What is the difference between ...

0 Hello02br
02br
00I think there is no semantic difference. The version of "having spent" could emphasize the time difference to the main verb's time, but I myself don't use it because it sounds a redundant phrase.02br
02br
00paco 0-

0"after spending two years" is conversational, whereas "after having spent two years" is formal. The use of latter is also confined to written English.0-

0Thank you Paco and thank you The Mesopotamian.02br
02br
00After having read your replies, I think I now have better understanding in 01i01font00when to use which.02font02i02br
02br
00Sorry, this then leads to another question, is this a proper way of expression ... "have better understanding in 01

0 I think "have better understanding about when to use which one" is more idiomatic.02br
02br
00paco 0-

0Many thanks again, Paco.02br
02br
00I’ve just given this (01font01i00or, these? Which one?00)02i02font00 00“after spending ...” and “after having spent ...” another thought, and may I ask the following questions:02br
02br
00“After spending 2 years in Sydney” – may indicate that after that

0Many thanks again, Paco.02br
02br
00I’ve just given this (or, these? Which one?) “after spending ...” and “after having spent ...” another thought, and may I ask the following questions:02br
02br
00“After spending 2 years in Sydney” – may indicate that after that 2 years, more time can still be spent in Sydney, correct?02br
02br
00“Aft

0 Hello Willimagine02br
02br
00I understand what you mean but I rather disagree. "After X" means "subsequent to time or event X" but it does not necessarily mean "immediately subsequent to time or event X". If we want to mean so, we have to say "immediately after X". So I think we cannot use "after doing" and "after having done" in such different senses as you mentioned.02