"Gaf" is still the modern Dutch form for "gave".
If you say that "gaf mich" is a valid reading, then a translation "gave me" seems valid as well.
However, "x gave me y to take" is very problematic. This reading can only be argued if you assume the "nim" or whatever is an abbreviated form, since we would always expect an infinitive ending in -en there. Like "(to) nimmen gaf mich". This would also imply that the item drawn after "mich" actually represents the object of the sentence.
"to take(abbrev) gave me [round object]"
Now if the "nim" is actually the subject of the sentence, that would work a lot better for me:
"nim gave me [round object]"
I'm actually not sure if word order like "John apples gave me" was ever grammatical in any West-Germanic language. Maybe only in highly artificial poetic contexts. And "John to take gave me" is even more questionable, even if we assume the round object to be the thing given (which would somewhat push the word order towards the acceptable).
If you say that "gaf mich" is a valid reading, then a translation "gave me" seems valid as well.
However, "x gave me y to take" is very problematic. This reading can only be argued if you assume the "nim" or whatever is an abbreviated form, since we would always expect an infinitive ending in -en there. Like "(to) nimmen gaf mich". This would also imply that the item drawn after "mich" actually represents the object of the sentence.
"to take(abbrev) gave me [round object]"
Now if the "nim" is actually the subject of the sentence, that would work a lot better for me:
"nim gave me [round object]"
I'm actually not sure if word order like "John apples gave me" was ever grammatical in any West-Germanic language. Maybe only in highly artificial poetic contexts. And "John to take gave me" is even more questionable, even if we assume the round object to be the thing given (which would somewhat push the word order towards the acceptable).