When I’m creating a LingQ on a term, particularly on irregular verbs, I ask to myself what about the other verb forms as infinitive, present continuos, past, etc. Should those related terms be created as different LingQs?
Certainly, not only with verbs, given that most terms belongs to a family.
would make sense for a LingQ term to have (appart from Hint and Phrase)
a ‘Related’ field?
Example: legalized
Hint: made legal, made lawful
Phrase: We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed
significantly to recent crime reductions.
Related: legal,legality,illegally //whatever the user fills in.
// not necessary the same root??
This could also be accompanied by “Highlight LingQs related” checkbox (near the current “Highlight LingQs”) in the WorkDesk, to highlight terms when they were indentified as ‘related’ to a LingQ. Perhaps in another color, like blue, to let the user know this condition.
We encourage users to save every form of the words they encounter from the context in which they find them. When you see legal, save it. When you see legalized, save it. The captured phrases will be different. The way these words is used is different in every case. When you review your words in alphabetical order you will find these words together. You can review them together there and compare. You can Flash Card them if you want. You can tag them if you want.
We feel that the present system is flexible and applicable to many languages. However, we are collecting ideas so that when we go back to refining the system in the future, we can look at additional functionality. I think we will have sound on the flash cards before we look at the kind of refinement you are suggesting here.
It is important to try to make the present system work before trying to change it. I do appreciate your enthusiasm and ideas, nevertheless.
I agree, that kind of list might seem very interesting as a curiosity, or if you are specially interested in legal terms, but doesn’t help too much in general fluency.