Linguistic Gap Analysis
Acts — Linguistic Gap Analysis (Hmong Language Package)
0. Purpose, Scope, and Method
This document executes PRD Phase 1 Step 8 for the Acts curriculum. It does not re-derive terms already fixed in the Romans baseline translation_memory.json, nor duplicate the term-by-term field data already recorded in analysis/08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json (Acts). Instead, it performs the analytical synthesis those documents presuppose:
- A doctrine vocabulary matrix mapping each of the nine assigned Acts doctrines to its available Hmong vocabulary, the specific weaknesses of that vocabulary, and a recommended handling strategy.
- A structural distinction between missing vocabulary (comprehension gaps — no native referent exists) and crowded semantic neighborhoods (collision gaps — one native word is forced to carry multiple, doctrinally distinct referents and therefore needs a “fence,” i.e., a mandatory qualifier, co-text rule, or teaching note).
- A transliteration vs. paraphrase decision log for proper names, technical institutions, and festival/office vocabulary newly encountered in Acts that has no Romans-baseline precedent.
- A ranked list of the letter’s highest-risk ambiguities, synthesizing severity (doctrinal centrality × collision strength × frequency) across the full book, first-through-last chapter.
Full-book coverage is maintained throughout; chapters contributing no new gap are explicitly logged as reviewed, no new gap rather than omitted (see §5 chapter-coverage ledger).
Citation convention for this document follows the Romans-baseline pattern (07_semantic_analysis.md §0 / 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §7), extended to Acts: full title on first reference, Tubtxib Tes Haujlwm uas Povlauj thiab Lwm Cov Tub Txib Tau Ua (“The Acts/Deeds Which Paul and the Other Apostles Did”), abbreviated thereafter to Tubtxib, cited as Tubtxib [chapter]:[verse].
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
Each row states: the doctrine, the Hmong vocabulary currently available (drawing on both the Romans-inherited TM and the new Acts registry entries), the specific linguistic/doctrinal weakness of that vocabulary, and the recommended Phase 2 handling strategy.
1.1 The Holy Spirit and Pentecost
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Available terms | Vaj Ntsuj Plig (Holy Spirit, Critical); nchuav (Vaj Ntsuj Plig) (pour out, High); puv / puv npo ntawm Vaj Ntsuj Plig (filled with, High); hais lwm yam lus (speak in tongues, Medium); cev Vajtswv lus (prophesy, Medium); Vaj Ntsuj Plig raug muab pub dawb rau (gift of the Spirit, Medium); thawj phaus qoob loo (firstfruits, Low-Medium, Pentecost harvest association) |
| Weakness | Acts 2 narrates a single, unrepeatable historical event (tongues of fire, sound of wind, foreign-language speech, sudden filling) using verbs (nchuav, puv/puv npo) whose nearest native semantic neighbors are shamanic trance-possession (nkag) and ancestral libation-pouring ritual. The doctrine’s entire persuasive force depends on hearers NOT assimilating Pentecost into an existing txiv neeb framework. |
| Recommended strategy | Enforce the qualifier-pairing rules already fixed in the registry (nchuav always with explicit divine subject; puv npo never nkag) as a single non-negotiable structural unit, not a stylistic preference. Every Pentecost-adjacent lesson must include the contrast-teaching note distinguishing Spirit-filling (God-initiated, non-repeatable-as-conversion-event but repeatable-as-empowerment, produces intelligible speech and bold witness) from spirit-possession trance (human/ritually-initiated, produces altered consciousness). Use the agrarian firstfruits association (thawj phaus qoob loo) as a positive cultural bridge to anchor Pentecost’s harvest-festival setting without theological risk. |
1.2 The Gospel to Jews and Gentiles
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Available terms | lwm Haiv Neeg (Gentiles), cov Yudas (Jew), tsis saib ntsej muag (impartiality of God), qias tsis huv / dawb huv (clean/unclean, Critical), tus ntshai thiab hwm Vajtswv (God-fearer, Medium), cov txawv haiv tuaj koom nkag rau Kevcai Yudas (proselyte, Medium), tus Vajtswv uas lawv tsis paub (Unknown God, Critical) |
| Weakness | The doctrine’s narrative engine (Peter’s vision, Cornelius’s household, the Jerusalem Council) runs entirely on the clean/unclean vocabulary, which is the same vocabulary domain already flagged Critical in the Romans baseline for sanctification (dawb huv) and now additionally collides with Hmong food/ritual-purity taboo categories tied to death-contact and clan custom. A second weakness: the Areopagus “Unknown God” rhetorical move risks being generalized by hearers into a syncretistic warrant for continuing ancestor/spirit veneration under an “unknown-God” umbrella. |
| Recommended strategy | Teach Peter’s vision (10:9-16, 28; 11:1-18) explicitly as a declaration about people-group inclusion, not primarily a statement about literal food hygiene — the vision’s referent (Gentiles) must always be stated in the same teaching unit as the vehicle (animals/food). For 17:22-31, require the fixed historical-rhetorical frame (“Paul used this specific altar inscription in this specific city to pivot to the specific resurrected Christ”) rather than presenting it as a portable missiological principle; mandatory theologian review at every use per the existing Critical flag. |
1.3 Repentance and Baptism
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Available terms | hloov siab lees txim tso kev txhaum tseg (repentance, High); kev zam txim (forgiveness of sins, Medium); kev cai raus dej (baptism, High, inherited); hauv lub npe ntawm Yexus Khetos (in the name of Jesus, Critical) |
| Weakness | Two independent collision domains converge in the same clause at 2:38, Acts’ programmatic verse: (a) txhaum-repair culture frames repentance as reparable social/ritual fault correction rather than decisive God-ward reorientation; (b) kevcai (baptism) shares its root with ritual spirit-contamination purification; (c) “in the name of Jesus” risks a magical-incantation reading, dramatized negatively by the text itself at 19:13-17 (Sons of Sceva). Acts additionally requires a distinction the Romans package never needed: John’s baptism (water-only, repentance-oriented, 19:1-7) vs. Christian baptism (Spirit-conferring, name-of-Jesus baptism) — two historically distinct rites sharing one Hmong lexical string. |
| Recommended strategy | Treat 2:38 as a single atomic teaching unit requiring all three qualifiers simultaneously (repentance-phrase + baptism-phrase + name-of-Jesus-phrase), never taught in isolated fragments. Add a mandatory comparison table/footnote at first occurrence of John’s baptism (19:1-7) explicitly naming the two-stage historical distinction, since no lexical fix exists — this is a teaching-note-only mitigation. |
1.4 The Church as Community
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Available terms | pawg ntseeg (church, Low); kev sib raug zoo / kev koom ua ke ntawm cov ntseeg (fellowship, Low-Medium); kev muab ncuav rhe ua ke noj (breaking of bread, Medium-High); muab txhua yam khoom coj los ua ke (holding all in common, Low-Medium); cov txwj laus (hauv pawg ntseeg) (elder, Medium); tus saib xyuas pawg ntseeg (overseer, Medium); tus pab tu pawg ntseeg (deacon, Medium) |
| Weakness | This doctrine is comparatively low-collision but has a distinct office-crowding risk: Hmong already has a dense, functioning clan/village eldership institution (txwj laus) entangled with ancestor-ritual decision-making authority, and the text uses elder and overseer as synonyms for the same referents (20:17, 28) while deacon names a genuinely distinct office (6:1-6). Without careful fencing, all three offices risk being flattened into one undifferentiated “church leader” category, or conversely the elder-office risks importing clan-ritual authority connotations. |
| Recommended strategy | Maintain the mandatory (hauv pawg ntseeg) qualifier on txwj laus at every occurrence, with zero exceptions, and explicitly teach overseer/elder as a descriptive synonym-pair (not two offices) while explicitly teaching deacon as a genuinely distinct, separate office instituted at 6:1-6. Teach the breaking-of-bread and common-ownership practices as voluntary, Spirit-produced generosity, not as instructions for a mandated economic system — this is a comprehension/emphasis risk, not a collision risk. |
1.5 Apostolic Authority and Miracles
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Available terms | tus Tub Txib (apostle, Medium); tej cim thiab tej txuj ci tseem ceeb ntawm Vajtswv (signs and wonders, High); tsa tes rau saum (lawv) (laying on of hands, High); khawv koob (sorcery, Critical); ua nrig xaiv (casting lots, High); hwjchim (power, always Vajtswv hwjchim, High) |
| Weakness | This is the single densest concentration of collision terms in the book: apostolic miracle-working vocabulary sits directly adjacent, in the Hmong lexicon, to the entire shamanic (txiv neeb) professional vocabulary set — ritual power (hwjchim), ritual gesture (laying on of hands vs. healing touch), ritual feats (txuj ci), and outright condemned sorcery (khawv koob) all draw from the same or adjacent semantic fields. The text’s own narrative (Simon Magus, 8:9-24; Elymas, 13:6-12; Ephesian scroll-burning, 19:19) supplies built-in contrast material, but that contrast must be actively taught, not assumed. |
| Recommended strategy | Never permit any of the flagged terms in this cluster to appear unqualified. Use the text’s own condemnation narratives as the primary pedagogical vehicle: pair every “signs and wonders” or “laying on of hands” teaching unit with an explicit side-by-side contrast to the khawv koob narratives in the same lesson, so learners see the Bible’s own internal boundary-marking rather than an externally imposed one. |
1.6 Persecution and Bold Witness
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Available terms | tus timkhawv (witness/martyr, Low, semantic-development note); kev ua siab ntev (endurance, Low); tus tubtxib saum ntuj ntawm tus Tswv (angel of the Lord, High); pob zeb uas cov kws tsim tsev tsis xaiv... (cornerstone, Medium); Tus Tub ntawm Tib Neeg (Son of Man, Medium) |
| Weakness | Low direct collision, but two comprehension-level risks converge at Stephen’s martyrdom (ch. 7), the doctrine’s narrative anchor: the semantic shift of timkhawv from ordinary “testifier” to technical “one killed for testimony” is not marked by any lexical change, so the shift must be taught rather than shown; and the positive cornerstone-stone imagery (4:11) shares its root morpheme with the negative stumbling-block imagery already fixed in the Romans baseline, requiring deliberate valence-contrast teaching. |
| Recommended strategy | Flag Acts 7 as the doctrine’s decisive teaching moment for the witness→martyr semantic development (no lexical fix needed, only an explanatory note at first occurrence in a martyrdom context). Teach cornerstone (4:11) and stumbling-block always as a paired positive/negative set built on the same root, never introduced independently of each other. |
1.7 Conversion of Paul
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Available terms | yog toog (vision/trance, Critical); lub yias uas Vajtswv xaiv (chosen instrument, Medium); Txoj Kev (The Way, Medium); hloov siab lees txim tso kev txhaum tseg (repentance, High, reused) |
| Weakness | The doctrine’s central narrative device — a blinding light, an audible heavenly voice, temporary blindness, then a corroborating vision given to Ananias — is lexically dependent on yog toog, the single highest-collision term identified anywhere in this Language Package, since it is the actual working vocabulary for a txiv neeb’s deliberate spirit-world trance-journey. |
| Recommended strategy | Every occurrence of yog toog in Paul’s conversion narrative (9:3-19) and its three retellings (22:6-16, 26:12-18) must carry the mandatory contrast-teaching note: God-initiated, unsought, historically singular, Christ-centered, versus self-induced/ritually-induced shamanic trance-journeying. Do not attempt a euphemistic substitute — the registry has already rejected descriptive circumlocution as impractical; the fence must be built by co-text and teaching note, not by lexical avoidance. Mandatory theologian review at every occurrence, no exceptions. |
1.8 Justification apart from the Law
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Available terms | Vajtswv txoj kev ncaj ncees / tus ncaj ncees (righteousness, Critical, inherited); ua kom ncaj ncees / raug suav tias ncaj ncees (justify, Critical, inherited); Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv / Mauxes) (Law, Critical, inherited); kev txiav (raws li Txoj Kevcai Mauxes) (circumcision, Medium); lub quab (yoke, Low-Medium); tej lus qhia tseg ntawm cov Tub Txib thiab cov Txwj Laus (Apostolic Council Decree, Medium) |
| Weakness | Acts supplies the clearest single-verse anchor for this doctrine anywhere in the two-book corpus (13:38-39, “by him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses”), but this places the full weight of the Romans-baseline justification/Law collision risk onto a narrative book whose readers may not yet have received the extensive Romans-package teaching apparatus. The Jerusalem Council (ch. 15) additionally requires the justification vocabulary to interact correctly with the food/idol/circumcision vocabulary in a single compressed decision narrative. |
| Recommended strategy | Reuse the Romans-baseline mandatory qualifiers with zero deviation (13:38-39 must always retain the reckoning/imputation qualifier; “Txoj Kevcai” must always retain its qualifier). Treat Acts 15 as requiring simultaneous correct handling of four already-flagged terms in one lesson (Law, circumcision, idol, clean/unclean food) — do not attempt to simplify by dropping any one of the four qualifiers for space. |
1.9 The Great Commission Fulfilled
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Available terms | mus txog thaj chaw kawg ntawm ntiajteb (ends of the earth, Low); qhia tsis muaj leej twg thaiv (proclaiming without hindrance, Low-Medium); lub Nceeg Vaj ntawm Vajtswv (kingdom of God, Low) |
| Weakness | Almost no collision risk; the principal risk is structural/rhetorical rather than lexical — under-teaching the deliberate geographic and thematic bookending (1:8 → 28:31) that gives the whole book its shape, since these two terms occur only once each and could be treated as incidental rather than load-bearing if not flagged. |
| Recommended strategy | Treat 1:8 and 28:31 as a fixed literary inclusio in all curriculum materials; require any lesson introducing 1:8 to forward-reference 28:31 (and vice versa) so the “fulfilled” claim in the doctrine name is visibly demonstrated from the text’s own structure. |
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2.1 Missing Vocabulary (Comprehension Gaps — No Native Referent)
These terms have no collision risk with Hmong traditional religion but require an explanatory gloss because the referent institution/object is culturally unfamiliar. Comprehension gaps, not doctrinal collisions; automated/native-speaker review is sufficient unless otherwise noted.
| Term | Chapters | Gap Description | Recommended Handling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Synagogue (συναγωγή) | 6, 9, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 | No native equivalent gathering-institution exists. NEW TERM, not yet in registry — logged here for TM-revision. | Render descriptively: tsev sablaj ntawm cov Yudas (“assembly-house of the Jews”); first-occurrence footnote required. |
| Sanhedrin / Council (συνέδριον) | 4, 5, 6, 22, 23, 24 | No native judicial-religious council institution. NEW TERM, not yet in registry. | Render descriptively: lub rooj sablaj loj ntawm cov Yudas (“the great council of the Jews”); keep distinct from the general cov muaj hwjchim kav teb chaws (governing authority) entry, since the Sanhedrin is a religious-judicial body, not a Roman civil office. |
| Pharisee / Sadducee (Φαρισαῖος / Σαδδουκαῖος) | 4, 5, 15, 23 | No native equivalent religious-party structure. NEW TERM, not yet in registry. | Transliterate: cov Falixais / cov Xadukais, each with a first-occurrence descriptive footnote (law-strict resurrection-affirming party vs. resurrection-denying priestly-aristocratic party). |
| Pentecost / Feast of Weeks (Πεντηκοστή) | 2, 20 | No native harvest-pilgrimage-festival equivalent; distinct from the already-logged firstfruits association. NEW TERM, not yet in registry. | Transliterate with gloss: Hnub Petekhaus (Kaum Tsib Hnub Tom Qab Kevcai Hla Dhau) — “the Pentecost Day (fifty days after Passover)”; teach the count-of-days structure explicitly since it is unfamiliar. |
| Nazirite vow (εὐχή) | 21 | No native temporary-vow-of-consecration practice with hair/dietary restriction. NEW TERM, not yet in registry. | Paraphrase descriptively: lus cog tseg ua Naxi (tsis txiav plaub hau, tsis haus cawv), with mandatory teaching note explaining this is a temporary Jewish devotional vow, not a permanent Christian requirement — relevant to correctly bounding Doctrine 8 (Justification apart from the Law) so Paul’s accommodation is not misread as reintroducing Law-observance as necessary. |
| Roman citizenship / appeal to Caesar (ch. 16, 22, 25) | 16, 22, 25 | No native equivalent legal-status category. | Paraphrase descriptively: neeg xub qab ntawm tebchaws Loos (muaj cai raug hu mus rau Xixas); comprehension gap only, low doctrinal weight. |
| Areopagus / Epicurean / Stoic (17) | 17 | Proper/technical philosophical-institutional names with no native referent. | Transliterate proper nouns (Alekiaupaka, cov Epikulis, cov Xato-ike or similar established transliteration conventions — see §4 below); treat as background color, not doctrinally load-bearing terms requiring their own risk tier. |
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing (Collision Gaps)
These are native Hmong words/roots that Acts forces to carry two or more doctrinally distinct referents simultaneously, at least one of which collides with a specific traditional-religion concept. Each requires a structural “fence” — a mandatory qualifier, subject-marking rule, or co-text requirement — not a comprehension footnote.
| Shared Root/Word | Distinct Referents Crowded Together | Collision Partner | Fencing Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
hwjchim | (a) Spirit-given apostolic/gospel power; (b) delegated civil/governing authority; (c) implicitly, the shaman’s own ritual power (never itself rendered hwjchim in-text but the ever-present comparative referent) | Shamanic (txiv neeb) ritual power | Sense (a) always Vajtswv hwjchim; sense (b) always the full phrase cov muaj hwjchim kav teb chaws, never bare hwjchim. Never allow a bare, unqualified occurrence in generated content under any circumstance. |
nchuav | (a) God’s sovereign outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost; (b) ordinary liquid-pouring; (c) ancestral libation-pouring ritual | Ancestor-veneration libation offering | Sense (a) always paired with an explicit divine subject preceding or accompanying the verb (Vajtswv nchuav... / tus Tswv nchuav...); never left subject-ambiguous. |
puv / puv npo vs. nkag | (a) Spirit-filling (empowerment, intelligible speech, boldness); (b) spirit-possession trance-entry | Shamanic possession-trance | nkag is PERMANENTLY FORBIDDEN for any Holy-Spirit-filling context; puv npo ntawm Vaj Ntsuj Plig is the only sanctioned construction, with zero exceptions, extended from the Romans-baseline 5:12 prohibition. |
dawb huv / qias tsis huv | (a) Progressive moral/spiritual sanctification (Romans-baseline); (b) Peter’s vision’s ritual food-purity categories reinterpreted as a statement about Gentile inclusion; (c) folk ritual purity from death-contact/spirit-contamination | Folk ritual purification practice | Every occurrence must state its referent explicitly in the same clause: sanctification contexts must reference the Spirit’s ongoing moral work; Acts 10-11 contexts must reference Gentile inclusion, never left to stand as a bare hygiene statement. |
yog toog | (a) God-initiated revelatory vision/trance (Paul, Peter, Cornelius, etc.); (b) shamanic self- or ritually-induced trance-journey to the spirit world | Shamanic trance-journey (ua neeb) | No lexical avoidance permitted (already attempted and rejected as impractical). Mandatory co-text: subject/initiator must always be explicitly God or “tus Tswv,” and the passage’s outcome must always be tied to Christ-centered content, at every occurrence, with mandatory theologian review. |
fij (sacrifice/offering domain) | (a) Christ’s unique, unrepeatable atonement (Romans-baseline hilastērion); (b) ethical “living sacrifice” devotion (Romans-baseline); (c) idol-food sacrificed to false gods (Acts Council decree, 15:20,29); (d) implicitly, ancestor/spirit-appeasement feast offerings | Ancestor/spirit appeasement ritual feasting | Every occurrence must be explicitly marked as one of (a), (b), or (c) and never left ambiguous; (c) in particular must be explicitly taught as a prohibition (abstain from idol-sacrificed food), the inverse valence of (a)-(b), requiring careful negative-vs-positive framing in the same lesson as the Council decree. |
pehawm | (a) Legitimate worship of God/Christ; (b) the identical verb for venerating ancestral/household/nature spirits (pehawm dab); (c) at Lystra, the crowd’s attempted worship of Paul/Barnabas as gods | Ancestor/spirit veneration | Object must always be stated (pehawm Vajtswv); the Lystra episode (14:14-15) supplies a built-in negative example (worship refused) that must be paired in teaching with the positive pehawm Vajtswv instruction. |
hu (ritual soul-calling/summoning verb) | (a) “Call on the name of the Lord” (2:21, 22:16); (b) ritually calling back a wandering soul (hu plig) or summoning a spirit | Animistic soul-calling ritual | Extends the Romans-baseline prohibition unchanged: hu must never be used for this construction; descriptive phrasing anchored to ntseeg and lees paub tias Yexus yog tus Tswv is the only sanctioned rendering. |
kevcai (root shared by baptism and “custom/rite”) | (a) Christian baptism, a once-for-all identification with Christ; (b) John’s baptism, a preparatory repentance-rite; (c) kev cai dab qhuas (ancestral/spirit-worship customs generally) | Ancestral ritual-purification custom | Sense (a) always kev cai raus dej explicitly anchored to union with Christ’s death/resurrection and to the name of Jesus; sense (b) requires the mandatory two-stage historical-distinction footnote at first occurrence (19:1-7); never allow either to be conflated with generic kevcai custom-keeping. |
txwj laus | (a) Recognized church leadership office (elder); (b) clan/village eldership entangled with ancestor-ritual and shamanic-consultation decision authority | Clan/ancestor-ritual eldership | Mandatory qualifier (hauv pawg ntseeg) at every occurrence without exception. |
pob zeb (stone root) | (a) Positive: Christ as rejected-yet-exalted cornerstone (4:11); (b) Negative: stumbling block (Romans-baseline, reused thematically) | none (internal valence-crowding, not external collision) | Always teach both together as a deliberately reversed-valence pair sharing one root; never introduce one without cross-referencing the other. |
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decision Log
Acts introduces substantially more proper-noun density (people, places, philosophical schools, Roman offices) than Romans. The following decisions establish the governing convention for this Language Package, extending — never contradicting — the Romans-baseline pattern already fixed for Yexus Khetos, Povlauj, Abba, and Loos (Rome).
| Category | Decision | Rationale | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal proper names (apostles, converts, officials) | Transliterate, using established Hmong-Bible-tradition spellings where they already exist (e.g., Petus for Peter, Yauhas for John, Povlauj for Paul, already fixed); for names with no prior Hmong Bible tradition spelling, adopt phonetic RPA transliteration and log for TM-revision ratification. | Consistent with the register requirement (formal, tradition-consistent); avoids inventing meaning-bearing Hmong descriptive names for real historical individuals, which would be both inaccurate and unstable across a large cast of characters. | Xatiliyas (Ananias — note: TWO Ananiases in Acts, 5:1 and 9:10, must be distinguished by co-text, not by spelling); Khaunelias (Cornelius); Feslikus (Felix); Feestus (Festus); Akipas (Agrippa); Kalioo (Gallio) |
| Place names (cities, regions) | Transliterate, following the Loos (Rome) precedent; retain city identity rather than substituting a functionally similar Hmong-context place, since itinerary/geography is doctrinally significant for the Great Commission doctrine’s “ends of the earth” claim. | Geographic specificity is part of Luke’s own argument (the gospel’s traceable, verifiable historical spread); substituting generic place-language would undermine that argument. | Yeluxalees (Jerusalem, already implicit in existing Hmong Christian usage); Anadixauj (Antioch); Filipais (Philippi); Efexas (Ephesus); Athees (Athens); Malta/Melitas (Malta) |
| Religious-party/institutional names (Pharisee, Sadducee, Sanhedrin, synagogue) | Transliterate proper-party names; paraphrase institutional-function names, per §2.1 above. | Party names function as proper nouns identifying real historical factions and should not be dissolved into descriptive Hmong phrases that might imply doctrinal judgment; institutional-function terms (synagogue, council) benefit from a descriptive gloss since their function, not their name, is what matters pedagogically. | cov Falixais, cov Xadukais (transliterated); tsev sablaj ntawm cov Yudas, lub rooj sablaj loj (paraphrased) |
| Philosophical schools (Epicurean, Stoic) | Transliterate with mandatory footnote, treated as background/cultural color, not doctrinally load-bearing. | These function in 17:18 only to characterize Paul’s audience; inventing a Hmong-cultural-equivalent philosophical school would falsely imply a real parallel and risk syncretistic confusion. | cov Epikulis, cov Xato-ikes |
| Roman civil/legal offices (proconsul, centurion, tribune) | Paraphrase descriptively, following the Romans-baseline governing_authority pattern rather than transliterating each specific office. | Consistent with the existing Romans-baseline decision to render exousia descriptively (cov muaj hwjchim kav teb chaws) rather than transliterate Roman administrative vocabulary, which would multiply low-value technical loanwords without doctrinal payoff. | tus thawj tub rog (centurion); tus thawj kav lub xeev (proconsul/governor) |
| Festival names (Pentecost, Passover — Passover already assumed inherited) | Transliterate the proper festival name plus a mandatory descriptive gloss, per §2.1. | A bare transliteration alone (Petekhaus) would be doctrinally opaque; a bare paraphrase alone would lose the proper-name identity that lets the term function as a fixed calendar-anchor across the whole curriculum. | Hnub Petekhaus (Kaum Tsib Hnub Tom Qab Kevcai Hla Dhau) |
| Vow/rite names with no native equivalent (Nazirite) | Paraphrase, never transliterate a one-off technical term that appears only once and would otherwise sit as an unexplained loanword. | Transliterating a single-occurrence term yields no reusability benefit and adds an unnecessary vocabulary burden; a clear descriptive phrase serves the pedagogical need better. | lus cog tseg ua Naxi |
| ”The Way” self-designation | Paraphrase with proper-name marking (already fixed in the Acts registry as Txoj Kev), not transliteration. | The Greek term itself (hē hodos) is not a proper name requiring transliteration but a repurposed common noun functioning as a title; the correct strategy is orthographic/contextual marking (capitalization-equivalent, footnote), already correctly identified in the prior registry. | Txoj Kev (marked) vs. txoj kev (unmarked, generic path) |
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities (Full Book)
Ranking criteria: doctrinal centrality (how load-bearing the term is for one or more of the nine assigned doctrines) × collision severity (strength of the competing traditional-religion referent) × frequency/narrative weight (how often and how climactically the term recurs). Ties broken toward whichever term has the least available lexical fence (i.e., cannot be mitigated by a qualifier phrase alone and requires sustained contextual teaching).
| Rank | Term | Doctrine(s) | Why Highest-Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vision / Trance (yog toog) | Conversion of Paul; Gospel to Jews and Gentiles | Identical vocabulary to deliberate shamanic trance-journeying; appears at the hinge-point of two separate major doctrines (Paul’s conversion, Cornelius’s conversion) and recurs at high frequency (9x+) across the book; no lexical avoidance is possible, only sustained co-text discipline. |
| 2 | Name of Jesus (invocation formula, hauv lub npe ntawm Yexus Khetos) | Repentance and Baptism; Apostolic Authority and Miracles | Appears in the book’s single most-quoted verse (2:38) and in every healing/exorcism narrative; the text itself dramatizes the magical-incantation misreading (19:13-17), proving the risk is not hypothetical. |
| 3 | Filled with / Poured Out (Holy Spirit) (puv npo, nchuav) | The Holy Spirit and Pentecost | Governs the doctrine’s single defining event (Acts 2) and recurs at every subsequent narrative advance of the gospel (Samaria, Cornelius, Ephesus); the forbidden-substitution boundary (nkag) sits immediately adjacent in the native lexicon, making accidental drift a live risk in any less-disciplined translation effort. |
| 4 | Sorcery / Magic (khawv koob) | Apostolic Authority and Miracles | Cannot be softened without erasing the text’s own contrast-argument, yet is the single most theologically loaded native Hmong religious-practice term in the entire glossary; requires the highest sustained vigilance against any framing that could read as endorsement, curiosity-normalizing, or even neutral anthropological description. |
| 5 | Spirit of Divination (dab saib yaig) | Persecution and Bold Witness; contrast to Holy Spirit and Pentecost | Names an actual, currently-practiced category in Hmong spirit-taxonomy; low frequency (single episode, 16:16-18) but extremely high specificity of collision, and doctrinally necessary as the direct negative foil to the Spirit’s genuine gifts. |
| 6 | Clean / Unclean (food, ritual) (qias tsis huv / dawb huv) | The Gospel to Jews and Gentiles | Extends an already-Critical Romans-baseline collision into a new taboo-domain (food/death-contact purity); governs the doctrine’s central narrative (Cornelius) and is easily misheard as a hygiene regulation rather than a people-inclusion declaration. |
| 7 | Unknown God (tus Vajtswv uas lawv tsis paub) | The Gospel to Jews and Gentiles | Single-occurrence but uniquely dangerous: unlike most collision terms (which risk being misunderstood as pagan), this one risks actively validating a syncretistic principle if decontextualized, since it appears to license “your unknown god might be the true God” reasoning. |
| 8 | Casting Lots (ua nrig xaiv) | Apostolic Authority and Miracles; Election and the Sovereignty of God (thematic carry-over) | Closely resembles a live Hmong/animist divinatory practice; low frequency (single episode, 1:26) but positioned at the very start of the book, meaning an unmitigated reading could set a wrong interpretive frame for everything that follows. |
| 9 | Angel of the Lord (tus tubtxib saum ntuj ntawm tus Tswv) | Apostolic Authority and Miracles; Persecution and Bold Witness | Recurs across pivotal deliverance/judgment scenes (5, 8, 12, 27); risk is well-fenced by the mandatory qualifier but the underlying spirit-intermediary collision concept (ancestor/nature-spirit go-betweens) is deeply embedded in Hmong cosmology, requiring sustained vigilance rather than one-time fencing. |
| 10 | Signs and Wonders / Power (tej cim thiab tej txuj ci, Vajtswv hwjchim) | Apostolic Authority and Miracles; The Gospel as the Power of God for Salvation (carried over) | High frequency, well-fenced by an existing mandatory qualifier convention inherited from Romans, but the sheer density of miracle-narrative in Acts (far higher than Romans) multiplies the number of individual instances where qualifier-discipline could lapse. |
| 11 | Resurrection of the Dead (sawv hauv qhov tuag rov qab los) | Apostolic Authority and Miracles; core kerygma | Collides with ancestor-spirit continuity belief (the dead as ongoing, ritually-fed presences rather than bodily raised); mitigated by being a comprehension/worldview contrast rather than a direct lexical collision, and the text’s own Athens mockery scene (17:32) provides built-in audience-resistance modeling. |
| 12 | Baptism, two-stage (John’s vs. Christian) (kev cai raus dej) | Repentance and Baptism | Inherits the Romans-baseline kevcai collision at High risk, but Acts adds a genuinely new complication (two historically distinct rites, one lexical string) not present in Romans, requiring a dedicated comparison teaching note absent from the baseline package. |
5. Chapter-Coverage Ledger (Full-Book Confirmation)
Per the full-book-coverage mandate, every chapter of Acts is confirmed reviewed for this gap analysis. Chapters not separately discussed above contributed no new gap beyond what is already captured in §§1-4 and are logged here explicitly rather than silently omitted.
| Chapter(s) | Status |
|---|---|
| 1 | Reviewed — contributes casting-lots (Rank 8), Great Commission bookend, election vocabulary carry-over. |
| 2 | Reviewed — core passage; contributes Pentecost, filling/pouring (Rank 3), tongues, prophecy, repentance/baptism formula (Rank 2), fellowship/breaking-of-bread, firstfruits. |
| 3 | Reviewed — contributes Servant-of-God (pais) title, name-of-Jesus healing, repentance. |
| 4 | Reviewed — contributes cornerstone/stumbling-block pairing, grace (ordinary vs. salvific sense), foreknow/predestine + human-culpability pairing, apostolic boldness/power. |
| 5 | Reviewed — contributes angel of the Lord (Rank 9), Ananias/Sapphira (Spirit personhood reinforcement), obedience of faith. |
| 6 | Reviewed — contributes deacon office, Hellenist/Hebrew distinction, filled-with-Spirit formula (Stephen), signs and wonders. |
| 7 | Reviewed — contributes witness→martyr semantic development, Son of Man title, idol vocabulary (golden calf), glory. |
| 8 | Reviewed — contributes Samaritans, Simon Magus (sorcery, Rank 4), laying on of hands, baptism (Ethiopian eunuch). |
| 9 | Reviewed — core Conversion-of-Paul chapter; contributes vision/trance (Rank 1), chosen instrument, The Way, Son of God title, Ananias (Damascus) distinguished from Ananias (ch. 5) by co-text. |
| 10 | Reviewed — Cornelius narrative; contributes clean/unclean (Rank 6), vision/trance (Rank 1, second major occurrence), God-fearer, impartiality of God, gift of the Spirit. |
| 11 | Reviewed — continues Cornelius aftermath; contributes “Christian” naming at Antioch, forgiveness of sins, church (ekklēsia) formalized. |
| 12 | Reviewed — Herod/angel-of-judgment episode (Rank 9 second sense), glory (negative example). |
| 13 | Reviewed — contributes justification-apart-from-Law anchor verse (13:38-39, doctrine 8 core), sorcery (Elymas, Rank 4 second occurrence), righteousness/justify vocabulary, eternal life, will of God, filled-with-Spirit (Paul). |
| 14 | Reviewed — Lystra worship-refusal episode (pehawm fencing), endurance, apostolic council lead-in, idol. |
| 15 | Reviewed — Jerusalem Council; contributes yoke, apostolic decree, election, impartiality, sanctification (15:9), simultaneous four-term interaction (see §1.8). |
| 16 | Reviewed — contributes spirit of divination (Rank 5), Lydia’s baptism, servant/slave self-designation, name-of-Jesus (exorcism). |
| 17 | Reviewed — Athens/Areopagus; contributes Unknown God (Rank 7), world/kosmos, wrath of God (implied judgment), resurrection mockery, philosophical-school transliteration decisions. |
| 18 | Reviewed — Corinth/Gallio; contributes governing authority (Roman official), baptism (Apollos lead-in), grace. |
| 19 | Reviewed — Ephesus; contributes John’s-vs-Christian-baptism distinction (Rank 12), filled/tongues (Ephesian twelve), sorcery-scroll-burning (Rank 4 reinforcement), name-of-Jesus (Sons of Sceva, Rank 2 dramatized), idol (Diana riot). |
| 20 | Reviewed — Miletus farewell; contributes elder/overseer synonym-pair, love, endurance, breaking of bread, resurrection (Eutychus), sanctification. |
| 21 | Reviewed — contributes Nazirite vow (§2.1), circumcision, Law-observance accommodation teaching relevant to doctrine 8’s boundary-setting. |
| 22 | Reviewed — Paul’s defense/retelling of conversion; vision/trance (Rank 1, third occurrence), name-of-Jesus (“call on the name,” “hu” prohibition reinforced), righteousness. |
| 23 | Reviewed — Sanhedrin appearance (§2.1 institutional gap), resurrection controversy (Pharisee/Sadducee), governing authority. |
| 24 | Reviewed — Felix hearing; contributes truth, hope, righteousness, self-control, worship, The Way (self-designation, final major occurrence). |
| 25 | Reviewed — Festus/appeal to Caesar; contributes Roman-legal-status gap (§2.1), grace (ordinary sense). |
| 26 | Reviewed — Agrippa hearing; contributes conversion retelling (third full account), resurrection, hope, repentance, promise. |
| 27 | Reviewed — voyage/shipwreck; contributes salvation in its ordinary physical-rescue sense (distinguished by context from spiritual sense per registry #92), thanksgiving, angel of the Lord (final occurrence). |
| 28 | Reviewed — Rome arrival; contributes proclaiming-without-hindrance (Great Commission bookend), kingdom of God (final occurrence), no new collision term — deliberate thematic capstone chapter. |
6. Governing Note
This document is the Phase 1 Step 8 linguistic-gap analysis for the Hmong Acts Language Package. It presupposes and extends, without contradicting, the Romans baseline translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, and doctrine_risk_registry.json, and the Acts-specific analysis/08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json already produced in this pipeline. All terms newly identified here as lacking a prior registry entry (synagogue, Sanhedrin, Pharisee/Sadducee, Pentecost-as-festival-name, Nazirite vow, Roman-citizenship/appeal-to-Caesar, Areopagus/Epicurean/Stoic) are logged as candidates for formal TM-revision ratification in subsequent Phase 1/2 work and must carry a [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] flag in any generated content until ratified. The ranked ambiguity list in §4 is the required input for the forthcoming doctrine-risk registry and AI-translation-requirements documents for this curriculum and should be treated as the priority order for human theologian review allocation.