> **保有**财产 ; **抱有**好感 ; **怀有**敌意 ; **育有**一子

Bi-syllabic verbal compounds like these (in bold) are *words*: they form a lexical unit; they are used as independent lexemes; they are lexicographically counted as lemmas/entries in all dictionaries. 

> 桌上**摆有**一卷书 ; 屋中**堆有**一百袋大米 ;  庭中**种有**几棵树 ; 车上**坐有**四人

Bi-syllabic verbal compounds like these, however, are not recorded as words in any dictionary, although they are similarly-formed and otherwise unexceptional. When pressed, people describe them as just normal instances of serial verb constructions - but are they really?

Syntactically, they seem perfectly good candidates for word-hood, and yet they're not. So I wonder:

 1. Are there any lexicographical/grammatical criteria we can use to explain why that second set of compounds (and other compounds like them) are to be excluded from word-hood? 
 2. Leaving aside academic criteria, how would any native-level Chinese speaker here describe their intuitive feeling about those non-dictionary words (摆有, 堆有, 种有, 坐有, etc)?
     - Do they strike you as creatively constructed phrases?
         + If so, do you compose them each time afresh, perhaps in agreement with any preceding noun? (For example, thinking of 庭+有树 and deciding to add in 种 to clarify how the tree are in the courtyard or thinking about 车+有人 and deciding to add in 坐 to clarify how the people are in the car)?
     - If not: Do they strike you as normal compound words that you pick in your head as a unit, no different to other frequently-used words like 抱有 or 保有?
         + If so, does it surprise you that **all** dictionaries list words like 持有, 保有, 抱有 and 育有 but **no** dictionary lists words like 摆有, 坐有, 种有 and 堆有? How would you explain this fact?