If I thought about it, I'd probably say, "I've just run down the street", but without giving it any real thought, I'd probably say exactly what you're asking.

>But you'd say "I just ran down the street" whilst still out of breath from it?
>
>>Actually, I would say "No, I've already eaten."
>>
>>
>>>>Actually, 'just' has two uses in your example - it happened only moments ago or that was all that happened , nothing more. (Similar to the UK)
>>>
>>>No, you missed the point. I'm well aware of that meaning - it was that that I was lampooning. No, in the UK we would not say that to mean it has just happened (or, as you would say, "it just happened"). We would say "I have just run down the street" - the perfect tense.
>>>
>>>Another example: "Would you like something to eat?" - "No, I ate already" - we'd say "No, I've eaten already"
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I just ran down to the corner
>>>>
>>>>could mean:
>>>>
>>>>It just happened in the very recent past (minutes ago)
>>>
>>>It has just happened :-)
>>>
>>>>That was all I did - I only went to the corner and nothing else, not further, etc.
>>>
>>>See my point? - only this meaning in Eng. Eng.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>But "been frequenting" is past, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>No, "I have been frequenting" suggests that I'm still doing it, you see.
>>>>>>>>>>>"I frequented that club in my twenties" is in the past
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>This is the shift that I quite often don't get - "I have been frequenting" sounds like past to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Is that because other euro lang's use the "I have verbed" construct to denote a one-off action/happening?
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>e.g. in French "J'ai parle avec lui" (I have spoken with him) = "I spoke to him"
>>>>>>>>>     in German "Ich habe mit Ihm gesprochen"
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"have" is not an auxiliary verb in Slavic languages at all. It's a completely Western thing. The auxiliary verbs are "to be" (in its various forms) for most of the tenses that need it (most of the present and past tenses don't, but the simple past and conditional future do) and "will" for future. So my tense mapping may be one-off, but for different reasons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In your above case you're even making it more complex by using the continuous. If you'd said "I've frequented the place for years" it'd suggest that it's something you do regularly, and continue to do so. Not a lot of difference really.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If you said "I frequented the place for years" or "I used to frequent ..." it suggests something you don't do (or aren't doing) anymore -the imperfect tense (don't ask me how perfection comes into it)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"I had frequented ..." - something I used to do before the time to which I'm referring: "Last week I visited the museum. I had not visited it for years"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Now these all make sense and fit nicely with what I learned of English grammar long ago. It's just that "I have been ***ing" somehow implies that I'm still doing it that doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Well, not just that you're still doing it - also that it has just happend, e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>>"I've been killing him for an hour now" suggests I'm still torturing the guy to death but
>>>>>"I have killed him" (or "I have just ...") doesn't suggest that I'm STILL killing him, but that if you'd been here a minute ago you would have seen it. But you can't say:
>>>>>"I have killed him last week", as the w. europeans would say.
>>>>>
>>>>>OTOH, the Americans would say "I just killed him" (whereas in the UK that would suggest that I meant to do more but couldn't be bothered :-)