I find pied-piping in English a bit stilted, even if it is sometimes the prescribed option. Consider the following contrast:
(1) I’m not someone to fuck with.
(2) I’m not someone with whom to fuck.
In (1) the preposition with is stranded; in (2) it is raises along with the wh-element. What are your impressions of a speaker who says (2)? For me, they sound a bit like a nerd, or perhaps a cartoonish villain. I thought about this the other day because I was watching Alien Resurrection (1997)—it’s okay but not one of my favorite entries in the Weyland-Yutani cinematic universe—and one of the first bits of characterization we get for mercenary “Ron Johner”, played by badass Ron Perlman, is the following bit of dialogue (here taken directly from Joss Whedon’s screenplay):
This would work if Johner was a sort of evil genius, or if it was some kind of callback to something earlier, but I think this is probably just unanalyzed language pedantry ruining the vibe a little.
I’m somehow getting different detotations of fuck.v here. But I’m not a native speaker.
fuck with is just a different lexeme; neither (1-2) has an available non-idiomatic (‘have sex with’) reading for me.
The non-pied-piped version in (3) is bad too for me. In fact, I think I judge (3) much worse than your (2).
(3) I am not someone who(m) to fuck/mess with.
So, I am not sure this is about pied-piping per se. Perhaps the structure is more complicated than assumed?
In fact, the issue is not even about ; you can get the same judgment with regular verbs:
(4) I am not someone to look at
(5) *I am not someone who(m) to look at
(6) ?*I am not someone at whom to look
Curiously, as with (2-3), I judge (6) slightly better than (5). The issue is also not about the matrix verb. You can get the same facts with other verbs:
(4’) I want/need someone to look at (or mess/fuck with)
(5’) *I want/need someone whom to look at
(6’) ?*I want/need someone at whom to look
The constituency is likely as in (7) based on the movement evidence in (8):
(7) I am not [DP someone to fuck/mess with.]
(8) [DP someone to fuck/mess with.], I am not
So, it suggests that either the constituent is a headed object relative clause or some sort of non-finite clause with a pre-posed object. I doubt it is the latter, as you can get similar constructions with want/need with very different meanings:
(9) I want someone to mess with.
(10) I want to mess with someone.
If was a just non-finite clause in (9) with some movement, then it is similar to (10), but the meaning is quite different. In (9), as far as I can see, the want is for someone, but in (10) the want is for an event. If this crappy reasoning is right, then maybe the constituent in (7-9) is an object relative clause. I am not entirely sure of this argument, but OK.
Two interesting things going on with the construction.
A) Interesting observation 1:
If the constituent is an object relative clause, then there is a curious fact. It allows for control within the relative clause with some matrix verbs. In (11), the null embedded subject can only refer to me. But, weirdly, this is not the case in (12); in fact, in (12), the null subject cannot be me.
(11) Mike told Karthik I needed/wanted someone-i PRO to look at
(12) Mike told Karthik I am not someone PRO? to look at
(11) is not amenable to a Control is movement analysis as it is in a strong island (DP). Cool argument, if right :). But, what’s happening in (11) then?
B) Interesting observation 2:
The head of the relative clause can only be a quantifier. WTH!! (13-14) are bad for me with simple pronouns. I can get the intended meaning for a couple of seconds, but on second/third reading the meaning sort of vanishes…it’s a bit ephemeral…I don’t know how else to explain the judgement. lol! Now, if there is a pause after the pronoun, and the rest of the clause is like an after thought, then it is fine. But, if I try to say it without a pause, I find it difficult to understand; it’s like I am waiting for a final object. Note, the clear difference between (13-14) and (15-19).
(13) ?*I need/need him to mess with
(14) ?*I am him to mess with
(15) I am someone to mess with
(16) I am no one to mess with
(17) I want/need someone to mess with
(18) I don’t want/need anyone to mess with
(19) I want/need no one to mess with
If your intuitions are different, we will call them facts about my dialect :). Also, if there is a more insightful analysis of the structure and facts above, I’d love to hear more about it.
I share your judgments largely. I prefer (16) to (15) and (18) to (17) perhaps because “someone to mess with” is better in a downward entailing context.