In my post Samarnon Phrase Markers, Part 1, I mentioned that I am not familiar with other Warayan languages if they also employ the indefinite nominal marker ing. Now, I came across Baybayanon, also called Utudnon, having this ing marker as shown in the examples provided by Carl Rubino in Utudnon, an Undescribed Language of Leyte.
There are three Baybayanon sample sentences that uses the ing marker from Rubino’s work:
(1) “How many siblings do you have?” (Bikol: Pira an saimo na tugang?)
(2) “Dogs are really good.” (Bikol: Marahay na gayo an manga ido.)
(3) S/he sure sold a lot of eggplants. (Bikol: Dakol na gayo na talong an saiyang ipinabakal.)
Additionally, Laurence Reid in Problems in the Reconstruction of Proto-Philippine Construction Markers, included the below table of languages with Definite and Indefinite distinction in the common nominative markers, showing that Porohanon language (what is called Camotes) also has this distinction:
Waray is called Samarnon in this blog. This brings to four the languages with ang vs. ing distinction: (1) Old Bikol, (2) Samarnon, (3) Baybayanon (or Utudnon) and (4) Porohanon (related to Masbateño). These other languages also uses ing but I can’t see usage of ang in the samples: Kamayo, Mandaya and Tausug.
Additionally, Carl Rubino said: "Unlike Waray, there is no past/non-past distinction with the definite case marking particles." This bolster my position that even in Samarnon, there is no tense distinction between ang and it, as opposed to what Zorc has written.