1

This question might seem slightly odd, since I'm trying to find a single word for a person who 'has' something yet does not necessarily own it.

Someone who has a house for example would be called an owner. However, someone who has a conversation does not necessarily own said conversation, yet still has it.

This is different from similar questions about possession/ownership since most of those questions refer to material things, in which case if one was in possession of something (i.e. a house) which doesn't necessarily belong to them you could simply refer to them as the 'holder' of said thing. And although you could probably refer to someone as a 'conversation holder', it seems inappropriate given the context of what it means to hold something, which still implies possession of some sort.

I was dwelling on the possibility of a conversation haver, however that word does not exist as a noun derived from a verb in the way that: someone who holds would be a holder. (Someone who runs would be a runner, etc.) Why is it that the verb 'to have' cannot be translated in the same way into a noun?

Those two men conversing at the table are conversation _________.

Conversationalists? (this implies they must be good at or fond of conversing, which is not necessarily the case)

Simply 'talkers'? (talking and conversing are not the same thing though).

As I write this I notice that this might also have to do with our usage of the word conversation, for someone who has a thought is simply a thinker, and the same with most other verbs I can come up with.

I guess the term 'interlocutor' could work, however it still does not refer to the idea of having as possible noun...

Any ideas?

  • Why not rephrase? Not all states of being are covered by nouns. You could say "Those two men at the table are having a conversation" or simply "Those two men at the table are talking" (which would be the most natural thing to say about them. – Robusto Dec 2 '17 at 7:39
  • 'Have' is often used delexically as a main verb, as in 'She had a/n bath / drink / discussion about curries / short nap / argument with her mother'. These are idioms, and are fixed to the extent that they resist passivisation (_A bath was had by her_) and, as you say, conversion to an agent noun rewrite (She was a bath-haver). As Robusto says, rephrasing is the solution (the active works fine for the first of my examples, and 'She was a regular bather' or 'She regularly took baths' for the second). – Edwin Ashworth Dec 2 '17 at 7:58
1

The sense that you're using have is one of participation:

have verb 4 Perform the action indicated by the noun specified (used especially in spoken English as an alternative to a more specific verb) ‘I really enjoy having a good old blether with my pals and socialise with them when I get the chance.’ - ODO

So you can call the people involved participants:

  • Those two men conversing at the table are conversation participants.

Here's an example of this term used to describe people 'having' a race (something intangible):

  • A cold participant (She has a cold)? An idea participant (He had an idea)? Problem participants (They have a problem)? – Edwin Ashworth Dec 2 '17 at 8:01
  • @EdwinAshworth Those are closer to ODO’s definition 2 - experience (though having a cold might perhaps stray into definition 1). They would need a different word. Maybe something like ‘subjects’ (of an experiment) or sufferers (of problems & colds, etc). – Lawrence Dec 2 '17 at 8:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.