I've got another solution for this one. During a conversation between two men, one man says something that gives the other man an idea. The first man never had the idea himself but was still able to pass it on to the second man. Unlike sorrow, an idea can vary and be specific amongst other ideas. Sorrow however is the same to anyone that can obtain it. The idea then was formed by the actions in the head of the second man, but could not have existed without the otherwise useless input of the first man. This can also still work for sorrow in the same way. The first man can say something that he feels is harmless but can, in the mind of the second man, create feelings of sorrow. The first man's words could have reminded him of something awful in hes past thus bringing the sorrow. The first man could however be as jolly as can be.
There is a flaw in this logic. Man 1 does not give Man 2 an idea. He gives him spoken or written words. Man 2 then thinks about these words and formulates an idea. The transaction is made with just the words, hence Man 1 gave something he had.
The same applies to sorrow in your argument. Man 1 gives words to Man 2. Man 2 then thinks about it and becomes sorrowful. The giving transaction is over when Man 2 receives the words and before he formulates any ideas about them.