Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1882348" data-attributes="member: 10201">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.  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).</blockquote>