There seems to be a subtle difference between the infinitive form of the verb 'to be' after a verb and the inflected form of the same; what is it?
There seems to be a subtle difference between the infinitive form of the verb 'to be' after a verb and the inflected form of the same; what is it?
This effect, if there is one, seems most noticeable in (or only applies to) some sentences that reference a subject's beliefs.
John claims to be Michael Jackson's reincarnation.
John claims that he is Michael Jackson's reincarnation.
John believes Michael Jackson to be reincarnated.
John believes that Michael Jackson is reincarnated.
If the inflected and infinitive form of the verb 'to be' convey things that are subtly different, what is that difference?
First, those constructions are more different grammatically, more so than meaning. To be functions differently in your examples (neither is wrong and their meanings are the same); it's not functioning as a verb. Full infinitives usually function as other parts of speech.
John (subject) claims (verb) to be Michael Jackson's reincarnation (noun clause/object).
John (subject of 1st clause) claims (verb) that (conjucntion) he is (2nd clause with he as subject and is as verb) Michael Jackson's reincarnation (noun clause/object of 2nd clause).
Second, if forced to say there were a difference--which there isn't, frankly--it'd be the degree of certainty. The infinitive forms (i.e. to be) indicate that the assertion is less certain than when you use the inflected form (i.e. in this case, is). In other words John believes that Michael Jackson is reincarnated. is the strong/emphatic--for lack of a better word--form.
Also, I believe that it is an issue of formality, but I can't locate a source to confirm that.