Here's a trick you can use to determine whether a verb is transitive or intransitive: put the word something after the verb and if the resulting sentence makes sense, then the verb is transitive:
I ate something.
I fell something.
I typed something.
I went something.
Soup, I am not an expert on this subject, I am just trying to learn a bit.
So I ask you: Only the word something does the job here? What about
the word somewhere ? I am trying to compare with another languages,
I think in another languages the verb go maybe classified as indirect transitive.
By the way, is there such nomenclature as direct object and indirect object, thus leading to the concepts of direct transitive and indirect transitive in English?
Thanks a lot for all your contributions. By the way, do you recommend any good English grammar book which covers those addressed topics like
transitivity, intransitivity, obligatory locative complement, modicative adjunct and so on?
Oh, the transitive uses of the verb go don't involve the action of moving. One of such a use is this: The story goes that the castle was built by Emperor Frederick Barbarossa.
In all cases where go means travel, the verb is intransitive.
I would disagree with engee that 'go' in the sentence above represents a genuinely transitive use of the verb, since its supposed 'object' (the that-clause) is replaceable, not by any noun, but only by an adverbial such as 'like this'.
There are, however, a very small number of cases where 'go' can govern a noun phrase as direct object more or less in the manner of a true transitive verb, e.g. 'go the distance' (complete the whole of a specified route/task), but these tend to be very much fixed phrases (you cannot *go the track/road/street/...) and are generally rather informal in register, and so should probably be used by the learner only with caution.