Nik:
> And Rosta wrote:
> > The "have" = "be with" equation seems a neat explanation and might
> > also serve to explain such things as *"a dog is had by me" (because
> > = *"a dog is been with by me", which is predictably ill-formed).
>
> "A dog is had by me" doesn't sound that bad.
Extraordinary. So how does "all dogs had by me" compare to "all dogs
owned by me"?
> Of course, there's also the old cliché " A good time was had by all".
Right. But this would be a different, homonymous HAVE: cf. *"everyone
with a good time" = "everyone who has/had a good time".
--And.