Deuteronomy — Linguistic Gap Analysis (Hmong Language Package)

0. Purpose and Method

This document executes PRD Phase 1 Step 8. It does not introduce new terms; it audits the vocabulary already surfaced in analysis/08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json (Deuteronomy) against the enforced Hmong Romans Baseline v1.0 (assets/translation_memory.json, assets/bible_term_registry.json, assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json) and produces:

1. A doctrine vocabulary matrix — for each of the eight assigned doctrines, what Hmong vocabulary is available, where it is weak, and what strategy Phase 2 generation must follow.
2. A gap map distinguishing missing vocabulary (no natural Hmong lexeme exists at all — comprehension gap) from crowded semantic neighborhoods (a Hmong lexeme exists but is already occupied by a competing traditional-religion referent — collision risk) that require lexical “fencing” (mandatory qualifiers, paired disambiguation terms, or teaching notes).
3. A transliteration vs. paraphrase decision log for proper nouns, festival names, and technical terms newly surfaced in Deuteronomy.
4. A ranked list of the letter’s [book’s] highest-risk ambiguities, ordered by combined doctrinal load-bearing weight and collision severity, to drive Phase 2 escalation routing.

All risk tiers and review-routing rules reuse the definitions fixed in assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json (baseline). Nothing below authorizes a rendering different from analysis/08_core_glossary.md; this document is diagnostic, not a new TM.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

1.1 The Shema and Exclusive Love for God

Element	Detail
Core passage	Deuteronomy 6:1-9 (anchor); reinforced 4:35-39, 6:13-15, 10:12, 11:13
Available Hmong vocabulary	Mloog (Hear, D5/#5); tib leeg (xwb) (one/alone, D6/#6); kev hlub (love, D7/#7, TM-inherited); lub siab (heart, D8/#8); tus ntsuj plig (soul, D9/#9); lub zog (might, D10/#10); hwm thiab ntshai Yawmsaub (fear, D11/#11)
Weaknesses	(a) Mloog alone is aurally indistinguishable from casual “listen”; the obey-entailment is grammatically invisible and must be supplied contextually every time. (b) tib leeg (xwb) is the single most exposed term in the whole book: Hmong cosmology is not monotheistic-adjacent but explicitly polytheistic/animistic (ancestor spirits, house spirits, field spirits, clan spirits, wandering ghosts) each requiring separate ritual attention; a bare numeral reading would be assimilated as “the chief god among many,” not “the only God.” (c) tus ntsuj plig reuses the flagged multi-soul term (baseline human_spirit_soul, Critical/High collision already documented); pledging “all your ntsuj plig” risks being heard as pledging only one of several souls a person is believed to possess, leaving others free for other spirits. (d) hwm thiab ntshai Yawmsaub requires the paired construction every time — either half alone reintroduces either capricious-spirit-fear or mere respect-without-awe.
Recommended strategy	Treat 6:4-5 as the single densest qualifier-stack in the curriculum: every occurrence of the Shema in any lesson, quiz, or footnote must carry (i) Mloog glossed as “hear-and-obey,” (ii) tib leeg (xwb) with the mandatory exclusivity clause Yawmsaub tib leeg xwb, tsis muaj lwm tus Vajtswv (never abbreviated even in headers/quiz options — same structural-enforcement rule as the baseline’s hwjchim/Txoj Kevcai qualifiers), (iii) the heart/soul/might triad taught together as one undivided-devotion unit rather than three separable faculties, explicitly correcting the multi-soul partition reading.

1.2 Covenant Renewal

Element	Detail
Core passages	Deuteronomy 5:1-3, 26:16-19, 27:1-26, 29:1-15, 31:9-13
Available Hmong vocabulary	kev cog lus (ntawm Yawmsaub) (covenant, D14/#15 — new master term); raug foom (liturgical curse-recitation, D15/#16); kev nyeem Txoj Kevcai rau sawvdaws (public reading, D16/#17); thaj xyeem uas tsim los ntawm tej pob zeb tsis raug txiav (uncut-stone altar, #19); baseline promise (lus cog tseg)
Weaknesses	(a) Hmong has robust ritual vocabulary for peer-to-peer or clan-to-clan pact-making (blood-oath brotherhood, marriage-alliance pacts) ratified by animal sacrifice with spirits invoked as enforcing witnesses against the parties themselves — a fundamentally different power-structure from a unilateral, gracious, filial covenant initiated by a sovereign God who is not a co-equal treaty partner. Reusing that ritual-pact frame uncritically would cast YHWH as one contracting party among others, bound by the same spirit-enforcement logic Israel’s neighbors used. (b) kev cog lus and lus cog tseg (baseline promise) are etymologically close and risk being flattened into synonyms; Deuteronomy needs the whole-relationship sense (berith) kept distinct from any single pledge within it (epangelia). (c) The Shechem curse-liturgy (ch.27) reuses actual communal ritual-curse form (public pronouncement + collective “Amen”) that is structurally identical to a Hmong oath-curse ceremony, differing only in theological content — the highest-fidelity structural match to a traditional-religion practice found anywhere in this book.
Recommended strategy	Maintain the mandatory (ntawm Yawmsaub) qualifier on every occurrence of kev cog lus, parallel to the baseline’s Law-qualifier discipline, and never substitute lus cog tseg for it. For ch.27, require an explicit teaching note stating that Israel’s communal “Amen” is self-binding assent to terms YHWH already graciously initiated, not an invocation of ancestral-spirit enforcement power over YHWH — this is the doctrine’s single highest structural-mimicry risk and must be theologian-reviewed every time it appears, not merely flagged once at first occurrence.

1.3 Blessings and Curses of the Covenant

Element	Detail
Core passages	Deuteronomy 11:26-29, 27:1-26, 28:1-68, 30:1,19
Available Hmong vocabulary	koob hmoov (blessing, D18/#20 — Critical, lexically correct but doctrinally exposed); lus foom tsis zoo / kev raug foom (curse, D19/#21 — Critical); raug foom tsis zoo ntawm Vajtswv (cursed-of-God, hanged body, D42/#22 — High, forward cross-reference to Galatians 3:13)
Weaknesses	This is the single sharpest tension point in the entire Deuteronomy package, because the correct, baseline-sanctioned Hmong word for ordinary material blessing (koob hmoov) is simultaneously the forbidden word for salvific grace elsewhere in the same Language Package (baseline grace entry, permanently forbidding koob hmoov for charis). Deuteronomy 28’s extended obey→blessed / disobey→cursed structure, if taught in isolation from ch.7:7-8 and ch.9:4-6’s prior insistence that election preceded and was independent of merit, will read as textbook confirmation of the very fate-and-ritual-correctness theology (koob hmoov earned by right conduct toward ancestors/spirits) that the Romans baseline exists to block. The curse vocabulary (foom) is even more exposed: Hmong communities actively practice and fear ritual cursing, remediable in folk belief by counter-ritual, shamanic intervention (txiv neeb), or apology-sacrifice — a live, present-tense parallel practice, not merely an ancient one.
Recommended strategy	Every occurrence of ch.28’s blessing/curse material must be doctrinally bracketed: (i) blessing is never introduced without a co-textual back-reference to unmerited election/redemption (ch.7:7-8, ch.9:4-6) using the same discipline the baseline applies to grace; (ii) curse is never introduced without an explicit statement that the only valid remedy is covenantal repentance (ch.30) and, typologically, Christ bearing the curse (ch.21:22-23), never shamanic counter-ritual. Both directions of this doctrine require mandatory human-theologian review at every occurrence, with no automated-review bypass, exceeding even the baseline’s already-strict grace-entry precedent because Deuteronomy states the blessing/curse mechanism explicitly and at length (unlike Romans, where grace’s opposite pole is not itemized as a parallel liturgical curse-list).

1.4 Remembering God’s Redemption

Element	Detail
Core passages	Deuteronomy 5:15, 6:12,20-25, 7:18, 8:2,11-18, 15:15, 16:1-8, 24:18,22
Available Hmong vocabulary	nco ntsoov (remember, D20/#23 — High); tsis nco qab / nco tsis txheeb (forget, D21/#24 — High); kev txhiv (redemption, D22/#25 — TM-inherited, Medium); Kevcai Hla Dhau (Passover, D23/#26); thawj phaus qoob loo (firstfruits, D24/#27 — TM-inherited); Hnub Xanpateb (Sabbath, D25/#28); kev tso tseg (tej nuj nqes / tej qhev) (debt/slave release, D26/#29)
Weaknesses	(a) Hmong nco ntsoov / tsis nco qab are ordinary cognitive-recall verbs; nothing in the bare lexeme signals that “remembering” is a covenant-obedience-generating act and “forgetting” is a culpable act of self-attributing prosperity to one’s own hand rather than to God. This is a comprehension/register gap rather than a competing-referent collision, but it is doctrinally load-bearing because the whole book’s ethical argument runs on this active sense. (b) kev txhiv correctly reuses the baseline’s redemption entry, but Deuteronomy’s referent (national deliverance from Egyptian chattel slavery, the recurring motive-clause for law after law) is denser and more historically concrete than most Romans occurrences; teaching must keep the Exodus-slavery referent explicit at every use rather than letting it drift into an abstract theological cipher. (c) Kevcai Hla Dhau and Hnub Xanpateb share the kevcai/rite-root pattern already flagged for baseline baptism; low collision risk here (no competing traditional-Hmong festival occupies the same semantic space) but the redemption-memory motive clause must not be silently dropped for brevity.
Recommended strategy	Require every occurrence of nco ntsoov to be immediately followed or preceded in the same sentence by its object (God’s redemptive act), never left as a bare imperative; require every occurrence of tsis nco qab in a prosperity-context (ch.8) to be explicitly glossed as “forgetting that it was YHWH, not your own hand, who provided,” directly naming the merit-self-attribution the love-not-merit doctrine (§1.5) opposes.

1.5 Obedience Motivated by Love not Merit

Element	Detail
Core passages	Deuteronomy 7:6-8, 8:17-18, 9:4-6, 10:12-16, 30:6
Available Hmong vocabulary	haiv neeg raug xaiv cia ua tug (treasured possession/election, D27/#31 — Critical, extends baseline election_choose); kev txiav siab rau Yawmsaub (circumcise-the-heart command, D28/#32 — High); Yawmsaub yuav txiav koj lub siab (circumcise-the-heart promise, D29/#33 — High); kev txiav (raws li Txoj Kevcai Mauxes) (literal circumcision, #53 — TM-inherited)
Weaknesses	(a) The election vocabulary is the strongest possible OT anchor-text for the baseline’s already-Critical anti-hmoov rule (Romans 9-11), but Deuteronomy states the logic even more explicitly and vulnerably: 7:7 flatly denies any merit-basis (“not because you were more numerous”), 9:4-6 flatly denies righteousness as the ground (“not for your righteousness… but for the wickedness of these nations, and to keep the promise”). If the mandatory volitional-choice clause is ever dropped here, this is the passage most likely to be silently reinterpreted as Israel earning a favorable hmoov/fortune-assignment rather than receiving unearned covenant love. (b) The heart-circumcision metaphor (#32-33) sits directly on top of the literal circumcision entry (#53) in the same conceptual field; without explicit metaphor-marking, ch.10:16’s command (“circumcise your heart”) could be heard as instituting a second physical rite, or conversely ch.30:6’s promise could be heard as merely restating the already-familiar literal rite rather than announcing an unprecedented divine heart-transformation.
Recommended strategy	Always pair #31 with the exact baseline election clause Vajtswv xaiv raws li nws lub siab nyiam, with zero exceptions, matching the structural-enforcement discipline given to hwjchim/kev xaiv elsewhere. Always teach #32 and #33 as a matched command/promise pair in the same lesson unit — never #33 without #32’s prior command, and never #32 without eventually resolving into #33’s promise — so that the doctrine’s core claim (obedience flows from a divinely-given new heart, not raw willpower) survives intact.

1.6 The Coming Prophet like Moses

Element	Detail
Core passages	Deuteronomy 18:15-22, 13:1-5, 34:10-12
Available Hmong vocabulary	tus yaj saub (true prophet, D32/#36 — High); tus yaj saub cuav (false prophet, D33/#37 — High); tej cim tseem ceeb thiab tej txuj ci tsim nyog (sign and wonder, D34/#38 — High)
Weaknesses	This doctrine has the most culturally specific single collision in the book: “Yaj Saub” is not a generic Hmong word for “prophet” that merely happens to also mean something else (like hwjchim or pehawm) — it names a specific, historically potent figure in Hmong ethno-religious and political-messianic folklore (associated with 19th-20th century Hmong millenarian movements and expectations of a coming Hmong messiah-king/national deliverer). Using this term for the biblical Mosaic-prophet-typology creates a double-edged effect: strong positive uptake (the concept “an awaited authoritative deliverer-spokesman is coming” is already emotionally resonant) paired with a strong specific risk that hearers will map Christ onto the ethnic-nationalist deliverer expectation rather than the biblical covenant-mediator/authoritative-revelation sense Deuteronomy 18 actually specifies. No alternative native term carries the same “authoritative divine spokesman” register without this baggage; a purely descriptive periphrase would lose the term’s rhetorical power entirely.
Recommended strategy	This is not a term to fence with a qualifier phrase alone (the cuav-marking for #37 handles the false/true distinction adequately) — it requires a dedicated, non-optional comparative teaching module every time #36 is introduced, explicitly naming and distinguishing the Hmong Yaj Saub folk tradition from the biblical office, before any christological application is drawn. This is logged as the doctrine’s highest-priority escalation item (see §4 ranked list, item 1).

1.7 Choosing Life over Death

Element	Detail
Core passages	Deuteronomy 30:15-20 (also 11:26-28, 28:1-68 structurally)
Available Hmong vocabulary	txoj sia (this-age covenantal life, D35/#39 — Medium); txoj kev tuag (death, D36/#40 — TM-inherited, Low)
Weaknesses	The only meaningful gap here is the risk of conflation, not collision: Hmong txoj sia is a single ordinary word for “life” with no inherent this-age/eternal-age distinction; the Romans baseline’s eternal_life entry (txoj sia nyob mus ib txhis) already exists and is doctrinally different in scope (NT resurrection-life vs. OT covenantal this-age flourishing: land, offspring, longevity). If a Phase 2 generator defaults to importing the more familiar/theologically richer baseline phrase here “to make it sound more biblical,” it would anachronistically import NT eschatology into Moses’ plain covenant-renewal appeal and blur the distinct redemptive-historical stage Deuteronomy occupies.
Recommended strategy	Explicit prohibition: txoj sia in Deuteronomy 30 contexts must never be silently upgraded to txoj sia nyob mus ib txhis. Typological forward-pointing to the fuller NT hope may be stated only in a clearly marked teaching note (“this choice of this-age life anticipates, but is not identical to, the eternal life later revealed in Christ”), never inside the base rendering itself.

1.8 Warnings against Idolatry

Element	Detail
Core passages	Deuteronomy 4:15-28, 5:7-9, 7:1-5,25-26, 12:1-4,29-31, 13:1-18, 27:15, 29:16-18, 32:15-21
Available Hmong vocabulary	dab mlom (idol, #41 — TM-inherited, Critical); Vajtswv uas khib heev rau nws tus kheej (jealous God, D4/#4 — High); thaj chaw teev dab (high place, D38/#42 — High); khoom xyeem rau Yawmsaub (OT cultic sacrifice, D39/#43 — Critical); kev muab puas tsuaj tag nrho raws li Vajtswv txib (the ban/cherem, D40/#44 — Critical)
Weaknesses	This doctrine has the highest density of live, currently-practiced traditional-religion parallels in the whole book — not historical curiosities but ongoing household/clan practice: dab mlom names actual venerated spirit-images; thaj chaw teev dab names the functional equivalent of an actual household/clan spirit-altar (thaj xwm kab); khoom xyeem names actual animal-offering ritual (fij dab, fij npua, fij qaib) still performed for ancestor/spirit appeasement; khib (jealous) is the same word used for an offended spirit’s touchy, ritual-slight-triggered anger. Every one of these terms is doctrinally correct (Paul-in-Romans-style, the term must not be softened, since the text is condemning exactly this real referent) but each demands the strongest possible contrast-teaching, because the audience may include hearers with living family members who still perform the very practices being named. The cherem/ban material (#44) additionally carries an ethical-sensitivity risk independent of the animism-collision: without a bounded historical-redemptive framing, it risks being heard as a violence template.
Recommended strategy	No softening of dab mlom, thaj chaw teev dab, or khoom xyeem is permitted (matching the Romans baseline’s idol entry discipline). Every occurrence must carry an explicit “this is not your practice reformed, this is the practice rejected” contrast clause. khib must never appear without the “righteous covenant-zeal, not capricious spirit-anger” gloss. kev muab puas tsuaj tag nrho (#44) must always carry the bounded-historical-context note and the ch.20 regulated-warfare cross-reference; theologian review is mandatory without exception, with no automated or native-speaker-only bypass under any circumstance, matching the baseline’s Critical-tier routing rule.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Missing Vocabulary (comprehension gaps — no natural Hmong lexeme; no competing religious referent, but risk of blank incomprehension if unglossed)

Concept	Hmong rendering	Why it is a gap	Fencing strategy
Olive-tree-style covenant/legal taxonomy triad (mitzvah/chuqqim/mishpatim, #14)	tej lus samhwm, tej kevcai, thiab tej kev txiav txim	Hmong customary law has no three-way category system matching commandment/statute/rule; the triad is a foreign legal ontology, not merely a hard word.	Teach as one descriptive bundle (“the whole body of what Yawmsaub commanded”), never force a fixed one-to-one match between the three Hmong phrases and three legal genres; always keep the Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv/Mauxes) qualifier attached to the bundle as a whole.
Cities of refuge / due-process asylum system (#49)	lub nroog cawm siav	No equivalent formal legal institution in traditional Hmong clan-justice, which resolves killings through clan negotiation/restitution, not designated sanctuary cities.	Comprehension-level footnote explaining the ANE legal-institution context; explicit note that cawm here is the ordinary “preserve alive” sense, unrelated to the Critical-tier salvation_save entry.
Israelite monarchy under covenant law (#48, king)	huab tais	Existing word is stable but the covenant-bound, law-limited kingship Deuteronomy envisions (17:14-20) has no exact Hmong political analogue (traditional Hmong socio-political organization is clan/lineage-based, not monarchic).	Comprehension-level teaching note distinguishing this from both a generic despot and from the Romans baseline’s civil-authority-under-pagan-government sense (#67 in Romans registry); no lexical fix needed.
Levitical/priestly tribe’s landless portion (background to several chapters, not separately entried)	(descriptive phrase, not yet fixed)	No Hmong social category matches a tribe deliberately given no territorial inheritance but instead a service-based portion.	[TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: Levitical portion, no fixed rendering logged] — flag rather than improvise; log for TM-revision if this content is included in Phase 2 lessons.
Manna / wilderness provision vocabulary (background to ch.8)	(descriptive phrase, not yet fixed)	No native Hmong food-referent; purely comprehension-level, historically specific.	[TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: manna, no fixed rendering logged] — descriptive gloss (“miraculous bread from heaven”) recommended pending formal TM entry.

2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (a Hmong word already occupied by a live competing traditional-religion referent — genuine collision requiring fencing, not mere comprehension aid)

Hmong lexeme/root	Competing occupant in Hmong traditional religion	Biblical terms that must share/collide with it	Fencing already specified	Residual risk after fencing
foom (curse)	Ritual cursing pronounced by wronged persons/spirits/ancestors, remediable by counter-ritual or shamanic (txiv neeb) intervention	D15/#16 (liturgical curse), D19/#21 (covenant curse), D42/#22 (cursed-of-God)	Mandatory pairing with “remediable only by repentance (ch.30) / Christ bearing the curse (ch.21), never counter-ritual” teaching note	High-residual — this is a live, currently-practiced parallel ritual category, not a historical one; fencing reduces but does not eliminate risk, hence Critical tier retained on #16/#21.
koob hmoov (blessing/fortune)	Fortune/favor granted by ancestors/spirits contingent on ritual correctness; the baseline’s own permanent reservation word	D18/#20 (covenant blessing)	Mandatory back-reference to unmerited election (7:7-8, 9:4-6) at every occurrence	High-residual — same word the baseline forbids for grace is here the correct word for a different referent, creating a doctrinally confusing split-use within one Language Package that Phase 2 generators must be trained to hold apart.
dab mlom / teev dab / xyeem roots (idol, high place, sacrifice)	Actual, currently-practiced ancestor/spirit veneration: household altars (thaj xwm kab), image-veneration, animal offerings (fij dab)	D37/#41 (idol), D38/#42 (high place), D39/#43 (sacrifice)	Explicit contrast-teaching at every occurrence; no softening permitted	Critical-residual — highest concentration of live-practice collision in the book; see §1.8.
khib (jealous)	Petty human jealousy / offended spirit’s ritual-slight anger	D4/#4 (Jealous God)	Mandatory pairing with covenant-zeal gloss	Medium-residual after fencing — the term is unavoidable but the collision is more comprehension-adjacent (mistaken emotional register) than a direct ritual-practice parallel.
ntsuj plig (soul/spirit, bare)	One of several souls in the animistic multi-soul system, ritually recallable via hu plig	D9/#9 (Shema “with all your soul”), #51 (Joshua’s spirit of wisdom)	Never “Vaj”-prefixed; explicit undivided-devotion gloss for D9	Medium-residual — accepted per baseline precedent as the correct anthropological term, but requires vigilance that the “Vaj” prefix boundary (reserved for #5/Holy Spirit) is never blurred in either direction across a Deuteronomy lesson that also references the Holy Spirit elsewhere in the curriculum.
yaj saub (prophet)	Specific Hmong ethno-messianic/national-deliverer folk figure	D32/#36, D33/#37	Mandatory dedicated comparative teaching module	Critical-residual — see §1.6; this is fenced by teaching content, not by a qualifier phrase, because the competing referent is a proper cultural-historical figure, not a generic concept.
pehawm (worship/serve, bare)	Ancestor/household/nature spirit veneration	#50 (avad/latreuō)	Object always stated (pehawm Yawmsaub vs. pehawm dab)	Medium-residual, matching the baseline’s existing Romans-level risk assessment for this same inherited term; Deuteronomy’s density of occurrences (9 chapters) somewhat elevates exposure versus Romans but the fencing mechanism is unchanged.
hwm...ntshai (fear/reverence)	Fear-driven ritual placation of capricious ancestor/nature spirits	D11/#11	Mandatory hwm + ntshai pairing	Medium-residual after fencing.
pob zeb (rock/stone)	No traditional-religion referent, but an internal TM-neighborhood collision: same Hmong noun used with opposite valence in baseline stumbling_block (hazard) vs. Deuteronomy 32’s Pob Zeb (refuge/divine title)	D12/#12	Explicit disambiguating gloss wherever both appear in the same curriculum	Low-residual, but flagged because it is an intra-package (not traditional-religion) collision unique to cross-referencing Romans and Deuteronomy content in the same discipleship track.

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Item	Decision	Rationale
YHWH (Tetragrammaton)	Established native term, not transliterated: Yawmsaub	Existing, settled Hmong Christian usage for the covenant name; NOT a divine-name substitution in the sectarian NWT sense flagged by the Romans baseline (§3.1 forbidden-substitutions table) — Yawmsaub is the traditional Hmong Bible term for YHWH specifically, kept lexically distinct from tus Tswv (generic Lord/Adonai). This is the single most important transliteration-vs-paraphrase decision in the whole package and is treated as a permanent TM entry (D1/#1), on par with Critical-tier baseline terms.
Passover (pesach)	Native descriptive compound, not transliterated: Kevcai Hla Dhau (“the rite of passing/crossing over”)	Consistent with the baseline’s general preference (established for baptism) for native compounds over opaque loanwords, so the Exodus-deliverance content remains teachable within the term itself rather than requiring a separate gloss every time.
Sabbath (shabbat)	Transliterated loanword: Hnub Xanpateb	Already the settled existing Hmong Christian usage (unlike baptism, where the baseline explicitly rejected a loanword); no paraphrase alternative is in circulation, and the loanword carries no competing traditional-religion referent to guard against.
Abba-style retained loanword precedent	Not directly applicable in Deuteronomy (no Aramaic vocative), but the method (retain loanword + Hmong gloss + first-use footnote) is available as a fallback pattern for any future proper noun requiring the same treatment (e.g., if “Shema” itself were ever retained as a loanword title rather than translated as Mloog — rejected for this package; Mloog is preferred so the obey-entailment stays teachable in-line rather than becoming an opaque title).
Cherem (the ban)	Paraphrase, not transliteration: kev muab puas tsuaj tag nrho raws li Vajtswv txib	A transliterated loanword would be doctrinally dangerous here — it would import an opaque technical term with no built-in bounding, inviting hearers to fill the empty vocabulary slot with generalized violence associations. The paraphrase’s built-in qualifier (“as God commanded”) is structurally protective in a way a loanword cannot be, mirroring the baseline’s rejection of a hilastērion loanword for the same reason.
Berith (covenant)	Native compound, not transliterated: kev cog lus (ntawm Yawmsaub)	A loanword would sever the term from the existing Hmong Christian usage of cog lus (to pledge/make a solemn statement) and would forfeit the teachable bridge to (and necessary contrast with) actual Hmong oath-pact custom; paraphrase-with-qualifier is preferred, matching the baseline’s Txoj Kevcai and qhov theej txhoj kev txhaum precedent of native-compound-plus-mandatory-qualifier over loanword.
Yaj Saub (prophet)	Existing native term retained, not replaced with paraphrase or loanword, but requires mandatory comparative teaching, not a lexical alternative	Rejected alternative: a purely descriptive periphrase (e.g., “one who speaks God’s message”) was considered to avoid the folk-messianic collision, but was rejected because it would forfeit the term’s necessary rhetorical weight and because Hmong biblical usage has already stably adopted yaj saub for “prophet” broadly; the collision must be managed by teaching content, not avoided by lexical substitution — same principle as the baseline’s decision to retain dab mlom and hwjchim rather than paraphrase them into blandness.
El Qanna (Jealous God)	Paraphrase, not transliteration: Vajtswv uas khib heev rau nws tus kheej	No single-word Hmong equivalent carries the covenant-zeal sense without paraphrase; a bare adjective would default entirely to the human-jealousy or spirit-anger register.

---

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined doctrinal load-bearing weight (how central the term is to its doctrine’s core claim) and collision severity (how live/specific the competing traditional-religion referent is), consistent with the baseline’s Critical > High > Medium > Low tiering and its “specific, grounded reason” requirement.

1. tib leeg (xwb) — Shema exclusivity (D6/#6), Critical. Highest-stakes single lexical decision in the book: a numeral bearing the entire weight of monotheism against an actively-practiced spirit-plural cosmology. Failure mode: Shema heard as “chief god among many” rather than “no other God exists.” Mandatory volitional exclusivity clause at every occurrence, human theologian review without exception.

2. tus yaj saub — Coming Prophet (D32/#36), High. Unique in this package for colliding with a named cultural-historical figure/movement (Hmong ethno-messianic prophecy tradition) rather than a generic religious category. Failure mode: Christ assimilated into an ethnic-nationalist deliverer narrative rather than understood as the covenant-mediating authoritative-revelation prophet of Deuteronomy 18. Requires a dedicated comparative-teaching module, not merely a qualifier phrase — structurally different from every other fencing strategy in this document.

3. koob hmoov — covenant blessing (D18/#20), Critical. Uniquely dangerous because it is the correct baseline-sanctioned word here while being permanently forbidden for grace elsewhere in the same Language Package; ch.28’s extended obey→blessed structure is the passage most likely in the whole book to relapse the audience into merit/fate theology if the ch.7:7-8/9:4-6 unmerited-election anchor is ever omitted.

4. raug foom / kev raug foom — covenant curse (D15/#16, D19/#21), Critical. Structurally identical to a currently-practiced Hmong ritual-curse ceremony (public pronouncement, communal ratification, shamanic-remedy expectation); the only escape valve (repentance, ch.30; Christ bearing the curse, ch.21) must be reasserted every time, since the folk-remedy default (counter-ritual) is a live competing behavioral script, not just a belief.

5. khoom xyeem rau Yawmsaub / thaj chaw teev dab — OT cultic sacrifice and high places (D39/#43, D38/#42), Critical/High. Highest concentration of currently-practiced parallel ritual behavior (household/clan spirit-altars, animal offerings) anywhere in the book; risk is not merely doctrinal misunderstanding but potential validation of ongoing family ritual practice if the text is heard as descriptive rather than as a specific, bounded, superseded divine institution pointing to Christ.

6. kev muab puas tsuaj tag nrho raws li Vajtswv txib — cherem/the ban (D40/#44), Critical. Ethically volatile independent of any traditional-religion collision; risk is generalization into a violence template absent the bounded historical-redemptive framing and ch.20 regulated-warfare cross-reference.

7. tus ntsuj plig — Shema “with all your soul” (D9/#9), High. Reuses the baseline’s already-flagged multi-soul collision in the single most theologically dense verse of the book; risk of a partial-devotion misreading (pledging one soul, retaining others) is specific to this text’s total-devotion argument in a way the baseline’s original Romans occurrences did not need to address.

8. Vajtswv uas khib heev rau nws tus kheej — Jealous God (D4/#4), High. Distinct from #4 above in kind: this is a comprehension/register-collision (wrong emotional cause-and-effect logic imported) rather than a live ritual-practice collision, hence ranked lower than items 5-6 despite touching the same idolatry doctrine.

9. kev cog lus (ntawm Yawmsaub) — Covenant (D14/#15), Critical. The master term for an entire doctrine with no prior TM anchor; risk is structural (YHWH mis-cast as a peer-treaty partner bound by mutual-enforcement logic) rather than lexical, requiring sustained teaching-note discipline across eleven chapters rather than a single qualifier fix.

10. nco ntsoov / tsis nco qab — Remember/Forget (D20/#23, D21/#24), High. Lowest-severity item on this ranked list because there is no competing traditional-religion referent (pure comprehension-gap, not collision), but ranked here because of its sheer doctrinal load-bearing frequency (eight chapters) and the ease with which the active, obedience-shaping sense silently degrades into idle nostalgia if unglossed at scale across a full curriculum.

---

5. Handoff Notes for Phase 2 Generation

• Items 1-6 above require mandatory human theologian review at every occurrence, with no automated-review bypass, exceeding even the baseline’s already-strict Critical-tier routing where the collision is with a currently-practiced (not merely historical) traditional-religion behavior.
• Item 2 (tus yaj saub) requires a standing teaching module, not a per-occurrence footnote; Phase 2 lesson templates should treat this as a required companion asset whenever Deuteronomy 18 content is generated.
• The koob hmoov split-use (item 3) must be documented in every Phase 2 style guide or prompt context that generates content spanning both Romans and Deuteronomy material, since a generator trained only on the Romans baseline will otherwise flag koob hmoov as forbidden across the board rather than context-sensitively.
• Two vocabulary items remain formally unresolved pending translator input (§2.1: Levitical portion, manna) and must not be assigned a permanent rendering by any Phase 2 automated process; both are logged with [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] per the baseline’s escalation protocol.
• This document supersedes no prior artifact; where any statement here appears to conflict with analysis/08_core_glossary.md or assets/bible_term_registry.json (Deuteronomy), those documents govern and this analysis must be corrected in the next revision cycle.