CafeTran

Since stemming will introduce vagueness and also will lose important information (at least with languages that have grammatical cases), I decided to add alternative forms via a macro. Since you're on Windows, you can use AutoHotkey to create such a macro for your source language.

It's not as complicated as it sounds.

If it's really true what DeepL suggests, you can use only one target language term: fare l'abitudine. And it that case you can indeed write all source terms in one line.

If not, you'll have to write them in different lines:

to go to school

to visit school

to finish school

to leave school

andare a scuola

visitare la scuola

finire la scuola

lasciare la scuola

The simplest form of the macro would copy the first source term, add a semicolon after it and paste the source term. You can then alter the second source term.

A more sophisticated approach would recognise the verb and add source terms with conjugated verbs: make, makes, making.

You can add the conjugated forms from your knowledge of the source language, or you can harvest them:

Gives:

he had been making

he had made

he has been making

he has made

he is making

he made

he makes

he was making

he will be making

he will have been making

he will have made

he will make

he would be making

he would have been making

he would have made

he would make

I am making

I had been making

I had made

I have been making

I have made

I make

I was making

I will/shall be making

I will/shall have been making

I will/shall have made

I will/shall make

I would/should be making

I would/should have been making

I would/should have made

I would/should make

I made

they are making

they had been making

they had made

they have been making

they have made

they made

they make

they were making

they will be making

they will have been making

they will have made

they will make

they would be making

they would have been making

they would have made

they would make

we are making

we had been making

we had made

we have been making

we have made

we made

we make

we were making

we will/shall be making

we will/shall have been making

we will/shall have made

we will/shall make

we would/should be making

we would/should have been making

we would/should have made

we would/should make

you are making

you are making

you had been making

you had been making

you had made

you had made

you have been making

you have been making

you have made

you have made

you made

you made

you make

you make

you were making

you were making

you will be making

you will be making

you will have been making

you will have been making

you will have made

you will have made

you will make

you will make

you would be making

you would be making

you would have been making

you would have been making

you would have made

you would have made

you would make

you would make

Gives:

am

are

be

been

had

has

have

he

I

is

made

make

makes

making

shall

should

they

was

we

were

will

would

you

Gives:

made

make

makes

making

The extraction of the conjugated verb forms can be automated too (quite simple to achieve).

Demo:

Thanks for your detailed replies!

My glossary already features a single target term in Italian, and I don't mind if I have to edit it according to the source text - I use the glossary only to get a suggestion. In other words, I don't need a 1:1 correspondence between single source variations and target terms, as long as I get a match from the glossary.

I just wanted to understand if there is a way to replace the lengthy, multiple entries "make a habit;makes a habit;made a habit;making a habit " with a simplified expression taking into account different suffixes/endings:

Is there a suitable solution in this case?

Many thanks!

This way...?

Is the option "trim new term end" what I am looking for?

Thank you.

*? = zero or more times.

+? = one or more times.

@Igor, I am not sure I am getting their meaning - can you please provide me with an example?

--

And if you add the expression to a dedicated regex glossary, you can omit the pipe.

@alwayslockyourbike does this imply, then, that I can use expressions starting with "|" inside my regular glossary (i.e. this glossary will feature both "simple" terms and terms containing regular expressions)?

--

Thank you both, guys!