Singular root of lán?

[Abun]

So could this be roughly compared to the use of gún for "I" in certain Hokkien variants then

Not sure what U mean by "roughly". The Vietnamese TA seems closer in spirit to the English "royal we".

I meant the blurred border between the pronouns. I'm trying to get an idea of the circumstances under which one might use lán for second person singular.
For example, as I've mentioned someplace before the Korean 우리 (uri) is a first person plural pronoun (both in- and exclusive) but can also mean "my" (i.e. something belonging to the in-group when talking to an outsider), for example 우리 회사 (uri hoesa, "our" company), 우리 아버지 ("our" father, this can be used even if the speaker is an only child). English "you" and German "Sie" strictly speaking are plural pronouns as well but got adopted as a second person singular honorific pronoun (English "you" even became so common that it replaced the original plain second person sgl. pronoun "thou" completely). English royal we is a similar case with plural indicating an honorific. And although I have not yet completely understood the mechanics behind gún, there are obviously rules there, too (including a rather feminine note ect.).

So does this usage of lán indicate an honorific? I've wondered for some time already how one would adress people one respects in Bân-lâm-gí. Whether there are honorific pronouns such as Mandarin 您 which I had just not yet heard about or whether it is done similarly to Korean or Japanese which prefer to use titles. Or judging by amhoanna's example, maybe Bân-lâm-gí takes a kind of middle way and uses titles for people I know I have to be respectful towards, and lán as a sort of mild honorific for strangers whose social rank I don't yet know?

[niuc]

夠範久無來啊!

Gún in my variant is used for both "my" and "our" (beside "exclusive we"). Gúntau 阮兜 (or more natively and frequently gúnnaī 阮內) can mean both "our house/place" and "my house/place". In my variant, gúnhiaⁿ 阮兄 for "my elder brother" is considered more "refined/smooth/native" than guá'êhiaⁿ 我个兄.

I think gún for "my" is used for persons/places/things that are usually shared, and maybe originally meant to cultivate "humility" (e.g. awareness that those are too big to be owned by oneself alone). But of course gún can be used arrogantly too.

For others such as book, pen, clothes, and even car (depends on context), I would use guá'ê 我个. Using gún for these in fact usually sounds weird or at least imprecise.

Usage of lín and lír'ê for "singular your" mirror the above.

In certain context, lán is used instead of gún to make the addressee feel welcomed and included.

Of course, these are what I observed in my variant. Not so sure about others.

[Abun]

I think gún for "my" is used for persons/places/things that are usually shared, and maybe originally meant to cultivate "humility" (e.g. awareness that those are too big to be owned by oneself alone). But of course gún can be used arrogantly too.

When you say "things that are usually shared", am I correct in understanding that you mean a sort of inherent quality of the thing posessed? Or does it really have to be a shared thing in the particular context? For example, could/would a single child say "gún lãu-pē" in your variant or would s/he tend to use "goá--ê lãu-pē" because s/he has no one to share the lãu-pē with?^^

In certain context, lán is used instead of gún to make the addressee feel welcomed and included.

This seems different (and at first glance more intuitive) to me than the use amhoanna mentioned earlier, because it seems to denote something which is technically "mine" but is expressed as "ours" for the reasons you mentioned. Amhoanna's example (asking an unknown caller "Lán hia tó-ūi?") on the other hand pretty obviously doesn't include the "I". Do you have this kind of lán in your variant as well?

[niuc]

When you say "things that are usually shared", am I correct in understanding that you mean a sort of inherent quality of the thing posessed? Or does it really have to be a shared thing in the particular context? For example, could/would a single child say "gún lãu-pē" in your variant or would s/he tend to use "goá--ê lãu-pē" because s/he has no one to share the lãu-pē with?^^

Yes, you are correct. In my variant, a single child should also say "gún lāupē".

This seems different (and at first glance more intuitive) to me than the use amhoanna mentioned earlier, because it seems to denote something which is technically "mine" but is expressed as "ours" for the reasons you mentioned. Amhoanna's example (asking an unknown caller "Lán hia tó-ūi?") on the other hand pretty obviously doesn't include the "I". Do you have this kind of lán in your variant as well?

I think I ever heard that usage (as in Amhoanna's example) but very rarely. IMHO the intention is similar, i.e. to be inclusive and to create togetherness. I am not sure if anyone ever say something like "Lán naī tītô·?" to mean "Where is your house?" i.e. Lán as possessive pronoun, but this sounds intrusive ("sok akrab" in Indonesian) to my ears, unlike "Lán hia tó-ūi?" i.e. Lán as personal pronoun.

[amhoanna]

Niuc, goânlâi Bâgán pún ciong chù kóng cò "lāi", kah Tiôciu-ōe kāng.

I also benefited from Niuc's answer regarding the use of gún. I learned or thought I learned somewhere that "gún lāupē" is used whenever there's at least one sibling, but I guess it's used w/ or w/o siblings.

My "interpretation" of gún vs. goá ê -- Niuc, pls correct if off -- is that gún is used when it refers to something that the speaker is part of something with. "Gún bó͘" would be correct b/c the speaker and his wife are part of something -- a marriage, a coupling, a ความรัก. On the other hand, I've also heard "goá ê bó͘" used. It seems to be a "marked form" with an emphasis on the speaker's possession of his wife, e.g. "Cò mihⁿ àmsî ca̍p tiám khà lâi chē góa ê bó͘?"

[niuc]

Niuc, goânlâi Bâgán pún ciong chù kóng cò "lāi", kah Tiôciu-ōe kāng.

Amhoanna, ū’iáⁿ në! Cánghng’a mng- cìt’ê Tiôciu pîng’iú, i māsī anni kóng.
Bāgán’uē “laī/naī” ingkai sī tuì “chùlaī” laî ë. Nāsī “chù” niā, gún sī īnglaî kóng kuikingkuiking ê chù (the building itself).

I also benefited from Niuc's answer regarding the use of gún. I learned or thought I learned somewhere that "gún lāupē" is used whenever there's at least one sibling, but I guess it's used w/ or w/o siblings.

My answer is valid for my variant. May be what you learned is valid for some other variants?

My "interpretation" of gún vs. goá ê -- Niuc, pls correct if off -- is that gún is used when it refers to something that the speaker is part of something with. "Gún bó͘" would be correct b/c the speaker and his wife are part of something -- a marriage, a coupling, a ความรัก.

Yeah, you explain it better on this aspect! So for human relationships, gún is the norm. However, for other things, it is more ambiguous. For big stuffs, gún is used to mean both “my” and “our”, while “guá ê” is used to emphasize “my” e.g. “gún ê tiàm” vs “guá ê tiàm”.

On the other hand, I've also heard "goá ê bó͘" used. It seems to be a "marked form" with an emphasis on the speaker's possession of his wife, e.g. "Cò mihⁿ àmsî ca̍p tiám khà lâi chē góa ê bó͘?"

Yes, I concur.

[Abun]

My "interpretation" of gún vs. goá ê -- Niuc, pls correct if off -- is that gún is used when it refers to something that the speaker is part of something with. "Gún bó͘" would be correct b/c the speaker and his wife are part of something -- a marriage, a coupling, a ความรัก. On the other hand, I've also heard "goá ê bó͘" used. It seems to be a "marked form" with an emphasis on the speaker's possession of his wife, e.g. "Cò mihⁿ àmsî ca̍p tiám khà lâi chē góa ê bó͘?"

Yeah, you explain it better on this aspect! So for human relationships, gún is the norm. However, for other things, it is more ambiguous. For big stuffs, gún is used to mean both “my” and “our”, while “guá ê” is used to emphasize “my” e.g. “gún ê tiàm” vs “guá ê tiàm”.

Guân-lâi sĩ án-ne--ooh. Án-ne tshin-tshiũnn sĩ kah Hân-gí tsiok tsiap-kĩn--ê hiān-siõng. Hân-gí nā-sĩ siũnn-bueh piáu-ta̍t kuan-hē tsiânn kĩn, tō sĩm-tsì tĩ-leh lâng-miâ tíng mã ẽ-tàng iōng siong-tong-î "gún"--ê ho̍k-sòo tāi-bîng-sû: 우리 미진 씨 "gún Bí-tsin sió-tsiá", sĩ piáu-sī tsit-ê Bí-tsin sió-tsiá kah guá sĩ sio̍k-tĩ kâng-tsi̍t-ê in-group, thiann--khí-lâi tshin-tshiũnn sĩ tsi̍t-ke lâng, ah thiann-uē-lâng lí tō sĩ out-group--lah.

[xng]

While reading Ang Ui-jins 臺灣禮俗語典, I stumbled on his explanation for the (Taiwanese) Hokkien plural personal pronouns:

北方的「們」實際就是「家」的意思。本作「門」，如「門風」即「家」風。客家話複數以「兜」(teu)表示，「兜」相當於閩雸語的tau，家也。但閩南語以「等」(tán)來表示。詳細的考證，參見拙著『談彎河佬語聲調研究』第五章「聲調研究在語源學尚的運用例」[I haven't read this one yet and also am not able to look the part in question up right now because I don't have it here]，我現在僅提出結論如下：
汝等〔lí--tán〕 --> 〔lí--n〕 恁〔lín〕 (你們)
伊等〔i--tán〕 --> 〔i--n〕 亻因〔in〕 (他們)
我等〔guá--tán〕 --> 〔guá--n〕 阮〔guán〕 (我們)
余等〔lá--tán〕 --> 〔lá--n〕 咱〔lán〕 (咱們)
〔á--tán〕 --> 〔á--n〕 俺〔án〕 (咱們)
[Note: I changed his transcription system to POJ because his involved superscript-x's for indicating the "hanging" light tone, which I didn't know how to enter, therefore I used "--"]

(source: Ang Ui-jin 洪惟仁: Taiwan lisu yudian 臺灣禮俗語典 [Dictionary of Taiwanese Etiquettes and Customs]. Taipei: Independence Evening 自立晚報 (1986), 161.)

While I am somewhat doubtful about his 等-theory (there are the versions with lâng in other variants after all), it is obvious that there is a pattern of pluralisation by adding [-n], which is of course nothing new to me.

However he suggests a root lá (余) for the 1st person plural inclusive 咱 as well and this is new to me (even disregarding the character which I'm pretty sure can't be the "correct" one; although 康熙 has a reading with a dental initial (同都切, tôo), this is only used in a place name of the Xiongnu). Has anybody ever heard of such a word?

Interesting, I think he's correct about 等 because the meaning and the tone also matches.