Why can prepositions following a verb not affect the meaning of Verb Phrases that differ by only a preposition? I.e., what explains the semantic sameness between Verb Phrases that differ by only a preposition, but that both mean the same? I can't divine why, but to me 1 looks wrong and 2 correct.
Example 1: agree + DO (Direct Object) vs. agree on/with DO
[1.1. p. 93 Top. Textbook on Contract Law (2016 13 ed.) ] In English law, even where there is only an agreement between the parties to agree a price, it seems that the courts will enforce that agreement if at all possible once performance has begun.
[1.2. p. 187 Middle. A Practical Approach to Conveyancing (2017 19 ed.) ] If you are fortunate enough to agree a price reduction and you act for both borrower/ buyer and lender then, subject to your duty of confidentiality to your borrower client, you have a duty to inform the lender of the price reduction.
Example 2: allowed + DO vs. allowed to DO
Robert Schütze. European Union Law 2 ed. 2018. p. 107. All emboldenings are mine.
From there, the Court reasoned as follows:
Consequently, observance of the general principle of equal treatment, in particular in respect of age, cannot as such be conditional upon the expiry of the period allowed [TO] the Member States for the transposition of a directive intended to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of age …