Seem (to be) past participle

Question

Please kindly read the sentence:

‘[Some court decisions] seem best explained as based on considerations of the well-known policy of preventing the Statute being used itself as an instrument of fraud‘.

Why is “to be” left out (after “seem” and before “best explained”)?

I understand that if “seem” (as a linking verb) is followed by a noun that describes an opinion or a subjective view relating to a thing in the subject, we can omit “to be”.

Is there any similar rule for this pattern? If different, what are the rules for this?

Any reference to a grammar book is appreciated. I will explore this matter (or other) further.

Answer 1

Rashid, it seems after I changed the tags for you, you edited your question to include your understanding of linking verbs. That's great.

Linking verbs can precede not only a noun but also an adjective. They link the noun or adjective (called subject complements in grammar) to the subject, allowing them to identify with each other. The most common linking verb is "be" (is/are). Other examples include: look, appear, sound, taste.

Participles can be adjectival, which means they can act like adjectives. For example, you can use them after a linking verb:

She looks depressed. = She looks sad.

Depressed is an adjective meaning "sad" and also the past participle of the verb "depress". Participles like this are also called participle adjectives.

By the same token, the "explained" in your sentence is also adjectival (acting like an adjective). "Best" then is an adverb modifying "explained". Because seem is a linking verb, "to be" is not necessary (but can still be used).

The sentence you are asking about can be rephrased in this way:

Some court decisions can be best explained as based on considerations of the well-known policy of preventing the Statute being used itself as an instrument of fraud‘.