What would I call someone who restrains a person and holds them back?
I'm writing a short story, and one of the characters gets held back by the villain's assistant. I'm imagining him being held and restrained as if he is being arrested and handcuffed. I think the word for it would be a control hold?
Here is the sentence:
"Ezekiel only had a second to stare in shock and panic before he felt someone hold him back and force his hands behind his back, as if he was being arrested. He tried to struggle his way out, but they had a strong hold on him. He didn’t even have to turn his head to know who his ___ was.
What should I put in the blanks here?
(i'm a bit nervous to post this because this probably seems worse than it actually is i swear it stays pg)
single-word-requests word-choice etymology
asked Mar 31 at 0:29
NylaTheWolfNylaTheWolf
141
|
show 5 more comments
I'm writing a short story, and one of the characters gets held back by the villain's assistant. I'm imagining him being held and restrained as if he is being arrested and handcuffed. I think the word for it would be a control hold?
Here is the sentence:
"Ezekiel only had a second to stare in shock and panic before he felt someone hold him back and force his hands behind his back, as if he was being arrested. He tried to struggle his way out, but they had a strong hold on him. He didn’t even have to turn his head to know who his ___ was.
What should I put in the blanks here?
(i'm a bit nervous to post this because this probably seems worse than it actually is i swear it stays pg)
single-word-requests word-choice etymology
asked Mar 31 at 0:29
NylaTheWolfNylaTheWolf
141
What about Apprehender if the general flow will allow?
– Cass Lopez
2 days ago
Is there only one person holding him back ("someone") because you say "they" had a strong hold on him?
– KannE
2 days ago
Why not "restrainer"? Or look at synonyms for "restrain" -- detain, restrict, subdue, suppress. In fact, "subduer" is fairly commonly used in this sense.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
I want to use assailant in that context. However, it doesn't mean specifically somebody who has a hold of somebody else.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
1
@KannE i meant a singular "they", as in the gender neutral pronoun ;)
– NylaTheWolf
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
I'm writing a short story, and one of the characters gets held back by the villain's assistant. I'm imagining him being held and restrained as if he is being arrested and handcuffed. I think the word for it would be a control hold?
Here is the sentence:
"Ezekiel only had a second to stare in shock and panic before he felt someone hold him back and force his hands behind his back, as if he was being arrested. He tried to struggle his way out, but they had a strong hold on him. He didn’t even have to turn his head to know who his ___ was.
What should I put in the blanks here?
(i'm a bit nervous to post this because this probably seems worse than it actually is i swear it stays pg)
single-word-requests word-choice etymology
asked Mar 31 at 0:29
NylaTheWolfNylaTheWolf
141
I'm writing a short story, and one of the characters gets held back by the villain's assistant. I'm imagining him being held and restrained as if he is being arrested and handcuffed. I think the word for it would be a control hold?
Here is the sentence:
"Ezekiel only had a second to stare in shock and panic before he felt someone hold him back and force his hands behind his back, as if he was being arrested. He tried to struggle his way out, but they had a strong hold on him. He didn’t even have to turn his head to know who his ___ was.
What should I put in the blanks here?
(i'm a bit nervous to post this because this probably seems worse than it actually is i swear it stays pg)
single-word-requests word-choice etymology
single-word-requests word-choice etymology
asked Mar 31 at 0:29
NylaTheWolfNylaTheWolf
141
asked Mar 31 at 0:29
NylaTheWolfNylaTheWolf
141
asked Mar 31 at 0:29
NylaTheWolfNylaTheWolf
141
asked Mar 31 at 0:29
NylaTheWolfNylaTheWolf
141
asked Mar 31 at 0:29
NylaTheWolfNylaTheWolf
141
141
What about Apprehender if the general flow will allow?
– Cass Lopez
2 days ago
Is there only one person holding him back ("someone") because you say "they" had a strong hold on him?
– KannE
2 days ago
Why not "restrainer"? Or look at synonyms for "restrain" -- detain, restrict, subdue, suppress. In fact, "subduer" is fairly commonly used in this sense.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
I want to use assailant in that context. However, it doesn't mean specifically somebody who has a hold of somebody else.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
1
@KannE i meant a singular "they", as in the gender neutral pronoun ;)
– NylaTheWolf
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
What about Apprehender if the general flow will allow?
– Cass Lopez
2 days ago
Is there only one person holding him back ("someone") because you say "they" had a strong hold on him?
– KannE
2 days ago
Why not "restrainer"? Or look at synonyms for "restrain" -- detain, restrict, subdue, suppress. In fact, "subduer" is fairly commonly used in this sense.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
I want to use assailant in that context. However, it doesn't mean specifically somebody who has a hold of somebody else.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
1
@KannE i meant a singular "they", as in the gender neutral pronoun ;)
– NylaTheWolf
5 hours ago
What about Apprehender if the general flow will allow?
– Cass Lopez
2 days ago
What about Apprehender if the general flow will allow?
– Cass Lopez
2 days ago
Is there only one person holding him back ("someone") because you say "they" had a strong hold on him?
– KannE
2 days ago
Is there only one person holding him back ("someone") because you say "they" had a strong hold on him?
– KannE
2 days ago
Why not "restrainer"? Or look at synonyms for "restrain" -- detain, restrict, subdue, suppress. In fact, "subduer" is fairly commonly used in this sense.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
Why not "restrainer"? Or look at synonyms for "restrain" -- detain, restrict, subdue, suppress. In fact, "subduer" is fairly commonly used in this sense.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
I want to use assailant in that context. However, it doesn't mean specifically somebody who has a hold of somebody else.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
I want to use assailant in that context. However, it doesn't mean specifically somebody who has a hold of somebody else.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
1
1
@KannE i meant a singular "they", as in the gender neutral pronoun ;)
– NylaTheWolf
5 hours ago
@KannE i meant a singular "they", as in the gender neutral pronoun ;)
– NylaTheWolf
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I think it would be very natural to say "He didn't even have to turn his head to know who his captor was," but that might have the implication that he his being held for a long time.
answered 2 days ago
eenbeetjeeenbeetje
3687
I had the exact same thought process.
– NylaTheWolf
5 hours ago
add a comment |
protected by tchrist♦ 2 days ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I think it would be very natural to say "He didn't even have to turn his head to know who his captor was," but that might have the implication that he his being held for a long time.
answered 2 days ago
eenbeetjeeenbeetje
3687
I had the exact same thought process.
– NylaTheWolf
5 hours ago
add a comment |
I think it would be very natural to say "He didn't even have to turn his head to know who his captor was," but that might have the implication that he his being held for a long time.
answered 2 days ago
eenbeetjeeenbeetje
3687
I had the exact same thought process.
– NylaTheWolf
5 hours ago
add a comment |
I think it would be very natural to say "He didn't even have to turn his head to know who his captor was," but that might have the implication that he his being held for a long time.
answered 2 days ago
eenbeetjeeenbeetje
3687
I think it would be very natural to say "He didn't even have to turn his head to know who his captor was," but that might have the implication that he his being held for a long time.
answered 2 days ago
eenbeetjeeenbeetje
3687
answered 2 days ago
eenbeetjeeenbeetje
3687
answered 2 days ago
eenbeetjeeenbeetje
3687
answered 2 days ago
eenbeetjeeenbeetje
3687
3687
I had the exact same thought process.
– NylaTheWolf
5 hours ago
add a comment |
I had the exact same thought process.
– NylaTheWolf
5 hours ago
I had the exact same thought process.
– NylaTheWolf
5 hours ago
I had the exact same thought process.
– NylaTheWolf
5 hours ago
add a comment |
protected by tchrist♦ 2 days ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
What about Apprehender if the general flow will allow?
– Cass Lopez
2 days ago
Is there only one person holding him back ("someone") because you say "they" had a strong hold on him?
– KannE
2 days ago
Why not "restrainer"? Or look at synonyms for "restrain" -- detain, restrict, subdue, suppress. In fact, "subduer" is fairly commonly used in this sense.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
I want to use assailant in that context. However, it doesn't mean specifically somebody who has a hold of somebody else.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
1
@KannE i meant a singular "they", as in the gender neutral pronoun ;)
– NylaTheWolf
5 hours ago