Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis: Philemon (English → Kannada)
0. Scope and Method
Philemon is a single chapter of 25 verses. “Full-book coverage” for this curriculum therefore means full-letter coverage — every verse from the salutation (1:1) to the closing benediction (1:25) is accounted for below. Verses that introduce no new doctrinal vocabulary beyond what the baseline Romans package already fixes are explicitly marked REVIEWED — NO NEW RISK rather than silently omitted.
This analysis extends, and does not contradict, the baseline translation_memory.json / bible_term_registry.json / doctrine_risk_registry.json. All five curriculum doctrines are personal-letter, situational expressions of doctrines the baseline has already fenced at the epistle-to-the-Romans level (grace, faith, obedience, calling); the gap analysis below identifies where Philemon’s compressed, intensely personal register creates new collision risk that the more didactic register of Romans did not surface.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
| Doctrine | Available Kannada Terms | Weaknesses of Available Terms | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forgiveness and Reconciliation | ಕ್ಷಮೆ (kṣame, “forgiveness/pardon”), ಸಂಧಾನ (sandhāna, “reconciliation/settlement”), ಸಾಲ (sāla, “debt”), ಆರೋಪಿಸು (āropisu, “charge to account”), ಅನ್ಯಾಯ ಮಾಡು (anyāya māḍu, “do wrong”) | ಕ್ಷಮೆ alone is generic and can describe any interpersonal pardon (secular or religious) with no sense of a substitutionary mechanism; ಸಂಧಾನ leans toward negotiated truce between equals, understating the asymmetry Paul is bridging (master/slave). Neither carries the letter’s specific commercial-legal frame (debt named, then transferred). | Do not rely on ಕ್ಷಮೆ/ಸಂಧಾನ alone as doctrine-carrying vocabulary. Build the doctrine instead on the concrete transactional chain ಅನ್ಯಾಯ ಮಾಡು (wrong named, 1:18) → ಸಾಲ (debt named, 1:18) → ಆರೋಪಿಸು (debt reassigned to Paul, 1:18) → ಅಂಗೀಕರಿಸು (full welcome restored, 1:17). This chain mirrors and should be taught alongside baseline imputed_righteousness (ಆರೋಪಿತ ನೀತಿ) as a lived enactment of substitutionary crediting, not an abstract pardon-word. |
| Christian Brotherhood across Social Status | ಸಹೋದರ (sahōdara, “brother”), ಪಾಲುಗಾರ (pālugāra, “partner/full sharer”), ಪ್ರೀತಿ (prīti, “love”), ಅನ್ಯೋನ್ಯತೆ (anyōnyate, “fellowship”) | ಸಹೋದರ is available and warm but by itself is also ordinary honorific address (used between social equals or strangers in courteous Kannada speech) and could be read as a polite gesture that leaves the underlying master–slave hierarchy socially intact. ಪಾಲುಗಾರ is precise but rare in ordinary devotional register and could be under-weighted by translators reaching for a “softer” word. | Preserve ಸಹೋದರ + ಪಾಲುಗಾರ as a paired rendering strategy: ಸಹೋದರ names the relationship (1:16), ಪಾಲುಗಾರ names its legal-social force (1:17, “receive him as you would receive me”). Never substitute a single softer word (e.g., “friend,” ಸ್ನೇಹಿತ) for ಪಾಲುಗಾರ — that would erase the letter’s most radical claim. |
| Slavery and the Gospel’s Transforming Power | ದಾಸ (dāsa, “slave/servant”), ಗುಲಾಮ (gulāma, “slave,” Perso-Arabic loan), ನಿಷ್ಪ್ರಯೋಜಕ/ಪ್ರಯೋಜನಕಾರಿ (useless/useful) | ದಾಸ is the whole-NT established rendering (Paul’s own self-designation, Romans 1:1) but collides severely with ಹರಿದಾಸ (Haridasa) bhakti identity — a voluntary, joyful devotional self-naming with deep positive resonance in Karnataka (Purandara Dasa, Kanaka Dasa). ಗುಲಾಮ avoids that collision but breaks whole-corpus consistency with every other NT occurrence of δοῦλος and would create more confusion moving between books. | Retain ದಾಸ for corpus consistency (do not introduce ಗುಲಾಮ). Compensate for the bhakti collision with a MANDATORY clarifying note at every occurrence distinguishing Onesimus’s involuntary, legally-imposed status from the Haridasa voluntarily embraced devotional status — while also flagging the instructive irony that Paul’s own positive use of “doulos of Christ” elsewhere is structurally closer to the bhakti sense than to Onesimus’s civil bondage. This doctrine’s whole pedagogical point (status transformed without the word itself being erased) depends on holding both senses in view rather than resolving the tension. |
| Intercession and Appeal on Behalf of Another | ವಿನಂತಿ ಮಾಡು (vinanti māḍu, “appeal/entreat”), ಮಧ್ಯಸ್ಥಿಕೆ (madhyasthike, baseline “intercession”), ಪ್ರಾರ್ಥನೆ (prārthane, “prayer”), ಆಜ್ಞಾಪಿಸು (ājñāpisu, “command,” foil term) | ವಿನಂತಿ is common in secular bureaucratic Kannada for a formal petition/application (e.g., to an office or official), risking a legal-transactional reading exactly opposite to Paul’s relational, love-grounded mode of speech (1:9). ಮಧ್ಯಸ್ಥಿಕೆ (baseline, third-party prayer to God) is a distinct sense from Paul’s direct person-to-person appeal and must not be interchanged with it. | Use ವಿನಂತಿ ಮಾಡು but always anchor it contextually to ಪ್ರೀತಿ (1:9, “for love’s sake I rather appeal”) and to the ಆಜ್ಞಾಪಿಸು foil (1:8) so the register reads as relational plea, not bureaucratic petition. Reserve ಮಧ್ಯಸ್ಥಿಕೆ strictly for Paul’s or the Spirit’s prayer-intercession before God (cf. baseline Romans 8:26-27), never for the direct Paul-to-Philemon appeal. |
| Grace-Motivated Obedience | ಕೃಪೆ (kṛpe, baseline “grace”), ವಿಧೇಯತೆ (vidhēyate, “obedience”), ಸ್ವಇಚ್ಛೆಯಿಂದ (svecchèyinda, “voluntary”), ಒತ್ತಾಯ (ottāya, “compulsion”), ಸಮ್ಮತಿ (sammati, “consent”) | ವಿಧೇಯತೆ alone, in ordinary Kannada religious usage, easily slides toward ಧಾರ್ಮಿಕ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ-style duty-compliance (as the baseline already flags for obedience_of_faith) or toward the Lingayat kayaka ethic of disciplined sacred labor building standing. Philemon intensifies this risk because the “obedience” requested here is a specific, costly, one-time social act (freeing/receiving Onesimus), which readers may reflexively code as meritorious religious duty performed rather than love’s free response. | Never render ವಿಧೇಯತೆ (1:21) in isolation from its immediate co-text: ಸ್ವಇಚ್ಛೆಯಿಂದ / ಒತ್ತಾಯ (1:14) and ಸಮ್ಮತಿ (1:14) must be taught as the interpretive frame that governs ವಿಧೇಯತೆ downstream. Recommend a standing translator’s note at 1:21 cross-referencing 1:14, so reviewers can verify the antithesis (compulsion vs. willing consent) has not been lost by the time the letter reaches its final confidence statement. |
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2.1 Genuinely Missing Vocabulary (no adequate existing Kannada Christian term; new coinage/compound required)
| Concept | Gap | Resolution Adopted |
|---|---|---|
| ἐπίγνωσις (full/experiential recognition) | Kannada has no single word distinguishing intensified, personal “recognition” from generic ಜ್ಞಾನ (“knowledge”). | Compound ಪೂರ್ಣ ಅರಿವು (“full awareness/recognition”) coined per core glossary; deliberately avoids ಜ್ಞಾನ (see 2.2 below). |
| σπλάγχνα (visceral seat of affection, lit. “inward parts/bowels”) | No Kannada word carries the same startling bodily concreteness; the natural equivalent ಹೃದಯ (“heart”) is already a dead metaphor in Kannada, as in English. | Accept ಹೃದಯ as the working rendering but require a standing translator’s note at all three occurrences (1:7, 1:12, 1:20) explaining the loss of physicality, so teaching materials can restore Paul’s intended shock (“Onesimus IS my own body’s inward parts,” 1:12) rather than a bland “he is dear to me.” |
| ὀνίνημι / Ὀνήσιμος wordplay (name meaning “useful,” echoed in 1:11 ἄχρηστος/εὔχρηστος and 1:20 ὀναίμην) | Kannada transliteration ಒನೇಸಿಮ carries zero semantic content; the entire rhetorical device (a slave named “Useful” who was useless and is now useful) disappears in transliteration alone. | No linguistic fix is possible in-text. Mandatory: a dedicated translator/teaching note wherever ಒನೇಸಿಮ, ನಿಷ್ಪ್ರಯೋಜಕ, ಪ್ರಯೋಜನಕಾರಿ, or ಪ್ರಯೋಜನ ಪಡೆಯಲಿ occur, explaining the underlying Greek pun explicitly for the Kannada reader who cannot recover it from the text itself. |
| ἐλλογάω (technical accounting term, “charge to an account”) | Everyday Kannada ಆರೋಪಿಸು covers “accuse/impute” broadly but does not by itself evoke a ledger/account-book image the way the Greek commercial term does. | Retain ಆರೋಪಿಸು (matches baseline imputed_righteousness root) but supplement with a teaching note making the ledger-transfer image explicit, since this passage is the letter’s clearest embodied picture of substitutionary imputation and should not read as merely “blame me instead.” |
| πρεσβύτης / πρεσβευτής textual variant (“old man” / “ambassador”) | Kannada has adequate words for both senses (ವೃದ್ಧ, ದೂತ) but no single word captures the deliberate ambiguity Paul may be exploiting between pathos-of-age and dignity-of-office. | Flag as a textual-critical note for reviewers rather than a translation gap; either single-sense rendering is acceptable in the running text, provided the alternate reading is preserved in an apparatus/teaching note. |
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing
These are cases where Kannada does have a ready word, but that word’s dominant cultural referent must be explicitly fenced off from the doctrinal sense required.
| Kannada Term | Doctrinal Sense Needed | Competing Cultural Referent(s) | Fencing Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| ದಾಸ (dāsa) | v.16 — involuntary legal-social slave status, transformed but not doctrinally erased by gospel brotherhood | ಹರಿದಾಸ (Haridasa) bhakti self-identity: a voluntarily chosen, joyfully worn devotional title (Purandara Dasa, Kanaka Dasa tradition, still living and celebrated in Karnataka) | Mandatory clarifying note at every occurrence (see Doctrine Matrix above and Ranked Ambiguities §4.1). This is the single highest-stakes fencing requirement in the entire letter. |
| ಜ್ಞಾನ (jñāna) | AVOIDED for ἐπίγνωσις (v.6) — relational recognition of grace already given | jñāna-mārga, the classical “path of knowledge,” one of Hindu philosophy’s three self-attained routes to liberation | Resolved by NOT using ಜ್ಞಾನ; coined compound ಪೂರ್ಣ ಅರಿವು used instead. Fencing complete by avoidance rather than qualification — flagged here so future reviewers do not “correct” ಪೂರ್ಣ ಅರಿವು back to the more familiar ಜ್ಞಾನ. |
| ಆನಂದ (ānanda) | AVOIDED for χαρά (v.7) — Paul’s specific relational joy over Philemon’s love | sat-chit-ānanda, the impersonal cosmic-bliss component of ultimate reality in Vedantic metaphysics | Resolved by NOT using ಆನಂದ; ಸಂತೋಷ used instead, a term with no cosmological loading. |
| ಋಣ (ṛṇa) | AVOIDED for ὀφείλω / προσοφείλω (vv.18-19) — a concrete, personal, one-time, forgivable financial/relational debt | The traditional “three debts” (deva-ṛṇa, pitṛ-ṛṇa, ṛṣi-ṛṇa) owed impersonally across lifetimes in popular Hindu ethical cosmology | Resolved by NOT using ಋಣ; ಸಾಲ used instead throughout. Fencing complete by avoidance; flagged so reviewers do not substitute the more “elevated”-sounding ಋಣ in later editorial passes. |
| ಆತ್ಮ (ātma) | v.25 — the individual human spirit of the gathered household-church, in continuing personal relationship with God | Vedantic ātman-Brahman monism (individual self ultimately identical with, or destined to merge into, impersonal ultimate reality) | Cannot be avoided (ಆತ್ಮ is the only viable Kannada word here and is also the established rendering pattern for “spirit” generally); fencing must be done by mandatory translator’s note rather than lexical substitution. See baseline holy_spirit precedent for the parallel but distinct case of ಪವಿತ್ರಾತ್ಮ. |
| ಧೈರ್ಯ (dhairya) | v.8 — παρρησία, Christ-given standing/authority to speak boldly | Ordinary secular sense of personal bravery/courage (used identically for a soldier’s courage, a debater’s boldness, etc.) | Lower-severity fencing: teaching notes should clarify this is positional boldness (apostolic/spiritual-fatherly standing) that Paul deliberately does not use, not a character trait being praised. |
| ಸಹೋದರ (sahōdara) | vv.1, 7, 16, 20 — spiritual kinship overriding social/legal hierarchy | Ordinary polite address between any two Kannada speakers regardless of actual relationship (a generic courtesy term, comparable to English “brother” in casual address) | Medium-severity fencing: must be paired with ಪಾಲುಗಾರ at the letter’s climax (v.17) so the social force of the kinship claim is not lost in a merely polite-sounding word. |
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Item | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Ὀνήσιμος → ಒನೇಸಿಮ | Transliterate | Proper name; established convention (cf. baseline proper-name transliteration table for Jesus, David, etc. in the AI requirements doc). Meaning-loss compensated by mandatory teaching note, not by inventing a meaningful Kannada substitute name. |
| δοῦλος → ದಾಸ | Neither pure transliteration nor paraphrase — retain established loan/native term | Whole-NT corpus consistency outweighs the bhakti-collision risk, provided mandatory glossing is enforced (see §2.2). Rejected: ಗುಲಾಮ (breaks corpus consistency); rejected: descriptive paraphrase like “ಸ್ವಂತ ಇಲ್ಲದ ಸೇವಕ” (“a servant without ownership of self”) — accurate but would itself be a new, unestablished coinage inconsistent with the rest of the NT Kannada text the learner will read elsewhere. |
| παρρησία → ಧೈರ್ಯ | Existing word, not transliterated, not paraphrased | No transliteration option exists (not a proper noun); paraphrase (“ಅಧಿಕಾರದ ಧೈರ್ಯ,” “authority-boldness”) was considered but rejected as an unnatural compound; single word + teaching note preferred. |
| πρεσβύτης/πρεσβευτής → ವೃದ್ಧ / ದೂತ | Paraphrase-style dual gloss, not transliteration | No Kannada transliteration is possible for a common noun; the textual-variant ambiguity is better served by offering both candidate renderings with a note than by silently choosing one. |
| ἐπίγνωσις → ಪೂರ್ಣ ಅರಿವು | Paraphrase (compound), explicitly rejecting single-word ಜ್ಞಾನ | See §2.2 fencing rationale. |
| ἐλλογάω → ಆರೋಪಿಸು | Existing word retained, not paraphrased into a longer commercial phrase | Matches baseline imputed_righteousness root for teaching continuity; a longer paraphrase (“ಖಾತೆಗೆ ಹಾಕು,” “put to the account”) was considered and is recommended as a secondary clarifying gloss in footnotes only, not the primary rendering. |
| ἀββά-style intimacy terms | N/A in Philemon (no Abba occurrence) | Noted for completeness; baseline ಅಬ್ಬಾ transliteration convention (Romans 8:15) does not apply to this letter. |
| Ἀρχιππος, Ἐπαφρᾶς, and other proper names (vv.2, 23-24) | Transliterate per established Kannada Bible convention | ಅರ್ಖಿಪ್ಪ (Arkhippa), ಎಪಫ್ರ (Epaphra), ಮಾರ್ಕ (Mārka), ಅರಿಸ್ತಾರ್ಕ (Aristārka), ದೇಮ (Dēma), ಲೂಕ (Lūka) — all follow standard existing Kannada Bible name forms; no new decision required, flagged here only to confirm full-letter coverage of vv.23-24. |
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Philemon
Ranked by combined severity of doctrinal consequence and likelihood of reader misreading, given Karnataka’s specific religious landscape (Haridasa bhakti, Lingayat/Veerashaiva reform tradition, Vedantic/Smarta philosophical vocabulary, Shakta devotional currents — per baseline).
-
δοῦλος → ದಾಸ (v.16) — CRITICAL. The single highest-risk term in the letter. A Kannada reader with any exposure to the Haridasa devotional tradition may reflexively hear ದಾಸ as an honorable, freely chosen, spiritually aspirational identity (as in ಹರಿದಾಸ), inverting the letter’s whole social critique, which depends on Onesimus’s bondage being involuntary and structurally unjust even as it is being spiritually transcended. Requires mandatory per-occurrence clarifying note; no lexical fix exists.
-
παρακαλέω → ವಿನಂತಿ ಮಾಡು (vv.9-10) — HIGH. If translated or received in the bureaucratic-petition register common to everyday Kannada institutional language, the entire rhetorical strategy of the letter (authority voluntarily laid aside for love) collapses into Paul filing a formal request, i.e., the opposite tone. Central to Grace-Motivated Obedience and Intercession/Appeal doctrines simultaneously.
-
κοινωνός → ಪಾಲುಗಾರ (v.17) — HIGH. If softened to a vaguer relational word (e.g., “friend,” “well-wisher”), the letter’s climactic, socially explosive request — “receive him as you would receive me” — loses its legal-social force and becomes generic Christian niceness rather than a demand for concrete equal standing.
-
ὀφείλω / ἐλλογάω → ಸಾಲ / ಆರೋಪಿಸು (vv.18) — HIGH. Risk runs in two directions at once: (a) drifting toward ಋಣ imports karmic-debt cosmology; (b) softening ಆರೋಪಿಸು toward vague “forgiveness” language erases the precise imputation-parallel to Christ’s imputed righteousness that makes this verse theologically generative for teaching, not just a nice personal gesture.
-
ἀνάγκη / ἑκούσιον antithesis → ಒತ್ತಾಯ / ಸ್ವಇಚ್ಛೆಯಿಂದ (v.14), read forward into ὑπακοή → ವಿಧೇಯತೆ (v.21) — HIGH. The risk is not mistranslating either word individually but losing the antithesis across seven verses between the two occurrences, so that “obedience” in v.21 is read by the time the learner reaches it as ordinary duty-compliance, undoing the letter’s carefully constructed grace-frame. This is a structural/discourse-level ambiguity risk, not a single-word one, and should be checked as a unit in Phase 2 QA.
-
ἐπίγνωσις → ಪೂರ್ಣ ಅರಿವು vs. ಜ್ಞಾನ (v.6) — MEDIUM-HIGH. Risk is primarily an editorial one: a well-meaning later reviewer unfamiliar with the jñāna-mārga collision might “correct” the deliberately coined ಪೂರ್ಣ ಅರಿವು back to the more familiar, shorter ಜ್ಞಾನ, silently reintroducing self-attained-enlightenment connotations.
-
σπλάγχνα → ಹೃದಯ (vv.7, 12, 20) — MEDIUM. Risk of the three occurrences being rendered with three different words for variety (a natural instinct in literary Kannada prose) rather than held identical, which would destroy the letter’s deliberate structural bracketing (Paul’s heart in v.7, Onesimus as Paul’s own heart in v.12, request to refresh that same heart in v.20).
-
δέσμιος → ಸೆರೆಯವನು (vv.1, 9, 10, 13), always paired with “of Christ Jesus” — MEDIUM. Risk that a translator, for smoother Kannada style, drops the “ಕ್ರಿಸ್ತ ಯೇಸುವಿನ” qualifier in a repeated phrase, leaving bare ಸೆರೆಯವನು, which reads as ordinary criminal imprisonment and severs Paul’s deliberate reframing of his imprisonment as gospel service.
-
ἀγάπη → ಪ್ರೀತಿ (vv.5, 7, 9) — MEDIUM. Lower risk than the above because ಪ್ರೀತಿ is religiously neutral in Kannada, but flagged because ಪ್ರೀತಿ sits adjacent to ಪ್ರೇಮ/ಭಕ್ತಿ in devotional register; teaching materials referencing Krishna-bhakti kirtane using ಪ್ರೇಮ-language for divine-devotee romance should not bleed into how this term is glossed for students from that background.
-
αἰώνιος → ಶಾಶ್ವತವಾಗಿ (v.15) — MEDIUM. Lower risk in this letter than in Romans’s resurrection passages, but flagged because “eternal/forever” language spoken to a mixed Hindu-background audience can passively activate cyclical-time assumptions (return, another turn of the cycle) rather than the linear, one-time, permanently-settled relational restoration Paul actually describes.
5. Full-Letter Verse Coverage Ledger
To satisfy the full-coverage mandate explicitly, every verse of Philemon is accounted for below.
| Verse(s) | New Vocabulary / Risk Introduced | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 1:1 | ἀδελφός, δέσμιος, ἀγαπητός, συνεργός | Covered in Doctrine Matrix / Registry |
| 1:2 | συστρατιώτης, ἐκκλησία (baseline reuse) | Covered |
| 1:3 | εἰρήνη, θεός, πατήρ, κύριος (all baseline reuse) | REVIEWED — NO NEW RISK beyond baseline |
| 1:4 | εὐχαριστία, προσευχή | Covered |
| 1:5 | πίστις, ἀγάπη, ἅγιοι (πίστις, ἅγιοι baseline reuse) | Covered |
| 1:6 | κοινωνία, ἐπίγνωσις, ἐνεργής, ἀγαθόν | Covered — highest new-vocabulary density verse outside core passage |
| 1:7 | χαρά, παράκλησις, σπλάγχνα, ἀναπαύω, ἀγάπη | Covered |
| 1:8 | παρρησία, ἐπιτάσσω | Covered — opens core passage |
| 1:9 | παρακαλέω, ἀγάπη, πρεσβύτης/πρεσβευτής, δέσμιος | Covered |
| 1:10 | παρακαλέω, τέκνον, γεννάω, Ὀνήσιμος | Covered |
| 1:11 | ἄχρηστος, εὔχρηστος | Covered |
| 1:12 | σπλάγχνα | Covered |
| 1:13 | διακονέω, δέσμιος, εὐαγγέλιον (baseline reuse) | Covered |
| 1:14 | ἀγαθόν, γνώμη, ἀνάγκη, ἑκούσιον | Covered — doctrinal core of Grace-Motivated Obedience |
| 1:15 | αἰώνιος | Covered |
| 1:16 | δοῦλος, ἀδελφός, σάρξ, κύριος (baseline reuse) | Covered — highest single-verse risk in the letter |
| 1:17 | κοινωνός, προσλαμβάνω | Covered — climactic verse |
| 1:18 | ἀδικέω, ὀφείλω, ἐλλογάω | Covered |
| 1:19 | ἀποτίνω, προσοφείλω | Covered |
| 1:20 | ἀδελφός, ὀνίνημι (wordplay), σπλάγχνα, ἀναπαύω, κύριος | Covered |
| 1:21 | πείθω/πεποιθώς, ὑπακοή | Covered — closes core passage |
| 1:22 | ξενία, προσευχή, χαρίζομαι | Covered |
| 1:23 | συναιχμάλωτος, Χριστός/Ἰησοῦς proper names | Covered |
| 1:24 | συνεργός, proper names (Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke) | REVIEWED — NO NEW RISK; standard transliteration only |
| 1:25 | χάρις (baseline reuse), πνεῦμα (human spirit) | Covered — closing benediction |
Coverage confirmation: all 25 verses of Philemon reviewed; no verse silently omitted. Verses 1:3 and 1:24 introduce no vocabulary beyond baseline-established or standard-transliteration conventions and are marked reviewed with no new risk.
6. Summary Recommendation for Phase 2 Handoff
Philemon’s linguistic risk profile differs in kind, not merely degree, from the Romans baseline: Romans’s risks are predominantly about protecting abstract systematic-theology vocabulary (righteousness, justification, salvation) from philosophical-system collision. Philemon’s risks are predominantly about protecting a single relational drama — told through concrete, situational, commercial, and familial vocabulary — from being flattened into generic politeness or generic piety. The highest priority for Phase 2 is therefore not new-term coinage (most gaps here are solvable by existing words plus mandatory notes) but discourse-level consistency enforcement: the ಒತ್ತಾಯ/ಸ್ವಇಚ್ಛೆಯಿಂದ↔ವಿಧೇಯತೆ antithesis (v.14→v.21) and the σπλάγχνα triple-bracket (vv.7, 12, 20) must be tracked as multi-verse units, not scored segment-by-segment, or their doctrinal force will be lost even when every individual segment passes validation.