Interesting, Cajun, and thanks for explaining. You know, it seems to me, that by your definition, "to" could be analyzed as a phrasal verb when used in the sense of "read to", since it clarifies the meaning of "read" to include the idea of reading aloud to someone else. Perhaps one could make the same case for "out of", but that's harder, since it seems to relate the idea of a book and the idea of reading from it.
However, I don't buy your substitutions of "why" and "from" for "what for" and "out of". That suggests that the latter are inherently incorrect, since you substitute for them. To me, that implies that one must also refrain from saying "For what did you do that?" and "He read out of a book," and such a proscription would be pedantic as I'm sure you agree. Not to mention the fact that "from" is also a preposition, and you're ending the sentence with it, so what have we gained from the substitution? No, I think we ought to be allowed to say "what for" and "out of" with impunity, not changing them to suit the dictates of a grammatical rule. If a rule disallows a word, then it prevents a user from conveying subtleties and shading through that word, and I submit that in that case the rule is suspect rather than the word.
Furthermore, dropping the word "to" seems wrong, since it doesn't specify me in a dative (can't remember the term for the type of subordinate clause that has to or for in it). Your solution suggests that it's correct to say "He read me from a book" instead of "He read to me from a book" and I can't agree with that. So, I don't think we can drop the word "to" here.
So, maybe "For what did you bring up the book, out of which I didn't want to be read to?" where "to" is a "phrasal verb".
Still seems stilted to me, even if you do substitute "why" for "for what".
Perhaps the convention has become archaic.
Bob