# She admitted to have taken the necklace



## mimi2

Hi, 
Is the best sentence the first one? Thanks.
1. She admitted to have taken the necklace.
2. She admitted to having taken the necklace.
3. She admitted having taken the necklace.


----------



## Nunty

mimi2 said:


> Hi,
> Is the best sentence the first one? Thanks.
> 1. She admitted to have taken the necklace.
> 2. She admitted to having taken the necklace.
> 3. She admitted having taken the necklace.


I would say the second one, but would probably write the third. Sorry, can't explain why.


----------



## mimi2

Can you tell me why you don't agree on the first?


----------



## elroy

The first one is definitely wrong.

The "to" after "admitted" is *not part of an infinitive* but rather a normal preposition and as such requires a *noun* ("you admit to _something_"). That's why the second one is correct; "having taken" is a gerund that functions as the object of the preposition "to."  

Now, the third one is correct as well, because you can also just "admit _something_."  Again, the gerund is used as the direct object of the verb.  I should note that the infinitive can also be used as a noun, but not in this case.  I'd say that whether you can use the infinitive as a direct object depends on the verb.  "Admit" does not permit an infinitive object, as opposed to verbs like "want," "plan," and "decide."


----------



## Nunty

In the first, "admitted to have" doesn't work. We admit to doing something; it requires the gerund. Again, I'm sorry, but I don't know the grammar to explain _why_ it requires the gerund.


----------



## foxfirebrand

mimi2 said:
			
		

> Can you tell me why you don't agree on the first?


I agree with Nun-Translator, but can't say why either.  With some verbs the first sentence sounds idiomatic to me-- with others it doesn't.

She claimed to have taken the necklace.  (there "having taken" sounds wrong)

She confessed to having taken the necklace.  (there "have taken sounds wrong)

In both those examples the "to" is needed, but change the verb and it is wrong:

"She denied having taken the necklace."

I'd be surprised and delighted if someone came up with a rule that makes sense to me-- I know that simply identifying examples as idiomatic or not idiomatic is not very helpful to learners.  I suspect you'll just have to memorize which verbs take which prepositions, and whether the present-perfect infinitive is preferable in the simple or the progressive form.

An indicative-tense clause is more all-purpose, and I think better style-- except that some prefer this more formal infinitive format in legal contexts, or journalistic accounts about same.

She admitted (that) she took the necklace.
She claimed (that) she took...
She denied (that) she took...

And so forth, all correct and perfectly idiomatic.
.


----------



## nelliot53

1. She admitted to have taken the necklace.

I think number one should be out.

   Imagine:  She admitted to have taken the necklace from her.  
                She admitted to have taken the necklace home.

                (They just don't sound right to me.)
Saludos.


----------



## mimi2

I'm very glad to receive all your help. 
It's helpful to me. 
Many thanks to all of you.


----------



## Arthur Escave

Hi guys!
This thread is reallty helpful (to me too) for I didn't really know exacty how to use the verb "admit"

But I have a relevant question, if you allow me to ask.

What if we add a noun hereto?
Two examples:

1. She admitted + to + have taken the necklace (we don't mention anyone here who we have admitted to)
1. She admitted (me or to me / Jack or to Jack / Milan or to Milan) + to have taken the necklace (she told me that she had taken the necklace).

Which one is OK here: me or to me? Thank you!


----------



## sound shift

Arthur Escave said:


> What if we add a noun hereto?
> Two examples:
> 
> 1. She admitted + to + have taken the necklace (we don't mention anyone here who we have admitted to)
> 1. She admitted (me or to me / Jack or to Jack / Milan or to Milan) + to have taken the necklace (she told me that she had taken the necklace).
> 
> Which one is OK here: me or to me? Thank you!


They are both wrong, I'm afraid - because the "to" is a preposition and therefore cannot be followed by "have" (as explained in post 4).


----------



## Arthur Escave

sound shift said:


> They are both wrong, I'm afraid - because the "to" is a preposition and therefore cannot be followed by "have" (as explained in post 4).



Thanks a lot!
Does the same concern a similar verb "confess to", whereby (following the previous "admit" example) we can't specify/mention the one we admit to doing something to?

*1) He admitted to loving her - OK*
2) He admitted to me to loving her - wrong

*1) He confessed to having hijacked a car*
2) He confessed (+ to the police) to having hijacked a car - wrong.

Did I get it right that one can't specify WHO they have confessed/admited it TO? Hope you got me right!


----------



## Myridon

Arthur Escave said:


> Did I get it right that one can't specify WHO they have confessed/admited it TO? Hope you got me right!


No one said anything about that issue because the rest of your sentence was incorrect.
"Admitted" doesn't take an indirect object but you can say who you admitted it to.
She admitted me having stolen the necklace. 
She admitted having stolen the necklace to me. 
She admitted to me that she had stolen the necklace. 
She admitted to me to having stolen the necklace.   I don't think this is technically wrong, but I wouldn't use it.


----------



## Orble

But what about these,

She admitted she stole the necklace.
She admitted to me that she stole the necklace.
He confessed to hijacking the car.​
The other versions sound overly formal, old fashioned and unnatural to me (particularly “admitted having stolen” - yuck!). They are more in the style of a pompous police report or a Brontë novel than everyday language.


----------



## Arthur Escave

Thank you!


----------



## Ivan_I

mimi2 said:


> 1. She admitted to have taken the necklace.


People said the sentence was wrong. And it's is. But it can be fixed by adding one word.


She *is *admitted to have taken the necklace. - CORRECT


----------



## sdgraham

Ivan_I said:


> She *is *admitted to have taken the necklace. - CORRECT



Sorry.


----------



## Ivan_I

sdgraham said:


> Sorry.


That's alright. Don't apologize.

Roderick Beaton (*Roderick Macleod Beaton*, FBA, FKC (born 1951) is a retired academic. He was Koraes Professor of Modern Greek and Byzantine History, Language and Literature at King's College London from 1988 to 2018.)


*Folk Poetry of Modern Greece*

_The point is that if a folk* tradition is admitted to have been* a creative process involving its own conventions and expectations_, ...


*Ernest George Hardy *
But the fact that permission to create Roman citizens was contained in what _*is admitted to have been*_ a colonial law, is, I venture to maintain,


----------



## velisarius

Hi Ivan, 

_Admit _doesn't work like _say.

She is said to have taken the necklace. _(They say that she took the necklace.)
_She is admitted to have taken the necklace. _

You might use an impersonal construction:_ It is admitted that she took the necklace.  _We are not told _who_ admitted.


----------



## Ivan_I

Velisarius, does Roderick Beaton know that it doesn't work like that? Did you notice the examples I provided. I have nothing against admitting that "admit" doesn't work that way but I can't brush the examples under the carpet. Can you?


----------



## sdgraham

Ivan_I said:


> Velisarius, does Roderick Beaton know that it doesn't work like that? Did you notice the examples I provided. I have nothing against admitting that "admit" doesn't work that way but I can't brush the examples under the carpet. Can you?


A good editor would not have let those slip through. It's a sloppy way of avoiding the need to say *who* admits to something.


----------



## Ivan_I

Velisarius. *Sorry*, I didn't notice myself your point about impersonal pronoun. I have found examples with personal pronouns as well. Are they outdated?


By almost all *he *_*is admitted to have been*_ well intentioned: he acted only in the first times of the Revolution: he participated in none of the atrocities which succeeded.

Hence it was that he became the excellent speaker and writer, the eminent theologian and the expert musician* he is admitted to have been. *


----------



## velisarius

Those examples are quite different, Ivan. (I see nothing wrong with them) [Edit: I refer to the examples in post #17]

_If X is admitted to have been Y..._ = If we admit that X was
_That law is admitted to have been a colonial law... _(Someone) has admitted that it was a colonial law.

Your own example is about someone admitting to having done something.

These sentences are similar to the ones you quoted:
_If we admit that she took the necklace_... 
_She is admitted (by her peers) to be a liar and a thief. _


----------



## Myridon

The first one is from the Parliamentary Register of 1797 - you can see it on Google Books with long s's in it (the ones that look like f's).
 The second one is from The Schools of Medieval England circa 1915, but very academic.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

What is the source please? They  are awful style.


----------



## Ivan_I

Myridon said:


> The first one is from the Parliamentary Register of 1797 - you can see it on Google Books with long s's in it (the ones that look like f's).
> The second one is from The Schools of Medieval England circa 1915, but very academic.


I think you don't mean those in post 17.


----------



## Myridon

Ivan_I said:


> I think you don't mean those in post 17.


The sentences in post 17 have sources.  I'm, of course, referring to the ones you posted with no sources as if "found it on the Internet" is proof of something.


----------



## Ivan_I

velisarius said:


> Those examples are quite different, Ivan. (I see nothing wrong with them)
> 
> _If X is admitted to have been Y..._ = If we admit that X was
> _That law is admitted to have been a colonial law... _(Someone) has admitted that it was a colonial law.
> 
> Your own example is about someone admitting to having done something.
> 
> These sentences are similar to the ones you quoted:
> _If we admit that she took the necklace_...
> _She is admitted (by her peers) to be a liar and a thief. _


I am not sure that I can fully follow your logic here.  Of course, 

*She is admitted to have stole the *_*necklace.*

doesn't mean that she admitted to doing it, others have done it. 

Moreover, IF this one is OK "She is admitted (by her peers) to be a liar and a thief."

Why is this one not? 

She *is *admitted to have taken the necklace. _


----------



## Ivan_I

Myridon said:


> The sentences in post 17 have sources.  I'm, of course, referring to the ones you posted with no sources as if "found it on the Internet" is proof of something.


Why didn't you comment on the example from 17. On the matter of something being proof or not, I should say it's fifty fifty.


----------



## velisarius

I think we're wandering into grey areas. We've gone from the girl admitting to having done something, to some person or persons unknown who are admitting to her guilt. The idea is rather strange.

I thought you were trying for  a sentence along the lines of "She is said to have stolen the necklace"****,* which, as I said, doesn't work with _ admit._ Perhaps I should have said that it isn't quite satisfactory, in my opinion.

*Edit:** **I believe this is called "subject-raising", or "subjective infinitive construction".


----------



## srk

Ivan_I said:


> Why is this one not?
> 
> She *is *admitted to have taken the necklace.


It is correct, but it does not say the same thing as "She admitted to taking the necklace."

Why would you exhibit your sentence in a thread about a sentence that says something completely different.

"She has brown hair" -- CORRECT.


----------



## Ivan_I

srk said:


> Why would you exhibit your sentence in a thread about a statement that says something completely different.


To learners of English the reason is obvious. The sentence is dealing with the verb "admit".


----------



## srk

Please don't recommend your sentence to anyone trying to learn English.


----------



## Ivan_I

srk said:


> Please don't recommend your sentence to anyone trying to learn English.


Fortunately, it won't harm them if I do. I think if they don't know about it it will be worse for them. However, if you admit that it's correct why not use the construction?


----------



## Myridon

Ivan_I said:


> Why didn't you comment on the example from 17. On the matter of something being proof or not, I should say it's fifty fifty.


You can find anything on the Internet.  People have spelled "the" "teh" on purpose millions of times. "I can has cheezburger." and "All your base are belong to us." don't have a 50/50 chance of helping you on an English exam.
It's quite important that the examples you posted are more than 100 years old  (not to mention that the forum requires sources).


----------



## srk

> However, if you admit that it's correct why not use the construction?





sdgraham said:


> It's a sloppy way of avoiding the need to say *who* admits to something.






velisarius said:


> some person or persons unknown who are admitting to her guilt. The idea is rather strange.


----------



## Ivan_I

Myridon said:


> You can find anything on the Internet.  People have spelled "the" "teh" on purpose millions of times. "I can has cheezburger." and "All your base are belong to us." don't have a 50/50 chance of helping you on an English exam.
> It's quite important that the examples you posted are more than 100 years old  (not to mention that the forum requires sources).


What does misspelling have to do with the examples I provided? I don't understand what you are aiming at.

Roderick Beaton was born in 1951. What's wrong with the sentence from his writing I provided? It feels like you can't label the construction as a wrong one but are unwilling to accept its correctness. It's a very much involved and controversial stance. I am not equipped to deal with such eclecticism.


----------



## sdgraham

I think it's well established here that English is not always consistent. 

We've also established that given the petabytes (or more) of English lurking on the internet, you can always find something that appears to "prove" a point.

_Good_ English writing (which is not the same as "correct") is highly subjective. Were it not, everybody could be a famous writer from what they learned from a book (or Google).

Sometimes, a collection of words might seem good to a learner of our language, when in the real world, they are the equivalent of nails screeching on a blackboard to educated and sophisticated native speakers. There is no real answer to an incessant plea of "why?" That's just the way things are.

Thus learners have to decide whether they obsessively try to prove a point or use the opportunity to learn good writing from a worldwide collection of caring native speakers.

The choice is yours.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

We have modern, non-controversial ways of expressing the idea behind 'is/are admitted to have [done]'.


> Thus learners have to decide whether they obsessively try to prove a point or use the opportunity to learn good writing from a worldwide collection of caring native speakers.
> 
> The choice is yours.


Well said!


----------



## Ivan_I

It's not a matter of obsessiveness in trying to prove a point on a learner's end, as the same obsessiveness can be felt on the end of a native speaker trying to prove their point. But in reality, I think, there is no obsessiveness on either end, the situation is more delicate than that. What seems natural and obvious to one party doesn't seem the same way to the other and it takes some time along with some friction to find a solution.


----------



## Myridon

Ivan_I said:


> What does misspelling have to do with the examples I provided?


I found those things on the Internet.  According to you, they must be right regardless of their source.  In fact, they are wrong, but they are part of a joke.  Quoting sentences that are over 100 years old doesn't prove anything about current English any more than millions of hits for "cheezburger" prove that that is a correct spelling.


----------



## srk

Ivan_I said:


> What seems natural and obvious to one party doesn't seem the same way to the other and it takes some time along with some friction to find a solution.


That's well said too.

I remember a "game" among young friends  (We must have been desperate for amusement):


> "Pronounce M-A-C-G-I-L-L-I-C-U-D-D-Y."
> "MacGillicuddy"
> 
> "Pronounce  M-A-C-T-A-V-I-S-H."
> "MacTavish"
> .....
> and it goes on
> .....
> "Pronounce M-A-C-H-I-N-E."
> "MacHine"
> 
> No, dummy, it's "machine."


It was impossible for me (us, I think) to read your first post in this thread, divorced from what the OP was asking.  So it was impossible to see it as making any kind of sense until you quoted more examples.

I think you found it interesting that simply adding the word "is" changed a sentence that was ungrammatical to one that was.  Without the ensuing friction, I don't think anyone new to English would have been helped.

(I don't think there is anyone with the name MacHine.)


----------



## bennymix

Ivan said in part (post #27): _  Moreover, IF this one is OK {X}"She is admitted (by her peers) to be a liar and a thief."_

_Why is this one not? 

{XX}She *is *admitted to have taken the necklace. _ =

==

Velisarius answered this in post #29.    Your variant of the the original (which had no 'is') is not a good sentence.

Your good examples have "is admitted to have been".   This is OK.   Others can admit that someone is something. I nominated her for office saying she's honorable, but knowing she was a liar.   I then admit this fact: "She is admitted (by me) to have been a liar.

"Take" will not work this way.    It reminds of the old joke where two brothers are confronted about a theft.  The first says, "Ok, I admit that he [the second] took the money!

It is quite odd,  {XX}  _She *is *admitted to have taken the necklace       _

Third parties *admit* she took something. (We would have to imagine these parties {say, her parents) have been maintaining_ 'She didn't take anything.' _ Someone discovers they knew of her thieving, and then they *admit* they knew?  Even this contriving does not quite work.}

The concepts are so twisted as to make the construction a bad one.

As others have pointed out, 'said' as in "_She is said to have taken the necklace' works fine.  _Others can *say *easily, though they can't admit (in any usual circumstances) another's crime.


----------

