- He admitted to have stolen my diary.
- He admitted to having stolen my diary.
- He admitted to stealing my diary.
Are all three correct?
Please comment. Thanks.
Hi,
The verb [i]admit[/i] is one of the most common verbs that take only the gerund form of the verb. Consequently, only (2) and (3) are grammatically correct:
2. He admitted *(to) having stolen my diary.
3. He admitted (to) stealing my diary.
*In many cases, the 'to' is optional. It is, however, usually omitted before an action verb (particularly in a criminal context), while it is often preserved before a stative verb,
such as ‘be’ or ‘have’.
Thanks.
Nice answer, Foreigner. 
Thanks, Beeesneees. :-)
Then this is such a widespread mistake that I would have thought that the first was also correct – only three random newspaper instances:
A 16-year-old boy has been arrested after admitting to have mistakenly shot 8-year-old Aryanna…
dailymail.co.uk/news/article … kyard.html
The panel unanimously found that Ms White’s testimony was both credible and sufficient to establish that the athletes had indeed admitted to have used prohibited substances in violation of applicable anti-doping rules. news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/4521452.stm
He admitted to have had 65 of these images in his possession. worksopguardian.co.uk/news/l … -1-5500131
But you read that information in one of your famous grammar books, Foreigner – yes? 
I think it can safely be added that “admit” is not ALWAYS followed by a gerund. It can also be followed by a that-clause:
He admitted that he tried to cheat on the exam.
She admitted that she had been in love with him since they met.
wordsmyth.net/?ent=admit
…as well as an infinitive WHEN “admit” is part of a passive construction:
The appointment is now generally admitted to have been a mistake.
oxfordlearnersdictionaries.c … lish/admit
(Feel free to say if you think my message creates confusion rather than clarifying anything.)
Being written in the media doesn’t make a point of grammar correct.
I would want prefer the purer forms:
admitted to having mistakenly shot …
admitted to having used prohibited substances…
admitted to having had 65 of these images…
Anyway, to clarify, even bearing all that in mind, message #1, sentence 1 is NEVER correct.
Of course not. But with the mistake being that widespread I for one can see how anyone --especially learners who don’t relish reading grammar books so much-- would be led to believe that it is actually perfectly grammatical.
Sorry I seem to have got carried away a tiny bit when I posted the above message. It probably doesn’t help any. I must admit I was very surprised to discover that “admit” + infinitive is correct only when in a passive construction (as in the dictionary example I quoted above).
No, this time I read it in a different grammar book.
I am totally agree with you. However, when I wrote the following:
then I meant we use the gerund as opposed to the infinitive in such cases (thread #1).
Cristina, I think it’s another kettle of fish. It has not anything to do with the verb in the original. Not only is the verb “admit” used like that; but a number of verbs, as you know, are used like that when they are part of a passive construction. Consequently, the “to” in your sentence is the infinitive marker, whereas the “to” in the thread #1 is the preposition.
Thank you, however, for your observations! :-)
Hi,
Taking a risk of getting on the receiving end, I still can’t get but cite one native whose advice I admit to be following: “Unfortunately for the learner, native speakers do not always hold strictly to the distinctions given in your textbook.” The more you hear natives speaking, the more you believe it’s true.
Back to ‘admit’, would you agree: “Admit to is an idiom. Technically it consists of the intransitive verb admit and the preposition to. The idiomatic combination admit to means acknowledge.
She admitted to making a mistake means She acknowledged making a mistake. Technically, making is the gerund object of the preposition to, and the whole phrase to making a mistake describes in what way she admitted.
I’m not sure that the second sentence works as written. One could say: The difficulty of enforcing the new law was generally admitted to [acknowledged].
Or: The new law was generally recognized as being difficult to enforce.”
englishforums.com/English/Ad … n/post.htm
Googling it: “One in six children aged between 11-15 admit to have taken drugs …”
www.dailymail.co.uk/…/
From the BNC: “Even before Desmond Boal stepped down from the chairmanship of the Party to advocate his idea of a federal Ireland, the Party was very much what even DUP activists admit to have been ‘Paisley’s fan club’. “
“ The two leftish books to which he referred were duly reviewed, and I admit to have rather enjoyed undertaking the ‘thorough cutting up’ which he declared the Levy book to deserve (it did).”
From a dictionary: “Anne cheerfully admitted she had made the whole thing up.” = ‘admitted to have made’, isn’t it? Then the original could just read: “He admitted he had stolen my diary”.
As
These would be correct:
• admitted to being…
• admitted to having taken drugs …
• admitted to having been “Paisley’s fun club”.
• admitted to having rather enjoyed undertaking …
No, it isn't. '[i]Admitted to having made[/i]' would be correct.
Yes, I agree with you.
(1) “He admitted he had stolen my diary”.
(2) “He admitted he stole my diary”.
Both of the sentences above are acceptable, but the first is more formally correct.
Thanks.
Hi Foreigner,
Thank you for your message.
I’d say the most important thing to take away from this discussion is that
EXCEPT
Hi Eugene,
Don’t worry, I’ll back you up! After all, I was the one who started pointing fingers at the native speakers and their media first. :-)))
Thank you, Cristina.
Not so down now. 
Of course you’re right. The discussion here proves your being right 100%: forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=215664
Still we had the “admitted to have used” and “admitted to have had”, used by natives—abnormalities? So why not my “admitted to have made”? Sometimes you learn more ‘disregarding’ orthodox grammar…
Beeesneees,
“Being written in the media, doesn’t make a point of grammar correct.”
Could I write this as below:
“Being written in the media, it doesn’t make a point of grammar correct.”
Please explain and comment. Thanks.
May I add my two cents here.
The most important point is ‘to’ in this case is NOT an infinitive marker, BUT a preposition. As is known, a preposition takes a noun, noun phrase, gerund etc.
I look forward to your comment.
What makes you think it is a preposition? I would say it was a part of the phrasal verb (admit + to), therefore has a special use.
Beeesneees,
Could you please answer my query.
Thanks.
I find your re-write just about acceptable, though it is not as fluent as the original.
It may help to think of it like this:
Although something is written like this (in terms of grammar) in the media, this does not mean that the way it is written is correct.
In other words:
People who write for the media frequently break grammar rules.