imbedded vs. embedded
- From: "Father Ignatius" <FatherIgnatius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:32:34 +0200
AHD and Chambers give "embedded" as the principal spelling and "imbedded" as
Upon searching http://alt-usage-english.org/ for an article on "imbedded vs.
embedded" I found none, but there was one hit for "imbedded" (by John
Lawler, in http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/infinite.html, which
also includes "embeddings"). There were 5 hits for "embedded" -- three from
John Lawler, one from Jitze Couperus, and one from Mark Israel.
Searching for "embed* imbed*" at a.u.e in Google groups didn't shake out
anything too exciting.
Googling on "imbed*" and "embed*" gives 60+:1 i.f.o. "embed".
So... is "imbed*" vs. "embed*" a pondial thing? A generational thing?
"Imbed*" is an emergent standard use? Why prefer one to the other? Und so
"Not things, but opinions about things, trouble folk."
- Prev by Date: Re: Teatime
- Next by Date: Incurable romantic
- Previous by thread: A question about English usage
- Next by thread: Re: imbedded vs. embedded