Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — 2 Peter (English–Dogri)
0. Purpose and Scope
This document performs PRD Phase 1 Step 8 for the 2 Peter curriculum: it maps where Dogri’s existing vocabulary is missing (no native term exists at all), where it is crowded (a term exists but is already occupied by a live, theologically incompatible Duggar/Dogra-Hindu concept and must be fenced), and where transliteration is the safer strategy than paraphrase. It also ranks the letter’s highest-risk ambiguities for prioritized theologian review in Phase 2.
Coverage is full-book: all three chapters of 2 Peter are reviewed below, not only the core passage (1:16-21). Per curriculum doctrine, findings are organized in a Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix (§1), followed by a Gaps-vs-Crowded-Neighborhoods table (§2), a Transliteration-vs-Paraphrase decision table (§3), a chapter-by-chapter coverage ledger (§4), and a ranked ambiguity list (§5).
All destination-language material below is Devanagari-script formal Dogri, consistent with the Romans baseline’s register and script conventions. Where a term already appears in the Romans translation_memory.json or the 2 Peter bible_term_registry.json/core glossary, that exact rendering is reused here without modification.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the seven curriculum doctrines: what Dogri vocabulary is available, what is weak or dangerous about it, and the recommended strategy.
1.1 The Reliability and Inspiration of Scripture
| Available Dogri terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| शास्त्र (shastra, bare) | Generic term for any authoritative treatise; covers Dharmashastra and Sanskrit texts historically produced under Dogra royal literary patronage. Using it bare implies Scripture is one respected treatise among many, not uniquely God-breathed. | Qualify obligatorily with पवित्तर → पवित्तर शास्तर. Never use शास्त्र unqualified for γραφή. |
| पुराण (purana) | Named genre of Hindu sacred-mythic narrative; if used even by contrast (“not like the Puranas but…”) it dignifies a specific scriptural tradition as the comparison point, which 1:16 does not intend. | AVOID entirely; use a neutral descriptive phrase (मन घड़त कहाणियां) for “myths,” never naming a specific tradition. |
| भविष्यवाणी, नबी (reused baseline) | Already fenced against ज्योतषी (astrologer) in the Romans package. | Reuse exactly. |
| Possession/oracle vocabulary (e.g., terms describing a bhagat/medium “speaking under” a spirit) | Dogri and Duggar folk religion has an active, familiar vocabulary for oracular trance-possession (a medium becomes the mouthpiece of a devi). 1:21’s “carried along by the Holy Spirit” is structurally vulnerable to being heard through this exact lens. | Use a superintendence phrase (पवित्तर आत्मा दे चलाए दे) and require an explicit teaching note distinguishing Spirit-guided human authorship of a fixed text from ecstatic channeled utterance. |
1.2 Growing in Christian Virtue
| Available Dogri terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| ज्ञान (gyan) | Directly evokes jñāna-mārga, the “path of knowledge” toward mokṣa through metaphysical self-realization of Brahman — a live, prestigious Hindu soteriological category, not a loose cultural memory. | Reserve ज्ञान strictly for γνῶσις (general knowledge, 1:5); NEVER use for ἐπίγνωσις. |
| — (no existing single Dogri word distinguishes relational “knowing a person” from “knowledge of facts/philosophy”) | This is a genuine lexical gap: Dogri, like Hindi, has one everyday noun family (ज्ञान/जान-पछान) spanning both senses English keeps loosely separate and Greek keeps sharply separate (γνῶσις vs ἐπίγνωσις). | Coin a descriptive compound: पूरी पछान (“full/complete recognition-acquaintance”) for ἐπίγνωσις, built on पछान (recognition/acquaintance, personal) rather than ज्ञान (cognitive/philosophical). This is a genuine gap-fill, not a borrowing. |
| सद्गुण (sadgun) | Direct echo of the Sāṅkhya triguna (sattva/rajas/tamas) theory of the three cosmic qualities constituting all matter and mind — a specific, named philosophical system, not generic “virtue.” | Permit as the least-bad available option (no unrelated Dogri word for “excellence” exists) but pair with a mandatory teaching note: this is Christ-derived moral excellence added by grace, not one of the three guṇas balanced through yogic/ascetic practice. |
| भक्ति (bhakti) | The single most fluent Dogri/Hindi word for devoted, wholehearted godward life — and precisely for that reason the most dangerous, since bhakti-mārga (devotion to a chosen personal deity: Krishna, Rama, or the Vaishno Devi goddess) is itself a complete, independent path to liberation in local religious practice. | REJECT as default for εὐσέβεια (godliness). Use descriptive परमेश्वर दा आदर करदा जीवन (“a life that honors God”) instead. |
| वासना (vasana) | Technical term for subtle karmic mental-residue carried across rebirths — imports a reincarnation framework wherever used. | REJECT for ἐπιθυμία; use बुरी लालसा (present-tense moral craving, no karmic-residue implication). |
| प्रेम (prem) | Fluent word for love, but saturated with Rādhā-Krishna prem-bhakti devotional resonance in North Indian devotional literature and song. | Prefer प्यार for ἀγάπη; reserve प्रेम-avoidance as a standing rule for this curriculum. |
1.3 False Teachers and Their Judgment
| Available Dogri terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| गुरू (guru) | Carries strong positive authority/veneration within guru-śiṣya lineage traditions across North Indian and Duggar religious life; even used pejoratively (“false guru”) it risks dignifying the false teacher’s claimed authority-status rather than exposing it as illegitimate. | NEVER use गुरू for διδάσκαλος/ψευδοδιδάσκαλος in this letter. Use सिखाणेवाला/झूठे सिखाणेवाले (plain “teacher/false teachers”). |
| नरक (narak) | The standard word for hell, but in popular regional Hindu cosmology (e.g., Garuda Purana-style graded-hell schemes) narak is typically a temporary purgatorial stage prior to continued rebirth, not a final destiny. | Use नरक but mandate a teaching note: Tartarus here is confinement awaiting final judgment on the Day of the Lord, not a stage within an ongoing rebirth cycle. |
| न्याय (nyay) | Suggests an impersonal cosmic-law / karma-outcome framing (“justice happens” as a law of the universe) rather than a personal verdict rendered by a person. | Prefer फैसला (a personal verdict/decision) for κρίσις/κρίμα over a bare न्याय-only framing. |
| धरम / अधरम (dharam/adharam) bare | धरम alone already carries Dogra Rajput lineage-duty connotations flagged Critical in the Romans baseline; अधरमी (ungodly) as the natural negative counterpart to धरमी risks importing the same lineage/duty framing by association. | Use अधरमी but never let it stand without the doctrinal frame established for धरमीपन elsewhere in this curriculum (right standing before God, not lineage-honor). |
1.4 The Certainty of Christ’s Return
| Available Dogri terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| अवतार (avatar) — vocabulary already forbidden for Incarnation in the baseline | The single greatest live syncretism risk in this entire book. Vaishnava eschatology anticipates a future Kalki avatar, Vishnu’s tenth and final incarnation, arriving at the close of Kali Yuga to end the current cosmic age — a popular, specific, futurist expectation directly connected to Raghunath Mandir’s Dogra-royal-patronized Rama-Vishnu devotion. παρουσία is structurally exactly the kind of concept (a future, decisive, world-ending divine arrival) that this vocabulary is built to describe. | NEVER use अवतार or any avatar-descent phrase for παρουσία. Use the descriptive phrase मसीह दा फिर औना (“Christ’s coming again”) and mandate an explicit teaching note on every occurrence distinguishing a return of the one who already, uniquely, became human once, from a new or repeated descent of the divine. |
| — (no existing single word for “eyewitness” distinct from “visionary/seer”) | Dogri terms for seeing-and-testifying could be misheard as claiming yogic/mystical “inner vision” (a respected category in regional devotional and ascetic practice) rather than plain historical, sensory eyewitness. | Use the descriptive phrase अखी’आं दिक्खणे आह् गवाह (“witnesses who saw with [their own] eyes”) rather than any single word implying visionary insight. |
1.5 The Day of the Lord and Final Judgment
| Available Dogri terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| प्रलय (pralaya) — not itself used in the glossary, but structurally adjacent | Standard Hindu cosmological term for the periodic dissolution of the universe at the end of a kalpa, followed by a fresh creation and a new cycle of yugas. 2 Peter 3:10-13’s cosmic-conflagration-then-new-creation imagery is structurally very close to this pattern and could be silently reheard as one more turn of the pralaya wheel. | NEVER introduce प्रलय as a gloss for “Day of the Lord” or “the heavens will pass away.” Use प्रभु दा दिन and नमां अकाश ते नमीं धरती, each carrying a mandatory teaching note: this is a linear, one-time, unrepeatable judgment-and-renewal event, not a stage in an endlessly repeating cosmic cycle. |
| तत्त (panch tatt, “five elements”) | Benign at the level of ordinary physical-cosmology vocabulary (earth/water/fire/air/space), but if pulled into the same passage as प्रलय-adjacent imagery, could reinforce a cyclical-dissolution reading. | Use मूल तत्त for στοιχεῖα but keep it isolated from any cyclical framing; pair only with the linear Day-of-the-Lord teaching note. |
| कल्प / युग (kalpa/yuga) | Vast, named cosmic time-units within Hindu cosmology’s cyclical time-scheme; 3:8’s “one day as a thousand years” is vulnerable to being read as evidence for such a scheme rather than evidence of God’s patient purposefulness. | Do not use kalpa/yuga vocabulary at all; render 3:8 with a plain comparative statement (प्रभु आस्तै इक दिन हज़ार साल बरगा है) and a note that this teaches purposeful divine patience, not a cyclical time doctrine. |
1.6 Patience of God’s Timing
| Available Dogri terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| किस्मत (kismat, fate) — already forbidden in baseline for calling/providence | God’s patience in delaying judgment (3:9, 3:15) is structurally exactly the kind of statement that could be reheard as impersonal cosmic delay/destiny rather than personal forbearance. | Reinforce the baseline’s existing prohibition; use परमेश्वर दा सहनशीलता, always with a personal-agency-preserving clause (“so that more may repent”), never phrased as if the delay simply “happens.” |
| पछतावा (pachtava, regret/remorse) | Captures emotional regret but not the reorientation-toward-God sense central to μετάνοια. | Prefer मन फिराना (“turning of the mind/heart”) over bare पछतावा. |
| मन्नत / वादा (vow vs. promise) — mannat already fenced in baseline for grace | ἐπαγγέλματα (“promises,” 1:4) risks being heard through the same vow-for-boon transactional lens the baseline already flags for grace, since वादा and मन्नत occupy adjacent semantic space in everyday Duggar religious speech. | Use वादे (promises God freely gives) and keep it lexically and contextually separate from मन्नत (a vow a devotee makes to a deity in hope of a boon). |
1.7 Divine Nature and Escaping Corruption
| Available Dogri terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| ब्रह्म / आत्मा (Brahman / atman, ontological-identity vocabulary) | Advaita Vedānta’s ātman-is-Brahman teaching is a live, prestigious, and doctrinally sophisticated framework in North Indian Hindu philosophy generally, teaching that the individual self is not merely united with but identical in essence to ultimate reality. 2 Peter 1:4’s “partakers of the divine nature” (θεία φύσις, κοινωνοί) is the single phrase in this letter most exposed to exactly this reading. | This is this book’s highest-priority doctrinal fence. Render as परमेश्वर दा दैविक सुभा with the compound ”…च हिस्सेदार बनना” (to become a sharer/participant in it), never a phrase suggesting merger or identity. Mandatory theologian teaching note on every occurrence: moral/relational participation in God’s holy character through union with Christ by the Spirit, never ontological fusion, never a step toward becoming an avatar, never mokṣa-as-merger. |
| मोक्ष / मुक्ति vocabulary | Both already fenced in the Romans baseline for “salvation”; here the risk recurs specifically around “escaping corruption” (ἀποφυγόντες φθοράς), which could be misheard as escaping the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra) itself rather than escaping present moral corruption. | Use बिगाड़ थमां बचणा; never gloss corruption/escape language with मुक्ति or any samsara-exit vocabulary. |
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
This distinguishes true lexical gaps (Dogri has no ready word at all) from crowded neighborhoods (a word exists but is already occupied by a live, competing religious concept and must be fenced with teaching notes or replaced).
| Type | Concept | Details | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gap | ἐπίγνωσις vs. γνῶσις distinction | No single Dogri lexeme distinguishes relational/personal knowing from cognitive/philosophical knowing; Hindi/Punjabi share the same gap. | Coined compound पूरी पछान for ἐπίγνωσις; ज्ञान reserved for γνῶσις only. Genuine gap-fill, not borrowed. |
| Gap | ”Eyewitness” (sensory, historical) distinct from “seer/visionary” | No word cleanly separates plain sensory testimony from mystical/yogic inner vision. | Descriptive phrase अखी’आं दिक्खणे आह् गवाह. |
| Gap | Forensic/legal-declaration nuance for “verdict” without impersonal-law connotation | Existing words (न्याय) default to abstract justice/law; no word foregrounds a personal decision-maker. | फैसला selected as closest personal-verdict term. |
| Gap | A word for Christ’s “return” that is neither an avatar-term nor a bare “coming” | Dogri’s religious-return vocabulary defaults toward avatar/descent language. | Descriptive मसीह दा फिर औना, explicitly non-avatar-shaped syntax (“comes again,” not “descends again”). |
| Crowded | γραφή / Scripture | शास्त्र bare is occupied by the broad Hindu-treatise category, including texts under Dogra royal patronage. | Fenced with mandatory पवित्तर qualifier; never bare शास्त्र. |
| Crowded | θεία φύσις / divine nature | Occupied by Advaita ātman=Brahman identity teaching and by bhakti-merger devotional language. | Fenced with compound सुभा + हिस्सेदार बनना phrasing and mandatory theologian note, every occurrence. |
| Crowded | εὐσέβεια / godliness | Occupied by भक्ति (bhakti-mārga as an independent liberation path). | Fenced by rejecting भक्ति outright; descriptive परमेश्वर दा आदर करदा जीवन used instead. |
| Crowded | ἐπιθυμία / sinful desire | Occupied by वासना (karmic residue across rebirths). | Fenced by rejecting वासना; बुरी लालसा used instead. |
| Crowded | παρουσία / Christ’s return | Occupied by the Kalki-avatar eschatological expectation tied to Raghunath Mandir devotion. | Fenced by rejecting all avatar-descent vocabulary; descriptive मसीह दा फिर औना with mandatory note. |
| Crowded | ἡμέρα κυρίου + new-creation imagery | Occupied by pralaya/kalpa/yuga cyclical cosmology. | Fenced by rejecting प्रलय/कल्प/युग vocabulary; linear-history teaching note mandatory on प्रभु दा दिन and नमां अकाश ते नमीं धरती. |
| Crowded | Τάρταρος / hell | Occupied by नरक-as-temporary-purgatorial-stage (Garuda Purana-style graded hells before rebirth). | नरक retained (no better native word) but mandatory finality-teaching note attached. |
| Crowded | διδάσκαλος (false teacher) authority register | Occupied by गुरू’s guru-śiṣya veneration associations. | गुरू rejected outright; plain सिखाणेवाला/झूठे सिखाणेवाले used. |
| Crowded | φερόμενοι ὑπὸ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου / inspiration | Occupied by bhagat/medium oracular trance-possession vocabulary in local devi-worship folk religion. | Fenced with superintendence phrase पवित्तर आत्मा दे चलाए दे + mandatory distinguishing note. |
| Crowded | ἐπαγγέλματα / promises | Adjacent to मन्नत (vow-for-boon) transactional logic already flagged for “grace” in the baseline. | वादे retained but kept lexically separate from मन्नत in all contexts. |
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Χριστός / Ἰησοῦς / κύριος / θεός | Transliterate/reuse baseline (मसीह / यीशु / प्रभु / परमेश्वर) | Established regional Bible-translation convention; consistency across curricula is mandated. |
| σωτήρ (Savior) | Coin descriptive compound on baseline उद्धार root → उद्धारकर्ता | No existing single Dogri word for “Savior” as agent-noun; उद्धारकर्ता preserves the उद्धार root already fixed for “salvation,” keeping the grammatical link visible for 1:1’s “our God and Savior” identification of Jesus as God. |
| θεία φύσις (divine nature) | Paraphrase, never transliterate/borrow Sanskrit philosophical vocabulary | A Sanskrit-derived transliteration risks importing exactly the ontological-identity connotation this term must avoid; a Dogri descriptive compound (परमेश्वर दा दैविक सुभा) with a mandatory teaching note is safer than any single loanword. |
| παρουσία (Parousia) | Paraphrase, not transliteration | A transliterated “पैरूसिया” would carry no meaning to the target reader and would invite ad hoc explanation using local, avatar-shaped vocabulary anyway; a controlled descriptive phrase (मसीह दा फिर औना) is safer than an opaque loanword requiring on-the-spot gloss. |
| Τάρταρος (Tartarus) | Domesticate to नरक, not transliterate | A transliterated “टारटरस” would be meaningless to readers and would still require glossing with नरक anyway; better to use नरक directly with a mandatory finality-teaching note than to introduce an opaque Greek loanword. |
| ἐπίγνωσις vs γνῶσις | Paraphrase (पूरी पछान) vs. reuse existing word (ज्ञान) | See §1.2/§2 gap analysis; no transliteration option exists for either, and transliterating Greek grammatical/case-marked abstract nouns is not viable for ordinary reading-level Dogri prose. |
| Proper names (Balaam, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot) | Transliterate | Standard convention for proper names; low doctrinal risk, but requires background notes given the target audience’s low Old Testament narrative literacy (per the baseline’s stated audience profile). |
| Abba (already fixed in Romans baseline, not present in 2 Peter but relevant precedent) | (n/a to 2 Peter directly) | Cited as the governing precedent for when transliteration-of-intimacy is preferred over paraphrase; no equivalent untranslated term arises in 2 Peter. |
| μεγαλειότης / μεγαλοπρεπὴς δόξα (Majestic Glory) | Paraphrase (महान महिमा) built on baseline महिमा | Preserves the reverent circumlocution as a title rather than flattening it to “God said,” while avoiding transliteration of a compound Greek adjective-noun phrase that has no devotional currency in Dogri. |
| δεσπότης (Master/absolute owner) | Paraphrase, kept distinct from baseline प्रभु | Transliteration (“डेस्पोतेस”) is meaningless; a bare reuse of प्रभु would erase 2:1’s specific “owner who purchased” nuance, so a separate descriptive term (मालिक) is required rather than either transliteration or term-reuse. |
General principle applied throughout: transliteration is reserved for (a) proper names, and (b) terms with zero prior semantic content in Dogri where a loanword introduces no false associations (none arose in this letter beyond proper names — even σωτήρ and θεία φύσις were judged too doctrinally load-bearing to risk an opaque loanword requiring improvised on-the-spot explanation). Paraphrase/descriptive compounding is preferred wherever a single existing Dogri word would default toward a crowded, theologically incompatible neighborhood.
4. Full-Book Chapter Coverage Ledger
| Chapter | Doctrines active | Coverage status |
|---|---|---|
| 2 Peter 1 (vv. 1-21) | Growing in Christian Virtue (1:3-11, virtue chain, divine nature, corruption); Reliability and Inspiration of Scripture (1:16-21, core passage: eyewitness testimony, prophetic word, inspiration); Certainty of Christ’s Return (1:16, Transfiguration as preview/confirmation of Parousia) | Fully reviewed. Contains the letter’s two highest-risk terms (θεία φύσις in 1:4; the inspiration formula in 1:19-21) and the core passage itself. |
| 2 Peter 2 (vv. 1-22) | False Teachers and Their Judgment (entire chapter: false teachers, destructive heresies, Tartarus, the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Balaam, irrational animals, waterless springs, the dog-and-vomit proverb) | Fully reviewed. Highest concentration of False-Teacher vocabulary in the letter; contains the guru-avoidance decision and the नरक/Tartarus fencing decision. |
| 2 Peter 3 (vv. 1-18) | The Day of the Lord and Final Judgment (3:1-13); Patience of God’s Timing (3:8-9, 15); The Certainty of Christ’s Return (3:3-4, scoffers denying the Parousia); closing exhortation touches Growing in Christian Virtue (3:18, grace and knowledge) and Reliability of Scripture (3:15-16, Paul’s letters among “the other Scriptures”) | Fully reviewed. Contains the letter’s other two highest-risk terms (ἡμέρα κυρίου / new heavens and new earth in 3:10-13, and the πρλαya-adjacency risk) plus the closing grow-in-grace-and-knowledge thesis statement (3:18) requiring cross-document consistency. |
No chapter of 2 Peter is without load-bearing doctrinal vocabulary; all three are carried forward into the core glossary and term registry in full.
5. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities
Ranked by combined severity of doctrinal distortion risk and cultural salience/availability of the competing local framework in the Duggar region.
-
θεία φύσις — “partakers of the divine nature” (1:4). Highest risk in the entire letter. Advaita Vedānta’s ātman=Brahman ontological-identity teaching is sophisticated, prestigious, and widely known even among lay Hindus in North India; the English phrase “divine nature,” translated too fluently, could be read as confirming exactly this teaching rather than denying it. Mandatory theologian sign-off on every occurrence; never permit an unglossed rendering.
-
παρουσία — Christ’s return (1:16; 3:4). Second-highest risk, specifically because of the Duggar-local salience of Kalki-avatar expectation connected to Raghunath Mandir’s Rama-Vishnu devotion (a Dogra-royal-patronized, not generic pan-Indian, devotional complex). This is a live futurist expectation, not a dormant myth — raising the likelihood a reader could map Christ’s return onto it without any prompting from the translation itself.
-
ἡμέρα κυρίου + cosmic dissolution/new-creation imagery (3:10-13). The structural resemblance between 2 Peter’s cosmic-conflagration-then-renewal sequence and the pralaya/kalpa cyclical cosmology is close enough that even a careful, non-avatar-related translation could still be silently absorbed into a cyclical framework unless the linear, one-time, unrepeatable nature of the event is stated explicitly and repeatedly.
-
φερόμενοι ὑπὸ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου — inspiration of Scripture (1:21). The regionally active practice of oracular trance-possession (a bhagat/medium “carried along” by a devi in a Duggar folk-devotional context) sits uncomfortably close in surface description to “carried along by the Holy Spirit,” even though the theological mechanism (superintended human authorship of a fixed text vs. ecstatic channeled utterance) is entirely different.
-
ἐπίγνωσις vs. γνῶσις (throughout, esp. 1:2-8, 3:18). Not a syncretism risk in the same register as items 1-4, but a high-frequency precision risk: because Dogri (like Hindi) has no lexical pair mirroring Greek’s distinction, every occurrence requires a disambiguation check, and an error here recurs across the whole letter rather than in a single verse.
-
Τάρταρος / νarak (2:4). Popular graded-hell cosmology (e.g., Garuda Purana-pattern) frames narak as a temporary purgatorial waypoint before further rebirth; without the mandatory finality note, readers could import a “temporary stage” reading into a passage meant to establish the certainty and permanence of judgment.
-
εὐσέβεια / godliness (throughout ch. 1 and 3:11). The temptation to reach for भक्ति is constant precisely because it is the single most natural-sounding, fluent option; the risk is not one dramatic verse but a slow drift toward bhakti-mārga framing across every occurrence if translators are not held to the descriptive alternative.
-
δεσπότης vs. κύριος (2:1). Lower doctrinal stakes than items above, but a real precision risk: collapsing this into प्रभु (already used for κύριος throughout) would erase 2:1’s distinct “owner who bought them” nuance central to the false teachers’ specific offense (denying the one who purchased them).
-
μακροθυμία / God’s patience and the “one day as a thousand years” statement (3:8-9). Risk of a fatalistic-delay or cyclical-time misreading is real but lower-severity than items 1-3 because the passage’s own argument (leading to repentance) supplies strong internal correction against a fatalistic reading, provided the translation does not itself introduce कल्प/युग vocabulary.
-
σεσοφισμένοι μῦθοι / “cleverly devised myths” (1:16). Lowest-ranked Critical/High-adjacent risk: the danger is narrow (naming a specific scriptural-mythic genre, e.g. पुराण, by mistake) and easily avoided by the neutral phrase already selected (मन घड़त कहाणियां); flagged mainly to ensure this discipline is not relaxed under stylistic pressure in later Phase 2 passes.