Linguistic Gap Analysis — Proverbs (Hebrew → Hindi)

0. Purpose and Method

This analysis identifies, for the Proverbs curriculum, (a) where Hindi’s existing religious vocabulary is crowded — already occupied by a Hindu-tradition concept close enough to invite collapse or syncretism — and (b) where Hindi lacks a vocabulary item the Hebrew source distinguishes, producing translation loss. It further records transliteration-vs-paraphrase decisions and ranks the letter’s/book’s highest-risk ambiguities for Phase 2 routing.

This document does not re-derive term choices already fixed in 08_core_glossary.md and the Proverbs additions to bible_term_registry.json; it explains and justifies the linguistic reasoning behind those choices and flags residual risk that Phase 2 reviewers must actively manage. All choices here are consistent with, and never override, the baseline Romans/Galatians Language Package.

Proverbs presents a distinct linguistic profile from Romans/Galatians: it is wisdom literature, not epistolary argument. Its risks cluster around (1) philosophical/soteriological vocabulary shared with Hindu darshanas (buddhi, jñāna, ātman, mārga, mokṣa), because Hindi’s ready-made philosophical register was itself built substantially from Sanskrit sources that also underlie Hindu thought; and (2) an untranslatable formal feature — the chapter 31 acrostic (א–ת) — which is a structural, not lexical, gap.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

Doctrine	Available Hindi Terms	Weaknesses / Collision Risks	Recommended Strategy	Chapters Anchoring This Doctrine
The Fear of the LORD as the Beginning of Wisdom	परमेश्वर का भय (compound); भय मानना / डरना (verb)	भय alone in popular Hindi usage = terror of an arbitrary, capricious, or ritually-appeasable power (spirit possession, evil eye, inauspicious omens). No existing single Hindi word natively carries “reverential covenant awe born of trust.”	Retain the compound परमेश्वर का भय (never bare भय without the divine object); mandatory translator note on every occurrence tying it to relational trust (בָּטַח/भरोसा, 3:5) rather than servile dread. Reinforce with the inclusio at 31:30 (हेवेल/व्यर्थ पड़ता है).	1:7; 1:29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10; 10:27; 14:26-27; 15:16,33; 16:6; 19:23; 22:4; 23:17; 31:30
Wisdom Personified	बुद्धि (chokmah); निपुण कारीगर (amon, disputed); मूर्खता (personified Folly)	बुद्धि collides with Samkhya/Yoga’s buddhi-tattva (the 25-fold cosmology’s discriminative-intellect faculty), inviting a philosophical-faculty reading rather than “God’s own attribute personified as a woman calling in the streets.” अर्जित किया/रचा (qanah, 8:22) sits atop the historic Arian-controversy fault line and a fresh Hindu-avatar-emanation fault line.	Gloss बुद्धि at every personification passage (1:20-33; 8:1-36; 9:1-6) as God’s own wisdom, not a self-attained faculty. Frame qanah as literary personification of God’s creative wisdom-in-action, not an ontological statement about the Son’s origin nor a divine emanation. Preserve amon’s genuine lexical ambiguity as alternatives_considered rather than resolving it.	1; 3:13-20; 4; 8; 9
Practical Righteousness in Daily Life	शिक्षा (parental torah); आज्ञा (mitzvah); धार्मिकता (tsedeq); धर्मी (tsaddiq); मार्ग (derekh); घृणित काम (to’evah)	शिक्षा must be fenced off from व्यवस्था (Mosaic Torah, baseline-reserved); मार्ग collides with the “three mārgas” (jñāna/bhakti/karma) of classical Hindu soteriology, where multiple paths equally reach one goal — the opposite of Proverbs’ single “way of the LORD.”	Never use व्यवस्था for parental torah. Attach a standing translator note to every derekh/orach occurrence: this is conduct submitted to the one true God, not one of several equally valid religious paths. धर्मी retained as an established compound-adjacent term (see baseline धर्मी ठहराया जाना) distinct from forbidden धर्म.	1:8; 2; 3:1,6,9; 4; 6:16-19; 10-15; 20-29
The Contrast of the Wise and the Fool	बुद्धिमान; भोला (peti); मूर्ख (kesil); मूढ़/नीच मूर्ख (evil/naval); ठट्ठा करनेवाला (lets); ज्ञान (da’at)	Hebrew’s four-tier fool taxonomy (peti < kesil < evil/naval < lets, ascending culpability/hardness) has no ready-made Hindi four-tier equivalent; Hindi risks flattening all four into मूर्ख. ज्ञान collides directly with Vedantic liberating jñāna (ego-dissolving gnosis), the near-opposite of da’at’s relational, subject-preserving knowledge of God. मूढ़ additionally carries a “spiritually unenlightened” resonance that could recast moral culpability as mere lack of attainment.	Enforce strict lexical separation across the whole book: भोला (correctable) ≠ मूर्ख (settled/obstinate) ≠ मूढ़/नीच मूर्ख (morally base) ≠ ठट्ठा करनेवाला (arrogant, hardened). Gloss ज्ञान at first occurrence (1:4) and at 2:5/9:10 as relational, moral, personal knowledge that presupposes—not dissolves—the Creator/creature distinction.	1; 9; 10; 12; 13; 14; 15; 17; 18; 19; 21; 22; 23; 24; 26; 27; 28; 29
Speech and Self-Control	जीभ (lashon); कानाफूसी करनेवाला (nirgan); झूठ (sheqer); टेढ़ी बात (crooked speech)	Low collision risk overall — Hindi has robust native moral-speech vocabulary. Residual risk only where crooked-speech idioms are abstracted into generic “dishonesty” and lose their concrete image.	Preserve concrete imagery (tongue, lips, mouth) rather than abstracting to general honesty-ethics vocabulary; keep continuity with the chapter 6 “seven abominations” catalogue.	4:24; 6:12-19; 10; 12; 13; 15; 16; 17; 18; 21; 25; 26; 29
Diligence versus Sloth	आलसी (atsel); मेहनती/उद्यमी (charuts); धन/सम्पत्ति; कंगाली/दरिद्रता	Wealth-outcome verses (3:9-10; 10:22; 6:6-11) sit close to the popular Hindi maxim “जैसा कर्म वैसा फल” (karma-fruit) and to prosperity-gospel-style automatic-mechanism readings.	Frame diligence/sloth as wisdom-for-living stewardship under a personal God’s free favor, not an impersonal merit-accumulation mechanism; mandatory translator note wherever a wealth-outcome clause follows a diligence clause (3:9-10; 10:4,22; 6:6-11).	6:6-11; 10; 12; 13; 19; 20; 21; 22; 24; 26; 27; 28; 31
Trust in the Lord’s Providence	भरोसा (batach); सहारा लेना (sha’an); चिट्ठी/पर्ची (goral); कृपा/अनुग्रह (chen, split); कृपा (chesed)	भरोसा is explicitly rejected by the baseline as an alternative rendering for NT πίστις/विश्वास — this OT usage must be governed by a cross-reference note so the two vocabularies are not read as contradicting one another. गोरल्/चिट्ठी risks assimilation to Hindu astrology (jyotisha) / horoscope fatalism if 16:33’s point (God’s sovereignty even over a random-seeming mechanism) is not made explicit.	Standing note: भरोसा = OT wisdom-trust (batach) in providence; विश्वास = NT saving faith (pistis) in Christ — parallel, not competing, vocabularies. चिट्ठी/पर्ची requires an explicit “not fate, not horoscope” note at 16:33 and 18:18.	3:1-12; 16:1-9,33; 19:21; 20:24; 21:1,30-31; 29:26; 30:1-9

---

2. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

These Hindi lexical items are drawn from a shared Sanskritic register with classical Hindu philosophy and devotional practice. Each requires an active “fence” — a standing translator note, a restricted sense, or a compound construction — to prevent the biblical sense from being absorbed into the neighboring Hindu concept.

Hindi Term	Hindu-Tradition Neighbor Concept	Collision Mechanism	Fencing Strategy
बुद्धि	buddhi-tattva (Samkhya/Yoga discriminative-intellect faculty)	Reader hears wisdom as a psychological faculty to be cultivated by the self, rather than God’s own gift/attribute rooted in his fear.	First-occurrence gloss (1:2) + repeat at every personification passage (1:20-33; 8; 9); tie wisdom explicitly and repeatedly back to 1:7/9:10 fear-of-the-LORD thesis.
ज्ञान	Vedantic jñāna (liberating gnosis dissolving knower/known distinction)	Reader hears “knowledge of God” as self-realization/absorption rather than relational knowing of a distinct covenant God.	Gloss at 1:4,7; 2:5; 9:10 clarifying da’at YHWH preserves, not dissolves, the Creator/creature distinction.
मार्ग	The “three mārgas” (jñāna-mārga, bhakti-mārga, karma-mārga) as parallel, equally valid soteriological paths	Reader assimilates “the way of the LORD” (3:6; 10:29 etc.) into pluralist “many paths, one goal” framework.	Standing note at first occurrence (3:6) and recurring at major “way/path” clusters (chs. 2, 4, 10, 14) affirming a single way submitted to the one true God.
भय (bare, without object)	Fear of ghosts, evil eye, inauspicious omens, deity’s capricious wrath appeased by ritual	Servile terror reading exactly inverts the covenantal-trust sense of the thesis term.	NEVER render bare; always the compound परमेश्वर का भय with the mandatory reverential-trust note.
मन	Samkhya/Yoga manas (one compartmentalized sensory-processing faculty, distinct from buddhi/intellect and ahaṅkāra/ego)	Reader hears lev as one inner compartment among several rather than the unified moral-volitional-intellectual center of the whole person.	Mandatory note at first occurrence (3:1,3) governing all subsequent lev occurrences (4:23; 15:13-15; 23:7).
आत्मा (for human ruach)	Ātman — the eternal, uncreated self, ultimately identical with Brahman in Advaita Vedanta	20:27’s “spirit of man” could be heard as asserting the human spirit’s own divinity/identity with ultimate reality.	Note that God searches/illumines the ruach from outside/above it — presupposing distinctness, not identity; keep firmly distinct from पवित्र आत्मा.
पाताल / नरक (rejected for Sheol)	Puranic netherworld with its own deities/nāgas/asuras (pātāla); Hindu/Buddhist punishment-realm (naraka)	Either choice imports an entire foreign cosmology with independent agents and moral geography.	Use अधोलोक instead (see §4 below), with a standing note that Sheol is a shadowy waiting-place for all the dead, not a final destiny nor a realm with independent divine agents.
मरे हुए लोग (for refaim, rejected alternatives)	Pitru/preta — ancestor-spirits with ongoing ritual claims on the living	9:18 could be misread as a warning about propitiating restless ancestor-spirits rather than a warning about death as folly’s consequence.	Note explicitly denying active agency/ritual-obligation sense.
व्यर्थ/निष्फल (for hevel, not माया)	Māyā — illusion; the world/beauty as ultimately unreal	31:30 could be read as “beauty is unreal” rather than “beauty is fleeting/impermanent.”	Retain व्यर्थ/निष्फल exclusively; explicit rejection note for माया at every hevel occurrence closing the book’s inclusio.
चिट्ठी/पर्ची (for goral)	Jyotiṣa (astrology) and horoscope-based fatalism	16:33 could be heard as endorsing divination as a legitimate access-point to fate.	Note that the verse’s entire argument subordinates the mechanism to God’s personal sovereignty, the reverse of impersonal astrological determinism.
कृपा (used for both chesed and chen-3:4)	Devotional/guru “grace” language (kṛpā) exchanged reciprocally for devotion or service rendered	Risk of importing a merit-for-favor exchange logic into covenant loyalty (chesed) or relational goodwill (chen).	Explicit note that both remain God’s/a superior’s free relational disposition, not a reciprocal exchange; kept distinct from baseline अनुग्रह (charis) except where 3:34 is directly quoted by James 4:6/1 Peter 5:5.
निपुण कारीगर (for disputed amon)	Viśvakarma and other Hindu artisan-deity figures	”Master craftsman beside God at creation” reading could suggest a co-creator deity figure.	Preserve genuine lexical dispute (craftsman vs. child-at-play) as alternatives_considered; if craftsman reading is used pedagogically, add a note excluding any co-deity implication.

---

3. Missing Vocabulary (Genuine Gaps vs. Hebrew Source)

Unlike the crowded-neighborhood cases above, these are instances where Hindi simply lacks a lexical distinction the Hebrew source makes, producing structural translation loss that must be managed by footnoting rather than by lexical choice alone.

1. Four-tier fool taxonomy collapse. Hebrew distinguishes פֶּתִי (correctable naivety) < כְּסִיל (settled folly) < אֱוִיל/נָבָל (base, culpable folly) < לֵץ (arrogant, hardened scorn). Hindi’s native fool-vocabulary (मूर्ख, मूढ़, बेवकूफ़, नादान) does not pre-exist in a matching four-tier gradient. Mitigation: the Proverbs glossary assigns one fixed Hindi term per Hebrew tier (भोला / मूर्ख / मूढ़-नीच मूर्ख / ठट्ठा करनेवाला) and this assignment must be held rigidly consistent across all 31 chapters — the distinction is created by disciplined consistency, not by pre-existing Hindi vocabulary.

2. בִּינָה / תְּבוּנָה synonym collapse. Both binah and tevunah are best rendered समझ; Hindi has no equally established second near-synonym at the same register carrying the same nuance. Mitigation: flag every verse where both Hebrew terms co-occur in synonymous parallelism (e.g., 2:2-3; 3:5 uses binah alone) for a footnote acknowledging the collapsed synonymy, so the reviewer does not mistake the repetition for a translation error.

3. מְזִמָּה dual valence. A single Hebrew noun spans “wise discretion” (positive) and “wicked scheming” (negative); Hindi has no single word spanning both registers. Mitigation: context-dependent split rendering (समझदारी / दुष्ट योजना) is mandatory; the translator must never default to one sense without checking the clause’s moral polarity.

4. חֵסֶד + אֶמֶת merism. The paired covenant-virtue formula (3:3, and echoing Exodus 34:6) functions almost as a single fixed idiom in Hebrew. Hindi’s कृपा और सच्चाई is serviceable but lacks the fixed-idiom weight the Hebrew pair carries elsewhere in the canon (Psalms, Exodus 34). Mitigation: a cross-reference note tying 3:3 to the Exodus 34:6 formula preserves the theological weight that plain juxtaposition alone would lose.

5. The chapter 31 acrostic (א–ת). This is a structural/formal gap, not a lexical one: Hindi’s Devanagari script has no alphabetic sequence mapping onto Hebrew’s 22-letter acrostic structure of 31:10-31. Mitigation: no lexical fix is possible; a structural translator’s note explaining the lost acrostic form (each verse originally began with the successive Hebrew letter) should accompany the passage so the poem’s original mnemonic/completeness function is not silently lost on the reader.

6. אָמוֹן’s irreducible ambiguity (8:30). This is not a translation-loss gap but a source-text ambiguity gap: Hindi cannot resolve what the Hebrew itself does not resolve. Mitigation: preserve as alternatives_considered per the glossary rather than forcing a false lexical precision.

7. קָנָה’s semantic range (8:22). Hebrew qanah spans “acquire, possess, create, bring forth” in a single verb; no single Hindi verb spans this range with matching theological neutrality. Mitigation: the glossary’s split compound (अर्जित किया / रचा) is a necessary paraphrase, not a single-word solution — flag for theologian review at every occurrence, consistent with the Critical risk tier.

---

4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term	Decision	Rejected Alternative	Rationale
שְׁאוֹל (Sheol)	Paraphrase → अधोलोक	Transliteration शेओल	A bare transliteration would be meaningless to a Hindi reader without extensive first-occurrence explanation, defeating the purpose of a readable wisdom-literature translation. अधोलोक (“the realm below”) is an existing, comprehensible Hindi word close enough in register to function narratively, provided it is fenced (§2 above) against Puranic pātāla-cosmology import.
אֲבַדּוֹן (Abaddon)	Transliterate → अबद्दोन	Paraphrase (e.g., “विनाश का स्थान”)	Unlike Sheol, Abaddon already has an established transliterated form in Hindi Revelation translations (9:11); consistency across the combined canon-wide Language Package outweighs the marginal comprehension gain of paraphrase.
מִשְׁלֵי (book title)	Established paraphrase → नीतिवचन	Transliteration “मिशलेइ”	नीतिवचन is the long-fixed BSI Hindi Bible title; transliteration would break decades of reader familiarity for no doctrinal gain.
גּוֹרָל (goral, “lot”)	Paraphrase → चिट्ठी / पर्ची	Transliteration “गोराल”	Casting lots is a concrete, describable practice with ready Hindi equivalents; transliteration would obscure a perfectly translatable concrete action and weaken the “even a mechanical procedure is under God’s sovereignty” argument of 16:33.
אֵשֶׁת חַיִל (eshet chayil)	Paraphrase (compound) → गुणी और समर्थ स्त्री	Single-word वीरांगना (over-emphasizes martial/heroic sense); “भली पत्नी” (flattens chayil to generic “good wife,” losing the economic-capability and public-strength sense)	chayil’s semantic range (strength, capability, valor) requires a compound to avoid both a narrow domestic-virtue stereotype and an inappropriately martial connotation.
אָמוֹן (amon, 8:30)	Paraphrase, ambiguity preserved → निपुण कारीगर (with alternatives_considered)	Transliteration “आमोन”	The term’s dispute is exegetical/lexical, not a transliteration problem; paraphrasing while flagging the alternative (“little child/nursling”) keeps the genuine ambiguity visible to reviewers rather than manufacturing false certainty via an opaque transliteration.
יִרְאַת יְהוָה (fear of the LORD)	Paraphrase (fixed compound) → परमेश्वर का भय	N/A — no transliteration option for a phrase	Compound phrase mandatory (matches the pattern of the baseline’s धर्मी ठहराया जाना and Galatians’ दूसरा सुसमाचार); guards against bare भय’s servile-terror drift.
אָוֶן / קָנָה (qanah, 8:22)	Paraphrase (split compound) → अर्जित किया / रचा	Transliteration “क़ाना”	A theologically loaded verb of this kind must remain interpretable in running Hindi text, not opaque; the split compound keeps the Arian-controversy-adjacent ambiguity visible for theologian review rather than resolved by a foreign-sounding placeholder.
חֵן at 3:34	Paraphrase, split rendering → अनुग्रह (3:34 only), कृपा elsewhere	Uniform कृपा throughout	Because 3:34 (LXX) is directly quoted by James 4:6 and 1 Peter 5:5 using χάρις (baseline अनुग्रह), rendering it अनुग्रह at this single occurrence preserves NT-quotation consistency across the combined Language Package library, at the cost of an internal Hebrew-chapter inconsistency that must be explained in a note.
Proper names (Agur, Lemuel, etc., ch. 30-31)	Transliterate (अगूर, लमूएल)	N/A	Standard proper-name transliteration per the baseline’s established-name convention; no doctrinal content at stake.

---

5. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined (a) doctrinal centrality, (b) collision severity with Hindu-tradition vocabulary, and (c) cross-curriculum consistency exposure (i.e., risk of appearing to contradict the Romans/Galatians baseline).

1. חֵן (chen) split rendering, Proverbs 3:4 vs. 3:34. The same Hebrew word must be rendered two different ways within one chapter (कृपा vs. अनुग्रह) solely because 3:34 is quoted verbatim by James 4:6/1 Peter 5:5. Highest cross-curriculum consistency exposure in the whole book. Critical.

2. קָנָה (qanah), 8:22 — Wisdom’s “acquiring/being brought forth.” Sits directly on the historic Arian-controversy fault line and, independently, on a Hindu avatar-emanation fault line. Any imprecision here risks a heterodox Christological reading being read back into an OT wisdom-personification text. Critical.

3. חָכְמָה (chokmah) as बुद्धि throughout chs. 1-9. The single most-repeated term in the book’s theological core; its collision with Samkhya buddhi-tattva is pervasive rather than occasional, requiring sustained rather than one-time fencing. Critical.

4. דַּעַת (da’at) as ज्ञान. Second most pervasive collision, directly inverting Vedantic jñāna’s ego-dissolving thrust; occurs at the thesis-adjacent 1:7 and 9:10 and dozens of times elsewhere. Critical.

5. נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh) — mandatory प्राण, never आत्मा. A single lapse into आत्मा at any of the book’s nephesh occurrences (13:4,19 and others) would assert an eternal-self doctrine the text explicitly does not hold. Critical.

6. יִרְאַת יְהוָה (fear of the LORD) — भय’s servile-terror drift. The book’s own thesis statement (1:7) and inclusio-closing bookend (31:30) are both exposed; a single unfenced occurrence anywhere in the book’s ~15 uses undermines the entire doctrine. Critical.

7. דֶּרֶךְ/אֹרַח (derekh/orach) as मार्ग — the “three mārgas” pluralism risk. Occurs so frequently (dozens of times across the whole book) that consistent fencing is operationally demanding; any lapse reads as an endorsement of religious pluralism the text itself excludes. High.

8. שְׁאוֹל (Sheol) as अधोलोक — Puranic pātāla import. Recurs at least nine times (1:12; 5:5; 7:27; 9:18; 15:11,24; 23:14; 27:20; 30:16); each occurrence independently risks importing an unrelated mythological cosmology if the standing note is dropped in any single instance. High.

9. אֵין תּוֹרָה/parental torah as शिक्षा vs. baseline’s व्यवस्था. A single accidental substitution of व्यवस्था for a father’s wisdom-instruction (occurring at least ten times: 1:8; 3:1; 4:2; 6:20; 7:2; 13:14; 28:4,7,9; 29:18) would silently reintroduce Mosaic-law weight into non-Mosaic material, contradicting the baseline’s own reservation of that term. High.

10. בָּטַח (batach) as भरोसा — apparent conflict with the baseline’s rejection of भरोसा for πίστις. Requires an explicit governing note (§1, Trust doctrine row) at every occurrence (3:5 and others) or students moving between Romans/Galatians (विश्वास) and Proverbs (भरोसा) may perceive contradictory glossary guidance. High.

11. בְּנוֹ (beno, “his son”), Agur’s rhetorical question, 30:4. Risk runs in both directions — over-reading a proto-Trinitarian statement, or dismissively under-reading a text that later NT theology does draw upon typologically. Isolated single occurrence but high interpretive stakes. High.

12. אֵשֶׁת חַיִל (eshet chayil), 31:10-31 (and 12:4). Risk of flattening chayil into either a narrow “virtuous/chaste” domestic stereotype or an inappropriately martial connotation, distorting the poem’s actual portrait of an economically capable, publicly respected woman. High.

13. הֶבֶל (hevel) as व्यर्थ/निष्फल — माया drift, 31:30. Single occurrence but structurally critical as the book’s closing inclusio-word answering back to 1:7/9:10; a माया-adjacent reading (“beauty is unreal”) rather than “beauty is fleeting” would sever the inclusio’s logical connection to the fear-of-the-LORD thesis. High.

14. אָמוֹן (amon), 8:30 — genuine lexical ambiguity plus Viśvakarma-adjacent risk if resolved toward “craftsman.” Single occurrence, moderate doctrinal weight, but a wrong resolution invites a co-creator-deity misreading. Medium-High.

15. מְזִמָּה (mezimmah) dual valence and the פֶּתִי/כְּסִיל/אֱוִיל/לֵץ four-tier fool gradient. Distributed risk (many occurrences, no single high-stakes verse) but cumulative risk of flattening Proverbs’ careful moral taxonomy into an undifferentiated “foolishness” if lexical discipline lapses anywhere across chs. 1-29. Medium.

---

6. Full-Book Chapter Coverage Checklist

Confirms every chapter has been reviewed for load-bearing vocabulary; chapters not separately itemized above are explicitly noted as reviewed with no additional new-term risk beyond what is already catalogued.

Chapters	Coverage Status
1	Reviewed — thesis statement (1:7), wisdom personified begins, fool-taxonomy introduced. See §1 rows 1,2,4; §5 items 3,4,6.
2	Reviewed — way/path, righteous/wicked contrast, forbidden woman introduced. See §1 row 3; §2 मार्ग entry.
3	Core passage (3:1-12) plus 3:13-35 wisdom-praise and chen/chesed/batach cluster. See §1 all rows; §5 items 1,10.
4	Reviewed — heart/way/crooked-speech vocabulary; no new terms beyond §1 rows 3,5.
5-7	Reviewed — forbidden woman / wife-of-youth material (Family doctrine, cross-referenced in glossary §I); no new terms beyond what is catalogued there.
8	Reviewed — Wisdom’s self-description, qanah (8:22), amon (8:30). See §5 items 2,14.
9	Reviewed — two-women/two-houses contrast (Wisdom vs. Folly), fear-of-the-LORD/knowledge inclusio (9:10). See §1 row 2; §5 items 4,6.
10-15	Reviewed — bulk of antithetical wise/fool, righteous/wicked, diligent/sluggard proverbs; sustained application of §1 rows 4,6 and §5 item 15 vocabulary; no new categories introduced.
16	Reviewed — goral/lot (16:33), sovereignty-over-plans cluster. See §1 Trust row; §2 चिट्ठी entry.
17-19	Reviewed — speech, discipline, and poverty/wealth proverbs continue established vocabulary; 18:10 (name of the LORD) and 19:21 (the LORD’s purpose) reinforce Providence doctrine without introducing new terms.
20	Reviewed — 20:27 (human ruach) is the key new-term occurrence. See §2 आत्मा (for human ruach) entry.
21-24	Reviewed — sustained wise/fool, diligence, and speech application; no new categories.
25-27	Reviewed — honor/social-reputation proverbs (25:2, 27), whisperer/gossip vocabulary (26:20-22) fully catalogued in §1 Speech row.
28-29	Reviewed — righteous/wicked and torah-keeping cluster continue established vocabulary (28:4,7,9; 29:18).
30	Reviewed — Agur’s oracle; beno (30:4) is the key new-term occurrence. See §5 item 11.
31	Reviewed — Lemuel’s oracle and the eshet chayil acrostic poem (31:10-31); closing hevel inclusio (31:30). See §4 (acrostic gap), §5 items 12,13.

This document extends, and must never contradict, 08_core_glossary.md, the Proverbs additions to bible_term_registry.json, and the baseline translation_memory.json/bible_term_registry.json/doctrine_risk_registry.json. All Phase 2 Proverbs translation work must load this analysis alongside those artifacts before segment processing begins.