Thread by @Minimaliste13

This is fascinating... and highly reminiscent of the phenomenon of omnivorous agreement (in the sense of Nevins), as for instance number agreement in Georgian, and even more so of omnivorous person agreement in Kichean (Mayan family) as studied for instance by Omer Preminger (P).

https://twitter.com/DannyBate4/status/1144319341900500992

So I would definitely try to formalize this as relativized probing by Infl., and try to reduce the pronoun exception to some sort of Gender Case Constraint (modeled on the Person Case Constraint).

If this is anywhere close to being a good idea, then Ripano seems new to me, in an interesting theoretical way.

A crucial part of P's proposal (in his thesis of LIM68) is that there be a feature asymmetry in the person feature between the marked 1st/2n person and the unmarked 3rd person which allows for relativized probing of the participant (skipping 3rd person subject).

In Ripano, there seems to be such an asymmetry with respect to gender, with masculine plural apparently always marked.

https://twitter.com/DannyBate4/status/1144317441385910272?s=20

But in the competing subject/clitic pronoun object case, apparently the object is always probed, no matter what, and that is new (even though an example with a feminine pronoun object dictating feminine agreement over a masculine subject would be clearer)

https://twitter.com/DannyBate4/status/1144319341900500992?s=20

In fact, in some sense, this the exact opposite case of omnivorous agreement in Georgian. Omnivorous is here to suggest that there will be agreement with both subject and object no matter what: the -t in g-xedav-t (subject saw object) means plural in the subject, object, or both

So perhaps this should be called Picky agreement, where rather than being omnivorous, the probe has very specific tastes and only probes what it likes best.

Now in Kichean, it was clear what the probe liked best: marked 1st or 2nd person, rather than unmarked 3rd person.

Same in the case of the Person Case Constraint: the phenomenon might be complex, but at least the preferences of the probe are clear.

Here, Infl. is picky, but in a seemingly complicated way.

Going back to Earth, and more specifically Ripatransone, what I would really like @DannyBate4 to tell us is the behavior of Ripano with respect to indirect objects, and especially clitic indirect objects.

The Ripano equivalent of

L'insegnante gli/le ha dato una gomma

for instance. If these constructions are actually not quite possible in Ripano, then we definitely got something.

Another question of interest would be extraction.

Are there, for instance, restrictions on asking questions depending on matching or unmatching genders, especially for pronouns. Are there for instance restrictions on sentences like French

Que le lui a vendu la boulangère/le boulanger ?
À qui la boulangère l'a-t-elle vendue ?

So any questions, so little time. Thanks a lot again to @DannyBate4 for the thread.