Semantic Analysis

Several Nepali terms in this Language Package carry a narrower, broader, or dually-loaded semantic range compared to their English source word.

Narrower-than-English terms

• पवित्र जन (saints): must be used for all believers corporately (Romans 1:7), never for an ascetic elite — the narrower, elevated sense belongs to सन्त/साधु, a category still visibly honored at national Hindu shrines and therefore explicitly rejected for this use.
• बोलाइएका / बोलावट (called/calling): the same English word “called” covers at least three distinct senses in Romans (called to apostleship in 1:1, called to be saints in 1:7, and effectual calling to salvation in 8:28–30). The Nepali rendering must be checked against which sense is active in each verse.

Broader-than-English terms

• सामर्थ्य (power): used consistently for “power of God” (Romans 1:16) specifically to avoid शक्ति, which carries a concrete, still-practiced Tantric ritual association in the Kathmandu Valley beyond its more textual Shakta associations elsewhere in South Asia.
• विश्वास (faith): covers both “belief” and “trust” in Nepali, an advantage since Romans uses “faith” to mean active, personal trust in Christ, not mere intellectual assent.

Terms carrying dual religious-system baggage

• उद्धार (salvation): unlike a term that is simply wrong (like अवतार), उद्धार itself is safe, but the terms it must be kept distinct from — मुक्ति/मोक्ष and निर्वाण — come from two entirely separate doctrinal systems (Hindu and Buddhist) that a translator or reviewer trained on only one might not both recognize as live risks.
• पुण्य (merit): functions similarly across both Hindu and Buddhist ethical vocabulary, meaning its rejection as a translation for “grace” has to be explained twice, once per framework, rather than once.

Implication

Where a Nepali term’s competing meanings are split across two separate religious systems rather than one, the glossary’s notes field has to do more work than in a single-tradition language — flagging not just that a mismatch exists, but which of two frameworks a given reader is likely to bring to it.