Having done or after they did

< Previous | Next >

dhejejjeskms

Senior Member
Korean
Hi, everyone.

I was wondering what is the difference between "having done" and "after they did".

Would you let me know about that?
(The sentence is from a CNN article.)

They (US) need to go into this next summit prepared and having done their homework," she said.

Thank you.
 
  • Uncle Jack

    Senior Member
    British English
    The word "after" indicates a temporal relationship, that one thing happens after the other, and tends to imply that this is the most important aspect of the relationship between the two things. Omitting "after" makes readers look for something else that makes the relationship important.

    "After" could be followed by an ordinary clause (which should begin "they have done", to match the tense of tense of the original) or by a participle clause, but I don't think there is any difference in meaning.
    They need to go into this next summit prepared and after having done their homework.
    They need to go into this next summit prepared and after they have done their homework.​
    Neither of these really suggests that doing their homework is part of being prepared.
     

    lingobingo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Having done is the perfect participle of the verb “do”, which can be used to introduce a participial clause relating to another action. After they did can’t simply replace “having done” in your example.

    They need to go into this next summit prepared, having done their homework. :tick::thumbsup:
    They need to go into this next summit prepared, after doing their homework. :tick:
    They need to go into this next summit prepared and after they did their homework. :cross:
    A better example, in which all versions work:

    Having done the shopping, they went straight home.
    After doing the shopping, they went straight home.
    After they did the shopping, they went straight home.​
     

    dhejejjeskms

    Senior Member
    Korean
    The word "after" indicates a temporal relationship, that one thing happens after the other, and tends to imply that this is the most important aspect of the relationship between the two things. Omitting "after" makes readers look for something else that makes the relationship important.

    "After" could be followed by an ordinary clause (which should begin "they have done", to match the tense of tense of the original) or by a participle clause, but I don't think there is any difference in meaning.
    They need to go into this next summit prepared and after having done their homework.
    They need to go into this next summit prepared and after they have done their homework.​
    Neither of these really suggests that doing their homework is part of being prepared.
    Thank you.
     

    dhejejjeskms

    Senior Member
    Korean
    Having done is the perfect participle of the verb “do”, which can be used to introduce a participial clause relating to another action. After they did can’t simply replace “having done” in your example.

    They need to go into this next summit prepared, having done their homework. :tick::thumbsup:
    They need to go into this next summit prepared, after doing their homework. :tick:
    They need to go into this next summit prepared and after they did their homework. :cross:
    A better example, in which all versions work:

    Having done the shopping, they went straight home.
    After doing the shopping, they went straight home.
    After they did the shopping, they went straight home.​
    Thank you.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top