# Have you <been peeing/ peed> in the parking lot?



## old woman

This is from a novel:

The police is called because a man has urinated in a parking lot. When the police arrive 5 minutes later they ask the man: "Have you been urinating in the parking lot, sir?"

The man has urinated in the parking lot once, it is not a habit. Why is the continuous used, to express he shouldn't be doing that?

Could the policeman have asked: "Have you urinated in the parking lot, sir?"


----------



## owlman5

old woman said:


> Could the policeman have asked: "Have you urinated in the parking lot, sir?"


The past simple with _do _seems more likely than the present perfect: _Did you pee/urinate in the parking lot? 

Have you been urinating in the parking lot, sir? _This question suggests that the cop may believe that urinating in the parking lot is something that the man does regularly. However, the cop probably isn't giving much thought to the verb tense that he uses in the question._ Were you urinating in the parking lot? _would also sound normal to me.


----------



## Chasint

The implicating for me is that the officer is implying recency.

_"Have you urinated in the parking lot, sir?" 
"Yes, 20 years ago when I was a child, I peed in the parking lot.  _(This is a valid answer to "have you urinated")

_"Have you been urinating in the parking lot, sir?" _ (This implies "recently" or "today")


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Something that that grammar books don't always tell you is that the continuous aspect can have a pejorative association: in other words, that someone has been doing that they shouldn't have been doing. For example, "Have you been opening my mail?" or "Have you been drinking my whisky?". In these cases, the issue is not so much whether it was one occasion or several - it might only have happened once. But the use of the continuous aspect puts the emphasis on the carrying out of the act and on the speaker's anger or disapproval of it.

This is one reason why the policeman used the present perfect continuous - almost as if he were a parent or teacher, asking a child about a misdemeanour.


----------



## old woman

Chasint said:


> The implicating for me is that the officer is implying recency.
> 
> _"Have you urinated in the parking lot, sir?"
> "Yes, 20 years ago when I was a child, I peed in the parking lot.  _(This is a valid answer to "have you urinated")
> 
> _"Have you been urinating in the parking lot, sir?" _ (This implies "recently" or "today")


Even if it only happened only once today?


----------



## Chasint

old woman said:


> Even if it only happened only once today?


Yes. Normally peeing is not instantaneous. It takes a certain amount of time.

Did you spit in the lobby today?  Spitting is strictly prohibited!  (He spat only once - it was instantaneous)

Have you been smoking in the building today?  (Smoking one cigarette takes a few minutes)


----------



## old woman

_"Have you urinated in the parking lot, sir?" 
"Yes, 20 years ago when I was a child, I peed in the parking lot.  _(This is a valid answer to "have you urinated")

I have seen an example ( on a British tv show) where someone is asked:" have you peed in the pool?" when the peeing took place the night before.


----------



## old woman

Wordy McWordface said:


> Something that that grammar books don't always tell you is that the continuous aspect can have a pejorative association: in other words, that someone has been doing that they shouldn't have been doing. For example, "Have you been opening my mail?" or "Have you been drinking my whisky?". In these cases, the issue is not so much whether it was one occasion or several - it might only have happened once. But the use of the continuous aspect puts the emphasis on the carrying out of the act and on the speaker's anger or disapproval of it.
> 
> This is one reason why the policeman used the present perfect continuous - almost as if he were a parent or teacher, asking a child about a misdemeanour.





old woman said:


> "In these cases, the issue is not so much whether it was one occasion or several - it might only have happened once."
> 
> Does this apply to my example as well?


----------



## Wordy McWordface

old woman said:


> "In these cases, the issue is not so much whether it was one occasion or several - it might only have happened once."
> 
> Does this apply to my example as well?


It does.


----------



## old woman

Wordy McWordface said:


> Something that that grammar books don't always tell you is that the continuous aspect can have a pejorative association: in other words, that someone has been doing that they shouldn't have been doing. For example, "Have you been opening my mail?" or "Have you been drinking my whisky?". In these cases, the issue is not so much whether it was one occasion or several - it might only have happened once. But the use of the continuous aspect puts the emphasis on the carrying out of the act and on the speaker's anger or disapproval of it.
> 
> This is one reason why the policeman used the present perfect continuous - almost as if he were a parent or teacher, asking a child about a misdemeanour.


Can you explain why it is possible to say : Have you been opening my mail?" when it happened only once, since "to open" is an instantaneous action?


----------



## Wordy McWordface

old woman said:


> Can you explain why it is possible to say : Have you been opening my mail?" when it happened only once, since "to open" is an instantaneous action?


Not necessarily. There could have been various items of mail.


----------



## kentix

I agree with Chasint and Wordy's points. The continuous tense is what I would expect to hear.

It's the clearest reference to the very recent behavior.


----------



## old woman

Wordy McWordface said:


> Not necessarily. There could have been various items of mail.


Is it still possible to use the continuous if only one item of mail has been opened?


----------



## old woman

kentix said:


> I agree with Chasint and Wordy's points. The continuous tense is what I would expect to hear.
> 
> It's the clearest reference to the very recent behavior.


Chasint mentioned: "did you spit in the lobby". It is an instantenous action that happened once.  To me, opening something is an instanteneous action as well. If you use the present perfect continuous with instanteneous verbs they mean repetition. That is what the grammar books say, anyway.


----------



## kentix

Since he's asking he question he doesn't know what the man has done or how many times he has done it.

Continuous would be fine there, too.


----------



## abluter

There's another consideration: if this incident in the novel takes place in Britain rather than America, a British question is, I get the impression, more likely to be framed in the Perfect than the Simple Past, as:

 "Have you seen anyone going into that building in the last half hour, sir?" rather than the American "Did you see anyone etc?".

  Now, if we transfer that distinction to the peeing incident, it becomes  (American) "Did you urinate in the etc?", and (British) "Have you urinated etc?" which is much more likely to come out as "Have you_ been urinating?"- _Perfect sliding into the Perfect continuous.


----------



## old woman

kentix said:


> Since he's asking he question he doesn't know what the man has done or how many times he has done it.
> 
> Continuous would be fine there, too.


Is it possible to use the continuous if only one item of mail has been opened?


----------



## Ponyprof

When you are pulled over for speeding, the police officer invariably says "Sir (or ma'am) you were speeding back there." if you get pulled over at a New Years Eve roadblock, they say "Have you been drinking?" The continuous is their default.


----------



## abluter

#17 - Yes, as has been said, it is commonly used _even for one incident_ in English.  "You've been cutting bits off the cheese, haven't you?" - but of course you can also say "You've been cutting bits off the cheese again, haven't you?".


----------



## old woman

abluter said:


> #17 - Yes, as has been said, it is commonly used _even for one incident_ in English.  "You've been cutting bits off the cheese, haven't you?" - but of course you can also say "You've been cutting bits off the cheese again, haven't you?".


Yes, but cutting bits of the cheese means multiple bits. My question is about opening one item of mail.


----------



## abluter

It makes no difference as to the number of objects involved.    "You've been opening one of my letters, haven't you?"


----------



## old woman

abluter said:


> It makes no difference as to the number of objects involved.    "You've been opening one of my letters, haven't you?"


Do you think it's possible to say: "Have you been spitting in the lobby?" when someone has spat once?


----------



## kentix

Again, if you know exactly what they did then you don't need to ask.


----------



## abluter

#22 -Yes. The little drama could go like this:" You've been spitting in the lobby, sir - our porter saw you do it late last night!"  "Well, it was only once. . . "  "It doesn't matter, you've been breaking the rules of civilized behaviour! You should be ashamed etc"


----------



## old woman

abluter said:


> #22 -Yes. The little drama could go like this:" You've been spitting in the lobby, sir - our porter saw you do it late last night!"  "Well, it was only once. . . "  "It doesn't matter, you've been breaking the rules of civilized behaviour! You should be ashamed etc"


So it is possible to say "you've been spitting" even though it is an instantaneous action that took place only once?


----------



## abluter

Yes!


----------



## old woman

abluter said:


> Yes!


The confusing thing is that I've heard from other native speakers that it is not possible to use the present perfect continuous for instanteneous actions like to spit, to spill etc. if they take place only once. If you use present perfect continuous in these cases it means repeated actions. What do you think about that?


----------



## aptmusik

old woman said:


> The confusing thing is that I've heard from other native speakers that it is not possible to use the present perfect continuous for instanteneous actions like to spit, to spill etc. if they take place only once. If you use present perfect continuous in these cases it means repeated actions. What do you think about that?


American English here. 

“You’ve been spitting in the lobby” over here 100% means that you’ve done it more than once or it is assumed you have. I agree that if the implication is only once—a single spit—then it becomes “You spat in the lobby, sir. We saw you.” Or the likes.


----------



## aptmusik

Something else just occurred to me. Not sure if it’s been covered since I don’t feel like reading the whole thread again:

There is a difference between—

You have been spitting in the lobby, sir.
and
You were spitting in the lobby, sir. (Meaning either multiple times or only once as in “You spat in the lobby.”)

As I read it, the first one implies multiple occasions since “have been spitting” covers more time than “were spitting” which could be once.

Maybe that helps.


----------



## abluter

I can only repeat, in BrE, and in my experience, "you've been spitting" can apply to only one instance.


----------



## old woman

abluter said:


> I can only repeat, in BrE, and in my experience, "you've been spitting" can apply to only one instance.


By "one instance" you mean one single spit?


----------



## abluter

Yes, even just one drop.


----------



## old woman

abluter said:


> There's another consideration: if this incident in the novel takes place in Britain rather than America, a British question is, I get the impression, more likely to be framed in the Perfect than the Simple Past, as:
> 
> "Have you seen anyone going into that building in the last half hour, sir?" rather than the American "Did you see anyone etc?".
> 
> Now, if we transfer that distinction to the peeing incident, it becomes  (American) "Did you urinate in the etc?", and (British) "Have you urinated etc?" which is much more likely to come out as "Have you_ been urinating?"- _Perfect sliding into the Perfect continuous.


which is much more likely to come out as "Have you_ been urinating?" Why is it much more likely to come out as "have you been urinating"?_


----------



## abluter

I don't know _why_, it just does.


----------



## aptmusik

These differences do distinguish between how many times something has happened or is still happening (i.e. simple/perfect past vs. perfect continuous). But sometimes, as has been mentioned, like in the case of British English as opposed to American English, it primarily becomes a stylistic thing.

The distinction is mostly for functional purposes but sometimes purely stylistic (meaning it doesn't really matter because the situation can be perceived differently by different people). I would conceive it like this.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

- Have you been peeing in the plants (again)?
- Yes, but only once!
- What difference does that make?
What difference indeed!

I think some questions of usage defy completely explicable explanation. I wrote 'rational' at first but the point is that to the native speaker their choice of tense form is indeed rational.
The 'grammar' books describe functions of form, which can be various. They are heavily dependend on context and the speaker's intention and attitude.


----------



## old woman

Hermione Golightly said:


> - Have you been peeing in the plants (again)?
> - Yes, but only once!
> - What difference does that make?
> What difference indeed!
> 
> I think some questions of usage defy completely explicable explanation. I wrote 'rational' at first but the point is that to the native speaker their choice of tense form is indeed rational.
> The 'grammar' books describe functions of form, which can be various. They are heavily dependend on context and the speaker's intention and attitude.


In this case, does the continuous convey disapproval?


----------



## natkretep

I think you have to frame all of this in the context of an accusation, and the tendency of the accuser to intensify the misdemeanour and to represent it as a habit even though it isn't.

If you recast the sentence with the speaker as the subject, I think the distinction becomes clearer. 'I've been peeing in the car park' or 'I've been opening John's mail' is much more likely to refer to a habit.


----------



## aptmusik

old woman said:


> In this case, does the continuous convey disapproval?


This is how I see the perfect continuous being used here, to quote Hermione Golightly, ‘rationally’:

Have you been ____-ing = a certain _length of time_ that started in the past and is continuing

Now, this can be taken very literally or, for stylistic reasons, we can turn this concept of _time_ into an expression of  ‘disapproval’. Whether or not the person has been peeing in the plants for a long time, using this form (present continuous) _suggests_ that they might have been. Whether or not they have been doesn’t really matter herein terms of style.

By indicating a longer period of time (“have you been ____-ing”), the benefit of the doubt is excluded. I could suggest you’ve done it only once, and maybe that is closer to the truth that I can actually know. Buuuuut, I might approach you without the benefit of the doubt.

“Have you been peeing in the plants (again)?” = I know you’ve done it before (literal usage; intensified with ‘again’) *OR* I’m withholding the benefit of the doubt / disapproving (stylistic usage, apparently more common in British English)


----------



## old woman

natkretep said:


> I think you have to frame all of this in the context of an accusation, and the tendency of the accuser to intensify the misdemeanour and to represent it as a habit even though it isn't.
> 
> If you recast the sentence with the speaker as the subject, I think the distinction becomes clearer. 'I've been peeing in the car park' or 'I've been opening John's mail' is much more likely to refer to a habit.


So you agree that in British English "have you been peeing" can refer to one instance of peeing, used as an accusation?


----------



## old woman

Hermione Golightly said:


> - Have you been peeing in the plants (again)?
> - Yes, but only once!
> - What difference does that make?
> What difference indeed!
> 
> I think some questions of usage defy completely explicable explanation. I wrote 'rational' at first but the point is that to the native speaker their choice of tense form is indeed rational.
> The 'grammar' books describe functions of form, which can be various. They are heavily dependend on context and the speaker's intention and attitude.


adding "again" to me suggests it has happened before, not just once.


----------



## natkretep

old woman said:


> So you agree that in British English "have you been peeing" can refer to one instance of peeing, used as an accusation?


Yes, because peeing is 'durative' (taking time) rather than 'punctual' (instantaneous). But as I said, an accuser might want that open to the interpretation that it could have happened more than once.


----------

