"admitted to having spent" or "admitted to spending"



  1. Jack finally admitted to having spent it all.
  2. Jack finally admitted to spending it all.

In the second sentence having has been omitted. Do they mean same? If not, please tell me the differences between them.

Azahar Ali

Posted 2016-02-21T16:53:22.433

Reputation: 1 255

"Admit" is followed by gerund. So it is not possible to write "admit to have spent" or the other alternative that you have written. – Azahar Ali – 2016-02-21T17:07:51.240



"admitted to having spent" and "admitted to spending" mean the same. "Admitted to having spent" is correct and exact use of the past perfect gerund, but in colloquial language this is often simplified and the gerund of present tense is used instead.


Posted 2016-02-21T16:53:22.433

Reputation: 8 304


admit to wants a nominal complement:

admitted to {having spent} it all

admitted to {spending} it all

admitted to the deed

admitted to the crime

admitted to the robbery, the theft, etc

With having, we need the past participle, spent.


Posted 2016-02-21T16:53:22.433

Reputation: 116 610

Actually I don't what the differences between their meanings. I would to know what they individual mean. – Azahar Ali – 2016-02-21T18:55:22.137

1There is no practical difference. The only difference would be the possible (faint) nuance that having spent refers to the action as one which has run to completion, and spending refers to an action in progress. In either case, "all" conveys the idea of completion. – Tᴚoɯɐuo – 2016-02-22T14:04:40.320