Linguistic Gap Analysis — Jude

English/Greek → Kurdish (Kurmanji) | Phase 1, Step 8 Deliverable

Curriculum: Jude Core passage: Jude 1:3–23 Coverage: Full book, vv.1–25 Builds on: 07_semantic_analysis.md, 08_core_glossary.md, baseline Romans translation_memory.json / bible_term_registry.json / doctrine_risk_registry.json

This document does not re-derive term choices already fixed in 08_core_glossary.md; it analyzes why those choices are structurally necessary, maps the gaps and collisions in the destination-language vocabulary field, and ranks the letter’s highest-risk ambiguities for Phase 2 attention. Nothing here contradicts the baseline or the glossary; it is the diagnostic layer underneath them.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the six curriculum doctrines: the Kurdish vocabulary presently available, its specific weaknesses for this doctrine, and the recommended handling strategy.

1.1 Contending for the Faith Once Delivered

Available Kurdish terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
Têkoşîn (kirin) — “to struggle/fight”	The single most loaded struggle-word in modern Kurdish political vocabulary; the standard term for the armed/political liberation struggle (têkoşîna rizgariyê) across all four Kurdish-populated states, with secondary overlap into Islamic jihad’s semantic field. Used bare, it reads as a call to political or even armed resistance.	Retain Têkoşîn kirin (no better native verb exists for “vigorous, sustained struggle”) but require an obligatory qualifying clause at every occurrence — “bi hînkirin û bi jiyaneke pîroz” (through teaching and holy living) or equivalent — never left to stand alone. Flag Critical, every occurrence.
Şer kirin — “to fight/make war”	Directly militarized; worse than Têkoşîn kirin.	Reject outright as an alternative.
Parastin (kirin) — “to defend/guard”	Softer, but loses ἐπαγωνίζομαι’s intensive, effortful register; also already fully committed as the fixed rendering of τηρέω (“kept,” see §3 below) — reusing it here would create a second, unrelated collision inside the same letter.	Do not use for “contend”; reserve exclusively for “kept/preserved.”
Îmana ku carekê û ji bo her û hertim hatiye spartin (“the faith once for all delivered”)	Long compound; risk of resembling the Islamic khatam al-anbiya (seal of the prophets)/Qur’anic-finality framework, including its implicit tahrif claim about earlier revelation.	Retain the compound (no shorter native phrase preserves ἅπαξ’s force) but pair with explicit teaching that the completeness in view is the apostolic deposit being finished, not a claim that other traditions’ scriptures are thereby corrupted — a different argument from naskh/tahrif.

Net assessment: No term in the available field is doctrinally neutral; every option imports either a political-struggle or Islamic-finality resonance. The compound-and-qualify strategy (not word substitution) is the only viable mitigation.

1.2 Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers

Available Kurdish terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
Bêxweda / Bêxwedatî (“ungodly/ungodliness”)	Reads colloquially as simply “atheist,” missing ἀσέβεια’s fuller sense of active, presumptuous irreverence toward a God one does not deny exists.	Retain the term (it is the only viable native compound: bê- “without” + xweda “God”) but supply a defining gloss at first occurrence (v.4) establishing the fuller sense; then hold the SAME term rigidly across all six occurrences (1:4, 1:15 ×4, 1:18) to preserve Jude’s rhetorical hammer-blow repetition, especially the fivefold density in v.15.
Heqaretkirin (li dijî rûmetê) (“dishonoring/belittling glory,” for blaspheme)	Genuine legal-safety weight: blasphemy carries serious social and criminal consequences in several of the four host states, especially Iran; any Arabic-cognate term tied to the legally-loaded “kufr” register would compound this risk further.	Retain the descriptive Kurdish phrase (never an Arabic-cognate blasphemy term); flag Critical for BOTH theological accuracy and translator/reviewer physical safety at every occurrence (1:8, 1:9, 1:10, 1:15).
Dadgehî (“judgment/tribunal”)	Broadly compatible with Yawm al-Qiyamah — an asset — but risks being absorbed into a generic works-weighing judgment framework, losing Jude’s specific criterion (rejection of Christ’s Lordship, 1:4).	Retain term; require the specific criterion to be stated explicitly in surrounding text/footnotes wherever Dadgehî appears in this letter.
Bêbendîtî (“sensuality/licentiousness”)	A coined compound (bê- “without” + bend “restraint/tie”); intelligible but new, and could default to a generic vice-list reading disconnected from the specific grace-into-license argument of 1:4.	Retain; anchor explicitly to the “turning grace into license” clause each time, not left as a freestanding vice term.

1.3 Old Testament Warnings as Types (Israel, Angels, Sodom)

Available Kurdish terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
Milyaket (“angels,” fallen)	Mainstream Islamic angelology holds angels sinless and incapable of disobedience — this is a genuine doctrinal content collision, not merely a word-choice problem: the vocabulary itself is fine, but the premise it describes (angels who rebelled) contradicts the reader’s likely default theology.	Retain Milyaket; the mitigation is explanatory teaching content, not a different word. Flag High, every occurrence (1:6).
Îblîs (“devil”)	Shared Qur’anic figure (asset for recognition) but the Qur’anic Iblis narrative (refusal to bow to Adam) is a different story from Jude’s Moses’-body dispute; readers may import the wrong background story.	Retain Îblîs for recognition value; supply brief narrative framing at 1:9. Consider “Şeytan” as a secondary gloss where an audience’s Iblis associations are likely to cause more confusion than help (see §4, transliteration decisions).
Sodom û Gomorra	Strong asset: shared with Qur’anic Qawmê Lût narrative.	Retain as-is; note narrative-detail differences briefly so the Qur’anic account is not assumed identical in every particular.
Qayîn / Belam / Qore	Cain and Korah have strong Qur’anic parallels (Qabîl, Qarun) — assets; Balaam’s link to Qur’an 7:175-176 is possible but not universally recognized.	Retain proper names as transliterated; flag Balaam specifically as an uncertain recognition asset, not a guaranteed one.

1.4 Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering

Available Kurdish terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
Dilovanî (“mercy”)	Native term (dil, “heart” + -ovan) preferred over Arabic-cognate “rehm,” which is directly bound to the Islamic divine attributes ar-Rahman/ar-Rahim invoked in every Bismillah — using “rehm” would dilute Christ’s specific saving mercy into that generic, universal-compassion attribute.	Retain Dilovanî; anchor to Christ’s specific, personal, rescuing mercy at each occurrence (1:2, 1:21, 1:22, 1:23), not a generalized divine-compassion abstraction.
Dudilan / Dudil bûn (“wavering/doubting”)	Same verbal root (διακρίνομαι) appears at 1:9 in an unrelated sense (“dispute”); risk of readers conflating the wavering insiders of 1:22 with the disputing Michael/devil episode of 1:9, or worse, with the condemned false teachers themselves.	Use distinct glosses per occurrence; explicitly frame 1:22’s “wavering” as a pastoral category of struggling insiders, sharply distinct from both 1:9’s unrelated sense and the false teachers of 1:4-19.
Ji agir revandin (Rizgar kirin) (“snatch from the fire”)	Compound needed because no single Kurdish verb carries both ἁρπάζω’s forceful urgency and Rizgarî’s established spiritual-salvation freight; risk of a merely physical “rescue from danger” reading.	Retain the compound; require it never stand without the surrounding spiritual-judgment context (linking back to 1:7’s fire) being explicit. Critical, per Rizgarî-family anchoring rule.

1.5 Kept by God and Presented Blameless

Available Kurdish terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
Parastin (“kept/preserved,” τηρέω)	The letter’s central verb, used of BOTH judicial custody of the condemned (1:6, negative) and covenant-security of believers (1:1, 1:13, 1:21, 1:24, positive). No inherent weakness in the word itself, but a severe process risk: if translators vary the Kurdish verb by context (e.g., using a “guard” word for the negative sense and a different “protect” word for the positive), Jude’s own deliberate structural wordplay — that the same divine “keeping” underlies both outcomes — is destroyed.	Mandate a single, invariant Kurdish verb (Parastin) at all five occurrences regardless of positive/negative valence. This is a process control, not a lexical-choice problem — flag Critical and require a cross-occurrence consistency check at Phase 2 Step 17.
Bêkêmasî sekinandin (“present blameless”)	“Bêkêmasî” (flawless) is a generic perfection term; it does not carry ἄμωμος’s specific sacrificial-offering resonance (an animal without physical blemish, fit for the altar), so the OT sacrificial background is not automatically evoked for a Kurdish reader the way it might be for an audience steeped in Levitical categories.	Retain the phrase (no closer native equivalent exists); supply the sacrificial background explicitly in teaching notes rather than relying on the word itself to carry it. Must be framed as God’s own forensic/positional act, paralleling the baseline’s “imputed righteousness” pattern — never the believer’s self-achieved moral perfection.
Jiyana Herheyî (“eternal life”)	Risk of collapsing into a generic paradise/Jannah image if left unanchored.	Anchor explicitly to relationship with Christ (1:21’s “waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ”), not a bare afterlife-place description.

1.6 Doxology and God’s Preserving Power

Available Kurdish terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
Rizgarker (“Savior”)	Built on Rizgarî; risks being heard as a political-liberator title given the weight of Kurdish liberation-movement rhetoric praising historic “rizgarker” figures.	Never permit the title to stand alone; the clause “bi rêya Îsa Mesîhê Xudanê me” (“through Jesus Christ our Lord”) must accompany it at every occurrence, per baseline anchoring discipline. Critical.
Desthilatdarî (“dominion/authority,” κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία)	This is the exact standard Kurdish political-science term for sovereignty/self-determination, used throughout discourse on Kurdish statehood aspirations — directly paralleling (and arguably sharper than) the baseline’s existing “Padîşahiya Xwedê” caution.	Retain (no equally weighty native alternative exists for “dominion” in a doxological register), but require explicit framing that this is God’s own transcendent, eternal sovereignty, never blended with or read as validating any specific this-worldly political sovereignty question. Flag High/Critical for theologian review.
Mezinahî (“majesty”)	Low-risk, straightforward.	Retain as-is.
Rûmet (“glory”)	Already established in baseline for Christ’s/God’s glory; here also names angelic “glorious ones” (1:8), a distinct usage.	Retain the term but flag the sense-shift (divine glory vs. a description of angelic beings) with a translator’s note at 1:8.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

Two distinct categories of gap appear in this letter, requiring different mitigation strategies.

2.1 Missing Vocabulary (true lexical gaps — no native Kurdish word exists)

These concepts have no single-word Kurdish equivalent and require compound phrases or engineered neologisms. The risk is verbosity/awkwardness and inconsistent rendering across translators, not doctrinal collision per se — though inconsistency itself becomes a doctrinal risk when the concept (like τηρέω) is structurally load-bearing.

Concept	Gap	Engineered solution	Risk of the solution
ἐπαγωνίζομαι (intensive, sustained contend)	No native verb combines “struggle” + “on behalf of” + “sustained effort” in one word	Têkoşîn kirin + mandatory qualifying clause	Verbosity is the lesser risk; the greater risk is a future translator dropping the qualifying clause under space pressure
ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ (once-for-all completed entrustment)	No single word conveys both “delivered” and “unrepeatable/completed”	Full compound: “Îmana ku carekê û ji bo her û hertim hatiye spartin”	Long; risks being shortened in casual reference, losing the “once for all” force
ψυχικός distinct from πνευματικός	Kurdish “giyan” already covers both soul and spirit; no distinct root was previously pressed into service for the “natural/soulish, non-Spirit-indwelt” sense	Repurpose “can” (natural life) as in “Canî, bêyî Ruh”	Genuinely novel usage — “can” ordinarily just means “life/soul” colloquially, so the technical distinction must be taught explicitly the first time it appears, or it will read as a synonym of giyanî rather than its deliberate opposite
ἁρπάζω ἐκ πυρός (forceful snatching from fire)	No single verb carries both “seize by force” and salvific urgency	Compound: “Ji agir revandin (Rizgar kirin)“	Two-part phrase risks being split apart in casual reuse, with only “Rizgar kirin” surviving and the urgency lost
ἄμωμος in a sacrificial register (present blameless)	“Bêkêmasî” is generic; no Kurdish term retains the Levitical unblemished-offering association	”Bêkêmasî sekinandin” plus required explanatory teaching	Background lost unless taught separately from the text itself
δεσπότης distinct from κύριος	No inherited Kurdish theological vocabulary distinguishes “owner-master” from “sovereign-lord”; both concepts naturally gravitate to the same semantic space	”Serwer” engineered as a second, distinct term	See §2.2 below — this is simultaneously a missing-vocabulary problem AND a crowded-neighborhood problem

2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (too many overlapping associations — need fencing, not invention)

These are cases where a serviceable Kurdish word exists, but it already carries other strong associations in the culture’s political, religious, or literary discourse that compete for the reader’s first interpretation. The mitigation here is not a new word but explicit “fencing” — glosses, qualifying clauses, and consistent contextual anchoring that rule out the unwanted neighbor meaning.

Kurdish term	Crowded neighbors	Fencing strategy
Têkoşîn kirin	(1) Kurdish nationalist political/armed liberation struggle vocabulary (têkoşîna rizgariyê); (2) Islamic jihad-adjacent struggle concept	Mandatory non-violent, doctrinal/teaching-focused qualifying clause at every occurrence; never permit the bare verb to stand alone in any Phase 2 output
Rizgarî / Rizgarker / Ji agir revandin	Kurdish political-nationalist liberation vocabulary (Rizgariya Kurdistanê)	Explicit personal/spiritual anchoring clause at every occurrence, per baseline rule, extended here to the Savior title and rescue-from-fire imagery specifically
Desthilatdarî	Kurdish statehood/self-determination political-sovereignty discourse	Explicit “God’s own transcendent sovereignty, not a this-worldly political claim” framing in the doxology context
Serwer (despotēs)	Ordinary Kurdish usage as “chief/leader” (tribal or organizational), including in secular/political registers (e.g., “serwerê partiyê,” party leader)	Must be reserved in this letter’s theological register exclusively for Christ’s absolute ownership-lordship in 1:4, kept lexically distinct from Xudan, and not allowed to drift toward a merely administrative “boss/leader” reading
Dilovanî (mercy)	Sits near, but is deliberately distinct from, the Arabic-cognate “rehm,” bound to Islamic Rahman/Rahim	Not itself crowded by rehm since a different root is chosen — the fencing here is negative: explicitly reject rehm as an alternative rendering in any Phase 2 output, since translators unfamiliar with this analysis might reach for it as a “more natural-sounding” synonym
Evîn (agape love)	Kurdish classical Sufi mystical-love poetry (Melayê Cizîrî, Ehmedê Xanî) — an asset for warmth but built on a lover/beloved erotic-mystical metaphor for divine union	Anchor explicitly to covenantal, familial, self-giving love (1:2, 1:21) each time, distinguishing it from the poetic tradition’s romantic-union register even while borrowing its warmth
Bêxweda (ungodly)	Colloquial “atheist” reading	Defining gloss at first occurrence establishing the fuller sense of active irreverence, not mere non-belief
Heqaretkirin (blasphemy)	Any Arabic-cognate “kufr”-adjacent vocabulary carrying real legal weight regionally	Deliberately avoid Arabic-cognate terms; use only the descriptive Kurdish phrase
Îblîs (devil)	Qur’anic Iblis’s specific refusal-to-bow-to-Adam narrative	Brief narrative reframing at 1:9 so Jude’s Moses’-body dispute is not assumed to be the same story
Milyaket (angels)	Mainstream Islamic angelology’s sinless-angel doctrine	Explicit teaching content flagging the doctrinal difference; the word itself is not crowded, the underlying theology is contested
Dema Dawî (last time)	Islamic akhir zaman apocalyptic figures (Mahdi, Dajjal)	Explicit statement that this passage’s eschatology is distinctly Christian and does not reference those figures

General principle for Phase 2: where the mitigation is fencing (§2.2), the correct output is a stable Kurdish word plus a required contextual anchor; translators must never attempt to “solve” a crowded-neighborhood risk by substituting a different Kurdish word, since that would break translation-memory consistency and the doctrine registry’s routing logic. Where the mitigation is invention (§2.1), the compound or engineered term itself is the deliverable and must be reproduced verbatim, not paraphrased differently by different translators.

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Category	Decision	Examples	Rationale
Proper names with existing Kitêba Pîroz precedent	Transliterate, using the established form	Îsa, Mesîh, Mûsa, Îsraîl (cross-reference only)	Consistency with the wider Bible-translation tradition the baseline anchors to; no controversy attaches to these forms
Proper names newly appearing in this curriculum	Transliterate using best-attested Kurdish NT convention; flag for confirmation	Cihûda (Jude/Judas — disambiguate from Cihûdayê Îskeryotî), Aqûb (James), Enox (Enoch), Mîkaîlê Serokfirişte (archangel Michael)	No native semantic equivalent exists for proper names; the risk is inconsistency across future curricula (e.g., the Epistle of James), not doctrinal distortion — confirm forms once and lock them in translation memory
Hebrew/Aramaic liturgical loanwords	Transliterate	Amîn (Amen)	Already established practice per baseline instruction set; uncontroversial shared regional usage
Abstract theological concepts with a serviceable native/Kurdish-Iranian-root word	Translate (do not transliterate), preferring native Kurdish over Arabic loanwords per baseline’s stated house style	Kerem (grace), Rizgarî (salvation), Dilovanî (mercy), Herheyî (eternal), Evîn (love), Parastin (kept)	Consistent with the baseline’s explicit preference for native Kurdish vocabulary over Arabic loanwords “where a safe native option exists”
Concepts with NO safe native single word and NO transliteration tradition	Paraphrase as an engineered compound, held invariant	Îmana ku carekê û ji bo her û hertim hatiye spartin (once for all delivered); Ji agir revandin (Rizgar kirin) (snatch from the fire); Bêkêmasî sekinandin (present blameless)	Transliterating a Greek phrase here (e.g., a loan-calque of ἐπαγωνίζομαι) would produce an unintelligible neologism with no comprehension value; paraphrase is the only viable route
Titles distinguishing κύριος from δεσπότης	Paraphrase both as distinct native Kurdish words, not transliteration	Xudan (kyrios) / Serwer (despotēs)	Transliterating despotēs would produce an opaque loanword unfamiliar to readers and would not solve the stacking problem; two native words are needed so the distinction itself is preserved
ψυχικός vs πνευματικός	Paraphrase, repurposing an existing native root (“can”) rather than transliterating or coining a wholly new word	Canî, bêyî Ruh	A transliterated “psîkîkî” would be opaque and disconnected from Kurdish theological vocabulary already in use (giyanî); repurposing a related native root, clearly glossed, is more teachable

General rule for this curriculum: transliterate only proper names and the single fixed liturgical loanword (Amîn); everywhere else prefer paraphrase/compound over coinage-by-transliteration, consistent with the baseline’s native-vocabulary-first house style.

---

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Jude

Ranked by combined severity of doctrinal consequence and probability of mistranslation/misreading, drawing on the doctrine matrix and gap analysis above. Items 1–6 require Critical-tier handling (mandatory human theologian review at every occurrence, per the doctrine risk registry’s routing rules); items 7–13 are High-tier.

1. Têkoşîn kirin (“contend,” 1:3) — Double collision: Kurdish nationalist liberation-struggle vocabulary AND Islamic jihad-adjacent struggle concept, occurring in the letter’s thesis verse. Highest risk in the book because it frames how the entire epistle’s tone is read from the outset — as a call to spiritual perseverance or (mis)read as a call to political/armed resistance.

2. Parastin (“kept/preserved,” 1:1, 1:6, 1:13, 1:21, 1:24) — Not a collision risk but a consistency-collapse risk: if the same Kurdish verb is not used at all five occurrences, Jude’s central structural argument (the same divine “keeping” underlies both the judgment of the condemned and the security of believers) is silently destroyed. Severity is high because the failure mode is invisible to a reviewer checking any single verse in isolation.

3. Heqaretkirin (li dijî rûmetê) (“blaspheme,” 1:8, 1:9, 1:10, 1:15) — Uniquely combines theological risk with real-world legal/physical safety risk for translators and reviewers operating under blasphemy-law jurisdictions (notably Iran); requires safety review in addition to theological review.

4. Rizgarî-family anchoring (Rizgarî 1:3, 1:23; Rizgarker 1:25) — The letter’s threefold use of this word-family (common salvation, snatch from the fire, our Savior) means the nationalist-liberation collision risk recurs at three separate structurally important points, compounding the baseline Romans risk already documented for this term.

5. Serwer vs. Xudan stacking (1:4) — The letter’s single highest-Christology moment (“our only Master and Lord”) depends entirely on two Kurdish words remaining lexically distinct; collapsing them into one erases Jude’s deliberate double-title confession, which is itself constructed as a direct rebuke of the false teachers who deny exactly this.

6. Desthilatdarî in the closing doxology (1:25) — Ascribes to God, in the letter’s most solemn and quotable verse, the exact term used in contemporary Kurdish political discourse for sovereignty/self-determination; highest-visibility placement (a doxology likely to be memorized/quoted) raises the practical exposure of this risk above its Romans-baseline analog (Padîşahiya Xwedê).

7. Canî, bêyî Ruh vs. Giyanî (1:19) — A subtle but doctrinally load-bearing distinction (genuine believers indwelt by the Spirit vs. the false teachers who are not) resting on a single repurposed root that has no prior technical usage in Kurdish theological vocabulary; easily flattened by a translator unaware of the deliberate distinction.

8. Jesus/Lord textual variant (1:5) — A high-Christology text-critical decision (whether it was “Jesus” or “the Lord” who saved a people out of Egypt) that must be made deliberately and documented, not defaulted to by whichever base text a given tool happens to use.

9. Enoch citation and canonicity (1:14-15) — Risk of readers concluding Jude canonizes the entire book of 1 Enoch, or conversely dismissing the cited prophecy as illegitimate because its source is non-canonical; both misreadings damage the Inspiration of Scripture doctrine.

10. Bêxweda / Bêxwedatî consistency (6 occurrences, esp. fivefold in 1:15) — Risk of both an “atheist” misreading and inconsistent rendering across a NT-wide density record for this word-family; the rhetorical hammer-blow effect of v.15 depends on exact repetition.

11. Milyaket / fallen-angels doctrine (1:6) — Not a lexical problem but a direct doctrinal-content collision with mainstream Islamic angelology’s sinless-angel premise; high probability that a reader’s background theology actively resists the verse’s claim rather than merely misunderstanding a word.

12. Îman’s sense-shift toward “the deposit of doctrine” (1:3, 1:20) — Subtle equivocation risk: the same Kurdish word used for fiduciary trust-in-Christ throughout Romans here shifts toward a more objective, credal sense (“the faith… once for all delivered,” “your most holy faith”); if this shift is not flagged, readers may either import an inappropriately propositional reading back into Romans-style faith passages, or miss Jude’s own point that there is a fixed, defendable body of apostolic teaching.

13. Evîn / Dilovanî cultural-resonance management (throughout) — Lower urgency than items 1–12 but persistent: both terms carry genuine positive cultural assets (Sufi mystical-love poetry; the goodwill the term “Dilovanî” avoids diluting) that must be actively channeled toward the text’s specific meaning at every occurrence rather than left to float toward their broader cultural resonance.

---

5. Summary Recommendations for Phase 2

1. Load 08_core_glossary.md and the updated bible_term_registry.json/translation_memory.json before any segment processing; every term in Sections 1–3 above is already fixed there and must not be re-negotiated per-segment.
2. Treat “fencing” terms (§2.2) as stable-word-plus-mandatory-context problems: never substitute a different Kurdish word to solve a crowded-neighborhood risk.
3. Treat “gap” terms (§2.1) as fixed-compound problems: reproduce the engineered compound verbatim; do not allow translators to independently re-paraphrase.
4. Apply the ranked list in Section 4 as the priority order for Phase 2 Step 17 theologian review time allocation when review capacity is constrained.
5. Any newly discovered ambiguity not covered above must be logged, risk-tiered using the same four-tier framework, and added to translation memory with a version increment before further segment processing proceeds, per the baseline’s established workflow.

---

This analysis extends, and does not contradict, the baseline Romans Language Package and the Jude 08_core_glossary.md. It supplies the diagnostic rationale — missing vocabulary, crowded semantic neighborhoods, transliteration logic, and risk ranking — underlying those artifacts’ term choices.