Vocab item info upgrade (such as verb ‘transitivity’ type)
Verbs currently have a ‘Word Type’, such as ‘る-Verb’, and a ’ 単語の書類’, such as ‘一段動詞’. However, sometimes it’s important to also know what ‘transitivity’ type a verb is.
Some details…
For example, the most common Japanese types for this aspect of a verb are ‘自動詞’ and ‘他動詞’. As a mostly-literal translation, these are ‘self-move verbs’ and ‘other-move verbs’. Although, they are often translated to conform to English’s verb transitivity categories, namely ‘intransitive’ and ‘transitive’. (Cure Dolly has a great video on this topic, advocating for the more-literal interpretation.)
As a workaround, I can just look up a verb online or using a tool like 10ten Japanese Reader (aka Rikaichamp), but as a long-term feature request, I think it would be good for BunPro to eventually include transitivity info for verbs.
Also, other info would be nice, too
And, consider this request also as a placeholder for just ‘more complete information’ about vocab words in general.
Off the top of my head, I’d be interested in things like: Whether the word is ‘usually kana-only’; alternative kanji for the same word; whether a kanji is rare or common or obsolete or whatever; and, for words with the same/similar readings, but with different kanji, whether the different kanji are used to represent different nuances of basically ‘the same’ word (e.g. とめる can use 止, 停, 駐, 留 (basically different nuances), or it can use 泊 (related, but different), or 富 (completely different) ).
But(!), these additional ideas are just off the top of my head, and are not intended to convey any particular urgency or priority. I recognize that most of these kinds of features are already provided by existing dictionaries and lookup tools. Maybe it makes sense for Bunpro to have them too, but then again, maybe it doesn’t. Plus, I’m sure other people would have their own preferences for vocab info.
Summary of main request
But for the first request, ‘transitivity’ type (‘自動詞’ and ‘他動詞’), I think that’s something BP could definitely benefit from including, especially since these types are affected by and influence grammar also.
[I think there’s even a grammar point that asks you to answer with a verb’s ‘transitivity pairing’. Right? ]