Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — Gospel of Mark (English → Kurdish/Kurmanji)
This analysis extends the Romans baseline Language Package (translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, doctrine_risk_registry.json) to the Mark curriculum. It was produced after full-book review of Mark 1–16 and cross-referenced against analysis/08_core_glossary.md. It does not repeat every term already fully specified there; instead it evaluates the linguistic terrain — where Kurmanji has resources, where it has none, where existing resources are dangerously overloaded, and which decisions (transliterate vs. paraphrase) carry the greatest downstream risk for Phase 2.
Every chapter of Mark was reviewed. Chapters contributing no new terms or doctrine-relevant vocabulary beyond what is already logged are noted explicitly in the chapter sweep (Section 5) rather than silently omitted.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
| Doctrine (curriculum) | Available Kurdish Terms | Weaknesses / Collision Risks | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jesus as Suffering Servant and Son of God | Kurê Xwedê (Son of God, reused Critical); Kurê Mirov (Son of Man, new Critical); Xizmetkar (servant); Guhertina Dirûvî (transfiguration) | No native Kurdish term captures the Isaiah 53 “Suffering Servant” composite concept as a single lexical unit — it must be built compositionally (“Xulamê ku Dikişîne” / “Xizmetkarê Êşkêş” are candidate descriptive phrases, not fixed terms). Risk of readers mentally separating “Son of God” (glory) from “Servant” (suffering) as two different figures rather than one integrated identity, since Kurdish has no single native compound bridging majesty and abasement. | Do not coin a single fixed term for “Suffering Servant.” Instead consistently pair Kurê Mirov/Kurê Xwedê occurrences with explicit teaching notes tying them to the servant/suffering material (8:31, 9:31, 10:33-45). Treat “Suffering Servant” as a teaching label, not a translatable Bible term. |
| The Kingdom of God Breaking In | Padîşahiya Xwedê (reused Critical); Tobe kirin (repentance); Mesel (parable) | Padîşahiya carries the morphological root “padîşah” (king/monarch), which in Kurdish political memory is associated with actual historical monarchic rule (Ottoman, Persian) as well as the aspirational Kurdish nation-state; “breaking in” (present-yet-future tension) has no native grammatical marker and must be supplied by adverbial phrasing. | Consistently pair Padîşahiya Xwedê with a present-tense proximity marker (“nêzîk bûye,” “hatiye,” 1:15) distinct from future-consummation passages (13:26), so the “already/not yet” tension is visible in Kurdish syntax, not left to be inferred. |
| Faith and Discipleship amid Fear | Îman (faith, reused High); Şagirt (disciple, new Medium); tirs (fear, general vocabulary) | “Tirs” (fear) is theologically neutral/general vocabulary with no flagged collision risk itself, but the doctrine’s power lies in the pairing of tirs and îman across storm/healing narratives (4:40, 5:36, 6:50, 9:24) — Kurmanji has no fixed idiom linking the two the way English “fear not, only believe” does. | Render Mark’s fear/faith antithesis with parallel, deliberately mirrored clause structure in each occurrence (“Netirse, tenê bawer bike”) so learners recognize the recurring formula across chapters, rather than allowing each translator to render it freshly per passage. |
| The Necessity of the Cross | Xaç/xaç kirin (cross, reused Medium); Divê/Pêwîst e (divine necessity, new Medium); Kasê (cup, new High); Imad (baptism, metaphorical extension, new High) | “Divê” also functions as ordinary modal “must/should” in everyday Kurdish (obligation, advice), carrying no inherent sense of redemptive, foreordained necessity; risk of the three passion predictions (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34) reading as generic narrative inevitability rather than God’s specific saving plan. | Reserve “Divê” for the passion-prediction formula specifically and supply an explicit qualifying phrase (“li gorî plana Xwedê,” “according to God’s plan”) at first occurrence (8:31) to anchor the sense before it recurs unglossed at 9:31 and 10:33-34. |
| Servanthood versus Worldly Greatness | Xizmetkar (servant, new High); Kole (slave, new High); serdestî li ser kirin (lord it over, new High) | Kurdish tribal (aşîret) honor culture and Sufi xizmet (disciple-service-to-master) custom both carry an upward, hierarchy-preserving logic (serving a superior enhances one’s own honor by association); Mark’s saying inverts this completely — greatness through downward service to all, including social inferiors. Genuine risk of the saying being heard as “serve your leader well and you too will rise,” the opposite of Jesus’ point. | Explicit teaching note required at every occurrence of Xizmetkar/Kole (9:35, 10:42-45) clarifying the direction of service (toward all, without status return), and preserving the deliberate escalation Xizmetkar → Kole as intensification, never treating them as interchangeable synonyms. |
| The Messianic Secret | No existing fixed Kurdish theological term; functional vocabulary only: ferman (command), bêdengî (silence), ne got (did not tell) | This is the single largest genuine vocabulary gap in the Mark curriculum (see Section 2). “Messianic Secret” is itself a scholarly label, not a translatable biblical phrase, so there is no term to reuse or coin from Scripture directly — but the command-to-silence pattern (1:34, 44; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:30; 9:9) needs consistent phrasing. Kurdish Sufi tradition’s practice of restricting esoteric knowledge to initiated disciples (a real, socially present phenomenon) creates a risk that Jesus’ silencing commands are assimilated into an initiatory-secrecy framework — a hidden teaching for the spiritually advanced — rather than Mark’s actual, pragmatic reason (preventing premature, distorted messianic-nationalist acclaim before the cross clarifies what “Messiah” means). | Adopt a consistent functional phrase — “Ferman da wan ku tiştek nebêjin” (“he commanded them to tell no one”) — at every silencing occurrence, and require a mandatory teaching note (not a lexical fix, since none exists) explaining the narrative-strategic reason, explicitly distinguishing it from esoteric initiation. Flag as High risk; escalate to theologian review at first three occurrences (1:34, 44; 8:30) to standardize the note before Phase 2 scales it across the rest. |
| Jesus’ Authority over Sickness, Sin, and Nature | Desthilat (authority, new High/Critical); Hêz/Hêza Xwedê (power, reused Medium); Ruhê Pîs (unclean spirit, new Critical); Guneh (sin, reused High) | Desthilat and Hêz are both broadly used in everyday Kurdish political/administrative speech (desthilatdar = “authority-holder/official,” often with negative connotations of unaccountable state power, especially salient given the region’s contested statehood politics); risk of Jesus’ authority reading as bureaucratic/political jurisdiction rather than an inherent, unmediated divine right. | Reserve Desthilat strictly for Jesus’ teaching/exorcism/forgiveness authority and the Twelve’s derivative authority; never use it approvingly of Roman, Herodian, or other political rulers in the text (use a separate construction, as already fenced for 10:42’s “serdestî li ser kirin”). This preserves the lexical contrast Mark himself draws between legitimate, self-giving authority and illegitimate, self-serving domination. |
| The Ransom for Many | Bihayê Rizgariyê (ransom, new Critical); li şûna gelekan (“for many”/substitution, new Critical); Can (soul/life, new Medium) | Bihayê Rizgariyê is a compositional phrase built on the already-Critical, nationalist-liberation-loaded Rizgarî; stacking a second Critical term (substitutionary atonement) onto an already politically resonant root roughly doubles the anchoring burden at 10:45 — this is the single highest-density risk convergence point in the whole curriculum, since it also sits inside the core passage (10:35-45). | Every occurrence of Bihayê Rizgariyê must carry BOTH anchors already required separately in the baseline and glossary: (a) personal/spiritual, not national-political, framing of Rizgarî; (b) explicit “in place of” substitutionary force for li şûna gelekan, never softened to “for the benefit of.” Treat 10:45 as requiring double-anchoring in every lesson, footnote, and back-translation check, not single-anchoring as with ordinary Rizgarî occurrences elsewhere. |
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2.1 Genuine Vocabulary Gaps (no existing Kurdish theological resource)
These are concepts for which Kurmanji possesses no ready-made theological term at all — not even a risky one — and where a compositional phrase must be built and then held fixed for consistency:
| Gap | Why it’s missing | Proposed compositional solution | Risk if left ad hoc |
|---|---|---|---|
| Messianic Secret / silence commands | Not a term Mark’s Greek fixes either (modern scholarly label); the underlying imperative verbs (ἐπιτιμάω, διαστέλλομαι) are ordinary Greek, not technical vocabulary, so no borrowed theological term exists in any regional language tradition | ”Ferman da wan ku tiştek nebêjin” (fixed formula, see Section 1) | Each translator improvising a different phrasing across 1:34, 1:44, 3:12, 5:43, 7:36, 8:30, 9:9 would obscure the literary pattern Mark builds across the whole Gospel |
| Suffering Servant (as an integrated title) | Isaiah 53 background not lexicalized as a single noun phrase anywhere in existing Kurdish Christian literature reviewed | Do not coin; use teaching-label only (see 1.1 above) | Coining a premature fixed term risks freezing an imperfect compound into permanent glossary use before adequate theological vetting |
| ”Immediately” (εὐθύς) as Markan style marker | Not a doctrinal term, but Mark’s ~40 uses of εὐθύς give the Gospel its characteristic urgency; Kurdish has adequate equivalents (tavilê, yekser, di cih de) but no single one has been fixed as the house-style rendering | Fix “tavilê” as the default rendering, reserving “yekser” only where a stronger immediacy is warranted by context | Low doctrinal risk, but stylistic inconsistency here would flatten a recognizable feature of Mark’s narrative voice across chapters |
| ”Astonished/amazed” reaction vocabulary (ἐξίσταντο, ἐθαμβήθησαν) | General narrative vocabulary; Kurdish has multiple near-synonyms (heyirîn, ecêbmayî man, seyirmayî man) without a fixed hierarchy of intensity | Grade by intensity: heyirîn (mild) for routine amazement; ecêbmayî man (strong) reserved for theophany-adjacent scenes (transfiguration 9:6, empty tomb 16:8) | Low risk; noted for stylistic consistency only, not doctrinal escalation |
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing
These are cases where Kurdish already has (or Mark newly introduces) multiple terms sharing a root or semantic field, creating risk of unintended bleed-through between concepts that Mark deliberately keeps separate:
| Neighborhood | Terms in the cluster | Fencing rule |
|---|---|---|
| Lordship root (Xudan) | Xudan (true Lordship, Critical); serdestî li ser kirin (lord it over, negatively-marked, High) | NEVER let “serdestî” or any cognate of “serdest” migrate into a rendering of Xudan, and vice versa. The deliberate Greek word-root irony (kyrios / katakyrieuousin) must survive as a visible Kurdish contrast, not be flattened into two unrelated words that lose the connection, nor merged into one root that loses the irony. Confirm at Phase 2 QA that both are present verbatim in every 10:42-45 rendering. |
| Service/servitude cluster | Xizmetkar (servant, High); Kole (slave, High); Şandî (apostle/sent one, Medium); Şagirt (disciple, Medium) | These four must remain in strict escalating/distinct registers: Şagirt (learner-status) → Şandî (delegated-authority status) → Xizmetkar (servant-of-all status) → Kole (slave-of-all status, most extreme). Do not allow Xizmetkar and Kole to be used interchangeably as stylistic variation; Mark’s rhetorical escalation in 10:43-44 depends on them being two distinct, ordered steps. |
| Spirit vocabulary | Ruhê Pîroz (Holy Spirit, Critical); Ruhê Pîs (unclean spirit, Critical) | Both share the noun “ruh” (spirit); this is unavoidable and in fact desirable (Mark’s Greek does the same with pneuma). The fence is adjectival, not nominal: pîroz/pîs must NEVER be dropped or abbreviated in running text, since “Ruh” alone is dangerously ambiguous between the two. Flag any segment where the adjective is elided for mandatory correction before acceptance. |
| Purity/cleanness cluster | Paqij/Pîs (clean/unclean, ritual-to-moral, Medium); Ruhê Pîs (unclean spirit, Critical); Pîroz (holy, High) | “Pîs” is shared between “unclean” (ritual/moral, 7:1-23) and “unclean spirit” (1:23 etc.) — this is a real ambiguity risk distinct from the Spirit-vocabulary fence above, since a reader could momentarily read “Ruhê Pîs” through the lens of 7:1-23’s dietary-purity discussion rather than as a personal malevolent being. Require the fixed compound “Ruhê Pîs” always to appear as a unit (never “pîs” alone referring to a spirit) and reserve bare “pîs”/“paqij” strictly for the ritual/moral-purity passages of ch. 7. |
| Authority/power cluster | Desthilat (authority, High/Critical); Hêz/Hêza Xwedê (power, Medium) | Already fenced in the bible_term_registry; reaffirmed here because Mark uses both terms in close proximity repeatedly (1:22, 27; 6:2, 5, 7). Translators must never substitute one for the other for stylistic variety — Mark’s own Greek maintains the exousia/dynamis distinction deliberately, and Kurdish must mirror it segment-by-segment, not just at the term level. |
| Sin/blasphemy/impurity cluster | Guneh (sin, High); Kufr (blasphemy, High); Pîs (unclean, Medium) | Guneh and Kufr must not be used interchangeably even though both denote serious wrongdoing before God; Kufr in Mark’s usage (3:28-29; 14:63-64) is a specific, settled, verbal offense against God’s self-revelation, narrower and weightier than the general category Guneh. Given Kufr’s much heavier social-legal weight in the surrounding Islamic culture (apostasy accusations), confine it strictly to the two flagged passages and never use it as a general synonym for “sin” elsewhere in Mark. |
| Grace/favor cluster | Kerem (grace, High); Diyariyên Giyanî (spiritual gifts, not present in Mark but held in memory from Romans); Hosana (acclamation, High) | Kerem’s Sufi keramet-adjacent risk (already flagged in the baseline) recurs at 10:27 (“with God all things are possible”); ensure this occurrence is anchored to unmerited possibility for the humanly impossible (salvation), not read as a miracle granted to an especially holy petitioner (the rich young man is explicitly NOT portrayed as spiritually elite — the opposite point is being made). |
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Item | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Ταλιθὰ κούμ (Talitha koum) | Transliterate + gloss: “Talîta qûm” (“Little girl, arise”) | Preserves the raw, intimate Aramaic speech-act (a private healing word) exactly as Mark preserves it in Greek transliteration; a paraphrase into plain Kurdish would erase the textual signal that Mark is quoting Jesus’ actual spoken words. |
| Ἐλωῒ Ἐλωῒ λεμὰ σαβαχθανί (cry of dereliction) | Transliterate + gloss: “Elohî, Elohî, lema şebaqtanî” (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) | The rawness of the untranslated cry is itself theologically load-bearing evidence of Christ’s genuine human anguish (Humanity of Christ doctrine); paraphrasing into fluent Kurdish prose would domesticate the shock the Gospel writer clearly intends to preserve. |
| Ῥαββουνί (Rabbouni) | Transliterate + gloss: “Rabûnî” (“my great one/master”) | Retains Bartimaeus’ distinctive, unusually reverent form of address (stronger than ordinary “Rabbi”); a flattened paraphrase (“mamoste,” “teacher”) would lose the intensified honorific Mark specifically records. |
| Ἀββά (Abba) | Transliterate: “Aba” (already fixed in Romans baseline) | Continuity with the established baseline rendering; Gethsemane (14:36) is Mark’s only occurrence and must match the Romans 8:15 precedent exactly per cross-document consistency rules. |
| ὡσαννά (Hosanna) | Transliterate: “Hosana” | An acclamation formula, not a translatable proposition; paraphrasing (“save us now!”) would lose the recognizable liturgical/crowd-shout genre and weaken the deliberate link to the baseline’s flagged Rizgarî-nationalism caution, which depends on readers recognizing this as the same politically-loaded acclamation genre. |
| ἐγὼ εἰμι (egō eimi) | Paraphrase plainly: “Ez im” | Kurdish has no way to transliterate a Greek grammatical self-declaration; plain translation is required, with the divine-Name echo (Exodus 3:14) supplied entirely by teaching notes rather than by the lexical choice itself — flagged Critical at 14:62. |
| λύτρον (ransom) | Paraphrase (compositional): “Bihayê Rizgariyê” | No single native Kurdish noun carries the “price paid to free a captive” sense with sufficient precision; the compositional phrase, built on the already-established Rizgarî root, was judged the safer path versus importing a foreign loanword that would carry no inherited scriptural resonance at all. |
| γέεννα (Gehenna) | Transliterate (via established loan): “Cehenem” | Already the standard shared regional term (Islamic Jahannam cognate); rather than avoid the loanword, the decision is to use it but pair it with mandatory teaching correction distinguishing Mark’s final-judgment sense from the regional purgatorial/graded framework — full avoidance would leave the concept with no recognizable term at all for the target audience. |
| Ἀββά-style intimacy vs. formal “Father” (πατήρ) | Do not merge; keep Bav (translated) distinct from Aba (transliterated) | Mirrors Paul’s own practice in Romans 8:15 of using both forms side by side; Mark 14:36 does the same (“Abba, Father”), so Kurdish must preserve both registers rather than collapsing to one for economy. |
| σταυρός (cross) | Use established loan-term: “Xaç” (not transliterated from Greek, but the pre-existing Kurdish Christian loanword from Syriac/Assyrian heritage) | Already a settled term in Kurdish Christian usage via the region’s ancient Christian communities; no paraphrase needed, and inventing a new descriptive phrase (“dara êşkêşiyê,” “torture-tree”) would abandon a genuinely useful existing asset. |
| Talents/measures/coins and other incidental cultural-material items (e.g., denarius-type references, if present in parables) | Paraphrase with functional equivalent + footnote | Low doctrinal weight; economic/measurement vocabulary should prioritize comprehension over lexical fidelity, with historical footnoting reserved for Phase 2 study-note layers rather than the base text. |
General principle applied throughout: transliteration is preferred where (a) the text itself signals a foreign-language quotation (Aramaic phrases, liturgical acclamations) or (b) no native compositional alternative can carry the required precision without importing a worse regional-religious collision (Gehenna). Paraphrase/compositional coinage is preferred where transliteration would import meaningless or actively misleading loanwords (there is no safe Greek-derived loan for “ransom” in Kurdish, unlike Cehenem’s already-domesticated status).
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities (Mark Curriculum)
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × collision likelihood × density within the core passage):
-
“Ransom” + “for many” convergence at Mark 10:45 (core passage). Two independently Critical terms (Bihayê Rizgariyê, li şûna gelekan) stack in a single verse that is also the curriculum’s theological anchor. Highest-density risk point in the entire curriculum; requires double-anchoring at every occurrence, not just standard single-term flagging.
-
Son of Man / Son of God relationship. Kurê Mirov must never read as diminishing Kurê Xwedê, yet Kurdish grammar offers no structural marker to signal “these are the same person, one title emphasizing humanity/suffering-authority, one emphasizing deity” — this must be taught explicitly at every co-occurrence (esp. 8:29-31, 14:61-62), or Mark’s Christological argument collapses into two competing figures.
-
Messianic Secret silencing commands vs. Sufi/Yazidi esoteric-initiation frameworks. A genuinely new risk not present in the Romans baseline at all; without a fixed phrase and mandatory teaching note, this doctrine risks systematic misreading across seven separate occurrences (1:34, 44; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:30; 9:9).
-
Unclean spirit (Ruhê Pîs) vs. regional jinn-possession/ruqyah framework. Recurs across five major exorcism narratives (1:21-28; 3:22-30; 5:1-20; 7:24-30; 9:14-29); the forbidden substitution “Cin” is a live risk given how deeply embedded jinn-possession folk practice is regionally, and any Phase 2 drift toward that vocabulary would import an entire alternate ritual-exorcism cosmology.
-
Authority (Desthilat) applied to forgiving sin (2:10). A single-verse but maximally weighted occurrence: this is Mark’s earliest and starkest implicit deity claim, and Desthilat’s everyday political/bureaucratic connotations risk flattening it into “Jesus was given permission” rather than “Jesus possesses this right inherently, which only God can possess.”
-
Kingdom of God / Hosanna / Son of David nationalist convergence (11:1-10; 10:47-48; 12:35-37). Three separate flagged terms cluster in the triumphal entry and surrounding material; the crowd’s own (mistaken) nationalist-messianic framing is part of the text’s meaning (Jesus deliberately does not fulfill it by force), making this passage unusually easy to over-correct into either (a) suppressing the political resonance entirely, losing the narrative point, or (b) under-correcting and letting it read as endorsement.
-
Lord it over (serdestî li ser kirin) vs. Lord (Xudan) root-contrast at 10:42-45, directly adjacent to the core passage. If Phase 2 translators lose or blur this fence under time pressure, Mark’s central rhetorical irony in the servanthood teaching is destroyed.
-
Cup (Kasê) and Baptism (Imad) as suffering-metaphors (10:38-39), inside the core passage’s immediate context. Kurdish literalism in both words (a literal vessel; a literal water rite) provides zero built-in metaphorical extension, unlike the Greek/Hebrew idiom; without explicit unpacking at first occurrence, James and John’s exchange with Jesus reads as a non-sequitur.
-
Blasphemy (Kufr) semantic overload from regional apostasy-accusation weight (3:28-29; 14:63-64). Risk is not misunderstanding Mark’s meaning so much as importing social-legal danger — a term this loaded could be misused outside the translation itself (e.g., in interpersonal accusations) if not carefully bounded to its two specific occurrences.
-
Transfiguration (Guhertina Dirûvî) assimilation into Sufi wahdat-al-wujud / Yazidi manifestation frameworks (9:2-8). Lower narrative frequency (single episode) than items above, but a substantively identical risk pattern to the Sonship/Incarnation cautions already flagged Critical in the Romans baseline, now recurring in fresh narrative form.
5. Full-Book Chapter Sweep (Confirmation of Coverage)
| Chapters | New linguistic-gap content this analysis addresses | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gospel-as-book-title sense; repentance/baptism; unclean spirit fence; authority fence; “immediately” style marker | Reviewed — addressed above |
| 2 | Authority over sin (2:10, ranked #5); sin/sinners dining; Sabbath-lordship root | Reviewed — addressed above |
| 3 | Blasphemy (unforgivable sin, ranked #9); apostle appointment; unclean spirit | Reviewed — addressed above |
| 4 | Parable dual concealing/revealing function; kingdom-breaking-in tension | Reviewed — addressed above |
| 5 | Unclean spirit (Legion); Talitha koum transliteration decision; peace/healing register | Reviewed — addressed above |
| 6 | Apostle/mission sending; prophet-without-honor; egō eimi (walking on water); compassion vocabulary | Reviewed — addressed above |
| 7 | Clean/unclean moral relocation; Syrophoenician woman (Gentiles); unclean spirit; blasphemy-cluster fencing | Reviewed — addressed above |
| 8 | Messianic confession turning point; Son of Man predictions begin; divine necessity; cross as discipleship call; soul/life (psychē) | Reviewed — addressed above |
| 9 | Transfiguration (ranked #10); unclean spirit (epileptic boy); Gehenna; Son’s identity reaffirmed; messianic secret silencing | Reviewed — addressed above |
| 10 | Core passage (ransom, cup, baptism-metaphor, servant/slave escalation, lord-it-over fence); eternal life; divine necessity; providence (“prepared”) | Reviewed — primary focus, addressed extensively above |
| 11 | Hosanna/triumphal entry nationalist framing; temple cleansing; prayer/faith; authority challenged by leaders | Reviewed — addressed above |
| 12 | Son of David/Lord of David riddle; greatest commandment (agapē); render-to-Caesar kingdom-anchoring; David/covenant background | Reviewed — addressed above |
| 13 | Election/the elect (democratic-vote fence); providence; abomination of desolation; Son’s limited knowledge; kingdom future consummation | Reviewed — addressed above |
| 14 | Covenant (blood of the covenant); body/blood eucharistic language; Abba; Gethsemane cup/prayer; blasphemy trial charge; egō eimi (trial); preserved Aramaic (implicit background) | Reviewed — addressed above |
| 15 | Crucifixion historicity vs. regional denial; temple curtain; Gentile centurion confession; cry of dereliction (transliteration decision) | Reviewed — addressed above |
| 16 | Resurrection historicity vs. reincarnation risk; great commission/mission; gospel-proclamation closing frame | Reviewed — addressed above |
No chapter of Mark was found to contribute doctrinally load-bearing vocabulary beyond what is captured in this analysis and in analysis/08_core_glossary.md.
This analysis extends but does not override the baseline Romans Language Package. All Section 1 recommended strategies must be encoded into translation_memory.json (version increment) and bible_term_registry.json before Phase 2 translation of Mark begins, per the AI Translation Requirements’ new-term protocol.