Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1879151" data-attributes="member: 10201">No, it doesn't. It's not a shift in usage--if anything, using "errata" to refer to errors without known/accompanying corrections is the shift. Errata used to only refer to a compilation of errors. In both definitions you quote, errata refers to the errors. Note that the dictionary.com definition specifically says that it is the errors in a compiled list of errors and their corrections that are the errata. There may well be support for the usage of "errata" to refer to corrections. However, neither of the dictionaries you quoted, nor any dictionary i've looked at (quite a few in the last few weeks, due to this specific topic), accepts "errata" as referring to the corrections to the errors--at the most expansive, it might refer to errors that have known corrections (whether those corrections are included or not).   And, no, i don't know why this particular one is bugging me so much. I usually just smile and nod when people use the completely wrong word and i know what they mean. I suppose this one was flagged for me because of the discussion about WotC initially planning on not correcting errata, and thus it actually not being clear whether the ad copy that bragged about "including errata" meant the mistakes had been left in or corrected.</blockquote>