A wh-expression without wh-movement, where the wh-word is the object of the preposition “about”:
You are talking about what?
A sentence that has undergone wh-movement:
What are you talking about?
⸺with a pied-piped “about”:
About what are you talking?
The entire wh-clause has gotten pied-piped. Acceptable or not?
Talking about what are you?
Similarly (I find),
A wh-expression without wh-movement, where the wh-word is the object of the preposition “of”:
Chills and headache are symptoms of what?
That above, with wh-movement applied:
What are chills and headache symptoms of?
⸺with a pied-piped “of”. Acceptable or not?
Of what are chills and headache symptoms?
The entire wh-clause has gotten pied-piped. Acceptable or not?
Symptoms of what are chills and headache?
Here’s the question⸻
What exactly determines what can be pied-piped and what cannot in wh-movement?
- By “pied-piping,” I mean it in the linguistic sense. “A wh-word taking adjacent words together when moved.”
- I’ve come from ELL as my question was told to be esoteric for the website.
