A relative word such as 'what' is called a "fused" relative word, because it has its antecedent fused into itself.
So, in
(1) This is what I live for.
'what' means the thing which or the thing that, where the thing is the antecedent that is fused into what.
Now, let me ask about these sentences:
(2) This is where I live.
(3) Stay where I live.
In both (2) and (3), I think where is a relative word, because the verb live requires a complement such as where so where I live has to be a relative clause. Now, the relative clause doesn't have any antecedent, hence the fused relative word where.
In (2), I think where means the place where or the place that, where I think the place is the antecedent that is fused into where. Right?
Then, what about (3)? I think (3)'s where means in the place where or in the place that. Then is in the place the antecedent that is fused into where?
The variables in (2) can be represented as: This is place x; I live in / at place x. The variables in (3) can be represented as: Stay in / at place x; I live in / at place x.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
The variables in (2) can be represented as: This is place x; I live in/at place x.
The variables in (3) can be represented as: Stay in/at place x; I live in/at place x.
JungKim(1) This is what I live for.
I see the indirect question (a clause) "what I live for" as a complement in (1). In other words: This is the answer to the question: what do I live for?