German does have something like this:
(list of abbreviations see below)
Wo-r-auf hast du ein Spielzeug gelegt?
where-ITF-on have you a toy put.PSTPTCP
Where did you put a toy on?
Wo-von ernähren sich Hasen?
where-of live.on REFLPRN rabbits
What do rabbits live on?
Wo-nach riecht das?
where-after smells that
What does this smell like?...
There's a common feature in English known as the "ergative construction", "middle construction", or "labile construction", though it's not quite the same as an actual ergative case (as found in Basque) or middle voice (as found in Ancient Greek).
In this construction, a verb that normally takes two nouns (Alice broke the window, Bob sold the CDs, Claire ...
My assumption from Turkish is that agglutinative languages have this property.
Oyuncağı nereye koydun?
Word by word:
TheToy whon youput
In Turkish "Ne" means What, but also is used as wh. Ne + rede means in Where, Ne + den means for What.
I don't know how much background in syntax you (or later readers) have, so I'm going to start with some basics (the complementizer layer, do-support, and object Wh-questions) before going into subject Wh-questions. Also, fair warning: syntax is not really my field, so things may be incomplete or incorrect, and anyone is invited to add or correct things.
Wonder takes an embedded interrogative complement with its own internal trace:
You wonder who John saw t.
You wonder who t saw John.
You wonder why I left t.
When you front that wh- you're asking it to do double duty, in both an external interrogative and the embedded interrogative: in effect it's standing for itself rather than for the trace!
Hindi kind of has this feature:
किस (चीज़) पे खिलौना रखा?
kis (cIz) pe khilonA rakhA?
What did you put the toy on?
Who did it?
किस is the oblique form of the word क्या (kyA) meaning "what".
As pointed out by sumelic in the comments, my corpus is woefully incomplete, and I missed the important generalization. The preposition doesn't matter: "I already told you about the man to/with/about *who/whom to talk." The only reason all the examples I found used "to" is that most of the examples of pied-piped who/whom happen to use "to". So, obviously, my ...
The word "sells" here in the English language of today has a different meaning from "is sold", and Draconis' answer does not apply here (even if it may have historically contributed to the word's meaning). The following have very different meanings:
This book is sold.
This book sells.
The first means that the book in the current context ...
I'm not sure how universal the use of interrogative words as intensifiers is, but one possibility comes to mind:
People will often spontaneously exclaim "What!?" or "How?!" when something unexpected happens. It seems like a short step from that to applying the same word as an intensifier.
The original sentence for the question “Which canvas appears to have been painted with a red paint?” is “This/That canvas appears to have been painted with a red paint”, and the answer would be “This one/canvas” or “that one/canvas”.
The reason why that sentence has no does is that it is the subject noun phrase (NP) that is being questioned. When, say, an ...
You are right. There only 'whose' is possessive:
The tag for WHOSE is WPRO$.
he_PRO asked_VBD hir_PRO ... whos_WPRO$ was_BED the_D child_N within_P
and_CONJ by_P whoos_WPRO$ commandement_N
Look up here for more explanations of the Pen tagset:
I think you have to be more careful with the examples you're using here. Your parallelism seems odd (at least to me). There are issues of transformation (passivization), surface PP order, and argument structure (transitivity) that should be considered. You didn't take this into consideration. I believe this is the source of your confusion.
Let me explain. ...
First of all, it is not the case that "who" cannot raise over "did" in T (or more precisely - over the tense affix), because it does so when moving from Spec-VP to Spec-TP anyway (under the VP-internal subject hypothesis).
Second, X-bar theory itself says nothing about the constraints on movement; it simply states how the structure is organized - basically ...
The example is okay if you get the stress right. There is some tendency to put the main sentence stress on "Paris", taking the focus to be "Paris", but that gives a bad result:
*Where did you move from Paris to?
Actually, the focus is the object of "to" or the prepositional phrase "to where", and in that case, the main stress has to on the logical object ...
Well, compare TG ( Transformational Grammar) and GPSG (Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar). TG allows the formulation of rules that perform long distance movement, using the variables of a transformation to stand for arbitrarily long strings of parts of a "proper analysis". For your example, a variable X of the WH movement transformation represents "John ...
Not only do many languages have wh-prepositions, English itself has at least two wh-prepositions. These are the words when and where, which, although classified as adverbs in traditional grammars, are recognised as prepositions by such grammars that allow for intransitive prepositions (for example, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Huddleston &...
Preposition by definition means that it is a functional word put in front of another word (typically nominal in nature) that it modifies in some way.
The wh- type words are pronominal (or more precisely shifter-like) in their nature, thus they need to stand for full sense words, e.g. nouns (what/who) or adverbs (where/when/how).
Thus to have a wh- type ...