I suppose this is from a exercise where the task is to:
Complete the second sentence in each section using the given word,
so that the meaning of this sentence is as close as possible to the initial sentence. You are not allowed to change the given sentences. Do not change the given word. Use from two to five words.
Here's an example from that exercise:
- You must do exactly what the manager tells you. (carry)
- You must ___________________ instructions exactly. (carry out the manager’s)
According to this information the solution probably is:
- Daisy admitted (to) having left the door unlocked. (Passive Voice, Reported Speech)
This is based on this information [Affirmation in reported speech] and this Source.
So, your teacher is definitely wrong.
According to grammar rules when we use reported speech for Past Simple we change the tense to Past Perfect. However, if we want to report a past action in the Indirect speech we can use a Perfect Participle. Using the Perfect Participle makes it clear that the action took place in the past.
The general way of reporting the phrase "Yes, I left the door unlocked", said Daisy. in the Indirect Speech is:
- Daisy said that she had left the door unlocked.
We can leave the Present tense in the reported speech if what is mentioned is still true at the time of speaking or is generally true.
- "People die", John says.
- John says that people die. (True).
Grammatically, both sentences mean the same thing. Consider these very common sentences which display the same structure:
The man gave me the pencil.
English speakers understand that when two objects come after the verb without prepositions, the first is likely the indirect object (the recipient) while the second is the direct object (the thing given).
While this sentence can be parsed as you propose (to make "the pencil" a description of "me"), it would be almost impossible for a native speaker to understand it that way, even if you used very exaggerated inflection.
The man gave the pencil to me.
In this case the order of the objects has been reversed, but the roles have been preserved by inserting the preposition "to" to show which is the indirect object.
Since your sentences about the loan follow this same pattern, they are grammatically and semantically correct, but native speakers will find them hard to understand. There are three reasons for this:
1) The verb "to sanction" is not often, at least on American English, used to refer to approvals granted in the ordinary course of business. It suggests a declaration from a higher external authority, perhaps a government official, that a certain course of action is lawful. Applications are "approved" or "granted". Business decisions are "approved" or "affirmed" by those higher up in the organization.
2) This sentences structure is not usually used with the verbs "sanction" and "approve". But, it is used with "grant" and "give". So you could say "The bank gave me a loan".
3) The verb "to sanction" has a second, nearly opposite, meaning: to take strong action to discourage disapproved conduct. The unusual wording and usage in your sentence will confuse many listeners who will not know which meaning of "sanction" is intended.
There are many idiomatic phrases which you could use. A good one is:
The office approved my loan application.
less formally, this can be shortened to:
The office approved my loan.
Best Answer
Both are right.
The first one says the house if built of "stone", as a generic material, while the second one uses "stones" because the house was built using specific stones, the ones the builder had taken from his rocky fields. For example, you could also say
or
and both would be correct.