IMIPOLEX

[David Simpson]

> calbert wrote:
>
>
> If this is indeed a "free day", how about this in support of MalignD?
>
> Why is it IMI-polex?
>
> Spent a little time with the OED over that yesterday.......there is a
> little of the obvious with a dash of the unlikely......
>
> Imi isn't really a prefix, but functions a little like one. It's presence
> implies "replication" as in "imi-tate", and assuming that the OED is
> exhaustive with respect to the possible uses, the correspondence is
> nearly 100%.
>
> "polex" - there is the obvious connection to "polarity" - but another
> tangent, not entirely unrelated, makes MalignD's hypothesis seem
> "dead on".....
>
> a pole can also be a component part of a "trellis", to wit, a
> supporting structure or form for  "managed" expansion or
> growth.....and doesn't that describe one of the elemental properties
> of the substance? and does this not complement the notion that a
> small amount of IMIPOLEX G could indeed expand to take the shape
> of its host?
>

Huh? This is a crock. First of all, no way "imi" is a prefix. (BTW "imitate" comes
from Gr. mimesis > as in "mime.") Maybe imipolex.com can help. My own guess is that
imipolex is Pynchon's own playful invention -- perhaps a stand-in for the actual
name of some weird trademarked plastic -- silly putty?




--
"A Last Judgment is necessary because fools flourish." -- Wm. Blake.
--
Home Page: http://www.depaul.edu/~dsimpson