Better handling of multi-word LingQs
planned
Mentioned previously in various posts but let me add this formally as a feature request.
In Vietnamese, and possibly other languages too, a single English word is very often split across 2 or more words in Vietnamese. As an example, the word breakfast translates as bữa sáng. But LingQ currently treats these as 2 independent words rather than a single entity. It's as if in English LingQ were to treat 'break' and 'fast' as 2 disconnected words and supply all the meanings for the 2 individual words but not the combination.
Ideally, two changes are needed to LingQ: First a look-ahead function for each word to see if the word combination ranks higher in frequency than the separate words. If so, to make 'break fast' as the pre-LingQ (ie bữa sáng in Vietnamese) rather than the 2 individual words.
Second, if a LingQ for the word combination is present then LingQ should suppress showing the individual component words in the vocabulary list in page or sentence view. Otherwise the vocab list gets very bloated and cluttered making it difficult to spot the meaning for a particular word.
I suspect that this second feature would be easier to implement than the first. Implementing both would be the perfect solution. But the second feature alone would be real progress.
This post was marked as
planned
Mark Kaufmann
marked this post as
in progress
Mark Kaufmann
marked this post as
under review
Mark Kaufmann
Yes, it would be nice to improve this. We have some ideas and will take your feedback under consideration as well.
Mark Kaufmann
That's an interesting phenomenon for Vietnamese I guess. Not sure how best to deal with that. Since those have been identified as words, our system can't ignore them. Even if we can show the grouping, the separate segments will still be considered words because of the spacing. We will have to think about that.
Mark Kaufmann
With regard to Vietnamese, obviously you can ignore those component words if they aren't real words. Is that a bad solution because there are simply too many component words to ignore?