Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — Titus
0. Purpose and Method
This analysis identifies where the Bodo (Boro) language currently has, lacks, or over-supplies vocabulary for the seven doctrines assigned to the Titus curriculum:
- Grace That Trains for Godly Living
- Qualifications for Elders
- Sound Doctrine and Good Works
- Salvation by Grace not Works
- Regeneration by the Holy Spirit
- Submission to Authority
- Avoiding Divisive Controversies
Method: for each doctrine, the existing Romans baseline translation memory is checked first (reuse where fixed); Titus-specific gaps identified in 08_core_glossary.md and bible_term_registry.json are then evaluated for (a) true missing vocabulary — concepts with no attested Bodo lexical unit at all, requiring a newly coined descriptive compound — versus (b) crowded semantic neighborhoods — concepts where Bodo already has multiple candidate words, several of which are pulled toward Bathouism or Brahma Dharma and must be fenced off explicitly. The comparative-religion frame is unchanged from the Romans baseline: Bathouism (aniconic nature-religion centered on Bathoubwrai/sijou, expressed through Kherai puja and doudini trance-possession) and Brahma Dharma (the 1912 Sanskritized reform movement) remain the two live currents against which every Critical/High decision is checked.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
Doctrine 1: Grace That Trains for Godly Living
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available terms | मोफादांनाय दान (grace, baseline-fixed, Critical); दैखा जानाय (epiphany/appeared, new, High); गुरगुरै सिखायनाय (train/discipline, new, High); गोसो थुलुंनाय (self-control, new, High); ईश्वर मानोन (godliness, new, High); मोनथाय गैया जिउ (eternal life, new, Critical); आस (hope, new, High) |
| Weaknesses | (1) मोफादांनाय दान already carries a documented Critical risk of being reheard as reciprocal ritual exchange or Brahma Dharma merit — Titus 2:11-14 personifies grace as an active teacher, a grammatical role Bodo has no precedent for assigning to an abstract gift-noun; the personification itself may not transfer naturally. (2) गुरगुरै सिखायनाय (“teach as one raises a child”) is a provisional compound with no attested devotional usage; risk of flattening to generic “teaches,” losing the disciplinary/formative sense that is the doctrine’s entire point. (3) दैखा जानाय must do heavy structural work across three widely separated verses (2:11; 2:13; 3:4) that a translator working verse-by-verse could easily render with three different, non-parallel verbs, destroying the letter’s literary epiphany-pattern invisibly. |
| Recommended strategy | Lock दैखा जानाय as an immutable phrase-level unit (not just a lexical entry) with a standing cross-reference note at all three occurrences reminding translators this is one literary structure, not three separate events to translate independently. Require an explicit teaching gloss the first time मोफादांनाय दान appears as a grammatical subject (2:11, “grace has appeared, training us”) clarifying that grace here acts personally through the gospel, not as an impersonal ritual force. Treat गुरगुरै सिखायनाय as provisional pending native-speaker confirmation; if rejected, fall back to a fuller descriptive paraphrase (“teaches us the way a parent raises a child”) rather than a single unconfirmed compound. |
Doctrine 2: Qualifications for Elders
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available terms | मण्डलिनि प्राचीन (elder, new, High); देखा-रैखा लाग्रा (overseer, new, High); ईश्वरनि नोगोर देखा-रैखा लाग्रा (steward of God, new, Medium); दोष गैया (above reproach, new, Medium); मोनसे सिबि सायथावनि सामलायग्रा (husband of one wife, new, High); मानोन-गैया (insubordinate, new, Medium); virtue/vice list terms (Medium, see §2 below) |
| Weaknesses | (1) No native Bodo lexical item exists for a church office of oversight distinct from either a village elder (a lineage/clan-based honorific role) or a Bathou/Kherai ritual specialist (doudini, ओझा). प्राचीन is a loanword solution, not a native compound, and its unfamiliarity cuts both ways: it avoids the बर’ऐ/बुरहा collision but may read as foreign/technical to a Class 8-10 reading-level audience. (2) Titus 1:5-9 uses “elder” and “overseer” of the same referent (1:5→1:7), but a literal-minded translator or reader could easily infer two distinct offices, especially since Bodo village life does have multiple distinct traditional specialist roles (doudini, ओझा, village headman) that a reader might map the two Greek terms onto. (3) “Husband of one wife” assumes a marital-fidelity backdrop that cannot be assumed as self-evidently already the local norm. |
| Recommended strategy | Retain प्राचीन and देखा-रैखा लाग्रा as fixed but require a mandatory in-lesson synonymy note wherever both terms co-occur (1:5-7), stating explicitly that Titus uses them for one office, not two. Never substitute a native honorific-elder title for either term. For husband-of-one-wife, require an explicit pastoral background note (not silently assumed) rather than a bare literal rendering. |
Doctrine 3: Sound Doctrine and Good Works
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available terms | मोजाङ सिख्रोंनाय (sound doctrine, new, High); मोजाङ खामानि (good works, new, Critical); बिश्वासजाबाय राव (trustworthy saying, new, High); सिख्रोंनायखौ सिङार खालामनाय (adorn the doctrine, new, Medium) |
| Weaknesses | (1) मोजाङ सिख्रोंनाय (“good/healthy teaching”) is a plain descriptive phrase with no built-in signal that this is a fixed body of apostolic content rather than one opinion among competing teachings — a real risk given that Brahma Dharma is itself a body of organized, textualized reform teaching that a Bodo reader might unconsciously place mोजाङ सिख्रोंनाय alongside as a rival “good teaching.” (2) मोजाङ खामानि recurs 6+ times across radically different grammatical roles (fruit in 2:14/3:8, negative foil in 1:16, civic linkage in 3:1) — the single greatest risk in this doctrine area is sequencing: a translator or reader encountering मोजाङ खामानि in 3:1 or 3:8 without having first internalized 3:5’s “not by works” could reverse the letter’s entire logic. |
| Recommended strategy | Require मोजाङ सिख्रोंनाय to carry an explicit “apostolic, not one-teaching-among-many” framing note at its first occurrence (1:9). For मोजाङ खामानि, mandate a cross-reference tag at every occurrence pointing back to 3:5 (“fruit, never ground”) so the fruit/ground distinction cannot be lost through independent segment-by-segment translation in Phase 2 batch processing. |
Doctrine 4: Salvation by Grace not Works
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available terms | फोरायग्रा (Savior, new but baseline-rooted, Critical); दाम होनायजों जागायनाय (redeem, new, Critical); मोजाङ खामानिनि थाखाय नङा (not by works, new, Critical); रहम (mercy, new, High); धार्मिक होनाय राव (justification, baseline-fixed, Critical); जायगीरि लाग्रा (heir, new, High) |
| Weaknesses | (1) फोरायग्रा applied to both God the Father and Jesus Christ (six times) risks being read, absent explicit teaching, as two separate rescuer-figures rather than one shared divine title — structurally similar to the baseline’s Granville Sharp concern at 2:13, but recurring at higher frequency across the whole letter. (2) दाम होनायजों जागायनाय (“freeing by payment of a price”) is a compound built to avoid मुक्ति (Brahma-Dharma-adjacent मोक्ष collision), but its literal “payment” component risks being reheard as transactional — precisely the reciprocal-offering logic Bathou/Kherai practice already assumes, and precisely what grace-language must resist. This is an internal tension inside the recommended rendering itself, not just an external contamination risk. (3) रहम and मोफादांनाय दान occur together in 3:5 and must be taught as distinct (undeserved-judgment-relief vs. unearned-gift) but both terms independently risk collapse into the same generic “God is kind” reading if not explicitly unpacked. |
| Recommended strategy | For फोरायग्रा, require an explicit note wherever Father and Son are both called “Savior” within a short span (1:3-4; 2:10-13; 3:4-6) that this reinforces shared deity rather than two rescuer-figures. For दाम होनायजों जागायनाय, pair every occurrence with an explicit “this is Christ’s own costly self-giving, not a payment we make or negotiate” gloss to defuse the transactional-reading risk baked into the compound. Teach रहम and मोफादांनाय दान together at 3:5 with a two-column contrast (deserved-judgment-relief vs. unearned-gift), never singly. |
Doctrine 5: Regeneration by the Holy Spirit
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available terms | नोतुन जिउनाय होनाय (regeneration, new, Critical — highest risk in book); नोतुन जिउनाय होनायनि साफनाय (washing of regeneration, new, Critical); नोतुन सोलायनाय (renewal, new, High); दैनो होनाय (poured out, new, Medium); पबित्र आत्था (Holy Spirit, baseline-fixed, Critical) |
| Weaknesses | This is the single largest true vocabulary gap in the letter. Bodo/Bodo-adjacent religious discourse already has an entrenched “again-birth” vocabulary family (फिन जोनोम) supplied specifically by Brahma Dharma’s Hindu-influenced reform teaching, and this is the literal etymological target of the Greek παλιγγενεσία. Any translator working from etymology alone, or any back-translation checker unfamiliar with the baseline’s forbidden-term list, will be pulled directly toward फिन जोनोम or a जोनोम-rooted coinage. There is no existing, safe, attested Bodo Christian phrase for this doctrine at all — it must be built from scratch using the जिउनाय root already established for resurrection, and even that solution has not been confirmed with a native-speaking theologian. A second-order risk: साफनाय (“washing”) standing alone in 3:5 is also the ordinary word for the physical/ritual cleansing performed before Bathou/Kherai ceremonies, so it can never be permitted to appear without its regeneration modifier attached. |
| Recommended strategy | Treat नोतुन जिउनाय होनाय as requiring mandatory human theologian review at every single occurrence with zero exceptions, and require the back-translation validation step to explicitly search for and reject जोनोम-rooted output (see §4, rank 1, below). Never allow साफनाय to stand alone; always require the full modifier phrase. Distinguish नोतुन जिउनाय होनाय (one-time, 3:5a) from नोतुन सोलायनाय (ongoing, 3:5b) with an explicit once-for-all vs. ongoing teaching note attached to both, since the two are easy to collapse into a single generic “spiritual renewal” idea in casual reading. |
Doctrine 6: Submission to Authority
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available terms | मानोन खालामनाय (submit/submission, new, High); सरकार आरो अधिकारी (rulers/authorities, new, High); राव मानोन खालामनाय (be obedient civically, new, Medium); हुकुम (pastoral authority, new, Medium); दास/मालिक (slave/master, new, High/Medium) |
| Weaknesses | (1) मानोन खालामनाय is deliberately built on the same root family as the baseline’s बिश्वासनि मानोन (obedience of faith), which is doctrinally efficient for teaching the pattern of ordered submission but creates a genuine ambiguity risk: a reader could infer that submitting to a husband, a master, or a civil ruler carries the same salvific weight as submitting to Christ in faith. (2) सरकार आरो अधिकारी lands on a politically live term in the Bodoland Territorial Region, where governing authority has been a matter of actual armed conflict in recent decades — this is not a hypothetical sensitivity but a lived-memory one for many readers’ families. (3) दास (literal household bondservant) has no indigenous Bodo institutional parallel at all; without background teaching, a reader may either import a caste-servitude frame (irrelevant to Bodo social structure) or dismiss the passage as inapplicable/archaic. |
| Recommended strategy | Require an explicit disambiguating note wherever मानोन खालामनाय occurs applied to a human authority (2:5, 2:9, 3:1), clarifying it names an ordered relational pattern, not a salvation-earning act, and is categorically different from बिश्वासनि मानोन’s object (Christ). For 3:1, require pastoral framing that separates the principle of submission from endorsement of any specific past or present administration — this must be handled by a native speaker or theologian familiar with the region’s recent history, not left to automated translation. Provide a short historical-background note for दास/मालिक rather than assuming reader familiarity. |
Doctrine 7: Avoiding Divisive Controversies
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available terms | मण्डली बुखियग्रा (divisive person, new, High); बुद्धि गैया जगडा-सुनानाय (foolish controversies, new, Medium); बेंसेनि खौरां (genealogies, new, Medium); जगडा, बिथाननि गेजेरनि जगडा (dissensions/quarrels about law, new, Medium); कथा (myths, new, Medium); खतना जुथुदनि सोर (circumcision party, new, Medium) |
| Weaknesses | (1) मण्डली बुखियग्रा sits in direct semantic tension with चह.1’s demand that Titus himself रебuke false teachers firmly (1:9,13) using the same rebuke root (गलती फोरमायनाय) — a reader could easily conclude the letter condemns all doctrinal firmness, when in fact it condemns only trivial, faction-driving quarrelsomeness. This is an internal-to-the-letter ambiguity, not a cross-cultural one, but it is acute. (2) कथा was deliberately chosen over पुराण to avoid implying a slight against Hindu scripture generically, but कथा’s very genericness (“tale/story”) risks under-communicating that Paul is targeting a specific body of Jewish legendary material, not storytelling as such. (3) बेंसेनि खौरां reuses the same बेंसे root affirmed positively in the baseline’s “seed of David” doctrine and in 1:6’s qualification language — the same lineage-root is used approvingly in one place and disapprovingly in another within a few chapters, which is a genuine internal tension requiring explicit teaching, not an oversight to silently fix. |
| Recommended strategy | Require an explicit contrast note wherever मण्डली बुखियग्रा (3:10) and गलती फोरमायनाय (1:9,13) are taught in the same lesson, naming the distinction directly: firm correction of real doctrinal error is commanded; trivial faction-driving quarrels are condemned. For बेंसेनि खौरां, require a note distinguishing “lineage as covenant evidence” (approved, 1:6, and the baseline’s seed-of-David doctrine) from “lineage speculation as idle controversy” (condemned, 3:9) — these must never be silently harmonized into one flat attitude toward genealogy. |
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2.1 True Missing Vocabulary (no attested Bodo lexical item; must be built from scratch)
These are genuine conceptual gaps — not cases of an existing wrong word, but cases where no native or loan term currently covers the concept at all, paralleling the baseline’s treatment of “salvation” and “adoption” as gaps rather than substitution problems.
| Concept | Status | Why it is a true gap |
|---|---|---|
| Regeneration (παλιγγενεσία) | Critical — highest priority in book | No Bodo-Christian-attested phrase exists; the one available “again-birth” vocabulary family (फिन जोनोम) is forbidden. Coined from scratch on the जिउनाय root; unconfirmed. |
| Epiphany/appearing as a fixed literary device (ἐπιφάνεια ×3) | High | Bodo has words for “appear” generically, but no established phrase marking a singular, historical, decisive in-breaking as distinct from a repeatable event (relevant against Kherai-trance “appearing”). दैखा जानाय is a new coinage for this specific theological sense. |
| Heirship/inheritance-by-declaration (κληρονόμος) | High | Traditional Bodo clan (afad) inheritance runs through birth lineage; a legal declaration of heir-status apart from birth has no ready native category, exactly as the baseline already noted for “adoption.” |
| Self-control as a single unifying character trait (σώφρων, recurring 6×) | High | Bodo has situational words for restraint, but no single attested noun/adjective functioning as the dominant virtue-label the way σώφρων does across 1:8; 2:2,4,5,6,12. गोसो थुलुंनाय is a provisional coinage bearing unusual structural weight for a single unconfirmed compound. |
| Church office of “elder/overseer” distinct from clan-elder and ritual-specialist roles | High | No native term; प्राचीन (loanword) and देखा-रैखा लाग्रा (descriptive coinage) are both new solutions requiring confirmation. |
| Formal marital-fidelity qualification language (“husband of one wife”) | High | Not a pre-existing legal/moral category phrase in Bodo; built descriptively. |
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (multiple candidate words exist; wrong choice risks syncretism — require explicit fencing)
| Neighborhood | Competing candidates | Fence required |
|---|---|---|
| Grace / mercy / goodness / loving-kindness (χάρις / ἔλεος / χρηστότης / φιλανθρωπία, all clustered in 3:4-5) | मोफादांनाय दान, रहम, मोजाङनाय, मानसिखौ मोसोंनाय | These four terms sit within one sentence in the Bodo text and are semantically close enough (all “God being kind”) that a translator under time pressure could substitute one for another. Each must be taught as a distinct facet: grace = undeserved gift; mercy = relief from deserved judgment; goodness = active kind disposition; loving-kindness = benevolent love toward humanity as a class. No single term may absorb another’s teaching load. |
| Holy / devout / godly / pure (ἅγιος / ὅσιος / εὐσέβεια / καθαρός) | पबित्र (holy), ईश्वर मानोन (godliness), पबित्र (also standing in for ὅσιος in virtue lists — see baseline note) | ὅσιος and ἅγιος are already collapsed into one Bodo term (पबित्र) in the elder virtue-list per the Section-B glossary note; this is an accepted minor nuance loss but must be flagged so a theologian reviewing back-translations does not mistake it for an error. ईश्वर मानोन must never bleed into भक्ति (rejected explicitly for its Brahma Dharma devotionalism associations). |
| Submission family (ὑποτάσσω / πειθαρχέω / obedience-of-faith बिश्वासनि मानोन) | मानोन खालामनाय, राव मानोन खालामनाय, बिश्वासनि मानोन | Three distinct Bodo phrases share the मानोन (obey/submit) root across three distinct objects (spouse/master/ruler; civil order generally; Christ specifically). This shared root is doctrinally useful (it shows a coherent biblical pattern of ordered submission) but dangerous if the objects are not kept sharply distinct — see Doctrine 6 above. |
| Elder / overseer / steward (πρεσβύτερος / ἐπίσκοπος / οἰκονόμος) vs. traditional ritual specialists (doudini, ओझा, बुरहा/बर’ऐ elder-titles) | मण्डलिनि प्राचीन, देखा-रैखा लाग्रा, ईश्वरनि नोगोर देखा-रैखा लाग्रा | Church office vocabulary must be fenced away from both (a) honorific deity-elder titles (बर’ऐ/बुरहा, forbidden per baseline) and (b) recognized traditional ritual-specialist roles, so that a Bodo reader does not map the Christian elder onto an existing religious-specialist slot they already have a category for. |
| ”Good works” vs. “works” as grounds of salvation (καλὰ/ἀγαθὰ ἔργα used positively 5× vs. ἔργα used negatively at 3:5) | मोजाङ खामानि (both contexts share the same root) | The SAME Bodo compound must serve both the condemned “works of righteousness we have done” (3:5) and the commended “good works” believers are to pursue as fruit (2:14, 3:1, 3:8). This is the single most consequential shared-root ambiguity in the letter and is elevated to the top of the ranked risk list below. |
| Redemption / freeing-by-payment vs. reciprocal ritual exchange | दाम होनायजों जागायनाय | The chosen coinage’s own literal “payment” component sits uncomfortably close to the Bathou/Kherai offering-for-protection logic it is meant to avoid; this is a self-generated crowding risk internal to the recommended solution itself, not an external contamination from a pre-existing word, and must be fenced by mandatory explanatory framing every time it appears. |
| Genealogical/lineage language used approvingly (seed of David, elder qualification) vs. disapprovingly (idle genealogies, 3:9) | दाऊदनि बेंसे (baseline) / बेंसेनि खौरां (new) | Same बेंसे root, opposite evaluative loading depending on context; requires explicit contrastive teaching, not silent harmonization. |
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Jesus / Christ / David / Israel | Transliterate (जिसु / मसीह / दाऊद / इस्राएल) | Already fixed by baseline; established Bodo Bible forms; proper names carry no translatable semantic content that a paraphrase could improve on. |
| Elder (πρεσβύτερος) | Transliterate/loan (प्राचीन) | No safe native paraphrase exists that would not either (a) collide with बर’ऐ/बुरहा deity-elder honorifics or (b) require an unwieldy multi-word descriptive compound for a term that recurs frequently and needs to function as a simple office-title. The loanword’s foreignness is an acceptable cost against the greater risk of syncretistic collision. |
| Overseer (ἐπίσκοπος) | Paraphrase (देखा-रैखा लाग्रा, “one who watches over/cares for”) | Unlike “elder,” this Greek term is itself a functional description in the source language; a Bodo functional-descriptive compound preserves that same quality better than a loanword would. |
| Redemption (λυτρόω) | Paraphrase (दाम होनायजों जागायनाय) | Transliteration is not an option (no attested loan); the available native alternative मुक्ति is forbidden due to मोक्ष associations. Paraphrase is the only remaining path, despite its self-generated “payment” risk noted in §2.2 — this risk is judged more manageable through mandatory framing notes than the मोक्ष-adjacency risk of the rejected alternative. |
| Regeneration (παλιγγενεσία) | Paraphrase, newly coined (नोतुन जिउनाय होनाय) | Neither transliteration (no precedent, would be opaque to readers) nor the etymologically obvious paraphrase (जोनोम-rooted “again-birth”) is viable. A third-path coinage reusing the resurrection root is required — this is the letter’s signature translation problem. |
| Eternal (αἰώνιος) | Paraphrase, native negation-compound (मोनथाय गैया) over Sanskrit loan (अनन्त) | Deliberately follows the baseline’s own methodology (मंगल खबर over सुसमाचार): prefer a transparent native compound over a Sanskrit loan carrying Brahma Dharma Sanskritized-eternalism associations, even though अनन्त is shorter and more “available.” |
| Godliness (εὐσέβεια) | Paraphrase (ईश्वर मानोन) over Sanskrit/Hindi loan (भक्ति) | भक्ति is rejected as too closely identified with Hindu/Brahma Dharma devotionalism specifically (not generic Sanskrit-loan caution, but a targeted doctrinal collision, parallel to the baseline’s गुनाह-vs-दोष reasoning). |
| Jewish myths (μῦθοι Ἰουδαϊκοί) | Paraphrase, deliberately generic (कथा) over genre-specific loan (पुराण) | पुराण would misleadingly extend Paul’s narrow critique of specific Jewish legendary material into an implied blanket dismissal of Hindu scripture as a genre — an unintended and unwanted collateral implication. कथा’s genericness is accepted as the lesser cost, provided a background note narrows its reference in-context. |
| Trustworthy saying (πιστὸς ὁ λόγος) | Paraphrase, fixed formula (बिश्वासजाबाय राव) | Functions as a technical literary marker (creed-citation formula) rather than ordinary vocabulary; requires lock-step consistency wherever the Greek formula recurs, similar in kind to the baseline’s treatment of Romans 8:28/10:9-10 fixed renderings. |
| Abba-style intimacy terms | N/A in Titus | Note for completeness: Titus contains no Abba-equivalent term; no transliteration decision required here, unlike Romans 8:15. |
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Titus
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × likelihood of silent, undetected mistranslation) and cross-referenced to the doctrine risk registry routing logic established in the baseline.
-
Regeneration bleeding into रेincarnation vocabulary (Titus 3:5, नोतुन जिउनाय होनाय vs. forbidden फिन जोनोम). The single highest risk in the entire letter. The Greek word’s own etymology points a naive translator directly at the forbidden term. Requires mandatory theologian review at every occurrence and an automated back-translation check specifically scanning for जोनोम-rooted output, with zero-tolerance rejection.
-
“Good works” (मोजाङ खामानि) as fruit (2:14; 3:1,8,14) vs. “works” excluded as ground of salvation (3:5, मोजाङ खामानिनि थाखाय नङा). Same Bodo root serves both the condemned and the commended sense within a few verses of each other. Parallel-processing Phase 2 workers translating chapter 2 and chapter 3 independently could easily produce internally consistent but doctrinally contradictory outputs if the fruit/ground distinction is not enforced as a cross-file consistency rule (cf. baseline’s cross-document consistency rules for Romans 8:28 and 10:9-10).
-
Grace personified as an active trainer/teacher (Titus 2:11-12) compounding the baseline’s existing Critical grace risk. मोफादांनाय दान was built to resist a reciprocal-gift misreading as a noun; Titus additionally makes it the grammatical subject of a teaching/disciplining verb, a role with no established precedent, doubling the risk surface beyond what the Romans baseline anticipated.
-
Granville Sharp “great God and Savior” construction recurring in weakened form across the whole letter (φοरायग्रा applied 6× to both Father and Son). Even with the baseline’s fixed 2:13 rendering, the repeated, distributed application of “Savior” to both persons across 1:3-4, 2:10/2:13, and 3:4/3:6 creates six separate opportunities for a translator to inadvertently imply two rescuer-figures rather than one shared divine identity, especially in a religious landscape (Bathou/Kherai) accustomed to multiple named protector-deities.
-
“Divisive person” (3:10) vs. commanded doctrinal firmness (1:9,13) — internal-letter contradiction risk. Unlike the other top risks, this is not a cross-culture syncretism risk but a close-reading risk: the same letter both commands firm rebuke of false teachers and condemns quarrelsome divisiveness, using visually similar vocabulary (गलती फोरमायनाय vs. मण्डली बुखियग्रा). A reader given only one passage without the other could draw the wrong general conclusion about conflict in the church.
-
Elder/overseer synonymy (1:5→1:7) misread as two offices. Given Bodo village religious life’s existing multiple distinct specialist roles (doudini, ओझा, headman), a reader’s prior mental model may resist collapsing two Greek office-terms into one, absent an explicit synonymy note.
-
Submission root (मानोन खालामनाय) shared across spouse/master/ruler objects (2:5,9; 3:1) vs. “obedience of faith” (बिश्वासनि मानोन) reserved for Christ. Risk that human-authority submission is read as salvifically weighted in the same way faith-obedience toward Christ is, since both use the मानोन root.
-
दाम होनायजों जागायनाय’s internal “payment” component risking a reciprocal-offering re-reading of redemption (2:14). A self-generated risk in the recommended coinage itself, distinct from external contamination — flagged because it could pass Phase 2 automated validation (it correctly avoids the forbidden मुक्ति) while still carrying an unaddressed transactional undertone if the mandatory framing note is omitted.
-
बेंसे (lineage) root used approvingly (1:6, seed-of-David doctrine) and disapprovingly (3:9, idle genealogies) within the same short letter. Risk of a flattened, single-valence teaching on genealogy that misses Paul’s actual, more precise point.
-
Civil authority language (सरकार आरो अधिकारी, 3:1) landing on a live regional political sensitivity. Lower doctrinal-content risk than the items above but high real-world pastoral-harm risk if handled by automated translation without native-speaker/theologian framing given the Bodoland Territorial Region’s recent history of conflict over governing authority.
5. Summary and Phase 2 Handoff Notes
- Zero new Critical-risk terms in this analysis may be released to automated-only translation; all Critical items (regeneration, washing of regeneration, good works, not-by-works, redemption, Savior, justification, righteousness, eternal life) require mandatory human theologian review per occurrence, consistent with the doctrine risk registry’s routing rules.
- All items marked “provisional” in
08_core_glossary.md(गुरगुरै सिखायनाय, गोसो थुलुंनाय, मानोन खालामनाय, मानसिखौ मोसोंनाय, मोसोंनाय, मण्डलिनि प्राचीन, देखा-रैखा लाग्रा, मोनसे सिबि सायथावनि सामलायग्रा) must be confirmed with a Bodo-speaking theologian before Phase 2 wide deployment; none of these may be treated as settled vocabulary equivalent in confidence to the Romans baseline’s fixed terms. - The single highest-priority action item carried forward to Phase 2 Step 17 (Doctrinal Fidelity Review) is the regeneration/washing-of-regeneration back-translation check described in rank 1 above.