116v

[Searcher]

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.

I think that the interpretation "gasmi[l]ch" is the most probable for now, as there is no better explanation. Of course, one can't assert that the circle pictogram with dots at the end of the line implies exactly milk, but, at the same time, I think, no pictogram could assure onyone that it shows exactly milk, even if it would be a pot similar to that on f66r. I can suppose only one: the scribe just missed "l". Errors and typos, I think, are peculiar for all people, ancient, medieval or modern. 
I found a text that contains word You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., I can't clearly understand (from Google translation) what it means, as much as what "huenr" is. Maybe, it is a typo. I only understand that, in 1357, Leo von Franzhausen and Katharina sell his housewife  and his household with all things in it to Johann von Wildungsmauer Pfennig. It is interesting that this book,  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , contains documents  dated XIII - XV cc., so, possibly, it would be useful to examine them.