[minor] Looks like the similar (but subtly different) definitions of the verbs labo and labor got mixed up, as you can see and compare on Whitaker's WORDS here: https://latin.ucant.org/ . Since labo was previously using Whitaker's definition (albeit the wrong one), I took it from there. It's similar enough to the Lewis and Short opening definition. In the future, I'm not sure which source should be preferred for the English. You can see, for instance, that the verb labor below it is using the Lewis and Short definition.
The lemmes.la file had the verb lăbor instead of lābor. I think this is because the similar verb up above, lăbo, is confusingly correct with the short vowel. Both Lewis and Short and Gaffiot mark lābor long, and I don't see any exceptions.
Bonjour,
I updated two things:
[minor] Looks like the similar (but subtly different) definitions of the verbs labo and labor got mixed up, as you can see and compare on Whitaker's WORDS here: https://latin.ucant.org/ . Since labo was previously using Whitaker's definition (albeit the wrong one), I took it from there. It's similar enough to the Lewis and Short opening definition. In the future, I'm not sure which source should be preferred for the English. You can see, for instance, that the verb labor below it is using the Lewis and Short definition.
The lemmes.la file had the verb lăbor instead of lābor. I think this is because the similar verb up above, lăbo, is confusingly correct with the short vowel. Both Lewis and Short and Gaffiot mark lābor long, and I don't see any exceptions.
L&S: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=labor&la=la&can=labor0#lexicon Gaffiot: https://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=labor
...and that's it! Merci!