116v

[Gavin Güldenpfennig]

I don't think it says "multos". There is no "u" in front of the "l". It is a long-serif "i" written the same way as the other "i"' characters on the folio.

What is in front of it is harder to discern, because the minims could be m or n (and there might be a leading "i").

---

I don't think that's a "v" in cere. I think it's a long-serif r with a disconnected hook, which was a moderately common form and which is repeated elsewhere on the folio. That's not how they wrote "u/v" in the 15th century.

JKP, you should look more carefully at the words. There are no dots of "i" or anything in "multos". But there is an "m" (the first hook is vanishing, but we can still see it) and a following "u" in front of the "l".

In "ceve" there is no "r". It´s a "v" as in "vix". Look at the "r" in "ubren". May you´re right with that word, but that would´t change the translation.

If we should read "adia" or "ahia" "ma(t)ria", I can not say for sure. 

I´ve read "adia" as "ad ea" (Latin: zu dieser), but the verb gives us a "to" ("zu") too.
You could read "ahia" (Gothic: echt, zu ehrend -> English: "true / sth. that must be honored")

Furthermore you could read "maria" as "Maria" or as Basque´s main goddess "Mari"!
You could even read matria, which can be translated into "mother" or "source of a river".

But none of the translation would change the central message of the text. It´s only a matter of naming something in my opinion.

The most difficult word seems to be "inchiton/"anchiton". It´s not a clear "a" nor a clear "i". I think it could be an open pronounced "a", like you would pronounce the prefix "in-" in French. It´s not as much impossible at it seems, because Latin and French are related to each other and maybe the one who wrote this note wasn´t able to decide in his mood / situation, whether it´s a (Vulgar) Latin or French word.

"orrorr" I read because the Voynich- "r" in my Voynich alphabet turns out as "rr"