dylng`kyc. e siizurn;

zolng`sirl. qual m dioq;

The thing is, the neutralized tone in Taiwanese is indistinguishable from the standing tone of kyc in the first case, and indistinguishable from the running tone of sirl in the second case. The first case is clarified because of another word: dylng`laai, as in

I dylng`laai. veurl?

So, in the first case, we can be sure that it is a bona-fide neutralization phenomenon. The second case is trickier because if we accept the neutralization, then [zolng`sirl.] would take on a noun-like interpretation, and the verbal function would be lost. Compare

sirl qual e m dioq;

golng laai golng kyc, zolng`sirl. qual e m dioq;

The extra phrase mark in [zolng`sirl.] would break the symmetry with the first sentence. Unlike the case of [dylng`kyc.] that has another term [dylng`laai.] to confirm its neutralization status, in the case of [zolng`sirl.] I don't find other expressions. It could be also possible to write it as:

zolng.sirl qual m dioq;

or

zolng`sirl qual m dioq;

I guess the last alternative is good. Not an ideal situation: it looks like there is a mistake due to the  missing period, but at least it shows the verbal nature of the term.