Here the original manuscript is extant, and it appears to read gat (although because of the diffi- culty in reading the fragment, there is a possibility here that 𝓞 actually reads got). Elsewhere, the earliest textual evidence (all from the printer’s manuscript and the 1830 edition) supports got as the simple past-tense form, although in one case in 𝓟 the got could be read as gat (this example is marked below with an asterisk):
So there is no strong independent support for gat as the simple past-tense form for get.
But there is indirect support. First of all, when we consider the past participle for get, the form got is what we generally find in the manuscripts; but in two cases (one of which is firm), the original manuscript can be read as gat:
In the original text of the Book of Mormon, there is considerable evidence that the past participial form frequently took on the same form as the simple past tense (as in the original text for 1 Nephi 3:30: “and after that the angel had spake unto us”); for general discussion, see under past participle in volume 3. Thus the occurrence of hath gat in Alma 55:2 (and perhaps had gat in Alma 47:5) provides evidence that the simple past-tense form for get was sometimes gat in the original text.
Additional support for the possibility of gat comes from the historically related verb forget. The earliest text provides evidence that forgat can sometimes be used as the simple past-tense form and the past participial form for forget:
In all of these cases, the 1830 typesetter replaced the archaic forgat with forgot. Similarly, the simple past tense and the past participle for the verb beget can be begat:
The simple past-tense begat is general in the book of Ether (with 41 occurrences), while the past participial begat occurs only in 1 Nephi 18:7 (elsewhere, the past participial verb form for beget is begotten, with 2 occurrences).
In summary, there is some evidence that the simple past-tense form for get could be gat. Here in Alma 10:32, the original manuscript appears to support gat; thus the critical text will accept gat in this instance (and similarly in 3 Nephi 4:25). In accord with the reading of 𝓞, the critical text will also accept the instances of had gat in Alma 47:5 and hath gat in Alma 55:2 (for discussion, see under those passages as well as under 2 Nephi 31:19). For a general discussion of the simple past-tense forms for get and forget, see under past in volume 3. Also see the discussion regarding the past participial forms for these two verbs under past participle in volume 3.
The simple past-tense form gat (for got) is archaic, but there are examples of it in the King James Bible (20 times) along with got (5 times), as in this contrastive pair of examples:
This variation in the King James Bible supports the possibility of variation between gat and got in the Book of Mormon text.
Summary: Accept in Alma 10:32 the apparent reading of the original manuscript—namely, gat as the simple past-tense form for the verb get.