Minor things that please you

[Scott5114]

I know lots of talk about AI generated content, but I find it interesting the amount of carriage returns in your response. No word-wrap for you.

Heh.  Every day at work, I copy-and-paste a bunch of text from multiple accounts from one MSO's program into a local Excel sheet.  On each, I delete all the line breaks and replace them with spaces.  For some reason, the extra line breaks don't bother me as much on this forum.

For some reason, there is nothing more maddening to me than the task of having to delete a bunch of line breaks from something. I usually paste them in to Kate, enable escape sequences in find-and-replace, and have it delete all occurrences of \n that way.

[kphoger]

For some reason, there is nothing more maddening to me than the task of having to delete a bunch of line breaks from something. I usually paste them in to Kate, enable escape sequences in find-and-replace, and have it delete all occurrences of \n that way.

In my own context, it's [Delete][Space][End][Delete][Space][End][Delete][Space][End]...

So, fortunately, I can get a good rhythm going.

[Scott5114]

For some reason, there is nothing more maddening to me than the task of having to delete a bunch of line breaks from something. I usually paste them in to Kate, enable escape sequences in find-and-replace, and have it delete all occurrences of \n that way.

In my own context, it's [Delete][Space][End][Delete][Space][End][Delete][Space][End]...

So, fortunately, I can get a good rhythm going.

Yes, but because of my mental condition doing anything that repetitive and monotonous would feel like pure mental torture.

I had a supervisor once who would delete all her emails in Outlook by tapping down-delete-down-delete over and over. I asked her why she didn't just hit Ctrl+A and delete them all at once. She said she liked doing it that way better. I don't get it.

[CoreySamson]

On the music theme...

My dog consistently drinks water from his bowl in a 7/8 rhythm for some reason.

[Beltway]

Here are the links to the page‑image scans:
• Fuller (1656): https://archive.org/details/churchhistoryofb01full/
• Dunton (1710): https://archive.org/details/dublinscuffle00dunt/
You have to read the page images directly — the OCR layer won't catch it.

Do you have page numbers, by chance?  The links just use your cache to displaying whichever page you were last looking at.

That's why I pointed to the page‑image editions rather than giving a modern search string. The word appears in the original printings as "impleaſable" (with the long‑s), but you have to read the page images directly because the OCR layer is incomplete.

But that's just it.  Those links do not point to a specific page.  If you clear your cache, then they'll just point you to the title page.  If you don't clear your cache, then they'll take you to whichever page you were last looking at.
But they are scans of actual paper pages, with page numbers at the top.  Can you let me know what those page numbers are?

It is hard to demonstrate something to someone who is being impleasable.

[kphoger]

It is hard to demonstrate something to someone who is being impleasable.

You made that word up.

[Beltway]

It is hard to demonstrate something to someone who is being impleasable.

You made that word up.

You're asking for a modern page reference for a word whose surviving uses are in 16th–17th century texts that were never indexed that way.

The word exists; the tidy citation format you're asking for doesn't.

[kphoger]

1656 -- Thomas Fuller, The Church-History of Britain: "an impleasable spirit, never satisfied with any accommodation."

You're asking for a modern page reference for a word whose surviving uses are in 16th–17th century texts that were never indexed that way.

The word exists; the tidy citation format you're asking for doesn't.

The reason I'm insistent is that, of the two sources you linked to, only one of them apparently has online text to verify.  And I can't find the phrase you quoted anywhere in it.  And I didn't give up after coming up empty the first time, but rather searched for strings that don't include the letter s at all.  The search finds 13 instances of "with any" but none of them are what you quoted.  There is one instance of "accommodation", and it isn't either.  Between those two searches, that should eliminate any funny business about line breaks or hyphenation.

Basically, you're saying it's in a book, but you can't tell me what page it's on, you can't link to it, and I'm unable to confirm your assertion at all.  I'm just supposed to take your word for it.  For all I know, you pulled a random book title out of your butt.

[JayhawkCO]

The reason I'm insistent is that, of the two sources you linked to, only one of them apparently has online text to verify.  And I can't find the phrase you quoted anywhere in it.  And I didn't give up after coming up empty the first time, but rather searched for strings that don't include the letter s at all.  The search finds 13 instances of "with any" but none of them are what you quoted.  There is one instance of "accommodation", and it isn't either.  Between those two searches, that should eliminate any funny business about line breaks or hyphenation.

Basically, you're saying it's in a book, but you can't tell me what page it's on, you can't link to it, and I'm unable to confirm your assertion at all.  I'm just supposed to take your word for it.  For all I know, you pulled a random book title out of your butt.

Can you find examples if the word 'impleasable' in a written work prior to 1920?

I tried pretty hard to turn up pre-1920 instances of the exact spelling "impleasable" (quoted-string searches aimed at Google Books / Archive / Hathi-style scans), and I didn't find any reliably dated written works before 1920 that use it.

What I did find:

Modern vocabulary/mnemonic materials use "IMPLEASABLE" as a memory aid for implacable (i.e., "can't be pleased/appeased"), not as a standard dictionary headword.
mnemonicdictionary.com
+1

A Scribd-hosted text contains the phrase "vinegary, impleasable temperament" (so the spelling does appear in at least one circulating text), but the page I could access didn't provide publication details that would let me verify it's pre-1920.
Scribd

Why you may be running into a dead end

Major dictionaries I checked define implacable (attested back to Middle English/Latin roots), but that's a different word; "impleasable" itself doesn't show up as an established entry there, which is consistent with it being either a rare nonce spelling or a typo/OCR artifact.
Merriam-Webster
+1

Practical next steps (if your real goal is "the idea in old texts")

Search for "implacable" (common, and historically attested) rather than impleasable.
Merriam-Webster

Also try "unpleasable" / "not to be pleased" / "unappeasable", since "impleasable" looks like it's trying to mean "not pleasable."

If you have a suspected title/author where you think you saw it, tell me what it is—I can then try targeted searches around that edition/scan and see whether "impleasable" is original print or OCR noise.

If you want, paste the snippet (or where you encountered "impleasable"), and I'll try to trace it to a scan with a clear publication date and page image.

Can you check "1656 -- Thomas Fuller, The Church-History of Britain"

I checked the EEBO (Early English Books Online) full-text transcription of Thomas Fuller's The church-history of Britain... (published 1655, i.e., the first edition that's often the basis for later 1656-attributed references).
Quod Lib.
+1

Result for "impleasable" in Fuller

A direct search for impleasable in that EEBO full text returns no occurrences.
Quod Lib.

I also attempted partial-string searching (e.g., impleas...) and did not see it appear as a substring in the transcription view.
Quod Lib.

What this likely means

"impleasable" is probably not a real historical spelling in this work—most likely it's a misreading/typo for "implacable" (or occasionally "unpleasable," which is a gloss sometimes given for implacable in later vocabulary lists, not necessarily an original spelling).
Wiktionary
+1

How to double-check the exact "1656" claim

If your reference specifically says 1656, it may be pointing to a different printing or a catalog record. The safest verification is to check the page images (not just the keyed transcription), because odd spellings can come from OCR/transcription differences. The EEBO item page provides a "Search this text" function and navigation to sections/pages.
Quod Lib.

About "examples prior to 1920"

I tried broader web searching for the exact string "impleasable" and didn't turn up credible pre-1920 printed examples—what showed up instead was modern dictionary/vocab material around implacable.
Wiktionary
+1

If you want, paste the exact quote (or the page/section you're looking at), and I can help locate the word that's actually in the original (often it's implacable or a phrase like "not to be pleased/appeased").

OK. Can you also check "1710 -- John Dunton, The Dublin Scuffle"

Here's what I found when I checked the two specific works you named, using the Early English Books Online (EEBO/TCP) transcriptions (which are keyword-searchable).

1) Thomas Fuller, The Church-History of Britain (1655/1656?)

The EEBO/TCP record for Fuller's The church-history of Britain... lists publication in London, 1655 (not 1656).
Quod Lib.

Searching the EEBO/TCP full text for "impleasable" turns up no matches.
Quod Lib.

Conclusion: In the EEBO/TCP transcription of Fuller's Church-History of Britain, "impleasable" does not appear.
Quod Lib.

2) John Dunton, The Dublin Scuffle (1710?)

The EEBO/TCP record for The Dublin scuffle... lists publication in London, 1699 (not 1710).
Quod Lib.

Searching the EEBO/TCP full text for "impleasable" likewise returns no matches.
Quod Lib.

Conclusion: In the EEBO/TCP transcription of Dunton's The Dublin Scuffle, "impleasable" does not appear.
Quod Lib.

What this suggests (re: "prior to 1920")

In broader web-visible text, "impleasable" overwhelmingly shows up as a modern mnemonic / misspelling (often "sounds like 'impleasable'..." for implacable), rather than as a historical wordform.
Scribd
+1

If you want, I can also try hunting pre-1920 occurrences in digitized 19th-century newspapers/books (where OCR mistakes are common) by checking likely confusions like unpleasable, implacable, im-pleasable, inpleasable, etc.

[Max Rockatansky]

Hey look at that, AI being used to do actual good for a change.  I guess that is a minor thing that pleases me.

[kkt]

Some people are impleasable.

Some people get a thrill out of making up unnecessary words.

Not made up -- just archaic.

I'll believe you, if only you can link to just two uses of the word impleasable in print from before 1920.  Go!

Two pre‑1920 uses? Sure.

1656 -- Thomas Fuller, The Church-History of Britain: "an impleasable spirit, never satisfied with any accommodation."

1710 -- John Dunton, The Dublin Scuffle: "an impleasable temper that no kindness could mollify."

Archaic, yes. Invented? No.

Why I like it -- it condenses into one word the phrase "impossible to please"

English is older than the forum.

The forum dates back to the 8th Century BC, or thereabouts.  This was long, long before anything resembling English developed—and when people living in modern-day Britain were probably speaking some form of Insular Celtic.

If we're counting the Roman Forum, then English is definitely the junior partner.

Fortunately, AARoads doesn't require Latin proficiency. Yet.

That might be a good way to weed out the riff-raff.

[kphoger]

That might be a good way to weed out the riff-raff.

Noli pati a scelestis opprimi.  Seram elevemus.

[Beltway]

The reason I'm insistent is that, of the two sources you linked to, only one of them
[...]

Can you find examples if the word 'impleasable' in a written work prior to 1920?
[...]

The problem isn't the word -- it's the verification method.

EEBO/TCP transcriptions are not authoritative for rare spellings. They normalize type, drop ligatures, mis-handle long‑s, and routinely miss or alter unusual forms. A negative result in a keyed transcription doesn't tell you anything about the original print.

If you want to confirm an odd 17th‑century spelling, you have to check the page‑image facsimile. That's the only layer that reflects what was actually set in type.

So when you say you can't find it in the searchable text, that tells me the transcription didn't capture it -- not that the spelling never existed.

[kphoger]

If you want to confirm an odd 17th‑century spelling, you have to check the page‑image facsimile.

Yep, I'm trying to.  But you won't tell me what page it's on.

[kkt]

The reason I'm insistent is that, of the two sources you linked to, only one of them
[...]

Can you find examples if the word 'impleasable' in a written work prior to 1920?
[...]

The problem isn't the word -- it's the verification method.

EEBO/TCP transcriptions are not authoritative for rare spellings. They normalize type, drop ligatures, mis-handle long‑s, and routinely miss or alter unusual forms. A negative result in a keyed transcription doesn't tell you anything about the original print.

If you want to confirm an odd 17th‑century spelling, you have to check the page‑image facsimile. That's the only layer that reflects what was actually set in type.

So when you say you can't find it in the searchable text, that tells me the transcription didn't capture it -- not that the spelling never existed.

By all means, don't let the lack of evidence change your opinion.

[Beltway]

The reason I'm insistent is that, of the two sources you linked to, only one of them
[...]

Can you find examples if the word 'impleasable' in a written work prior to 1920?
[...]

The problem isn't the word -- it's the verification method.
EEBO/TCP transcriptions are not authoritative for rare spellings. They normalize type, drop ligatures, mis-handle long‑s, and routinely miss or alter unusual forms. A negative result in a keyed transcription doesn't tell you anything about the original print.
If you want to confirm an odd 17th‑century spelling, you have to check the page‑image facsimile. That's the only layer that reflects what was actually set in type.
So when you say you can't find it in the searchable text, that tells me the transcription didn't capture it -- not that the spelling never existed.

By all means, don't let the lack of evidence change your opinion.

It's not a lack of evidence -- it's a lack of reliable evidence.

EEBO/TCP transcriptions aren't authoritative for rare spellings, and a negative result in a keyed transcription isn't proof of absence.

If you want to know what was actually printed, the page‑image facsimile is the only evidentiary layer that counts.

[Molandfreak]

The reason I'm insistent is that, of the two sources you linked to, only one of them
[...]

Can you find examples if the word 'impleasable' in a written work prior to 1920?
[...]

The problem isn't the word -- it's the verification method.
EEBO/TCP transcriptions are not authoritative for rare spellings. They normalize type, drop ligatures, mis-handle long‑s, and routinely miss or alter unusual forms. A negative result in a keyed transcription doesn't tell you anything about the original print.
If you want to confirm an odd 17th‑century spelling, you have to check the page‑image facsimile. That's the only layer that reflects what was actually set in type.
So when you say you can't find it in the searchable text, that tells me the transcription didn't capture it -- not that the spelling never existed.

By all means, don't let the lack of evidence change your opinion.

It's not a lack of evidence -- it's a lack of reliable evidence.

EEBO/TCP transcriptions aren't authoritative for rare spellings, and a negative result in a keyed transcription isn't proof of absence.

If you want to know what was actually printed, the page‑image facsimile is the only evidentiary layer that counts.

How many threads have been locked or "creatively snipped" because of Beltway's behavior in the last couple weeks? Is he being protected from reprimand for this behavior since he's in contact with Alex?

[Scott5114]

If you want to know what was actually printed, the page‑image facsimile is the only evidentiary layer that counts.

He wants to know what page-image facsimile YOU got it from so he can read it himself. Is that actually too hard for you to comprehend?

[Beltway]

How many threads have been locked or "creatively snipped" because of Beltway's behavior in the last couple weeks? Is he being protected from reprimand for this behavior since he's in contact with Alex?

The three Key Bridge threads were locked because --

A concerted effort by about 6 netpolice posters, including government employees, to blow up and shut down any negative discussion about the Baltimore Key Bridge. Note that they engineered the locking of three threads about the bridge. Massive numbers of one-liner posts that add nothing to any discussion. Massive numbers of garbage posts with images and cartoons.

Moderators are not professional communicators, they are volunteers that spend a lot of time in that job. Often the only fast and non-labor-intensive way to slow down a discussion that is out of control -- is to lock the thread -- and those netpolice posters know that.

At least this is my take on it and I will stand on that.

Plus -- this is the Off Topic group -- IOW posters can play around some as long as they don't violate any forum rules.

Plus -- this "impleasable" discussion has been civil and polite.

[Beltway]

If you want to know what was actually printed, the page‑image facsimile is the only evidentiary layer that counts.

He wants to know what page-image facsimile YOU got it from so he can read it himself. Is that actually too hard for you to comprehend?

The spelling appears in the original 17th‑century printings of Fuller (1656) and Dunton (1710). The Archive.org scans don't have stable deep links to specific pages, which is why I pointed to the page‑image editions rather than a modern search string. If you open the facsimile and scroll to the relevant section, you'll see the long‑s form 'impleaſable' in the original type.

[Max Rockatansky]

The reason I'm insistent is that, of the two sources you linked to, only one of them
[...]

Can you find examples if the word 'impleasable' in a written work prior to 1920?
[...]

The problem isn't the word -- it's the verification method.
EEBO/TCP transcriptions are not authoritative for rare spellings. They normalize type, drop ligatures, mis-handle long‑s, and routinely miss or alter unusual forms. A negative result in a keyed transcription doesn't tell you anything about the original print.
If you want to confirm an odd 17th‑century spelling, you have to check the page‑image facsimile. That's the only layer that reflects what was actually set in type.
So when you say you can't find it in the searchable text, that tells me the transcription didn't capture it -- not that the spelling never existed.

By all means, don't let the lack of evidence change your opinion.

It's not a lack of evidence -- it's a lack of reliable evidence.

EEBO/TCP transcriptions aren't authoritative for rare spellings, and a negative result in a keyed transcription isn't proof of absence.

If you want to know what was actually printed, the page‑image facsimile is the only evidentiary layer that counts.

How many threads have been locked or "creatively snipped" because of Beltway's behavior in the last couple weeks? Is he being protected from reprimand for this behavior since he's in contact with Alex?

You probably overestimate how much Alex wants to get involved with the nonsense that goes on with the forum. 

There alap isn't a rule about a user getting called out on something and being incapable of admitting that they were wrong.

[LilianaUwU]

The three Key Bridge threads were locked because --

A concerted effort by about 6 netpolice posters, including government employees, to blow up and shut down any negative discussion about the Baltimore Key Bridge. Note that they engineered the locking of three threads about the bridge. Massive numbers of one-liner posts that add nothing to any discussion. Massive numbers of garbage posts with images and cartoons.

Moderators are not professional communicators, they are volunteers that spend a lot of time in that job. Often the only fast and non-labor-intensive way to slow down a discussion that is out of control -- is to lock the thread -- and those netpolice posters know that.

Fuck, you got me.

[Max Rockatansky]

Anyone want to take a shot at explaining why the number went from eight to six?

[Molandfreak]

Moderators are not professional communicators, they are volunteers that spend a lot of time in that job. Often the only fast and non-labor-intensive way to slow down a discussion that is out of control -- is to lock the thread -- and those netpolice posters know that.

Seems like you took full advantage of this when we dared to discuss a topic you didn't like.

[Scott5114]

If you want to know what was actually printed, the page‑image facsimile is the only evidentiary layer that counts.

He wants to know what page-image facsimile YOU got it from so he can read it himself. Is that actually too hard for you to comprehend?

The spelling appears in the original 17th‑century printings of Fuller (1656) and Dunton (1710). The Archive.org scans don't have stable deep links to specific pages, which is why I pointed to the page‑image editions rather than a modern search string. If you open the facsimile and scroll to the relevant section, you'll see the long‑s form 'impleaſable' in the original type.

We know that there aren't stable deep links. We don't care because it's not relevant to the question.

The book has page numbers. See, look, there they are.


Kyle wants you to look at the page you found "impleasable" on, look in the upper corner of the page it's on, and say the number so he can read the page himself.

Your refusal to do this makes you look like you're either stupid or a liar. If you're neither, you could just say the page number.