I didn't mean to pick on you--yours was just the latest post in an entire thread that insists on using the word wrong. And, really, my tone is sincerely intended not to be hostile on this--though i understand i may be failing. That was not a sarcastic "please" in my post.Ranger REG said:
PHB special edition has corrected errata?
- Thread starter buzz
- Start date
Errata & Corrigenda
Come, come, now, my good people! "Errata" is the list of errors, which usually INCLUDES the corrigenda (or corrections). While it SHOULD, more properly be "Errata & Corrigenda", it is usually abbreviated to "Errata", even if incorrectly.
Obviously, WotC meant "...includes the Errata & Corrigenda", or the list of errors AND CORRECTIONS. (Posting a list of known errors, without corrections, is obviously not something they would advertise!)
So, we know that this edition includes CORRECTIONS to the previous errata. Nothing more to see, here, folks! Move along, move along!
Come, come, now, my good people! "Errata" is the list of errors, which usually INCLUDES the corrigenda (or corrections). While it SHOULD, more properly be "Errata & Corrigenda", it is usually abbreviated to "Errata", even if incorrectly.
Obviously, WotC meant "...includes the Errata & Corrigenda", or the list of errors AND CORRECTIONS. (Posting a list of known errors, without corrections, is obviously not something they would advertise!)
So, we know that this edition includes CORRECTIONS to the previous errata. Nothing more to see, here, folks! Move along, move along!
Right, but once make the corrections in the manuscript, the errors are no longer there. So, there is no "errata" present, even by the sloppy definition where it includes both the errors and teh corrections.Steverooo said:Come, come, now, my good people! "Errata" is the list of errors, which usually INCLUDES the corrigenda (or corrections). While it SHOULD, more properly be "Errata & Corrigenda", it is usually abbreviated to "Errata", even if incorrectly.
Obviously, WotC meant "...includes the Errata & Corrigenda", or the list of errors AND CORRECTIONS. (Posting a list of known errors, without corrections, is obviously not something they would advertise!)
So, we know that this edition includes CORRECTIONS to the previous errata. Nothing more to see, here, folks! Move along, move along!
and, like i said, it was *not* obvious, until someone confirmed, in this particular case: since there had been some talk early on, apparently, of WotC deliberately *not* making any changes, in order to keep it identical to the regular edition, and thus *not* correcting errata. So, while in any other circumstance i would've just automatically assumed that they meant "corrected errata" when they wrote "errata", in this peculiar case, it was just barely conceivable that they were advertising the fact that it was unchanged, specifically by advertising that it still contained the errata. And , bizarre corner cases like this are precisely why misuse of words should be avoided--combine a misused word with an unusual situation or poor grammar, and you no longer are certain as to what the speaker/writer is saying. I did *not* bring this up purely to be a grammar Nazi--i was genuinely unsure (until someone posted that they'd checked some known errors, and found them corrected) what the WotC ad copy meant (even if it was something like 95% certain).
Ranger REG
Explorer
The letter from Bill? You could always pick up those gummy adhesives at an office supply store to affix the letter to the book (the kind Paizo used to stick their maps/goodies in between pages of Dragon/Dungeon magazines).diaglo said:
Tatsukun
Danjin Masutaa
< English professor mode>
Wow, somebody said "most simplest errata" and people yelled at him over the word 'Errata'? Odd, the mistake with the superlative set off my English correction radar. Then again, who cares, it's not like the guy was writing a resume here folks.
</ English professor mode>
As for the book, I am on the proverbial fence about buying it. It looks like it might be cool, but I just can't see shelling out that much money for a book when I already have a copy of it (albeit without all the errata).
I would much prefer WOTC to start selling the old 'dragon skin' leather book covers. I loved those when I was a kid, and have not been able to find them for my 3.5 books.
-Tatsu
Wow, somebody said "most simplest errata" and people yelled at him over the word 'Errata'? Odd, the mistake with the superlative set off my English correction radar. Then again, who cares, it's not like the guy was writing a resume here folks.
</ English professor mode>
As for the book, I am on the proverbial fence about buying it. It looks like it might be cool, but I just can't see shelling out that much money for a book when I already have a copy of it (albeit without all the errata).
I would much prefer WOTC to start selling the old 'dragon skin' leather book covers. I loved those when I was a kid, and have not been able to find them for my 3.5 books.
-Tatsu
Ranger REG
Explorer
I don't recall WotC -- or TSR, for that matter -- having sold any product in old "dragon skin" cover. I do recalled Chessex selling them as book cover (equivalent to my plastic book covers for my yearbooks).Tatsukun said:
It takes some getting used to the "upholstered" feel of the PHB Deluxe.
If you don't want to get the Deluxe, get the Standard Second Printing due out soon.
You know, i went on a rant here about the difference between "improper" and "unclear", and pointed out an instance that is becoming "proper" despite not being clear, but, forget it. (1) it'd probably be preaching to the choir, and (2) it just doesn't matter and (3), unlike the misuse of the word "errata" it is wholly irrelevant to this thread. So i edited it out. Suffice to say that you've made exactly my point: i don't care if your English is proper on a BBS/UseNet/email/blog/whatever, so long as you get your meaning across. Using a word to mean it's antonym, however, has a tendency to impede clarity (unless it's being done sarcastically, or tongue-in-cheek, or in some other manner that makes the true meaning clear).Tatsukun said:
Last edited:
diaglo
Adventurer
Ranger REG said:
i love my Dragonskins from Chessex from years gone by... i think i bought my last ones in 1985 or maybe 1986 for the WSG and DSG... does Chessex still make/sell them? or are they only OoP? i think i saw some on the internet for sale, but i didn't know if they were just old product.
Similar Threads
