Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis: Philemon
Curriculum: Philemon
Destination language: Urdu
Core passage: Philemon 1:8–21
Doctrines in scope: Forgiveness and Reconciliation; Christian Brotherhood across Social Status; Slavery and the Gospel’s Transforming Power; Intercession and Appeal on Behalf of Another; Grace-Motivated Obedience
Full-book coverage note: Philemon is a single chapter of 25 verses; “full coverage” for this letter means every verse (1–25), not a chapter range. This analysis has been built against all 25 verses, not only the core passage (vv.8–21); vv.1–7 (salutation/thanksgiving) and vv.22–25 (closing) are reviewed explicitly in §2 and §5 below rather than silently excluded, since several load-bearing terms (house church, fellow prisoner, grace/χαρίζομαι echo, human spirit) occur only there.
Baseline authority: This analysis extends, and does not contradict, translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, and doctrine_risk_registry.json from the Romans/Galatians Language Package, plus the Philemon-specific 08_core_glossary.md and its provisional bible_term_registry.json additions. Where a term is already governed by the baseline, this document analyzes the gap, not the rendering (the rendering is fixed).
1. Purpose and Method
Step 8 asks: where does Urdu’s available theological vocabulary fit the doctrine cleanly, where is vocabulary simply missing, and where does the destination language have too much vocabulary — competing terms already loaded with meaning from Islamic theology, South Asian social hierarchy, or the Roman/Galatians baseline itself — such that a fence must be built around the chosen term to keep the wrong meaning out?
Philemon is linguistically unlike Romans and Galatians in one important respect: its central theological risk is not primarily doctrinal negation (a Qur’anic verse directly denying a claim, as with the crucifixion or Sonship) but social-institutional collision. The letter’s subject matter — a slave, a master, a debt, a personal appeal, a request for a permanent change of relationship — lands on a set of live categories in Urdu-speaking Muslim, Christian-minority, and broader South Asian social life: khidmat/naukar-malik household relationships, Islamic legal and ethical teaching on slavery and manumission, family/patron honor codes, and shared commercial-legal vocabulary. The gap analysis below treats this social-institutional collision risk with the same rigor the baseline gives to doctrinal-negation risk.
2. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
| Doctrine | Available Urdu term(s) | Weaknesses / gaps | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forgiveness and Reconciliation | معافی (maafi, “forgiveness/pardon”); بخشنا/بخشش (bakhshna/bakhshish, “to forgive/grant graciously” — shares root with فضل, grace); صلح (sulh, “reconciliation/settlement,” baseline peace term) | معافی alone names the removal of an offense but not the letter’s specific mechanism — a substitutionary transfer of liability (ἐλλογάω, v.18) plus a restored relational status (v.17, receive him “as myself”). Urdu has no single word carrying both the debt-transfer and the status-restoration senses together; a bare معافی risks reducing Philemon to a simple “forgive and forget” story and losing the accounting/substitution structure Paul deliberately builds. صلح carries covenantal/legal settlement weight (useful) but is not native to interpersonal small-scale reconciliation register — it can feel formal/diplomatic (state-to-state, tribe-to-tribe) rather than person-to-person. | Do not rely on a single lexical item. Build reconciliation across the sequence of already-glossed terms: نقصان پہنچانا/ظلم کرنا (wronged, v.18) → قرض دار ہونا (owed, v.18) → میرے کھاتے میں لکھ لینا (charged to my account, v.18) → قبول کرنا/اپنا لینا (received/welcomed, v.17) → مجھے واپس بخش دیا جائے گا (graciously restored, v.22, χαρίζομαι-root). Teach these as one connected movement, not isolated vocabulary items. صلح is reserved for the general “peace with God” doctrine (baseline) and should not double as the operative word for this letter’s specific reconciliation mechanism, to avoid two different doctrines sharing one word without distinction. |
| Christian Brotherhood across Social Status | بھائی (bhai, “brother”); برادری (biradari, “brotherhood/kinship network” — but see §3, crowded neighborhood); شریک/رفیق (sharik/rafiq, “partner/companion,” baseline v.17 term); برابری (barabri, “equality”) | بھائی itself is safe and warm but, used loosely in South Asian social speech as a generic honorific (any man may be called “bhai” without kinship or status implication), it can underclaim the letter’s force — a reader may hear “brother” as mere polite address rather than a hierarchy-dissolving theological claim. برادری is a live, socially loaded caste/clan-kinship term (see §3) and must be avoided as a gloss for ἀδελφός. برابری (equality) does not appear as a term Paul himself uses, but the doctrine requires it; there is a risk of either importing a modern egalitarian-rights framing foreign to the text, or under-translating and letting the hierarchy quietly stand unchallenged. | Use بھائی/بھائی محبوب consistently for ἀδελφός/ἀγαπητός (already fixed in the glossary), but require accompanying teaching notes (not lexical substitution) at v.16 explicitly stating that “brother” here names a real change of legal-social standing (“no longer as a slave”), not only affectionate address. Use شریک/رفیق for κοινωνός (v.17) as the concrete, actionable equality-term, since it is verb-adjacent to a real social act (receiving into one’s home/table) rather than an abstract noun. Do not introduce برابری as a standalone doctrinal label; let the narrative sequence (بھائی → شریک → قبول کرنا) carry the doctrine instead of a single abstract noun. |
| Slavery and the Gospel’s Transforming Power | غلام/غلامی (ghulam/ghulami, baseline slavery term); آزاد کرنا (azad karna, “to free/manumit”); خدمت گار/نوکر (khidmatgar/naukar, “servant” — see §3) | غلامی is accurate for the literal Greco-Roman institution but arrives in Urdu already carrying a distinct, still-live Islamic legal-ethical framework (regulated slavery historically permitted under specific conditions, manumission commended as a virtuous act, e.g. Qur’an 24:33, 90:13) that differs structurally from the letter’s own first-century Roman legal context. There is no existing Urdu term that names “Greco-Roman chattel slavery, specifically” as distinct from the reader’s own inherited category of “slavery in Islamic law and history” — the word does double duty for two different legal-historical systems the reader may not automatically distinguish. آزاد کرنا/manumission language is available but Paul never actually uses it explicitly (see the ranked ambiguity in §5, item 1) — a translation temptation exists to add a manumission demand the text only implies. | Retain غلام/غلامی (already fixed by baseline) but require a mandatory contextual footnote at first occurrence (v.16) naming the Greco-Roman institution specifically and distinguishing Paul’s transformed-relationship strategy (change the relationship without immediately abolishing the structure) from both a modern abolitionist reading and an Islamic-jurisprudence manumission reading — presenting Paul’s move as its own historically situated strategy, not as agreement or disagreement with either later framework. Do NOT introduce آزاد کرنا/azadi-language as a rendering choice anywhere the Greek does not require it (see §5 ranked ambiguity #1); where English study material speaks of “possibly hinting at freedom,” render as implication/suggestion, never a lexical certainty. |
| Intercession and Appeal on Behalf of Another | منت سماجت کرنا (mint samajat karna, “to entreat/beseech” — already fixed for the entreaty branch of παρακαλέω); شفاعت (shafa’at, baseline High-risk intercession term); سفارش (sifarish, “recommendation/advocacy on someone’s behalf” — a live, everyday South Asian social-patronage term) | شفاعت is the baseline’s reserved term for Christ’s/the Spirit’s mediatorial intercession (Romans 8:26, 34) and carries genuine Islamic-theology adjacency (Muhammad’s intercession at judgment); using it for Paul’s purely human, relational, non-atoning appeal on Onesimus’s behalf would wrongly elevate Paul’s request to quasi-mediatorial status. سفارش is linguistically tempting (it is the ordinary Urdu word for exactly this social act — one person using personal standing to plead another’s case with someone in authority) but its very naturalness is a risk: سفارش in contemporary Urdu usage often carries a connotation of favoritism, nepotism, or bypassing due process (recommending someone get a job, get out of trouble, etc. through connections) — a morally ambiguous shade Paul’s appeal does not share, since Paul recommends transformed relationship, not a favor obtained through pull/influence. | Keep منت سماجت کرتا ہوں (already fixed) as the primary rendering for Paul’s appeal-verb (vv.9–10); reserve شفاعت strictly for Christ’s/Spirit’s mediatorial intercession per the baseline, never for Paul’s request here. سفارش may be used sparingly and only in explanatory/teaching material (not the base translated text) to help a reader recognize the social shape of what Paul is doing, paired with an explicit note that Paul’s appeal, unlike ordinary sifarish, seeks no favor bypassing justice — he offers to personally absorb the cost (v.18), rather than asking Philemon to overlook a debt through mere personal connection. |
| Grace-Motivated Obedience | فضل (baseline grace term); رضامندی/دل کی خوشی سے (voluntary, already fixed); مجبوری (compulsion, already fixed); حکم دینا (command, already fixed); فرمانبرداری (obedience, already fixed, standalone sense) | The doctrine’s core is a contrast pair (compelled vs. voluntary) plus a substitution of category (command replaced by love/appeal) — Urdu has adequate individual words for each element, but no single existing phrase captures the compound claim (“obedience that is real obedience precisely because it was not commanded”). There is a live risk that فرمانبرداری, appearing standalone in v.21 without its usual ایمان-qualifier, will be read by teachers/reviewers as a compressed reference to the baseline’s full “obedience of faith” doctrine (Romans 1:5), importing justification-adjacent weight into what is here simply Philemon’s personal compliance with a friend’s costly request. | Maintain the fixed four-term cluster (فضل / مجبوری / رضامندی / فرمانبرداری / حکم دینا) but require they always be taught as a connected argument-chain in sequence (I could command → I appeal in love instead → so that your goodness is voluntary, not forced → and yet I have confidence you will obey) rather than as five independent glossary entries. Insert an explicit disambiguating note at v.21 distinguishing this standalone فرمانبرداری (obedience to a personal, relational request) from the baseline’s compound ایمان کی فرمانبرداری (obedience flowing from justifying faith toward God) every time v.21 is taught alongside Romans 1:5/16:26 material in the same curriculum. |
3. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
3.1 Missing Vocabulary (no adequate existing Urdu term)
| Concept | Why no adequate term exists | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| A single word for “forensic debt-transfer to a willing substitute” (ἐλλογάω, v.18) | Urdu commercial vocabulary (کھاتے میں لکھنا, حساب میں ڈالنا) names ordinary bookkeeping, not the specific legal-fiction act of one party voluntarily assuming a debt not their own for another’s benefit; no single noun/verb captures both the technical-accounting picture and its theological substitution overtone simultaneously. | Retain the descriptive phrase میرے کھاتے میں لکھ لینا / میرے حساب میں ڈال دینا (already fixed) and treat the typological link to imputed righteousness (baseline: منسوب راستبازی) as a teaching note, not a lexical merger — do not attempt to coin or borrow a single new term; the phrase-level solution already adopted is correct and should not be shortened. |
| A neutral term for “runaway slave” that is tactful rather than blunt or legally loaded | Urdu has direct terms for a runaway/absconder (فراری, بھگوڑا) that carry a criminal/fugitive connotation stronger than Paul’s own carefully euphemistic Greek (χωρίζω passive, “was separated”). Using a blunt fugitive-term would editorialize where Paul himself is deliberately indirect. | Retain جدا ہوا (“was separated/parted,” already fixed, passive construction) and explicitly forbid فراری/بھگوڑا as renderings, preserving Paul’s own tact as a model for how the letter voices Forgiveness and Reconciliation pastorally (cf. §2 above). |
| A term for “spiritual son via evangelistic fathering” that is fully insulated from Sonship-of-Christ vocabulary | Urdu Christian usage does draw on باپ/بیٹا family language for spiritual mentorship (a genuine, positive point of contact), but the verb گناہ [sic — گو، جننا/beget] shares root territory with the exact begetting-language the baseline treats as this Language Package’s single most explosive doctrinal collision point (Qur’an 112:3). No fully separate verb exists in Urdu for “spiritually fathered a convert” that shares zero morphological or conceptual space with “begotten.” | Accept the shared-root risk as unavoidable (structurally identical to the baseline’s own treatment of رسول, روح القدس, مسیح as genuinely shared, unavoidable vocabulary) and manage it entirely through mandatory annotation rather than lexical avoidance: every occurrence of روحانی باپ بننا / ایمان میں جنم دیا (v.10) must carry a note distinguishing Paul’s entirely metaphorical, replicable spiritual fathering from Christ’s unique, non-metaphorical, eternal Sonship. This is not a gap to be closed by finding a better word; it is a collision to be fenced by teaching. |
3.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (competing existing terms that must be fenced)
| Term / concept | Competing neighbors in Urdu | Fencing required |
|---|---|---|
| بھائی (brother, ἀδελφός) | برادری (biradari — a specific, socially load-bearing South Asian kinship/clan-and-caste network term, often invoked precisely to enforce status distinctions and marriage/social boundaries between groups); familial بھائی in an honorific-but-empty everyday sense (any acquaintance) | Fence: never use برادری as a gloss or explanatory synonym for ἀδελφός in this letter — it would import exactly the boundary-maintaining social logic Paul’s usage dismantles. Fence the everyday-honorific drift by pairing بھائی with explicit “brother in the Lord” / “brother اپنی حیثیت کے مطابق نہیں بلکہ مسیح میں” framing at v.16 specifically, so the term is not heard as generic courtesy. |
| غلام/غلامی (slave/slavery, δοῦλος) | خدمت گار/نوکر (khidmatgar/naukar — ordinary paid-domestic-servant vocabulary, a live and socially normalized household relationship in South Asian contexts, structurally different from chattel slavery); Islamic legal-historical غلامی (regulated bondage with manumission as virtue, distinct historical-legal system, see §2) | Fence in two directions: (1) never allow غلام to drift toward خدمت گار/نوکر, which would understate the letter’s actual legal stakes (Onesimus was legally owned property, not a paid employee); (2) never allow غلام to be read as making a claim about, agreeing with, or condemning Islamic legal tradition’s own treatment of slavery, which is a separate historical-legal system the text is not addressing. Both fences require footnote-level intervention, not lexical substitution. |
| شفاعت (intercession, baseline Christ/Spirit term) vs. منت سماجت کرنا (Paul’s appeal) | سفارش (patronage-favor request, see §2); دعا (ordinary prayer) | Fence: شفاعت is reserved exclusively for Christ’s/the Spirit’s mediatorial work per the baseline; Paul’s appeal in Philemon must never borrow this word even loosely, to avoid implying Paul functions as a mediator between Philemon and God. منت سماجت کرنا stays lexically distinct and lower in register — a fellow believer pleading, not a divine intercessor interceding. |
| فرمانبرداری (obedience, standalone, v.21) | ایمان کی فرمانبرداری (baseline compound, “obedience of faith,” Romans 1:5/16:26); اطاعت (itaat — a strongly Islamic-register word for obedience to religious/legal authority, e.g. obedience to Allah, the Prophet, or a wali/pir, frequently used in South Asian Islamic devotional and legal discourse) | Fence: (1) standalone فرمانبرداری in v.21 must be explicitly distinguished, at every co-teaching occurrence, from the baseline’s compound doctrinal phrase, per §2 above; (2) اطاعت must be avoided altogether as an alternative rendering, since its strong association with obedience to religious-legal or spiritual-authority figures (a pir/murshid relationship in South Asian Sufi devotional culture, or obedience within Islamic legal-theological discourse generally) would recast Philemon’s personal compliance with a friend’s request as something closer to religious submission to an authority figure — precisely the register Paul renounces by choosing appeal over command (ἐπιτάσσω). |
| صلح (peace/reconciliation, baseline term) | مصالحت (musalihat — a specifically legal/arbitrated, often tribal or family-council-mediated, formal reconciliation process term, common in South Asian dispute-resolution contexts, e.g. jirga/panchayat-adjacent settlement language) | Fence: do not substitute مصالحت for صلح anywhere in this letter’s reconciliation vocabulary. مصالحت’s association with third-party arbitrated settlement (a jirga/elders’ council brokering peace between two parties, often with an implied balance of concessions on both sides) would misrepresent the letter’s actual structure, in which Paul does not arbitrate a balanced settlement between two equal parties but personally absorbs the entire cost on one side (v.18) while asking the other side for a free, non-negotiated, love-motivated response (v.14, vv.21). |
| مہمان خانہ (guest-lodging, ξενία, v.22) | سرائے (sarai — an inn/caravanserai, a public, commercial lodging-house term with strong South Asian historical/travel-infrastructure connotations) | Fence: مہمان خانہ (private household guest-provision) must not be rendered سرائے, which would wrongly suggest Paul is asking Philemon to book him commercial lodging rather than extending personal hospitality — a small but real loss of the letter’s relational, household-based intimacy. |
4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Item | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Proper names (Philemon, Apphia, Archippus, Onesimus, Epaphras, Aristarchus, Demas) | Transliterate, per established or newly extended Urdu Bible Society forms (فلیمون، افیہ، ارخپس، انیسمس، اپفراس، ارسترخس، دیماس) | Consistent with baseline practice for all proper names (Paul, Timothy, Mark, Luke already established); no paraphrase option exists or is desirable for proper names. |
| ”Onesimus” name-wordplay (vv.10–11, 20: ἄχρηστος/εὔχρηστος/ὀναίμην, all echoing Ὀνήσιμος, “useful”) | Transliterate the name; paraphrase-with-footnote the wordplay — do not attempt a forced Urdu pun | Urdu نکما/کارآمد/فائدہ carry no phonetic echo of انیسمس; forcing an artificial pun would distort meaning to chase sound. Correct strategy is honest paraphrase of sense plus a mandatory translator’s footnote explaining the Greek wordplay at first occurrence (v.11), so the rhetorical device is preserved as information even though it cannot be preserved as wordplay in the target text itself. |
| παρρησία (v.8, “boldness/confidence”) | Paraphrase (دلیری / اعتماد), not transliterate | No transliteration option is meaningful for a common Greek noun with a direct Urdu semantic equivalent; the risk here is register/emphasis (see glossary), not vocabulary availability. |
| πρεσβύτης/πρεσβευτής textual variant (v.9, “old man” / “ambassador”) | Paraphrase primary reading (بزرگ) + mandatory footnote transliteration-gloss of the variant reading (سفیر) | This is a text-critical transparency issue, not a translation-choice issue; both candidate Urdu words are ordinary vocabulary, but the reader/reviewer must be shown the manuscript variant exists rather than have it silently resolved. |
| δέσμιος (“prisoner [of Christ Jesus],” vv.1, 9) | Paraphrase (قیدی) with mandatory retention of the genitive phrase (مسیح یسوع کا قیدی) | Not a transliteration case; the risk is structural (dropping the genitive), not lexical-gap. Flagged here to prevent Phase 2 workers from abbreviating the phrase for brevity. |
| σπλάγχνα (“inmost affections,” vv.7, 12, 20) | Paraphrase (دل) — reject literal anatomical transliteration/calque (آنتیں، جگر) | Already fixed in the glossary; recorded here because it represents a clear case where the literal image (entrails) is culturally unusable in Urdu devotional register and must yield to a functional paraphrase, applied identically across all three occurrences. |
| ἀγάπη / χάρις / χαρίζομαι word-family echo (vv.9, 22) | Paraphrase, engineered to preserve root-echo where possible (محبت for ἀγάπη; بخشنا/بخشش for χαρίζομαι, chosen specifically because بخشنا is Urdu’s own ordinary “forgive/grant” verb and echoes فضل’s grace-register even though it is not etymologically related to فضل) | True transliteration is impossible for common nouns; the decision recorded here is the choice of paraphrase that best preserves an internal cross-reference the plain sense alone would lose. Flag for translator’s note at v.22 per the glossary. |
| κατ᾽ οἶκόν ἐκκλησία (“house church,” v.2) | Paraphrase (گھر کی کلیسیا), building on the already-transliterated کلیسیا | کلیسیا itself is a long-established transliteration (from ekklēsia via Christian Urdu tradition) and is retained; the “house” qualifier is paraphrased rather than transliterated since οἶκος has no equivalent transliteration tradition in Urdu Bible usage. |
| ”Amen”-class transliterated theological proper nouns | No occurrence in Philemon requiring new decision | Noted for completeness per the baseline’s transliteration standards section; Philemon contains no benediction requiring آمین. |
5. Ranked List of This Letter’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities
Ranked by combined doctrinal weight and likelihood of mistranslation given the gaps documented above.
-
Whether Paul is requesting manumission (freedom) or only transformed treatment within continued bondage (vv.15–17, 21). The Greek never states outright “free him”; v.21’s “even more than I say” is the only textual gesture toward something beyond the explicit request, and it is genuinely ambiguous. Given آزادی’s baseline-documented political/apostasy resonance (Galatians Language Package) and the destination culture’s own live Islamic-legal manumission tradition, a translator or teacher tempted to resolve this ambiguity explicitly in either direction — inserting a manumission demand that isn’t textually certain, or flatly denying one to avoid controversy — would distort the text. Highest-priority ambiguity in the letter; mandatory human theologian review, explicit “the text implies but does not state” framing required.
-
ἀδελφός applied to Onesimus (v.16): status-transforming theological claim, or warm social courtesy? Because بھائی is also ordinary polite Urdu address, this is the single highest-probability under-translation risk in the letter — not a wrong word, but a right word read at the wrong intensity. Reviewers must confirm accompanying teaching material (not the base text) makes the status-claim explicit.
-
σάρξ in v.16 (“according to the flesh”) mistakenly assimilated to the Galatians sinful-nature sense of جسم/flesh. Already flagged in the glossary (جسمانی طور پر vs. bare جسم) but ranked high here because this letter and Galatians will likely be studied in the same curriculum sequence, raising real cross-contamination risk between two distinct senses of the same Greek word.
-
γεννάω (v.10, “I have begotten him”) echoing Sonship-of-Christ begetting vocabulary. Lower likelihood of confusion than items 1–3 (context makes the metaphor clear on a careful reading) but maximal doctrinal severity if missed, given this Language Package’s documented treatment of “begets/begotten” as its single most explosive collision point. Ranked here rather than higher only because the surrounding context (a personal letter about a specific individual) makes accidental conflation less probable than items 1–3, not because the stakes are lower.
-
ἐλλογάω / the v.18 accounting metaphor being flattened into vague forgiveness language, losing the substitution structure. Risk is a missed opportunity rather than a doctrinal error as such — if flattened, no false doctrine is taught, but a uniquely low-friction, non-crucifixion-dependent teaching picture of substitutionary atonement is lost. Ranked Medium-high because of its constructive teaching value in a Language Package otherwise dominated by high-friction crucifixion/resurrection-adjacent vocabulary.
-
ἀνάγκη/ἑκούσιον (v.14) being heard as a general critique of religious law/duty rather than a specific claim about this one relational decision. Risk of unintended overlap with the baseline’s separately-flagged شریعت/law-as-obligation caution; low probability but would, if it occurred, drag an unrelated doctrine (Law and Grace) into a letter that does not raise it.
-
παρρησία/ἐπιτάσσω (v.8) rendered with insufficient rhetorical contrast against παρακαλῶ (v.9–10), collapsing “I could command but I appeal instead” into flat, undifferentiated instructional register. Risk is stylistic/rhetorical rather than doctrinal in the narrow sense, but the letter’s entire argument for Grace-Motivated Obedience depends on the contrast surviving translation.
-
πρεσβύτης/πρεσβευτής (v.9) textual variant resolved silently without a footnote. Lowest doctrinal stakes on this list (either reading serves the same rhetorical function, self-humbling), but flagged as a transparency/process risk: silently picking one reading misrepresents the underlying textual situation to reviewers rather than misrepresenting a doctrine to readers.
6. Summary for Phase 2 Handoff
- No entirely new theological category requires invention; Urdu’s existing Christian-Bible-tradition vocabulary, extended with the Philemon-specific terms already logged in
08_core_glossary.mdand the provisionalbible_term_registry.json, is sufficient. - The letter’s dominant translation risk class is social-institutional collision (slavery, kinship/brotherhood, patronage-appeal, household hospitality) rather than doctrinal negation (the dominant Romans/Galatians risk class) — Phase 2 review routing should weight native-speaker social-context review at least as heavily as theologian doctrinal review for this book, alongside the doctrinally Critical/High items already flagged (γεννάω, δοῦλος, κοινωνός, ἐλλογάω, ἀνάγκη/ἑκούσιον).
- Every fencing requirement in §3.2 should be implemented as translator/reviewer annotation and footnote discipline, not as a search for alternative lexical items — the correct Urdu words already exist and are fixed; the risk lies in unflagged neighboring words intruding, not in the chosen words themselves being wrong.