"owner"

[fox-c.livejournal.com]

could someone please explain the difference between the following words?

владелец
собственник
обладатель

As far as I can tell from context, they all mean "owner", but don't seem to be fully interchangable, and I'm sure that there are nuances that I'm completely missing. Any help is much appreciated!!

Comments

[valeria-kapriz.livejournal.com]

1. owner
2. keeper
3. haver

What you use depends up context.

Looks like we have to go legal linguistics here

[tolstobrov.livejournal.com]

Therefore I have to disagree :)

собственник - that's the proprietor;
собственность - property

обладатель - "the posessor", the one who actually posesses that "something"
обладать - to posess

владелец - the owner.
Could be the proprietor.
Could be someone who posesses that "something", not being the actual proprietor.(!)
Could be both at the same time.

[spectralspectre.livejournal.com]

I would disagree that собственник = keeper, keeper is more like хранитель, or владелец.
about a context:
Владелец машины (авторских прав), собственник земельного участка, обладатель первого приза (почётной грамоты, авторских прав).
And one important note - ДЕРЖАТЕЛЬ акций. You can say владелец or собственник акций, but держатель is prefered.

[vakhitov.livejournal.com]

Собственник has two meanings. One of them is the formal "owner/proprietor", which is used within the context of law. The other, informal meaning, the exact translation of which escapes me now, can refer for example to a person who behaves in a relationship as if the partner were his/her property, giving too little freedom to the partner.

Владелец is more general and can be used about concrete, tangible things (note however that you can use it when speaking about intellectual property and the like.)

Обладатель is also general, but has a slightly different scope: 1) it is the only one of the three words that can be used about abstract, intangible things like for example voice; 2) it cannot be used in the first meaning of "собственник" whereas "владелец" can.

Re: Looks like we have to go legal linguistics here

[fox-c.livejournal.com]

so what would be the primary difference between обладатель and владелец be? Would собственник, then work for someone who might run a business but may or may not actually own it?

[fox-c.livejournal.com]

Ok, so Собственник is more like someone who runs a place but may or may not be the person who owns it.

I'm still unclear the difference between the latter two. Is Обладатель a more general term for "ownership"? perhaps a more passive arrangement, like to have an in interest in? Владелец feels more active to me, but that could be me projecting. . .

[gera.livejournal.com]

Обладатель is most often used with intangibles (обладатель прав). Владелец is only used with tangibles (владелец автомобиля).

[fox-c.livejournal.com]

Cool. Thanks *very* much.

[oryx_and_crake]

Собственник is more like someone who runs a place but may or may not be the person who owns it
--
that sounds quite wrong to me. Собственник is someone who has smth. in собственность, i.e. ownership. On the other hand, обладатель is someone who has the thing right now but may or may not be a собственник. In other words, собственник and владелец are complete synonyms and обладатель may or may not be a synonym, depending on context. E.g. the following phrases are synonyms:

Он - обладатель авторских прав на эту книгу.
Он - владелец авторских прав на эту книгу.
Он - собственник авторских прав на эту книгу.

While those are not:
Он - обладатель кольца. (Which means that the ring was found on him)
Он - владелец/собственник кольца. (Which means he is the rightful owner of the ring.)

[mtyukanov.livejournal.com]

You can add another synonymous word, "хозяин". It can be used in colloquial and neutral styles, and it stresses not only ownership, but also power and responsibility. It is very rarely used with intangibles, "хозяин программы" is wrong. When words like boss, master, host imply ownership, they are often translated as "хозяин".

Examples:

Кто хозяин этой машины? Надо заплатить хозяевам за квартиру. (These are the examples of neutral usage, interchangeable with владелец, but more colloquial.)

Он – хозяин данного слова. (An idiom meaning 'he keeps his word').
Я -- хозяин своего слова, вот и беру его обратно. (A joke, based on literal meaning of хозяин: I'm a keeper of my word, so I'm taking it back).

Я хоть и считаюсь собственником, но из-за всех этих правил и ограничений не чувствую себя хозяином. (While I'm nominally the proprietor, all these red tape rules and regulations make me feel I'm not really a boss here).

Он ведет себя тут как хозяин. (He walks like he owns the place, an example of negative meaning of "хозяин").

У нашего завода новый владелец. Настоящий хозяин, не то, что прежний. (This is hard to translate. It means the the previous owner didn't care much about his property, or about his employees, making money fast while the plant itself went to shambles. A new boss thinks about the future, he cares, although he may be strict. Buck stops on him, he is fully responsible for his company, while he exercises full control. He is probably a fatherly figure. )

[mtyukanov.livejournal.com]

Quite the opposite: собственник may run his place or not, leaving managers in charge.
Собственник is one who has a deed. But he may sell or rent his rights of use to someone else.

[mtyukanov.livejournal.com]

The second meaning of "собственник" as described by vakhitov is an idiom. "Мы расстались, потому что он начал вести себя, как собственник" is basically "We broke up because he started to behave proprietory towards me", but, while "proprietory" have both negative and positive sides, "собственник" in this context implies only negative sides of proprietory feelings towards somebody.

[fox-c.livejournal.com]

Ah ok. I had it backwards. Does the distinction mentioned above between tangibles and intangibles still hold in your opinion?

[oryx_and_crake]

Could be, I am not sure.

Re: Looks like we have to go legal linguistics here

[msk01.livejournal.com]

No, собственник is always someone who owns his business.
Is he doesn't, he's наемный менеджер.

[yms.livejournal.com]

Not only intangibles: "обладательница прекрасных глаз", but never "владелица прекрасных глаз"...

[xorxor.livejournal.com]

No!
Собственник always own the place, put may or may not be the person who runs it.

Confused, you say? :)

[tolstobrov.livejournal.com]

Hi again,


I suggest not messing with the synonims for now as that would not help getting the idea of the distinction.

I also hate to be the one to post it, to but it looks like in order to get the idea of the distinction you have to get into Roman legal system(sorry, guys, they invented it) :)

I can't provide you with all of the Latin names right off but let's try to start from the basics.

Accoding to the idea first structured by the Romans, and later on followed in what-is-now called the Continental legal system, the right of ownership consists of the following "правомочия"
(~powers, ~'parts-of-authority'. Formulated way more thoroughly in "Институции" by Гай)

владение - (???) - the posesion of the property
распоряжение - (???) - the right to transfer (lend or sell) the property
пользование - (usus) - the right to use the property

Only the combination of all three constitutes the right of ownership.(!)


Knowing this can helps solving the equation A LOT.
Let's imagine we're talking about, say, a statue:


ОБЛАДАТЕЛЬ - the one who posesses the statue.
Might be the owner.
Might not be the owner.
Might be someone who rented it from the owner and pays the owner money.
Might be someone who had stolen it from the owner, ran away from Rome and now tries to sell it :)
Might be a friend of the owner who borrowed the statue from the owner for the weekend orgy to show off a little :)


СОБСТВЕННИК - the owner of the statue.
Might have the statue in his garden or in his bedroom.
Might also keep it at a safe place somewhere in Gallia province where Caezar's troops won't find it.
Might have lent it to someone and gets money for it, but remains the owner of it as he did not sell it.
Probably has his family name engraved somewhere on the statue although that's absolutely not a prerequisite. :)


ВЛАДЕЛЕЦ -
posesses the statue and has the right to use it (combination of number 1 and number 3)

Does he have the right to transfer(number 2)?
Could he lend or sell it?
Could he go to a local pawn shop and get himself some систерции for it?
Could he present Caezar with it?
Could he break it in pieces and use the marble to make a designer table?
Could he paint the statue blue all over if he doesn't really like the color of it?

That depends.

- In a strict legal sense - that we don't know.
- Linguistically - we don't know either! :)

This russki word simply does not allow us to tell for sure. (!)

If ВЛАДЕЛЕЦ is also СОБСТВЕННИК, then yes, naturally, he could do whatever he/she pleases...

But what if he's only a ВЛАДЕЛЕЦ and therefore, does not have that number 2 right(transfer of property)?

What if he is that-guy-in-Gallia who looks after the statue, that actually belongs to his friend?
What if the statue belongs to his mother-in-law?
That's when it gets tricky! :)


You probably got confused.
That's totally normal.
Most of the native speakers mix ВЛАДЕЛЕЦ и СОБСТВЕННИК as well.
Until one day it comes to inheriting "the statue" or a car/an apartment. :)
Or unless they are lawyers. :)


Cheers,


PT



PS

Could you define the difference b/w the owner and the proprietor using plain English btw? :)

[fox-c.livejournal.com]

That's ok, your explanation is still very helpful. Thank you.

Re: Looks like we have to go legal linguistics here

[fox-c.livejournal.com]

and how is a наемный менеджер different from an управляющий?

[fox-c.livejournal.com]

Excellent. Thanks much.

Re: Confused, you say? :)

[fox-c.livejournal.com]

Interesting - not sure if that makes sense or not, yet, but I'll mull it over some more.

For owner and proprietor: legally I can't say (not a lawyer), but the difference between the two as far as I know is that proprietor is an owner, but may or may not be the person running the day to day operations of the business. Owner is more generic, but implies (to my mind) someone involved in the regular activities. The latter is much more of a neutral term, whereas proprietor is starting already to sound very formal.

Re: Looks like we have to go legal linguistics here

[colonelrabin.livejournal.com]

These are interchangeable synonyms. Управляющий sounds unfortunately a bit obsolete today and is less used. Менеджер is simply manager.

[fox-c.livejournal.com]

Thanks very much. I've been familiar with the хозяин term from my previous studies; this new set of words is particularly from a Business Russian context (Офицалнo-деловой стиль).

[fox-c.livejournal.com]

*still trying to grasp the variations*

So Обладатель is really more like someone who has something in his possession. Владелец is really more for business/ownership in a formal sense.

Does that get closer?

"manager"

[fox-c.livejournal.com]

another case of English words seeping in, then I suppose. Would управляющий still be used in more formal written communication (like a business letter) or is it totally outdated?

[yms.livejournal.com]

Yes, it seems so.

[tolstobrov.livejournal.com]

You are more than welcome!

"Официально-деловой" style is going to get you lots of those terms.
Indeed, it IS going to be hard to handle them as EVERYBODY(including native speakers) normally has his/hers own idea of the term.
Those ideas often hardly have much in common with legal definitions, which is fine with me.
However, sometimes even those modern Russian dictionaries won't help you as you just never know what this-or-that person particularly means.

For example I asked you, a native speaker of the English language to define the difference b/w "the owner" and "the proprietor"

You answered:

1)proprietor is an owner, but may or may not be the person running the day to day operations of the business.

2)Owner is more generic, but implies (to my mind) someone involved in the regular activities.

3)The latter(owner) is much more of a neutral term, whereas proprietor is starting already to sound very formal.

I'd like to ask another question then: if we're talking not "официально-деловой" Russian, but proper English, would "the proprietor" be the combination of Roman 1+2+3(~"posession"+"transfer"+"usage"), while "the owner" would be the combination of mostly "power of posession"+"power of usage"+something vaguely definable from the "power of transfer"?

I guess I'll be easier if we stay speaking of something plain, like that statue for example.
Businesses will complicate things.

Or, alternatively, could the statue have more than 1 "owner" at a time?

[fox-c.livejournal.com]

*sigh* I agonised over that ь in Официально for a good five minutes and still got it wrong, but spelling rules are another topic entirely. . .

I'd like to ask another question then: if we're talking not "официально-деловой" Russian, but proper English, would "the proprietor" be the combination of Roman 1+2+3(~"posession"+"transfer"+"usage"), while "the owner" would be the combination of mostly "power of posession"+"power of usage"+something vaguely definable from the "power of transfer"?

good question, I don't really know what the "right" answer would be (not terribly helpful, eh?). . .I would say that in English proprietor could have all three of those rights (possession, transfer, usage), but, again, I would say unlikely to actually be exercising option 3 and may have some limitations on option 2, depending on what the original agreement was for him to purchase the item in the first place.

An "owner" to my mind would definitely have all three rights in a much more general way.

Re: "manager"

[colonelrabin.livejournal.com]

Not totally, not completely, but mostly. The only formal description that now uses this word as a noun (AFAIK) is "конкурсный управляющий" - bankruptcy manager, bankruptcy commissioner. Exprsessions like "управляющая компания" are common, but here this word is being used as a particip.

I give of course no warranty of 100% correctness...

Re: "manager"

[fox-c.livejournal.com]

that's very good to know. Thank you!

Re: Looks like we have to go legal linguistics here

[msk01.livejournal.com]

There are could be a few "наемных менеджеров" in the same business (finance, logistic, etc), but the main person is управляющий or директор, sometimes Генеральный директор. It depends on how these jobs are named in the company.

[triogen.livejournal.com]

There is no difference between владелец and собственник.
As for обладатель, this word is rather comical, informal and old-fashioned.

[ilyabirman.livejournal.com]

In yms’ example прекрасные глаза are actually quite intangible :-)

Владелица прекрасных глаз means she has those white spherical things in her property. That’s about tangibles: she could take her прекрасные глаза from the box, put them somewhere, take picture of them and put it to her website, or whatever.

Now, Обладательница прекрасный глаз does not mean she owns the things, but it rather says us something about her personality (if you let me use this word). This is closer to "Her eyes are beautiful" (no possession at all here) than to "She owns two beautiful eyes" (this is all about possession).

So, while formally she indeed has those two eyes, saying "обладательница прекрасных глаз" does not stress this fact, stressing the beauty of the eyes instead.

Also notice that simple обладательница глаз does not make much sense at all, which once again proves that the обладательница phrase is not about possession but about eyes themselves, and here we just say nothing about them.

To conclude, I tend to believe that the difference between tangibles and intangibles is quite a good sign, just try to look at tangibles and intangibles a bit wider :-)

Another similar example came to my mind: обладатель «Оскара» is someone who was awarded by the Academy. While Oscar is a phisical statue, обладатель «Оскара» is about someone’s being awarded, but not about his owning the statue. You never call him or her владелец «Оскара» or собственник «Оскара» (both sounds quite stupid). And, the Academy itself must have maaany of those statues just before the ceremony, but this fact doesn’t make them обладателями многих «Оскаров» ;-)

[spiritrc.livejournal.com]

Why? "Правообладатель" is a commonly used legal term and it is just a combination of two words - право and обладатель.