Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — 2 John (English ↔ Greek ↔ Punjabi)
Scope and Full-Book Coverage Note
2 John is a single-chapter epistle (vv.1–13). Per the PRD Phase 1 full-coverage mandate, this analysis treats the entire book as in scope: there is no chapter beyond the one already analyzed to review separately. The core passage (1:4–11) is confirmed as the letter’s theological center of gravity — it contains the load-bearing terms for three of the four curriculum doctrines (Walking in Truth and Love; Warning against Deceivers Denying the Incarnation; Hospitality and Doctrinal Discernment) — but the epistolary frame (vv.1–3, 12–13) is not silently skipped: it supplies the fourth doctrine’s foundational vocabulary (ἀλήθεια, ἀγάπη, χάρις/ἔλεος/εἰρήνη, μένω, ἐκλεκτή) and is fully accounted for in 08_core_glossary.md Sections A–E. This document builds on that glossary and on bible_term_registry.json to perform the linguistic gap analysis proper: where Punjabi vocabulary is adequate, where it is missing, where it is dangerously crowded by other traditions’ vocabulary, and which transliteration/paraphrase decisions and residual ambiguities carry the highest translation risk for this specific letter.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the four curriculum doctrines, this matrix lists the Punjabi terms actually available in the language, the specific weakness of each candidate, and the recommended strategy already adopted in the glossary (or newly specified here where the glossary is silent).
1.1 Walking in Truth and Love
| Available Punjabi Term | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| ਸਚਾਈ (truth — chosen) | Neutral, low-mysticism, but can still be heard as an abstract virtue rather than a specific confessional content (the apostolic teaching about Christ) | Use ਸਚਾਈ, but require a content-anchor clause at every load-bearing occurrence (e.g., “ਸਚਾਈ, ਜਿਹੜੀ ਮਸੀਹ ਬਾਰੇ ਸਿਖਾਈ ਗਈ ਹੈ” / “the truth taught concerning Christ”) so it never floats free as generic virtue |
| ਸਤਿ (rejected) | Direct doctrinal collision: ਸਤਿ is the Sikh name for a divine attribute (Waheguru as Satnam; Mool Mantar opens ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ). Using it would suggest 2 John is teaching a Sat-realization concept rather than assent to and life within a specific apostolic report about Jesus Christ | Never use. Fence explicitly in Phase 2 prompts. |
| ਪ੍ਰੇਮ (love — rejected as primary) | Strong bhakti-devotional resonance: prem-bhagti describes an inward, cultivated devotional feeling toward a Guru or the divine, generated through spiritual practice, not necessarily tied to obedience to a specific body of teaching | Reject as primary term. |
| ਪਿਆਰ (love — chosen) | More neutral/everyday, but by itself does not carry 1:6’s explicit definition of love as “walking according to his commandments” | Use ਪਿਆਰ, but every occurrence in the Walking-in-Love material must be paired with, or immediately followed by, the ਆਗਿਆ (commandment)/ਚੱਲਣਾ (walk) vocabulary so the behavioral content of 1:6 is never lost to a purely emotional reading |
| ਚੱਲਣਾ (walk, conduct metaphor) | Adequate; low collision risk, but literal-motion readings are possible for less literate audiences | Retain figurative framing note at first occurrence (v.4) |
| ਆਗਿਆ (commandment — chosen) | Adequate substitute once ਹੁਕਮ is fenced off (see §2) | Confirmed strategy: use ਆਗਿਆ throughout, root-consistent with baseline ਆਗਿਆਕਾਰੀ |
Gap identified: Punjabi has no single word that does what ἀγάπη + ἐντολή do together in 1:6 — binding love and obedience into one act. This is not a vocabulary gap so much as a syntactic pairing requirement: translators must consistently co-locate ਪਿਆਰ and ਆਗਿਆ/ਚੱਲਣਾ in this doctrine’s segments rather than expect one term to carry both senses.
1.2 Warning against Deceivers Denying the Incarnation
| Available Punjabi Term | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| ਅਵਤਾਰ (rejected, per baseline) | Double audience risk unique to Punjabi: Hindu-heritage readers hear cyclical avatar-descent; Sikh-heritage readers hear a violation of Waheguru’s revealed formlessness (ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ), a doctrine Guru Nanak explicitly taught against | Never use. Already forbidden at the Romans baseline level; 2 John 1:7 is the single highest-stakes occurrence of this prohibition in the whole two-curriculum corpus, since here incarnation-denial is the letter’s named heresy, not background theology |
| ਦੇਹਧਾਰਨ (doctrine label — retained) | Adequate as an abstract theological label but insufficiently vivid/confessional for a verse that must function as a spoken creedal test (“confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh”) | Use ਦੇਹਧਾਰਨ for doctrine-summary contexts (e.g., section headers) and the verse-level phrase ਸਰੀਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਇਆ for the confessional wording of 1:7 itself, matching bible_term_registry.json’s dual entry |
| ਮਸੀਹ-ਵਿਰੋਧੀ (antichrist — new compound) | No pre-existing Punjabi Christian or Sikh/Hindu vocabulary item for this concept at all; it must be built | Retain the built compound (ਮਸੀਹ + ਵਿਰੋਧੀ, “opposed-to-Christ”). Do NOT translate loosely as “a false guru” or “a false prophet,” both of which exist in the language (ਝੂਠਾ ਗੁਰੂ, ਝੂਠਾ ਨਬੀ) but would flatten a unique categorical opposition to Christ into ordinary interfaith rivalry between competing teachers |
| ਭਰਮਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੇ (deceivers) | Adequate; ਭਰਮ (illusion/delusion) is itself a live South Asian philosophical term (cf. ਮਾਇਆ/ਭਰਮ in Sikh thought for the illusion obscuring truth from Waheguru), which is a point of positive overlap here — deceivers really do produce a delusion obscuring the truth — but must not be extended to suggest the deceived state is a cosmic/metaphysical condition rather than a specific, correctable doctrinal error | Use as recommended; add brief translator note distinguishing doctrinal deception from metaphysical illusion where the segment risks conflation |
Gap identified: Punjabi (like most target languages in this pipeline) has no native theological category equivalent to antichrist — a specific, present-tense, doctrinally-defined opponent of Christ distinguished from generic false teachers. This is a genuine missing-vocabulary gap, not a crowded-neighborhood problem, and is correctly handled in the glossary by compound-building rather than by search-and-substitute.
1.3 Hospitality and Doctrinal Discernment
| Available Punjabi Term | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| ਸੇਵਾ / ਲੰਗਰ-ਪਰੰਪਰਾ (Sikh selfless-service/communal-hospitality vocabulary) | Extremely strong positive cultural association: Sikh langar and seva traditions valorize hospitality to all, unconditionally, as a core religious virtue. 2 John 1:10–11 commands the opposite — conditional, doctrinally-gated hospitality | Do not borrow ਸੇਵਾ/ਲੰਗਰ vocabulary at all for this passage. Use plain ਘਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਲੈਣਾ (“receive into the house”) with an explicit framing note that this is a doctrinal-endorsement act in its ancient context, not a general hospitality ethic being revoked |
| ਸਲਾਮ / ਨਮਸਕਾਰ (greeting) | Adequate as religiously neutral greeting vocabulary, but the far more common and emotionally loaded Sikh daily greeting ਸਤਿ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਅਕਾਲ (built on ਸਤਿ) sits immediately adjacent in the culture’s greeting repertoire | Use ਸਲਾਮ/ਨਮਸਕਾਰ only; never use any greeting form built on ਸਤਿ in this context, to avoid an unintended echo pairing “withholding ਸਤਿ” with “withholding truth” in a way the Greek does not intend |
| ਸੰਗਤ (fellowship — positive sense) | Root-shared with κοινωνέω in 1:11’s warning about “sharing in evil works” | Must not be reused for 1:11. This is 2 John’s single clearest case of a term that is a genuine asset elsewhere in the curriculum (and in Romans) becoming a liability if reused carelessly in an adjacent verse. Use ਸਾਂਝੀ ਬਣਨਾ/ਹਿੱਸੇਦਾਰ ਬਣਨਾ instead, deliberately de-warmed |
| ਕਰਮ (works — rejected) | Imports impersonal karma-ledger doctrine (accumulating moral cause-effect, not a personal God’s moral assessment) | Use ਕੰਮ (“deeds/works”) plainly, never ਕਰਮ, consistent with glossary |
Gap identified: No structural gap; the risk here is entirely one of crowded-neighborhood interference (see §2) rather than missing vocabulary — Punjabi has perfectly adequate plain words for “receive,” “greet,” and “share,” but each has a much more culturally resonant devotional neighbor sitting one step away that must be actively fenced off.
1.4 Perseverance in the Teaching of Christ
| Available Punjabi Term | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| ਸਿੱਖਿਆ (teaching — chosen, unavoidable) | The word is the etymological root of “Sikh” (a learner/disciple of a Guru’s teaching); using it for “the teaching of Christ” risks the reader unconsciously placing Christ’s teaching into the same conceptual slot as Guru Nanak’s/the Guru Granth Sahib’s ਸਿੱਖਿਆ — one instructive tradition among others potentially worth following in combination | No better plain-Punjabi alternative exists (ਉਪਦੇਸ਼ is more archaic/Sanskritic and equally available to Hindu-tradition religious teaching; ਹਿਦਾਇਤ is Perso-Arabic and reads as administrative instruction, losing devotional register). Retain ਸਿੱਖਿਆ but require the modifier “ਮਸੀਹ ਦੀ” (of Christ) to never be dropped, and require a closed-and-complete framing clause (“ਇਹ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਸੰਪੂਰਨ ਹੈ, ਇਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੁਝ ਜੋੜਿਆ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ” / “this teaching is complete; nothing may be added to it”) at 1:9’s first load-bearing occurrence |
| ਕਾਇਮ ਰਹਿਣਾ / ਟਿਕੇ ਰਹਿਣਾ (abide) | Must be kept clear of ਸਹਿਜ (Sikh meditative equipoise) and ਸਿਦਕ (Sufi steadfastness, already rejected for faith in the baseline) | Confirmed adequate; no substitution needed, fencing note sufficient |
| ਅੱਗੇ ਵਧ ਜਾਣਾ (goes on ahead) | Directly collides with South Asian spiritual-progress frameworks (advancing stages of realization under a teacher) that treat “going further/deeper” as praiseworthy | Retain literal rendering but require an explicit negative-framing clause at 1:9 (“ਇਹ ਅੱਗੇ ਵਧਣਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਗੋਂ ਭਟਕਣਾ ਹੈ” / “this is not advancement but straying”) so the term cannot be misread as commendation |
| ਇਨਾਮ (reward — chosen) vs. ਫਲ (fruit — rejected) | ਫਲ is the default Punjabi word for “result/outcome” but is inseparable in religious registers from karma-phal, the impersonal fruit of accumulated karma | Confirmed: use ਇਨਾਮ throughout for μισθός; never ਫਲ in this doctrine |
Gap identified: No missing vocabulary; the entire doctrine’s risk surface is crowded-neighborhood interference concentrated on a single unavoidable word, ਸਿੱਖਿਆ, which cannot be replaced and must instead be constantly re-anchored by modifiers and framing clauses.
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2.1 Genuinely Missing Vocabulary (no native term exists; must build or borrow)
| Concept | Gap Description | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| Antichrist (ἀντίχριστος) | No existing single Punjabi word names “one who is categorically and presently opposed to the one true Christ, in a doctrinal not merely political sense” | Built compound ਮਸੀਹ-ਵਿਰੋਧੀ; treat as a new, curriculum-specific Critical-risk coinage requiring theologian sign-off before Phase 2 use |
| ”Coming in the flesh” as a creedal test-phrase (ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί) | Punjabi Christian usage has ਦੇਹਧਾਰਨ as an abstract doctrinal noun but no established short confessional phrase people are expected to say aloud as a test, the way 1:7 requires | Use ਸਰੀਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਇਆ as the spoken/confessional form, reserving ਦੇਹਧਾਰਨ for doctrinal-summary contexts; this split (already present in the glossary) should be treated as a permanent convention for this curriculum, not an ad hoc choice |
| Mercy as distinct from grace (ἔλεος vs. χάρις) | The Romans baseline never needed a separate word for mercy; 2 John 1:3 requires grace, mercy, and peace to remain three distinct concepts in one clause | New term ਰਹਮ introduced; must never collapse into ਕਿਰਪਾ. This is a straightforward missing-vocabulary gap successfully closed by the glossary, not requiring further resolution here, but flagged so Phase 2 reviewers watch for accidental synonym-collapse under translation pressure |
| A neutral epistolary title for κυρία that carries no lordship echo | ਬੀਬੀ is available and adequate but is a much “smaller,” more domestic honorific in ordinary Punjabi usage than κυρία’s genuine social weight in the source culture | Accept ਬੀਬੀ as the best available option; compensate with a translator note on the term’s elevated, formal sense in this context rather than searching for a nonexistent higher-register alternative |
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (native vocabulary exists but is contested by rival traditions and must be fenced)
| Punjabi Term/Root | Contested By | Fencing Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| ਸਤਿ / root of ਸਚਾਈ | Sikh Satnam, Mool Mantar’s opening declaration | Never use ਸਤਿ itself for “truth” in doctrinal contexts (already fenced by baseline choice of ਸਚਾਈ); avoid greeting forms built on ਸਤਿ near this letter’s truth-vocabulary to prevent unintended resonance |
| ਪ੍ਰੇਮ | Bhakti devotional love (prem-bhagti) | Never substitute for ਪਿਆਰ as the primary rendering of ἀγάπη |
| ਹੁਕਮ | Sikh liturgical Divine Order (Hukam/Hukamnama) | Never substitute for ਆਗਿਆ as the rendering of ἐντολή |
| ਸਿੱਖਿਆ | Self-designation “Sikh” (a learner of the Guru’s teaching); broader guru-shishya pedagogical tradition | Cannot be avoided (no adequate substitute); must always be modified (“ਮਸੀਹ ਦੀ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ”) and periodically re-anchored with closed-canon framing language |
| ਸੰਗਤ | Sikh ਸਾਧ ਸੰਗਤ (positive; already a documented bridge-word asset in the baseline) | Positive use retained for genuine fellowship contexts; explicitly forbidden for 1:11’s negative κοινωνέω use — the one place in this curriculum where a bridge-word must be deliberately withheld |
| ਸੇਵਾ / ਲੰਗਰ | Sikh unconditional hospitality and communal-service ethic | Must not be invoked anywhere near vv.10–11’s conditional, doctrinally-gated hospitality instruction |
| ਗੁਰੂ | Reserved exclusively (per baseline) for the Ten Gurus/Guru Granth Sahib | Confirm continued avoidance for “elder” (ਬਜ਼ੁਰਗ, not ਗੁਰੂ) and for any description of the false teachers of 1:7, who must never be called ਗੁਰੂ even pejoratively, since that would still dignify them with a reserved sacred title |
| ਫਲ | Hindu/Sikh karma-phal (impersonal accumulating moral fruit) | Never use for μισθός (reward); use ਇਨਾਮ. Never use for ordinary “works” either; use ਕੰਮ, not ਕਰਮ |
| ਭਰਮ (root of ਭਰਮਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੇ) | South Asian philosophical concept of maya/illusion obscuring ultimate reality | Retain for “deceivers” (positive fit — real deception is occurring) but add a note preventing drift toward reading the deceived state as a metaphysical condition rather than a correctable doctrinal error |
| ਬੀਬੀ (root shared conceptually, not lexically, with ਪ੍ਰਭੂ/κύριος) | No direct lexical collision, but translators must avoid any phrase pairing that could suggest ਬੀਬੀ shares in ਪ੍ਰਭੂ’s exclusive lordship sense | Flag at first occurrence (1:1) with a translator note |
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Item | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Ἰησοῦς, Χριστός | Transliterate (ਯਿਸੂ, ਮਸੀਹ) | Established Punjabi Christian Bible forms; reused exactly per baseline hard rule |
| ἀντίχριστος | Paraphrase/compound-build, not transliterate | A transliterated loanword (“ਐਂਟੀਕ੍ਰਾਈਸਟ”) would read as a foreign technical term with no interpretive content for a Class 8–10 reading-level audience; the compound ਮਸੀਹ-ਵਿਰੋਧੀ makes the categorical opposition to Christ immediately legible using already-established vocabulary (ਮਸੀਹ) |
| ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί | Paraphrase (ਸਰੀਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਇਆ), supported by the existing transliteration-free doctrine label ਦੇਹਧਾਰਨ | No proper noun or untranslatable concept is present; a compositional Punjabi phrase carries the assertion more clearly than any borrowed term could, and matches the baseline’s existing treatment of incarnation |
| πρεσβύτερος (elder, self-designation) | Paraphrase (ਬਜ਼ੁਰਗ) with a mandatory contextual note, not a transliteration and not a loanword | Punjabi already possesses a native word for this general social role; transliteration would be both unnecessary and would strip the term of its everyday accessibility for the target reading level |
| κυρία (lady, address) | Paraphrase (ਬੀਬੀ), not transliteration | No established Punjabi Christian convention exists for transliterating this address; a natural honorific is preferable and avoids introducing an unfamiliar loanword into an already ambiguous identification question (individual vs. congregation) |
| Ἀμήν / greeting formulas | Not applicable — 2 John’s Greek text (in the manuscript tradition followed by most modern versions) does not contain a closing ἀμήν the way longer epistles do; no transliteration decision is required here. Confirmed absent after full-book review; noted explicitly rather than silently assumed | |
| χαίρειν (the withheld greeting formula, vv.10–11) | Paraphrase, using existing Punjabi greeting vocabulary (ਸਲਾਮ/ਨਮਸਕਾਰ) rather than any attempt to coin or transliterate a Greek-specific greeting term | The doctrinal point (withholding endorsement) depends on the reader recognizing an ordinary, familiar greeting act being deliberately withheld; an unfamiliar transliterated term would obscure rather than sharpen that point |
| στόμα πρὸς στόμα (idiom, v.12) | Paraphrase using the natural Punjabi idiom ਆਹਮੋ-ਸਾਹਮਣੇ | A literal rendering (“mouth to mouth”) would be both unnatural and inadvertently indecorous in Punjabi register; idiom-for-idiom substitution is required per the baseline’s idiom-handling rule |
General principle confirmed for this curriculum: 2 John contains almost no candidates for new transliteration (unlike, e.g., Abba in Romans 8). Every new-term decision in this letter resolves toward compositional paraphrase using already-established, baseline-compliant vocabulary elements (ਮਸੀਹ, ਪਿਤਾ, ਸਰੀਰ, ਸਿੱਖਿਆ) rather than toward loanwords. This keeps the letter’s dense, compressed polemic accessible at the Class 8–10 target reading level while avoiding the introduction of unfamiliar technical vocabulary in a short letter that has little room for glossary-style explanation within the text itself.
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in 2 John
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × likelihood of syncretistic or weakened misreading in the Punjabi context):
-
“Coming in the flesh” / incarnation denial (1:7) — Critical. The letter’s central test of orthodoxy sits directly on top of the single most religiously loaded concept-gap in the entire Punjabi Bible tradition (avatar-descent vs. formless-God theology). A mistranslation or an unglossed rendering here does not just weaken a doctrine, it can invert the letter’s entire argument — turning a warning against denying Christ’s real humanity into an unintentional endorsement of a recurring-avatar Christology, or an offense against Sikh Nirankar theology that shuts down the conversation before the actual doctrine can be heard. Requires the mandatory theological bridge note at every occurrence, without exception.
-
ਮਸੀਹ-ਵਿਰੋਧੀ / antichrist (1:7) — Critical. Risk of being flattened into “a rival religious teacher” in a plural religious environment where competing spiritual authority claims are a normal, non-alarming feature of daily life. Punjabi has no existing category to receive this term correctly without construction and explanation.
-
ਪਿਤਾ ਦਾ ਪੁੱਤਰ / “Son of the Father” as co-source of grace, mercy, peace (1:3) — Critical. Because this compound title is unique to 2 John within this two-curriculum corpus, there is a real risk that Phase 2 processing (which loads translation memory and may pattern-match to the baseline’s simpler
son_of_godentry) renders it as ordinary derivative sonship rather than the deity-asserting co-source claim the Greek makes. Escalate for theologian review every time this exact compound appears. -
ਸੰਗਤ misapplied to 1:11’s κοινωνεῖ (“takes part in evil works”) — High, but mechanically preventable. This is the highest-probability accidental error in the whole letter: ਸੰਗਤ is the curriculum’s most positively reinforced bridge-word, actively encouraged elsewhere (fellowship contexts, per the baseline’s own instruction to use it “generously”), which makes it the single most likely term for an automated or fatigued human translator to reach for by reflex in 1:11 precisely because the Greek root is the same. Recommend a hard validation-rule addition (see §5 recommendation below) rather than relying on translator vigilance alone.
-
ਸਿੱਖਿਆ as “the teaching of Christ” (1:9, implied 1:10) — High. Because this term cannot be avoided (no viable substitute exists) and is etymologically bound to Punjab’s largest minority religious identity, every occurrence carries background risk that cannot be fully eliminated by vocabulary choice, only managed by consistent modifier-and-framing discipline. Ranked below items 1–4 only because the risk is chronic and manageable rather than acute and text-inverting.
-
ਬੀਬੀ / κυρία — individual vs. personified congregation (1:1, 1:5) — Medium-High. Not primarily a doctrinal risk but an interpretive one: a translator who silently resolves the ambiguity one way forecloses the other reading for the Punjabi audience without flagging that a choice was made. Requires the mandatory translator note at first occurrence per the glossary.
-
ਅੱਗੇ ਵਧ ਜਾਣਾ / “goes on ahead” (1:9) — Medium-High. The false teachers’ self-description of doctrinal abandonment as spiritual progress maps too easily onto legitimate South Asian frameworks of staged spiritual advancement under a teacher’s guidance; without the required negative-framing clause, a Punjabi reader could plausibly read this clause as commending rather than condemning the deceivers.
-
ਘਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਲੈਣਾ / withheld hospitality (1:10) — Medium-High. Direct collision with Sikh langar/seva unconditional-hospitality norms means this instruction is the passage most likely to provoke audience resistance or be softened/reinterpreted by well-meaning teachers wanting to avoid appearing to endorse rudeness. Framing (doctrinal non-endorsement, not personal discourtesy) must be reinforced at the lesson-content level, not only the glossary level.
-
ਸਲਾਮ/ਨਮਸਕਾਰ ਨਾ ਆਖਣਾ / withheld greeting (1:10–11) — Medium. Adjacent risk to item 8; compounded by the greeting-culture collision noted in §2.2 (ਸਤਿ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਅਕਾਲ). Lower-ranked than item 8 because the doctrinal stakes are the same instruction, already carried by item 8’s framing requirement.
-
ਇਨਾਮ vs. ਫਲ for μισθός (1:8) — Medium. A single wrong word choice (ਫਲ instead of ਇਨਾਮ) would quietly reintroduce a karma-accounting framework into a passage about grace-secured, relationally-framed reward; ranked lower than the above because the correct term is already clearly specified and the substitution risk is a simple lexical slip rather than a structural interpretive problem.
5. Recommendations Carried Forward to Phase 2 Instruction Set
- Add a dedicated validation rule (parallel to the baseline’s forbidden-substitution check) specifically flagging any occurrence of ਸੰਗਤ within three verses of 1:11’s κοινωνεῖ context for mandatory human review, given the high accidental-substitution risk identified in §4, item 4.
- Add ਮਸੀਹ-ਵਿਰੋਧੀ, ਪਿਤਾ ਦਾ ਪੁੱਤਰ, and ਸਰੀਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਇਆ to the Critical forbidden/required-term list in the next version of the AI translation requirements document, alongside the existing baseline Critical terms.
- Require the incarnation theological bridge note (per baseline
12_ai_translation_requirements.mdRule 6) at every occurrence of 1:7’s confessional clause, not only where a back-translation reviewer requests it — this letter’s stakes are higher than the general Romans incarnation passages the baseline rule was originally written for. - Extend the baseline’s “avoid unexplained Sikh liturgical vocabulary” instruction to explicitly name ਸੇਵਾ/ਲੰਗਰ vocabulary as forbidden near vv.10–11, since this risk is specific to 2 John and not covered by the Romans-era instruction set.