Minor things that please you

[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.

Dolphins ate my Medieval texts

You ate a chicken fat sandwich.

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.

But the meaning would not be obvious.

"Impleasable" has built-in clear meaning.

[kphoger]

I'm working from a different 1656 digitization than the one linked earlier.

Cool.  How are you accessing that?  CD-ROM?  Or is it online?  If it's online, then please link to it so I can see for myself.  Or heck, take a picture with your phone, text it to your e-mail address, upload it to an image hosting site, and then link to that image.

[PColumbus73]

You ate a chicken fat sandwich.

Prove it.

[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. 

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.

I don't recall insinuating that rules were being violated.  I also don't have any incentive to dissuade or discourage you from whatever your angle is with this "impleasable" stuff. 

[JayhawkCO]

... 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.

So have you provided that digitization?

[Scott5114]

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.

Beltway in one thread?

[1995hoo]

I'm finding it impracticable to sort through all the implacable commentary in this thread.

[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.

But the meaning would not be obvious.

"Impleasable" has built-in clear meaning.

1.  Yes it would.
2.  What does that have to do with anything?

I take it, from the fact that you have still neither stated how you're accessing this supposedly digitized 1656 edition nor provided one shred of proof that the word impleasable is in there, that you actually (1) invented the word, (2) used AI to find an archaic use of it, (3) trusted the AI results without verifying, and then (4) lied about it.

[Scott5114]

I take it, from the fact that you have still neither stated how you're accessing this supposedly digitized 1656 edition nor provided one shred of proof that the word impleasable is in there, that you actually (1) invented the word, (2) used AI to find an archaic use of it, (3) trusted the AI results without verifying, and then (4) lied about it.

And this man wants us to trust him about his dolphin opinions.

[Max Rockatansky]

I take it, from the fact that you have still neither stated how you're accessing this supposedly digitized 1656 edition nor provided one shred of proof that the word impleasable is in there, that you actually (1) invented the word, (2) used AI to find an archaic use of it, (3) trusted the AI results without verifying, and then (4) lied about it.

And this man wants us to trust him about his dolphin opinions.

This usually when he starts bringing up his resume.  It couldn't have been that he got caught in a bad opinion about the Key Bridge replacement and just didn't know when back down.

[PColumbus73]

I take it, from the fact that you have still neither stated how you're accessing this supposedly digitized 1656 edition nor provided one shred of proof that the word impleasable is in there, that you actually (1) invented the word, (2) used AI to find an archaic use of it, (3) trusted the AI results without verifying, and then (4) lied about it.

And this man wants us to trust him about his dolphin opinions.

This usually when he starts bringing up his resume.  It couldn't have been that he got caught in a bad opinion about the Key Bridge replacement and just didn't know when back down.

He certainly bristled when I suggested the dolphins ate his research

[JayhawkCO]

I'm beginning to think that these digitizations are at his Canadian supermodel girlfriend's house.

[formulanone]

This thread is a great example of how not to use a shovel.

[exeunts]

[Beltway]

I take it, from the fact that you have still neither stated how you're accessing this supposedly digitized 1656 edition nor provided one shred of proof that the word impleasable is in there, that you actually (1) invented the word, (2) used AI to find an archaic use of it, (3) trusted the AI results without verifying, and then (4) lied about it.

And this man wants us to trust him about his dolphin opinions.

This usually when he starts bringing up his resume.  It couldn't have been that he got caught in a bad opinion about the Key Bridge replacement and just didn't know when back down.

I'm not sure why this has turned into a discussion about résumés. The only thing I've been addressing here is a narrow textual point about matching editions and digitizations. The rest of the commentary is coming from others, not from me.

If someone wants to debate the actual citation question, I'm happy to stay on that topic. The personality sidebars aren't something I'm interested in.

You ate a chicken fat sandwich.

Prove it.

And drank a glass of Ipecac to wash it down.

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.

But the meaning would not be obvious.
"Impleasable" has built-in clear meaning.

1.  Yes it would.
2.  What does that have to do with anything?
I take it, from the fact that you have still neither stated how you're accessing this supposedly digitized 1656 edition nor provided one shred of proof that the word impleasable is in there, that you actually (1) invented the word, (2) used AI to find an archaic use of it, (3) trusted the AI results without verifying, and then (4) lied about it.

That's a fairly elaborate narrative built entirely out of guesses about what I supposedly did and why. I'm not going to try to "disprove" a sequence of events you've imagined in my head; there's no way to win that kind of game.

The narrow points are these:
1. "Impleasable" is a morphologically transparent English formation, and its meaning in context is obvious to any modern reader, whether or not one can produce a 17th‑century compositor using that exact spelling.
2. Early‑modern texts differ between issues, impressions, and digitizations, so the absence of a form from one EEBO copy or one scan is not, by itself, proof that no such form was ever printed anywhere.
3. If and when I have a clean, citable scan match for the exact phrase in the 1656 edition I consulted, I'll post it. Until then, anyone is free to treat "impleasable" as either an attested archaism or a perfectly intelligible nonce formation. It doesn't change the substance of the point I was making.

If you want to keep doing psychoanalysis and AI fan‑fic about my motives, that's your prerogative. I'd rather stick to the textual point or move on to the actual topic of the thread.

[Max Rockatansky]

All you have to get out of being raked across the coals about impleasable is one of two things:

1.  Admit you are either wrong and/or lying..
2.  Actually prove your citation. 

And yes, your so-called hobby resume IMO has come into question.  You want to be taken seriously but have done pretty much everything possible to destroy your reputation as someone credible in recent months.

[PColumbus73]

You ate a chicken fat sandwich.

Prove it.

And drank a glass of Ipecac to wash it down.

Prove it.

[Molandfreak]

I take it, from the fact that you have still neither stated how you're accessing this supposedly digitized 1656 edition nor provided one shred of proof that the word impleasable is in there, that you actually (1) invented the word, (2) used AI to find an archaic use of it, (3) trusted the AI results without verifying, and then (4) lied about it.

And this man wants us to trust him about his dolphin opinions.

This usually when he starts bringing up his resume.  It couldn't have been that he got caught in a bad opinion about the Key Bridge replacement and just didn't know when back down.

I'm not sure why this has turned into a discussion about résumés. The only thing I've been addressing here is a narrow textual point about matching editions and digitizations. The rest of the commentary is coming from others, not from me.

If someone wants to debate the actual citation question, I'm happy to stay on that topic. The personality sidebars aren't something I'm interested in.

You ate a chicken fat sandwich.

Prove it.

And drank a glass of Ipecac to wash it down.

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.

But the meaning would not be obvious.
"Impleasable" has built-in clear meaning.

1.  Yes it would.
2.  What does that have to do with anything?
I take it, from the fact that you have still neither stated how you're accessing this supposedly digitized 1656 edition nor provided one shred of proof that the word impleasable is in there, that you actually (1) invented the word, (2) used AI to find an archaic use of it, (3) trusted the AI results without verifying, and then (4) lied about it.

That's a fairly elaborate narrative built entirely out of guesses about what I supposedly did and why. I'm not going to try to "disprove" a sequence of events you've imagined in my head; there's no way to win that kind of game.

The narrow points are these:
1. "Impleasable" is a morphologically transparent English formation, and its meaning in context is obvious to any modern reader, whether or not one can produce a 17th‑century compositor using that exact spelling.
2. Early‑modern texts differ between issues, impressions, and digitizations, so the absence of a form from one EEBO copy or one scan is not, by itself, proof that no such form was ever printed anywhere.
3. If and when I have a clean, citable scan match for the exact phrase in the 1656 edition I consulted, I'll post it. Until then, anyone is free to treat "impleasable" as either an attested archaism or a perfectly intelligible nonce formation. It doesn't change the substance of the point I was making.

If you want to keep doing psychoanalysis and AI fan‑fic about my motives, that's your prerogative. I'd rather stick to the textual point or move on to the actual topic of the thread.

1. AFAIK, nobody said that it wasn't intelligible.

2. Have you considered that people might just be responding simply because you're taking this line of conversation way too seriously in a thread that's meant to be fun, meaning you're simply an easy target to dunk on?

[Beltway]

All you have to get out of being raked across the coals about impleasable is one of two things:
1.  Admit you are either wrong and/or lying..
2.  Actually prove your citation. 
And yes, your so-called hobby resume IMO has come into question.  You want to be taken seriously but have done pretty much everything possible to destroy your reputation as someone credible in recent months.

People keep trying to fold unrelated topics together -- the Key Bridge discussion, the wording dispute here, and various assumptions about my motives or credibility. These are separate issues.

On the Key Bridge, I've been making narrow, sourced points about clearance, span geometry, funding structure, engineering questions, governance questions, and the engineering timeline. People are free to disagree with those points, but disagreement doesn't retroactively turn every other conversation into a referendum on my character.

On the "impleasable" question, the only factual issue is that different editions and digitizations of early‑modern texts don't always match. That's a technical matter, not a moral one.

If someone wants to debate the engineering or the textual scholarship, I'm happy to stay on those topics. The broader personal assertions aren't something I'm going to treat as meaningful arguments.

[Dirt Roads]

The phrase "an impleaſable spirit, never satisfied with any accommodation" appears ... not in the EEBO/Thomason scan that was linked earlier.

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

Sorry to add to the chaos, but this all reminds me of the strange and unique use of words with the prefix "im-" in Central West Virginia.  The Central West Virginia dialect (referred to locally as "Mountain Languedge") that my parents grew up with (and that I impose uponst you'uns occassionally) is quite unique, even compared with the Coalfields dialect in Southern West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, Southwestern Virginia, and far-East Tennessee. Old-timers there commonly tack on the "im-" prefix when trying to state the opposite of a common word, and even moreso, they are completely fixated on uncommon words starting with the "con-" prefix.   

For the record, there are only three words starting with the prefix "im-" in the Dictionary of Southern Appalachian English by Michael B. Montgomery and Jennifer K. N. Heinmiller (2005).  Also,  is heavily influenced by the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible (1611), and there are only nine words starting with the prefix "im-" in that older KJV Bible.  There are many more "Mountain Languedge" words using the "im-" prefix, some of which hail from Early Modern English (i.e. "impunity/impunitie" and "impetuous").

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.

Going off-track here.  Another fascinating thing about Central West Virginia dialect is the fairly consistent usage of different "spellings" (ergo, pronunciations written in dialect form), or different pronunciations of words with the same spelling.  Same thing goes with whether the pausal "a-/uh-" sound gets tacked on to the verb (i.e. "a-fixin' tuh") or the adverb (i.e. "they will uh-never get over it").  (This always gets tacked on to verbs in other Appalachia dialect areas).

In the example above, there is a different spelling of the word "shepp" based on its usage.  My impression from the study of Appalachian Dialect is that the "sheppe" spelling is changed due to the placement of the adjective after the noun (ergo, "sheppe ready" instead of a less-common "ready shepp").  Of course, there is the possibility that there is an intended schwa vowel sound in "sheppe" prior to the R sound in "ready".

In Central West Virginia, there is a consistent use of the definite article "the" (pronounced "thie") versus the semi-definite article "thuh"; another is the consistent use of plural exclusive "you'uns" (common in Southern accents) as compared to the plural inclusive "you'ins" (same as "yuinz" in Pittsburghese, which in this case is another form of Appalachian dialect).

[Beltway]

If you want to keep doing psychoanalysis and AI fan‑fic about my motives, that's your prerogative. I'd rather stick to the textual point or move on to the actual topic of the thread.

1. AFAIK, nobody said that it wasn't intelligible.
2. Have you considered that people might just be responding simply because you're taking this line of conversation way too seriously in a thread that's meant to be fun, meaning you're simply an easy target to dunk on?

I'm not taking anything more seriously than the topic itself. If people want to treat it as a dunk‑fest, that's their choice. I'm just engaging the way I always do -- following the argument where it goes and enjoying the discussion on its own terms.

I'm engaging the thread the way Off Topic usually works -- a mix of actual discussion and a bit of dry fun. If people want to treat it as a dunk competition, that's their choice. I'm just enjoying the ride.

[Max Rockatansky]

So basically, you can't prove own citation but don't want to be called a liar.

You also got caught cherry-picking (some might say fabricating narratives) data in all of those Key Bridge threads.  Those instances in addition to stuff like impleasable are why you aren't a credible source.  I tend to see the Key Bridge stuff as you weren't expecting to be challenged and ultimately you couldn't convincingly back up the things you said.

As an example back when I uncovered that US 66 didn't end at 7th and Broadway in Los Angeles I put it on our highway page.  A lot of people challenged what I had to say and asked for citations.  I was able to give them exactly what they asked for from AASHO, the Division of Highways and Los Angeles city council.

If you want credibility, start by putting the work in.  Perhaps beginning here with "impleasable" would be a good opportunity to show you are actually someone credible.  Maybe you once put in effort to the things you say.  As far as I can tell you want to coast on your reputation from the MTR era.

[Beltway]

So basically, you can't prove own citation but don't want to be called a liar.
You also got caught cherry-picking (some might say fabricating narratives) data in all of those Key Bridge threads.  Those instances in addition to stuff like impleasable are why you aren't a credible source.  I tend to see the Key Bridge stuff as you weren't expecting to be challenged and ultimately you couldn't convincingly back up the things you said.
As an example back when I uncovered that US 66 didn't end at 7th and Broadway in Los Angeles I put it on our highway page.  A lot of people challenged what I had to say and asked for citations.  I was able to give them exactly what they asked for from AASHO, the Division of Highways and Los Angeles city council.
If you want credibility, start by putting the work in.  Perhaps beginning here with "impleasable" would be a good opportunity to show you are actually someone credible.  Maybe you once put in effort to the things you say.  As far as I can tell you want to coast on your reputation from the MTR era.

You've now repeated the same set of claims across several posts, but the volume doesn't change the underlying facts. The Key Bridge discussions were technical disagreements, not moral ones, and this thread is about a seventeenth‑century wording question. Folding all of that together into a single narrative about my credibility doesn't make the arguments any stronger.

If you want to talk about the engineering issues, I'm happy to do that in the appropriate thread. If you want to talk about the textual issue, I'm happy to stay on that topic here. What I'm not going to do is treat cross‑thread personal commentary as if it were evidence.

[Max Rockatansky]

Want credibility?  Start by backing up the claim you made here.  You ought be to be clamoring to be objectively correct rather than this dancing around you're doing.

[Scott5114]

People keep trying to fold unrelated topics together -- the Key Bridge discussion, the wording dispute here, and various assumptions about my motives or credibility. These are separate issues.

It's almost as if they all involve you, and therefore all of them affect others' opinions of you and your character. Wow.

[kkt]

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.

You claimed it was a word.  As you know it is a big problem to prove a negative, but easy to prove existence with an example.