# Have been



## everestdude

A: We are giving your this award because you have been a good employee. 

Do I need to add a period of time with sentence A or the sentence is complete itself? Is sentence A correct?


----------



## lingobingo

It states (a) *what* someone is doing, and (b) *why* they are doing it. To that extent, it makes sense without anything else added.


----------



## everestdude

lingobingo said:


> It states (a) *what* someone is doing, and (b) *why* they are doing it. To that extent, it makes sense without anything else added.


Thank you so much for your reply. Here is the context to make it clear. Jack has been a employee of xyz company for three months. The company is giving an award to Jack because of him being a good employee. With this context, do I need to add a period of time with sentence? For eg.

A: We are giving your this award because you have been a good employee for three months. 

Or I don’t need to add anything and without the time period is correct as below?

B: We are giving your this award because you have been a good employee.

I apologize if my question is repetitive. I just would like to clarify it.


----------



## sound shift

Sentence A in #1 is fine as it stands. There is no need to add anything to it.

Although the sentence doesn't say so explicitly, it strongly suggests that Jack has been a good employee all the time he's been at the company, and continues to be a good employee.


----------



## lingobingo

My only reservation is that the context is very unlikely, in that simply being a good employee is not normally a good enough reason for being given an award. Presumably the majority of employees can be described as “good”, but only the one deemed to be the best would get an award — e.g. “employee of the month”.


----------



## everestdude

lingobingo said:


> My only reservation is that the context is very unlikely, in that simply being a good employee is not normally a good enough reason for being given an award. Presumably the majority of employees can be described as “good”, but only the one deemed to be the best would get an award — e.g. “employee of the month”.


What about this?
We are giving your employee of the month award because you have been the best employee.


----------



## pachanga7

everestdude said:


> A: We are giving *you* this award because you have been a good employee.
> 
> Do I need to add a period of time with sentence A or the sentence is complete itself? Is sentence A correct?


It's a weak statement but grammatically it's correct.


----------



## everestdude

pachanga7 said:


> It's a weak statement but grammatically it's correct.


Could you please give me an example with a strong statement using “have been”?


----------



## Cagey

Are you asking whether "have been" requires a specified period of time? No, it doesn't. "Have been" often means "up to now", but it doesn't require that you give a starting point or say how long it has been going on. 

It allows to include that information if you want to. 

You have been a good employee.  (This is fine without any more information.)​You have been a good employee since you started working here. (Includes starting point.)​You have been a good employee for three years. (Says for how long.)​


----------



## everestdude

Cagey said:


> Are you asking whether "have been" requires a specified period of time? No, it doesn't. "Have been" often means "up to now", but it doesn't require that you give a starting point or say how long it has been going on.
> 
> It allows to include that information if you want to.
> 
> You have been a good employee.  (This is fine without any more information.)​You have been a good employee since you started working here. (Includes starting point.)​You have been a good employee for three years. (Says for how long.)​


Thank you very much. But I have one question.
Jack: You just came here?
Alex: No, I have been here. 

People say I have to add a period of time with Alex sentence like “I have been here for ten minutes.”. Why can’t I just say “I have been here.” in Alex’s response?


----------



## pachanga7

Pat *has been *exemplary in his/her work as button-pusher at XYZ Corp. He/she has demonstrated dedicated and ethical button-pushing at every opportunity... Pat, you *have been* a joy to work with over the past three months since you first joined our team. In honor of your stellar performance as Beginner Button Pusher, we are pleased to now offer you the Most Basic Beginner Button Pusher award. [applause]


----------



## pachanga7

everestdude said:


> Thank you very much. But I have one question.
> Jack: You just came here?
> Alex: No, I have been here.
> 
> People say I have to add a period of time with Alex sentence like “I have been here for ten minutes.”. Why can’t I just say “I have been here.” in Alex’s response?


I disagree with "people", it depends on what you're trying to communicate. You certainly can say "No, I've been here." You could also say things like "I've been here waiting" or "I've been here in hopes of seeing Jennifer Lopez" or "I've been here since noon". It all depends.


----------



## Cagey

everestdude said:


> People say I have to add a period of time with Alex sentence like “I have been here for ten minutes.”. Why can’t I just say “I have been here.” in Alex’s response?


In this particular case, the reason is the word 'just'. 
Jack's question asks how long Alex has been there --- whether he just arrived or has been there for a while. 
Alex's answer should respond to that.  "I have been here" doesn't include any information about how long he was there or when he arrived. 

pachanga7 has suggested various ways that Alex could respond to the question.


----------



## everestdude

pachanga7 said:


> I disagree with "people", it depends on what you're trying to communicate. You certainly can say "No, I've been here." You could also say things like "I've been here waiting" or "I've been here in hopes of seeing Jennifer Lopez" or "I've been here since noon". It all depends.


Here is the context. Jack just got to the party and Jack asks Jennifer a question. 

Jack: You just got here?
Jennifer: No, I have been here. 

I think I have to add a period of time in Jennifer’s sentence since Jack’s question was about how long has Jennifer been here for like Cagey said. Otherwise the sentence “no, I have been here.” would be incomplete. Am I right?


----------



## pachanga7

everestdude said:


> Jack: You just got here?
> Jennifer: No, I have been here.
> 
> I think I have to add a period of time in Jennifer’s sentence since Jack’s question was about how long has Jennifer been here for like Cagey said. Otherwise the sentence “no, I have been here.” would be incomplete. Am I right?


The only change I would make to your dialogue is to add the contraction "I've" since it's speech between intimates. Maybe it's a regional difference, but I don't hear Jack asking for a length of time.


----------



## everestdude

pachanga7 said:


> The only change I would make to your dialogue is to add the contraction "I've" since it's speech between intimates. Maybe it's a regional difference, but I don't hear Jack asking for a length of time.


Are you saying the sentence without the period of time is just fine and complete? You got me confused now. 🤨


----------



## everestdude

pachanga7 said:


> The only change I would make to your dialogue is to add the contraction "I've" since it's speech between intimates. Maybe it's a regional difference, but I don't hear Jack asking for a length of time.


I gave you the context. Almost everyone I asked says I have to add a period of time to the sentence or it’s incomplete. I am very confused now.


----------



## lingobingo

*I have been here* means I’ve been in this place, which makes little or no sense on its own. It’s highly unlikely that anyone would ever say that without further information – such as I’ve been here *once before* / I’ve been here *for ages*, etc.


----------



## everestdude

lingobingo said:


> *I have been here* means I’ve been in this place, which makes little or no sense on its own. It’s highly unlikely that anyone would ever say that without further information – such as I’ve been here *once before* / I’ve been here *for ages*, etc.


Thank you for your reply. I am so confused now.

Jack: Did you just get here(to the party)?
Jennifer: No, I have been here. 

I feel like crying now and I am just so confused that nobody is giving me a clear answer.


----------



## pachanga7

everestdude said:


> I gave you the context. Almost everyone I asked says I have to add a period of time to the sentence or it’s incomplete. I am very confused now.


Well, I don't know who the people are that you say are saying this, since they are not here on this thread. I've been consistent in my opinion, which is based on my experience of informal American English. "You just got here?" clearly marks this as an informal exchange between intimates. And "No, I've been here" responds concisely to the question asked. But if it's your teacher saying the opposite, go ahead and do it his/her way, it won't hurt. Or if it's lingobingo, we can go along with it too.  

These are subtle things and different English speakers may have different preferences, as would be true in any language. I wouldn't worry about it. 

I will agree that it could sound strange in the uncontracted form, but even that is okay if the person is being pointed (making an assertive statement as if defending him/herself). Also it would be strange by itself, without the preceding question.


----------



## pachanga7

everestdude said:


> I feel like crying now and I am just so confused that nobody is giving me a clear answer.


Maybe take a break from it! That should be clear!


----------



## lingobingo

everestdude said:


> Thank you for your reply. I am so confused now.
> 
> Jack: Did you just get here(to the party)?
> Jennifer: No, I have been here.
> 
> I feel like crying now and I am just so confused that nobody is giving me a clear answer.


I just gave you a clear answer. It makes no sense to say that on its own. 

Jack: Did you just get here?
Jennifer: No, I have been here. 
Jennifer: No, I got here ages ago. I’ve been here for over an hour.


----------



## everestdude

Let’s make this simpler.
Example one,
Jack: Did you just get here(to the birthday party)?
Jennifer: No, I have been here.

Example two,
Jack: Did you just get here(to the party)?
Jennifer: No, I have been here for an hour.

Example one is incorrect and example two is correct, right?


----------



## lingobingo

Yes.


----------



## pachanga7

So it makes sense that, to lingobingo in London, it requires a time frame, and to pachanga7 in the southeastern US it doesn't, at least not in this context. everestdude, you are in India? I'm going to suggest you listen to lingobingo on this one, assuming you are more likely to interact with Brits. That should make it simpler for you. 

But "have been exemplary" or "has been a good employee" do not require time frames, do you agree lingobingo?


----------



## everestdude

lingobingo said:


> Yes.


we did it. The only way I can think of bring able to use “I have been here.” alone is as follows.

Jack: I know this place. I have been here. 
Jennifer: When did you come here?
Jack: Back in 2015. 

Am I right?


----------



## everestdude

pachanga7 said:


> So it makes sense that, to lingobingo in London, it requires a time frame, and to pachanga7 in the southeastern US it doesn't, at least not in this context. everestdude, you are in India? I'm going to suggest you listen to lingobingo on this one, assuming you are more likely to interact with Brits. That should make it simpler for you.
> 
> But "have been exemplary" or "has been a good employee" do not require time frames, do you agree lingobingo?


I live in the US now though. 🤨


----------



## pachanga7

everestdude said:


> I live in the US now though. 🤨


Then listen to me.


----------



## everestdude

Lingobingo, would you agree with Pachanga7?


----------



## lingobingo

everestdude said:


> we did it. The only way I can think of bring able to use “I have been here.” alone is as follows.
> 
> Jack: I know this place. I have been here.
> Jennifer: When did you come here?
> Jack: Back in 2015.
> 
> Am I right?


Not really. Even then – since you’re talking about where you are as you speak – it would be much more natural to say I’ve been here *before*.

But if you’re talking about a place somewhere other than where you are at the time, it’s fine to say, on its own, “I’ve been *there*” – meaning I’ve visited that place in the past, as opposed to not having ever visited it.

I don’t believe there’s any real difference between AE and BE usage in this respect. I do believe there’s a difference between “been there” where been is the past participle of to *be*, and “been there” where, in effect, it’s the past participle of to *go*. Note, too, that we don’t use *go* with here, only with there.

Re the original example, I said way back in #2 that it works, grammatically at least, without anything else added.


----------



## lingobingo

Actually, there is a context in which it makes sense to say “I’ve been here” on its own, but it does depend on the stress being put on the word *here*.

I’ve been looking everywhere for you. Where have you been?
I’ve been _here_. I didn’t go anywhere else.


----------



## Forero

everestdude said:


> Thank you very much. But I have one question.
> Jack: You just came here?
> Alex: No, I have been here.
> 
> People say I have to add a period of time with Alex sentence like “I have been here for ten minutes.”. Why can’t I just say “I have been here.” in Alex’s response?


"I have been here" is ambiguous since it could mean "I have been here at least once" or "I have always been here", among other things.

Alex's response is correct, but it would be clearer with more information.


----------



## elroy

- Did you just get here?
- No, I’ve been here.

The response, to me, is perfectly idiomatic, appropriate, meaningful, and unambiguous. 

The meaning is “No, I didn’t just get here, I’ve been here for longer than that.”  It’s not specific as to _how long _exactly, but it’s clear that it’s too long to qualify as “just” having gotten there.


----------



## pachanga7

The original question is about "have been a good employee". So this is the question I've asked of lingobingo:


pachanga7 said:


> But "have been exemplary" or "has been a good employee" do not require time frames, do you agree lingobingo?


----------



## lingobingo

No, of course those two phrases don’t need a time frame unless one is essential to whatever is being stated. But that has nothing to do with the statement “I’ve been here”.


----------



## everestdude

lingobingo said:


> No, of course those two phrases don’t need a time frame unless one is essential to whatever is being stated. But that has nothing to do with the statement “I’ve been here”.


Lingobingo, I have one last follow up question. I know I have previously talked about the three uses of present perfect tense. They are as follows.

1: to show results. For eg. I have painted the wall. (The paint on the wall is still fresh.)
2: to show experience. For eg. I have been to Japan. (I have an experience of being in Japan)
3: to show sometime that continued up to the present. For eg. It’s been a pleasure to work with you. 

We are only talking about the use no 3 of present perfect tense. My only question is how do we know when we use no 3 present perfect tense that some require a time period or time frame and some don’t?

A: It’s been a pleasure to work with you. (Don’t require a time period.)

B: Did you just get here? No, I have been here. (It requires a time period. Otherwise it sounds incomplete or it sounds like I have been here before.)

How do we know if one requires a time period and one don’t?


----------



## lingobingo

It’s just a matter of common sense, and of course context. If the statement is unclear or ambiguous _without_ a specific time reference, then you need to add one. 

See my comment in #18 about “I have been here”. Evidently elroy (see #33) finds this natural in response to a question like “Have you just arrived?”, but I doubt if many other people would.


----------



## elroy

lingobingo said:


> I doubt if many other people would.


I would be very surprised if most US English speakers _didn’t_.


----------



## Forero

The real problem I see in #10 is not that "I have been here" might require additional words but the fact that the conversation as posted in #10 is a poor example of clarity.

What does "just came" mean here? What does "been here" mean in this case? How does having been here connect with just coming here?

Although I find the written form in #10 confusing with no clues as to the appropriate intonation, I can work out what is meant, and no additional words are needed.

Notice that Elroy changed the question from "You just came here?" to "Did you just get here?". That, to me, makes the interpretation of the question and its answer obvious.


----------



## lingobingo

I don’t see how changing "You just came here?" to "Did you just get here?" makes any difference.


----------



## pachanga7

lingobingo said:


> No, of course those two phrases don’t need a time frame unless one is essential to whatever is being stated. But that has nothing to do with the statement “I’ve been here”.


Except in the mind of the OP, apparently, who's the one asking the questions on this thread.


----------

