# No one has/had ever screamed at me like that



## Phoebe1200

Self-made
Situation: The boss scolds his employee severely yelling at her. And she walks away in tears, saying:
​
No one has/had ever screamed at me like that.​
Could you please tell me which tense is more appropriate here?


Thanks a lot!


----------



## PaulQ

Present perfect - the event, in the past, is still having an effect in the present. "Had" would be wrong.

If, a couple of weeks later, she had been recounting the incident, then "had" would be an equal option.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thanks!

And how about *past simple*?      Would it work in the OP?


----------



## sound shift

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> And how about *past simple*?      Would it work in the OP?


Not for me - but don't be surprised if a North American member says it would work for him/her.


----------



## JulianStuart

sound shift said:


> Not for me - but don't be surprised if a North American member says it would work for him/her.


Having lived here for quite a while, it certainly doesn't grate on my ears

I would, however, expect "before" at the end of the version with simple past.


----------



## Phoebe1200

PaulQ said:


> If, a couple of weeks later, she had been recounting the incident, then "had" would be an equal option.


But if no one else has screamed at her since her boss did, then the statement is still true, so can't present perfect be still used?


----------



## Edinburgher

Phoebe1200 said:


> so can't present perfect be still used?


Yes.  That's why Paul said "an equal option", not "the only correct option".


----------



## Phoebe1200

PaulQ said:


> If, a couple of weeks later, she had been recounting the incident, then "had" would be an equal option.


And would using past perfect imply that someone else besides her boss also yelled at her during those weeks and that's why her boss yelling at her is in past perfect?


----------



## Edinburgher

Phoebe1200 said:


> And would using past perfect imply that someone else besides her boss also yelled at her during those weeks and that's why her boss yelling at her is in past perfect?


No.

Before looking at what tense is appropriate, remember what "No-one ___ ever screamed at me like that" actually means.  It is "This was the most severe form of screaming that I ___ ever experienced", or "This was the first time anyone has ever screamed at me so severely."

Now, here we have this particular screaming incident, and if this incident happened a few weeks ago, and she uses past perfect "had", it says that no-one had screamed so badly at her before that incident.  It says nothing about whether her boss (or anyone else) may have yelled at her as badly after that incident.  The period in which nothing worse happened excludes the recent weeks.  It is possible that her boss or someone else has meanwhile screamed at her as badly or worse, but if so, then the emphasis of her sentence is that the particular incident she is talking about was the first such incident.

If the incident happened a few weeks ago and she uses present perfect "has", then the period in which no-one has screamed at her as severely includes the recent weeks.  Her boss or someone else may have screamed at her again after the event, but not as badly.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Hi, Edinburgher.

Thanks so much for your detailed explanation. This difference between Present perfect and past perfect always confuses me. But I think I understand it better now.  

​And if she was recounting the incident* one day later,* would both present perfect and past perfect work equally again?


----------



## Glasguensis

Yes. The only way that the past perfect would be inappropriate would be if nothing had occurred between them and now. As soon as she is out of the immediate situation of the incident she could use the past perfect if she wished.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> The only way that the past perfect would be inappropriate would be if nothing had occurred between them and now. As soon as she is out of the immediate situation of the incident she could use the past perfect if she wished.


I'm sorry but I can't quite get this.
Could I ask you to explain it?


----------



## Glasguensis

What don't you understand?


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> between them and now.


I believe it's a typo here, right?
You meant "between* then* and now", right?


Glasguensis said:


> The only way that the past perfect would be inappropriate would be if nothing had occurred between them and now. As soon as she is out of the immediate situation of the incident she could use the past perfect if she wished.


Could you please rephrase this part?


----------



## Glasguensis

Yes it was a typo - sorry.

Rephrasing : she could use the past perfect at any time after the event, provided that she is no longer in the original context. The lapse of time (one day, three weeks, twenty minutes) doesn't matter. By the original context I mean in the situation where the person is talking to her. If either she or the other person leaves the room, for example, the context would be different, and the past perfect would be possible. The present perfect would of course also be possible. It would be her choice.


----------



## Phoebe1200

I really appreciate it, Glasguensis. Your rephrase was much more clear to me.

Although I'd like to get back to this sentence again.


Glasguensis said:


> The only way that the past perfect would be inappropriate would be if nothing had occurred between then and now.


which still confuses me a bit because as I understood from Edinburgher's explanation, past perfect can be used even if nothing has occurred during these few weeks.


Edinburgher said:


> The period in which nothing worse happened excludes the recent weeks.


And I don't think I actually understand this part that well. Could you explain it?


----------



## Glasguensis

Edinburgher is talking about nothing *worse* happening. I am talking about nothing *at all *happening, which is clearly only possible for a few seconds/minutes.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> which is clearly only possible for a few seconds/minutes.


I'm really sorry, but what do you mean by this?


----------



## Glasguensis

What do you not understand?


----------



## wandle

_No one has ever screamed at me like that._

If the boss has just screamed at her like that, then the above sentence is not true.

She might say, immediately after the incident, or as long as the sense of outrage or hurt remains fresh:
_No one has ever screamed at me like that before. _['Before' is necessary to make the sentence true.]

Later, after the shock of it is over, she might say, when telling someone about it as a past event:
_No one had ever screamed at me like that (before_). ['Before' is still usual, but not strictly necessary here, because 'had' already expresses that.]


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thanks a lot, Wandle!


----------



## Phoebe1200

Edinburgher said:


> Before looking at what tense is appropriate, remember what "No-one ___ ever screamed at me like that" actually means.  It is "This was the most severe form of screaming that I ___ ever experienced", or "This was the first time anyone has ever screamed at me so severely."
> 
> Now, here we have this particular screaming incident, and if this incident happened a few weeks ago, and she uses past perfect "had", it says that no-one had screamed so badly at her before that incident.  It says nothing about whether her boss (or anyone else) may have yelled at her as badly after that incident.  The period in which nothing worse happened excludes the recent weeks.  It is possible that her boss or someone else has meanwhile screamed at her as badly or worse, but if so, then the emphasis of her sentence is that the particular incident she is talking about was the first such incident.
> 
> If the incident happened a few weeks ago and she uses present perfect "has", then the period in which no-one has screamed at her as severely includes the recent weeks.  Her boss or someone else may have screamed at her again after the event, but not as badly.


Could you please tell me if your explanation remains the same even if my sentence has "before" in it.


----------



## VicNicSor

I agree with wandle that with "before" it makes much more sense (if it happened just now or not long ago). Once it happens to *you*, you add "before":
"No one has ever screamed at me like that *before*."

"No one has ever screamed at me like that." -- this would make perfect sense if *nobody *literally has ever screamed at you like that. Neither the boss, nor anybody else.


----------



## Edinburgher

Phoebe1200 said:


> Could you please tell me if your explanation remains the same even if my sentence has "before" in it.


Yes, except for the last paragraph.

First, when you use  "had", you don't need to add "before" (but it does no harm if you do).  Using the past perfect already implies that you are referring to the period before the incident,  This is true whether you add "before" or not.

But a problem arises with "has" in the following hypothetical situation.

_12 months ago, your boss screamed at you like that.  That was the first time it ever happened.  But then, 6 months ago, it happened again._

The problem is that with "has" the scope of "before" becomes woolly and can be interpreted as "before now" instead of "before the incident I'm talking about".  Only context helps you decide that it must mean "before the incident".
And when it does mean that, then the period in question is limited to before that incident, and so it excludes the recent 12 months.


----------



## Phoebe1200

VicNicSor said:


> I agree with wandle that with "before" it makes much more sense (if it happened just now or not long ago). Once it happens to *you*, you add "before":
> "No one has ever screamed at me like that *before*."
> 
> "No one has ever screamed at me like that." -- this would make perfect sense if *nobody *literally has ever screamed at you like that. Neither the boss, nor anybody else.


Thanks a lot!


----------



## Phoebe1200

Edinburgher said:


> Yes, except for the last paragraph.
> 
> First, when you use "had", you don't need to add "before" (but it does no harm if you do). Using the past perfect already implies that you are referring to the period before the incident, This is true whether you add "before" or not.
> 
> But a problem arises with "has" in the following hypothetical situation.
> 
> _12 months ago, your boss screamed at you like that. That was the first time it ever happened. But then, 6 months ago, it happened again._
> 
> The problem is that with "has" the scope of "before" becomes woolly and can be interpreted as "before now" instead of "before the incident I'm talking about". Only context helps you decide that it must mean "before the incident".
> And when it does mean that, then the period in question is limited to before that incident, and so it excludes the recent 12 months.


Thank you very much for your reply!

So, "_*No one has ever screamed at me like that (before)*"_ can be said right after the incident or a few weeks later or even months but only if nobody else screamed at me worse than my boss since the incident, right?


----------



## Edinburgher

Right.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Edinburgher said:


> Right.


Thank you, Edinburgher!

And, _"*No one had ever screamed at me like that (before)*" _can also be used even if nobody else screamed at me worse than my boss since the incident (be it a few hours or minutes after the incident), right?


----------



## Edinburgher

Yes.  The important thing when using "had" is that you first need to establish the reference point, in the past, before which the thing in the more distant past happened (or, in this case, did not happen).


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you for your kind reply, Edinburgher!


Edinburgher said:


> (or, in this case, did not happen).


But what exactly are you referring to here? Because if it's the screaming, it did happen.


----------



## Edinburgher

Phoebe1200 said:


> Because if it's the screaming, it did happen.


No, it did not.  There was an incident, in the past, at which the screaming happened.  But the sentence says "no-one had ever screamed at me like that before".
So in the "more distant" past (before this screaming incident), such screaming did not happen.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Edinburgher said:


> No, it did not.  There was an incident, in the past, at which the screaming happened.  But the sentence says "no-one had ever screamed at me like that before".
> So in the "more distant" past (before this screaming incident), such screaming did not happen.


You're so right! Thanks!

I've been thinking and I get it now why past perfect is used. I mean, because we have this screaming incident which when it happens even seconds ago becomes a past action, so we use past perfect to indicate what happened before the incident (or, in this case, like you said did not happen).

What I don't understand now is that how come we can actually use* present perfect *for such a situation. I mean, we're still saying what did not happen to us before the screaming incident.


----------



## Edinburgher

Phoebe1200 said:


> What I don't understand now is that how come we can actually use* present perfect *for such a situation. I mean, we're still saying what did not happen to us before the screaming incident.


There are two ways you can use the present perfect for this.
One is if the incident has just happened, only a few moments ago, so that it can still be considered part of the present.
The other is if the incident did not happen to the speaker. (No-one has ever screamed at me the way he screamed at you).  Here the incident can be part of the present or the past.


----------



## Glasguensis

The difference between the present perfect and the past perfect here is that the present perfect maintains a link to the present. 
X has never happened before : up until now
X had never happened before : up until the incident being described.

When I was 18 I went into a bar. I had never drunk alcohol = up until walking into the bar I hadn't drunk alcohol. I may or may not have done so since then.
When I was 18 I went into a bar. I have never drunk alcohol = up until and including the present moment.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> The difference between the present perfect and the past perfect here is that the present perfect maintains a link to the present.
> X has never happened before : up until now
> X had never happened before : up until the incident being described.
> 
> When I was 18 I went into a bar. I had never drunk alcohol = up until walking into the bar I hadn't drunk alcohol. I may or may not have done so since then.
> When I was 18 I went into a bar. I have never drunk alcohol = up until and including the present moment.


Thank you!


Glasguensis said:


> I am talking about nothing *at all *happening, which is clearly only possible for a few seconds/minutes.


Are you talking about things other than screaming, for example, talking to someone, drinking coffee, writing something, coughing, sneezing, etc.?


----------



## Phoebe1200

Edinburgher said:


> There are two ways you can use the present perfect for this.
> One is if the incident has just happened, only a few moments ago, so that it can still be considered part of the present.


But in #27 you said that present perfect can be used even months later after the incident.
Here:


Phoebe1200 said:


> So, "_*No one has ever screamed at me like that (before)*"_ can be said right after the incident or a few weeks later or *even months *but only if nobody else screamed at me worse than my boss since the incident, right?





Edinburgher said:


> Right.


----------



## Glasguensis

Phoebe1200 said:


> Are you talking about things other than screaming, for example, talking to someone, drinking coffee, writing something, coughing, sneezing, etc.?


Yes.


----------



## Phoebe1200

So, can I use* present perfect* months after the incident?


----------



## Glasguensis

As I have already told you more than once, the choice of present perfect/past perfect is *not affected* by the lapse of time. This is a general truth which affects all sentences and contexts. You can therefore use the present perfect months years or centuries after the event.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> You can therefore use the present perfect months years or centuries after the event.


What about this then?


Edinburgher said:


> There are two ways you can use the present perfect for this.
> One is if the incident has just happened, only a few moments ago, so that it can still be considered part of the present.


----------



## Glasguensis

When you nitpick and ask follow-up questions to almost every reply, it is almost inevitable that the answers you receive will not be entirely consistent. As you already pointed out in post 36, Edinburgher's post 33 is not entirely consistent with his earlier post. I don't think this was deliberate - he was attempting to answer your specific follow-up question and gave an incomplete answer. 
To the extent that post 33 implies that the present perfect can only be used for a short time, this is an error.


----------



## Phoebe1200

OK. But I still can't understand how* present perfect* can be used here (well, maybe only if it has just happened). But to use present perfect a week later. 
I mean, we're basically using present perfect to refer to the distant past, to the time *before *the incident. 

If it was _"No one has ever screamed at me like that *after* (the incident)" _it would make perfect sense.

Please help me understand.


----------



## Edinburgher

Phoebe1200 said:


> If it was _"No one has ever screamed at me like that *after* (the incident)" _it would make perfect sense.


For this we would use "since", not "after".

Your more general question needs to distinguish between various possible combinations of when the incident happened, when it is being talked about, and to whom it happened.
Remember, if the incident happened to you a long time ago, and you are telling me about it now, I could say "No-one has ever screamed at me like that (before)" because for me "before" means "before now", not "before your incident", and if the word "before" is omitted, it would still be understood that my frame of reference ends now.


----------



## Glasguensis

Phoebe1200 said:


> OK. But I still can't understand how* present perfect* can be used here (well, maybe only if it has just happened). But to use present perfect a week later.
> I mean, we're basically using present perfect to refer to the distant past, to the time *before *the incident.


As Edinburgher explained in post 9, if we use the present perfect we are referring to all the past up until the present moment, and not just to the period before the incident. It's only when we use the past perfect that we are restricting the comparison to the period before the incident.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Edinburgher said:


> if the incident happened to you a long time ago, and you are telling me about it now, I could say "No-one has ever screamed at me like that (before)"


I don't understand. If I'm telling you about my incident, why would you say this  "No-one has ever screamed at me like that (before)"?


----------



## Edinburgher

Because I would be feeling sorry for you, or commiserating with you.  I would be confirming how inappropriate your boss's behaviour had been, by saying that I have never had a similar experience.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Edinburgher said:


> by saying that I have never had a similar experience.


Thank you. 
But saying "No-one has ever screamed at me like that before" means that you've had such an experience.


----------



## Edinburgher

No, it means I have never had such an experience.
I would be saying "Nobody has ever screamed at me in the way you have just described your boss screaming at you."

You are telling me about your horrible experience, and I reply that nothing like that has ever happened to me.  By doing so I am confirming how exceptional your experience was, because if your experience was not exceptional, then something similar could easily have happened to me too, at some point.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Edinburgher said:


> No, it means I have never had such an experience.


I'm confused.
To me, it would only mean that if you don't use "before" in the sentence and just say "No-one has ever screamed at me like that".


----------



## JulianStuart

No-one has ever screamed at _me_ like that.  (It has never happened to me).
The addition of "before" means that it HAS happened:
1)No-one has ever screamed at me _like that_ before (this incident).
2)No-one had ever screamed at me like that before (this incident).
You would use 1 at the time and 2 relating the story later.


----------



## Edinburgher

Phoebe1200 said:


> To me, it would only mean that if you don't use "before" in the sentence


You're right.  In the circumstances I've described, it would be better without "before".


----------



## Phoebe1200

JulianStuart said:


> The addition of "before" means that it HAS happened:





Edinburgher said:


> You're right.  In the circumstances I've described, it would be better without "before".


Thank you! Now it makes sense.

But I would like to get back to this question because it still doesn't make sense to me.


Phoebe1200 said:


> But to use present perfect a week later.
> I mean, we're basically using present perfect to refer to the distant past, to the time *before *the incident.


----------



## JulianStuart

No-one has ever screamed at me like that before.

 We can use that a week (or longer) after the incident if the effect is still being felt (in the present) by the speaker.


----------



## Phoebe1200

JulianStuart said:


> We can use that a week (or longer) after the incident if the effect is still being felt (in the present) by the speaker.


But what if I'm not using present perfect because I still feel the effect of the incident, I mean, as I understood from what Glasguensis and Edinburgher told me I can use it even months or years later even if I don't feel the effect of it. Or did I misunderstand?



Glasguensis said:


> if we use the present perfect we are referring to all the past up until the present moment,


----------



## Edinburgher

Phoebe1200 said:


> Or did I misunderstand?


Probably.  But I'm not going to go through the more than 50 posts in this thread to see if I can find the likely source of misunderstanding.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Edinburgher said:


> Probably. But I'm not going to go through the more than 50 posts in this thread to see if I can find the likely source of misunderstanding.


Then I'll just ask.

So I can use* present perfect* months, years after the incident _only_ if I still feel the effect of it?


----------



## JulianStuart

Phoebe1200 said:


> Then I'll just ask.
> 
> So I can use* present perfect* months, years after the incident only if I still feel the effect of it?


If you *still* feel it i.e., in the present (now) then that is why the "present" perfect is used


----------



## Glasguensis

Phoebe1200 said:


> Then I'll just ask.
> 
> So I can use* present perfect* months, years after the incident _only_ if I still feel the effect of it?


Why do you keep asking the same question? When we answered "yes" before you then said you didn't understand why. When we explained why you simply repeated the question. For the third time, yes you can still use the expression months or years later, provided that nobody has shouted at you like that again since the incident in question.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Just one last question, please.


Glasguensis said:


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


And I can use *present perfect* 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

That's not a last question, it's the same question for the fourth time. The answer, for the fourth time, is *YES*.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> *YES*.


OK, I've got it.
I actually have one more question.

And if I use* simple* *past* with this sentence "_No one ever *screamed *at me like that before_", I'm guessing in this case, simple past is functioning the way *past perfect *does, I mean, it only tells us what happened before the incident, right?

Simple past cannot function the way present perfect does in this sentence, right?


----------



## Glasguensis

If you use the simple past then it all depends whether you include the word "before". With "before", it refers to before the incident. Without before, it refers to before and after the incident.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> Without before, it refers to before and after the incident.


You mean it's the same as using *present perfect* and it refers to all the past up until the present moment when I say "_No one ever *screamed *at me like that_"?


----------



## Glasguensis

Yes.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Hi,
I want to say a huge thank you to everyone for your invaluable contributions. 
You've all been very helpful.

Warmest thanks,__


----------

