Hi all,
Very quick question, is there any errata released by Pazio for the various products? I am obviously used to reams from WotC, and I saw an errata thread about the campaign guide.
So, unless Paizo are perfect, where can I get the errata from?
Cheers
M1.9P
Umm bump :-)
Paizo's customer service hours are Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time, so that's probably why you haven't got an official answer yet. I'm sure someone will come along soon and give you an official answer, but, as far as I know, the messageboards are the best place to go for any errata from the editorial staff.
|
Hi all,
Very quick question, is there any errata released by Pazio for the various products? I am obviously used to reams from WotC, and I saw an errata thread about the campaign guide.
So, unless Paizo are perfect, where can I get the errata from?
Cheers
M1.9P
Erratas are hopefully something we will see in the future, but at this time Paizo does not release erratas for their products.
|
Erratas are hopefully something we will see in the future, but at this time Paizo does not release erratas for their products.
That said, if you look for the "(GM Reference)" thread for the book in question (most have them) the editors usually weigh in on what the intent was, or answer other questions about the products there
Erratas
Ouch! That's like saying "dices" as a plural for "dice". ;-P
Ouch! That's like saying "dices" as a plural for "dice". ;-P
Erratas
Eratti?
Thanks for the replies guys, as an ex-aviator I am very 'retentive' about keeping my publications up to date ;-)
Ouch! That's like saying "dices" as a plural for "dice". ;-P
Erratas
Eratti?
No. Errata. It's already plural. Singular is erratum.
|
No. Errata. It's already plural. Singular is erratum.Ouch! That's like saying "dices" as a plural for "dice". ;-P
Erratas
Eratti?
If only the English language were that simple. "Erratas" is an accepted English word when it is a pluralization of the alternate definition of "errata", which refers to a list of errors, which is the context in which it was used by Dragnmoon.
ERRATA is originally the plural of the singular Latin noun erratum. Like many such borrowed nouns (agenda; candelabra), it came by the mid-17th century to be used as a singular noun, meaning “a list of errors or corrections to be made (in a book).” Despite objections by some to this singular use, it is common in standard English: The errata begins on page 237. When ERRATA clearly means “errors,” it takes plural verbs and pronouns: Although errata were frequent in the first printing, most of them were corrected in subsequent printings. As a singular noun, ERRATA has developed an English plural form ERRATAS, which is rarely used.
If only the English language were that simple. "Erratas" is an accepted English word when it is a pluralization of the alternate definition of "errata", which refers to a list of errors, which is the context in which it was used by Dragnmoon.
I forbid anyone to use this. I forbid. It just isn't done. !
;-)
|
|
If only the English language were that simple. "Erratas" is an accepted English word when it is a pluralization of the alternate definition of "errata", which refers to a list of errors, which is the context in which it was used by Dragnmoon.I forbid anyone to use this. I forbid. It just isn't done. !
;-)
Denied!
So lets hope that in the future Paizo will find the time to release erratas for thier future and past products. ;-)
No. Errata. It's already plural. Singular is erratum.
Twas a joke Dude! :-p
If you correct my gramma, she'll swat you with a rolled-up newspaper.
Grammas are incorrectible, anyway.
Mine recently said about her neighbour's heirs that when it comes to money, they're all like hygienes. (She meant hyenas).
Grammas are incorrectible, anyway.
Incorrigible, you mean. :)
|
No. Errata. It's already plural. Singular is erratum.Ouch! That's like saying "dices" as a plural for "dice". ;-P
Erratas
Eratti?
If only the English language were that simple. "Erratas" is an accepted English word when it is a pluralization of the alternate definition of "errata", which refers to a list of errors, which is the context in which it was used by Dragnmoon.
ERRATA is originally the plural of the singular Latin noun erratum. Like many such borrowed nouns (agenda; candelabra), it came by the mid-17th century to be used as a singular noun, meaning “a list of errors or corrections to be made (in a book).” Despite objections by some to this singular use, it is common in standard English: The errata begins on page 237. When ERRATA clearly means “errors,” it takes plural verbs and pronouns: Although errata were frequent in the first printing, most of them were corrected in subsequent printings. As a singular noun, ERRATA has developed an English plural form ERRATAS, which is rarely used.
If only life was that simple! You quoted Dictionary.com and if you check the sources it uses they are all American, whereas you have quoted the word "Engish". The official source for English is the Oxford English Dictionary, which it doesn't use as a source, so your arguement is flawed. You might as well have quoted Wikipedia! ;-)
|
|
If only life was that simple! You quoted Dictionary.com and if you check the sources it uses they are all American, whereas you have quoted the word "Engish". The official source for English is the Oxford English Dictionary, which it doesn't use as a source, so your arguement is flawed. You might as well have quoted Wikipedia! ;-)No. Errata. It's already plural. Singular is erratum.Ouch! That's like saying "dices" as a plural for "dice". ;-P
Erratas
Eratti?
If only the English language were that simple. "Erratas" is an accepted English word when it is a pluralization of the alternate definition of "errata", which refers to a list of errors, which is the context in which it was used by Dragnmoon.
ERRATA is originally the plural of the singular Latin noun erratum. Like many such borrowed nouns (agenda; candelabra), it came by the mid-17th century to be used as a singular noun, meaning “a list of errors or corrections to be made (in a book).” Despite objections by some to this singular use, it is common in standard English: The errata begins on page 237. When ERRATA clearly means “errors,” it takes plural verbs and pronouns: Although errata were frequent in the first printing, most of them were corrected in subsequent printings. As a singular noun, ERRATA has developed an English plural form ERRATAS, which is rarely used.
Well Since I am American... The use of Erratas still stands!
|
|
Well Since I am American... The use of Erratas still stands!If only life was that simple! You quoted Dictionary.com and if you check the sources it uses they are all American, whereas you have quoted the word "Engish". The official source for English is the Oxford English Dictionary, which it doesn't use as a source, so your arguement is flawed. You might as well have quoted Wikipedia! ;-)No. Errata. It's already plural. Singular is erratum.Ouch! That's like saying "dices" as a plural for "dice". ;-P
Erratas
Eratti?
If only the English language were that simple. "Erratas" is an accepted English word when it is a pluralization of the alternate definition of "errata", which refers to a list of errors, which is the context in which it was used by Dragnmoon.
ERRATA is originally the plural of the singular Latin noun erratum. Like many such borrowed nouns (agenda; candelabra), it came by the mid-17th century to be used as a singular noun, meaning “a list of errors or corrections to be made (in a book).” Despite objections by some to this singular use, it is common in standard English: The errata begins on page 237. When ERRATA clearly means “errors,” it takes plural verbs and pronouns: Although errata were frequent in the first printing, most of them were corrected in subsequent printings. As a singular noun, ERRATA has developed an English plural form ERRATAS, which is rarely used.
Lol - I'm not doubting its use in American, in fact I wasn't necessarily doubting the use at all. Simply the source quoted and the original post quoted "English". :-)
Grammas are incorrectible, anyway.Incorrigible, you mean. :)
Nah. I never corriged anyone in my life!
|
|
Lol - I'm not doubting its use in American, in fact I wasn't necessarily doubting the use at all. Simply the source quoted and the original post quoted "English". :-)Well Since I am American... The use of Erratas still stands!If only life was that simple! You quoted Dictionary.com and if you check the sources it uses they are all American, whereas you have quoted the word "Engish". The official source for English is the Oxford English Dictionary, which it doesn't use as a source, so your arguement is flawed. You might as well have quoted Wikipedia! ;-)No. Errata. It's already plural. Singular is erratum.Ouch! That's like saying "dices" as a plural for "dice". ;-P
Erratas
Eratti?
If only the English language were that simple. "Erratas" is an accepted English word when it is a pluralization of the alternate definition of "errata", which refers to a list of errors, which is the context in which it was used by Dragnmoon.
ERRATA is originally the plural of the singular Latin noun erratum. Like many such borrowed nouns (agenda; candelabra), it came by the mid-17th century to be used as a singular noun, meaning “a list of errors or corrections to be made (in a book).” Despite objections by some to this singular use, it is common in standard English: The errata begins on page 237. When ERRATA clearly means “errors,” it takes plural verbs and pronouns: Although errata were frequent in the first printing, most of them were corrected in subsequent printings. As a singular noun, ERRATA has developed an English plural form ERRATAS, which is rarely used.
Sadly, the Oxford English Dictionary appears to have avoided the question entirely.
• noun (pl. errata) 1 an error in printing or writing. 2 (errata) a list of corrected errors added to a publication.
They concede in the second definition that ERRATA can be used as a singular noun, but decline to reveal what the plural of said usage would be.