16-03-2026, 05:08 PM
Torsten: one of the reasons why we shouldn't just mix all attestations throughout the centuries into one big bag is changing spelling conventions. In earlier centuries, you do get a "shorter" version of long-s at the end of words. But this is no longer expected in the 15th century. So the long-s is a good argument in favor of a reading as one word.
Like I said before (and helped establish), gasmich would be an unattested (mis)spelling for gaismilch, so basically everything is problematic. The reason why for now I would still favor gaismilch is the context. A large percentage of "so nim" is followed by an ingredient or some kind of implement or tool. A goat-ish creature is drawn in the margin. Goat milk in cooking is preferred for the infirm because it is easy to digest. Recipes and charms go hand in hand...
I just think it's important to keep weighing the evidence. Following a charm on a 15th century flyleaf, "so nim ingredient" is much more likely than "so nim quickly me".
Like I said before (and helped establish), gasmich would be an unattested (mis)spelling for gaismilch, so basically everything is problematic. The reason why for now I would still favor gaismilch is the context. A large percentage of "so nim" is followed by an ingredient or some kind of implement or tool. A goat-ish creature is drawn in the margin. Goat milk in cooking is preferred for the infirm because it is easy to digest. Recipes and charms go hand in hand...
I just think it's important to keep weighing the evidence. Following a charm on a 15th century flyleaf, "so nim ingredient" is much more likely than "so nim quickly me".