"Ever"

In light of what Chinese students think it means, is there a good way to teach this word "ever"?

Last week I set a question, "Can spending $12 million to advertise a chocolate bar ever be justified?" The students were to produce an evaluation of the issues after an introduction to an actual advertising campaign that did spend $12 million to advertise a chocolate bar. Almost all the students thus far have answered more or less like so:

the actual campaign was very successful, therefore spending $12 million to advertise a chocolate bar can ever be justified.

In other words, they are understanding "ever' to mean "at least once".

Michael Swan in Practical English Usage tells me "ever" most often means "at any time". So the question I set sort of unpacks as "even though there was this one time where a campaign produced good results for a company within the context of current capitalist practice, are there any other issues? What's the bigger picture?"


As we all know, every coin has two sides. However to ever teach that aspect of ever we must ever do what what what?

Ever generally means “at any time” and is used mainly in questions. Ever is a non-assertive word
Assertive words (some, once, sometimes, already) are mainly used when we say that something is true. In questions and negatives, we more often use words like any, ever, yet. These are not generally used when we assert things.

So sayeth the textbook. I imagine they have already heard this. Sometimes I wonder. Some teachers may not like it. But for once, imma just lay it down as law. They will ever learn a thing or two.


For those playing at home, "have you ever" is a special case. The use of a past tense restricts all of the any times referred to to those in the past. Ever in that case means "at any time up until now".


There's presumably no way to teach this other by habituation. As far as I know, it's just usage.

What ever.

Well, you know what they say... ever say ever.

Using that inscrutable Chinese linguistic logic, I've invariably found "ever" to be the antonym of "never", as in "I have ever been to Beijing". In this regard, it meets CFs definition of "at least once".

To me the problem is actually around what you are seeing as the meaning of "at any time". To me one clear way in which that can be interpreted and applied is the way which they did it which is "at least once" as in quite literally can you find at least one time it can apply or happen.   Things like "Does it ever snow in Sydney?", does snow fall at any time in Sydney.... If you can find or give one example of when it does then you have successfully confirmed that it can.... and does.  Honestly the way I would answer the question that you set would be to find an example where it could be justified ... to show that yes it can be justified at least once.  To me if you want them to do more than this with the question then you need to ask the question differently. To me the problem is not around the meaning of "ever". I can think of too many examples where the meaning in context is just the same as the meaning which the students gave to it.

"Does it ever" seems more abstract than "Has it ever".

"Does it ever snow in Sydney?" seems like it should be answered "Well, it has, but most of the time...". I presume the question is more about the nature of Sydney than what kinds of historical accidents have happened to Sydney. Answering in a present tense, "Yes, it does", seems to me to imply some measure of regularity, and for truth and justice one should modify the answer with a "sometimes" or "occasionally" or "every damn day this winter fr goawdsakes". By comparison, "Has it ever snowed in Sydney?" is obviously a yes/no question.  Similarly, "Can $12 million ever be justified?", I reckon, should be answered, "Well, yeah, this one time it worked out great, but... [pros/cons/issues/etc that apply to other times]"

If you expect them to give you a particular type of response... then the best thing for you to do is simply to make it clear in the question.  Don't assume they will understand the question in the same way as you do.  Taken purely literally, I would probably definitely not include the cons to it applying "all the time" but would give you a solid answer for an example where it could apply. At least in the first instance at least.  My Sydney example is just that an example... the first thing I could think of off the top of my head... But the truth is even your question on the literal face of it does have a potential yes/no answer... And to me the normal straightforward answer to that question is just that a yes/no question which you would then support.  To me if you wanted more than this then you would be better off framing the question itself differently rather than trying to help the students understand why you think their understanding of "ever" is wrong.. when it is actually one of the correct interpretations of the word. I will often frame a task with the question I am asking and then clear instructions for what I actually expect them to do, or include in the task itself... and usually these days the rubric I will use to actually mark the task... which tends to simply reinforce what I expect.  Written instructions like that to me have made a significant difference in the degree to which students can actually do what I want them to do. ..and simply understand what I expect.  Because many students seem to have stronger reading skills than listening skills then the added value of having it written down so they can read it.. and refer to it later... if they missed something when the explanation was given... can make all the difference in the world. Especially when they are being given good and worthwhile tasks like this, requiring thinking skills.

I see what you mean. My instinct is to quibble. As in, yes, the original $12 million question can be a yes/no question, but there's an expectation you'll provide reasons as well. But then, my own sense of what's a satisfactory answer to that question may relate more to the kind of discussion I'd expect than to common usage. But...

"Can crossing that road against the lights ever succeed?"
"Sure. You just need to be careful."

So, yes/no answer.

"Can infanticide ever be justified?"
"Certainly! You just need to be careful."

Yes/no answer? Maybe not. But then I suppose this indicates it's not "ever" that's making the one question more in need of further discussion than the other.