Dear Yong Peng

Yes, I think you are right; we needn't go into comparisons with English
unless it is absolutely necessary. However, I have some comments on the
transitivity of the root gam.

You wrote:

> In your RG notes [item 8], and your recent posts, I see you qualify
> gacchati as transitive. I shall take it as you, though in Warder's
> [p40], he mentions "go" as intransitive, though he does not explicitly
> specifies gacchati to be intransitive.

In fact, whatever Warder or myself says doesn't matter much; it is the
actual usage that will teach us.For instance:

so gacchateva (gacchati + eva) puratthima.m disa.m . . . (D-1-222)
Trs.: He does go to the east . . .

In this example, "disa.m" is in accusative case, and obviously the
object of "gacchati". It is from such usage that we derive the
transitivity of the root gam (or the verb gacchati, according to Warder).

Now, for another example:

gaccha tva.m, bhikkhu, tameva bhagavanta.m upasa~nkamitvaa ima.m
pañha.m puccha (D-1-222)
Trs.: O monk! Go! Approach that very Buddha and ask this question.

Here the object of "gaccha" is not expressed. But it is obvious from the
following sentence that it must be the place where the Buddha resided.
So it is still safe to take "gaccha" as transitive.

It is in the example of my previous post that "gaccha" is intransitive.

with metta

Ven. Pandita