If, for some reason, you asked me “whose words were those?”

I suppose I'm not clear on what this question is really asking. It could be another way of asking "Who spoke those words", or "Who's voice was that?". Are you thinking of "To who do these patterns of compressions and dispersions in the air molecules belong?". I'm not sure that ancaps will find an easy consensus on that last question. Really, you're transforming through your actions (very temporarily) an unowned resource. But imo this transformation doesn't meet any workable set of homesteading criteria. So my view is that no one owns this chunk of air - with the temporary pattern of compressions and dispersions that you created in it.

Reading on a bit, I notice that I'd like to get you to define exactly what you mean by 'own' or 'property'. When I say those things I mean specifically that if anyone is trying to use/transform the owned thing without the owners permission, then it ought to be legally allowed for anyone else to use some measure of force/violence (or threat thereof) against the person to stop their unauthorised use.

In the case of the written words example I don't have enough information to be able to tell whether I think the written words (ink arranged in patterns on some surface) are owned by the writer or not. Certainly if he's using someone else's materials he may well not end up being the owner.

You didn’t use violence to take my fish, but you now own the fish, since it is in your belly digesting. The claim of ownership has changed. While it has changed in an unethical fashion, the fact remains that I owned the fish, you took it, and now you own the fish.

I would say that the thief took possession of the fish while it existed. But the rightful owner never changed.

Thanks for the ping. It's interesting to try to express where my disagreement is exactly!