Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis: Joel (English → Hindi)
Curriculum: Joel 1–3
Core passage (theological anchor, not scope): Joel 2:28-32
Doctrines in scope: The Day of the Lord; Repentance and Return to God; The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit; The Locust Plague as Divine Judgment; Restoration and Blessing after Repentance
Governing authority: Baseline Romans/Galatians translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, doctrine_risk_registry.json, and 12_ai_translation_requirements.md. Nothing below contradicts these; where Joel introduces new lexical territory (chiefly the Tetragrammaton, the Spirit-outpouring idiom, and OT covenant-formula vocabulary absent from the Pauline corpus), this analysis extends the baseline under its own stated protocol for new terms.
Full-book coverage note: All three chapters of Joel are analyzed below. Chapter 1 (locust devastation, lament, call to fast) and Chapter 2:1-27 (the locust-army/Day-of-the-LORD alarm, the call to genuine repentance, God’s relenting and restoring answer) are covered in Sections 1, 2, and 4. Chapter 2:28-32 is the core passage and receives the deepest treatment. Chapter 3 (judgment on the nations, the valley of decision, final restoration) is covered in Sections 1, 2, and 4. No chapter or verse range contributes zero new material; where a chapter’s vocabulary is low-risk and largely proper-name or already-established terminology, that is noted explicitly rather than omitted.
0. Method
This analysis works from 07_semantic_analysis.md and 08_core_glossary.md (both already produced) to answer four questions the Phase 1 PRD requires at Step 8:
- Doctrine vocabulary matrix — for each of the five named doctrines, what Hindi vocabulary is actually available, what is structurally weak about it, and what strategy is recommended.
- Missing vocabulary — where Hindi (and Sanskritic religious register generally) has no term that cleanly covers the biblical concept, requiring either a compound/periphrastic construction or a a new technical coinage.
- Crowded semantic neighborhoods needing fencing — where Hindi does have a ready word, but that word is already occupied by a Hindu theological concept (or already reserved by the baseline for a different Christian doctrine), such that using it without a fence (translator note, contrastive phrase, or committee-mandated rejection) would import unintended meaning.
- Transliteration vs. paraphrase decisions — for proper names, technical formulae, and instrument/institution words, whether to transliterate (keep the Hebrew/established BSI form recognizable) or paraphrase (translate the sense).
A final ranked list synthesizes the highest-risk ambiguities across the whole book for Phase 2 prioritization.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
| Doctrine | Available Hindi Term(s) | Structural Weakness | Recommended Strategy | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Day of the Lord | यहोवा का दिन (transliteration + baseline-pattern possessive); alternatives considered: कयामत का दिन (Islamicate loan, wrong register), प्रलय (Hindu cyclical dissolution) | Hindi has no native technical term for a unique, linear, historical-eschatological day of divine intervention. The two most “available” ready-made words — प्रलय (cosmic dissolution at a kalpa/yuga boundary) and कयामत (Judgment Day, Islamicate/Urdu register, wrong religious tradition) — both import a foreign cosmology if used as the primary gloss. | Use the transliterated proper phrase यहोवा का दिन as the fixed technical term throughout, never substituting प्रलय or कयामत even as a gloss. Where a Hindi reader needs orientation, add a translator/teaching note contrasting this with प्रलय’s cyclical, impersonal recurrence: the Day of the LORD is a singular, personal-God-initiated event combining judgment AND deliverance, not a recurring phase of cosmic time. | Critical |
| Repentance and Return to God | मन फिराव / मन फिराओ (baseline term, reused exactly); पश्चाताप (rejected by baseline); व्रत/तप (Hindu ascetic-merit vocabulary, not proposed as a gloss but present in the cultural surround) | The baseline’s मन फिराव already solves the core lexical problem (avoiding पश्चाताप’s mere-remorse/performed-penance connotation). Joel’s distinctive contribution is not a new term but a new risk: 2:12-13’s explicit heart/garment contrast and 1:14/2:15-16’s call to a communal fast create a live collision with Indian व्रत/तप culture, where visible ascetic performance is itself believed to generate merit or move a deity. | Reuse मन फिराव exactly per baseline. For the fasting/assembly material (उपवास, पवित्र सभा), add a mandatory translator note tying 2:12-14’s “rend your heart, not your garments” explicitly back to the fast command in 1:14/2:15, so the fast is read as the outward expression of required inward repentance, never as an independently merit-generating ritual act. | High |
| The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit | पवित्र आत्मा (baseline term, reused exactly, for the Spirit himself); अपना आत्मा उंडेलना (new verb phrase for the outpouring event); दर्शन for “visions” (crowded — see §3) | Hindi आत्मा is structurally ambiguous outside a fenced context: it denotes (a) the personal Holy Spirit in established Christian usage, (b) a person’s own individual inner self/soul, and (c) — in wider Hindu philosophical usage — a fragment or manifestation of an impersonal universal Self (paramātman/brahman). Joel 2:28’s “I will pour out MY Spirit on ALL flesh” is uniquely exposed to a monistic misreading in which readers picture a single cosmic essence being distributed into many recipients, rather than one personal divine Person indwelling many distinct persons who remain themselves. | Render उंडेलना (pour out) plus मेरा आत्मा with a mandatory translator note at every occurrence identifying मेरा आत्मा = पवित्र आत्मा, the personal, distinct third Person of the Trinity — and stressing that recipients prophesy/dream/see AS THEMSELVES (grammatically retained as distinct subjects in Hebrew: “your sons,” “your daughters,” “your old men,” “your young men”), not as selves dissolved into a shared consciousness. Theologian review at every occurrence. | Critical |
| The Locust Plague as Divine Judgment | टिड्डी (locust, generic); यहोवा की सेना (the LORD’s army, for the reinterpreted locust-swarm in 2:1-11) | Hindi has no difficulty with the literal agricultural vocabulary (locusts, crop failure, famine — these map cleanly). The doctrinal risk is not lexical but interpretive-theological: without a fence, यहोवा की सेना risks being assimilated to Indian mythological deva-asura army narratives (one deity’s forces battling another’s), or the plague itself risks being read as impersonal karmic consequence (crops fail because of accumulated bad karma) rather than the direct, personal, judicial act of one sovereign God. | Retain literal locust vocabulary (टिड्डी + Hebrew-term-count note per §2 below) for ch.1; retain यहोवा की सेना for 2:1-11 with a mandatory teaching note distinguishing this from both (a) polytheistic army-of-a-rival-deity imagery and (b) impersonal karmic-retribution readings — the locusts/army are personally commanded by the one true God as an act of covenant judgment, not autonomous nature or automatic karma. | Medium-High |
| Restoration and Blessing after Repentance | अन्न, नया दाखरस, और तेल (grain/new wine/oil triad); तुम जान लोगे कि मैं यहोवा तुम्हारा परमेश्वर हूं (recognition formula); लज्जित न होंगे (never again be put to shame) | No single missing term, but three converging risks: (1) the material-blessing triad could be prematurely “spiritualized” in Hindi devotional idiom (treating grain/wine/oil as symbols only, losing the concrete agricultural reversal that is the passage’s rhetorical proof of God’s favor); (2) the recognition formula’s relational thrust (“know that I am the LORD your God,” not merely “receive good fortune”) can collapse into a generic fortune-telling promise if यहोवा is dropped in favor of परमेश्वर alone; (3) honor/shame vocabulary (लज्जित) requires the baseline’s existing honor/shame native-speaker-review routing. | Keep the blessing-triad materially concrete; retain यहोवा alongside परमेश्वर in every occurrence of the recognition formula (never substitute one for the other); route लज्जित न होंगे through native speaker review per the baseline’s established honor/shame protocol. | Medium (High at recognition formula) |
2. Missing Vocabulary (No Clean Hindi Equivalent)
These are concepts for which Hindi — including its Sanskritic religious register — has no existing single word that carries the required sense without either narrowing or expanding it. Each requires a compound/periphrastic construction rather than a single-word gloss.
| Concept | Hebrew | Why no clean equivalent exists | Recommended construction |
|---|---|---|---|
| חֶסֶד (covenant-loyal steadfast love, Joel 2:13) | חֶסֶד | Hindi’s two nearest words are already claimed: अनुग्रह is the baseline’s reserved term for unmerited salvific grace (a distinct NT category), and दया is the baseline’s term for compassion toward the miserable (an emotional/relational category, not specifically covenant-fidelity). חֶסֶד names something narrower than either: God’s proven track record of keeping covenant promises over time. Hindi has no single noun for “proven covenant faithfulness.” | Multi-word formula, reused from the doctrine matrix: दयालु और करुणामय, विलम्ब से क्रोध करनेवाला और अटल करुणा में महान, with अटल करुणा (“unfailing/steadfast compassion”) flagged by mandatory translator note as approximating but not equating to חֶסֶד. |
| The dual judgment-plus-deliverance character of יוֹם יְהוָה packed into one phrase | יוֹם יְהוָה | Hindi eschatological vocabulary tends to split into either purely punitive (कयामत-adjacent) or purely liberative registers; no existing phrase holds both senses together as one event the way the Hebrew technical term does. | Fixed transliterated phrase यहोवा का दिन with an accompanying doctrinal gloss (“महान और भयानक दिन,” per the registry) reasserted at every occurrence rather than re-coined per passage. |
| מוֹפְתִים as unilateral, sovereign, self-authenticating signs (distinct from devotionally-sought miracles) | מוֹפְתִים | Hindi’s most natural gloss, चमत्कार, already carries an entrenched popular sense of a guru’s or deity’s miracle performed in response to devotion — i.e., a transactional, worshipper-initiated category. No existing Hindi word isolates “sign given unilaterally by a sovereign God, without being sought or earned.” | अद्भुत चिन्ह (extraordinary sign) or आश्चर्यकर्म, never चमत्कार, with translator note explaining the unilateral/unsought/judicial character. |
| שׁוּב’s specific sense of covenantal reorientation (not felt sorrow, not ritual penance) | שׁוּב | Solved already by the baseline (मन फिराव), but worth flagging here because Joel is the book where this term does the most theological work per verse of any book yet processed — the whole argument of 1:2–2:17 turns on this single root, appearing repeatedly, and no Hindi word natively carries “turn the whole self back toward a covenant partner” without the baseline’s careful construction. | Reuse मन फिराव/मन फिराओ exactly; do not introduce variant renderings for stylistic variety across chapter 1-2, since consistency itself carries doctrinal weight in a book this repetition-driven. |
| וְנִחָם עַל־הָרָעָה — God’s relenting as a free, gracious, character-consistent response (not a ritual-technique payoff) | נִחָם | Hindi has no verb that means “to be moved to compassionate action without implying a change of character or nature,” and the nearest colloquial equivalents (मन बदलना used loosely) risk suggesting fickleness or, conversely, a transactional cause-effect ritual mechanism (correct performance guarantees a favorable outcome). | अपना मन बदल दे, following established Hindi OT precedent (cf. Jonah 3:9-10), with mandatory note: this is gracious, character-consistent response to genuine repentance, not a ritual lever pulled successfully. |
Chapter-coverage note: Chapter 1 contributes primarily concrete agricultural/liturgical vocabulary (locusts, grain, priests, fast) that maps cleanly to Hindi with only medium-risk cultural-framing notes (see §1 above); it introduces no additional “missing vocabulary” items beyond those already surfaced in the core-passage and chapter-2/3 analysis above. This is reviewed and explicitly noted as such rather than silently skipped.
3. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Needing Fencing
These are cases where Hindi does have a ready, natural-sounding word — but that word is already occupied by (a) a competing Hindu theological concept, or (b) a different Christian doctrine already claimed by the baseline. Each requires an explicit “fence”: a translator note, a contrastive construction, or an outright prohibition.
| Hindi Word | Its “home” meaning that creates crowding | Joel context at risk | Fence required |
|---|---|---|---|
| दर्शन | A devotee’s visionary sight of a deity, understood as attained through the devotee’s own religious merit/practice | ”your young men shall see visions” (2:28) — God-initiated, sovereignly granted sight, opposite direction of agency | Mandatory translator note at every occurrence distinguishing God-initiated revelatory sight from devotionally-attained darshan; theologian review required (already flagged Critical/High in the baseline Galatians extension for “revelation,” now recurring in Joel). |
| चमत्कार | A guru’s/deity’s miracle performed transactionally, often to reward or attract devotion | ”wonders” (מוֹפְתִים, 2:30) | Prohibited; use अद्भुत चिन्ह/आश्चर्यकर्म instead (see §2 above). |
| प्रलय / कयामत | Hindu cyclical cosmic dissolution (yuga/kalpa boundary) / Islamicate Judgment Day | ”the Day of the LORD,” cosmic darkening signs (2:10,31) | Prohibited as glosses; use the fixed transliterated यहोवा का दिन and the literal darkening-idiom phrase, each with the linear-not-cyclical translator note already specified in the registry. |
| आत्मा (unfenced) | Individual inner self; or, in wider Hindu philosophical usage, a fragment of an impersonal universal Self (paramātman) | “I will pour out my Spirit” (2:28-29) | Never used unfenced; always मेरा आत्मा + मandatory identification note with पवित्र आत्मा as the personal, distinct third Trinitarian Person (see §1 above, Critical). |
| मुक्ति / मोक्ष | Self-attained liberation from the cycle of samsara/embodiment | ”shall be saved” (יִמָּלֵט, 2:32) | Absolutely forbidden per baseline salvation prohibition; उद्धार mandatory. |
| धर्म | Hindu cosmic duty/religious-moral order | Not itself present as a direct lexical candidate in Joel, but a standing prohibition must be reasserted because ch. 2’s “n̂yāya”/judgment vocabulary (§ below) sits adjacent to it in the semantic field | No Joel term should be glossed with धर्म; reassert baseline prohibition for completeness across this curriculum. |
| न्याय | Standard judicial “judgment/justice” — but the baseline specifically rejects न्याय as a substitute for धार्मिकता (righteousness) in the Romans/Galatians corpus | ”I will enter into judgment with them” (3:2, ve-shafatti immam) | Permitted here in its ordinary judicial sense (judgment on the nations), but a translator note is required distinguishing this judicial-verdict usage from the separate, baseline-prohibited use of न्याय as a righteousness-gloss, to prevent future cross-curriculum confusion. |
| अन्यजाति | The baseline’s NT missional/Jew-Gentile-unity term, carrying a positive, welcoming theological connotation (Romans’ Unity of Jews and Gentiles doctrine) | “the nations” under judicial indictment (3:2,9,11-12) | Do not reuse; use राष्ट्र-गण/जाति-गण instead, with a note explaining that OT “the nations” in a judgment-oracle context is a broader and differently-valenced category than the NT’s specific unity-doctrine term, to prevent readers from importing NT missional warmth into an OT judgment context (or vice versa). |
| आशीर्वाद | A blessing bestowed by a guru/elder/deity as a reciprocal favor for devotion rendered (already fenced against in the Galatians baseline for “blessing of Abraham”) | The restoration/blessing material of 2:19-27, 3:18 (though “आशीष” itself is a Galatians term, the same reciprocal-favor risk attaches to any blessing-vocabulary in Joel’s restoration section) | Where blessing-vocabulary is used descriptively in Joel’s restoration material, favor concrete, materially-anchored phrasing (अन्न, नया दाखरस, और तेल; सोता निकलेगा) over abstract आशीर्वाद-style formulas, to keep restoration tied to God’s sovereign initiative rather than a reciprocal exchange. |
| व्रत / तप | Ascetic austerity performed to generate religious merit | उपवास (fast) and the heart/garment contrast (2:12-13) | Translator/teaching note required distinguishing summoned, grace-dependent corporate repentance from self-generated ascetic merit-accumulation (see §1 matrix row on Repentance). |
| पवित्र नदी / गंगा-प्रतिरूप imagery (no single word, but a strong cultural resonance) | Sacred-river veneration and ritual purification associated with rivers understood as issuing from a divine source (e.g., the Ganga) | “a fountain from the house of the LORD” (3:18) | Mandatory translator note: this is a specific, once-for-all eschatological sign of God’s life-giving presence to his own covenant people, not a template validating sacred-river devotion, and the fountain is never itself an object of worship. |
| भगवान-style diffuse-presence language | Immanent, pantheistic “God/the divine is in everything” framing common in popular Hindu philosophical discourse | ”the LORD dwells in Zion” (3:17,21) | Fence required: this is specific, localized, covenantal dwelling-presence at a named place among a named people, not diffuse cosmic immanence. |
Chapter-coverage note: All three chapters contribute to this section. Chapter 1’s contribution is indirect (its literal locust/fast/mourning vocabulary is low-risk in itself, but sets up the fasting/austerity fence carried through into chapter 2). Chapters 2 and 3 supply the majority of high-stakes crowding cases, consistent with their concentration of the book’s Critical/High-risk doctrinal content.
4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Item | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| יְהוָה (YHWH) | Transliterate: यहोवा | Established BSI OV Old Testament convention. Must not be silently merged with प्रभु (reserved by baseline for NT κύριος/Lordship-of-Christ doctrine) except at the deliberate apostolic quotation seam (2:32/Acts 2:21/Romans 10:13), which is documented via translator note, not resolved by substitution. |
| אֱלֹהִים (Elohim, in the recognition formula) | Paraphrase using baseline term: परमेश्वर | Reused exactly from baseline; appears alongside, never instead of, यहोवा in the recognition formula, since the personal name carries the doctrinal weight. |
| יוֹם יְהוָה (Day of the LORD) | Fixed compound, transliterated head noun: यहोवा का दिन | Neither transliteration alone (meaningless to a Hindi reader without gloss) nor free paraphrase (risks drifting toward प्रलय/कयामत) suffices alone; the fixed possessive phrase plus the recurring doctrinal gloss (“महान और भयानक”) is the safest combination. |
| שׁוֹפָר (shofar/trumpet) | Paraphrase with established Hindi Bible term: नरसिंगा (or तुरही) | Both are already established in Hindi Bible usage; no transliteration of the Hebrew is needed or customary. Low risk either way. |
| Locust terms (הַגָּזָם, הָאַרְבֶּה, הַיֶּלֶק, הֶחָסִיל) | Paraphrase with a single generic term plus explanatory note: टिड्डी, with a note on the four Hebrew terms | Hindi has no four-way lexical distinction for locust life-stages that would map usefully onto a general readership; resolving the historical-agricultural/allegorical-army debate is explicitly out of scope for the translated text itself and is deferred to teaching materials. |
| עֵמֶק יְהוֹשָׁפָט (Valley of Jehoshaphat) | Transliterate proper name + paraphrase wordplay separately: यहोशापात की तराई / निर्णय की तराई | The Hebrew judgment/threshing wordplay cannot survive translation; transliterating the name and separately paraphrasing “valley of decision,” with a note explaining “Jehoshaphat” itself means “the LORD judges,” preserves the theological content that would otherwise be silently lost. |
| Proper names generally (Zion, Jerusalem, Judah, Egypt, Edom, Tyre, Sidon, Philistia, Sabeans, Greeks, Joel, Pethuel) | Transliterate using established Hindi Bible forms | Per baseline convention; low lexical risk; see glossary §5 for the full table. No paraphrase is appropriate for proper names. |
| חֶסֶד | Paraphrase (compound descriptive phrase), not transliteration | As a theological-attribute term embedded in a larger formula (not a proper noun or fixed liturgical exclamation), transliteration would be meaningless to readers; the multi-word construction in §2 above is required. |
| אָמֵן-type liturgical formula | Not present as a standalone exclamation in Joel; no decision needed for this book, but the baseline’s आमीन convention should be noted as available if any doxological material is added in teaching supplements. | Consistency placeholder only. |
5. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities (Whole-Book, Phase 2 Priority Order)
Ranked by combined (a) doctrinal centrality, (b) collision severity with dominant Hindu religious vocabulary, and (c) likelihood of an AI translation system defaulting to the wrong term absent explicit guardrails.
- “I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh” (2:28-29) — आत्मा’s monistic-misreading risk is the single highest-stakes ambiguity in the book: an unfenced rendering could teach a form of pantheistic Spirit-diffusion rather than the personal Trinitarian Holy Spirit indwelling distinct persons. Critical; theologian review every occurrence; mandatory translator note.
- “Call on the name of the LORD… shall be saved” (2:32) and its cross-testament seam — the single most important consistency checkpoint in this entire curriculum; failure to keep यहोवा distinct from प्रभु within Joel’s own text (while flagging the NT’s deliberate identification at the quotation seam) would either erase the OT/NT literary move Paul and Peter make deliberately, or wrongly retroject NT Christology into the Hebrew text itself. Critical; must be locked to the Romans 10:13 Hindi wording before Phase 2 begins.
- The Day of the LORD (1:15; 2:1,11,31; 3:14) — highest-frequency organizing term of the book; greatest risk of silent domestication (as a “holy festival day”) or of assimilation to प्रलय/कयामत cyclical/foreign-tradition eschatology. Critical; every occurrence.
- “Visions” (חֶזְיֹנוֹת, 2:28) rendered as दर्शन — the single word most likely to be selected “naturally” by an AI system precisely because it is the most idiomatic Hindi choice, while simultaneously being the word the Galatians baseline explicitly rejected for the adjacent concept of “revelation.” High probability of an unflagged drift into devotionally-attained-sight theology. High; theologian review mandatory.
- חֶסֶד in the divine-attribute formula (2:13) — no clean Hindi equivalent exists; both of Hindi’s nearest words are already claimed by other baseline doctrines (अनुग्रह for grace, दया for mercy), creating a real risk of doctrinal flattening into a generic “kind deity” description indistinguishable from any Hindu devotional deity’s praised attributes. High.
- “Rend your heart, and not your garments” (2:13) — the sharpest internal/external contrast in the book; a live risk of being softened into generic “repent sincerely” language, losing its direct polemic against ritual-performance substituting for genuine repentance — acutely relevant given Indian व्रत/तप culture. High.
- The LORD’s army / locust-army reinterpretation (2:11) — risk of assimilation to polytheistic deva-asura battle-narrative imagery, or alternatively to impersonal karmic-consequence readings of the plague; both would erase the doctrine of the Locust Plague as direct, personal divine judgment. Medium-High.
- “A fountain from the house of the LORD” (3:18) — the strongest positive cultural resonance in the book (parallel to Ganga-source sacred-river geography) is simultaneously its biggest assimilation risk into sacred-river veneration/ritual-purification concepts foreign to the text’s eschatological, once-for-all sign-character. High.
- “Wonders” / מוֹפְתִים (2:30) as चमत्कार — a highly probable default AI/translator choice given चमत्कार’s naturalness, directly colliding with its entrenched transactional-miracle popular usage. Medium-High.
- “The nations” (3:2,9,11-12) rendered as अन्यजाति — risk of importing the NT’s positive missional unity-doctrine connotation into an OT judgment-oracle context, producing an unintended theological softening of the indictment against the nations. Medium.
- “You shall know that I am the LORD your God” recognition formula (2:27) — risk of दropping यहोवा in favor of परमेश्वर alone, collapsing a relational/covenantal recognition claim into a generic “good fortune from a deity” statement. High.
- “Never again be put to shame” (2:26-27) — requires the baseline’s honor/shame native-speaker routing; risk of flattening a culturally load-bearing promise into a merely emotional statement. Medium.
- Beating plowshares into swords (3:10), read against Isaiah 2:4/Micah 4:3 — risk of readers perceiving Scripture as self-contradictory without a note distinguishing the addressees (hostile nations under judgment vs. God’s own people promised peace). Medium-High.
- The sanctified fast / solemn assembly (1:14; 2:15-16) — risk of assimilation into व्रत/austerity-as-merit religious logic absent an explicit tie-back to 2:12-14’s heart-priority. Medium-High.
- The grain offering and drink offering (1:9,13; 2:14) — lowest risk on this list, included for completeness; purely literal OT cultic description, distinct from (and not subject to) the baseline’s बलि/यज्ञ caution, which applies specifically to NT atonement language, not literal historical Temple description. Medium.
6. Summary and Handoff
- Five doctrine-vocabulary-matrix rows completed (§1), covering every named doctrine in the curriculum parameters.
- Five missing-vocabulary items requiring compound/periphrastic construction rather than single-word glosses (§2).
- Eleven crowded-semantic-neighborhood items requiring an explicit fence — translator note, contrastive phrase, or outright prohibition — before Phase 2 translation begins (§3).
- Eight transliteration-vs-paraphrase decisions locked (§4).
- Fifteen ranked high-risk ambiguities prioritized for Phase 2 attention (§5), topped by the Outpouring of the Spirit’s monistic-collision risk and the Joel 2:32/Romans 10:13 cross-testament consistency checkpoint.
- Full-book coverage confirmed: Chapter 1 (locust devastation, mourning, fast) reviewed — contributes concrete, largely low/medium-risk vocabulary plus the व्रत/austerity fence carried into chapter 2; Chapter 2 (locust-army/Day of the LORD alarm through the core passage) reviewed — contributes the majority of Critical/High items; Chapter 3 (judgment on the nations, valley of decision, final restoration) reviewed — contributes the remaining judgment-vocabulary and restoration-vocabulary risk items.
This analysis feeds directly into 08_core_glossary.md (already produced) and must be read alongside it and the extended bible_term_registry.json before any Phase 2 segment translation begins, per the pre-flight checklist in 12_ai_translation_requirements.md.