Minor things that please you

[PColumbus73]

Well the word 'unpleasable' does exist in current English usage --

The word we are looking for is impleasable

[Max Rockatansky]

Well the word 'unpleasable' does exist in current English usage --

The word we are looking for is impleasable

Funny how that word changed much akin when that group of eight alleged malefactors mysteriously dropped to just six. 

[kphoger]

The word we are looking for is impleasable

I remain unplussed.

[GaryV]

The word we are looking for is impleasable

I remain unplussed.

Is there something we can do to help you plus yourself?

[PColumbus73]

Well the word 'unpleasable' does exist in current English usage --

The word we are looking for is impleasable

Funny how that word changed much akin when that group of eight alleged malefactors mysteriously dropped to just six. 

I hope he revises his very detailed reports he's been giving to Alex

[hotdogPi]

I think the last three pages of this thread (for those of you using default settings) should be exlocated to a new thread.

[PColumbus73]

I think the last three pages of this thread (for those of you using default settings) should be exlocated to a new thread.

That would be very impleasing.

[kkt]

So, I guess you can't.
Then I don't believe you.
You made up the word 'impleasable'.
The capsule stands.

Here comes the Forum Police Department: Grammar Division
Department of Language Policing Harming Internet Nonsense... if you will

Well the word 'unpleasable' does exist in current English usage --
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/unpleasable_adj

Of course "Unpleasable" is a familiar word.  "Unpleasable" isn't the word we're arguing about.  I see the OED doesn't even list "impleasable" as an alternate spelling...

[PColumbus73]

I think the last three pages of this thread (for those of you using default settings) should be exlocated to a new thread.

That would be very impleasing.

Actually, can we merge all the locked threads and creative snips into a singular locked thread? It would give me impleasable dolphin giggles.

[GaryV]

No thread closure please. This is almost as much fun as responding to the old P13.

[Beltway]

The links you've provided are to the 1655 edition. The passage I cited is from the 1656 edition, which is not textually identical. Early‑modern editions often differ in wording, pagination, and even chapter structure. A phrase that appears in one issue or impression will not necessarily appear in another.
If you want to locate the passage in the specific 1656 digitization you're using, I'll need the correct scan of that edition. Once we're looking at the same copy, I can map the phrase to the corresponding leaf.

But surely the phrase that you're referencing has to have some relatively similar version in the edition from the previous year. If you get a different printing of Harry Potter, they don't just change the sentence "Harry is a wizard" to "Harry gets in pillow fights".

That analogy doesn't really apply to early‑modern printing. The 1655 and 1656 Fullers are not modern reprints of a stabilized text; they are different issues with variant wording, variant chapter structure, and non‑trivial compositorial differences. It is completely normal for a sentence to appear in one issue and not in another.

If you want to locate the specific phrase in the 1656 edition, we need to be looking at the same digitization of that edition. The 1655 scan linked is a different text.

[Max Rockatansky]

No thread closure please. This is almost as much fun as responding to the old P13.

This turn in the thread in a very minor way is a thing that pleases me.  It gives me some form of entertainment on an otherwise very slow office day. 

[Beltway]

I tried probably a dozen different search strings before giving up—variations and partial words picked from your supposed quote, no dice.  I realize that the word choice might be different between the 1655 and 1656 editions, but I can't even find the phrase at all.  For all I know, you totally made it up.

At this point we're still not looking at the same text. The links you've provided are to the 1655 edition, and the phrase I cited is from the 1656 edition. Those two issues are not textually identical, and the chapter structure is not guaranteed to match between them, so a chapter heading in 1656 won't reliably map onto a chapter heading in 1655.

If you want to corroborate the passage, we need to be working from the same 1656 digitization. Once the correct scan of that edition is identified, I can point you to the exact leaf. Without matching the edition and the digitization, the phrase won't appear no matter how many search strings you try.

[Max Rockatansky]

Beltway seems to be big on defending his takes even when they are fully indefensible.  It sure seems to me like a lot of effort versus just admitting he was wrong.  Is this an ego thing?  This all seems to have been a common theme in all his recent troubles. 

What makes it more hilarious is that nobody would remember this exchange if he would have ignored the relatively minor dig kkt made in the first place. This wild goose chase he's sent us on with a single passage within a single book is just the gift that keeps on giving.

The capsule must stand no matter the collateral cost. 

[kkt]

The links you've provided are to the 1655 edition. The passage I cited is from the 1656 edition, which is not textually identical. Early‑modern editions often differ in wording, pagination, and even chapter structure. A phrase that appears in one issue or impression will not necessarily appear in another.
If you want to locate the passage in the specific 1656 digitization you're using, I'll need the correct scan of that edition. Once we're looking at the same copy, I can map the phrase to the corresponding leaf.

But surely the phrase that you're referencing has to have some relatively similar version in the edition from the previous year. If you get a different printing of Harry Potter, they don't just change the sentence "Harry is a wizard" to "Harry gets in pillow fights".

That analogy doesn't really apply to early‑modern printing. The 1655 and 1656 Fullers are not modern reprints of a stabilized text; they are different issues with variant wording, variant chapter structure, and non‑trivial compositorial differences. It is completely normal for a sentence to appear in one issue and not in another.

If you want to locate the specific phrase in the 1656 edition, we need to be looking at the same digitization of that edition. The 1655 scan linked is a different text.

It's YOUR claim.  Why don't YOU locate an edition that has that word and then provide a citation to it, including the page number.

[JayhawkCO]

I tried probably a dozen different search strings before giving up—variations and partial words picked from your supposed quote, no dice.  I realize that the word choice might be different between the 1655 and 1656 editions, but I can't even find the phrase at all.  For all I know, you totally made it up.

At this point we're still not looking at the same text. The links you've provided are to the 1655 edition, and the phrase I cited is from the 1656 edition. Those two issues are not textually identical, and the chapter structure is not guaranteed to match between them, so a chapter heading in 1656 won't reliably map onto a chapter heading in 1655.

If you want to corroborate the passage, we need to be working from the same 1656 digitization. Once the correct scan of that edition is identified, I can point you to the exact leaf. Without matching the edition and the digitization, the phrase won't appear no matter how many search strings you try.

Those who make extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're the one that is making the claim; you show us.

Edit - Beat to it. This impleases me.

[1995hoo]

There are differences between Harry Potter editions if you compare the original versions to the American text. The most famous difference is, of course, the use of "sorcerer's stone" in the American version of the first book, but there are various other changes. Most of them involve words the editors felt the American audience wouldn't recognize, such as "jumper" (the American text uses "sweater").

[Beltway]

No thread closure please. This is almost as much fun as responding to the old P13.

This turn in the thread in a very minor way is a thing that pleases me.  It gives me some form of entertainment on an otherwise very slow office day. 

Nothing here that violates forum rules in an Off Topic thread.

ObH: A 1975 PA Turnpike map that had huge lettered "Eighth Wonder of the World" on the cover.

[kphoger]

But surely the phrase that you're referencing has to have some relatively similar version in the edition from the previous year. If you get a different printing of Harry Potter, they don't just change the sentence "Harry is a wizard" to "Harry gets in pillow fights".

Indeed, but language was a more fluid thing back then, and a lot of what were considered normal liberties taken with the text would be inexcusable nowadays.

Kozel mentioned chapter numbers not lining up between editions.  And, indeed, that's a minor thing that bothers me about reading ancient texts.  It's especially frustrating when I'm trying to evaluate a translation from, say, Greek or Latin into English, but the reference given for the original doesn't line up with whatever source text I find online.

Heck, sometimes the name of the book doesn't even match from one edition to another.

As for spelling and hyphenation, which he also mentioned, here's something I posted a few years ago:

For example, in William Tyndale's ca. 1530 translation of the book of Jonah, the word "afraid" is hyphenated thus:
afra-
yed

You can see it in the bottom two lines of the passage shown below.  I've also outlined an example of the same word (ship) spelled two different ways within just two verses.

[Beltway]

That analogy doesn't really apply to early‑modern printing. The 1655 and 1656 Fullers are not modern reprints of a stabilized text; they are different issues with variant wording, variant chapter structure, and non‑trivial compositorial differences. It is completely normal for a sentence to appear in one issue and not in another.
If you want to locate the specific phrase in the 1656 edition, we need to be looking at the same digitization of that edition. The 1655 scan linked is a different text.

It's YOUR claim.  Why don't YOU locate an edition that has that word and then provide a citation to it, including the page number.

The alleged non-existence of the word was someone else's claim.

Those who make extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're the one that is making the claim; you show us.

The only "extraordinary" element here is the assumption that a word must be invented simply because it doesn't appear in the 1655 edition or in the specific digitization someone else linked. Early‑modern texts vary by issue, impression, and scan, so wording differences between the 1655 and 1656 editions are normal.

My claim was simply that the phrase appears in the 1656 edition I consulted. The claim that the word does not exist came from others, based on searching a different edition. Once the correct 1656 digitization is identified, I can point to the exact leaf.

[kphoger]

... the phrase I cited is from the 1656 edition.

So are you looking at a hard copy, or what?  Because you haven't linked to anything related to the 1656 edition at all.

[PColumbus73]

... the phrase I cited is from the 1656 edition.

So are you looking at a hard copy, or what?  Because you haven't linked to anything related to the 1656 edition at all.

Dolphins ate my Medieval texts

[JayhawkCO]

My claim was simply that the phrase appears in the 1656 edition I consulted.

Which AI chatbot did you consult it with? Or did you just grab it off the coffee table?

[Beltway]

... the phrase I cited is from the 1656 edition.

So are you looking at a hard copy, or what?  Because you haven't linked to anything related to the 1656 edition at all.

I'm working from a different 1656 digitization than the one linked earlier. Early‑modern editions often survive in multiple copies with variant pagination, missing leaves, or different scan sequences, so a page number is only meaningful once both people are looking at the same copy.

Early‑modern English isn't Old English, but it's still far enough removed from modern usage that spelling, vocabulary, and even syntactic choices can look unfamiliar today. That's why wording can vary significantly between issues of the same work, and why a phrase that appears in one 17th‑century edition won't necessarily appear in another.

The underlying point remains the same: to locate the passage, we need to be looking at the same 1656 digitization.

[kphoger]

The alleged non-existence of the word was someone else's claim.

You claimed that it's an archaic form.  But you can't back up that claim.

I could claim that innonymous is an archaic form of anonymous, but it would be up to me to prove it.