I want to understand the difference between these three sentences:
Fred is the best minister we ever had
means that Fred is still minister but the comparison is with his predecessors and successors.
Fred is the best minister we have ever had
means up to know but can change with his successors.
Fred was the best minister we had
means Fred is not minister now but the comparaison includes his successors.
Am I right?
Best Answer
No, I don't think that your interpretation is correct.
To make things a little clearer, let's replace had with employed.
To say:
suggests that you are still employing Fred as a minister, although it's possible that Fred is still a minister but no longer in your employ.
Your other two examples both indicate that Fred is no longer in your employ, regardless of whether he is still a minister.
To add ever merely adds emphasis. It does not change the meaning of the statement.
Neither of the two examples indicates whether Fred was your last minister or whether you have employed other ministers subsequently. It's possible that he was the first minister and that there have been others; or that he was the last minister; or merely one of several ministers. Your examples leave this open.