a good time is had by all

[Alexey86]

a) And the regular delegates — who, being mostly regular Americans, get a kick out of rubbing shoulders with celebrities, even celebrities as unglitzy as governors and senators and Congressmen — get to gawk at them. And a good time is had by all.
b) Supper is had; the intruder holds its breath and goes back the way it came.
(The New Yorker)

Questions:
1) Is something is had used only when the subject means a process or event? Or can it be used in the sense of possession: I have a Ford Mustang. The same car is had by my neighbor?
2) Can it be used in the progressive and perfect forms: Supper is being had/has been had?

 

[GoesStation]

A good time is had by all: everyone enjoys a pleasant evening or other period of time. This is an idiom where had means "passed".

Supper is had: people eat an evening meal. "Have", when it refers to a meal, means "eat". The writer employed the passive voice for a particular effect. It's an unusual sentence and not a good model for learners.

1) Is something is had used only when the subject means a process or event? Or can it be used in the sense of possession: I have a Ford Mustang. The same car is had by my neighbor?
2) Can it be used in the progressive and perfect forms: Supper is being had/has been had?

1) The phrase is an idiom. Don't use it as a model of usage. The sentence about the Mustang is not meaningful.

2) No.

 

[Alexey86]

The sentence about the Mustang is not meaningful.

Both sentences or only the second one?

 

[GoesStation]

Both sentences or only the second one?

Do you see anything wrong with this sentence? I have a Ford Mustang.

The same car is had by my neighbor is grammatical. If you said it to someone, they wouldn't know what you meant.

 

[Alexey86]

Do you see anything wrong with this sentence? I have a Ford Mustang.

No.

The same car is had by my neighbor is grammatical. If you said it to someone, they wouldn't know what you meant.

I think you mean ungrammatical.

What do you think of the following example from The Thought: A Logical Inquiry by Frege?

 

[emsr2d2]

There are plenty of sentences that, while entirely grammatical in the passive, would simply never be uttered by a native speaker in the passive and, as such, are useless for you to practise and learn. The one about the Mustang is one of them. A native speaker would say "I have a Ford Mustang, and so does my neighbour" or "I have a Ford Mustang. My neighbour has one too".

Some verbs lend themselves to the passive and some don't. For example, in the following sentence and context, the passive works well:

Audis are owned by rich idiots who don't know how to drive properly.

Note that "to have" would not work there. We wouldn't say "Audis are had by ...".

 

[jutfrank]

What do you think of the following example from The Thought: A Logical Inquiry by Frege?

Frege used the passive voice very deliberately there for the very particular reason that he wanted to show that ideas are experienced by human consciousness. It is we (our minds) that are subjects, not ideas, because ideas cannot 'do' anything 'to' us. So this deliberately unusual use of the passive voice demonstrates his philosophical viewpoint exactly.

 

[GoesStation]

I think you mean ungrammatical.

I didn't. As emsr2d2 says above, the sentence is grammatical but utterly unnatural.

 

[Alexey86]

Frege used the passive voice very deliberately there for the very particular reason that he wanted to show that ideas are experienced by human consciousness. It is we (our minds) that are subjects, not ideas, because ideas cannot 'do' anything 'to' us. So this deliberately unusual use of the passive voice demonstrates his philosophical viewpoint exactly.

So, Cars are had would also be acceptable in a philosophical treatise on cars and their owners.