Example: He admitted having put
some poison in her drink ‘and’
she passed away.
Can you tell me if the usage of
the conjunction ‘and’ is
right here? I hope you know
what I mean with the sentence.
I mean
‘he admitted having put some poison in her
drink and she passed away in that
very moment’
It seems a little strange to connect these two ideas with “and” unless the admission (rather than the poison) was the cause of her passing away. Is that what you want to say?
‘He admitted having put some poison
in her drink, AND she passed away’
What I am trying to say is
that when he admitted having put
some posion, she passed away. She
passed away when he admitted it.
Obviously, the cause of her dead would have
been the poison,
but there was a cause before (the
cause you mentioned= she passed away
because of his admission). I know it seems
impossible, something unreal…
Anyway, ‘and’ keeps on sounding quite strange
to me. Any other option? I think I?m
really turning Spanish into English.
If you mean that one thing was the result of another, you need to strengthen the conjunction to give some relationship with the two actions: the admission of the poisoning and the passing away. I would therefore say: and as a result.
That’s what I see as the problem with the sentence, Jesus. The cause is not completely obvious when you connect “admit” and “die”. And that’s what your first sentence does: The word “and” connects “admit” to “pass away”.
It sounds like she could possibly have had a heart attack (and died) because she was so shocked by the admission. Maybe the poison itself wasn’t lethal, but the knowledge of having been poisoned was.
What about just omitting “admit” completely: He poisoned her drink and she died.
After he poisoned her drink, she died.
You can talk about his admission in a different sentence.
Amy, that?s what I wanted to
say. I mean, connecting ‘admit’ and ‘pass away’.
‘She passed away because of his admission’.
Yes, the poison wasn?t lethal enough. So,
she died before this one took effect. For instance,
a heart attack as you said. The heart attack
was produced by his admission.
Then, is it ‘and as a result’, as Alan said first,
right?
I see you’re still valiantly trying to use “He admitted to himself”
Basically, I probably will not like any sentence that has the following construction:
He admitted to himself followed by having done
I would recommend not using this construction at all.
“He admitted having done” is fine. But it is not OK to insert “to himself” in that sentence, in my opinion. If you want to use “to himself”, then you should use a different type of sentence. For example:
“He admitted to himself that he had done…”
If you admit something to yourself, that means you had been telling yourself (probably for a long time) that X was true, and then finally you admit to yourself that Y is true.
For example:
Let’s say he’s a musician and he’d always believed he could become a famous rock star. He joined a band and played in the band for years. The band recorded a few CDs, but none were big hits. The band never became famous. Finally, years later:
“He finally admitted to himself that he would never become a famous rock star.”
If you admit having done something, you usually admit to someone else that you did something.