**Observation:**

> **保有**财产; **抱有**好感; **怀有**敌意; 他俩**育有**一子; 学校**设有**音乐课; 杯子**留有**指纹

Bi-syllabic verbal compounds like those in bold above are sometimes treated as *words* (insofar as I found them all listed as "entries/lemmas" in *at least* one dictionary). When they do, they are presented as forming a lexical unit.

However, 

> 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; 桌上**放有**信件; 床下**藏有**黄金; 林里**搭有**帐篷; 城内**通有**地铁; 东北**流有**福溪

Bi-syllabic verbal compounds like these are not recorded in any dictionary, although they are similarly-formed and otherwise unexceptional. When pressed, people simply describe them as serial verb constructions.

**Problem:** 

Chinese grammars describe many types of serial verb constructions, but **NEVER** in the V+有 pattern. Chinese dictionaries rarely if ever list any of the above V+有 compounds as words, as observed above. So how are we to analyse these compounds? 

Morphologically, they do seem perfectly good candidates for word-hood but, syntactically, they could also be described as resultative constructions of one form or another. 

**Questions:**

 1. Do you think they are all simply collocations of verbs arranged in a resultative (or other?) construction?

2. If not (and so you think some of them are words), are there any criteria we can use to explain why some are to be excluded from word-hood?
 
3. If you're a Chinese native speaker, do compounds like 摆有, 堆有, 种有, 坐有 (which never appear in dictionaries) strike you as creative constructions?
     - If so: Would you compose them each time afresh, based on context? (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: Does it surprise you that some dictionaries list compounds like 持有, 保有, 抱有 and 育有 but **no** dictionary lists compounds like 摆有, 坐有, 种有 and 堆有? How would you explain this fact?