Q1. How to distinguish between past participles used as adjectives and past participles that have a passive meaning?
Past participles that have a passive meaning have an explicit or implicit agent.
- She is admired by everyone who knows her (explicit).
- Your help is appreciated (implicit, by me).
- The price of petrol has been reduced (implicit, by the oil company).
Such past participles are typically not modified by very, but by very much or an alternative adverb:
- She is greatly admired. (?She is very admired.)
- Your help is very much appreciated. (?Your help is very appreciated.)
- The price of petrol has been significantly reduced. (?The price of petrol has been very reduced.)
Past participles used as adjectives very often describe mental or emotional states, and therefore have a person or animal as their subject. There is no explicit agent, and often not even an implicit one. Such past participles are typically modified by very, not by very much.
- I'm very bored. (?I'm very much bored.)
- John's been very depressed for several days. (?John's been very much depressed for several days.)
- She looked very disappointed. (?She looked very much disappointed.)
Q2. Which adjectives to use with very and which adjectives to use with very much.
As noted in the section above, past participle adjectives that describe mental states are generally modified by very, not very much. Most other adjectives are also modified by very alone. However, there are some common exceptions. For example, adjectives that describe extreme qualities are not usually modified by either very or very much (?very enormous, ?very much wonderful). There is another group of adjectives that needs a different modifier than very (fast asleep, wide awake, far apart, well known, etc.)
Q3. "This looks very like what we had at our shooting party in November." Is this sentence is really correct?
A short answer: yes, This nGram shows is very much like to be more common currently than is very like, but before 1940 the reverse was the case.
In answer to your supplemental question (How to determine which form to use?), my recommendation would be to invest in a good grammar of English usage* to learn about general patterns, and run an nGram as above on specific instances (or do a simple Google search on the two phrases: for example "is very like" gets 411,000 hits, while "is very much like" gets 36 million - so it is clear which is the preferred form).
*The two books I consulted in preparing this answer were Swan's Practical English Usage and Collins Cobuild English Usage.
"Past participle" is unfortunate terminology, because it is ambiguous between meaning passive participle (after passive "be") and perfect participle (after auxiliary "have"). All the same, that's the traditional term. Usually these two participles have the same form in "-ed", or "-en", or maybe always, but neither expresses a past tense.
The "-ing" suffixes in your examples are from the conversion of a sentence into a noun phrase; nominalization, that is. For instance, "do you remember having known more than one" is from "do you remember [you knew more than one]", where the past tense of "knew" is converted to perfect "have" in a non-finite clause, and the "-ing" converts that "have" into a gerund.
Best Answer
There are a number of different uses of infinitives;
one of them -- exemplified here -- is as a particular kind of Complement clause.
The answer to the first question is, Yes, the infinitive clauses can be considered the direct object of the verb (though not the infinitive -- that's just the verb in the clause; it's the clause that's acting like an object).
In the first cases, the sentence is parsed
and
-- which is derived via Passive from
The bracketed parts are the direct object complement clause, with all the parenthesized parts -- indefinites and predictable subjects -- dropped, leaving only the infinitive behind.
Once you get clear that any verb appearing in a sentence is the verb of a separate clause and that every clause has a subject and a predicate, things clear up. That's the key to understanding the next question.
In the second case, it's quite wrong for the OALD to describe them as "Noun plus Infinitive". There are two quite distinct types represented here, and they have very different syntax.
I persuaded Sheila to chair the meeting is parsed
whereas I expected her to pass the test is parsed
In the first case, the verb persuade has an Indirect Object (Sheila), as well as a Direct Object infinitive clause. This object complement clause (for Sheila to chair the meeting) has a subject (for Sheila), which gets deleted because it's identical to the Indirect Object.
In the second case, however, there is only a Direct Object clause (for her to pass the test), and so the subject can't be deleted by identity. In that case, only the subject complementizer for is deleted, leaving her in subject position in the infinitive clause.
Which also happens to be object position in the main clause -- isn't English syntax fun? (I might add that there is a lot more detail and complexity here.