She admits stealing the money

[Rachel Adams]

Can I use "She admits stealing the money" instead of "she admitted stealing the money" and "she admitted having stolen the money" to talk about a finished action(stealing)? The first sentence is mine the second and the third sentences are from "English Grammar in Use" by Raymond Murphy.
Is "she admits having stolen" correct?


I don't know where this explanation comes from but I found it in my notes: "I appreciate being invited" logically, the inviting must have happened before the speaker utters the sentence. The grammar doesn't tell us that, though. But "I appreciated being invited" and "I appreciate having been invited" both refer to past actions."

I was wondering if the same applies to my sentence.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Can I use "She admits stealing the money" instead of "she admitted stealing the money" and "she admitted having stolen the money" to talk about a finished action(stealing)? The first sentence is mine the second and the third sentences are from "English Grammar in Use" by Raymond Murphy.
Is "she admits having stolen" correct?
Good question.

I don't know where this explanation comes from but I found it in my notes: "I appreciate being invited" logically, the inviting must have happened before the speaker utters the sentence. The grammar doesn't tell us that, though. But "I appreciated being invited" and "I appreciate having been invited" both refer to past actions."

I was wondering if the same applies to my sentence.

In some contexts, "admits stealing" makes sense. For instance, if she's been arrested for the theft and her case is being discussed, your "admits stealing" is much more likely:

- Her dad: Does she claim she's innocent?

- Her mom: No. She admits stealing the money.

 

[Rachel Adams]

In some contexts, "admits stealing" makes sense. For instance, if she's been arrested for the theft and her case is being discussed, your "admits stealing" is much more likely:

- Her dad: Does she claim she's innocent?

- Her mom: No. She admits stealing the money.

Is "she admits having stolen" also correct?

 

[jutfrank]

If you want to make it clear that the action of stealing is a past action, use either of these:

1. She admits that she stole the money.
2. She admitted that she stole the money.

The next question should be about the difference between those two.

 

[Rachel Adams]

If you want to make it clear that the action of stealing is a past action, use either of these:

1. She admits that she stole the money.
2. She admitted that she stole the money.

The next question should be about the difference between those two.

And probably the third and fourth versions would be "she admitted that she had stolen the money" and "she admits that she had stolen the money." But I was wondering if this construction "she admits having stolen" exists in English. The present simple followed by "having" and the past participle.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

And probably the third and fourth versions would be "she admitted that she had stolen the money" and "she admits that she had stolen the money." But I was wondering if this construction "she admits having stolen" exists in English. The present simple followed by "having" and the past participle.

Yes, it does. It has a formal ring to it, but it's fine.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Yes, it does. It has a formal ring to it, but it's fine.

Are my examples with the past perfect also correct?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Are my examples with the past perfect also correct?

Did you see any corrections? We correct mistakes. If there is not a correction, there is not a mistake.

 

[Phaedrus]

But I was wondering if this construction . . . exists in English. The present simple followed by "having" and the past participle.

I agree with Charlie that it exists, but "admits to having [past participle]" is more natural, in my opinion: She admits to having stolen the money.