Table 20. Reported marriage from Kaina Ke villages into other Kaina Ke villages
a
Ambene Sengi Kebara Gorari Komodo Botue Sisireta Waju Kokoda St. Saga Perive
Waju 2
3 4
1 Sengi
1 10
1 4
Perive 1
7 1
2 2
1 Kokoda
1 1
1 Amada
1 2
Total 2
2 12
5 2
3 2
10 2
1 5
a
See note for Table 18. There is significant marriage into Hunjara from many other provinces, particularly into Sairope and
Ombisusu. Sairope also has a high number of people from Orokaiva married in. Sauni, Ilimo and Sirorata have high numbers of people marrying in from other villages within Hunjara. Within Hunjara, relatively
high numbers of people from Papaki and Ilimo are reported to have married into Sauni, also people from Papaki and Sauni into Ilimo and from Sairope into Sirorata.
There is significant marriage from Hunjara into other provinces and into Orokaiva. Ilimo has relatively high numbers of women marrying into other villages within Hunjara. There are relatively high
numbers of women from Ilimo marrying into Sauni and Asisi. This suggests there may be closer links between Sauni, Papaki and Ilimo due to marriage than
between other Hunjara villages. The highest proportion of reported marriage into Kaina Ke villages is from other Kaina Ke villages.
There are also a number of women from Hunjara married in, particularly in Waju and Sengi, and a number of women from Orokaiva married in, particularly in Waju and Perive. Of reported marriage into
Kaina Ke villages from other Kaina Ke villages, there are relatively high numbers of women from Sengi married into Waju and of women from Sengi and Kepara married into Perive and women from Waju
married into Kokoda.
By far the highest proportion of reported marriage from Kaina Ke villages is to other villages within Kaina Ke. There are especially high numbers of women from Sengi marrying into Waju and women from
Kepara marrying into Perive. It would appear that Waju and Sengi have links due to marriage, as do Kebara and Perive.
6.4 Contact with other languages
Kokoda Station is a hub where people from several languages often meet. Kaina Ke speakers have regular contact with Biage speakers as well as some contact with Hunjara speakers there. People from Kebara
regularly visit or are visited by Orokaiva speakers due to intermarriage relations. When people go to Popondetta they meet Orokaiva speakers. Men and women from many villages
are reported to go to Popondetta at least once a month. People from Sirorata go to Popondetta less often than people from any other village.
People from Sauni go to church in Gorari in Kaina Ke. Some people from Ombisusu go to church in the Orokaiva area and use a clinic in Orokaiva. To attend school for grades 7 and 8, children from
Ombisusu walk to Waseta school in Orokaiva each day. Table 21. Traditional enemies and trade partners
Village Traditional enemies
Traditional trade partners
Ombisusu Kaina Ke, Orokaiva
coast Sairope
Managalasi, Kokoda, Sirima, Biage, Orokaiva
Orokaiva, Ewage-Notu
Village Traditional enemies
Traditional trade partners
Sirorata only within Hunjara
Ömie, Asisi, Hunjara Ilimo
Biage, upper Kumusi, Orokaiva ?
Sauni Kaina Ke, Orokaiva, Sirima
Kaina Ke Waju
Hunjara, Kaina Ke, coast none
Sengi ?
? Perive
Sirima, Biage Orokaiva, coast
Kokoda Sirima
? Amada
Sirima, Biage coast
Most of the Hunjara villages reported that they fought with Orokaiva in the past. Several Hunjara villages also reported that they used to fight with Kaina Ke.
Kaina Ke villages most commonly reported that they fought with Sirima, which is part of the Fuyug language area. Several villages reported that the Sirima and Biage people used to live where the Kaina
Ke people do now, but the Kaina Ke people chased them off. For both Hunjara and Kaina Ke, there are some reports of traditionally trading with coastal people.
7 Language and dialect boundaries
One goal of the survey was to identify whether Hunjara and Kaina Ke are dialects of Orokaiva or separate languages, and also whether Hunjara and Kaina Ke are dialects of the same language or
separate languages. In addition to eliciting wordlists, the survey team also conducted group interviews to investigate language distinctions, self-perceptions and reported comprehension. The team recorded an
RTT text in Hunjara which was tested in Kaina for a more direct measure of comprehension.
The minimum criterion that two speech forms should meet to be called the same language according to SIL 1991 is a lexical similarity of 70 percent at the upper confidence limit and
intelligibility of at least 75 percent. Gordon 2005 applies other criteria in defining whether two varieties belong to the same language: there is inherent intelligibility between the two varieties or there
is a common literature or shared ethnolinguistic identity with a central variety.
For this survey, various factors were taken into account when determining whether similar speech varieties belong to the same language: they share at least 70 percent lexical similarity with a central
dialect, there is high reported comprehension of a central dialect, people average at least 75 percent on an RTT test of a simple narrative and there is a shared ethnolinguistic identity with the central dialect.
7.1 Characteristics of the language
