Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — 1 Corinthians (English–Dogri)
0. Scope and Method
1 Corinthians presents a different linguistic-gap profile than Romans. Romans is argumentative and doctrinal throughout; 1 Corinthians is pastoral-situational, addressing concrete practices (meals, sex, marriage, worship order, factions, a shared meal-ritual) that have existing, named, currently-practiced Duggar cultural counterparts. This means the dominant risk category for this letter is not “no word exists” (true missing vocabulary is comparatively rare) but crowded semantic neighborhoods: Dogri already has perfectly serviceable, fluent words for idol-offerings, temple worship, sacrificial blood, communal ritual meals, ecstatic religious speech, ascetic self-discipline, and honor-linked gender hierarchy — and every one of those words has an existing referent that is NOT what Paul means. The work of this analysis is therefore weighted toward fencing (restricting a term’s field so it cannot drift toward its Duggar-Hindu referent) rather than toward invention.
Every chapter of 1 Corinthians (1–16) is reviewed. Chapters contributing no new vocabulary risk beyond terms already closed by the baseline are marked “REVIEWED — no new gap” below in §4.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
| Doctrine (curriculum) | Available Dogri Term(s) | Weaknesses in Available Terms | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Resurrection of Christ and Believers | मुर्दघरा चा जिंदा होना (CLOSED, Romans TM); new supporting terms: पहला फल, आखरी आदम, सुभाविक सरीर/आत्मिक सरीर, नाशवान/अविनाशी, मौत दा डंग/जित्त, दिखाई दित्ता, सो गे, लैना/सौंपना | The base term is sound, but 1 Corinthians 15 forces it into new theological territory Romans never required: (a) a typological argument (Adam/Christ) that has no ready Dogri category; (b) a claim about the nature of the resurrected body that collides with अविनाशी’s existing life as the standard word for the eternal, never-born ātman; (c) eyewitness-appearance language that collides with दर्शन, the single most devotionally loaded verb of religious seeing in the region (Vaishno Devi, Raghunath Mandir); (d) apostolic-tradition-transmission language that collides with परम्परा (guru-lineage). | Retain मुर्दघरा चा जिंदा होना as the anchor term throughout ch.15. For each of the four collision points, use a fenced descriptive phrase (already selected in the core glossary) and require an explicit teaching-note contrast in every occurrence, not just the first: अविनाशी must carry a “granted-once, not eternally-preexisting” gloss every time it appears; दिखाई दित्ता must never be exchanged for दर्शन even in casual paraphrase; लैना/सौंपना must never be exchanged for परम्परा. |
| Christian Unity versus Factionalism | फूट (new), मास-लोह् वाली सोच (new), भण्डारी (new), सेवक (new) | Dogri has abundant, fluent vocabulary for factional loyalty (gotra, kul/biraderi, clan and caste alignment) because such loyalty is a living social reality in Dogra society, not a dead metaphor. The risk is not absence of vocabulary but unwanted resonance: a Corinthian reader hearing “Paul’s group / Apollos’ group / Cephas’ group” (1:12) in Dogri will map it instantly onto real lived experience of gotra- or biraderi-based faction, which is exactly Paul’s point but also exactly the pattern the church must be taught NOT to reproduce. | Use फूट for the rupture itself (already selected) but require the accompanying teaching material to name the gotra/biraderi analogy explicitly and turn it against itself — i.e., use the audience’s own social intuition as the illustration of what must NOT happen inside the कलीसिया, rather than leaving the parallel implicit and risking normalization. |
| The Cross as Wisdom and Power | क्रूस (translit., new), बुद्धी (new), मुर्खता (new), भेद (new), आत्मिक मनुक्ख/सांसारिक मनुक्ख (new), परमेश्वर दी सामर्थ (CLOSED, Romans TM) | बुद्धी is a good general term for wisdom/intellect but has no built-in contrast with grace-given, cross-revealed wisdom versus self-attained ज्ञान (jnana). Dogri lacks a single native word that inherently carries “wisdom that looks foolish and is given, not earned”; this concept must be built compositely through the 1:18-25 passage’s own paradox rather than through vocabulary alone. | Do not seek a single perfect word for “the wisdom of the cross”; instead rely on the built-in Pauline paradox (बुद्धी ↔ मुर्खता ↔ सामर्थ) and let the passage’s own contrastive structure carry the theology, with a translator’s note flagging that this paradox must not be smoothed into straightforward praise-language. |
| Church Discipline and Holiness | पाप (CLOSED), व्यभिचार (new), शैतान दे हवाले करना (new), खमीर (new), अपना फसह (new), मुल्ल देइयै खरीदे गे (new), परमेश्वर दा मंदर (new), अग्गी कन्नै परख (new) | Two distinct gaps: (1) No existing Dogri phrase for restorative excommunication distinct from either a folk curse-formula or a caste-style social boycott (hukka-pani band, a real regional social-exclusion practice); (2) परमेश्वर दा मंदर risks literal confusion with the two most architecturally prominent buildings in Duggar religious geography (Raghunath Mandir, Bahu Fort), which are not abstract comparanda but landmarks the audience has physically visited. | For (1): render descriptively (शैतान दे हवाले करना) and require a теаching gloss distinguishing restorative church discipline both from folk cursing AND from caste-style social boycott, since the latter is the nearest functional cultural analogy and could otherwise be assumed as the model. For (2): never use मंदर unqualified; the compound परमेश्वर दा मंदर must always retain “परमेश्वर दा” and never be abbreviated, and teaching notes must state outright that no physical building, mannat, or prasad practice is meant. |
| Marriage and Singleness | ब्याह (new), कुंवारी/अणब्याहा (new), अलग होना (new) | Marriage vocabulary itself is not scarce, but Dogra Rajput izzat culture attaches strong honor/shame weight to marital status (especially for women) that English “virgin/unmarried” does not carry with equal intensity; there is a real risk that ch.7’s even-handed, dignity-affirming treatment of singleness reads in Dogri as a status demotion rather than Paul’s intended equal-honor teaching. | Use कुंवारी/अणब्याहा as the descriptive term (no better neutral alternative exists) but require teaching material to state explicitly, at every occurrence in ch.7, that singleness carries no reduced izzat/honor in Paul’s teaching — this must be stated positively, not merely translated neutrally, because the cultural default reading is not neutral. |
| Christian Liberty and Idol Meat | मूर्ति गी चढ़ाया खाणा (new, CRITICAL), मूर्ति (new, CRITICAL), मूर्ति पूजा (new, CRITICAL), गिआन (new), अंतरात्मा (new), अधिकार (new), ठोकर (new), दुष्ट आत्मा (new, CRITICAL), प्रभु दा मेज़/दुष्ट आत्मां दा मेज़ (new, CRITICAL) | This is the single most crowded semantic neighborhood in the entire letter. Every key term names a currently practiced devotional category in the extended families of the target audience: मूर्ति गी चढ़ाया खाणा sits directly beside प्रसाद (a positive, everyday word for consecrated returned food); मूर्ति पूजा names the actual daily/weekly practice of relatives at Raghunath Mandir, Bahu Fort, and household puja; अंतरात्मा sits beside the ātman-metaphysics sense of “inner self.” There is no way to translate chs. 8 and 10 without naming the audience’s own family’s religious life directly. | Do not soften or generalize any of these terms into distant, purely-historical language. Use the direct, accurate terms (already selected) but mandate that EVERY occurrence in chs. 8 and 10 carry a pastoral-sensitivity flag for human theologian AND native-speaker review, since the translation choice is doctrinally correct but pastorally live in a way no other doctrine in this letter is. |
| The Lord’s Supper | प्रभु दा भोज (new, CRITICAL), सरीर ते खून (new, CRITICAL), नवां नियम (new), अयोग्य ढंगे (new), सरीर गी पछानना (new), संगत/हिस्सेदारी (new, elevated sense) | Dogri/Duggar culture has two strong existing communal-meal-ritual categories close at hand: langar (the Sikh communal free-meal, extremely salient in the Jammu-Punjab border region) and prasad-sharing after temple worship. Neither is doctrinally equivalent, but both will be the audience’s spontaneous mental model for “a special ritual meal eaten together in a religious gathering.” सरीर ते खून also sits beside bali (blood sacrifice) practice at Bahu Fort. | प्रभु दा भोज and सरीर ते खून are retained as selected, but teaching material accompanying ch.11 must explicitly name and set aside BOTH the langar comparison and the prasad/bali comparison — three distinct fencing statements are required here, not one, because three different cultural analogies are simultaneously available to the audience. |
| Spiritual Gifts and the Body of Christ | आत्मिक दान (CLOSED, Romans TM), मसीह दा सरीर (new), अंग (new) | The body-of-Christ organic-unity metaphor (ch.12) has no ready Dogri equivalent risk (the body-as-society metaphor is cross-culturally intuitive), but आत्मिक दान must continue to resist वरदान (boon-for-devotion) even more insistently here than in Romans, because ch.12-14 catalogues specific, named supernatural manifestations (tongues, healing, prophecy) that are precisely the register in which वरदान is used in regional shrine devotion (a boon of healing, a boon of a child, etc., granted at Vaishno Devi). | Reinforce, do not relax, the आत्मिक दान/वरदान fence established in the baseline; ch.12-14’s concrete gift-lists make this fence MORE operationally necessary than it was in Romans’ more abstract single mention. |
| Love as the Greater Way | निस्वार्थ प्यार (new, CRITICAL) | This is the highest-density single-chapter risk in the letter. Bare प्यार risks a romantic/filial reading (ch.13 is read at weddings across North India, including by non-Christians, almost always with a romantic-love frame that Paul did not intend for this text). प्रेम, its most natural single-word substitute, carries strong prema-bhakti devotional connotations from Vaishnava devotion to Krishna/Vishnu/Rama, well-known locally through Raghunath Mandir. Neither word alone can carry agapē’s self-giving, non-erotic, non-devotional, ethical character. | Retain the qualifying compound निस्वार्थ प्यार throughout ch.13 without exception, including in poetic/liturgical use where translators may be tempted to shorten it for cadence. Never allow बिना निस्वार्थ (“selfless”) to be dropped for rhythm; flag any such shortening for mandatory theologian review before approval. |
| Order in Worship | सिर/मुखियापन (new), सिर ढकणा (new), अनजाणी भाशा (new), तर्जुमा/अर्थ करना (new), उन्नति/निर्माण (new), तरतीब (new), बे-तरतीबी (new) | Two separate gaps: (1) headship (κεφαλή) has no neutral Dogri equivalent — मुखियापन will default toward hierarchical-authority reading given Dogra Rajput patriarchal izzat structures, unless deliberately reframed; (2) glōssa/tongues (अनजाणी भाशा) sits beside a live regional phenomenon of trance/oracle speech associated with shrine possession states (e.g. at some folk shrines, and in some Devi-worship contexts), which native speakers may spontaneously associate with ecstatic tongues-speech. | For (1): require every occurrence of सिर/मुखियापन in ch.11 to be accompanied by the Christlike self-giving qualification, never left as a bare authority-term. For (2): require ch.14 teaching material to state explicitly that biblical tongues are an intelligible-when-interpreted Spirit-gift for corporate edification, not a trance/possession phenomenon, distinguishing it from the regional oracle-speech category by function (edification vs. divination) rather than by surface description alone. |
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2.1 Genuinely Missing Vocabulary (no natural Dogri word exists at all)
These required compound coinage because Dogri simply has no single lexical item covering the concept — not because an existing word points the wrong direction, but because no word points anywhere yet.
| Concept | Gap | Coinage Adopted |
|---|---|---|
| Agapē as a distinct love-category from romantic/filial/devotional love | No single word distinguishes selfless covenantal love from प्यार (general affection) or प्रेम (devotional/romantic love) | निस्वार्थ प्यार (qualifying compound) |
| Federal headship typology (Adam/Christ) | No existing category for “one representative man’s act determining the destiny of all united to him” | आखरी आदम + explicit typological teaching note (no vocabulary substitute possible; must be taught, not merely translated) |
| Restorative (as opposed to punitive/social-boycott) church discipline | No existing phrase distinguishes “temporary exclusion aimed at repentance and restoration” from either folk cursing or caste-style social boycott (hukka-pani band) | शैतान दे हवाले करना, descriptive, requires teaching gloss |
| A body raised imperishable without pre-existing eternally | No word for “will never decay, but did not always exist and does not cycle through rebirth” — अविनाशी alone claims the opposite history | नाशवान/अविनाशी pairing with mandatory contrastive gloss at every occurrence |
| Closed, fixed, eyewitness-verified apostolic tradition (as opposed to an evolving oral lineage) | No word conveys “fixed and closed” the way परम्परा conveys “living and continuing” | लैना/सौंपना descriptive pairing, explicit “not परम्परा” flag |
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (existing vocabulary is abundant but points at the wrong referent and must be fenced)
This is the dominant category for 1 Corinthians and requires the heaviest ongoing review burden in Phase 2.
| Neighborhood | Competing Dogri/regional Term(s) Already in Active Use | What They Actually Refer to Locally | Fencing Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Food offered to a deity | प्रसाद | Consecrated food returned to worshippers after presentation to Rama (Raghunath Mandir), Kali (Bahu Fort), or the goddess (Vaishno Devi); a positive, everyday, family-embedded practice | मूर्ति गी चढ़ाया खाणा never abbreviated to a single word; प्रसाद forbidden absolutely as a gloss or synonym anywhere in chs. 8, 10 |
| Idol-worship itself | मूर्ति पूजा (also used non-pejoratively by practitioners themselves) | The actual, named, currently-practiced devotion of the audience’s own relatives | Retain accurate, direct term (no euphemism); compensate with mandatory pastoral-sensitivity framing in teaching notes, not with vocabulary softening |
| Malevolent spirits | भूत-प्रेत | Folk ghosts/ancestor-spirits, an entirely different ontological category from the biblical δαιμόνιον | दुष्ट आत्मा retained; भूत-प्रेत forbidden as synonym or gloss |
| Communal ritual meal | लंगर (Sikh langar); प्रसाद-sharing after darshan | Free communal meal (langar) or shared consecrated food (prasad) — both religiously meaningful, neither doctrinally equivalent to the Supper | प्रभु दा भोज retained; teaching material must name and distinguish from BOTH langar and prasad-sharing explicitly |
| Blood sacrifice | बलि (animal sacrifice, esp. at Bahu Fort Kali shrine) | An ongoing, repeatable, present-tense local ritual practice | सरीर ते खून retained; every occurrence requires the “once-for-all, not repeatable, not appeasement-by-offering” distinction already established for अपना फसह in the baseline extension |
| Eyewitness “seeing” of the divine | दर्शन | The central, positively-loaded devotional act of viewing a deity’s image at a shrine | दिखाई दित्ता retained; दर्शन forbidden even in casual paraphrase, footnotes, or sermon illustration language |
| Religious lineage/tradition transmission | परम्परा (also गुरु-परम्परा) | An open, living, teacher-to-disciple transmission that may develop and reinterpret over generations | लैना/सौंपना retained; परम्परा forbidden as gloss |
| The eternal, unchanging self | आत्मा (bare) / अविनाशी (as applied to soul) | Hindu ātman metaphysics — never born, never dies, cycles through rebirth | आत्मिक मनुक्ख/सांसारिक मनुक्ख and नाशवान/अविनाशी both require explicit “not ātman-metaphysics” framing; आत्मा must never stand alone for “soul” in resurrection-body contexts |
| Ascetic self-discipline for merit | तपस्या (tapasya), a recognized regional ascetic-merit category | Self-mortification undertaken to earn merit or hasten liberation | आपे उपर काबू retained; explicit note that Paul’s self-control in 9:24-27 serves ministry effectiveness, not merit-accumulation |
| Marital-status honor stratification | इज्जत (izzat)-linked social evaluation of unmarried women/widows | A real, currently operative social ranking | कुंवारी/अणब्याहा retained but requires an explicit equal-dignity teaching statement at every occurrence in ch.7, not merely a neutral gloss |
| Patriarchal household authority | Dogra Rajput izzat-linked patriarchal headship norms | Hierarchical male authority over women, tied to lineage-honor | सिर/मुखियापन retained but must always co-occur with the Christlike self-giving qualification; never presented as bare authority |
| Ecstatic/trance religious speech | Possession-oracle speech at some folk/Devi-associated shrines | Divinatory, often non-intelligible utterance sought for guidance | अनजाणी भाशा retained; ch.14 teaching notes must distinguish by function: edification-when-interpreted vs. divination |
| Factional social loyalty | Gotra/kul/biraderi-based group loyalty | A real, active social-organization principle in Dogra society | फूट retained; teaching notes should use the audience’s own social intuition of factional loyalty as the illustrative warning, not suppress the parallel |
| Caste-style social exclusion | हुक्का-पानी बंद (hukka-pani band) — social/commensal boycott | A punitive, honor-based social-exclusion practice, sometimes permanent | शैतान दे हवाले करना must be explicitly distinguished from this as restorative rather than punitive-permanent |
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decision Log
| Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| क्रूस (cross) | Transliteration | No native Dogri word for the specific Roman execution-instrument exists, and any translated/descriptive alternative (“wooden post,” “execution frame”) would either sound clinical or risk drifting toward generic “sacrifice/altar” imagery that collides with the Bahu Fort bali-stone. Transliteration keeps the referent historically specific and non-substitutable. |
| मसीह, यीशु, प्रभु, अब्बा | Transliteration/established regional form (CLOSED, baseline) | Reused exactly; proper names and the baseline’s chosen title-term for κύριος. No new decision required, but flagged here for completeness since 1 Corinthians uses all four heavily. |
| मरानाथा (Maranatha) | Transliteration | An Aramaic liturgical exclamation with no semantic Dogri equivalent; preserved untranslated exactly as the baseline preserved “Abba,” maintaining the same precedent for Aramaic liturgical formulas. |
| श्राप (anathema) | Paraphrase (existing word, reframed) | A working Dogri word for “curse” already exists and is retained, but its folk-curse association requires an explicit covenantal-warning reframing rather than transliteration of ἀνάθεμα, which would communicate nothing to the reader. |
| निस्वार्थ प्यार (agapē/love) | Paraphrase (qualified compound), not transliteration and not bare प्यार/प्रेम | Transliterating “agapē” would produce an opaque loanword with no independent meaning to a first-time reader; bare प्यार or प्रेम each point to the wrong referent (romantic or devotional love). A qualifying native compound is the only option that both communicates and fences. |
| भेद (mystery) | Paraphrase, not रहस्य | रहस्य carries occult/esoteric-initiate connotations live in regional tantric/folk practice; भेद (“hidden thing now disclosed”) better matches the biblical sense of a plan once hidden, now openly revealed to all believers, not a secret reserved for adepts. |
| मूर्ति गी चढ़ाया खाणा, मूर्ति, मूर्ति पूजा, दुष्ट आत्मा (idol-meat cluster) | Paraphrase using existing, accurate vocabulary — deliberately NOT euphemized, NOT transliterated | These concepts have exact, currently-used Dogri words; the risk is not obscurity but over-familiarity. Euphemism or a borrowed Greek transliteration would actually reduce clarity and, worse, would look evasive to an audience who already knows these words well from family life. Accuracy is required; pastoral framing does the fencing work instead of word choice. |
| प्रभु दा भोज, सरीर ते खून (Lord’s Supper cluster) | Paraphrase, deliberately built from ordinary words (भोज = feast/meal, सरीर/खून = body/blood) rather than a transliterated technical term | A transliterated term (e.g., a loanword for “eucharist” or “communion”) would be opaque to the target reading level (Class 8-10) and would forfeit the chance to teach the Supper’s meaning through ordinary, comprehensible vocabulary, which then must be actively fenced from langar/prasad/bali rather than left unexplained. |
| दिखाई दित्ता (appeared, resurrection) | Paraphrase, deliberately avoiding both transliteration (which would be opaque) and दर्शन (which is fluent but wrong) | A plain descriptive verb phrase (“was shown/made to appear”) is chosen precisely because it carries no pre-existing devotional connotation in either direction, unlike दर्शन. |
| लैना/सौंपना (received/handed down) | Paraphrase, deliberately avoiding परम्परा | Ordinary verbs for “receive” and “hand over” are used instead of the noun परम्परा precisely because the noun carries an open-lineage connotation the text must foreclose. |
| आत्मिक मनुक्ख/सांसारिक मनुक्ख (spiritual/natural person) | Paraphrase, deliberately built on मनुक्ख (person) rather than आत्मा (soul) alone | Anchoring the phrase on “person” rather than “soul” prevents the ātman/paramātman two-grades-of-soul reading that a soul-based coinage would invite. |
| सिर/मुखियापन (headship) | Paraphrase using ordinary words, with mandatory qualification | No transliteration option exists or would help; the risk is cultural default reading, not lexical opacity, so the fencing happens through required co-occurring qualification rather than word choice. |
General principle observed: transliteration is reserved for (a) proper names already fixed by the baseline or by regional convention, (b) untranslatable liturgical exclamations (Maranatha, following the Abba precedent), and (c) the single case of a physical object/event with no native equivalent and a specific history that paraphrase would blur (cross). Everywhere else — including every term in the idol-meat, Supper, resurrection-appearance, and love clusters — paraphrase using accurate or deliberately qualified native vocabulary is preferred, because the risk profile in this letter is dominated by wrong referents for familiar words, which paraphrase-with-fencing addresses better than a translator’s-note-dependent loanword would.
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in 1 Corinthians
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × likelihood of wrong-referent collision × pastoral stakes for the specific target audience).
- Food sacrificed to idols / idol / idolatry cluster (chs. 8, 10) — CRITICAL. Names the literal religious practice of the audience’s own extended families (Raghunath Mandir, Bahu Fort, Vaishno Devi, household puja); प्रसाद collision is immediate and constant. Highest pastoral stakes in the letter.
- Table of the Lord / table of demons (10:14-22) — CRITICAL. Directly confronts shared communal worship-meals; risk of softening the mutual-exclusivity claim to avoid family conflict is real and must be guarded against explicitly.
- Lord’s Supper / body and blood (11:17-34) — CRITICAL. Triple collision risk (langar, prasad, bali) is unique to this term among all doctrines reviewed; requires three separate fencing statements, not one.
- Love / agapē (ch. 13) — CRITICAL. Extremely high public visibility (read at weddings, quoted outside Christian contexts) magnifies the consequence of any drift toward प्रेम’s bhakti connotation or bare प्यार’s romantic connotation.
- Resurrection appearances / “appeared” (15:5-8) — CRITICAL. दर्शन collision is subtle because it is a single verb choice that could be made unconsciously by a translator reaching for the most natural-sounding Dogri word for “was seen by.”
- Demons / table-fellowship with demons (10:20-21) — CRITICAL. भूत-प्रेत collision would relocate the doctrine into folk-ghost belief rather than the biblical category of false-worship spiritual reality.
- Temple of God — corporate and individual body (3:16-17, 6:19) — CRITICAL. Physical-building collision (Raghunath Mandir, Bahu Fort) is concrete and visitable, not abstract, for the target audience.
- Imperishable / perishable body (15:42,50,53-54) — HIGH. अविनाशी’s entrenched ātman-metaphysics sense is a standing risk every time the word appears, including in contexts where a translator may not think to add the contrastive gloss.
- Received/handed down apostolic tradition (11:23, 15:1,3) — HIGH. परम्परा collision is easy to fall into because it is the single most natural-sounding Dogri/Hindi word for “tradition,” and the correct term (लैना/सौंपना) requires active resistance to that pull.
- Headship (11:3) — HIGH. Dogra Rajput izzat-linked patriarchal norms make a hierarchical-domination misreading the path of least resistance; the Christlike-servant-headship intent requires deliberate counter-framing every time, not just once.
- Division/schism vs. gotra/biraderi factionalism (1:10-13, 3:1-9) — HIGH. The audience’s own lived social categories are the illustrative analogy AND the risk of normalization simultaneously; requires careful two-directional handling (use the analogy to warn, not to legitimize).
- Tongues (14:2-6,22-23,39) — HIGH. Possession/oracle-speech collision is a live regional phenomenon distinct from, but easily confused with, the biblical gift by an audience without prior categories for the distinction.
- Our Passover / Christ’s sacrifice (5:7) and body-and-blood’s bali collision — HIGH (compounding risk #3 above). The repeatable-vs-once-for-all distinction must be actively taught, not assumed self-evident, given the currently active Bahu Fort bali practice.
- Delivered to Satan / church discipline (5:5) — HIGH. Risk of conflation with either folk cursing or caste-style permanent social boycott (hukka-pani band); restorative intent must be explicit.
- Self-control / discipline (9:24-27) — MEDIUM-HIGH. Tapasya-merit collision is real but lower-stakes than the items above since the passage’s athletic-training illustration provides some natural distancing from ascetic-merit framing.
5. Full-Book Coverage Confirmation
All sixteen chapters of 1 Corinthians were reviewed for linguistic-gap purposes. Chapters not separately itemized in §§1-4 above contributed no vocabulary risk beyond terms already fully treated elsewhere in this analysis or fully closed by the baseline Romans Language Package:
- Ch. 1–4 (factionalism, cross, wisdom, stewardship): covered in §1 rows “Christian Unity versus Factionalism” and “The Cross as Wisdom and Power.”
- Ch. 5–6 (discipline, sexual immorality, lawsuits, body as temple): covered in §1 row “Church Discipline and Holiness”; ch.6’s lawsuit material (6:1-8) and “all things lawful” material (6:12) introduce no new gap-risk terms beyond व्यभिचार and मुल्ल देइयै खरीदे गे already logged — REVIEWED, no additional new gap.
- Ch. 7 (marriage/singleness, calling extended to life-situation): covered in §1 row “Marriage and Singleness”; the calling-extension use of सद्द (7:17-24) is a CLOSED-term contextual extension already logged in the core glossary — REVIEWED, no additional new gap.
- Ch. 8, 10 (idol meat, conscience, liberty, table of demons): covered in §1 row “Christian Liberty and Idol Meat” and ranked #1, #2, #6 above.
- Ch. 9 (apostolic rights, self-control, running the race): covered partly in §1’s idol-meat row (अधिकार) and separately as ranked item #15 (आपे उपर काबू); the athletic-race metaphor itself (9:24-26) introduces no additional lexical gap beyond ordinary Dogri sport/race vocabulary — REVIEWED, no additional new gap.
- Ch. 11 (headship, head-covering, Lord’s Supper): covered in §1 rows “Order in Worship” and “The Lord’s Supper”; ranked #3 and #10 above.
- Ch. 12 (spiritual gifts, body of Christ, diversity of members): covered in §1 row “Spiritual Gifts and the Body of Christ”; अंग and मसीह दा सरीर introduce no crowded-neighborhood risk — REVIEWED, gap limited to वरदान-fence reinforcement already logged.
- Ch. 13 (love): covered in §1 row “Love as the Greater Way”; ranked #4 above, the single highest public-visibility risk in the letter.
- Ch. 14 (tongues, prophecy, order in worship): covered in §1 row “Order in Worship”; ranked #12 above.
- Ch. 15 (resurrection, core passage): covered extensively in §1 row “The Resurrection of Christ and Believers”; ranked #5, #8, #9 above — the chapter containing the greatest concentration of Critical/High ambiguities in the letter, consistent with its status as the curriculum’s theological anchor.
- Ch. 16 (collection, closing greetings, holy kiss, anathema, Maranatha): covered in §1 (Church Discipline and Holiness row, for holy kiss/anathema) and §3 (transliteration decisions for Maranatha and श्राप); चन्दा introduces no crowded-neighborhood risk beyond straightforward generosity vocabulary — REVIEWED, no additional new gap.
No chapter was silently omitted. This analysis, together with
analysis/08_core_glossary.md, forms the complete Phase 1 linguistic basis
for the translation_memory.json and bible_term_registry.json additions
required before Phase 2 processing of any 1 Corinthians segment.