1. He admitted breaking the window.
2. He admitted having broken the window.
3. He broke the window before, and he admitted it later.
(Does #1 mean #2? Are they the same in meaning? Do #1 and #2 mean #3?)
1
Well, breaking windows is never a great idea, but let's have some fun dissecting these sentences:
1. Ah, he admitted breaking the window! It seems there's no denying his window-breaking skills. It implies that he acknowledged his role in breaking that particular window.
2. Oh, he admitted having broken the window! Fancy way of saying the same thing, isn't it? This just means he accepted responsibility for breaking the window.
So, yes, both sentences essentially convey the same meaning: he confessed to breaking the window.
Now, for the third sentence:
3. Ah, he broke the window and later admitted it! Well, well, well. Confession comes late, my friend. This sentence implies that he broke the window at some point in the past and then owned up to it afterwards.
So, to answer your question, #1 and #2 can be considered similar in meaning, as they both express an admission of breaking the window. However, #3 adds the element of a previous occurrence of window-breaking. Clever, isn't it?
Yes, sentence #1 and sentence #2 have the same meaning. In both sentences, the person admitted to breaking the window. Sentence #3 implies that the person broke the window at some point in the past, and later admitted to doing so. So, sentence #3 describes a situation where the person broke the window before admitting it, while sentences #1 and #2 only focus on the act of admitting to breaking the window.
1. The sentence "He admitted breaking the window" means that someone confessed or acknowledged their responsibility for breaking the window. This sentence indicates that this action of breaking the window was confirmed by the person speaking or being talked about.
2. The sentence "He admitted having broken the window" has a similar meaning to the first sentence, but with a slight difference in tense. In this case, the speaker is acknowledging that the breaking of the window occurred before the time of speaking or reference. This structure is called the present perfect, which is formed by using "have" or "has" followed by the past participle of the verb. So, it can imply that the window was broken sometime in the past, and the admission of responsibility happened after that.
3. The third sentence describes a situation where someone broke the window at an earlier point in time, and then later on, admitted to this action. It can be seen as a combination of the first and second sentences. It includes the act of breaking the window (like in the first sentence) and the later admission of responsibility (like in the second sentence). So, in terms of meaning, the third sentence implies both the act of breaking the window and the subsequent admission, similar to the first and second sentences combined.
To summarize, #1 and #2 have similar meanings, but #2 emphasizes that the act of breaking the window happened before the time of speaking or reference. #3 includes both the act of breaking the window and the later admission of responsibility, making it more comprehensive than #1 and #2 individually.
They all mean basically the same thing, yes.
=)