Linguistic Gap Analysis: Jude (English/Greek → Assamese)

Purpose and Method

This analysis identifies where the Assamese language lacks native vocabulary for Jude’s theological content, where existing Assamese vocabulary is already “occupied” by Assamese Hindu (particularly Sankardev’s Ekasarana Dharma / Vaishnavite bhakti) semantic fields and therefore requires deliberate fencing, and where transliteration is preferable to translation. It builds directly on 08_core_glossary.md and the Jude additions to bible_term_registry.json, and is scoped to the full letter (Jude 1:1-25), with the core passage (1:3-23) as the theological anchor.

Jude is a short, single-chapter letter; “full-book coverage” here means every verse of the one chapter has been reviewed. No verse of Jude is without load-bearing theological vocabulary — this is among the most doctrinally dense 25 verses in the New Testament per word — so no verse is marked “reviewed, no new terms.”

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the six curriculum doctrines: available Assamese terms, their weaknesses, and the recommended strategy.

1.1 Contending for the Faith Once Delivered

Element	Assamese Options	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
”the faith” (deposit)	বিশ্বাস (reused from baseline)	Assamese has one word for both the subjective act of trusting and the objective body of doctrine; a reader accustomed to Romans’ subjective-trust “faith” may read Jude 1:3/1:20 as “your personal feeling of trust once delivered,” missing the closed-canon/apostolic-deposit sense entirely.	REUSE বিশ্বাস (hard rule), but mandatory contextual translator note at first Jude occurrence (1:3) distinguishing “the faith” (fixed, defended deposit) from “faith” (ongoing personal trust). Never coin a second word — consistency with Romans outweighs local disambiguation gain.
”contend for”	সংগ্ৰাম কৰা	Assamese has softer options (বিশ্বাসত থিৰে থাকা, “remain firm in faith”) that lose the athletic/military combat imagery central to ἐπαγωνίζομαι.	NEW term সংগ্ৰাম কৰা (struggle/fight); resist any drift toward passive “remain firm” phrasing in Phase 2 drafts.
”once for all delivered”	এবাৰৰ বাবে সমৰ্পিত	No native single-word equivalent; Assamese religious register (via Sankardev’s Satra tradition) is more accustomed to an open, ongoing guru-to-disciple transmission (paramparā) of teaching than to a closed one-time deposit. This is a structural, not merely lexical, gap.	NEW compound phrase (ἅπαξ + παραδοθείσῃ combined). Critical risk: this phrase is the doctrinal foundation for the entire letter’s polemic and must carry an explicit “closed, non-repeatable, non-evolving” note at first occurrence, on the same model as the baseline’s once-for-all incarnation/resurrection notes.

1.2 Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers

Element	Assamese Options	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
”ungodly / ungodliness”	ঈশ্বৰহীন / ঈশ্বৰহীনতা	Two tempting alternatives are both blocked by baseline precedent: ধৰ্মহীন (ধৰ্ম-rooted, rejected per baseline righteousness/law entries) and ভক্তিহীন (ভক্তি-rooted, rejected per baseline faith entry). No pre-existing single Assamese Christian-register word for “irreverent toward God” existed before this curriculum.	NEW coinage ঈশ্বৰহীন/ঈশ্বৰহীনতা, built transparently on baseline ঈশ্বৰ (God) + হীন (lacking) rather than on a contested root. Distinguish explicitly from পাপী (sinner, act-category) at first occurrence.
”judgment”	বিচাৰ	Common Assamese usage of “phôl” (fruit/outcome) language for divine reckoning can bleed into a karma-fruit framework (কৰ্মফল), already flagged Critical-adjacent in the baseline (rejected for grace/providence).	NEW term বিচাৰ, explicitly personal/forensic; every occurrence should be checked that no surrounding phrase imports ফল/কৰ্মফল vocabulary.
”licentiousness”	স্বেচ্ছাচাৰিতা	Narrower alternative ব্যভিচাৰ (adultery/sexual sin only) under-translates ἀσέλγεια’s broader shameless self-indulgence sense; risks the doctrine of “perverted grace” being read as merely a sexual-ethics warning rather than grace-abuse generally.	NEW term স্বেচ্ছাচাৰিতা (broader shameless self-indulgence); keep tethered to grace-perversion context every time, per Jude 1:4.
”Sovereign Master”	অধিপতি	The Assamese-obvious rendering স্বামী is blocked: it is the live, standard honorific for a Hindu monastic renunciate guru-teacher (Swami/স্বামীজী), and would collapse Christ’s absolute-owner Lordship into guru-veneration.	NEW term অধিপতি, Critical risk, kept lexically distinct from প্ৰভু (κύριος). Mandatory note at first occurrence explaining the deliberate avoidance of স্বামী.

1.3 Old Testament Warnings as Types (Israel, Angels, Sodom)

Element	Assamese Options	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
Israel’s unbelief/destruction (1:5)	বিশ্বাস কৰা (not) + নষ্ট/বিনষ্ট হোৱা	No lexical gap, but a background-literacy gap: Assamese readers unfamiliar with the Exodus wilderness narrative may read “destroyed” generically rather than as a specific covenant-judgment episode.	REUSE বিশ্বাস কৰা (verb form of baseline বিশ্বাস); pair with brief narrative-orientation gloss in teaching materials (not the translation itself), following the baseline’s “seed of David” OT-background precedent.
Fallen angels (1:6)	স্বৰ্গদূত + ৰক্ষা কৰি ৰখা (kept, for judgment) + অনন্ত + ঘোৰ আন্ধাৰ	No true lexical gap for “angel,” but a doctrine-shape gap: Assamese Hindu cosmology has richly populated categories of celestial and semi-divine beings (দেবতা, গন্ধৰ্ব, অসুৰ) with fluid moral status; the specific idea of created, morally accountable, now-imprisoned angelic beings awaiting a fixed future judgment has no ready parallel.	NEW term স্বৰ্গদূত (already distinct from generic দূত per apostleship rationale); doctrinal note recommended distinguishing biblical angelology’s fixed moral/judicial structure from the fluid moral status of Puranic celestial beings.
Sodom and Gomorrah (1:7)	সদোম আৰু গমোৰা + বিসদৃশ মাংস + অনন্ত জুই	Proper nouns transliterate cleanly (no gap); “strange/unnatural flesh” is a delicate exegetical phrase where Assamese has multiple possible register choices (clinical, euphemistic, or explicit) each carrying different reader impact.	Transliterate proper names per established ABS convention (no gap). Phrase বিসদৃশ মাংস flagged for mandatory theologian review of register-precision before Phase 2 lock-in.
Cain, Balaam, Korah (1:11)	কয়িন / বালাম / কোৰহ	Clean transliteration; but reader background-literacy gap parallels the Israel case above — three distinct sins (self-will murder, profit-driven prophecy, authority-rebellion) compressed into three proper names assumes OT literacy the primary audience (new converts, per baseline tone requirements) may lack.	Transliterate names; supply brief doctrinal-teaching gloss (outside the translation text itself) identifying each figure’s specific sin, on the model of the baseline’s seed-of-David precedent.

1.4 Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering

Element	Assamese Options	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
”mercy” (salvific, 1:21)	কৃপা	Baseline restricts কৃপা to non-salvific “ordinary compassion” only, reserving অনুগ্ৰহ for salvific grace. Jude’s central pastoral doctrine requires কৃপা itself in a salvific/eschatological sense (“mercy… unto eternal life”). This is a genuine scope conflict with the baseline, not a simple gap.	EXTENDED baseline entry (formal proposal, theologian sign-off required before Phase 2). Retain baseline’s non-salvific restriction as the default rule for future curricula outside Jude; document the Jude-specific extension narrowly so it does not silently override Romans usage elsewhere. Must carry a note distinguishing this from Puranic কৃপা-as-negotiated-response-to-devotion.
”waver / doubt” (1:22)	সন্দিহান হৈ থাকা	No single existing Assamese Christian-register word distinguishes settled apostasy from internal, still-recoverable doubt; the natural Assamese words for “doubt” (সন্দেহ) can read as intellectual skepticism rather than a wavering disciple still within reach of mercy.	NEW phrase সন্দিহান হৈ থাকা (state of being caught in doubt); pastoral-register note recommended clarifying this names a recoverable condition, distinct from the false teachers’ settled ungodliness (ঈশ্বৰহীনতা).
“snatch… out of the fire” (1:23)	কাঢ়ি অনা + অনন্ত জুই	No lexical gap; risk is imagery dilution if translated too gently (e.g., “help them” instead of the violent, urgent “snatch”).	NEW term কাঢ়ি অনা; preserve the urgency/violence of the rescue image rather than softening to generic pastoral-care language.

1.5 Kept by God and Presented Blameless

Element	Assamese Options	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
”kept / guarded” (τηρέω/φυλάσσω, 5 occurrences)	ৰক্ষা কৰি ৰখা	No lexical gap, but a consistency gap: because the same Greek root is used for both believers (positively kept) and rebel angels (negatively kept for judgment), Assamese synonym-variation across the letter (using ৰক্ষা কৰি ৰখা in some verses and a near-synonym like সাঁচি ৰখা elsewhere) would sever the letter’s deliberate literary echo.	NEW fixed phrase ৰক্ষা কৰি ৰখা, used identically at 1:1, 1:6, 1:13, 1:21, and 1:24 without exception. This is the letter’s structural spine and the single highest-priority consistency rule for Phase 2 QA in this document.
”blameless” (1:24)	নিষ্কলঙ্ক	Assamese has an available near-synonym পুণ্যবান (“meritorious/virtuous”), but this would import an accumulated-merit sense directly opposed to the verse’s forensic, Christ-conferred status.	NEW term নিষ্কলঙ্ক (unblemished — sacrificial-purity register, not moral-achievement register). Critical risk; must be explicitly anchored as a status conferred through God’s keeping-power, never an earned purity, paralleling baseline’s ধাৰ্মিকতা/imputed_righteousness caution.
”without stumbling” (1:24)	উজুতি নোখোৱাকৈ	No gap; rare word in Greek, plain equivalent available in Assamese.	NEW term উজুতি নোখোৱাকৈ; no special fencing required beyond standard glossary consistency.

1.6 Doxology and God’s Preserving Power

Element	Assamese Options	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
”Savior” (1:25)	পৰিত্ৰাণকৰ্তা	No lexical gap (transparently derived from baseline পৰিত্ৰাণ), but theological force depends entirely on পৰিত্ৰাণ’s own Critical-risk fencing already established in Romans; if that fencing is weak, this term inherits the weakness.	NEW term পৰিত্ৰাণকৰ্তা, paired with একমাত্ৰ ঈশ্বৰ (“the only God”) to make the monotheistic exclusivity explicit, paralleling the baseline’s প্ৰভু exclusivity requirement.
four stacked doxological nouns: majesty, might, authority, age (1:25)	মহানতা / পৰাক্ৰম / অধিকাৰ / কাল	Assamese has overlapping near-synonyms for “power/might/greatness” (মহিমা, শক্তি, বল, ক্ষমতা) that could easily collapse all four Greek nouns into two or three repeated Assamese words, flattening the doxology’s rhetorical stacking.	NEW terms, each deliberately kept lexically distinct from one another AND from baseline’s ঈশ্বৰৰ শক্তি (a different Greek word, δύναμις, in Romans 1:16). This is a rhetorical-preservation task, not primarily a doctrinal-risk task, but flattening would weaken the doxology’s climactic effect.
”age/eon” (αἰών) vs “eternal” (αἰώνιος)	কাল vs অনন্ত	Genuine root-relatedness in Greek (adjective from noun) is not mirrored in the chosen Assamese pair, which are lexically unrelated words. A reader cannot see from the Assamese alone that 1:25’s “before all কাল … unto all কাল” and 1:21’s “অনন্ত জীৱন” are the same theological concept-family.	Accept the lexical split (no natural related-word pair exists in Assamese); compensate with a cross-referencing translator note at 1:25 pointing back to the অনন্ত note established at 1:6/1:7/1:21, so the conceptual unity is preserved even where the words themselves are not cognate.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary — Genuine Lexical Gaps

These are concepts for which Assamese has no pre-existing single-word or established Bible-register term, requiring coinage, compounding, or established transliteration to be formalized for this curriculum (distinct from Section 3’s crowded-neighborhood problem, where a word exists but is contested).

Concept	Gap Type	Resolution
ἀσεβής/ἀσέβεια (“ungodly/ungodliness”)	No neutral existing word; only roots blocked by baseline precedent (ধৰ্ম-, ভক্তি-) were available.	Coined ঈশ্বৰহীন/ঈশ্বৰহীনতা on transparent ঈশ্বৰ+হীন pattern (see 1.2 above).
ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ (“once for all delivered”) as a compound theological unit	No single Assamese word carries “closed, historically fixed, non-repeatable transmission” as one concept; Assamese religious vocabulary defaults to open transmission models.	Compound phrase এবাৰৰ বাবে সমৰ্পিত (see 1.1 above); Critical risk.
δεσπότης as distinct from κύριος	Assamese, like most modern vernaculars, has collapsed most absolute-authority titles into one register; a second, equally forceful but lexically distinct word for “master/owner” (as opposed to “lord”) had to be selected deliberately.	অধিপতি chosen over the far more natural but blocked স্বামী.
ψυχικός (“soulish,” an anthropological category below “spiritual”)	No Assamese Christian-register precedent for a negative soul/life-force category; existing vocabulary (প্ৰাণ, আত্মা, জীৱ) is drawn from a Hindu/Vedantic anthropology in which “soul” language trends positive (the higher, liberation-seeking element).	Coined প্ৰাণিক, built on প্ৰাণ (natural life-force) rather than আত্মা (to avoid confusion with পবিত্ৰ আত্মা), explicitly flagged for theologian review (see Section 4 ranked risks).
σπιλάδες (“hidden reefs” or “blemishes” — genuine textual/lexical ambiguity in the Greek itself, not just the Assamese)	Assamese has no single word spanning both a nautical-hazard image and a moral-blemish image; the ambiguity is inherited from the source text, not created by the target language.	Record both readings per ambiguity-handling protocol: primary কলঙ্কস্বৰূপ (“blemishes”), alternative গুপ্ত শিলা (“hidden reefs”) — see baseline registry entry.
Proper names Enoch (1:14) and Michael (1:9)	Not present in the Romans baseline or in the current Jude glossary/registry; genuine omission requiring formal addition before Phase 2.	RECOMMEND addition to translation memory: Enoch → হনোক (Hanok); Michael (the archangel) → মীখায়েল (Mikhayel), both per established Assamese Bible Society transliteration convention (parallel to Dayud, Moci, Jicoya already fixed in the baseline). Flagged as an outstanding gap for this document’s sign-off list.
ἀντιλογία (“rebellion/dispute,” Korah’s specific sin)	No single Assamese word captures both the verbal (“speaking against”) and the institutional-rebellion senses simultaneously.	বিদ্ৰোহ selected as the best available single-word compromise (institutional-rebellion sense foregrounded); minor residual gap accepted, flagged Medium risk, not Critical, since context (Korah narrative) supplies the missing nuance.

---

3. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Needing Fencing

Unlike Section 2, these are cases where perfectly good, commonly used Assamese words already exist — but those words are heavily populated by Assamese Hindu, and specifically Sankardev’s Ekasarana Dharma, religious usage, such that using them without deliberate fencing would import an entire competing theological framework by association.

Assamese Term	Doctrinal Use in Jude	Competing Semantic Field	Fencing Strategy
প্ৰেম	God’s covenantal love (1:1, 1:2, 1:21); “love feast” (1:12)	Vaishnavite/Ekasarana prema-bhakti — cultivated devotional love toward a chosen deity (ista-devata), achieved through spiritual discipline (sadhana), central to the entire regional Gaudiya-adjacent devotional vocabulary.	Mandatory distinguishing note at first occurrence (1:1): প্ৰেম in Jude names God’s own unilateral, self-giving initiative (or the church’s answering love), never an emotional state cultivated by the believer’s own devotional practice.
কৃপা	Salvific mercy (1:2, 1:21, 1:22-23)	Puranic pattern of a deity’s কৃপা as a negotiated response to austerity (tapasya) or devotion (bhakti) — a merit-transaction, structurally identical to the বৰ-risk the baseline already flags for grace.	Formal scope-extension (see 1.4 above) plus mandatory note: Jude’s mercy is unilateral divine initiative toward the helpless and wavering, never a reward secured through devotional performance.
অধিপতি / স্বামী (rejected)	Christ’s absolute ownership-authority (1:4)	স্বামী/স্বামীজী = the live standard Assamese honorific for a Hindu monastic renunciate guru-teacher.	স্বামী excluded entirely from the glossary for this concept; অধিপতি substituted, with note explaining the deliberate avoidance.
প্ৰেম-ভোজ	Early-church fellowship meal (1:12)	Ekasarana Satra/Vaishnavite bhog/prasad — food ritually offered to and blessed by a deity or guru before communal distribution; a functionally similar communal-meal practice with a fundamentally different theological structure (deity-mediated blessing vs. shared remembrance).	Mandatory note distinguishing a fellowship meal commemorating Christ’s sacrifice from a devotional food-offering-and-blessing ritual, on the same model as the baseline’s church/নামঘৰ fencing.
প্ৰাণিক (for ψυχικός)	Diagnostic label for false teachers lacking the Spirit (1:19)	Hindu/Vedantic jiva/atma hierarchy, in which “soul” (আত্মা/জীৱ) is typically the higher, liberation-seeking element of a person — the reverse valence from Jude’s usage, where the “soulish” category is the lesser, unregenerate one.	Root deliberately built on প্ৰাণ (natural life-force) rather than আত্মা to avoid direct collision with পবিত্ৰ আত্মা; mandatory theologian-reviewed note at first occurrence (1:19) explicitly flagging the reversed valence risk.
নিষ্কলঙ্ক	Believers’ final forensic status (1:24)	Risk of assimilation to a karma-purified state — a status attained through accumulated merit across time/lives, the same collision class the baseline already flags for ধাৰ্মিকতা.	Anchor explicitly as a status conferred through being kept by Christ’s power, never accumulated; cross-reference baseline’s justification/imputed-righteousness fencing language.
অনন্ত / কাল	Genuinely endless duration (multiple verses) and comprehensive eternity (1:25)	Assamese Hindu cosmology’s cyclical yuga framework (Satya/Treta/Dwapara/Kali, ending in পৰলয়/dissolution and renewal) — a bounded, repeating structure fundamentally opposed to Jude’s linear, terminal eschatology.	Mandatory translator note at first occurrence of each term (1:6 for অনন্ত; 1:25 for কাল) explicitly asserting non-cyclical, non-repeating, truly endless duration.
শয়তান	The personal Adversary (1:9)	Hindu Assamese demonic/rival-divine-order categories, অসুৰ (asura) and ৰাক্ষস (rakshasa) — figures within a Puranic cosmology of rival semi-divine beings, not a singular fallen-angelic personal Adversary.	Established Assamese Christian term retained; brief distinguishing note recommended (Medium risk — lower priority than the Critical/High items above, since শয়তান is already a stable, well-established Christian-register loanword in Assamese with limited ambiguity in practice).
শেষ সময়	The single final era before Christ’s return (1:18)	Yuga-cycle’s “end of the Kali Yuga,” which in Assamese Hindu cosmology is followed by dissolution and renewal, not a terminal, unrepeated ending.	Distinguishing note recommended at first occurrence contrasting a single terminus with a repeating cosmic cycle.

---

4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Category	Items	Decision	Rationale
Established proper names (persons)	Jesus, Christ, God the Father — reused from baseline; Cain, Balaam, Korah, Enoch, Michael — new to Jude	TRANSLITERATE, using established ABS forms where they exist (যীচু, খ্ৰীষ্ট, পিতা) and proposing ABS-convention-consistent forms for the newly needed names (কয়িন, বালাম, কোৰহ, হনোক, মীখায়েল)	Baseline precedent (Dayud, Moci, Jicoya) establishes that proper names always transliterate rather than translate; no exception warranted for Jude’s OT figures.
Established proper names (places)	Sodom and Gomorrah	TRANSLITERATE (সদোম আৰু গমোৰা)	Standard ABS convention; no semantic content to paraphrase.
Aramaic/Greek liturgical exclamations	None present in Jude (contrast Romans’ আব্বা)	N/A	Jude contains no equivalent term requiring the baseline’s Abba-style retained-transliteration treatment.
Theological technical terms with existing Assamese Bible Society precedent	Lord, Faith, Grace, Called, Saints, Salvation, Holy, Glory, Apostle, Holy Spirit, Peace	REUSE exact baseline rendering (no transliteration, no paraphrase)	Hard rule; baseline renderings are the language authority and must not be re-derived.
Theological technical terms with NO existing precedent, requiring paraphrase/compounding	δεσπότης, ἅπαξ + παραδοθείσῃ, ψυχικός, ἀσέβεια, ἀσέλγεια, τηρέω/φυλάσσω, ἀμώμος	PARAPHRASE/COMPOUND in Assamese rather than transliterate	These are common Greek words expressing relational/moral/theological concepts, not names or untranslatable liturgical formulas; transliterating them (e.g., leaving “despotes” untranslated) would produce meaningless loanwords for the target reader, unlike Abba’s intentional intimacy-preserving exception.
Doxological stacked nouns	μεγαλωσύνη, κράτος, ἐξουσία, αἰών	PARAPHRASE with four distinct Assamese words (মহানতা, পৰাক্ৰম, অধিকাৰ, কাল)	Preserving rhetorical stacking requires genuine lexical variety in the target language, not transliteration (which would produce four unintelligible loanwords) nor collapse into fewer words.
Ambiguous single term with two valid readings	σπιλάδες	PARAPHRASE with primary + alternative recorded	Transliteration is not applicable to an ordinary common noun; the ambiguity must be resolved (or dual-recorded) in Assamese, following the baseline’s ambiguity-handling protocol.

---

5. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Jude

Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × likelihood of syncretistic misreading × frequency in the letter):

1. অনন্ত / অনন্ত জুই / অনন্ত জীৱন / কাল (eternal / eternal fire / eternal life / age) — Critical. The letter’s entire two-destinies structure (vv. 6-7, 13, 21, 23, 25) depends on genuinely endless, non-cyclical duration being understood, directly contradicting the dominant regional yuga-cosmology. Highest frequency of any Critical-risk term in the letter (7+ occurrences across 5 lexical variants).

2. এবাৰৰ বাবে সমৰ্পিত (once for all delivered, v.3) — Critical. This is the doctrinal foundation on which the entire polemic against the false teachers rests; if readers assimilate it to an open guru-lineage transmission model, the letter’s central exhortation (“contend for the faith”) loses its object.

3. কৃপা extended to salvific use (mercy, vv. 2, 21-23) — Critical, and additionally a formal baseline-scope conflict requiring sign-off. Highest procedural risk in this document because it is not merely a new term but an authorized revision of an existing baseline entry; inconsistent application across Phase 2 workers is a live risk if the extension is not clearly scoped to Jude alone.

4. অধিপতি vs. স্বামী (Sovereign Master, v.4) — Critical. A single wrong lexical choice at this one occurrence would assimilate Christ’s absolute ownership-authority to guru-veneration, the same class of error the baseline treats as maximally severe for অৱতাৰ/দেহধাৰণ.

5. নিষ্কলঙ্ক (blameless, v.24) — Critical. The letter’s doctrinal climax; a karma-purification misreading would convert the entire epistle’s message from grace-secured security into a merit-achievement framework, the opposite of Jude’s own argument against the false teachers’ relationship to grace.

6. প্ৰাণিক (soulish, v.19) — High, but with an unusually severe directional risk. Unlike most collision risks in this analysis (where the target-culture concept is simply absent or differently framed), this term risks an actual inversion — Assamese “soul” vocabulary trends positive/higher, while Jude’s usage is negative/lower. This reversal risk is subtle enough that even a careful native-speaker reviewer could miss it without explicit briefing.

7. প্ৰেম (love, throughout) — High. Highest-frequency crowded-neighborhood risk in the letter (5 occurrences); ongoing vigilance required across every occurrence, not just first use, given the pervasiveness of prema-bhakti vocabulary in ordinary Assamese religious speech.

8. ৰক্ষা কৰি ৰখা consistency (kept/guarded, 5 occurrences) — High, primarily a QA/consistency risk rather than a lexical-collision risk. The letter’s literary structure depends on one fixed phrase appearing identically at all five occurrences; any Phase 2 worker drift toward synonym variation would sever a deliberate authorial echo that native Assamese stylistic instinct (which favors varying vocabulary to avoid repetition) actively works against.

9. প্ৰেম-ভোজ (love feast, v.12) — High. Functional-parallel risk structurally identical to the baseline’s church/নামঘৰ caution, but narrower in scope (a single verse) than that thematic risk’s pervasiveness elsewhere.

10. শেষ সময় (last time, v.18) — High. Yuga-cycle collision risk, structurally similar to risk #1 above but lower priority because it occurs only once and the surrounding context (apostolic prediction now fulfilled) provides some interpretive guardrail even without the note.

11. বিসদৃশ মাংস (strange flesh, v.7) — High. Not a syncretism risk in the technical sense used above, but a register-precision risk: an imprecise Assamese phrasing here risks either euphemistic vagueness that loses the text’s exegetical specificity, or overly explicit phrasing exceeding the Greek’s own restraint. Requires theologian review of exact wording, not merely doctrinal-category fencing.

12. শয়তান vs. অসুৰ/ৰাক্ষস (devil, v.9) — Medium. Lower priority than the items above because শয়তান is already a stable, well-established Assamese Christian loanword with limited real-world ambiguity in practice; included for completeness rather than urgency.

---

6. Outstanding Items Requiring Resolution Before Phase 2

1. Formal theologian sign-off on all twelve baseline-extension/new-Critical-and-High items already listed in 08_core_glossary.md’s summary table (carried forward, not duplicated here).
2. Addition of missing proper-noun entries Enoch (হনোক) and Michael (মীখায়েল) to translation_memory.json and bible_term_registry.json — currently absent despite being required by Jude 1:9 and 1:14.
3. Confirmation that the কৃপা scope-extension (Section 1.4 / Section 5 item 3) is recorded as Jude-specific in translation memory, so it does not silently propagate into future non-Jude curricula still bound by the Romans baseline’s non-salvific restriction.
4. Theologian review of বিসদৃশ মাংস (v.7) register-precision before Phase 2 lock-in.
5. Theologian review and mandatory first-occurrence note for প্ৰাণিক (v.19), given its unusual directional-inversion risk profile (Section 5 item 6).

---

This document extends, and does not contradict, the Romans Language Package baseline (translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, doctrine_risk_registry.json). All REUSED terms above are enforced exactly per baseline; all NEW and EXTENDED terms require the sign-offs listed in Section 6 before being written into an updated translation memory for Phase 2 processing of the Jude curriculum.