116v

[Koen G]

In researching the video I'm working on right now, I've changed my mind on a number of aspects I wrote about before, but I'm still okay with the reading of the letters. (With much room for improvement). But especially the larger structure has become much clearer to me.

One thing I think we must keep in mind is that, despite our slowly growing understanding, we will always have to deal with the fact that this writing is possibly incomplete and the spelling deviant. For example:

• There is a relatively large gap between the first line and the rest. Is it separate, just weirdly spaced, or is something omitted?
  
• Some parts are almost certainly "magic charm nonsense", particularly the third line. But maybe also other parts? Magic words can take many forms and are extremely common.
  
• We have not yet found anything at all like "gasmich". If this is a dialectical form, there is no evidence for it, and I honestly doubt that anyone has ever called goat's milk "gasmich". However, "so nim" strongly suggests that an ingredient follows.
  

In short, we must take into account that we may never fully understand all the details, since it appears messy, fragmentary and/or truncated.


Regarding your suggestions: 
* the marginalia writer makes a nice curve on the left stroke of "a", which I don't see in the word that looks like "multos" or whatever. 
* I think the "r" in "portas" can only be read as "r" - this is quite consistent, although one could argue about morix/movix.