26 who works as a teacher at Didi among the Kaliko-Madi claims to “half-understand”
both Kaliko-Madi and Kaliko-Omi. He says that he himself speaks a little Kaliko, so we would expect other Lugbaras to understand even less.
We dont know if Ugandan Lugbaras can understand any kind of Kaliko, but it is doubtful, apart from itinerant traders, etc.
3.1.4.4.3 Summary
Kaliko and Lugbara are not inherently intelligible. Reported understanding appears to be the result of having learned the other speech form.
3.1.4.5 Sociolinguistic dynamics
More research must be done in this area. Some of the Omis interviewed expressed their concern that the young people “mixed the languages” and among the languages
from which words were said to be gained was Lugbara. A number of the Omis interviewed had Lugbara wives, and many others had learned Lugbara. Not enough
Lugbaras were encountered to ascertain Lugbara attitudes and usage vis-à-vis Kaliko.
3.1.4.6 Conclusion
Kaliko and Lugbara are distinct languages, and the only hint of chaining or transitional dialects is the possibility of a slightly greater lexical similarity between
Kaliko-Omi and Lugbara-Zaïre the only pair of geographically contiguous Kaliko and Lugbara dialects. These languages are not inherently inter-intelligible and they could
not use a common literature. However, the Omi-Lugbara relationship may be worth remembering if Omi is chosen as a reference dialect and the grammar is not too
different for Computer Assisted Related Language Adaptation.
3.1.5 The relationship between Madi and Kaliko 3.1.5.1 Background
The parts of Sudan where Madi and Kaliko are spoken are not contiguous.
3.1.5.2 Lexical Similarity The following figures represent percentage of similar vocabulary items for each pair of
speech forms, out of a sample of approximately 160 lexical items. The Lulubo data are a conflation of a 100-item list taken by Dick Watson and Tucker’s data, which
means that they can be expected to be phonetically more divergent from the other data.
27 The three Madi lists are conflations of several lists as well.
Kaliko-Madi-DidiZ 94 Kaliko-Sud-WS
87 86 Kaliko-RangabaS 91 87 86 Kaliko-Madi-DogoZ
87 92 88 92 Kaliko-Sud-EastS 91 89 82 89 88 Kaliko-OmiZ
70 72 69 70 74 73 Ugandan Madi 68 68 66 68 72 71 99 Madi-LokaiS
67 66 65 66 71 69 96 98 Madi-BuruloS 67 68 62 65 71 67 80 80 83 LuluboS
There is a very strong basis in the wordlist data for dividing these speech forms into at least two and probably three languages. Furthermore, there is no significant
chaining. Simply put, the matrix can be reduced to the following:
Kaliko ~ 89 69±4 Madi 97
67±3 81±1 Lulubo
Kaliko Madi
Lulubo
90 80
70
The same point is made by the following display of WordSurv output for phonetic relationships.
Kaliko-Madi-DidiZ 15 Kaliko-Sud-WS
18 12 Kaliko-RangabaS 11 18 21 Kaliko-Madi-DogoZ
15 10 14 14 Kaliko-Sud-EastS 13 19 21 18 19 Kaliko-OmiZ
30 32 33 28 31 33 Ugandan Madi 36 37 37 38 40 37 17 Madi-LokaiS
35 38 38 38 41 37 19 12 Madi-Pandikeri 39 39 37 42 40 39 32 27 26 LuluboS
28
3.1.5.3 Grammatical Similarity
Since the Kaliko grammar data are not available, this comparison cannot be made.
3.1.5.4 Intelligibility
Since intelligibility testing was not done not currently possible in the Sudanese Madi area, it is not proven that Kaliko and Madi are inherently mutually
unintelligible. However, it would appear that speakers of these two languages do not understand one another’s first language. Madis and Kalikos use Juba Arabic to
communicate with each other, particularly in Juba.
3.1.5.5 Sociolinguistic dynamics
It is said that when necessary, Kalikos learn Madi and Madis learn Kaliko, with no evidence that one group is more likely to learn the other’s tongue than vice versa.
3.1.5.6 Conclusion
Kaliko is distinct from Madi. The dialect called Kaliko-Madi simply recognizes its descent from Madi.
3.1.6 The relationship between Lugbara and Madi 3.1.6.1 Background
