# I've never felt more embarrassed (present perfect ?)



## Phoebe1200

Self-made
Situation: Imagine I'm telling my friend about some incident from my childhood. Like for example, when I was a kid I was invited to a birthday party where someone played some kind of prank on me and everyone laughed at me which made me feel really embarrassed. And now I say to my friend:

_I'*ve* never *felt* more embarrassed. 
_
Is it correct that I used the present perfect?_ 
_


----------



## PaulQ

Yes.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thanks.

And does it mean that I haven't felt more embarrassed ever since even though many years have passed?


----------



## PaulQ

Yes - that feeling of embarrassment exists presently.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Phoebe1200 said:


> _I'*ve* never *felt* more embarrassed. _


Does my sentence have an implicit "in my life"?


----------



## dojibear

Yes, that is implied. And sometimes "in my life" is added, making the statement stronger.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you.

I also wanted to ask if I could say the following sentence to mean that I haven't felt more embarrassed ever since even though many years have passed. Is it OK that I use the past simple here with the present perfect like that?

_That *was *the most embarrassed I'*ve* ever *felt*._


----------



## lordignus

That *is* the most embarrassed I've ever felt.

Because it still is! There hasn't been anything more embarrassing since


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thanks, lordignus.


lordignus said:


> Because it still is! There hasn't been anything more embarrassing since


Yes, this is exactly the meaning that I intend to express with my sentence.


Phoebe1200 said:


> _That *was *the most embarrassed I'*ve* ever *felt*._


So my sentence is wrong?


----------



## SevenDays

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thanks, lordignus.
> 
> Yes, this is exactly the meaning that I intend to express with my sentence.
> 
> So my sentence is wrong?



No, not at all.
_That *was *the most embarrassed I* have ever felt*_

"That *was*" refers to a specific event (the thing that happened to you at the birthday party)
"the most embarrassed that I *have ever felt*" considers "embarrassment" in the context of the _totality _of your life so far, and not just about what happened in the past.
In any event, that's how the non-native neurons in my brain see it.
Cheers


----------



## sound shift

Phoebe1200 said:


> Self-made
> Situation: Imagine I'm telling my friend about some incident from my childhood. Like for example, when I was a kid I was invited to a birthday party where someone played some kind of prank on me and everyone laughed at me which made me feel really embarrassed. And now I say to my friend:
> 
> _I'*ve* never *felt* more embarrassed.
> _
> Is it correct that I used the present perfect?


What's *correct *depends on the context. The context - the fact that there hasn't been anything more embarrassing since - has come out over the course of this thread, and "I've never felt more embarrassed" fits that context.

However, "I*'d* never felt more embarrassed" would be *correct* if you wanted to say that nothing more embarrassing had occurred prior to that prank.


----------



## Phoebe1200

SevenDays said:


> "That *was*" refers to a specific event (the thing that happened to you at the birthday party)
> "the most embarrassed that I *have ever felt*" considers "embarrassment" in the context of the _totality _of your life so far, and not just about what happened in the past.
> In any event, that's how the non-native neurons in my brain see it.


Thank you, SD. That's how I see it too.


sound shift said:


> What's *correct *depends on the context. The context - the fact that there hasn't been anything more embarrassing since - has come out over the course of this thread, and "I've never felt more embarrassed" fits that context.
> 
> However, "I*'d* never felt more embarrassed" would be *correct* if you wanted to say that nothing more embarrassing had occurred prior to that prank.


Thank you.



Phoebe1200 said:


> That *was *the most embarrassed I'*ve* ever *felt*.


So if my sentence isn't wrong, why did lordignus changed "was" to "is"?



lordignus said:


> That *is* the most embarrassed I've ever felt.


----------



## Florentia52

Presumably, for the reason stated in the post:


> Because it still is! There hasn't been anything more embarrassing since


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you for your reply, Florentia.

But I'm still confused a bit. Do _you_ find the use of tenses in my sentence incorrect?

_That *was *the most embarrassed I'*ve* ever *felt*._


----------



## Florentia52

I really have nothing to add to the comments lordignus, SevenDays, and sound shift have already made on that question. My own preference would be for "That *was* the most embarrassed I*'d* ever felt" or "That *is* the most embarrassed I*'ve* ever felt."


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you, Florentia.

With all due respect to Seven Days (who said that my sentence wasn't wrong and shares my reasoning for it) I would really like to get confirmation from a native speaker about it. Please tell me if the use of tenses in my sentence is correct or not.
_
That *was *the most embarrassed I'*ve* ever *felt*._


----------



## cointi

PaulQ said:


> Yes - that feeling of embarrassment exists presently.



Intriguing. Let's say it was truly embarrassing at the moment, but I don't feel any embarrassment anymore. I'm more mature now. In fact, I laugh at it. But I want to say that since then I haven't felt more embarrassed; so far there has not been an event in my life that has caused so much embarrassment. Can't I say _I'*ve* never *felt* more embarrassed? _


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you, Florentia.
> 
> With all due respect to Seven Days (who said that my sentence wasn't wrong and shares my reasoning for it) I would really like to get confirmation from a native speaker about it. Please tell me if the use of tenses in my sentence is correct or not.
> _
> That *was *the most embarrassed I'*ve* ever *felt*._


It is correct, but _is_ is clearer.





PaulQ said:


> Yes - that feeling of embarrassment exists presently.


I have to disagree with this.





Giesiek said:


> Intriguing. Let's say it was truly embarrassing at the moment, but I don't feel any embarrassment anymore. I'm more mature now. In fact, I laugh at it. But I want to say that since then I haven't felt more embarrassed; so far there has not been an event in my life that has caused so much embarrassment. Can't I say _I'*ve* never *felt* more embarrassed? _


Yes. I agree with you. "I have never felt" is not about present feelings at all.

In fact, "I have always felt" is not about present feelings either.

Present perfect concerns a time interval that extends all the way up to, not through, the present. "I have felt" is about my feelings in such a time interval. It does not say whether those feelings continue through the present or not. What does continue, of course, is my having felt those feelings. Anything I have felt will always be something I have felt.


----------



## PaulQ

lordignus said:


> That *is* the most embarrassed I've ever felt.


 -> it *remains* or *exists in the present as* "the most embarrassed I've ever felt." The embarrassment *is *currently *still *the greatest (most).


Phoebe1200 said:


> That *was *the most embarrassed I'*ve* ever *felt*.


 -> That [i.e. the incident] *at the time* was the most embarrassed I'*ve* ever *felt*. The incident is a past event.


Phoebe1200 said:


> _I'*ve* never *felt* more embarrassed._
> 
> 
> PaulQ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - that feeling of embarrassment exists presently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This comments on the "have felt." As I understand it, the present perfect is used to indicate that a past action has a current effect. The feeling of embarrassment is having a current effect. "I have had a piece of luck." -> the effect of the luck is still present.


----------



## cointi

PaulQ said:


> As I understand it, the present perfect is used to indicate that a past action has a current effect. The feeling of embarrassment is having a current effect. "I have had a piece of luck." -> the effect of the luck is still present.



Oh, native speakers, make up your mind(s)! I read here yesterday that this rule is "100 % false". 

With all seriousness, though. I believe that the present perfect is used both when a past action has a current effect ("I have broken my leg") and when the time frame extends into the present ("I have been to Rome twice (in my life/so far)"). In the OP it is the latter use that is employed, isn't it?


----------



## PaulQ

Giesiek said:


> Oh, native speakers, make up your mind(s)


I think that, by and large, they are made up. The answer to your original question remains "Yes". The *reason *is being fought over and this does not concern you.


----------



## velisarius

"Life experience" is another reason for using the present perfect tense. 

The classic example is of this type:_ I've been to Paris several times (in my life).* 

I've never been* to Tokyo in my life (so far). *I've never felt* more embarrassed in my life (so far)._


----------



## Phoebe1200

Many heartfelt thanks to all of you.


Phoebe1200 said:


> That *was *the most embarrassed I'*ve* ever *felt*.





PaulQ said:


> -> That [i.e. the incident] *at the time* was the most embarrassed I'*ve* ever *felt*. The incident is a past event.


So you agree with what SD said, right?


SevenDays said:


> "That *was*" refers to a specific event (the thing that happened to you at the birthday party)
> "the most embarrassed that I *have ever felt*" considers "embarrassment" in the context of the _totality _of your life so far, and not just about what happened in the past.


----------



## Forero

We are dealing here with two sentences, both of which fit the context given in #1 if we assume an event has just been recounted:

S1: _I've never felt more embarrassed._ [More embarrassed than what?]
S2: _That was the most embarrassed I've ever felt._ [What was?]

In context, the answer to both my questions in square brackets is the same: how embarrassed I felt when everyone laughed at me.

S1 could be used to mean "I've never felt more embarrassed than I do now", but in context it means "I've never felt more embarrassed than I did when everyone laughed at me."

_That_ in S2 refers to the same thing as the _than_ clause in S1, namely how embarrassed I felt when everyone laughed at me. The referent of the pronoun is the degree of embarrassment, not the laughing event that prompted it.

_Was_ in S2 can be replaced with _is_ because the degree of embarrassment referred to still is what it was: the most embarrassed I have ever felt = such that I have never felt more embarrassed.

Whether I have that degree of embarrassment now, or not, is not relevant to understanding either sentence.

Both sentences use present perfect in a negative environment, created by the negative adverb _never_ in S1 and by the superlative _most_ in S2.

So in context, they both say the same thing, that at no time in my life all the way up to (but not necessarily including) the present did I ever feel more embarrassed than (how embarrassed) I felt when everyone laughed at me.

The function of the present perfect here, as always, is to summarize a time interval extending all the way up to (but not necessarily including) the present.

How I felt when everyone laughed at me is of course part of who I am. I can say either "I felt maximally embarrassed then" or "I have felt maximally embarrassed before" with no difference in the expressed degree of effect on the present.


----------



## Phoebe1200

I appreciate your thorough explanation, Forero. 


Forero said:


> "I have felt maximally embarrassed before"


But what does this sentence express?


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I have felt maximally embarrassed before"
> 
> 
> 
> But what does this sentence express?
Click to expand...

It means that there was a time, or there were times, in the past when I felt more embarrassed than at any other time(s).

Does that help?


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you.





Forero said:


> "I have felt maximally embarrassed before"


Did you mean to use this sentence to describe my OP situation?


----------



## Truffula

About the sentence: "I have felt maximally embarrassed before"

I wouldn't use "maximally" that way, firstly because it's a bit stilted and artificial.  Maybe it's a usage Forero invented or maybe it's simply one I am as yet unfamiliar with.

I'm not positive it's  a correct usage, though...  it seems to imply that it is impossible to be embarrassed more than the amount the speaker is referring to, and embarrassment is not usually something that is considered to have limits like that (not just the most embarrassed that person has ever been, but the most embarrassed that it would be possible for that person to be), in a formal way and not just an expressive, metaphorical way, too, because of the word's tone and typical usage.

I found one possible citation in a book:  "Or the trail of damage or petty theft leads the police back to the home, so that the parents or the hospital — as has been our unfortunate experience — are maximally embarrassed." from Dangerousness by John Hamilton and Hugh Freeman, 1982

And another in a news article: "Anthony Weiner’s latest sexting scandal could hardly be worse if it were scripted to maximally embarrass Huma Abedin and her employer, the Clinton campaign."  the Guardian, 2016 

But after looking into the context of these examples I find that "maximally" in this case compares the amount of embarrassment actually felt to the possible embarrassment that could be inflicted by the situation.  It works in that case, but without the context limiting the embarrassment potential, it still doesn't work.  

So you could say "She arranged to dump me in a way that maximally embarrassed me" meaning to cause as much embarrassment as she could possibly cause by the action of dumping.

But not "When she dumped me, I felt maximally embarrassed."  Does it make sense?


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you.
> Did you mean to use this sentence to describe my OP situation?


By "maximally embarrassed", I was trying to say "the most embarrassed I have ever been" without using a clause.

The point I am trying to make is that any present effect of my feelings of the past is expressed just as well or as poorly with simple past tense as with present perfect. For example, the following two sentences are about the same feeling at the same time(s) and neither says any more than the other about any effect on/in the present:

_I felt so embarrassed.
I have felt so embarrassed._


velisarius said:


> "Life experience" is another reason for using the present perfect tense.
> 
> The classic example is of this type:_ I've been to Paris several times (in my life).*
> 
> I've never been* to Tokyo in my life (so far). *I've never felt* more embarrassed in my life (so far)._


"Life experience", or, more generally, to summarize the past up until now or the part of the past from a certain point in time up until now, is the reason for using present perfect:

_I have been to Paris._[at least once before now]
_I have not been to Tokyo._[at all before now]
_I have not felt more embarrassed._[at all before now]

We can add "since 1970", for example, to any of these to limit the beginning of the time interval in question, but if we add anything, e.g. "before yesterday" that puts another time interval between the one in question and the present, we don't use present perfect:

_I have been to Paris since 1970.
I have been to Paris before yesterday.

I have not been to Tokyo since 1970.
I have not been to Tokyo before yesterday.

I have not felt more embarrassed since 1970.
I have not felt more embarrassed before yesterday.
_


----------



## Truffula

Forero, you can't say "I have felt maximally embarrassed before" using "maximally embarrassed" to mean "the most embarrassed I have been" - it'd be like saying "Before today, I've been the most embarrassed I've been"  - tautological, in that obviously that is true of every person whether the most for them is a small or large amount.  You can only use "maximally embarrassed" in the sense of "the most embarrassed I've been" when specifying which of the embarrassing things was the one that was maximal, I guess.  (I did find one citation for using "maximally" this way but they definitely specified a time frame).

I'm also not fully convinced that "I have not felt more embarrassed." rates a green check as a stand-alone sentence.  "I have never felt more embarrassed."  would be green check material.  So would "I have not felt more embarrassed since 1970."  or "I have not felt more embarrassed in my life."  (but I'd put "never" in that last one as  velisarius did )


----------



## Forero

Truffula said:


> Forero, you can't say "I have felt maximally embarrassed before" using "maximally embarrassed" to mean "the most embarrassed I have been" - it'd be like saying "Before today, I've been the most embarrassed I've been"  - tautological, in that obviously that is true of every person whether the most for them is a small or large amount.  You can only use "maximally embarrassed" in the sense of "the most embarrassed I've been" when specifying which of the embarrassing things was the one that was maximal, I guess.  (I did find one citation for using "maximally" this way but they definitely specified a time frame).


I get your point.





> I'm also not fully convinced that "I have not felt more embarrassed." rates a green check as a stand-alone sentence.  "I have never felt more embarrassed."  would be green check material.  So would "I have not felt more embarrassed since 1970."  or "I have not felt more embarrassed in my life."  (but I'd put "never" in that last one as  velisarius did )


All of these sentences require context— more embarrassed than what?— to be made fully understandable.

If I could, and if I had time, I would rewrite some of what I have written, but the point I am trying to make is about present perfect and what it means that past simple does not.

Do you agree that Phoebe1200's two sentences (that I called S1 and S2 in #24) are about the past all the way up to, but not including, the present, and that "current effect" has no bearing on their meaning?





Giesiek said:


> Oh, native speakers, make up your mind(s)! I read here yesterday that this rule is "100 % false".
> 
> With all seriousness, though. I believe that the present perfect is used both when a past action has a current effect ("I have broken my leg") and when the time frame extends into the present ("I have been to Rome twice (in my life/so far)"). In the OP it is the latter use that is employed, isn't it?


I realize that some English speakers believe "I have broken my leg" says something that "I broke my leg" does not about "current effect", but to me "I have broken my leg" suggests "current effect" only in an understated sort of way.

All the sentence "I have broken my leg" actually says is that "I have not broken my leg" is false. In other words, "I have broken my leg" means that I broke my leg at least once at some time in the past. Whether my leg is still broken and whether I need help, for example, are questions not answered by the sentence itself but determinable only from the context in which that sentence is spoken.

The same is true of "I broke my leg", except that the latter sentence conjures up a stronger image in my mind than the vague "I have broken my leg."

If I want to say that my leg is broken, I'll say "My leg is broken" or "I just broke my leg", not "I have broken my leg."

"I have been to Rome twice" does not say whether I am in Rome now or whether my being in Rome now would count as one of the two times, but if I am only now arriving in Rome for my second time, I don't say "I have been to Rome twice." On the other hand, if I arrived in Rome for my second time a moment ago, then I might say "Now I have been to Rome twice."

So as I see it, the time frame of present perfect does not extend into the present but only up to the present.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you everyone for your answers.

Can I use the below sentence for my situation i.e. saying this sentence to my friend in the present time but about the past (the time everyone laughed at me at the party)?

_I'*ve* never* felt *more embarrassed *before*._


----------



## cointi

Forero said:


> I realize that some English speakers believe "I have broken my leg" says something that "I broke my leg" does not about "current effect", but to me "I have broken my leg" suggests "current effect" only in an understated sort of way.
> 
> All the sentence "I have broken my leg" actually says is that "I have not broken my leg" is false. In other words, "I have broken my leg" means that I broke my leg at least once at some time in the past. Whether my leg is still broken and whether I need help, for example, are questions not answered by the sentence itself but determinable only from the context in which that sentence is spoken.
> 
> The same is true of "I broke my leg", except that the latter sentence conjures up a stronger image in my mind than the vague "I have broken my leg."



_a) I can't go skiing with you because I have broken my leg.
b) I couldn't go skiing with them because I broke my leg two weeks before.

c) I've lost my keys. I cannot get into my flat.
d) I lost my keys yesterday. I had to call a locksmith.
_
I think that, at least in BE, there is a strong preference for the present perfect to be used in a) and c). And I believe the reason is "current effect". b) and d) are for contrast.




Forero said:


> If I want to say that my leg is broken, I'll say "My leg is broken" or "I just broke my leg", not "I have broken my leg."



I know it's different in AE, but in BrE I believe you would be most likely to say "Oh my! I have just cut off the tip of my finger!"

For some reason "I have just broken my leg" doesn't sound so natural. I have no idea why.


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you everyone for your answers.
> 
> Can I use the below sentence for my situation i.e. saying this sentence to my friend in the present time but about the past (the time everyone laughed at me at the party)?
> 
> _I'*ve* never* felt *more embarrassed *before*._


Here _before_ would mean "before now". In your context, since we assume "than I felt then", I would expect you to follow this sentence with something about how you feel now.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Forero said:


> I would expect you to follow this sentence with something about how you feel now.


Could you tell how? Because I don't know.


----------



## Forero

For example:

_I've never felt more embarrassed before, and I don't expect to anytime soon.
I've never felt more embarrassed before. It is only now that I feel worse._

It is an unusual sentence, and would really not work with the "understood" part included:

_I've never felt more embarrassed before than I felt back then._

Why did you want to add "before" to your sentence?


----------



## Phoebe1200

Forero said:


> Why did you want to add "before" to your sentence?


Because of your comment.


Forero said:


> How I felt when everyone laughed at me is of course part of who I am. I can say either "I felt maximally embarrassed then" or "I have felt maximally embarrassed before" with no difference in the expressed degree of effect on the present.



So this sentence "_I'*ve* never* felt *more embarrassed *before*" _*cannot* be used for my situation i.e. saying this sentence to my friend in the present time but about the past (the time everyone laughed at me at the party)?


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Because of your comment.
> 
> 
> So this sentence "_I'*ve* never* felt *more embarrassed *before*" _*cannot* be used for my situation i.e. saying this sentence to my friend in the present time but about the past (the time everyone laughed at me at the party)?


Do you mean "before now" or "before then"?


----------



## Phoebe1200

Forero said:


> Do you mean "before now" or "before then"?


"before now"


----------



## Forero

Giesiek said:


> _a) I can't go skiing with you because I have broken my leg.
> b) I couldn't go skiing with them because I broke my leg two weeks before.
> 
> c) I've lost my keys. I cannot get into my flat.
> d) I lost my keys yesterday. I had to call a locksmith.
> _
> I think that, at least in BE, there is a strong preference for the present perfect to be used in a) and c). And I believe the reason is "current effect". b) and d) are for contrast.


"Two weeks before" and "yesterday" force past tense, as would "this morning" in a and c (at least if it is no longer morning):

a') _I can't go skiing with you because I have broken my leg this morning._ [Should be "I broke".]
c') _I've lost my keys this morning. I cannot get into my flat._ [Should be "I lost".]

Doesn't present perfect fit a and c for the same reason past perfect would fit b and d?:

b') _I couldn't go skiing with them because I had broken my leg._
d') _I had lost my keys. I had to call a locksmith.
_
Can past perfect be used for "current effect" in the past?





> I know it's different in AE, but in BrE I believe you would be most likely to say "Oh my! I have just cut off the tip of my finger!"
> 
> For some reason "I have just broken my leg" doesn't sound so natural. I have no idea why.


Adding "just" makes it less of an understatement, as does adding "this morning" to a and c if it is still morning. Does that decrease the "current effect"?

(If I keep looking at "I have (just) broken my leg" long enough, I get the image of someone breaking their leg on purpose.)


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> "before now"


Then you can use it for your situation, but if you reference both times in your sentence ("than I did then" and "before now"), I think you need a reason (as would be explained by a sentence about how you feel now).

Otherwise, it is not obvious that you are referring to two different times and I would guess you probably meant "I'd never felt more embarrassed before", with "before" meaning "before then".


----------



## Truffula

Forero said:


> Do you agree that Phoebe1200's two sentences (that I called S1 and S2 in #24) are about the past all the way up to, but not including, the present, and that "current effect" has no bearing on their meaning?



Yes, I agree with this.


----------



## cointi

Forero said:


> Doesn't present perfect fit a and c for the same reason past perfect would fit b and d?:



Yes, it does. I would argue it's because of (analogically) "then-current effect". I had broken my leg and it had a "then-current effect" of me (not) going skiing. I had lost my keys and it had a "then-current effect" of me having to call a locksmith.

Of course, "current-effect" or "then-current effect" are just one reason to use perfect tenses, there are other reasons to use them, e.g time frame extending up till now (present perfect) or, analogically, "then-now".(past perfect)

And, of course, a closed time frame (this morning, two days ago) overrides the rule, forcing the past simple, as you pointed out.



Forero said:


> Adding "just" makes it less of an understatement, as does adding "this morning" to a and c if it is still morning. Does that decrease the "current effect"?



If anything, I would say it increases it!

In general, you raise a very good point, and I'm not very attached to the 'current effect' idea. I'm ready to let it go, but I think I need some more convincing


----------



## Forero

Giesiek said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adding "just" makes it less of an understatement, as does adding "this morning" to a and c if it is still morning. Does that decrease the "current effect"?
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, I would say it increases it!
Click to expand...

That's interesting.

How about "I just broke my leg"? Any "current effect"?





> In general, you raise a very good point, and I 'm not very attached to the 'current effect' idea. I'm ready to let it go, but I think I need some more convincing


In general, I think we have to go with what native speakers say they understand about a sentence, and we do have different opinions sometimes, based on different observations, but I just have to argue with #4 and #19, which to me make no sense at all in reference to Phoebe1200's sentences.

I'll try to be careful with "maximally", and I hope others will try to be careful with "current effect".


----------



## cointi

Forero said:


> How about "I just broke my leg"? Any "current effect"?



That's an AE peculiarity. I have never figured this one out.



Forero said:


> In general, I think we have to go with what native speakers say they understand about a sentence, and we do have different opinions sometimes, based on different observations, but I just have to argue with #4 and #19, which to me make no sense at all in reference to Phoebe1200's sentences.



I myself disagree with #4. In fact, this is why I posted in this thread in the first place. No "current effect" in the OP, if you ask me.



Forero said:


> I'll try to be careful with "maximally", and I hope others will try to be careful with "current effect".



I know I will. Thank you!


----------



## Phoebe1200

Forero said:


> Then you can use it for your situation, but if you reference both times in your sentence ("than I did then" and "before now"), I think you need a reason (as would be explained by a sentence about how you feel now).


Thank you. But would you agree that using this sentence "_I'*ve* never* felt *more embarrassed *before*"_ for my situation is actually not really natural and is a strange way to put it?


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you. But would you agree that using this sentence "_I'*ve* never* felt *more embarrassed *before*"_ for my situation is actually not really natural and is a strange way to put it?


By itself, with no further context, yes.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Forero said:


> By itself, with no further context, yes.


Well, the context would be me telling my friend about that incident from my childhood and then saying "_I'*ve* never* felt *more embarrassed *before*". _I mean in this case, is it natural to use it?


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Well, the context would be me telling my friend about that incident from my childhood and then saying "_I'*ve* never* felt *more embarrassed *before*". _I mean in this case, is it natural to use it?


With no reason to talk about different times, no.

To make this sentence work, you would need to contrast "before" with "now" or with something like "in the future".


----------



## Phoebe1200

Forero said:


> To make this sentence work, you would need to contrast "before" with "now" or with something like "in the future".


How? Could you please give an example?


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> How? Could you please give an example?


Well, I have been trying to come up with something, but it is really hard to hold "than I was then" in mind and yet keep keep "before" from meaning "before then" (which would require "I had never felt ...").

An example with your other sentence might be easier:

_If they carry out their prank, I'm afraid I'll die of embarrassment. Once, when I was a child, someone played a horrible prank on me. That is the most embarrassed I've ever felt before. I hope they don't make me break my record now._

Contrived, but possible (barely).


----------



## wandle

Phoebe1200 said:


> Well, the context would be me telling my friend about that incident from my childhood and then saying "_I'*ve* never* felt *more embarrassed *before*". _I mean in this case, is it natural to use it?


The natural thing here is simply to use the past perfect:  'I'd never felt more embarrassed'.

No need for 'before': that idea is already expressed by the past perfect tense.


----------



## wandle

Forero said:


> "I have broken my leg" means that I broke my leg at least once at some time in the past. Whether my leg is still broken and whether I need help, for example, are questions not answered by the sentence itself but determinable only from the context in which that sentence is spoken.


If I may say so, suggesting that the present perfect has the same meaning as the past tense seems to me like trying to cut out of the language an important element of meaning: a distinction which functions very well every day of the week all round the world.

The difference between (a) 'I broke my leg' and (b) 'I have broken my leg' is simple. Both statements mean that the leg fracture occurred: (a) adds the information that the speaker is mentally disconnecting the fracture from the present moment; (b) adds the information that the speaker is mentally connecting the fracture to the present moment.

 The most common application of the distinction is that (a) is used to describe a fracture not now affecting the speaker and that (b) is used for a fracture which is now affecting the speaker. Of course, there are many other ways the distinction can be applied.

Context tells us in what way it is being used: the tense itself expresses the fact that it is being used.


----------



## Forero

wandle said:


> The natural thing here is simply to use the past perfect:  'I'd never felt more embarrassed'.
> 
> No need for 'before': that idea is already expressed by the past perfect tense.


Phoebe1200 wants _before _to mean "before now", not "before then". The problem with trying to do that is that we have to complete "more embarrassed" in our minds with "than then", and that almost forces _before_ to mean "before then", which is what makes us think past perfect is intended.

If we say "That was", that puts us in the past as well, so again it is hard to make _before_ mean "before now".

I tried "That is the most embarrassed I have ever felt", but that still seems to require support from outside the sentence in order to keep _before_ from meaning "before then".

Thus any reference to the past, including just the pronoun _that_ in this last case, makes it very difficult to make_ before_ mean "before now".

You have just observed that past perfect means "before then" without having to add it. In the same way, present perfect means "before now" without having to add it.

As I see it, present perfect always involves two timeframes, "now" (which goes with the present tense form of "have") and "before" (which goes with the participle), but we can change the emphasis by expressing one or the other.

Although we can say "Now I have done that" and "I have done that before", referring to the selfsame act, it would be confusing to say "Now I have done that before", because of a conflict of emphasis.

The underlying meaning remains the same.


----------



## wandle

Forero said:


> Phoebe1200 wants _before _to mean "before now", not "before then".


That is not the meaning of the post I was replying to:


Phoebe1200 said:


> Well, the context would be me telling my friend about that incident from my childhood and then saying "_I'*ve* never* felt *more embarrassed *before*". _I mean in this case, is it natural to use it?


That has to mean 'before the childhood incident'.


----------



## Phoebe1200

wandle said:


> Phoebe1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the context would be me telling my friend about that incident from my childhood and then saying "_I'*ve* never* felt *more embarrassed *before*". _I mean in this case, is it natural to use it?
> 
> 
> 
> That has to mean 'before the childhood incident'.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much. But then the tense has to change to the past perfect, right?


Forero said:


> Well, I have been trying to come up with something, but it is really hard to hold "than I was then" in mind and yet keep keep "before" from meaning "before then" (which would require "I had never felt ...").
> 
> An example with your other sentence might be easier:
> 
> _If they carry out their prank, I'm afraid I'll die of embarrassment. Once, when I was a child, someone played a horrible prank on me. That is the most embarrassed I've ever felt before. I hope they don't make me break my record now._
> 
> Contrived, but possible (barely).


A zillion thanks to you for your kindness.

How about "_I'*ve* never* felt *embarrassed like that before_"?  Can this "before" mean 'before now' and 'before then'?


----------



## Forero

wandle said:


> That is not the meaning of the post I was replying to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoebe1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the context would be me telling my friend about that incident from my childhood and then saying "_I'*ve* never* felt *more embarrassed *before*". _I mean in this case, is it natural to use it?
Click to expand...

I was replying to Phoebe1200's intended meaning:





> Phoebe1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... So this sentence "_I'*ve* never* felt *more embarrassed *before*" _*cannot* be used for my situation i.e. saying this sentence to my friend in the present time but about the past (the time everyone laughed at me at the party)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean "before now" or "before then"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoebe1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "before now"
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I have tried to use context outside the sentence to keep "before" meaning "before now" in this sentence, but I have not  been able to make it do so. So I agree with you that "before" in this sentence apparently





> has to mean 'before the childhood incident'.


... or something close to it, giving the sentence the wrong tense.

In the similar sentence "I've never felt so embarrassed before", "before" means "before now", and there is nothing wrong with having it there.

What makes the difference is that "more embarrassed" in our context means "more embarrassed than I felt at the childhood incident" and that comparison apparently makes "before" mean "before then", not "before now", which in turn makes "I've" the wrong tense.

To the three sentences we have been discussing, I'll add my "so" version:

S1: _I've never felt *more* embarrassed._
S2: _*That* was the most embarrassed I've ever felt._
S3: _*That* is the most embarrassed I've ever felt._
S4: _I've never felt *so* embarrassed._

Each of these sentences refers, using the comparative _more_, the pronoun _that_, or the "demonstrative" adverb _so_, to a referent in the context, something being compared to. We can tell from each sentence itself that the referent is a degree of embarrassment, but these sentences need context to tell us whether the referent is a present degree of embarrassment or, as with our context, a past one.

In this thread, we assume the referent in each sentence is the degree of embarrassment the speaker felt when everyone laughed (or shortly thereafter).

_Ever_ means "at any time", which with the present perfect means "at any time up to (but not necessarily including) the present". This, too, is the same in all these sentences.

We can add a final _before_ to S4, and possibly, with additional context, to S3, but doing so seems to be problematic with S1 and S2, in which a final _before_ would apparently have to mean "before then" and require a change in meaning and tense.

I hope we can all agree on this in the context given.


----------



## wandle

Phoebe1200 said:


> But then the tense has to change to the past perfect, right?


Yes, because the feeling was prior to a point already in the past (before the childhood incident).


Phoebe1200 said:


> How about "_I'*ve* never* felt *embarrassed like that before_"? Can this "before" mean 'before now' and 'before then'?


What does 'like that' refer to? If it refers to an experience of the speaker, then it is contradicting the present perfect tense.
'Like that' means an experience the speaker has had: but the present perfect says the speaker has never had such an experience.


----------



## Phoebe1200

wandle said:


> What does 'like that' refer to?


To the embarrassment I felt at the party.


----------



## wandle

Phoebe1200 said:


> To the embarrassment I felt at the party.





wandle said:


> then it is contradicting the present perfect tense.


It makes sense to say 'I'd never felt so embarrassed [as I felt then]' but not 'I've never felt so embarrassed [as I felt then]'.

'Never' with the past perfect means 'at no time before the party'.
'Never' with the present perfect means 'at no time before the present': that is, 'never at any time up to now'.

'I've never felt so embarrassed before' is a valid sentence, but it can only refer to an experience which the speaker is having at the time of speaking.


----------



## Forero

wandle said:


> It makes sense to say 'I'd never felt so embarrassed [as I felt then]' but not 'I've never felt so embarrassed [as I felt then]'.


We have to bend logic a little to understand the latter sentence, but I think it is possible.

Consider that we often say things like "No one is as smart as Joan" when we really mean "No one else [nobody besides Joan herself] is smarter than Joan."





Phoebe1200 said:


> How about "_I'*ve* never* felt *embarrassed like that before_"?  Can this "before" mean 'before now' and 'before then'?


Logically we should except that particular time:

_I've never again felt embarrassed like that before now._

That might be a valid sentence, but it is impervious to understanding under normal circumstances.

I have offered "I've never (again) felt so embarrassed before (now)", leaving out the explicit reference to "that", and I find it understandable, just barely.

I have been thinking about this, and I believe that adding "before" after a present perfect does not change its meaning, but it does emphasize a contrast, namely between "before" and "now or in the future".

In your sentence, you are making a contrast between a particular time in the past and a time interval that extends all the way up to the present, and, by adding "before", you are also trying to contrast that extended time interval with the present and future.

I think it is possible to emphasize two contrasts at once, but the fact is, the meaning of the sentence with just one contrast is clear and the same sentence with one additional contrast is somewhere between barely understandable and wrong.

This has been an interesting exercise, but I don't see why anyone would want to add "before" to such a sentence.


----------



## wandle

Forero said:


> "No one is as smart as Joan"


That is a loose expression. Perhaps it is something people say, but it is not good teaching practice to justify one piece of poor language with another and it is not helpful to learners.

If the forum is to help those who want to improve their English, we need to say clearly that some forms of expression are better and should be copied, while others are worse and should be avoided.


----------



## Phoebe1200

wandle said:


> Yes, because the feeling was prior to a point already in the past (before the childhood incident).
> What does 'like that' refer to? If it refers to an experience of the speaker, then it is contradicting the present perfect tense.
> 'Like that' means an experience the speaker has had: but the present perfect says the speaker has never had such an experience.


What about my other thread
*No one has/had ever screamed at me like that before *
the sentence of which _"No one *has *ever *screamed *at me like that *before*" _corresponds to "_I'*ve* never* felt *embarrassed like that *before*_"? I mean it's the same structure. Doesn't "_No one *has *ever *screamed *at me like that *before*"_  mean that the speaker has had such an experience (someone screaming at them)?


----------



## wandle

Phoebe1200 said:


> "No one *has *ever *screamed *at me like that *before*"


Like the other, this sentence only makes sense in relation to the speaker's current experience. In this case, 'like that' must refer to a scream or screaming which has just occurred: the present perfect shows that the speaker still feels affected by it.


----------



## Phoebe1200

But what about this 


Phoebe1200 said:


> And I can use *present perfect* "No one *has *ever *screamed *at me like that *before*" months or years later even if I don't feel the effect of the incident but just want to tell that nobody has shouted at me like that again since the incident?





Glasguensis said:


> yes you can still use it months or years later, provided that nobody has shouted at you like that again since the incident in question.


----------



## wandle

In relation to a past experience, it needs to be 'No one had ever screamed at me like that before' ('before' means 'before that incident'). This allows the possibility that someone has screamed at you in that way since.

Here, 'had screamed' is the classic use of the past perfect tense for an action prior to a point which is itself in the past.


----------



## Phoebe1200

I'm completely confused about that whole thread now. But OK, I just want to clear one thing up. 

Doesn't "No one *has *ever *screamed *at me like that *before*" mean that the speaker has had such an experience (someone screaming at them)?


----------



## wandle

Phoebe1200 said:


> Doesn't "No one *has *ever *screamed *at me like that *before*" mean that the speaker has had such an experience (someone screaming at them)?


It only makes sense in relation to the speaker's current experience. In this case, it means a scream or screaming which has just occurred and is still affecting the speaker.

The sentence says that, apart from this current experience, the speaker has never been screamed at in such a way.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you for replying.

And then "_I'*ve* never* felt *embarrassed like that before_" also means that the speaker has had such an experience but only if 'before' means 'before now'?


----------



## wandle

Phoebe1200 said:


> And then "_I'*ve* never* felt *embarrassed like that before_" also means that the speaker has had such an experience but only if 'before' means 'before now'?


The sentence says that, apart from this current experience, the speaker has never at any time felt so embarrassed.


----------



## Phoebe1200

By the way if I say "_I'*ve* never* felt *embarrassed like that before_" in relation to the current experience then should I use 'this' or 'that', as in:

"_I'*ve* never felt embarrassed like that before_"
"_I'*ve* never felt embarrassed like this before_"


----------



## wandle

For the embarrassment example, it should be 'this'; but it is more natural to say 'so embarrassed' ('before' can be omitted without loss of meaning: only of emphasis).

For the screaming example, it should be 'that', because it is the action of another person, not the speaker.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you, Wandle.

May I ask you to reply to these questions, please?

1) But is it still idiomatic to use 'that' "_I'*ve* never felt embarrassed like *that *before_" (with before meaning before now) if the speaker considers what has just happened to him even though a second has passed as belonging to the past?

2) Also, with the past perfect where 'before' means 'before then' "_I'*d* never felt embarrassed like that before_" this sentence still does mean that the speaker has had such an experience, right?

3) And with the past perfect I guess it's natural to use 'like that', right?


----------



## Glasguensis

1. No
2. I don't understand your question. The speaker is referring to an embarrassing experience which he or she has had. By definition he has had the experience. How could it be otherwise?
3. Yes.


----------



## wandle

(1) The idiomatic way is to say 'I've never felt so embarrassed': though it seems unlikely to me that anyone would want to comment on their embarrassment while they are experiencing it.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> 2. I don't understand your question. The speaker is referring to an embarrassing experience which he or she has had. By definition he has had the experience. How could it be otherwise?


Thank you. I was just confused because of Wandle's earlier comment.


wandle said:


> What does 'like that' refer to? If it refers to an experience of the speaker, then it is contradicting the present perfect tense.
> 'Like that' means an experience the speaker has had: but the present perfect says the speaker has never had such an experience.





wandle said:


> though it seems unlikely to me that anyone would want to comment on their embarrassment while they are experiencing it.


Well I don't mean right at the moment of everyone laughing at me but maybe after they stop laughing a bit and I walk up to my friend and say this "_I'*ve* never felt embarrassed like *that *before_". Can't I use 'like* that*' in that case?


----------



## Glasguensis

In that particular context yes you can.


----------



## wandle

When I was a boy, a friend of the family took me home one evening in his Ferrari and we hurtled through the Wirral suburbs, reaching 90 mph at times in the quiet streets. At the time, I could have said, 'Wow! I've never gone this fast before!' Looking back now, I can say, 'I had never gone that fast before'.


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> I'm completely confused about that whole thread now. But OK, I just want to clear one thing up.
> 
> Doesn't "No one *has *ever *screamed *at me like that *before*" mean that the speaker has had such an experience (someone screaming at them)?


This sentence itself only says "no one has ever", not "someone has". But the context you gave is:





Phoebe1200 said:


> Situation: The boss scolds his employee severely yelling at her. And she walks away in tears, saying: ...


For me different context can make this a little clearer (I hope):

Situation: The boss scolds his employee severely yelling at her, and she walks away in tears. One of her coworkers observes all this and says:

_No one has ever screamed at me like that before._

The sentence still says the same thing about "that", but now "me" refers to the coworker, not to the employee just screamed at "like that".

These comments, too, are based on the context, not on the sentence itself:





wandle said:


> Phoebe1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_No one *has *ever *screamed *at me like that *before*"_
> 
> 
> 
> Like the other, this sentence only makes sense in relation to the speaker's current experience. In this case, 'like that' must refer to a scream or screaming which has just occurred: the present perfect shows that the speaker still feels affected by it.
Click to expand...




wandle said:


> It only makes sense in relation to the speaker's current experience. In this case, it means a scream or screaming which has just occurred and is still affecting the speaker.
> 
> The sentence says that, apart from this current experience, the speaker has never been screamed at in such a way.


As far as I can tell, the present perfect means the same thing in either context, but the meaning of "me" changes.

In either context, the sentence means the same with or without "before": the difference being that "before" puts emphasis on the fact that the speaker intends to exclude the present from consideration.

"Now", however, includes the screaming incident in the context given for its sentence, whereas "now" does not include the childhood embarrassment in the context given for its sentence.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> In that particular context yes you can.





wandle said:


> When I was a boy, a friend of the family took me home one evening in his Ferrari and we hurtled through the Wirral suburbs, reaching 90 mph at times in the quiet streets. At the time, I could have said, 'Wow! I've never gone this fast before!' Looking back now, I can say, 'I had never gone that fast before'.


Thank you very much.


Forero said:


> Situation: The boss scolds his employee severely yelling at her, and she walks away in tears. One of her coworkers observes all this and says:
> 
> _No one has ever screamed at me like that before._
> 
> The sentence still says the same thing about "that", but now "me" refers to the coworker, not to the employee just screamed at "like that".


Thank you. I understand this. 


Forero said:


> This sentence itself only says "no one has ever", not "someone has". But the context you gave is:


But I don't understand this. Please help me. What was wrong with my context in that thread? Can't the employee that's just been yelled at say that about herself?


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you very much.
> 
> Thank you. I understand this.
> 
> But I don't understand this. Please help me. What was wrong with my context in that thread? Can't the employee that's just been yelled at say that about herself?


Yes, she can.

Nothing is wrong with the sentence or its context, but the sentence itself does not mean the speaker has had such an experience. That "meaning" comes from the context connecting "that" to "me", not from the present perfect "connecting" anything in time.

One speaker has that experience and the other does not, but each of them can truthfully use the same sentence.


----------



## VicNicSor

Forero said:


> This sentence itself only says "no one has ever", not "someone has". But the context you gave is:For me different context can make this a little clearer (I hope):
> 
> Situation: The boss scolds his employee severely yelling at her, and she walks away in tears. One of her coworkers observes all this and says:
> 
> _No one has ever screamed at me like that before._
> 
> The sentence still says the same thing about "that", but now "me" refers to the coworker, not to the employee just screamed at "like that".
> 
> These comments, too, are based on the context, not on the sentence itself:As far as I can tell, the present perfect means the same thing in either context, but the meaning of "me" changes.
> 
> In either context, the sentence means the same with or without "before", except that "before" emphasizes that the period talked about is "before now".


I have always thought "before" mattered more.

Talkning about yourself:
_No one has ever screamed at me like that. -- _you haven't had such an experience_.
No one has ever screamed at me like that *before*. -- _you have, otherwise -- before "what"?

Now, talking about your coworker:
_No one has ever screamed at me like that. -- _again, you haven't had such an experience_.
No one has ever screamed at me like that *before*. -- _you haven't had such an experience yet, why are you using "before" then? "Before" must refer to something that happens to you, not someone else. Am I wrong?


----------



## Forero

VicNicSor said:


> I have always thought "before" mattered more.
> 
> Talkning about yourself:
> _No one has ever screamed at me like that. -- _you haven't had such an experience_.
> No one has ever screamed at me like that *before*. -- _you have, otherwise -- before "what"?
> 
> Now, talking about your coworker:
> _No one has ever screamed at me like that. -- _again, you haven't had such an experience_.
> No one has ever screamed at me like that *before*. -- _you haven't had such an experience yet, why are you using "before" then? "Before" must refer to something that happens to you, not someone else. Am I wrong?


All four of these sentences use "has screamed" to refer to time up to the present. None of them says anything about whether something happens in the present.

With or without "before", "has screamed" does not include "is screaming", but "before" emphasizes this exclusion, presumably in order to either contrast or compare to the present:

_No one has ever screamed at me like that before, so I am quite surprised to see it happen now._ ["before" anticipates a contrast]
_No one has ever screamed at me like that before, so I don't expect anyone to do it now._ ["before" anticipates a comparison]


----------



## VicNicSor

Forero said:


> All four of these sentences use "has screamed" to refer to time up to the present. None of them says anything certain about whether something happens in the present.
> 
> With or without "before", "has screamed" does not include "is screaming", but "before" emphasizes this exclusion, presumably in order to either contrast or compare to the present:
> 
> _No one has ever screamed at me like that before, so I don't expect anyone to do it now._ ["before" anticipates a comparison]
> _No one has ever screamed at me like that before, so I am quite surprised to see it happen now._ ["before" anticipates a contrast]


I see, thank you !


----------



## Phoebe1200

Forero said:


> _No one has ever screamed at me like that before, so I don't expect anyone to do it now._ ["before" anticipates a comparison]
> _No one has ever screamed at me like that before, so I am quite surprised to see it happen now._ ["before" anticipates a contrast]


Are these sentences uttered by the speaker who's been yelled at or the coworker who observed it?


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Are these sentences uttered by the speaker who's been yelled at or the coworker who observed it?


Either. The present perfect still refers to the same time interval, with or without "before", namely the time interval up to the present.

Context outside the clause in question tells us whether the speaker gets screamed at in the present.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you. But I'm still not clear about one thing. I don't understand how it's ever possible for the coworker who observed the yelling to say_ "No one has ever screamed at me like that *before*." _with the use of 'before' because like Vic said "Before" must refer to something that happens to you, not someone else.


----------



## JulianStuart

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you. But I'm still not clear about one thing. I don't understand how it's ever possible for the coworker who observed the yelling to say_ "No one has ever screamed at me like that *before*." _with the use of 'before' because like Vic said "Before" must refer to something that happens to you, not someone else.


Umm, "being screamed at" happens to you.  This is the first time someone has screamed at me like that.  Before this in stance/now, it had never happened to me.


----------



## Phoebe1200

JulianStuart said:


> Umm, "being screamed at" happens to you.  This is the first time someone has screamed at me like that.  Before this instance/now, it had never happened to me.


Oh, I understand that. But I was asking about the coworker saying this_ "No one has ever screamed at me like that *before*." _I mean, the coworker wasn't yelled at she just observed the incident that happened to me.


----------



## JulianStuart

Phoebe1200 said:


> Oh, I understand that. But I was asking about the coworker saying this_ "No one has ever screamed at me like that *before*." _I mean, the coworker wasn't yelled at she just observed the incident that happened to me.



Oh, you mean  _"No one has ever screamed at *me *like that." _ ?
If it's still never happened, then adding "before" doesn't make any sense (I haven't read the whole thread, so someone may have already said that)


----------



## Phoebe1200

JulianStuart said:


> If it's still never happened, then adding "before" doesn't make any sense


Yes, that's what I think. Vic actually already asked this question 


VicNicSor said:


> Talkning about yourself:
> _No one has ever screamed at me like that. -- _you haven't had such an experience_.
> No one has ever screamed at me like that *before*. -- _you have, otherwise -- before "what"?
> 
> Now, talking about your coworker:
> _No one has ever screamed at me like that. -- _again, you haven't had such an experience_._
> _No one has ever screamed at me like that *before*. -- _you haven't had such an experience yet, why are you using "before" then? "Before" must refer to something that happens to you, not someone else. Am I wrong?


And then Forero answered 


Forero said:


> All four of these sentences use "has screamed" to refer to time up to the present. None of them says anything about whether something happens in the present.
> 
> With or without "before", "has screamed" does not include "is screaming", but "before" emphasizes this exclusion, presumably in order to either contrast or compare to the present:
> 
> _No one has ever screamed at me like that before, so I am quite surprised to see it happen now._ ["before" anticipates a contrast]
> _No one has ever screamed at me like that before, so I don't expect anyone to do it now._ ["before" anticipates a comparison]


But I didn't really understand it.


----------



## VicNicSor

Phoebe1200 said:


> But I didn't really understand it.





> _No one has ever screamed at me like that before, so I don't expect anyone to do it now. ["before" anticipates a comparison]_


_
"No one has ever screamed at me like that *before*" _introduces a reason why I don't expect it to happen at me. I have never given to anyone the opportunity to yell at me before, why would I give one to someone in the future?


----------



## Hermione Golightly

The co-worker can use 'before' if she wants. She means 'in her lifetime'. It might not be logical, but I can completely understand it and it wouldn't surprise me at all. She's conflating her own experiences with her co-worker's.
It's common and doesn't bear close scrutiny. That's a way of saying it's not worth fussing about.


----------



## Forero

Hermione Golightly said:


> The co-worker can use 'before' if she wants. She means 'in her lifetime'. It might not be logical, but I can completely understand it and it wouldn't surprise me at all. She's conflating her own experiences with her co-worker's.
> It's common and doesn't bear close scrutiny. That's a way of saying it's not worth fussing about.


I don't see anything illogical about it.

Nor do I see any such conflation.

Are you calling me "common"?


----------



## JulianStuart

Hermione Golightly said:


> That's a way of saying it's not worth fussing about.


A good comment at post #93 


VicNicSor said:


> _"No one has ever screamed at me like that *before*" _introduces a reason why I don't expect it to happen at me. I have never given to anyone the opportunity to yell at me before, why would I give one to someone in the future?


_With the "ever" at the beginning_, I find the "before" redundant - if that's the meaning, but I usually don't object to redundancy, unless it's unnecessary. The screaming may not be something you can control  If someone were to add a marker at the end of this sentence, I'd expect "yet" , not "before"


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> A good comment at post #93
> _With the "ever" at the beginning_, I find the "before" redundant - if that's the meaning, but I usually don't object to redundancy, unless it's unnecessary. The screaming may not be something you can control  If someone were to add a marker at the end of this sentence, I'd expect "yet" , not "before"


In this case I see it as just emphasizing "ever". That's how I understood Forero's point.
Like -- "*Never *have I *ever *..."

"Yet", to me, would have an implication that I sort of expect it to happen sooner or later. "Before" wouldn't.


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> In this case I see it as just emphasizing "ever". That's how I understood Forero's point.
> Like -- "*Never *have I *ever *..."
> 
> "Yet", to me, would have an implication that I sort of expect it to happen sooner or later. "Before" wouldn't.


Indeed. The "yet" acknowledges that you have no control over whether it happens or not, a more likely scenario than having the power to prevent it ever happening.


----------



## Forero

I see nothing in either context that says anything about my controlling anything. It is just a matter of probability. If it has never happened before, why should it happen now, assuming I don't have the power to prevent it?


----------



## JulianStuart

Forero said:


> I see nothing in either context that says anything about my controlling anything. It is just a matter of probability. If it has never happened before, why should it happen now, assuming I don't have to power to prevent it?


The control comment was in response to Vic's optimism


> I have never given to anyone the opportunity to yell at me before, why would I give one to someone in the future?


----------



## Phoebe1200

Words can't describe how thankful I am to all of you.


----------

