Is there an english word for if someone thinks he is in possession of something, but in reality he is not

Something you would think belongs to you, or us. Like the water on earth or the sun. It just happens to be there and no one else has claimed it yet.

cuckold

From the object’s point of view it would be ownerless, free or unconstrained. The guy who thinks he owns it would be delusional, a pretender, or a false-master/guardian, perhaps?

I think pretender works best, as it already has the real life application of ‘pretender to the throne’ - someone who believes they are the rightful heir to a monarchy, but may not be.

"Pretender" isn't great because it's a word usually used for someone who acts like they are something that they aren't, not someone who owns something that they don't (or that they don't realize they have).

>. Like the water on earth or the sun. It just happens to be there and no one else has claimed it yet.
Sounds closer to prospector than my original suggestions here It's more usually used for someone who possesses something they should not, or claims a right they have lesser justification to (a pretender to the throne might have royal lineage but not the dying voice of the king for instance, or similarly with pope's they might have the dying voice but not the conclave's support for white smoke). It's not usually used as synonymous with "one who playing pretend", as it split before the modern idea of pretending in the imaginative sense.

Sorry for typos, on phone

but the phrase "pretender to the throne" implies (in the literal sense) that they are pretending to be the person who should rightfully be on the throne, not that they should own the throne as an object.

I think you have a point, but all of these examples are about people who are pretending to be someone they aren't in order to own something they shouldn't.

Besides, all of this is getting away from OP's search. "Pretender" doesn't have any references to that person not realizing that they don't own the object they think they own. In fact, "pretender" is the opposite, because a pretender knows they don't rightfully own the throne (for example), but they continue to act like they do anyways. The realization of not owning what you think you own is the core of OP's question, and I don't think there's an English word that captures that feeling

marriage

>
but the phrase "pretender to the throne" implies (in the literal sense) that they are pretending to be the person who should rightfully be on the throne, not that they should own the throne as an object.
To pretend means in actual etymologies, "to lay out a claim to". It has nothing to do with the veracity of the claim, but that a claim has been made. As I said, it split before the modern sense you are trying to work into a book etymology, and does not carry a pejorative sense unless used by other pretenders (claim makers)
In the same way you tender an offer on a job contract in construction (making a claim about how you will do the job and at what price), the verb pretending to the throne does not imply illegitimacy though both royal succession and construction tenders are known for corruptability.>fact, "pretender" is the opposite, because a pretender knows they don't rightfully own the throne (for example), but they continue to act like they do anyways.
This is not what a pretender to the throne is. You are allowing your folk etymology which assumes they are playing pretend when that idea would be unknown to anyone during most of its use. It's much like claiming when Romans are referring to tablets they really meant iPods or opiates.

>book etymology
Folk etymology. Sorry my phone hates me

It might imply in the literal sense, but the actual phrase has little to do with ‘pretending’. Pretender also doesn’t imply knowledge of one’s own pretension.

so what does "pretender" have to do with OP's question? If pretender comes from the latin to "put forth a claim," then it's different than the sentiment OP wants described. Clearly someone has to be aware of the thing they want to possess in order to put forth a claim for it, right? There's no indication of ignorance in "pretender"

cont.
It seems like OP is talking about someone who claims to own something that can't be owned or is already owned by everyone (he gives the example of water on Earth).

There’s a difference between owning something unownable and owning something unknown. OP’s question fits the foremost description best, and ‘pretender’ seems to work well as ‘putting forth a claim to something not in your possession’ is broadly the definition of the word. I think, past a point, the necessity for an absolutely accurate word disappears - we have other words we can use in the sentence to qualify the exact context of the pretension.

Further to this, to call a man ‘pretender to the Earth’, to most, will communicate most of what OP hopes to convey.

>so what does "pretender" have to do with OP's question? If pretender comes from the latin to "put forth a claim," then it's different than the sentiment OP wants described. Clearly someone has to be aware of the thing they want to possess in order to put forth a claim for it, right? There's no indication of ignorance in "pretender"
>Thinks he is in possession of something
>But in reality he is not
This fits within pretenders as they make the claim of rightful possession, but pretenders only arise within a dispute over ownership. A pretender may acquire the throne, leaving other pretenders disinherited of what they expected to possess.>seems like OP is talking about someone who claims to own something that can't be owned or is already owned by everyone
He only says that the person laying the claim is not correct in their claim of possession. Many kings and queens have claimed to own land and planets and seas that don't even exist or could not possibly be contained by their empire, but the inaccessibility of possession does not erase their claim to possession.

Intangible?

One who believes they are in possession of something they are not is a Cuckold

/pol/

Attached: 1462789602755s.jpg (125x121, 3K)

No, that’s a man who lets his wife sleep with other men.