What are the implications of the idea of giving someone “a state” in the case of prosperity to the point of informal, if not completely incorrect?

Many words which indicate a state or condition in someone else seem to be things you cause in someone else, through them, as it were, not necessarily things you give to them. Are there exceptions to the law?

Consider a few example states other than prosperity:

• nervousness

• happiness

• unconsciousness

“I give you nervousness. ” The

film “I cause your nervousness” works I guess.

“I give you happiness. I give you a peace.” Was

it better for a state to sound, maybe because it’s more readily conceptualised independently of those experiencing the state. Then seems less dependent on the subject, even though here it is simply the state of the receiver, and dependent upon them.

I give you unconsciousness. I’m that all void. I’m unconscious. I’m unconscious.” Is

wrong again ” sounds wrong again arguably isn’t completely wrong. How can I cause my unconsciousness?

So prosperity, being a state that one has, I think “feels” more correct in the form of ‘bringing about’ or ‘causing.

“The prosperity you give

somehow sounds more awkward than “the prosperity that you bring” or even “the prosperity that you bring”. What you ask me is that, in my opinion, this entire sentence is awkward and archaic. Although the latter, however, may be the intention.