Prantsis wrote:But then... are you saying that my second example sentence immediately struck you as half correct? That "oldi mõeldud" sounds natural (you could "do the same mistake too") but "jõudu oldi ammutatud" does not?
I know you're asking Ainurakne here, but I'm going to jump in and say it: your second example sounds just plain convoluted to me, but in such a way that I blame my own language skills rather than the author's grammatical usage. I don't usually feel the need to diagram sentences, but this one practically begs for it.

I really have to think through what each part refers to and so on.
Just siis, kui kõik teerajad paremasse homsesse näisid kinni tuisanud olevat, Right then, when all the paths to a better tomorrow seemed to be snowed under... [I'm assuming this is a metaphor?]lahkus meie hulgast suur kirjanik, ...a great writer left us...kellele aastakümneid oldi austuse ja armastusega mõeldud. I assume here they mean
who for decades had been thought of with esteem/respect and love, but when I try to sort out the relationships between words, the grammar just eludes me.
...kellele (who-allative) aastakümneid (decades-partitive) oldi (be passive-past-indicative) austuse (esteem/honor/great respect genitive-for-comitative) ja (and) armastusega (love-comitative) mõeldud (think passive-perfect-participle)
Since it is part of the same sentence as the line above, I keep wanting to make
kirjanik the subject here, like the first type of sentences, but of course that's not what's happening. I guess

this is because of the point you're asking about; with
oldi mõeldud there
should be a subject like that, and there isn't one here.
Kelle targast sõnast nii mõnelgi ajaloolisel pöördepunktil jõudu oldi ammutatud.From whose wise word(s) at such a historical turning point strength had been obtained
...kelle (who-genitive targast wise-elative sõnast word-elative nii so mõnelgi some-adessive-emphatic ajaloolisel historic-adessive pöördepunktil turning-point adessive jõudu strength/force oldi be passive-past-indicative ammutatud get/obtain/scoop/quarry passive-perfect-participle
It ends up sounding to me like a sentence fragment, like it should be attached to the previous sentence, or should start with a passive subject of some sort (like
Ta oli kirjanik, kelle....) Basically, the same issue as the previous part. I don't know. This type of construction is beyond my productive ability, so who am I to judge?

I can say only that I can convince myself I understand the intended meaning, even though it strikes me as an either erroneous or complex construction.
Prantsis wrote:Personaly, I think I would never make this mistake. And the same goes for many mistakes Eesti keele käsiraamat (which has been thought for natives) deals with: it would never have occured to me that one could make them. I make different ones.)
I think that's nearly always the case with native versus non-native speakers in any language: we do make different mistakes. Along with all the mistakes non-native speakers make that native speakers never would, there are always a few things that are the other way around: things that non-native speakers learn correctly from the beginning which native speakers struggle with, because non-native speakers are exposed to them through grammatical rules from the beginning, while native speakers are exposed to them first through making their own generalizations as children, and internalize those generalization or misconceptions before learning the rules. I suppose that also has a lot to do with why languages change over time: if enough people have internalized features that don't follow the rules, and use those features, eventually they will become the new rules.