In our passage ལམ་ has to be taken together in the sense of ལོག་ = ལམ་ = ལམ་, the wrong road (in a religious sense, in contrast to the ལམ་ of l. 31). ལམ་ is here to be understood as a ‘wrong-road-place,’ as the spot or place (ས་ = ས་) which is, or proves to be, the wrong road, i.e. the place where one realizes that the road on which one is, is the wrong road, or, perhaps better, that the road is a wrong road (= place) to be in, a wrong-road-spot, indeed.
The meanings, recorded in the Dicts. for compounds with or without initial འ་ of འགོལ་, seem logical, as one who has separated himself from the road, is astray, is mistaken, is (in moral or intellectual matters) in the wrong, in error.
Note this example of the use of the verb: ལན་, answer very carefully otherwise you will make a mistake.
[རིག་, ‘having twisted, squeezed, screwed up your brains??’ = adv., carefully, attentively.]
གོས་ see སྐྱོ་.
གླུ་ see མགུར་.
གླུད་, 40. Ransom. Is here rather གླུད་, well defined by S. Ch. D., s.v. The meaning of གླུད་ is probably ‘the ransom (which is thrown to the evil spirit) as a substitute for, representative of (the person on whose behalf the offering is made),’ J.’s མི་ ‘a man’s image which in his stead is cast [[30]]away in the གཏོར་༌,’ a ransom in effigy. There are, however, uses of གླུད་ in which the primary sense is perhaps rather ‘effigy’ than ‘ransom.’ In a ritual describing the construction of the torma cake it is said that the སྐུ་ (together with many other moulds) must be imprinted on the dough or paste. Here the word seems to mean no more than ‘a mould constituting an effigy of the body.’ Though all the torma-cake material is thrown away after it has served its purpose, these imprinted effigies do not seem to serve specially as ransoms like the གླུད་ and མི་ quoted above.
As to J.’s queried ཁོ་ (and the slightly different མི་), this is explained as follows. The first phrase means: he is a lü in human form (a man-lü, cf. werwolf; D. een lü in menschenvorm, menschelijke gedaante). མི་ means ‘that man, there (with a pointing out by word or finger).’ For instance: that man John, that king ཀོ་. ‘That man’ alone would be མི་. But the second phrase would mean: ‘that man so-and-so is a very devil.’ J.’s rendering of the first phrase as ‘he is a curse, an anathema, one deserving to be cursed’ seems too strong. Rather ‘an unmitigated nuisance,’ for, though harsh, it may be said by a mother of her own child when it is naughty and unruly. The sense seems to be ‘devil’ (as may also be applied to children or wicked grown-ups in English ‘they are true devils,’ D. ‘een paar baarlijke duivels’) and seems to be a case of meaning-shifting from result to cause (pale death!), the lü being the ransom thrown to the evil spirit, Anglice devil. The association does not seem to be that of worthlessness, hatefulness, something good for nothing, only fit to be thrown away like a lü.
As to the above King Koko, this is a facetious name applied (something like thingumbob) to such Tibetans as ape Chinese manners in dress and in other ways. ཀོ་ is said to be a Chinese word for Tib. ཨ་ or ཇོ་, elder brother. A Tibetan, strutting about in Darjeeling with Chinese cap and [[31]]coat may hear the sarcasm addressed to him: ཀོ་ ‘Well Mr. Chinaman (or John Ch., Uncle Ch.) where are you going to?’ (‘Mossioo’ of the mid-Victorian Punch and music hall ditties).
གླུད་ see གླུད་.