Does grammar alter meaning?

"My brother was arrested at the zoo."

"What for?"

"Feeding squirrels."

"What's wrong with that?"

"He was feeding them to the lions."

The verb "feed" has a variety of interpretations, depending on how many arguments you feed it and of what kind. On hearing it used with just a direct object, we naturally assume that that denotes the creature receiving the food. Then we hear "feed" used with a phrase "to N" as well, so now the grammar is different. And with this grammar, the direct object denotes the food.

The question's so intriguing that I can't refrain from taking a chance:

He fell to the bottom.

He's fallen to the bottom.

Assuming that the only difference between those above is the grammar applied to the verb "fall", could they be understood in a way:

He fell to the bottom. (= He lost everything, family, money, honour.)

He's fallen to the bottom. (= He has many sins. He's fallen/evil to the bottom of his soul.)

If this makes any sense, it would mean, yes, grammar itself conveys the difference in meaning.

???

I'm going to give you an answer for French, and not English. But since you're asking about Greek, I assume that something that occurs in French is relevant.

In French, grammar can definitely change the meaning of words. Adjectives change meanings and change shades of meanings depending on whether they appear before or after the noun. The amount the meaning changes varies depending on the adjective, and can range from almost non-existent to minor to quite large.

For example, l'ancienne bibliothèque means the former library and la bibliothèque ancienne means the ancient library. (And, interestingly, both word orders can be translated by the old library in English.)

I can't think of any English examples that are as clearcut as this French one, but maybe somebody else can.