Relativisation in Mubi and Zerenkel

The remarkable voice system described for Mubi seems to interact with relativisation, but textual data is scarce. In textual examples of subject relativisation, the same suffix shows up that Jungraithmayr describes as forming attributive adjectives; compare:

njó	tú	gì	hìtt-ìt	sàhíi	tú
person	?	M.REL	pronounce.IPFV-ADJ	truth	?
a person who speaks the truth (Jungraithmayr 2013:64, 115)

jóról	gì	mèed-ít
jackal	M.REL	die.PFV-ADJ
a dead jackal / a jackal which has died

Lukas gives phrasal examples where there is clearly no suffix, but are they really relatives?

njóo	gàŋ	húwútà	bògòs
person	M.DEM.DIST	fish[V].IPFV	fish.PL
fisherman = a person who catches fish (Lukas 1937:159)

What about when you relativise on a direct object? In the two textual examples found, the subject agreement seems to be from Series III (not I, as I would have expected); but perhaps these verbs take obliques rather than direct objects in Mubi. Thus:

lì	gì	fány-gát
thing	M.REL	want.PFV-2MSg.II/III
the thing that you want [whatever you want] (Jungraithmayr 2013:147)

lì	gì	wáa-got	wàaró	gà
thing	M.REL	call.PFV-3Pl.III	grain	DEM.M
this thing that they call grain (Jungraithmayr 2013:139)

The only other Mubic language for which data is available behaves reasonably similarly. In Zerenkel subject relativisation, we see what might be the same attributive suffix in some cases, whose -t is lost in Zerenkel:

ro	ga	guwaan-i	weyya
man	M.REL	cultivate.IPFV-ADJ?	field
the man who cultivates the field (Ramat 2017)

although the verb may instead appear with Series I for clause-internal reasons independent of relativisation:

luk	da	na	umma	ci
woman	F.REL	1Sg	see.IPFV	3FSg.I
the woman who sees me (Ramat 2017)

In object relativisation, it looks as though we see Series I as expected:

luk	da	umma	na
woman	F.REL	see.IPFV	1Sg.I
the woman whom I see (Ramat 2017)