[kbenson]

Thank you for the clarification. I suspected the "by" portion might be key, mainly because it felt like it was missing (and thus a requirement). That it helps distinguish the meaning makes sense.

I really should spend some time to research the mechanics of my native tongue, rather than rely on what sounds right and the simplistic rules I can remember from primary school. This has been on my mental to-do list at different times over the years, but I always seem to have it de-prioritized and then I forget about it. :/

[e12e]

Just remember that language isn't truly normative - in general, one of the best tests for "correctness" is "appears in speech by native speakers". Which is somewhat complicated by the existence of written language. In English, Shakespeare is somewhat famously the inventor of a number of idioms that would probably seem strange at the time, but are now ingrained to the English language, see eg:

"You're quoting Shakespeare" - Rob Brydon reveals popular Shakespeare phrases in everyday use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig6f5fT0Xho

Or, "My Shakespeare - a new poem by Kate Tempest": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_auc2Z67OM

[schoen]

Sure. Another analogy without the phrasal verb might be "give", which has an indirect object:

John has given a date. (he stated when something would happen, or he donated a fruit to someone)

John was given a date. (he received a fruit as a gift)

John was given by a date. (most likely interpretation is that someone's romantic partner, maybe John's, nominated John for some position or role)