On 26/05/06, Dick St.Peters <stpeters(_at_)netheaven(_dot_)com> wrote:
Constantine A. Murenin writes:
> On 26/05/06, Dick St.Peters <stpeters(_at_)netheaven(_dot_)com> wrote:
> > Errata is plural in Latin but it's singular in English according to my
> > Meriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionay, Tenth Edition (1993), which
> > defines it as "a list of corrigenda" or "a page bearing such a list".
>
> If so, then mail the RFC-Editor, and tell them that they're wrong in
> (rightly) thinking that 'errara' is plural:
>
> > In general, we cannot guarantee the correctness of these errata; the reader
must make his/her own judgment.
The same dictionary says that the plural of the English word erratum
is errata. Errata is both singular and plural, so the RFC-Editor's
usage is also correct.
One usage being correct does not imply another usage is wrong.
This is nonsense. 'Errata' is plural, and even Webster online
dictionary says so. Most other dictionaries specifically list it as
plural. Spelling and grammar checkers mark it as plural.
Just because a few people don't know that it's plural, doesn't make it
singular.
End of story.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com