Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis: Titus (English/Greek → Sanskrit)
TRI Phase 1, Step 6 — extends the Romans baseline; cross-referenced against 08_core_glossary.md and the updated bible_term_registry.json
Curriculum: Titus 1–3
Core passage: Titus 2:11–3:8
Destination language: Sanskrit (Devanagari), scholarly/liturgical register per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md
Status: This document performs the formal gap analysis that underwrites the term choices already proposed in 08_core_glossary.md. It does not introduce new renderings; it explains why the available Sanskrit vocabulary is adequate, deficient, or dangerous for each doctrine, and ranks the resulting risks for Phase 2 routing.
Full-book coverage note: Titus has three chapters. All three are reviewed below. Chapter 1 (qualifications for elders, false teachers, myths) and chapter 3 (submission, regeneration, divisive persons) surround the core passage 2:11–3:8 and are treated as integral scope, not background — several of the highest-risk terms in this analysis (παλιγγενεσία, λουτρόν, σωτήρ, ἐπιφάνεια) occur only inside 2:11–3:8, but their doctrinal load depends on framing established in chapter 1 (election, apostleship, sound doctrine) and completed in chapter 3’s back half (law, divisive person). No chapter is silently skipped.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the seven curriculum doctrines, this matrix inventories the Sanskrit terms available (baseline-reused or newly proposed), states their specific weakness(es) against classical philosophical literature, and states the recommended mitigation strategy carried into Phase 2.
| # | Doctrine | Available Sanskrit Term(s) | Weakness(es) | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Grace That Trains for Godly Living | अनुग्रहः (grace, baseline) + अनुशासनम् (training/discipline, new) | अनुग्रहः alone does not convey grace’s active pedagogical agency in 2:12 (παιδεύουσα, “training us”); a literal-minded reader could hear अनुशासनम् as ordinary moral discipline achieved by the pupil’s own effort, echoing dharmaśāstra’s duty-precedes-result structure or Yoga’s saṃyama (technical 8th-limb concentration apparatus, Yoga Sūtra 3.4) if the two words are not bound together grammatically. | Always construct अनुग्रहः as grammatical subject/agent of अनुशासनम् (e.g., “अनुग्रहः अस्मान् अनुशासति,” “grace trains/disciplines us”) so the causal direction — grace produces the discipline, not discipline earning grace — is syntactically forced, not left to inference. Mandatory note at every 2:12 occurrence. |
| 2 | Qualifications for Elders | प्राचीनः (elder), अध्यक्षः (overseer), सर्वेश्वरस्य गृहव्यवस्थापकः (God’s steward), एकपत्नीव्रतः (one-woman man), आत्मसंयमः (self-control) | No inherent doctrinal collision, but प्राचीनः/अध्यक्षः must be kept free of गुरुः’s guru-śiṣya-paramparā lineage-authority connotations, and आत्मसंयमः must be kept free of yogic self-achievement connotations (see §3 below). | Plain administrative/kinship vocabulary (already selected in 08_core_glossary.md) is sufficient; no missing vocabulary here. Risk is entirely in the neighboring self-control term, addressed in the fencing section. |
| 3 | Sound Doctrine and Good Works | स्वस्थं शिक्षणम् (sound teaching), सत्कर्माणि (good works), सत्यस्य परिज्ञानम् (knowledge of the truth) | सत्कर्माणि cannot be extracted from कर्मन्’s root sense within karma-mīmāṃsā/karma-yoga, where action mechanically yields karma-phala; स्वस्थं शिक्षणम् avoids शास्त्रम्’s closed-canon implication but still risks being heard as one teaching-tradition (a “school”) among the darśanas rather than the single true teaching. | Dual-register translator note required at every सत्कर्माणि occurrence (grounding vs. fruit distinction, see §4 doctrine below); शिक्षणम् should be qualified in-context (“this sound teaching,” referring anaphorically to the gospel already stated) rather than left as a free-standing abstract noun that invites a “one system among several” reading. |
| 4 | Salvation by Grace, Not Works | त्राणम् (salvation), सत्कर्माणि (works, negative use), धर्मीति निर्णयः (justification), आरोपिता धार्मिकता (imputed righteousness, baseline) | This is the sharpest doctrinal fault line in the letter (3:5, “not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy”). कर्मन् is the single most theorized word available for “works,” and धार्मिकता/धर्मः cannot fully escape the four-puruṣārtha framework (per the Romans baseline’s own admission). | Treat 3:5 as a Critical-tier segment requiring the fullest possible explicit redefinition in a single sentence: works-in-righteousness (कर्माणि धार्मिकतायाम् कृतानि) named and excluded as the ground, मुक्तिः/मोक्षः/निर्वाणम् never used for त्राणम्, and कृपा (mercy) kept visibly distinct from अनुग्रहः (grace) so the causal chain — mercy moved God, grace is the gift, works are excluded — is not flattened into one undifferentiated term. |
| 5 | Regeneration by the Holy Spirit | नवसृष्टिः (regeneration), नवीकरणम् (renewal), पवित्र आत्मा (Holy Spirit), स्नानम् (washing) | The single highest-stakes doctrine in the whole letter. Four separate collision risks converge in one verse (3:5): (a) नवसृष्टिः could still be misheard as a birth-event if a translator or reader mentally back-forms जन्म; (b) स्नानम् is the ordinary word for self-performed ritual bathing; (c) पवित्र आत्मा risks the mahāvākya ātman-Brahman identity collision at the exact moment “new” spiritual life is being described, maximizing the risk that a reader hears self-realization rather than a given, distinct-Person act; (d) the whole verse’s grammar (a divine agent acting upon a passive human object) must survive translation, since Sanskrit’s rich middle/reflexive voice resources could easily drift toward a self-reflexive construction implying the believer’s own agency. | Treat Titus 3:5 as requiring the single densest translator-note stack in this curriculum: explicit notes on (a) नवसृष्टिः vs. पुनर्जन्म, (b) स्नानम् as God’s act not the believer’s rite, (c) पवित्र आत्मा’s distinct personhood, and (d) verb voice — actively construct God/the Spirit as unambiguous grammatical agent (कर्तृ) of स्नानम्+नवीकरणम्, the believer as object (कर्म), never rendering with an ātmanepada or reflexive construction that could imply self-administered renewal. |
| 6 | Submission to Authority | अधीनताम् स्वीकुर्वन्तु / अधीनः (submission) | Available Sanskrit vocabulary for submission is not missing — it is, if anything, over-supplied: dharmaśāstra offers precise, caste- and role-specific terms (strī-dharma for wives, dāsa-dharma for slaves, rāja-dharma/rāṣṭra-dharma for civil obedience) for every one of the three relationships in 2:5, 2:9, and 3:1. | The gap here is not lexical but structural: a single non-role-specific phrase must be used across all three relationships to preserve Paul’s rhetorical point (one voluntary, Christ-modeled disposition applied across different stations) rather than importing three separate pre-existing hierarchical duty-codes that would each carry their own independent scriptural warrant (Manusmṛti-adjacent) competing with Paul’s own. Mandatory theologian note on 2:9’s historically situated, non-perpetual character given India’s own caste-linked servitude history. |
| 7 | Avoiding Divisive Controversies | कल्पितकथाः (myths), मूढाः विवादाः (foolish controversies), भेदकारी जनः (divisive person), विधिः (law, in 3:9’s “quarrels about the law”) | कल्पितकथाः successfully avoids the पुराण-root collision, but भेदकारी जनः sits close to सम्प्रदाय (a named, often venerable lineage-tradition) without being confusable with it — the risk is under-differentiation by a careless paraphrase, not by the fixed term itself. | No missing vocabulary. Fencing task only (§3 below): ensure भेदकारी जनः is never glossed or explained using सम्प्रदाय-based language, which would make founding/belonging to a distinct tradition sound like the fault in view rather than persistent unrepentant conduct after two admonitions. |
2. Missing Vocabulary: Where No Adequate Existing Term Exists
Unlike most of the Romans baseline (which could usually find some existing classical term to press into new service, however imperfect), Titus’s core passage requires several outright coinages because no existing classical Sanskrit compound names the concept without triggering a forbidden collision. These are true “gaps,” not merely risky reuses:
| Concept | Why No Existing Term Suffices | Coinage Adopted | Formation Logic |
|---|---|---|---|
| παλιγγενεσία (regeneration) | Every existing “rebirth” vocabulary in classical Sanskrit (पुनर्जन्म and all पुनः+जन्म compounds) is the technical transmigration doctrine — not an approximation of it, but the very term theorized in Sāṃkhya-Yoga (karmāśaya, vāsanā) and Vedānta (liṅga-śarīra). There is no neutral “rebirth” word to borrow. | नवसृष्टिः | सृष्टि (“creation,” a cosmogonic term with no cyclical-embodiment baggage) + नव (“new”), deliberately avoiding जन्म entirely. |
| σωτήριος (saving, adj., of grace itself) | No existing adjective pairs cleanly with an existing noun the way an agent-adjective should; borrowing a मोक्ष/मुक्ति-root adjective would be immediately forbidden. | त्राणकरः | Built transparently on baseline त्राणम् + करः (“-making”), inheriting rather than re-deriving the existing Critical-tier ruling. |
| σωτήρ (Savior, personal title, dominant in Titus) | Romans never needed a personal agent-noun title for “one who saves” (its σωτηρία occurrences are abstract-noun only); Titus requires this title six times for both Father and Son. | त्राता | Agent noun on the same √trā root as त्राणम्, giving a doctrinally clean noun/agent pair with no new root introduced. |
| ἐπιφάνεια/ἐπεφάνη (the appearing, bracketing 2:11–3:8) | This exact concept — a personal deity’s historical in-breaking — has no untheorized Sanskrit equivalent; every existing candidate (आविर्भावः, प्रादुर्भावः) is itself the standing technical vocabulary of avatāra manifestation directly tied to Gītā 4.6–8. | प्राकट्यम् | A more general “becoming manifest/evident” formation (from प्रकट, “clear, evident”) that lacks the specific Vaiṣṇava avatāra-descent technical history of the rejected alternatives, though it still requires a mandatory contrastive note since it sits in the same semantic field. |
| θεὸς καὶ σωτήρ as one referent (2:13’s Granville Sharp construction) | Sanskrit has no existing fixed liturgical formula asserting a single figure is simultaneously “the great God” and “the Savior” — this exact double-predication of one name is a genuinely new theological claim in Sanskrit’s history, without precedent in either Vedic or Purāṇic hymnody (where a deity is praised under many names, but not under a syntactic construction forcing numerical identity between “God” and “the one who saves”). | महान् सर्वेश्वरः त्राता च | An unbroken appositive/genitive chain built from already-fixed baseline (सर्वेश्वरः) and newly-coined (त्राता) pieces, engineered specifically to resist splitting into two referents. |
| λαὸς περιούσιος (“a people for his own possession”) | No existing single Sanskrit compound names a covenant people set apart by a personal God’s choice (as opposed to a birth-caste or lineage-group defined by varṇa or gotra). | स्वकीया प्रजा | Plain possessive-adjective + “people,” avoiding any caste/lineage noun (jāti, gotra, varṇa) that would smuggle in a birth-based rather than covenant-based membership criterion. |
Observation: every genuine vocabulary gap in Titus clusters tightly around 2:11–3:8 — confirming that the core passage is not only the theological center of the letter but also the linguistic center of gravity for this Language Package’s new coinages. Chapters 1 and 3’s back half, by contrast, draw almost entirely on Romans-baseline-reused or plain administrative vocabulary (see Matrix rows 2, 6, 7 above), requiring far fewer new coinages.
3. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing
The opposite problem from missing vocabulary: several Titus concepts sit in a Sanskrit semantic field already densely populated by named, citable classical doctrines. “Fencing” here means the specific discipline of choosing a term that sits adjacent to but does not enter the boundary of the rival technical category, and then reinforcing that boundary with mandatory notes.
| Sanskrit Term(s) at Risk | The Crowded Neighbor | Citable Source of the Neighbor | Fencing Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| आत्मसंयमः (self-control, throughout Titus) | जितेन्द्रियः; संयमी (technical Yoga Sūtra 3.4 sense) | Bhagavad Gītā 2.61 (sense-conquest through self-effort); Yoga Sūtra 3.4 (combined dhāraṇā-dhyāna-samādhi) | आत्मसंयमः retained, but every occurrence must be anchored back to 2:12’s grace-as-teacher (अनुग्रहः…अनुशासनम्) so self-control is read as grace’s fruit, never yogic self-achievement earning liberation. Never gloss with जितेन्द्रियः even as an “explanatory synonym.” |
| प्रेम (love, ἀγάπη) | प्रेम-भक्ति | Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava (Caitanya) theology’s culminating ecstatic devotional stage | Retained (per 08_core_glossary.md) as the best available option, but flagged Medium-High rather than plain High/Low: translators should weigh प्रीतिः (plain “affection”) case-by-case in passages where the emotional-devotional overtone of प्रेम might unhelpfully suggest the Caitanya-specific culminating stage rather than Paul’s plain ethical virtue-list usage (2:2). |
| सत्कर्माणि / कर्माणि (works) | कर्मन् as the base-unit of karma-mīmāṃsā and karma-yoga | Pūrva Mīmāṃsā’s entire injunction-and-result apparatus; Bhagavad Gītā 3–4’s karma-yoga | Cannot be fully fenced by word choice alone (there is no non-karma-rooted word for “deed” available at this register). Fencing is achieved structurally: mandatory dual-register note distinguishing 3:5’s negative/excluded use from the positive/fruit uses elsewhere, at every single occurrence, not merely at first occurrence. |
| सत्यस्य परिज्ञानम् (knowledge of the truth) | ज्ञानम् (jñāna-mārga) | Upaniṣadic mahāvākyas; Advaita Vedānta’s Self-realization path | परिज्ञानम् (not bare ज्ञानम्) plus the genitive सत्यस्य (“of the truth,” an external, given, propositional referent) fences against the unqualified, self-attained-insight reading; never permit ज्ञानम् alone to stand for this concept anywhere in Titus material. |
| पवित्र आत्मा (Holy Spirit) — acutely at 3:5 | ātman = Brahman | Chāndogya Up. 6.8.7 (“tat tvam asi”); Māṇḍūkya Up. 1.2; Bṛhadāraṇyaka Up. 1.4.10 | Inherited baseline fencing (mandatory personhood note at every occurrence) is insufficient alone at 3:5 specifically, because it co-occurs with नवसृष्टिः (“new creation/birth” language) — the exact combination (new-life + ātman) most likely to trigger an Advaita-trained reader’s mahāvākya recall. Additional 3:5-specific note required: the Spirit renews the believer, distinct from the Spirit’s own being; the believer does not become, realize, or discover identity with the Spirit. |
| भेदकारी जनः (divisive person) | सम्प्रदाय (named transmission-lineage tradition) | General classical usage across virtually every darśana and bhakti tradition (e.g. Vaiṣṇava/Śaiva sampradāyas) | Never explain or gloss भेदकारी जनः with reference to सम्प्रदाय-founding, sectarian identity, or lineage difference; the fault is repeated unrepentant conduct after two admonitions (3:10), not doctrinal distinctiveness. |
| अनुग्रहः / कृपा (grace / mercy, held apart in 3:5) | प्रसादः; पुण्यम्; करुणा (Buddhist) | Bhakti ritual-offering-return structure; karma-merit accumulation; Buddhist compassion doctrine | Baseline fencing for अनुग्रहः already excludes प्रसादः/पुण्यम्. Titus adds the requirement that कृपा (mercy, ἔλεος) and अनुग्रहः (grace, χάρις) remain visibly two different words within 3:4-5, since English glosses both loosely as “kindness,” but Sanskrit’s greater lexical precision must preserve Paul’s distinct terms rather than collapsing them for stylistic elegance. |
| प्राकट्यम् (appearing/epiphany) | आविर्भावः / प्रादुर्भावः | Bhagavad Gītā 4.6-8 | Already addressed as a missing-vocabulary coinage in §2; restated here because the neighboring terms remain in active classical use and a translator reaching for a “more natural-sounding classical synonym” (explicitly warned against in 12_ai_translation_requirements.md) is the most likely failure mode. |
4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
Titus introduces several proper nouns and set phrases not present in the Romans baseline. This table records the transliterate-or-paraphrase decision and rationale for each, consistent with the baseline’s Serampore-precedent convention (§ “Transliteration Standards” in 12_ai_translation_requirements.md).
| Term | Decision | Rendering | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Titus (proper name, addressee) | Transliterate | तीतः (Tītaḥ) | Follows Serampore-tradition proper-name transliteration convention (cf. पौलः, दाविद्). No existing Sanskrit Christian precedent to override. |
| Crete / Cretans (1:5, 1:12) | Transliterate | क्रीता / क्रीतीयाः | Geographic proper noun; no target-language equivalent exists or is desirable. |
| Epimenides quotation, “Cretans are always liars” (1:12) | Paraphrase (translate the sense), not transliterate the Greek hexameter | क्रीतीयाः सर्वदा मृषावादिनः | Paul quotes a pagan Greek poet approvingly for rhetorical effect; Sanskrit has no equivalent verse to substitute, and inserting an unrelated Sanskrit proverb would misrepresent Paul’s specific citation. Render as plain prose sense; footnote should note this is a quoted external source, not Paul’s or Scripture’s own independent claim about Cretan character, to prevent the line being read as biblical ethnic generalization. |
| Zenas “the lawyer” (3:13) | Paraphrase title, transliterate name | ज़ेनासः, विधिवेत्ता | विधिवेत्ता (“one learned in विधि”) extends the baseline’s Mīmāṃsā-precise विधिः rather than importing a generic “advocate” term; keeps consistency with baseline “law” entry. |
| Apollos (3:13) | Transliterate | अपोल्लोः | Proper name; no equivalent needed. |
| Nicopolis (3:12) | Transliterate | निकोपोलिः | Geographic proper noun. |
| Artemas / Tychicus (3:12) | Transliterate | आर्तेमाः / तुखिकः | Proper names. |
| ”Faithful is the saying” formula (πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, 3:8) | Paraphrase (already in 08_core_glossary.md) | विश्वसनीयं वचनम् | Functions as a doctrinal-summary marker, not a proper noun; translating its sense (rather than transliterating a Greek idiom) preserves its rhetorical function of flagging 3:4-7 as reliable summary. |
| Abba-style Aramaic retentions | N/A — none occur in Titus | — | Titus contains no Aramaic terms of intimacy parallel to Romans 8:15’s אַבָּא; no decision required, but noted here to confirm the gap analysis checked for this category. |
General principle applied: proper names are transliterated per Serampore precedent without exception; quoted external material (Epimenides) is paraphrased for sense with an explanatory note rather than force-fit into Sanskrit verse; technical office/role descriptions (Zenas “the lawyer”) are paraphrased using already-fenced glossary vocabulary rather than coining a new unrelated term.
5. Ranked List of Titus’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × collision specificity × frequency), for Phase 2 review-routing priority within this letter specifically (supplementing, not replacing, the doctrine_risk_registry’s general Critical/High/Medium/Low tiers).
-
Titus 3:5, full verse — the four-way convergence (νot by works of righteousness → but according to his mercy, through washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit). No other single verse in this curriculum stacks this many Critical-tier collision risks (कर्मन्, स्नानम्, नवसृष्टिः, पवित्र आत्मा) in one clause with grammatical agency also at stake. Ranked #1. Mandatory full theologian review with the dual-register works note, the God-as-agent voice check, and the compounded ātman-Brahman note all applied simultaneously.
-
Titus 2:13’s Granville Sharp construction (महान् सर्वेश्वरः त्राता च). The single greatest risk of the translation quietly softening a Deity-of-Christ claim into two figures, because Sanskrit’s own grammatical instincts (reserving सर्वेश्वरः for the Father, त्राता as if a separate divine functionary) actively pull toward the split reading. Ranked #2. Requires explicit syntactic verification (single unbroken appositive chain) at every occurrence, not merely lexical checking.
-
παλιγγενεσία → नवसृष्टिः (Titus 3:5). Highest-stakes new coinage in the whole Language Package extension because its rejected alternative (पुनर्जन्म) is not a loosely related idea but the exact, independently well-established doctrine the baseline already had to fence off for “resurrection.” A single slip back to a जन्म-compound here would resurrect (literally) a previously solved problem in a new location. Ranked #3.
-
ἐπιφάνεια/ἐπεφάνη → प्राकट्यम् (2:11, 2:13, 3:4). Ranked below the above three because, while critically avatāra-adjacent, it occurs three times across the passage giving more opportunity for the mandatory note to be consistently attached and for reviewers to catch a lapse; the risk is chronic (recurring three times) rather than acute (concentrated in one clause). Ranked #4.
-
σώφρων-family / आत्मसंयमः (six occurrences across the letter, esp. 1:8, 2:2, 2:4-6, 2:12). Ranked #5 for its sheer frequency: even a well-fenced term accumulates risk of drifting toward its yogic/Gītā neighbor across six independent occurrences by six different Phase 2 workers/segments if the “grace produces this, not self-effort” note is not attached at every single instance rather than only the first.
-
ἔργα (works) negative-vs-positive register switch (3:5 vs. six other occurrences). Ranked #6: the underlying term (सत्कर्माणि/कर्माणि) is fixed, but the ambiguity is contextual rather than lexical — an inattentive reviewer skimming past 1:16, 2:7, 2:14, 3:1, 3:8, 3:14 could mistake the positive uses there for reintroducing works-as-ground, undoing 3:5’s careful exclusion.
-
ὑποτάσσω-family / अधीनताम् स्वीकुर्वन्तु applied across three distinct relationships (2:5, 2:9, 3:1). Ranked #7: risk is not that any single occurrence is mistranslated, but that a Phase 2 worker processing these three segments independently and in isolation from one another could plausibly (and defensibly, if working from dharmaśāstra-literate instinct) select three different Sanskrit constructions appropriate to each named relationship, silently undoing the letter’s structural point that one and the same disposition governs all three.
-
αἱρετικὸς ἄνθρωπος → भेदकारी जनः (3:10), read alongside 1:14’s κल्पितकथाः / cross-reference to false teachers in 1:10-16. Ranked #8: lower frequency (single occurrence) and lower doctrinal centrality than the above, but flagged because Titus 1 and Titus 3 both address false/divisive teaching using different vocabulary (myths vs. divisive person), and a careless harmonizing paraphrase across the two passages could introduce सम्प्रदाय-adjacent language from either direction.
-
λαὸς περιούσιος → स्वकीया प्रजा (2:14), read against baseline “election”/“Israel” entries. Ranked #9: Medium risk primarily because this phrase invites a reviewer to reach for baseline इस्राएलः-adjacent covenant vocabulary in a way that could inadvertently suggest ethnic-Israel replacement rhetoric rather than the church’s own distinct (if typologically related) covenant-people status; low frequency (one occurrence) keeps this below the higher-ranked items.
-
ἐλπίς → प्रत्याशा, across 1:2, 2:13, 3:7. Ranked #10 (lowest of the ranked set): the fencing against आशा/tṛṣṇā-adjacent craving is sound and the term is well-attested, but repeated occurrence across three separated chapters means consistency-drift (a later segment reverting to आशा as a “more natural” synonym) remains a residual, if modest, risk worth flagging for automated consistency-checking in Phase 2 rather than full theologian review.
6. Summary Table: Gap Type by Chapter
| Chapter | Dominant Gap Type | Representative Terms | Review Burden |
|---|---|---|---|
| Titus 1 | Baseline reuse + Medium-tier role vocabulary; one High-tier neighbor (myths) | प्रेषितः, परमेश्वरस्य वरणम्, प्राचीनः, अध्यक्षः, कल्पितकथाः, सत्यस्य परिज्ञानम् | Mostly Sanskrit-scholar/Medium; one High (myths) |
| Titus 2:1-10 | Household-ethics fencing (submission) + self-control fencing | आत्मसंयमः, अधीनताम् स्वीकुर्वन्तु, एकपत्नीव्रतः | High, cross-segment consistency-critical |
| Titus 2:11-3:8 (core passage) | Genuine vocabulary gaps / new coinages; highest Critical-tier density in the letter | प्राकट्यम्, त्राता, महान् सर्वेश्वरः त्राता च, नवसृष्टिः, नवीकरणम्, स्नानम्, उद्धरणम्, सत्कर्माणि (negative use) | Mandatory full human theologian review, every occurrence |
| Titus 3:9-15 | Baseline reuse + plain administrative/proper-noun vocabulary | मूढाः विवादाः, भेदकारी जनः, विधिः, proper names (§4) | Medium / Native-speaker-equivalent (Sanskrit-scholar) review |
This document extends, and does not modify, 08_core_glossary.md or the Romans baseline translation_memory.json/bible_term_registry.json. All ranked risks above are to be encoded as segment-level flags in Phase 2 Step 16 processing, with routing per doctrine_risk_registry.json’s risk-tier conventions and the escalation rules in 12_ai_translation_requirements.md.