Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — 3 John (English–Sanskrit)
Curriculum: 3 John 1:1–14
Language pair: English → Sanskrit
Status: Extends the baseline Romans Language Package per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md. All findings here presuppose 08_core_glossary.md and must be reconciled into translation_memory.json/bible_term_registry.json before Phase 2 begins.
Audience framing: As with the baseline, this analysis assumes a scholarly/liturgical/inter-religious-dialogue audience fluent in classical philosophical vocabulary, not a general lay Sanskrit-literate public. Every gap identified below is grounded in a citable classical text or school, not general cultural inference.
1. Why 3 John Poses a Different Gap Profile Than Romans
Romans required the Language Package to escape or fence off enormous doctrinal load-bearing terms (righteousness, salvation, incarnation, lordship) that collide with entire named darśanas. 3 John is doctrinally lighter in absolute theological weight but concentrates a small cluster of terms — truth (सत्यम्), love (प्रेम), testimony (साक्ष्यम्), and hospitality-to-strangers (अतिथिः) — into a very short letter where they recur at extremely high density (vv.1–8 alone use “truth” six times in the Greek). This creates a distinct gap-analysis problem: not “is there a term at all” (there is) but “is the available term already the technical proper name of a rival, fully theorized classical school or devotional system, such that repetition without a fencing note will train the reader into that rival system’s reading by sheer frequency.” Section 4 below ranks this repetition risk explicitly.
2. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the five curriculum doctrines: the doctrine, the available Sanskrit term(s), their specific weaknesses (with classical citation), and the recommended strategy.
2.1 Hospitality to Traveling Ministers
| Available Sanskrit term(s) | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| अतिथिः (atithiḥ) — “stranger/guest/traveling minister” | Crowded. Names the object of atithi-yajña, one of the five great daily sacrifices (pañca-mahāyajña) prescribed for the householder in Manusmṛti 3.69–70, and is the subject of the widely-known maxim atithi devo bhava (“the guest is [to be treated as] a god,” Taittirīya Upaniṣad 1.11.2). This is not folk sentiment but a codified ritual-merit obligation with its own prescribed procedure and result. | Fence, don’t replace. No alternative Sanskrit word names “traveling gospel-worker in need of support” without either (a) losing all cultural resonance (a flat neologism) or (b) inheriting the same atithi frame from a different angle (e.g. प्रवासी, “traveler,” loses the sacred-guest dimension Paul is not entirely rejecting but repurposing). Retain अतिथिः but require an explicit fencing note at first occurrence per document: this is free gospel-partnership hospitality flowing from love and truth (v.8), motivated by relationship to Christ’s name (v.7), not a ritual act generating puṇya (merit) for the host. |
| आतिथ्यकरणम् (ātithyakaraṇam) — “the act of hosting” | Same root, same collision, inherited automatically. | Cross-reference the अतिथि note at every occurrence; do not treat as a separately-resolved term. |
| कर्तव्यम् (kartavyam) — “obligation/duty” (for ὀφείλω, v.8) | Adjacent crowding, not direct collision: risks being heard as varṇāśrama-dharma — one’s socially/ritually prescribed duty by station in life — rather than a freely-assumed gospel-partnership obligation. | Pair with explicit teaching, as the baseline does for “obedience of faith” (rejecting धर्माचरणम्): this obligation flows from prior gospel partnership, not from cosmic/social station. |
| सहकारी (sahakārī) — “fellow worker” (συνεργός) | Low weakness; transparent compound, no rival technical sense identified in classical literature. | Use directly; no fencing required. |
Doctrine-level gap: There is no unencumbered Sanskrit vocabulary for “hospitality as gospel-partnership” — every available term is either the atithi ritual-guest category or a duty-word pulled toward dharma. This is a crowded neighborhood, not a missing-vocabulary problem: the concept exists in the source text but every candidate destination term is already spoken for by a rival, textually-explicit system.
2.2 Imitating Good Rather than Evil
| Available Sanskrit term(s) | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| उत्तमम् (uttamam) / दुष्टम् (duṣṭam) — “good”/“evil” | Genuinely low risk — this is closer to a missing-vocabulary problem solved cleanly than a crowded one. The obvious “auspicious” candidates (कल्याणम्, शुभम्) are rejected on the same śubha-muhūrta grounds the baseline used for “gospel”; पुण्यम् (karmic merit) already rejected by baseline for “grace”; साधु collides with the ascetic-title noun. Once these are excluded, उत्तमम्/दुष्टम् are comparatively clean, general moral-quality terms. | Use as recorded; no ongoing fencing note required after the initial glossary decision, since these terms do not name an entire rival system the way सत्यम् or प्रेम do. |
| अनुकरणम् (anukaraṇam) — “imitate” (μιμέομαι) | Minor adjacency, not collision: Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra treats anukaraṇa as the technical term for dramatic mimesis (an actor imitating a character/rasa). This is an aesthetic-theory usage in a completely different register (theatre criticism) from ethical imitation of a moral exemplar. | Translator-awareness note sufficient; no reader-facing fencing required, since the domains (drama criticism vs. ethical exhortation) are unlikely to be confused in context. |
| दृष्टवान् (dṣṭavān) — “has seen [God]“ | Genuine missing-vocabulary risk on the noun side. The verb form is safe, but nominalizing to दर्शनम् would import the single most central and widely used Hindu devotional-visual theology term: the reciprocal seeing/being-seen of deity and devotee through an iconic image (temple darśana), and simultaneously the standard word for a philosophical “school” (ṣaḍ-darśana, “the six schools”). Either sense would be a serious misdirection for 1 John 3:6/3 John’s “has not seen God” idiom. | Hard constraint: verb form only, never the noun. Flag explicitly in Phase 2 QA as a forbidden-nominalization case, parallel in structure to the baseline’s आत्मा-containment rule. |
Doctrine-level gap: Vocabulary here is adequately supplied once the “auspicious” trap is avoided; the one load-bearing constraint is grammatical (verb-not-noun) rather than lexical.
2.3 Church Leadership and Pride (Diotrephes)
| Available Sanskrit term(s) | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| गर्वः (garvaḥ) — “pride” | Comparatively clean; the obvious technical alternative अहंकारः is excluded because it is the third of the twenty-four tattvas in Sāṅkhya cosmology (Sāṅkhya Kārikā 22), the “I-principle” evolving from prakṛti, recurring in Bhagavad Gītā 3.27 (ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā, “one deluded by the I-principle”). Using it for Diotrephes’ simple vice of self-promotion would smuggle in an entire cosmological psychology of self and matter unrelated to the moral point. | Use गर्वः; this is a successful fencing decision already made, not an open gap — noted here for completeness since Diotrephes is a named curriculum doctrine. |
| अग्रिमपदप्रियता (agrimapadapriyatā) — “love of being first” (φιλοπρωτεύω) | Missing-vocabulary case, not crowded: classical Sanskrit has no single lexeme for this precise vice (status-seeking within a religious community specifically). Available near-terms (e.g. मानः, “honor/pride,” or स्पर्धा, “rivalry”) are broader and lose Paul’s precise diagnosis: this is not doctrinal error but disordered desire for primacy. | Retain the descriptive coinage as the glossary already does. Descriptive compounds are the correct strategy precisely because no existing single term carries the needed precision without also carrying unwanted extra freight — this is the mirror image of the crowded-neighborhood problem: here the gap is real absence, so coining is safer than borrowing. |
| प्राचीनः (prācīnaḥ) — “elder” | Crowded, though the crowding is manageable: रejects वृद्धः (mere age) and स्थविरः (the actual name of the Theravāda Buddhist monastic-elder office, “Sthaviravāda” being the school’s own name — an unwanted cross-tradition borrowing, not merely an adjacent nuance). | Retain प्राचीनः; flag the स्थविरः exclusion in translator notes so future terminologists do not “improve” the choice back toward it, since स्थविरः might otherwise look like the more natural cognate. |
| बहिष्करणम् (bahiṣkaraṇam) — “expel/cast out” (ἐκβάλλω) | Adjacent crowding: risks being heard through the patita (caste-fallen) framework of Manusmṛti’s patita-sāvarga provisions — a permanent, hereditary status-loss with its own prescribed prāyaścitta (penance) procedure for readmission. Diotrephes’ act is abusive congregational discipline by one man, not a codified purity mechanism. | Fence explicitly at first occurrence: this is illegitimate authoritarian action condemned by the text, not a religiously sanctioned exclusion ritual. |
Doctrine-level gap: The core moral vocabulary (pride, expulsion, elder-office) is available but sits close enough to varṇa/caste-purity and monastic-lineage categories that every term needs a one-line fence; the precise sin-diagnosis term (φιλοπρωτεύω) required new coinage because no classical term names it.
2.4 Commendation of Faithful Witness (Demetrius)
| Available Sanskrit term(s) | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| साक्ष्यम् (sākṣyam) — “testimony” | This letter’s single most structurally dangerous crowded neighborhood. Sākṣin is the technical name, across both Sāṅkhya and Advaita epistemology, for the passive, unchanging Witness-consciousness (puruṣa in Sāṅkhya; sākṣī-caitanya in Advaita) that observes the mind’s activity without itself acting or being affected — structurally the same category of risk the baseline flags for Holy Spirit/ātman, because it is a foundational technical term distinguishing the true, liberated Self from active prakṛti. 3 John uses testimony-language with unusual density (vv.3, 6, 12 — including the striking personification “the truth itself testifies,” v.12) which multiplies exposure. | Redefine explicitly at first occurrence and at every subsequent occurrence given the density, per the same logic the baseline applies to Holy Spirit: an ordinary, historically-situated factual attestation about a real person’s observed character and conduct, not the impassive metaphysical Witness-Self. Do not let repetition substitute for restatement. |
| सत्यः (satyaḥ) — “true” (of the testimony’s reliability) | Inherits the सत्यम्/Brahman collision from Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1 (satyam jñānam anantam brahma) by shared root, deliberately, for cross-document consistency with “truth.” | Same fencing note as “truth” (§2.5) applies whenever this adjectival form appears. |
| देमेत्रियः (dēmetriyaḥ) — proper name | No gap; transliteration is the only correct strategy for a proper name with no Sanskrit referent. | Transliterate per Serampore convention; no risk. |
Doctrine-level gap: The one Greek concept (μαρτυρία/μαρτυρέω) maps onto Sanskrit’s most metaphysically loaded epistemological term available purely by bad luck of semantic overlap (“witness” in English/Greek covers both “factual attestation” and “the one who impassively observes,” and Sanskrit happens to have systematized exactly that second sense as a named category). This is a crowded neighborhood requiring the heaviest fencing in the letter outside of truth/love, disproportionate to how minor “testimony” might seem as an English word.
2.5 Truth and Christian Fellowship
| Available Sanskrit term(s) | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| सत्यम् (satyam) — “truth” | Maximally crowded. Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1 defines Brahman’s own essential nature as satyam jñānam anantam (“truth, knowledge, infinity [is Brahman]”); Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.6’s satyam eva jayate (“truth alone triumphs”) binds satya to the Vedic ṛta-satya cosmic-ritual-order nexus. There is no safer classical alternative: ऋतम् (ṛtam) is rejected as even more tightly bound to that same cosmic-ritual order, not less. | No substitution is possible; fencing is the only available strategy, and — given 3 John’s density (six occurrences of ἀλήθεια across vv.1–4, 8, 12) — fencing must be applied at every occurrence, not merely the first, per the cross-cutting observation already flagged in 08_core_glossary.md. Redefinition formula: relational fidelity to God’s revealed reality in Christ, expressed in love and right conduct — not Brahman’s own ontological nature. |
| प्रेम (prema) — “love” | Maximally crowded, and by a specific, named, systematized devotional-aesthetic school, not diffuse cultural background: Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu catalogues prema as the mature, ecstatic culmination of bhakti-rasa, paradigmatically the passionate/romantic mādhurya-rasa devotion between Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa. This is a fully worked-out aesthetic theology of religious eroticism, arguably a sharper mismatch with 3 John’s plain, unglamorous “send them on their way in a manner worthy of God” love (v.6) than any other collision in this document. स्नेहः (mere affection) and अनुरागः (equally rasa-loaded, “passionate attachment”) are both rejected as inadequate alternatives — the first too weak, the second no safer. | Fence at every occurrence, same reasoning as सत्यम्. Redefinition formula: selfless, willed, others-directed, covenantal love expressed concretely in hospitality and material support — not ecstatic romantic rasa-devotion. |
| जीवः (jīvaḥ) — “soul/self” (ψυχή, v.2) | Crowded but secondary. Deliberately avoids आत्मा (reserved exclusively, and only with mandatory personhood notes, for Holy Spirit per baseline) — but जीवः itself sits inside the jīva-Brahman identity/difference debate central to the disagreement between Advaita (identity) and Viśiṣṭādvaita/Dvaita (difference) schools of Vedānta. | Redefine at first occurrence as “the believer’s whole inner well-being before God,” explicitly bracketing the term from taking any position in that classical metaphysical debate. |
| हर्षः (harṣaḥ) — “joy” | Crowded, avoidable. आनन्दः is rejected because it is the third term of Advaita’s sat-cit-ānanda description of Brahman’s own nature (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7: raso vai saḥ… ānandaṃ brahma). | हर्षः is the correct, comparatively clean substitute; no ongoing per-occurrence fencing required, since — unlike सत्यम्/प्रेम — the safer alternative fully avoids the collision rather than merely managing it. |
| सन्तानाः (santānāḥ) — “children” (spiritual, τέκνα) | Mild crowding avoided by choice: शिष्याः (disciples) would import guru-śiṣya-paramparā lineage-transmission machinery; आत्मजाः avoided purely to prevent additional आत्मा-root exposure beyond the strict Holy-Spirit containment. | सन्तानाः is adequate as a plain kinship-metaphor term; no further fencing needed. |
| आशा करोति (āśāṃ karoti) — “hope” (ἐλπίζω) | Mild crowding: आशा/तृष्णा name the desire-attachment that Yoga’s vairāgya (cultivated dispassion) and Vedānta soteriology generally counsel renouncing on the path to mokṣa. | Flag once as confident relational expectation of reunion, not the craving targeted for renunciation; low recurrence (v.14 only) makes single-occurrence fencing sufficient. |
Doctrine-level gap: This doctrine contains the letter’s two single highest-risk terms (सत्यम्, प्रेम) and its highest density of exposure, since both recur repeatedly through a short text with no room for the term to “cool down” between occurrences the way a single mention might in a longer book.
3. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
A key distinction for Phase 2 planning: not every gap is the same kind of gap, and the correct repair strategy differs by kind.
3.1 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (term exists, but is already claimed by a rival system)
These require fencing (explicit redefinition notes at point of use), never substitution, because no unclaimed alternative exists:
| Term | Claimed by | Fencing strategy |
|---|---|---|
| सत्यम् (truth) | Advaita Vedānta’s definition of Brahman (Taittirīya Up. 2.1.1); Vedic ṛta-satya order (Muṇḍaka Up. 3.1.6) | Redefine at every occurrence, not just first |
| प्रेम (love) | Gauḑīya Vaiṣṇava bhakti-rasa theology (Rūpa Gosvāmī) | Redefine at every occurrence, not just first |
| साक्ष्यम् (testimony) | Sāṅkhya/Advaita sākṣin Witness-consciousness | Redefine at every occurrence given density (vv.3,6,12) |
| अतिथिः / आतिथ्यकरणम् (hospitality) | Dharmaśāstra pañca-mahāyajña; Taittirīya Up. 1.11.2 | Redefine at first occurrence, cross-reference thereafter |
| जीवः (soul/self) | Advaita vs. Viśiṣṭādvaita/Dvaita jīva-Brahman debate | Redefine at first occurrence |
| कर्तव्यम् (obligation) | Varṇāśrama-dharma social duty | Pair with gospel-partnership framing at first occurrence |
| बहिष्करणम् (expulsion) | Dharmaśāstra patita caste-status loss | Redefine at first occurrence |
| प्राचीनः (elder) | Theravāda sthavira monastic office (avoided by term choice itself) | Note the avoided alternative in translator commentary only |
3.2 Genuinely Missing Vocabulary (no classical term names the concept precisely; coinage required)
| Concept | Why nothing pre-exists | Repair |
|---|---|---|
| φιλοπρωτεύω — self-promoting love of primacy specifically within a religious community | Classical vocabulary has words for ambition, rivalry, and pride generally, but no single lexeme isolates this precise configuration (status-seeking inside a body one should be serving) | Descriptive coinage अग्रिमपदप्रियता (already adopted) |
| ξένος as traveling gospel-minister (as opposed to a generic foreigner or the ritual atithi-guest) | The nearest available word (अतिथिः) is too specific to a different frame (Vedic ritual guest-hospitality) rather than too general | No true coinage adopted; fencing chosen over coinage because अतिथिः retains valuable relational/hospitality resonance the text can repurpose, unlike a flat neologism |
| ἀγαθοποιέω/κακοποιέω as a paired moral-diagnostic idiom (“doing good” vs. “doing evil” as evidence of relationship with God) | Handled adequately by transparent compounding on उत्तमम्/दुष्टम् — not truly a gap | No coinage needed; noted here only to confirm it was checked and found unproblematic |
3.3 Neighborhoods Correctly Avoided by Prior Term Choice (no further action needed)
हर्षः (avoiding आनन्दः), गर्वः (avoiding अहंकारः), उत्तमम्/दुष्टम् (avoiding कल्याणम्/पुण्यम्/असत्), and दृष्टवान् held to verb form (avoiding दर्शनम्) represent cases where the crowding was identified and fully resolved by selecting an uncontested alternative, rather than merely managed by fencing. These require no Phase 2 fencing note — only a one-time translator-facing rationale, already captured in 08_core_glossary.md.
4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Item | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Demetrius (Δημήτριος) | Transliterate: देमेत्रियः | Proper name; no Sanskrit referent exists or should be invented. Follows Serampore-tradition proper-name handling. |
| Diotrephes (Διοτρέφης) | Transliterate: दियोत्रेफः | Same as above. |
| Gaius (Γάϊος) | Transliterate: गायः | Same as above. Note: transliteration must not collide with गायः as a common noun form of “cow”-related declensions in casual reading; disambiguated by proper-name capitalization convention (context/position in the sentence), since Devanagari has no case-marking equivalent to capitalization — flag for Phase 2 QA that this name requires contextual disambiguation more carefully than a capitalized-script transliteration would. |
| στόμα πρὸς στόμα (“mouth to mouth,” v.14) | Paraphrase by meaning: सम्मुखम् (“face to face”) | Literal rendering (“mouth to mouth”) would read as a bizarre or even indecorous physical image in Sanskrit with no idiomatic sanction; the Semitic idiom’s meaning (direct personal presence rather than written correspondence) is preserved, per the idiom-handling rule against literal transfer. |
| ἀββά-style intimacy terms | N/A — not present in 3 John (contrast Romans 8:15’s אַבָּא) | No transliteration decision required for this letter; noted only to confirm the baseline’s “abba” precedent does not recur here. |
| μέλαν, κάλαμος (“ink,” “pen/reed,” v.13) | Paraphrase with plain descriptive Sanskrit nouns: मषी, लेखनी | Material-culture terms with attested plain Sanskrit equivalents; no technical or doctrinal weight, so ordinary translation (not transliteration) is correct and no classical-school collision exists to fence against. |
| θεός (God) | Neither transliterate nor coin new: baseline reuse, सर्वेश्वरः | Already resolved by baseline; listed here only to confirm this letter introduces no reason to revisit that resolution. |
| ἀμήν / ἁλληλουϊά-class terms | N/A — not present in 3 John | Noted for completeness; the baseline’s आमीन्/हल्लेलूया transliteration convention would apply if such terms appeared in a lectionary pairing or liturgical framing material, but they do not occur in the 3 John text itself. |
General principle applied: transliteration is reserved strictly for (a) proper names with no Sanskrit referent, and (b) established liturgical exclamations already fixed by the Serampore precedent. Every other gap in this letter is resolved by paraphrase-with-fencing (crowded neighborhoods) or descriptive coinage (missing vocabulary), never by importing a Sanskrit technical term wholesale and hoping context alone will strip its prior meaning — consistent with the baseline’s rejection of “improving” terms toward more common classical synonyms without checking their technical baggage first.
5. Ranked List of This Letter’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities
Ranked by the compound factor of (a) severity of the classical-doctrine collision and (b) frequency/density of occurrence within this short letter, since a moderate collision repeated six times in fourteen verses is functionally more dangerous than a severe collision occurring once.
-
सत्यम् / सत्यः — “truth” / “true” (vv.1, 3, 4, 8, 12). Highest rank: maximal collision severity (Brahman’s own defining nature per Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1) combined with the highest frequency of any theological term in the letter. No safer alternative exists at all (ऋतम् is worse, not better). Every single occurrence requires restated fencing, not just the first.
-
प्रेम — “love” (vv.1, 6, and underlying the entire hospitality/fellowship argument). Comparable collision severity to truth (a fully systematized, named devotional-aesthetic school, Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, not diffuse background), with only slightly lower frequency. Ranked second rather than tied with truth because its collision, while textually explicit, concerns tone/register (romantic ecstatic devotion vs. plain covenantal love) rather than an ontological identity claim about ultimate reality, marginally narrowing (but not eliminating) the danger.
-
साक्ष्यम् — “testimony” (vv.3, 6, 12, including the striking personification “the truth itself testifies”). Structurally as severe as the Holy Spirit/ātman risk in the baseline (a foundational epistemological category, sākṣin, distinguishing the true Self from active mind), but ranked third because its frequency, while notable, is lower than truth/love, and its personification in v.12 — while unusual — is a one-time rhetorical flourish rather than a running theme.
-
अतिथिः / आतिथ्यकरणम् — hospitality to traveling ministers (vv.5–8). Severe collision (a codified, named ritual-merit category with its own proof-text, atithi devo bhava) concentrated in a tight four-verse span that is also this letter’s doctrinal center of gravity. Ranked below the top three only because the practical consequence of confusion (readers thinking hospitality earns ritual merit) is less christologically catastrophic than confusing Truth or Love with the Absolute or with erotic devotion, though it is doctrinally serious enough to warrant the same mandatory-fencing treatment.
-
बहिष्करणम् — “expel/cast out” (v.10). Single occurrence, but a severe potential collision (dharmaśāstra’s patita caste-fallen status, with hereditary consequences and prescribed penance) that a reader could easily and wrongly generalize from this one verse into thinking Johannine church discipline operates like a purity-status mechanism. Ranked here rather than lower because the consequence of the confusion — reading illegitimate authoritarian abuse as a sanctioned religious category — inverts the text’s own moral verdict on Diotrephes.
-
जीवः — “soul/self” (v.2). Real classical-debate exposure (jīva-Brahman identity/difference across Vedānta sub-schools) but single occurrence and comparatively low practical stakes (a wellbeing-wish, not a doctrinal assertion about the nature of the self), so ranked mid-list.
-
कर्तव्यम् — “obligation/ought” (v.8). Moderate collision (varṇāśrama-dharma duty-framing) at a single occurrence; ranked below जीवः because the fencing fix (pairing with gospel-partnership language) is simple and the term itself is not a proper name of a rival system, merely adjacent to one.
-
अग्रिमपदप्रियता / गर्वः — Diotrephes’ pride-vocabulary (vv.9–10). Lower risk because the higher-risk alternative (अहंकारः) was already correctly excluded at the glossary stage; residual risk is only that a translator might later “improve” the wording back toward the excluded term without checking this analysis.
-
हर्षः — “joy” (vv.3–4). Lower risk because आनन्दः was already correctly excluded; residual risk is minimal and mainly a matter of maintaining vigilance against substitution in future revisions.
-
आशा करोति — “hope” (v.14). Lowest-ranked term still worth tracking: a single occurrence, a real but comparatively mild collision (with the Yoga/Vedānta vairāgya counsel against craving-desire), and low doctrinal stakes given its purely epistolary-closing function.
6. Summary Recommendations for Phase 2
- Density-aware fencing: For सत्यम्/सत्यः, प्रेम, and साक्ष्यम्, the mandatory redefinition note required by
12_ai_translation_requirements.mdmust be applied at every occurrence, not only the first per document, given this letter’s unusually high recurrence of these three terms in a small number of verses. This extends (does not contradict) the baseline’s general “first occurrence” rule, justified by the compounding density risk unique to this short epistle. - No new forbidden-substitution terms are proposed beyond those already excluded in
08_core_glossary.md(अहंकारः, आनन्दः, दर्शनम् [as noun], शिष्याः, स्थविरः, पुण्यम्/कल्याणम्/शुभम्/असत्, ऋतम्, स्नेहः/अनुरागः) — this analysis confirms rather than expands that exclusion list. - Coinage is reserved for true gaps only (अग्रिमपदप्रियता); crowded-but-not-empty neighborhoods (truth, love, testimony, hospitality) are resolved by fencing an existing term, never by inventing an artificial replacement, consistent with the baseline’s preference for well-attested classical constructions over novel coinages wherever both are available.
- Transliteration is confined to proper names and letter-writing material culture (ink, pen); no theological term in 3 John should be transliterated rather than translated-and-fenced.
- Phase 2 QA should treat the top four ranked ambiguities (truth, love, testimony, hospitality) as requiring dedicated reviewer attention distinct from ordinary High-risk handling, given their combination of doctrinal severity and textual density unique to this short letter.
This analysis extends 08_core_glossary.md and must be read together with it. All risk tiers and review routing follow doctrine_risk_registry.json’s conventions (Critical/High → human theologian; Medium → Sanskrit-philosophically-literate scholar; Low → automated review). No finding here contradicts or overrides any baseline Romans Language Package entry; all baseline-reused terms (सर्वेश्वरः, मण्डली, शान्तिः, अन्यजातीयाः) are confirmed compatible with 3 John’s usage subject to the nuance flags already recorded in 08_core_glossary.md.