Rainbow & Parabola (was NP)

[jbor]

on 24/7/04 9:40 AM, jbor wrote:

> And, of
> course, a rainbow is neither a parable nor a parabola.

I guess there is a faint possibility that Pynchon, an undergraduate physics
major and missile specialist at Boeing, in retitling his novel (it was
originally going to be called "mindless pleasures", cf. GR 270, 681) didn't
realise that a rainbow isn't a parabola, or that he was working on the
principle that "near enough is good enough".

The only way to equate the trajectory of a projectile under the force of
gravity with the arc of a rainbow is via the rhetorical scheme (or trope) of
Parabola, defined as a "resemblance mystical" (Puttenham, _The Arte of
English Poesy_, 1569), and thus as a function of language and communication
(some might say intersubjectivity, or poetic licence, or "transformation",
or even "spin").

Another point to note is that a rainbow is an optical effect experienced by
a viewer, and that it is always therefore dependent upon the individual
viewer's vantage and perception.

best

> 
> While it's true that both terms ("parable" and "parabola") in their various
> different meanings or contexts do derive from the same Greek word (parabole)
> they are not the same words at all (it's like saying "pasta" and "paste" are
> the same words -- beware the vermicelli at that dinner table!) And, of course,
> a rainbow is neither a parable nor a parabola.
> 
> http://www.etymonline.com/p2etym.htm
> 
> best