of large rat. (NOT . . . it seemed some sort of large rat.)
I spoke to a man who seemed to be the boss, (NOT . . . who seemed the boss.)

However, to be can be dropped before noun phrases which express more subjective feelings, especially in British English.
She seems (to be) a nice girl.
The cup seemed almost doll’s size in his hands.
It seems a pity, but I can’t see you this weekend, (NOT It seems to be a pity . . .)

[Efl_unit]

but you don't seem to have read it carefully enough, I'm afraid. Поэтому продублирую на более родном языке.)

You are wrong, but thank you anyway.
Я прочитал более чем внимательно, причем уже не один раз)). И Ваше изложение и ссылки на другие источники и конечно же Свона. У меня есть этот справочник, я его изначально оттуда и цитировал).

СпойлерПоказать

Есть у меня такая не очень приятная "особенность"- воспринимать информацию поверхностно. Очевидно, с этим связаны пробелы в английском в целом, когда на ряду со знанием отдельных моментов на уровне выше среднего, нет понимания или просто знания определенных элементарных знаний, потому что взял их поверхностно- тезисно, и не из-за того, что когда то не понял, а из за того, что быстренько прочитал основное, разобрался, не вдаваясь сильно в детали и особенности и пошел дальше. С одной стороны- хорошо, с другой стороны потом это может вылазить боком.

Я в последнем сообщении про субъективность/объективность писал относительно конкретного примера про девушку. А в последнем абзаце этого же сообщения я писал про пример о погоде. Я не уточнил о каком конкретно примере речь, полагая что это понятно из того, что есть уточнение про использование вспомогательного глагола. А все недопонимание- от сложившегося изначально восприятия: seem(s) to be = объективная оценка(и не важно что там дальше и какую роль тут вообще играет to be), seem(s)= субъективная.

[Yety]

Есть у меня такая не очень приятная "особенность"- воспринимать информацию поверхностно.
У меня есть этот справочник, я его изначально оттуда и цитировал).
А все недопонимание- от сложившегося изначально восприятия: seem(s) to be = объективная оценка(и не важно что там дальше и какую роль тут вообще играет to be), seem(s)= субъективная.

В данном случае - дело не в *особенности*.
Я-то думал, вы моё объяснение недопоняли, а там у вас был прайминг от Свона, который было трудно перекрыть.

Чессгря, нужно признать, что объяснение у Свона именно этого "правила" оказалось сильно слегка двусмысленное и недостаточно чёткое. Поэтому, хотя раньше этого недоумения не случалось, по всматриванию в материал совершенно не удивлён, что такая формулировка ввела вас в заблуждение. Сам бы заблудился, если бы не было настроенного уха на этот оборот. Тот нечастый случай, когда стоило бы совершенно иначе сформулировать указание, иначе ввести примеры и возможно, даже добавить грамматических понятий.

недопонимание - от сложившегося изначально восприятия

Обратите внимание, что недопонимание - именно от дефицита "восприятия", от недостатка примеров этого оборота в опыте. В противном случае и ваше изначальное восприятие сложилось бы более корректно - вы бы подспудно осознали не вполне корректно оговоренные ограничения использования этой конструкции (которые с пропуском to be).
Такова оборотная сторона погружения в теорию без адекватно обильного насыщения примерами.

seem(s) to be = объективная оценка, seem(s)= субъективная.

Возможно, нелишне будет подойти к правилу чуть с другого конца.
Есть те обороты, которые без to be практически не бывают, - где to be - рудимент вспомогательного глагола:
The weather seems to be improving.

Обороты, в которых МОЖЕТ опускаться to be, - только если он рудимент глагола-связки.

1. Есть те обороты, которые БЕЗ to be гораздо чаще, чем С ним, - где речь идёт о сугубо субъективной оценке (объективно! субъективной=)). Дело не столько в вашем отношении - вообще не! - дело в характере самого высказывания, чисто технически:

to be can be dropped before noun phrases which express more subjective feelings, especially in British English.

Обращаю ваше внимание, что говорится "noun phrases which express more subjective feelings", а не "before noun phrases when you would like to express your subjective feelings".
Сравните:
It seems crazy
It seems a pity...
It seems a shame...
It seems silly...

2. Есть те обороты, которые С to be гораздо чаще, чем БЕЗ него, - где на месте предикатива после to be стоят именные фразы, говорящие об объективных фактах. Снова - речь не о вашем отношении к фактам, а о том, что именно сказано во фразе после to be:
it seemed to be some sort of large rat.
I spoke to a man who seemed to be the boss.

3. И есть те высказывания, выбор формы в которых которых зависит от вашего отношения. Те самые предложения вроде:
She seems [to be] a nice girl.
seemed a nice,seemed to be a nice

4. все эти разницы - детали тонкой настройки. В большинстве случаев наличие to be не искажает высказывание критически. Можно до времени не заморачиваться.))

[Efl_unit]

Yety, thank you again for such a detailed answer! Otherwise, as usual).