Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Maxperson]

It's a little box that contains important writings to the lich. Getting everything correct is not a requirement of appropriation. In fact, it misses that bad appropriation makes such mistakes all the time.

Arcane sigils. Not important writings.

Except that the most commonly-used version is still referencing the Tefillin.

And THIS is where the appropriation is happening. The word is Tefillin. Not phylactery. If you want to fight the appropriation fight, start campaigning to remove the definition in phylactery that refers to anything Jewish. The English speakers have appropriated our word and renamed it.

It's not happening in D&D which doesn't use that definition. And as I pointed out, Jews don't use phylactery. They use Tefillin.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Arcane sigils. Not important writings.

The idea that an exact copy is needed is an unnecessarily high bar. The reference was already made. It doesn't need to be perfect to know what it is. If a game uses a holy cross without having Jesus Christ in the setting, that doesn't automatically mean it isn't aping Christian imagery.

And THIS is where the appropriation is happening. The word is Tefillin. Not phylactery. If you want to fight the appropriation fight, start campaigning to remove the definition in phylactery that refers to anything Jewish. The English speakers have appropriated our word and renamed it.

It's not happening in D&D which doesn't use that definition. And as I pointed out, Jews don't use phylactery. They use Tefillin.

I've already talked about this. Phylactery is not the word the Jewish people use, but it is what non-Hebrew speakers would likely use, especially in writings. It's the same as synagogue, which is not a Jewish word but almost exclusively refers to Jewish temples now. If you want to flood the zone, find new material. Don't just retread stuff we've already talked about.

 

[Maxperson]

The idea that an exact copy is needed is an unnecessarily high bar. The reference was already made. It doesn't need to be perfect to know what it is. If a game uses a holy cross without having Jesus Christ in the setting, that doesn't automatically mean it isn't aping Christian imagery.

I'd settle for close. It's not close.

I've already talked about this. Phylactery is not the word the Jewish people use, but it is what non-Hebrew speakers would likely use, especially in writings.

So it's an appropriation of our word. This is the fight you should be engaging in.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'd settle for close. It's not close.

It's close enough that multiple articles, people, and even Paizo recognize it as such. That you personally don't recognize it doesn't stop other people from seeing it.

So it's an appropriation of our word. This is the fight you should be engaging in.

It's closer to a translation of your word, but if you want to call it an appropriation, fine. What's to fight?

Not all appropriation is necessarily bad. I've said this multiple times and you don't seem to get that. Are you against using the word synagogue as well? Probably not. This whole line of argumentation comes off as a bad-faith distraction.

 

[Irlo]

Deleted.

 

[Cadence]

Arcane sigils. Not important writings.

And THIS is where the appropriation is happening. The word is Tefillin. Not phylactery. If you want to fight the appropriation fight, start campaigning to remove the definition in phylactery that refers to anything Jewish. The English speakers have appropriated our word and renamed it.

It's not happening in D&D which doesn't use that definition. And as I pointed out, Jews don't use phylactery. They use Tefillin.

As has been noted above several times, phylactery has seemingly had tefillin as it's primary definition in English since it was first used in the language 500+ years ago. That's a bit of history to overturn - but why not try if it annoys? I'm curious what the different kinds of changing it or push back would come from the various groups that translate the bible.

Anyway, this turned up googling it https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/Phylacteries(HTR).pdf and some argue it wasn't meant to mean that at all, while others seemingly used it with that meaning as far back as the second century.

 

[Maxperson]

It's closer to a translation of your word, but if you want to call it an appropriation, fine. What's to fight?

It's a misappropriation of our word. And it's NOT an appropriate translation at all. Phylactery means protective device or amulet. A Tefillin isn't either of those things. Fight the good fight and get the Tefflin removed from the phylactery definition.

 

[Justice and Rule]

It's a misappropriation of our word. And it's NOT an appropriate translation at all. Phylactery means protective device or amulet. A Tefillin isn't either of those things. Fight the good fight and get the Tefflin removed from the phylactery definition.

Synagogue means "a place of assembly". Is it a misappropriation as well?

 

[Maxperson]

As has been noted above several times, phylactery has seemingly had tefillin as it's primary definition in English since it was first used in the language 500+ years ago.

Then it's about time for that misappropriation to end.

I'm curious what the different kinds of changing it or push back would come from the various groups that translate the bible.

Anyway, this turned up googling it https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/Phylacteries(HTR).pdf and some argue it wasn't meant to mean that at all.

See, this supports my position. Rather than engage in an act of appropriation by Paizo in removing the word phylactery, they should step up and fight it by acknowledging that the Tefillin is not a phylactery.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Then it's about time for that misappropriation to end.

See, this supports my position. Rather than engage in an act of appropriation by Paizo in removing the word phylactery, they should step up and fight it by acknowledging that the Tefillin is not a phylactery.

Or just stop calling it a phylactery, since continuing to call it a phylactery but saying not a Tefillin not only doesn't change the reference, but continues promoting the word.

Seriously, we've gone from "Phylactery is not an appropriation" to "We need to change the dictionary definition of phylactery, that's the real problem". If there were a better example of how D&D players are just fundamentally opposed to even minor change, I couldn't think of one.