i don't see the point to put "immanent", "inherent" or "necessary" synonym to "integral". "to constitute a whole" means to be core of something, although not exclusively. "Immanent" in contrast means a property or part which is not-intended part of a whole, but not necessarily the core. greetz, andi

btw...first entry :)

11.12.08 20:26 GMT+1 — This comment was unsigned.

Welcome. Synonyms rarely are exact matches. A thesaurus includes a grouping of words that are somewhat similar. My 5th edition of Roget's has 1073 major categories, with perhaps ten subdivisions for each (50,000). This compares with more than half a million words, idioms, etc., many of which have multiple meanings (1.5-2 each), for a total exceeding 750,000. If Roget's scheme the thesaurus's cverage were complete, subdivisions would have 15 entries on average. As you know there are usually not fifteen words that mean exactly the same thing (excepting some words relating to drugs, sex, certain body parts, and intoxication).

That said, you're probably right about these synonyms. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Integral, in Spanish, as in "pan integral" means, roughly, "whole grain bread".--Islandmania 21:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am wondering if anyone has encountered this alternate spelling and how much support exists for it? For example it was used a week ago here, as well as in several periodicals:

• SABIC, King Saud University sign agreement: "Plastic and plastic products are an intergral part of modern industrial processes and thier development in the Kingdom would be a boon to the local industry. "
• Risk management: lighting's impact on residents: Integral element - What must we do to ensure that lighting is considered an intergral element for achieving a healthy environment? (probably a typo here)
• Cricket: Brad news as Parker leaves North: He said: "Brad has been an intergral part of what Northumberland has achieved over the past few years, so it is sad it has come to an end."

Maybe it's just a really common typo, is it supported with enough frequency to be an alternate? Etym (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

No level of frequency will make it an alternative form, but it certainly is common enough for a {{misspelling of}} entry. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply