Have you read the whole thread? The discussion has already come to the conclusion, that the suggestion in its original form is not going to happen. It goes against the design philosophy of LingQ and considering how many people got annoyed by the fact, that the “paging moves to known” feature is enabled by default, the LingQ staff would be smart not to add a feature that turns blue words to known without the users influence.
It is, btw., not what I have suggested in my earlier posts. And it is not about avoiding dealing with grammar. I for one explicitely study the grammar of the languages I learn and have always advocated for in other discussions, too. So again: Have you read the whole thread? As your reply strongly indicated you haven’t.
Of course we could argue about the meaning of the word “meaning”. At this point, though, I may add that the thread title is unprecise and we are not only talking about verbs. That beeing said, the approach that I suggested allow for both approaches. On, in which the inflection of the word is not considered as part of the semantic and one where it is.
However, all I am writing here has already been written in this thread.
I read it. Your light version idea would put too much computing pressure to the web browser in my opinion. And I wouldn’t like Lingq to put resources into this, sorry.
Why that? Upon lesson creaton the algorithm creating the lesson can check for words that start similar or are similar in a different manner (what’s the best approach is probably language dependent). If the user later on clicks on a blue word, definitions already created for words that were considered similar by the algorithm are presented to the user in addition to the currently displayed ones (including some icon that informs the user about this, similar to how there is an icon to inform the user an definition is ai-generated).
Where do you assume this to become overly resource or computation intensive? And why do you think it would be an issue on the web browsers side? I don’t think the browser is doing a lot of computing here. At least the staff never posted anything that would led me to that assumption.
No need to excuse, I am not trying to convince you. If you don’t consider the approach useful for your personal way of how you are using LingQ, that’s fine. But if you are directly opposing the idea then a bit more argumentation would be useful.