In a message dated 4/19/2006 2:51:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

The  confusion over "inserted" and "formed" embedded passives is why I
had long  advocated using the term "integrated" for what we now call
"formed" and  "embedded" for "inserted".  But, too late now!


Well, the Japanese got involved - at the JISSO level where I  first heard
about this.  Sometimes they are better at English than we  are.  Anyway, they
were the ones who coined the "formed" and "inserted"  names.  I always worried
about the closeness of the names integrated and  integral, so I have tried to
stay away from having those mean different  things.  How do you handle the
nomenclature in your books?

Denny