My Own Opinion
For me, the naturalness of the use of the language must be respected as the ultimate criteria of what is acceptable and what is not. Grammatical rules are the inner logic of the language and they have been spelled out much later than the actual use of the language. These rules are general guides, but there are also exemptions to the rules, such as the irregularities in pluralization of nouns and conjugation of verbs.
I would like to believe that kan is not only used when the object referred to is specific but because it is made specific by demonstrative pronouns such as iyan or idto or by possessive pronouns such as sako or saindo or by any other modifiers making the object indeed specific. Without these indicators, nin is still the correct use.
Observe the following examples: ‘sa ngaran kan sakong pamilya,’ (in behalf of my family); ‘tugang kan sakong ama,’ (brother of my father); ‘ina kan saiyang pinsan’ (mother of his cousin). These examples mentioned above are genitive case markers. The same rule seems to apply to kan as a general marker for common nouns such as: ‘pasubli kan saimong awto,’ (may I borrow your car); ‘pahagad man kan dokumentong iyan’ (may I ask for that document).
Kan may also be used when the object referred to is specific by nature of its concrete situation, in that, the object referred to is specific already to both speaker and listener. Observe the following: ‘paki-abot tabi kan papel’ (please hand me the paper) or ‘pakitao man saiya kan baso’ (please pass on the glass). This is natural in daily conversations, but rarely in writing.
Nin, on the other hand, is used when the object is not only non-specific but also indefinite. Hence, nouns like ‘tubig,’ ‘asukar,’ ‘suka,’ etc. are marked with nin instead of kan. Observe the following examples: ‘Mainom ako nin tubig,’ (I will drink water); ‘bugtakan mo nin suka,’ (put vinegar); ‘kulang iyan nin asukar’ (it lacks sugar).
Again, kan is used only when the object becomes specific like ‘painom daw kan tubig na nasa baso mo.’
Following the same argument, I am inclined to believe that our ancestors never regarded God as an object so concrete and specific, but something that is mysterious and unknown. This, I think, is the reason why nin instead of kan is used to refer to God or anything that is divine. To the Bikol speaking community, God is not something we can refer to similar to the way we refer to concrete objects such as ‘ama ko,’ ‘sapatos mo,’ or harong ninda.’ He is not something definite and controllable, but a mystery that forever unfolds itself. Indeed, He is something that is immaterial and infinite. Kan is not used even, or perhaps rarely, when God or the divine goes with specifying pronouns. Observe the following examples: ‘Ina nin satong Kagtubos,’ (Mother of our Savior); ‘Ina nin satong Kaglalang,’ (Mother of our Creator).
