Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — 2 Corinthians (English → Assamese)
Purpose and Scope
This document executes PRD Phase 1 Step 8 for the destination language Assamese on the curriculum 2 Corinthians. It identifies where Assamese vocabulary is missing (no existing term carries the required theological freight and a new compound/coinage is required), where Assamese vocabulary is crowded (multiple existing terms compete for the same conceptual space, mostly by drawing on the Assamese Hindu / Ekasarana Dharma / Vaishnavite religious lexicon, creating syncretism risk), and where transliteration is preferable to paraphrase. It closes with a ranked list of this letter’s highest-risk ambiguities for Phase 2 translator attention.
This analysis extends — and never contradicts — the Romans baseline translation_memory.json / bible_term_registry.json, and consolidates the term-level notes already recorded in 08_core_glossary.md and the 2 Corinthians bible_term_registry.json extension into a decision-oriented gap analysis. Coverage spans all 13 chapters of 2 Corinthians; the core passage 5:11-21 (reconciliation) is treated as the theological anchor for cross-checking every doctrine category below, not as the analysis’s scope boundary.
Methodology
For each of the eight curriculum doctrines, this analysis asks three questions:
- Availability — Does Assamese already possess a term that carries the required sense (from the Romans baseline, from general Assamese Bible Society usage, or from ordinary Assamese)?
- Weakness/Collision — Does the available term (or the best candidate) carry unwanted freight from Assamese Hindu, Vaishnavite, or Ekasarana Dharma religious vocabulary that would mislead a reader from that background?
- Strategy — Reuse exactly / compound-coin / transliterate / fence with mandatory translator note / restrict register?
Section 1 — Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
| Doctrine (curriculum) | Available Assamese Terms | Weaknesses / Gaps | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reconciliation with God | মিলন (milon, “reconciliation/reunion”), মিলন কৰা (verb) | মিলন in ordinary Assamese denotes symmetrical social/family peacemaking between equals (e.g., two feuding neighbors, estranged spouses). It carries no built-in sense of (a) a sovereign, offended party who is also the initiator of peace, or (b) a legal non-crediting of debt. No existing single Assamese religious term (Hindu or Ekasarana) names an offended deity initiating peace with human offenders — Puranic reconciliation narratives (e.g., propitiation at Kamakhya) run in the opposite direction: the human initiates appeasement toward the deity. | Reuse মিলন as recorded in the extension registry, but it is never sufficient alone: every occurrence in 5:18-20 must be anchored with ঈশ্বৰৰ সৈতে (with God) and, at first occurrence, a translator note stating explicitly that God is the initiating, wronged party who reconciles the offender — reversing the ordinary direction of মিলন. Treat as Critical, following baseline convention for direction-reversing forensic terms (cf. imputed_righteousness). |
| New Creation in Christ | সৃষ্টি (srishti, “creation”), নতুন (notun, “new”) | সৃষ্টি is saturated with Puranic cosmological register: Brahma’s cyclical srishti-sthiti-pralaya (creation-preservation-dissolution), an eternally repeating cosmic process. A reader from a Hindu-Assamese background may hear নতুন সৃষ্টি as “a new cycle-stage” rather than a one-time, non-repeating transformation of personal identity. | Reuse নতুন সৃষ্টি as recorded, but mandate a translator note at first occurrence (5:17) stating this is a decisive, non-repeating, individual transformation in union with Christ — not a new stage in a repeating cosmic cycle. Pair tightly with পুৰণি বস্তু গৈছে (old things passed away) so the one-time “before/after” logic is reinforced, not the cyclical logic. |
| Suffering and Comfort in Ministry | দুখ-কষ্ট (dukh-kôsṭô, “affliction/suffering”), সান্ত্বনা (santôna, “comfort”), ক্লেশ (klesh, “affliction” — Yogic/Buddhist technical term) | ক্লেশ is doctrinally dangerous: in Yogic/Buddhist usage it names the afflictions (ignorance, attachment, aversion, etc.) that bind the soul to the rebirth cycle — precisely the opposite of Paul’s claim that affliction is meaningful, temporary, and productive of glory (4:17). সান্ত্বনা risks being read as meditative/devotional calm (cf. the calm sought through naam-kirtan or japa) rather than relational comfort from a personal, active God. | Use দুখ-কষ্ট exclusively for θλῖψις; ক্লেশ is forbidden (add to the forbidden-substitution list, parallel to মুক্তি/মোক্ষ/পুনৰ্জন্ম/অৱতাৰ). Use সান্ত্বনা for παράκλησις but anchor to “God of all comfort” (1:3) at first occurrence to keep the personal-relational sense primary. |
| The New Covenant versus the Old | নিয়ম (baseline, covenant), বিধান (baseline, law), আক্ষৰিক (akkhôrik, “literal”) | No single existing Assamese word cleanly separates γράμμα (“the letter,” the merely external/literalistic use of the law that kills) from বিধান (the Law itself, which Paul elsewhere calls holy and good). Collapsing the two risks either devaluing Scripture’s Law wholesale or under-translating Paul’s actual point (a use/misuse distinction, not a text/text distinction). | Coin আক্ষৰিক বিধান (“the law taken literally/externally”) for γράμμα, kept visibly distinct from bare বিধান. Reinforce with a translator note at 3:6 clarifying the contrast is “letter versus Spirit” (a manner of relating to the law), not “old Scripture versus new Scripture.” |
| Sincerity and Apostolic Authority | সততা (sotota, “sincerity/honesty”), শুচি (shuchi, “ritual/ceremonial purity”) | শুচি is available but wrong register: it names ceremonial/physical cleanliness (relevant to Namghar entry-purity customs and Hindu ritual bathing before worship), not moral transparency of motive before God. Using it for ἁπλότης/εἰλικρίνεια would make apostolic sincerity sound like ritual qualification rather than character. | Reuse সততা exactly as recorded; শুচি reserved only for its baseline-sanctioned use (physical/ceremonial cleanliness contexts, e.g., 7:1’s নিজকে শুচি কৰা, immediately followed by পবিত্ৰতা language to keep the moral sense primary). |
| < | |||
| Generosity and Grace in Giving | দান (dan, “charitable gift”), অনুগ্ৰহ (baseline, grace) | দান is one of the most heavily loaded terms in the entire Assamese religious lexicon: dana is a formal punya-generating (merit-accruing) religious category in Assamese Hindu practice, often directed toward Brahmins, temples, or religious institutions, and is understood as a meritorious act that improves the giver’s karmic standing. Using দান unguarded for chapters 8-9 risks completely inverting Paul’s argument, which grounds giving in grace already received (8:9), not merit being generated. | Use দান-সংগ্ৰহ/বৰদান only as a descriptive label for “the collection,” never as the theological ground of the act. Every occurrence in chapters 8-9 must be anchored back to অনুগ্ৰহ (8:1,9) with explicit merit-vs-grace contrast language; 9:7’s cheerful giver (আনন্দৰে দান দিওঁতা) requires a footnote distinguishing joyful response to grace already given from religious merit-seeking. |
| Power in Weakness | দূৰ্বলতা (durbôlôta, “weakness”), ঈশ্বৰৰ শক্তি (baseline, power of God) | দূৰ্বলতা itself is not doctrinally loaded, but there is real risk that an Assamese reader steeped in a karma-fatalism worldview will read persistent weakness/suffering (11:23-27; 12:7-10) as evidence of accumulated bad karma or a low spiritual station, rather than as a deliberately chosen site of divine strategy. | Reuse দূৰ্বলতা exactly. The anchor verse 12:9 (মোৰ শক্তি দূৰ্বলতাতে সম্পূর্ণ হয়) requires a mandatory translator note explicitly disclaiming any karma-phala reading: weakness here is chosen and purposeful, sourced in Christ’s own gracious strategy, not a karmic consequence being endured. |
| Genuine versus False Apostleship | প্ৰেৰিত (baseline, apostle), ভুৱা (bhua, “false/counterfeit”), দৰ্শন (dorxôn, “vision/sight”) | দৰ্শন is a crowded neighborhood: in mainstream Assamese Hindu/Vaishnavite devotional practice, darshan denotes the devotee’s ritual act of beholding a deity’s or guru’s image/person — a devotee-initiated practice, often performed daily. Using দৰ্শন unguarded for ὀπτασίαι (12:1) risks implying Paul cultivated a devotional-viewing practice rather than sovereignly receiving unsought revelation. | Reuse প্ৰেৰিতৰ চিন (signs of an apostle) and ভুৱা প্ৰেৰিত exactly as recorded. For visions/revelations, use প্ৰভুৰ দৰ্শন আৰু প্ৰকাশ but mandate a translator note at first occurrence (12:1) stating this sight was God-initiated and sovereignly given, not sought or cultivated by Paul through devotional practice. |
Section 2 — Missing Vocabulary (No Existing Assamese Equivalent)
These concepts have no pre-existing single Assamese word; the glossary has already coined compounds. This section records why no existing word sufficed, confirming the compound strategy is necessary rather than over-engineered.
| Concept | Why No Existing Word Suffices | Compound Coined |
|---|---|---|
| Reconciliation (God-initiated, sovereign-to-offender) | মিলন alone describes symmetrical peacemaking; no Assamese word encodes the asymmetry of an offended sovereign initiating peace toward the offending party. | মিলন + mandatory pairing with ঈশ্বৰৰ সৈতে |
| Non-imputation of trespasses | No single Assamese word names the forensic non-crediting of a debt/wrong to an account. Assamese has ক্ষমা (forgiveness) but that names the removal of a penalty, not the accounting-metaphor of “not counting against.” | অপৰাধ গণনা নকৰা (mirrors baseline’s আৰোপিত ধাৰ্মিকতা accounting register) |
| Ministry of reconciliation | Compound office-concept; সেৱকাই (ministry/service) alone does not specify reconciliation as its content. | মিলনৰ সেৱকাই |
| Letter (γράμμα) vs. letter (ἐπιστολή) distinction | Assamese পত্ৰ/চিঠি covers ordinary correspondence; no existing word marks “the law taken merely literally/externally” as opposed to the law itself. | আক্ষৰিক বিধান |
| Ambassador (representative, not office-holder) | প্ৰেৰিত (apostle) names the unique founding office; দূত (messenger) is generic. Neither alone captures “envoy bearing a sovereign’s delegated authority and speech” appropriate to every believer’s witness-role in 5:20. | খ্ৰীষ্টৰ প্ৰতিনিধি / দূত |
| Power made perfect in weakness | No existing idiom states divine power’s completion (τελεῖται, reaching its intended fullness) precisely through, rather than despite, weakness. | মোৰ শক্তি দূৰ্বলতাতে সম্পূর্ণ হয় (constructed clause, not a single lexical item) |
Conclusion: the missing-vocabulary set is concentrated almost entirely in the Reconciliation and New Covenant doctrine categories, where Pauline forensic/legal metaphor has no Assamese devotional-register analogue at all (a genuine gap, not a collision) — the opposite problem from Section 3 below, where Assamese has too many competing terms.
Section 3 — Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing
Unlike Section 2’s true gaps, these are neighborhoods where Assamese offers multiple existing terms, each carrying strong pre-existing religious meaning that competes with the biblical sense. Each entry names the fence (the rule restricting or distinguishing usage).
3.1 — “Vision / Seeing the Divine” (দৰ্শন)
- Competing associations: darshan of a deity’s murti in temple worship; darshan of a guru or Satradhikar in the Ekasarana tradition — in both cases a devotee-initiated ritual act of viewing.
- Biblical need: ὀπτασίαι καὶ ἀποκαλύψεις (12:1) — God-initiated, sovereignly given disclosure, unsought by Paul.
- Fence: Retain দৰ্শন (no better single word exists) but mandate a translator note at first occurrence distinguishing sovereign divine disclosure from devotee-initiated ritual viewing. Never use দৰ্শন to describe an ordinary believer’s devotional practice elsewhere in the curriculum.
3.2 — “Merit-Generating Giving” (দান)
- Competing associations: formal Hindu dana practice, understood as punya-generating charitable giving, often to religious specialists or institutions.
- Biblical need: the Jerusalem collection (chs. 8-9) as a grace-response, not a merit-transaction.
- Fence: দান-সংগ্ৰহ/বৰদান permitted only as a neutral descriptive label for “the collection itself”; every theological framing of why believers give must use অনুগ্ৰহ (grace) language, never দান-derived merit language. Chapter 8-9 segments require flagging for the merit-vs-grace check per baseline glossary enforcement priority rules.
3.3 — “Boon vs. Enablement” (বৰ) — imported directly from baseline, reapplied
- Competing associations: Puranic বৰ, a boon granted by a deity in exchange for austerity/devotion (a merit transaction).
- Biblical need: grace applied to giving (8:1,9) functions as an unearned enabling impulse, structurally the opposite of বৰ.
- Fence: অনুগ্ৰহ never substituted with বৰ; where 2 Corinthians describes grace “given” for a purpose (8:1, “the grace of God given to the churches of Macedonia”), never use a construction implying the churches merited or petitioned for this grace.
3.4 — “Suffering as Merit or Punishment” (দুখ-কষ্ট vs. ক্লেশ vs. তপস্যা-adjacent register)
- Competing associations: ক্লেশ (rebirth-binding affliction, Yogic/Buddhist); implicit tapasya logic (suffering as spiritually meritorious self-discipline) which could color παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (fellowship in Christ’s sufferings, 1:5) as ascetic merit-earning.
- Fence: ক্লেশ forbidden outright (see Section 1). খ্ৰীষ্টৰ দুখ-কষ্ট (sufferings of Christ) must always retain the “fellowship/overflow” framing of 1:5, not an “earning spiritual power through self-imposed hardship” framing.
3.5 — “Image / Transformation” (স্বৰূপ vs. মূৰ্তি; ৰূপান্তৰিত হওঁ vs. avatar-shape-shifting)
- Competing associations: মূৰ্তি (physical idol-image); Puranic avatars assuming different bodily forms across ages.
- Biblical need: εἰκών (3:18; 4:4) as “likeness” in the Genesis 1:27 sense; μεταμορφούμεθα (3:18) as gradual Spirit-wrought moral transformation into Christ’s likeness.
- Fence: স্বৰূপ only, never মূৰ্তি (Critical forbidden substitution, consistent with baseline’s Genesis 1:27 usage ঈশ্বৰৰ স্বৰূপে). ৰূপান্তৰিত হওঁ must carry a translator note at 3:18 distinguishing gradual, moral, single-direction transformation into Christ’s likeness from a deity’s repeatable shape-shifting/avatar-assumption of differing forms.
3.6 — “God of this Age” (দেৱতা)
- Competing associations: দেৱতা is the ordinary Assamese word for a Hindu deity within an acknowledged pantheon; using it for Satan (4:4) without a fence risks conceding that other true দেৱতা exist as legitimate objects of worship alongside ঈশ্বৰ.
- Fence: এই যুগৰ (ছদ্মবেশী) দেৱতা must always carry the parenthetical/explanatory “disguised” qualifier and, at first occurrence, an explicit translator note that this is a polemical unmasking of Satan’s false, usurped worship-claim — not an acknowledgment of a genuine second god.
3.7 — “Reverential Fear” (ভয়)
- Competing associations: ritual appeasement-fear directed at a wrathful or capricious deity (e.g., propitiatory practice associated with fierce-goddess traditions), where fear motivates a sacrificial transaction to avert divine anger.
- Biblical need: φόβος τοῦ κυρίου (5:11) — reverential accountability before Christ the coming judge, motivating integrity, not appeasement.
- Fence: প্ৰভুৰ ভয় retained but distinguished at first occurrence (5:11, within the core passage) from propitiatory dread; this fear results in transparent ministry integrity, not ritual offering to avert wrath.
3.8 — “Third Heaven / Paradise” (স্বৰ্গ tiers vs. Puranic লোক cosmology)
- Competing associations: the multi-tiered Puranic loka cosmology (a hierarchy of attainable heavenly realms tied to accumulated merit) and Swarga as a temporary heavenly reward-realm within the rebirth cycle, eventually exhausted and departed.
- Fence: তৃতীয় স্বৰ্গ and পৰমদেশ retained but both require a note (12:2,4) that Paul’s Jewish apocalyptic reference is not a claim about an attainable tier within a merit-based cosmological hierarchy, and that পৰমদেশ names the eternal, unmediated presence of God, never temporary.
Section 4 — Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Term/Phrase | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Beliar (Βελίαρ, 6:15) | Transliterate — বিলিয়াৰ | Proper name with no semantic content to paraphrase; requires only a brief gloss identifying it with শয়তান at first occurrence, per standard proper-name handling in the AI Translation Requirements. |
| Abba (baseline, cross-referenced in Spirit passages) | Transliterate (per Romans baseline) — আব্বা | Retained per baseline rule; not re-decided here but confirmed applicable if 2 Corinthians cross-references Romans 8:15 in study notes. |
| Agape / love (ἀγάπη) | Paraphrase, not transliterate — প্ৰেম | Assamese already has a working, comprehensible word; transliterating “agape” would be opaque to the target reader and gain nothing, whereas প্ৰেম with a distinguishing note (vs. Radha-Krishna prema-bhakti) is both natural and sufficiently fenced. |
| Super-apostles (οἱ ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι) | Paraphrase with irony preserved — অতিশ্ৰেষ্ঠ প্ৰেৰিত | Not a proper name; a literal compound conveying Paul’s sarcasm is more effective than any transliteration option, but requires a mandatory tone note so translators do not render it as sincere praise. |
| Katallagē-family terms (reconciliation, reconcile, ministry of reconciliation) | Paraphrase using existing মিলন root, never transliterate | Transliterating a core soteriological verb would strand the term outside ordinary Assamese comprehension entirely; paraphrase-with-fencing (Section 3 approach) is the only viable path, matching the treatment of other baseline forensic terms (justification, imputed righteousness). |
| Third heaven / Paradise (τρίτος οὐρανός / παράδεισος) | Paraphrase — তৃতীয় স্বৰ্গ / পৰমদেশ, not transliterate | Both concepts have serviceable Assamese equivalents; transliteration would obscure rather than clarify, but see Section 3.8 fencing requirement. |
| Messiah/Christ-family terms | Reuse baseline exactly — খ্ৰীষ্ট, মচীহ where applicable | No new decision required; Romans baseline governs. |
| Names: Titus, Macedonia, Achaia, Corinth (new proper nouns not in Romans baseline) | Transliterate using existing Assamese Bible Society forms — তীত, মাকিদনিয়া, আখায়া, কৰিন্থ | Standard proper-name handling; verify against the Assamese Bible Society New Testament for exact established spellings before Phase 2 begins. |
| Holy kiss (φίλημα ἅγιον) | Paraphrase literally — পবিত্ৰ চুমা, with footnote | A cultural-practice term, not a proper name; literal rendering plus explanatory footnote (period greeting custom, not prescribed ritual) is preferable to either transliteration or a domesticating substitution (e.g., “warm greeting”), which would lose textual fidelity. |
Section 5 — Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in 2 Corinthians
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × syncretism-collision potential × frequency), for Phase 2 priority review routing.
-
New creation vs. cyclical cosmology (5:17, নতুন সৃষ্টি) — Core passage territory (5:11-21). Highest risk because সৃষ্টি’s Puranic cyclical freight directly inverts the one-time, linear claim of the verse. Critical / human theologian.
-
Reconciliation’s directionality (5:18-20, মিলন) — Within the core passage itself. Ordinary Assamese মিলন assumes symmetrical peacemaking; the text’s entire argument depends on God as the initiating, wronged party. Critical / human theologian.
-
“God made him to be sin” (5:21, পাপ স্বৰূপে গণিলে) — Forensic, representative substitution language sitting inside the core passage; risk of being read either as literal moral corruption of Christ or softened into mere identification with sinners rather than a legal/representative reckoning. Critical / human theologian — must pair with imputed_righteousness accounting register.
-
“Righteousness of God” as credited status (5:21b) — Within core passage; risk of reversion to ধৰ্ম-adjacent duty-performance reading if not tightly anchored to baseline ধাৰ্মিকতা + আৰোপিত ধাৰ্মিকতা. Critical / human theologian.
-
দান and the merit-transaction collision (chs. 8-9) — High frequency (nine chapters’ worth of giving-language) times high collision potential with active Assamese Hindu dana practice. High / human theologian for grace-contrast segments specifically.
-
Letter vs. Spirit (3:6, আক্ষৰিক বিধান vs. আত্মা) — Risk of wholesale devaluation of বিধান (the Law) if the letter/manner-of-use distinction is not sustained throughout chapter 3. Critical / human theologian.
-
Power made perfect in weakness (12:9) against karma-fatalism — Anchor verse for an entire curriculum doctrine; risk that দূৰ্বলতা reads as karmic low-status rather than chosen divine strategy. Critical / human theologian.
-
δεῖ-level vision language (12:1-4, দৰ্শন) — Crowded neighborhood collision with devotee-initiated darshan practice; risk of implying Paul cultivated the experience through devotional discipline. High / human theologian.
-
False apostles / super-apostles / another Jesus (11:3-15) — Cluster of Critical terms requiring consistent “illegitimate counterfeit,” not “alternative valid path,” framing across a dense polemical passage; risk compounds because a religious-pluralism misreading would undermine the entire chapter’s argument. Critical / human theologian.
-
“God of this age” (4:4, দেৱতা) — Single-verse but severe risk: could be read as conceding a real second deity in a culture with an active pantheon. Critical / human theologian.
-
Idols vs. temple of the living God (6:14-16) — Direct, sustained contrast that must survive translation intact; risk of either softening মূৰ্তি/প্ৰতিমা’s polemical force or destabilizing মণ্ডলী’s “never মন্দিৰ” rule by the exceptional use of মন্দিৰ here. High / human theologian.
-
Godly grief vs. worldly grief (7:9-10, cleanse ourselves 7:1) — Risk of flattening into a single generic “sadness” term, losing the repentance-producing/death-producing contrast, and risk of শুচি drifting toward ritual-purification register. Medium-High / native speaker + theologian spot-check.
-
Transformed into his likeness (3:18, ৰূপান্তৰিত হওঁ / স্বৰূপ) — Risk of avatar-shape-shifting misreading if the gradual, moral, single-direction nature of the change is not reinforced. High / human theologian.
-
Trinitarian benediction (13:14) — Lower ambiguity risk per se (terms are all separately well-fenced already) but extremely high consistency stakes as a repeated-across-documents anchor verse, parallel to Romans 8:28/10:9. Critical / human theologian, consistency-focused review.
-
Fragrance of Christ (2:14-16, সুবাস) — Lowest-ranked risk on this list, included because its positive cultural-bridge potential (incense/offering imagery) could be exploited well or misused to imply a human ritual-offering register; needs a light-touch note, not heavy fencing. Medium / native speaker review.
Section 6 — Core Passage Cross-Check (2 Corinthians 5:11-21)
Because 5:11-21 is this curriculum’s theological anchor, every ambiguity identified above that falls within its verse range is flagged for first-priority resolution before any other segment translation begins:
- 5:11 — fear_of_the_lord (Section 3.7 fence)
- 5:14 — substitutionary_death / agape_love (Section 1, Section 4)
- 5:16 — according_to_the_flesh (Medium; worldly-standard framing must not become matter-as-evil dualism)
- 5:17 — new_creation / old_things_passed_away (Ranked #1 above)
- 5:18-19 — reconciliation / ministry_of_reconciliation / non_imputation_of_trespasses (Ranked #2 above)
- 5:20 — ambassador (Section 2 missing-vocabulary coinage)
- 5:21 — sin (representative sense) / righteousness (imputed sense) (Ranked #3, #4 above)
No Phase 2 segment covering 5:11-21 may be marked “approved” without explicit confirmation that all seven flagged items above carry their required translator notes and pass the forbidden-substitution validation check.
Summary Table — Gap Type Distribution
| Gap Type | Count Identified | Predominant Doctrine Category |
|---|---|---|
| True missing vocabulary (Section 2) | 6 | Reconciliation, New Covenant |
| Crowded/collision neighborhoods requiring fencing (Section 3) | 8 | False Apostleship, Giving, Power in Weakness, Christology |
| Transliteration decisions | 4 terms transliterated; 6 explicitly paraphrased instead | Proper names + Beliar |
| Ranked highest-risk ambiguities | 15 | Concentrated in Reconciliation, New Creation, New Covenant, False Apostleship |
Next step: These findings feed directly into the merged translation_memory.json / bible_term_registry.json update (already reflected in the Step-7/Step-8 prior outputs) and must be loaded, alongside the Romans baseline, before any Phase 2 segment translation for 2 Corinthians begins.
This document extends, and does not contradict, the Romans baseline Language Package. All risk tiers and forbidden substitutions inherited from the baseline remain in force; new items introduced here (ক্লেশ as forbidden for “affliction”) are additive extensions, not replacements.