Here the original text in verse 7 was substantially emended in the 1837 edition. The textual differences (noted in bold above) were not marked by Joseph Smith in his editing of the printer’s manuscript. In 𝓟 itself, he marked only the grammatical change of which to who, but the revised text in the actual 1837 edition ended up omitting the relative pronoun altogether. These additional changes are rather drastic compared to other emendations Joseph made for the 1837 edition. Yet Joseph was probably the one responsible for these changes since it is unlikely anyone else would have taken such liberty with the text.
The earliest text for verse 7 is definitely a sentence fragment. The original manuscript is virtually extant for this verse, and there is no room for any sizeable supralinear insertion at the end of the verse. There is a small lacuna after “to go with him”, and it must have contained the beginning of the next verse, namely, “& it came”. The 1837 revision removed the sentence fragment from the text, but changed the meaning somewhat: in the earlier text there is a small number of men that are appointed to go with Laman, but in the revised text it is Laman who is appointed (to the position of leadership, it would seem). Of course, the real goal of the 1837 editing was to eliminate the sentence fragment, not change the meaning.
A less drastic emendation would be to add in one place the minimal amount of words that would remove the fragment and complete the intended sense. Under 1 Nephi 17:46, I discuss the expression “desire that S”, where S is a finite clause, and note that except for one case in 1 Nephi 17:46, this expression always has a modal verb in the that-clause. In the clear majority of cases, that modal is should. Here in Alma 55:7, the missing text could well have had the modal should (in fact, should is the modal that was selected in the 1837 editing to replace the infinitival marker to in this passage). In addition, an original predicate at the end of verse 7 would have been prone to loss if it contained the verb form go, thus leading to confusion with the preceding phrase “to go with him”. Finally, we note that verse 7 basically repeats—or starts to repeat—the idea expressed at the beginning of the previous verse 6: “now Moroni caused that Laman and a small number of his men should go forth unto the guards which were over the Nephites”. Yet verse 7 also introduces some new information regarding where the Nephite prisoners were being held, namely, “in the city of Gid”. What seems to be required at the end of verse 7 is some minimal statement to the effect that Moroni sent Laman and his men to the city of Gid. I would therefore propose the following emended reading for this passage:
Note that the phraseology “to go with him / should go to the city of Gid” is quite difficult to process. This difficulty, along with the repetition of the go in the infinitive clause and the finite predicate, could have led to the loss of the original predicate that was necessary for sentential closure.
Of course, other emendations are possible here, such as adding the word forth (based on the reading in verse 6: “Laman and a small number of his men should go forth unto the guards which were over the Nephites”) or removing the of from “the city of Gid” (the reading at the beginning of verse 7), giving “the city Gid” (as in verse 16: “and he went to the city Gid”). It will be difficult to determine what the text actually read at the end of verse 7. But at least the emendation proposed here preserves the necessary meaning of the original text and provides some possibility for why the original predicate might have been omitted during the dictation of the text. Another possibility to keep in mind is that such a missing predicate could have occurred in Mormon’s original record, the result of his own error.
Summary: Restore in Alma 55:7 the earliest text but with the following conjectured predicate at the end of the verse: “should go to the city of Gid”; this minimal emendation satisfies the required semantics for the larger passage yet is sufficiently difficult with its repetition of go to have led to the loss of the predicate.