Amounting To Vs. Amounted To?

Hi,

#2

Clive

Thank you for your quick reply.

could you please explain the difference in meaning between the two sentences

If only the second one is correct, what difference in meaning are you talking about?

I have read some financial reports for a company and both “amounted to” and “amounting to” are used. Do they have different meaning? Or “amounting to” is just wrong and shouldn’t be used?

The first is not a complete sentence.

The company’s total expenses, amounting to $1000, were lower than expected.

The company’s total expenses, which amounted to $1000, were lower than expected.

or

The company’s total expenses, amounting to $1000, are lower than expected.

The company’s total expenses, which amount to $1000, are lower than expected.

Hi,

I replied does not mean to say my English is better. Solely to share my opinion.

- The company’s total expenses amounting to $1000

- The company’s total expenses amounted to $1000

Regarding the statements above, I think both are correct.

Top statement is a continuous tense and the bottom one is a past tense.



Hope others share their opinion.



B Regards,



Dimples828

Hi,
I replied does not mean to say my English is better. Solely to share my opinion.

- The company’s total expenses amounting to $1000
No. The correct Past Continuous would be

The company’s total expenses were amounting to $1000.
Note that the Continuous, even if correct, is not a good choice here.

A better choice would be just
The company’s total expenses were to $1000.

The company’s total expenses amounted to $1000

Regarding the statements above, I think both are correct.No, see my note.


Top statement is a continuous tense and the bottom one is a past tense.

Clive

- The company’s total expenses amounting to $1000

- The company’s total expenses amounted to $1000

Thanks

the second sentence is the right and exact grammar