116v

[Anton]

My question on RG has no answers in a year except the one I already quoted above. Although not that many reads - only 35

As long as the opposite is not proved, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that "mich" may have the "l" omitted and stand for milk. I really don't understand why there would be so much talk about milk, when there's no milk at all. Neither in the text nor in the imagery. A goat is depicted (I think it's a lamb, but for the argument's sake let it be a goat). So what? Is milk the only thing that goats may suggest? Hardly that.