I have been assuming all this time that there are languages (like Russian, but also just found a paper on another language which has this kind of data) which allow in situ questions generally but require fronting in embedded clauses.
(1) Ты где работаешь? 2SG where work.2SG Where do you work? [rus] -- this is a very high frequency sentence, though there is an emphasis on *where*, the stress certainly goes there. (2) *Я знаю, ты где работаешь 1SG know.1SG 2SG where work.2SG Intended: I know where you work [rus]
I am not sure however how to model this.
I can say that the insitu-phrase is [ MC + ] which will disallow it from embedding but that won’t prevent it from taking the entire complex clause as its daughter!
I cannot say that the embedding verb requires a complement that’s QUE-empty (because we need question phrases to cross the clause boundary).
I was hoping to reuse the L-QUE feature, perhaps turning it into a luk and doing something clever, but I don’t see how to make it work so far (though I may simply be missing the right logic).
Now, the theoretical literature does not like the idea that fronting can be optional, so much so they will insist the in Russian sentences like Ivan where goes? both Ivan and where have moved :).
I wonder how deep of a rabbit hole I am going into here. Does it sound like modeling different possibilities for embedded and main clauses was a bad idea? Generally, thoughts on this?