si7-boo3 (是否) x si7--bo5 (是無)

[FutureSpy]

Just came to my attention that some conversations at MTLA (Modern Taiwanese Language Association) have sī-bò͘ (是否) instead of sī--bô (是無). Usage seems pretty much the same tho:

林小姐你是老師是否?
Lîm sió-chiá, lí sī lāu-su sī-bò͘?
Ms. Lin, you are a teacher. Aren't you?

Are there any differences? Are two different hanji (否 and 無) really needed?

Sorry for flooding the forum

Source: http://taigie.taioaan.org/conversation/kaesiau.html

[Ah-bin]

Sorry for flooding the forum

Well, I don't think you need to be sorry about that!

It seems as if they are trying to distinguish the question-ending from the negative adverb. I always thought the question particle was just a toneless 無. I think the 否 makes sense in the context of Classical Chinese, perhaps they are using it to give a nice classical flavour to their prose?

[amhoanna]

Agree with Ah-bin. Also, the kanji line in that text is not "in Hoklo". It's more a syllable-by-syllable translation of the Hoklo into a mix of Mandarin and Literary Chinese. E.g. "他 能曉 講 台灣 話", not Hoklo, but a re-lexing of it.

[FutureSpy]

Thanks to both of you. I wonder if someone actually speak like that. Dictionaries seem to give both as synonyms, so both seem good. But all materials I've seen so far use bo5 instead of boo3...

[amhoanna]

Well, you've probably come across the khinsiann 軽聲 many times by now. This is what's indicated by "--". Whatever comes after it is khinsiann and doesn't show its lexical tone. Some khinsiann elements automatically take a low tone. Interrogative "無 / bô" is one such. Others "adopt" the ending pitch of the preceding element.

With the low-tone khinsiann elements, there's always a temptation for speakers of dialects with low citation T3 to "interpret" them as being not khinsiann, but rather T3. Even Maryknoll does this with "--kuè" (過), interpreting it as just "kuè".

Logically, though, it just seems so clear that it's --kuè, and interrogative 無 is --bô. This also seems to hold across dialects. If we want to make up a theory that it's T3 kuè and T3 bò·, we can go test it in dialects that have a high-to-low-falling citation T3, such as inner city Coanciu and Mainstream Philippines Hokkien.

As for o vs oo, there are lots of individuals that merge o into oo, at least sometimes. There might also be whole towns that do this.

Not sure if that answered your Q.

[niuc]

I don't remember ever saying something like "林小姐你是老師是無?" but only "林小姐,汝是老師,是mī?".
Sī--mī is the short form of 是毋是. And the answer will either be 是 (sī) or 毋是 (m-sī or often just mī with long m).

In my usage, 是無 is paired with 是有, e.g. 汝是有來過,是無? But usually I omit 是, so just 汝有來過,無?

Others "adopt" the ending pitch of the preceding element.

Ah, thank you for confirming this! In my variant, pronouns are kind of belong to this category. I used to puzzled over these:
予伊/汝/我　-> hō·--i/li·/gua (all i/li·/gua become T7)
招伊/汝/我　-> tsio--i/li·/gua (all i/li·/gua become T1)
But if preceding by other tones, the pronouns are in usual low neutral tone (軽聲).

With the low-tone khinsiann elements, there's always a temptation for speakers of dialects with low citation T3 to "interpret" them as being not khinsiann, but rather T3. Even Maryknoll does this with "--kuè" (過), interpreting it as just "kuè".

My variant also has low citation T3, and indeed 軽聲 is similar although still distinguishable as T3 is longer while 軽聲 is short and "chopped".

[amhoanna]

I don't remember ever saying something like "林小姐你是老師是無?" but only "林小姐,汝是老師,是mī?".

Niuc, U've reminded me... My post the other day was incomplete. Hoklo textbooks love to teach "是 ·無", for some reason, but most spkrs I've met don't seem to use it much.

In TW, people say "是 ·毋" (sī ·m̄) ... a lot more often than 是 ·無 (I think). Possibly even more commonly used for this purpose are "·hioh" and "·ho·ⁿ". "·Hioh" might be "what became of" "是 ·無". My sense is that it's very informal.

Then there's the "是毋是" construction, which in TW Hoklo implies that the asker believes the answer is probably a yes, ... just like "是 ·無".

This is one area where my Hoklo sense is still well off the native speaker level. In particular, I've never felt comfortable saying "是 ·毋" and "·hioh". Maybe I would've, if the textbooks would've taught them.

I used to puzzled over these:
予伊/汝/我　-> hō·--i/li·/gua (all i/li·/gua become T7)
招伊/汝/我　-> tsio--i/li·/gua (all i/li·/gua become T1)
But if preceding by other tones, the pronouns are in usual low neutral tone (軽聲).

[amhoanna]

This reminds me that in Mainstream TW Hoklo, a 軽聲 pronoun (poss. all words?) following a high-level word will take a mid-level-type 軽聲 tone instead of the high-level. Don't know why this is. This is an exception to the two types of 軽聲 that I was explaining in my other post. But "仔" in "辺 ·仔" (piⁿ ·á) takes a high-level 軽聲. These exceptions wouldn't be that hard to master if the masters would come out and just lay out the rules... I've never seen a text that went over this at all.

[FutureSpy]

Thanks to both of you, amhoanna and Ah-bin. Well, I don't have enough knowledge to follow everything you wrote here, but I'll make sure to come back later

So in short, sī--bô is a more embracing representation to whatever happens with tone in bo (considering variations across speakers)? So 好無 and 是無 are better representations than 好否and 是否?

I saw amhoanna using 毋 for m7. I've seen it before on one of my books. Is that hanji attested for m7? Or is m7 one of those non-Sinitic elements in Hokkien? If I'm not mistaken, Cantonese also had m (can't remember the tone) as a negation and a different hanji for it, but I know Cantonese isn't always written in a etymologically correct way.

[amhoanna]

So 好無 and 是無 are better representations than 好否and 是否?

好否 is not really Hoklo.

否 as bô is not supported by the etymology and the science of sound change... Some people like to use it for 無 b/c 否 is used this way in Literary Chinese, and these folks like to think of, and present, Hoklo as some kind of ancient Chinese court language trapped in modern times. Whereas 無, the likely etymological kanji, looks so ... uncouth (to them) in that position. This said, arbitrary kanji assignments are "endemic" in kanji-based systems, even "Literary Chinese" itself...

I saw amhoanna using 毋 for m7. I've seen it before on one of my books. Is that hanji attested for m7? Or is m7 one of those non-Sinitic elements in Hokkien? If I'm not mistaken, Cantonese also had...

Canto 唔. I'm not sure of the pedigree of this 毋 kanji. I believe the syllabic m words in Hoklo, Hakka, Canto, etc. have the same root, but I can't say for sure if that would be Sino or non-. It would be cool if someone better versed than myself could shed some light.