Should one leave out the citation-form English definition when an inflected English phrase can be provided?

[aarppe]

This is an overview of some general observations arising from using itwêwina with the fullest features (auto, espt) and what consequences these might have on the existing design.

1. When invoking English translation of Cree words with auto:1, when the Cree word-form can be mapped to an English translation, might one choose to see only the translated phrase(s) rather than the base form lemma? So, just something like this, leaving out the lemma entry entirely:

Or alternatively, leaving out the definition part for the lemma-form, but still providing the lexical information, i.e.

This might require rethinking where the lexical information about inflectional category (and stem) and lemma/citation form are provided.

Of course, if not such mapping can be made from an inflected Cree word form to a corresponding English phrase, then itwêwina could behave as currently.

2. The same would apply when English phrase analysis is used to find an appropriate matching Cree word form (with espt:1), in combination with the matching translation of the base-form definition (with auto:1), cf.

A main objection would be that leaving out the original translations would leave out the additional notes that are left out of the phrase translation in the coreDefinition field.